Thomas Gataker

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Thomas Gataker, Westminster divine, was born on September 4, 1574 and died on July 27, 1654. He authored the Westminster annotations on Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations. His treatise on Marriage Duties Briefly Couched Together and other information about his life and works are available at the links above.

 

[Arch2k]

Looks good Andrew!

Thanks again for the links!

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Not to spoil the party, well maybe a little, he was, along with Twisse and Vines, one of the minority who opposed the phrase "whole obedience" (from the Irish Articles) and with it the doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ. This, as we know, has had very unhappy consequences.

Nevertheless, the divines did say "perfect" obedience (I'm not sure how that got past the those three, or if it did - Twisse died early on). At any rate, I, for one, wish they had held out for "whole" and if it caused Gattaker and Vines to walk, well, so be it. It's not often folk accuse the divines of being "too nice," but this might be one of those cases.

rsc

Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Thomas Gataker, Westminster divine, was born on September 4, 1574 and died on July 27, 1654. He authored the Westminster annotations on Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations. His treatise on Marriage Duties Briefly Couched Together and other information about his life and works are available at the links above.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

For what it's worth this is what I gleaned from Chad VanDixhoorn's dissertation on this topic.
From: Reforming the Reformation: Theological Debate at the Westminster Assembly 1643-1652, "Chapter Five, The doctrine of justification and the complexity of creed-making," 1.270-343. Here are some snippets from the conclusion:
P.327

The Assembly's confessional and catechetical documents certainly appear to reintroduce a level of ambiguity about the obedience of Christ which did not exist on this point in the revised eleventh article. But the introduction of ambiguous language does not, in itself, imply a motive or even intention for the change....

P.328

Although there are only a couple of plausible interpretations of the Assembly's confessional and catchetical statements on Christ's obedience, there must have been a range of postures toward these statements, and motives for voting the wording they now contain. Those divines who did not hold to the doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ could be satisfied with the statement if they believed that it was a consensual construction, not teaching their position, but not excluding it either. Members who held to the doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ but still wanted a consensual statement of the matter could like wise vote for this formulation, for it allowed their doctrine. Those who held to the imputation of the active obedience of Christ and who thought that the Confession allowed only for their position could be happy. However, the divines who held to the doctrine of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, who thought that the Confession and catechisms were consensual but wanted to exclude the theology of their opponents, were bound to be dissatisfied and likely voted against the wording of the Confession and catechisms; such were the majority who revised the Assembly's Confession in the 1650s Clearly, the majority of the divines could share one intention but with diverging motivations.

P.330

Perhaps the strongest evidence in favour of reading the Assembly's Confession in a consensual fashion is the fact that when the Independents revised and then reissued the Assembly's Confession of faith in 1658 [c.c.-i.e. the Savoy], they inserted the language of the "active and passive obedience" of Christ into their version of the Confession. These divines did not think that the Assembly's Confession of Faith held out the imputation of the active obedience of Christ as it ought, and they reintroduced language as strong as that used by the Assembly in 1643 in their revised text of Article Eleven.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Additional historical information for consideration:

Chad Van Dixhoorn, The Making of the Westminster Larger Catechism:

The Larger Catechism may also recognize the importance of Christ´s life, at least implicitly, in its statements on justification,25 for though the imputation of Christ´s active obedience was a matter of prolonged debate at the Assembly, the minutes record that when "œThe Question was put" to include the imputation of Christ´s active obedience in their definition of justification, "œthree or four only [were] dissenting."26

26. TM 1:89, MS 1:45. Justification was first debated in the context of revising the 39 Articles of the Church of England "” the project of the Assembly prior to the signing of the Solemn League and Covenant. In the debates over justification and antinomianism at the Assembly, the majority of the divines argued that the imputation of Christ´s active obedience is part of justification. One page of the minutes may suffice as a sample. Dr. Joshua Hoyle wound down his speech by reminding his fellow divines that "œAdam´s disobedience was an active disobedience[,] and soe [was] Christ´s obedience." George Walker immediately concurred, adding that "œyou cannot separate Christ´s active and passive obedience." Richard Vines questioned whether the doctrine was equally clear in both Testaments, but Theodore Bathurst rejoined that "œmaking righteous is more than mere making Innocent." John Ley, the man in charge of the Assembly´s committee for examining ministers, concurred (TM 1:25, MS 1:13). See also Anthony Burgess´s discussion in his The True Doctrine of Justification Asserted and Vindicated from the Errours of many, and more Especially Papists and Socinians. Or, a Treatise of the Natural Righteousness of God, and Imputed Righteousness of Christ (London: A. M. for T. Underhill, 1655). This work forms the second part of this Treatise of Justification, Part 11 (London: for Thomas Underhill, 1654). Burgess´s book is essentially a treatise on the active obedience of Christ. The notable dissenting scholars, according to the Burgess and the minutes, seem to have been the older theologians such as William Twisse, Thomas Gataker, Richard Vines, and William Reyner.

Peter J. Wallace, Whose Meaning? The Question of Original Intent:

There were several matters on which the Westminster Divines were not fully agreed. In some cases, like the matter of the supralapsarian versus infralapsarian debate or with respect to the timing of the millennium, the Confession remained more or less silent. Others, however, had to be addressed. It is interesting to note that wherever they could, they found ways of allowing for a diversity of views among sound Reformed men. They did this by adopting wording that could be interpreted in different ways.

Perhaps the best known example is in the chapter on justification. The Thirty-Nine Articles asserted that the "whole obedience and satisfaction" of Christ was imputed to the believer in justification, but William Twisse, Richard Vines, and Thomas Gataker objected to this language being included in the new confession. They did not believe that the active obedience of Christ was included in justification, claiming that this was a part of sanctification instead. After some debate, the Assembly decided to use simply the language of "the obedience and satisfaction" of Christ, which could be interpreted either way. Twisse, Vines, and Gataker would understand this to refer solely to the passive obedience of Christ, while the majority would understand it to include both the active and the passive obedience of Christ.(2)

2. Alexander F. Mitchell, The Westminster Assembly, (Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1897) 154-160; William S. Barker, Puritan Profiles (Mentor, 1999), 158, 178.

Thomas Smith, Select Memoirs of...English and Scottish Divines...:

In 1643 he was chosen one of the assembly of divines; where his endeavors to promote truth, and suppress error, were strenuous and sincere; yet his anxiety, for maintaining peace and cordiality among the different parties, was such, that when his sentiments, respecting Christ's obedience in order to our justification, was negatived, and the question carried contrary to his opinion, his pacific disposition induced him to keep silence, and prevented him from publishing his discourses on that subject which be[en] had prepared for the press.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Thomas Gataker's Annotations

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Amidst these restless thoughts this rest I find,
For those that rest not here, there's rest behind. -- Thomas Gataker

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

More on Gataker:

As Rogers has observed, "The divines were quick to point out erroneous deductions from Scripture. The following incident related by Thomas Gataker offers an illustration of the Westminster Divines' problems with erroneous deductions made by the Antinomians."(72) Gataker (1574-1654) was a member of the drafting committee responsible for writing the Confession. In the spring of 1646, while the committee was at work, Gataker published the following account: "I remember to have visited sometime a religious Lady whom I found somewhat perplexed; the ground thereof arising from some conference that had newly passed between her and a grave Divine of great repute, but in some things warping a little the way that these men now run. Who questioning with her about her estate, upon delivery of such principles as she supposed to have good ground from God's Word for the trial of her faith and interest thereby in Christ, began to chide her, and told her that she went needlessly about the bush, when she had a nearer and readier way at hand.

"Then being demanded what course he would advise her to take, he told her she must thus reason, God will save sinners. But I am a sinner. Therefore God will save me. I told her she might with as good ground thus reason: God will damn sinners. But I am a sinner. Therefore God will damn me. And the conclusion, I doubt not, in this latter, however it follow from the premises, for twenty to one at least, will by woeful experience prove the truer of the twain."(73)

While Gataker could say that "a conclusion necessarily deduced from Scripture is a divine truth, as well as that [which] is expressly found in Scripture,"(74) Rogers cites a passage in which "Gataker accuses his opponent of drawing conclusions which are not based on God's Word at all, but only on his own reason. Gataker says: 'Let us see what stays and supports for men's souls this author himself, therein like the spider that weaves her web out of her own bowels, hath spun us, not out of God's Word but out of his own brains.' "(75)

72) Rogers, Scripture in the Westminster Confession, p. 334.
(73) Thomas Gataker, A Mistake or Misconstruction, Removed (London, 1646), pp. 26-27; quoted in Rogers, Scripture in the Westminster Confession, p. 335. Fortescue, Catalogue of the Pamphlets, 1:434, gives April 21, 1646 as the date either of the publication of Gataker's book, or of Thomason's purchase of it.
(74) Thomas Gataker, Shadowes without Substance, or Pretended New Lights (London, 1646), p. 82; quoted in Rogers, Scripture in the Westminster Confession, p. 334. Fortescue, Catalogue of the Pamphlets, 1:463, assigns the date September 11, 1646 to this volume by Gataker. The Westminster Assembly thanked the author, on September 14, for copies of his book presented to the members of the Assembly, as noted in Mitchell and Struthers, Minutes of the Westminster Assembly, p. 281.
(75) Rogers, Scripture in the Westminster Confession, p. 341, quoting Gataker, Mistake or Misconstruction, p. 32.

Source

 

[MW]

I remember reading that Thomas Gataker would not publish his work on justification during his lifetime because he knew it was contrary to his brethren's views.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Thomas Gataker was born on September 4, 1574.