a modification of the Calvinistic doctrine of election
advocated by the celebrated Baxter in his treatise of “Universal
Redemption,” and in his “_Methodus Theologiæ_.” The real author of the
scheme, at least in a systematized form, was Camero, who taught divinity
at Saumur, and it was unfolded and defended by his disciple Amyraldus,
whom Curcellæus refuted. Baxter says, in his preface to his “Saint’s
Rest,” “The middle way which Camero, Crocius, Martinius, Amyraldus,
Davenant, with all the divines of Britain and Bremen in the synod of
Dort, go, I think is nearest the truth of any that I know who have
written on these points.” Baxter first differs from the majority of
Calvinists, though not from all, in his statement of the doctrine of
satisfaction:--
“Christ’s sufferings were not a _fulfilling_ of the _law’s threatening_;
(though he bore its _curse materially_;) but a satisfaction for our _not
fulfilling_ the _precept_, and to prevent _God’s fulfilling_ the
_threatening_ on us. Christ paid not, therefore, the _idem_, but the
_tantundem_, or _æquivalens_; not the _very debt_ which we owed and the
law required, but the _value_: (else it were not _strictly
satisfaction_, which is _redditio æquivalentis_: [the rendering of an
equivalent:]) and (it being improperly called the _paying of a debt_,
but properly _a suffering for the guilty_) the _idem_ is nothing but
_supplicium delinquentis_. [The punishment of the guilty individual.] In
_criminals_, _dum alius solvet simul aliud solvitur_. [When another
suffers, it is another thing also that is suffered.] The law knoweth no
_vicarius pœnæ_; [substitute in punishment;] though the _law maker_
may admit it, as he is _above law_; else there were no place for
_pardon_, if the _proper debt_ be paid and the _law not relaxed_, but
_fulfilled_. Christ did neither _obey_ nor _suffer_ in any man’s
_stead_, by a _strict, proper representation_ of his _person_ in point
of law; so as that the _law_ should take it, as done or suffered by the
_party himself_. But only as a _third person_, as a _mediator_, he
voluntarily bore what else the sinner should have borne. To assert the
contrary (especially as to particular persons considered in actual sin)
is to overthrow all Scripture theology, and to introduce all
Antinomianism; to overthrow all possibility of pardon, and assert
justification before we sinned or were born, and to make _ourselves_ to
have satisfied God. Therefore, we must not say that _Christ died nostro
loco_, [in our stead,] so as to _personate us_, or _represent our
persons_ in _law sense_; but only to bear what else we must have borne.”
This system explicitly asserts, that Christ made a satisfaction by his
death equally for the sins of every man; and thus Baxter essentially
differs both from the higher Calvinists, and, also, from the
Sublapsarians, who, though they may allow that the reprobate derive some
benefits from Christ’s death, so that there is a vague sense in which he
may be said to have died for all men, yet they, of course, deny to such
the benefit of Christ’s satisfaction or atonement which Baxter contends
for:--
“Neither the law, whose curse Christ bore, nor God, as the legislator to
be satisfied, did distinguish between men as elect and reprobate, or as
believers and unbelievers, _de presenti vel de futuro_; [with regard to
the present or the future;] and to impose upon Christ, or require from
him satisfaction for the sins of one sort more than of another, but for
mankind in general. God the Father, and Christ the Mediator, now dealeth
with no man upon the mere rigorous terms of the first law; (_obey
perfectly and live, else thou shalt die_;) but giveth to all much mercy,
which, according to the tenor of that violated law, they could not
receive, and calleth them to repentance, in order to their receiving
farther mercy offered them. And accordingly he will not judge any at
last according to the mere law of works, but as they have obeyed or not
obeyed his conditions or terms of grace. It was not the _sins_ of the
_elect only_, but of all _mankind fallen_, which lay upon Christ
satisfying. And to assert the contrary, injuriously diminisheth the
honour of his sufferings; and hath other desperate ill consequences.”
The benefits derived to all men _equally_, from the satisfaction of
Christ, he thus states:--
“All mankind, _immediately_ upon Christ’s satisfaction, are redeemed and
delivered from that legal necessity of perishing which they were under,
(not by remitting sin or punishment directly to them, but by giving up
God’s _jus puniendi_ [right of punishing] into the hands of the
Redeemer; nor by giving any right directly to them, but _per meram
resultantiam_ [by mere consequence] this happy change is made for them
in their relation, upon the said remitting of God’s right and advantage
of justice against them,) and they are given up to the Redeemer as their
owner and ruler, to be dealt with upon terms of mercy which have a
tendency to their recovery. God the Father and Christ the Mediator hath
freely, without any prerequisite condition on man’s part, enacted a law
of grace of universal extent, in regard of its tenor, by which he
giveth, as a deed or gift, Christ himself, with all his following
benefits which he bestoweth; (as benefactor and legislator;) and this to
all alike, without excluding any; upon condition they believe and accept
the offer. By this law, testament, or covenant, _all men are
conditionally_ pardoned, justified, and reconciled to God already, and
no man absolutely; nor doth it make a difference, nor take notice of
any, till men’s performance or non-performance of the condition makes a
difference. In the new law Christ hath truly _given himself_ with a
_conditional pardon_, _justification_, and _conditional right to
salvation_, to all men in the _world, without exception_.”
But the peculiarity of Baxter’s scheme will be seen from the following
farther extracts:--
“Though Christ _died equally for all men_, in the aforesaid _law sense_,
as he satisfied the offended legislator, and as giving himself to _all
alike_ in the _conditional covenant_; yet he _never properly intended or
purposed the actual justifying and saving of all_, nor of any but those
that come to be justified and saved; he did not, therefore, die for all,
nor for any that perish, with a decree or resolution to save them, _much
less did he die for all alike, as to this intent_. Christ hath given
_faith_ to none by his law or testament, though he hath revealed, that
to some he will, as benefactor and _Dominus Absolutus_, [absolute Lord,]
give that grace which shall infallibly produce it; and God hath given
some to Christ that he might prevail with them accordingly; yet this is
no giving _it to the person_, nor hath he in himself ever the more title
to it, nor can any lay claim to it as their due. It belongeth not to
Christ as _satisfier_, nor yet as _legislator_, to make wicked refusers
to become willing, and receive him and the benefits which he offers;
therefore he may do all for them that is fore-expressed, though he cure
not their unbelief. Faith is a fruit of the death of Christ, (and so is
all the good which we do enjoy,) but not _directly_, as it is
_satisfaction_ to _justice_; but only _remotely_, as it proceedeth from
that _jus dominii_ [right of dominion] which Christ has received to send
the Spirit in what measure and TO WHOM HE WILL, and to succeed it
accordingly; and as it is necessary to the attainment of the farther
ends of his death in the certain gathering and saving of THE ELECT.”
Thus the whole theory amounts to this, that, although a _conditional
salvation_ has been purchased by Christ for all men, and is offered to
them, and all legal difficulties are removed out of the way of their
pardon as sinners by the atonement, yet Christ hath not purchased for
any man the gift of FAITH, _or the power of performing the condition of
salvation required_; but gives this to some, and does not give it to
others, by virtue of that _absolute dominion_ over men which he has
purchased for himself, so that, as the Calvinists refer the decree of
election to the sovereignty of the _Father_, Baxter refers it to the
sovereignty of the _Son_; one makes the decree of reprobation to issue
from the Creator and Judge, the other, from the Redeemer himself.
If, however, any one expects to find something in the form of system in
Baxter’s opinions on the five disputed points, he will be much
disappointed. The parties to whom he refers as the authors of this
supposed “middle way,” differ as much among themselves as Baxter
occasionally does from himself. Bishop Davenant and Dr. S. Ward differed
from Amyraut, Martinius, and others of that school, on the topic of
_baptismal regeneration_; and, as the subjects of baptism, according to
the sentiments of the two former, are invested with invisible grace, and
are regenerated in virtue of the ordinance when canonically performed,
such divines far more easily disposed of their baptized converts in the
ranks of strict predestination, than the others could who did not hold
those sentiments. But they exhibited much ingenuity in not suffering it
to “intrench upon the question of perseverance.” Their friend Bishop
Bedell, however, maintained, that “reprobates coming to years of
discretion, after baptism, shall be condemned for original sin; for
their absolution and washing in baptism was but conditional and
expectative; which doth truly interest them in all the promises of God,
but under the condition of repenting, believing and obeying, which they
never perform, and therefore never attain the promise.” Bishop Overal
has also been claimed as a patron of this diversified “middle system;”
but it will be evident to every one who peruses his productions, that
his chief endeavour was to display the doctrines of the English church
as identical with those of St. Augustine, yet basing them upon _the
antecedent will of God_ and _conditional decrees_. After all the refined
distinctions which Baxter employed to render the theory of _common_ and
_special_ grace plausible and popular, the real meaning of the inventors
was frequently elicited when such a question as this was asked, “Have
any men in the world grace sufficient to repent and believe savingly who
do not?” After asserting that he knows nothing about the matter, the
reply of Baxter is, “If we may conjecture upon probabilities, it seemeth
most likely that there is such a sufficient grace, or power, to repent
and believe savingly, in some that use it not, but perish.” “This,” says
one of Baxter’s apologists, “seems to me very inexplicable!” and in the
same light it will be viewed by all who recollect that this “sufficient
grace or power” is that “portion of special grace which never fails to
accomplish its design,--the salvation of the individual on whom it is
bestowed!” Baxter’s celebrated “Aphorisms of Justification,” published
in 1649, afforded employment to himself and his theological critics till
near the close of his life; and in the many modifications, concessions,
and alterations which were extorted from him by men of different
religious tenets, he sometimes incautiously proved himself to be more
Calvinistic than Calvin, and at others more Arminian than Arminius. The
following observations, from “ORME’S _Life of Baxter_,” are on the whole
just and instructive:--
“Thus did Baxter, at a very early period of his life, launch into the
ocean of controversy, on some of the most interesting subjects that can
engage the human mind. The manner in which he began to treat them was
little favourable to arriving at correct and satisfactory conclusions.
Possessed of a mind uncommonly penetrating, he yet seems not to have had
the faculty of compressing within narrow limits his own views, or the
accounts he was disposed to give of the views of others. All this arose,
not from any indisposition to be explicit, but from the peculiar
character of his mind. He is perpetually distinguishing things into
physical and moral, real and nominal, material and formal. However
important these distinctions are, they often render his writings
tiresome to the reader, and his reasonings more frequently perplexing
than satisfactory. Baxter is generally understood to have pursued a
middle course between Calvinism and Arminianism. That he tried to hold
and adjust the balance between the two parties, and that he was most
anxious to reconcile them, are very certain. But it seems scarcely less
evident, that he was much more a Calvinist than he was an Arminian.
While this seems to me very apparent, it must be acknowledged, that if
certain views which have often been given of Calvinism are necessary to
constitute a Calvinist, Richard Baxter was no believer in that creed.
“While satisfied that among Baxter’s sentiments, no important or vital
error will be found, yet in the style and method in which he too
generally advocated or defended them, there is much to censure. The
wrangling and disputatious manner in which he presented many of his
views, was calculated to gender an unsanctified state of mind in persons
who either abetted or opposed his sentiments. His scholastic and
metaphysical style of arguing is unbefitting the simplicity of the
Gospel, and cannot fail to injure it wherever such is employed. It not
only savours too much of the spirit of the schools, and the philosophy
of this world; but places the truths of revelation on a level with the
rudiments of human science. I am not sure whether certain effects which
began early in the last century to appear among the Presbyterian part of
the Nonconformists, may not be traced, in some degree, to the
speculative and argumentative writings of Baxter. His influence over
this class of his brethren was evidently very great. He contributed more
than any other man to mitigate the harsh and forbidding aspect which the
Presbyterians presented during the civil wars and the commonwealth. This
was well, but he did not stop here. He was inimical to all the existing
systems of doctrine and discipline then contended for, or ever before
known in the world; while he did not present any precisely defined
system as his own. He opposed Calvinism; he opposed Arminianism; he
would not allow himself to be considered an Episcopalian, in the
ordinary acceptation of the word; he denied that he was a Presbyterian,
and scorned to be thought an Independent. He held something in common
with them all, and yet he was somewhat different from all. He contended
for a system more general, and more liberal, than was then approved;
and, as we have stated, wished to place a variety of theological truths
on grounds belonging rather to philosophy or metaphysics, than to
revelation.
“On himself, this species of latitudinarianism produced little injurious
effect, but I fear it had a baneful influence on others. The rejection
of all human authority and influence in religion, requires to be
balanced by a very strong sense of the divine authority, to prevent its
generating a state of mind more characterized by pride of intellect, and
independence of spirit, than by the humility and diffidence which are
essential features in the Christian character. It is a singular fact,
that the Presbyterians, though at first more rigid in their doctrinal
views, and more exclusive in their spirit and system of church
government, than the Independents, became before the death of Baxter the
more liberal party. High views began to be ascribed by them to their now
moderate brethren; and, to avoid the charge of Antinomianism, which
Baxter was too ready to prefer against such as differed from some of his
views, the Presbyterians seem gradually to have sunk into a state of
low, moderate orthodoxy, in which there was little of the warmth or
vitality of evangelical religion.
“In farther illustration of the influence now adverted to, it must be
remarked, that the first stage in that process of deterioration which
took place among the Presbyterian Dissenters, was generally
characterized by the term Baxterianism; a word to which it is difficult
to attach a definite meaning. It denotes no separate sect or party, but
rather a system of opinions on doctrinal points, verging toward
Arminianism, and which ultimately passed to Arianism and Socinianism.
Even during Baxter’s own life, while the Presbyterians taxed the
Independents with Antinomianism, the latter retorted the charge of
Socinianism, or at least of a tendency toward it, in some of the
opinions maintained both by Baxter and others of that party. To whatever
cause it is to be attributed, it is a melancholy fact, that the
declension which began even at this early period in the Presbyterian
body, went on slowly, but surely, till, from the most fervid orthodoxy,
it finally arrived at the frigid zone of Unitarianism.
“I wish not to be understood as stating that Baxter either held any
opinions of this description, or was conscious of a tendency in his
sentiments toward such a fearful consummation; but, that there was an
injurious tendency in his manner of discussing certain important
subjects. It was subtle, and full of logomachy; it tended to unsettle,
rather than to fix and determine; it gendered strife, rather than godly
edifying. It is not possible to study such books as his ‘_Methodus_,’
and his ‘Catholic Theology,’ without experiencing that we are brought
into a different region from Apostolic Christianity; a region of fierce
debate and altercation about words, and names, and opinions; in which
all that can be said for error is largely dwelt upon, as well as what
can be said for truth. The ambiguities of language, the diversities of
sects, the uncertainties of human perception and argument are urged,
till the force of revealed truth is considerably weakened, and
confidence in our own judgment of its meaning greatly impaired.
Erroneous language is maintained to be capable of sound meaning, and the
most Scriptural phrases to be susceptible of unscriptural
interpretation, till truth and error almost change places, and the mind
is bewildered, confounded, and paralyzed. Into this mode of discussing
such subjects, was this most excellent man led, partly by the natural
constitution of his mind, which has often been adverted to; partly by
his ardent desire of putting an end to the divisions of the Christian
world, and producing universal concord and harmony. He failed where
success was impossible, however plausible might have been the means
which he employed. He understood the causes of difference and contention
better than their remedies; hence the measures which he used frequently
aggravated instead of curing the disease. While a portion of evil,
however, probably resulted from Baxter’s mode of conducting controversy,
and no great light was thrown by him on some of the dark and difficult
subjects which he so keenly discussed, I have no doubt he contributed
considerably to produce a more moderate spirit toward each other,
between Calvinists and Arminians, than had long prevailed. Though he
satisfied neither party, he must have convinced both, that great
difficulties exist on the subjects in debate, if pursued beyond a
certain length; that allowance ought to be made by each, for the
weakness or prejudices of the other; and that genuine religion is
compatible with some diversity of opinion respecting one or all of the
five points.” A similar effect as that which Mr. Orme ascribes to
Baxter’s writings on the English Presbyterians, followed also, on the
continent among the reformed churches. It was the same middle system
with its philosophical subtleties, which Camero and Amyraut taught
abroad, and which produced in them those effects that have been falsely
ascribed, both in England and abroad, to Arminianism. See AMYRAUT and
CAMERON.
advocated by the celebrated Baxter in his treatise of “Universal
Redemption,” and in his “_Methodus Theologiæ_.” The real author of the
scheme, at least in a systematized form, was Camero, who taught divinity
at Saumur, and it was unfolded and defended by his disciple Amyraldus,
whom Curcellæus refuted. Baxter says, in his preface to his “Saint’s
Rest,” “The middle way which Camero, Crocius, Martinius, Amyraldus,
Davenant, with all the divines of Britain and Bremen in the synod of
Dort, go, I think is nearest the truth of any that I know who have
written on these points.” Baxter first differs from the majority of
Calvinists, though not from all, in his statement of the doctrine of
satisfaction:--
“Christ’s sufferings were not a _fulfilling_ of the _law’s threatening_;
(though he bore its _curse materially_;) but a satisfaction for our _not
fulfilling_ the _precept_, and to prevent _God’s fulfilling_ the
_threatening_ on us. Christ paid not, therefore, the _idem_, but the
_tantundem_, or _æquivalens_; not the _very debt_ which we owed and the
law required, but the _value_: (else it were not _strictly
satisfaction_, which is _redditio æquivalentis_: [the rendering of an
equivalent:]) and (it being improperly called the _paying of a debt_,
but properly _a suffering for the guilty_) the _idem_ is nothing but
_supplicium delinquentis_. [The punishment of the guilty individual.] In
_criminals_, _dum alius solvet simul aliud solvitur_. [When another
suffers, it is another thing also that is suffered.] The law knoweth no
_vicarius pœnæ_; [substitute in punishment;] though the _law maker_
may admit it, as he is _above law_; else there were no place for
_pardon_, if the _proper debt_ be paid and the _law not relaxed_, but
_fulfilled_. Christ did neither _obey_ nor _suffer_ in any man’s
_stead_, by a _strict, proper representation_ of his _person_ in point
of law; so as that the _law_ should take it, as done or suffered by the
_party himself_. But only as a _third person_, as a _mediator_, he
voluntarily bore what else the sinner should have borne. To assert the
contrary (especially as to particular persons considered in actual sin)
is to overthrow all Scripture theology, and to introduce all
Antinomianism; to overthrow all possibility of pardon, and assert
justification before we sinned or were born, and to make _ourselves_ to
have satisfied God. Therefore, we must not say that _Christ died nostro
loco_, [in our stead,] so as to _personate us_, or _represent our
persons_ in _law sense_; but only to bear what else we must have borne.”
This system explicitly asserts, that Christ made a satisfaction by his
death equally for the sins of every man; and thus Baxter essentially
differs both from the higher Calvinists, and, also, from the
Sublapsarians, who, though they may allow that the reprobate derive some
benefits from Christ’s death, so that there is a vague sense in which he
may be said to have died for all men, yet they, of course, deny to such
the benefit of Christ’s satisfaction or atonement which Baxter contends
for:--
“Neither the law, whose curse Christ bore, nor God, as the legislator to
be satisfied, did distinguish between men as elect and reprobate, or as
believers and unbelievers, _de presenti vel de futuro_; [with regard to
the present or the future;] and to impose upon Christ, or require from
him satisfaction for the sins of one sort more than of another, but for
mankind in general. God the Father, and Christ the Mediator, now dealeth
with no man upon the mere rigorous terms of the first law; (_obey
perfectly and live, else thou shalt die_;) but giveth to all much mercy,
which, according to the tenor of that violated law, they could not
receive, and calleth them to repentance, in order to their receiving
farther mercy offered them. And accordingly he will not judge any at
last according to the mere law of works, but as they have obeyed or not
obeyed his conditions or terms of grace. It was not the _sins_ of the
_elect only_, but of all _mankind fallen_, which lay upon Christ
satisfying. And to assert the contrary, injuriously diminisheth the
honour of his sufferings; and hath other desperate ill consequences.”
The benefits derived to all men _equally_, from the satisfaction of
Christ, he thus states:--
“All mankind, _immediately_ upon Christ’s satisfaction, are redeemed and
delivered from that legal necessity of perishing which they were under,
(not by remitting sin or punishment directly to them, but by giving up
God’s _jus puniendi_ [right of punishing] into the hands of the
Redeemer; nor by giving any right directly to them, but _per meram
resultantiam_ [by mere consequence] this happy change is made for them
in their relation, upon the said remitting of God’s right and advantage
of justice against them,) and they are given up to the Redeemer as their
owner and ruler, to be dealt with upon terms of mercy which have a
tendency to their recovery. God the Father and Christ the Mediator hath
freely, without any prerequisite condition on man’s part, enacted a law
of grace of universal extent, in regard of its tenor, by which he
giveth, as a deed or gift, Christ himself, with all his following
benefits which he bestoweth; (as benefactor and legislator;) and this to
all alike, without excluding any; upon condition they believe and accept
the offer. By this law, testament, or covenant, _all men are
conditionally_ pardoned, justified, and reconciled to God already, and
no man absolutely; nor doth it make a difference, nor take notice of
any, till men’s performance or non-performance of the condition makes a
difference. In the new law Christ hath truly _given himself_ with a
_conditional pardon_, _justification_, and _conditional right to
salvation_, to all men in the _world, without exception_.”
But the peculiarity of Baxter’s scheme will be seen from the following
farther extracts:--
“Though Christ _died equally for all men_, in the aforesaid _law sense_,
as he satisfied the offended legislator, and as giving himself to _all
alike_ in the _conditional covenant_; yet he _never properly intended or
purposed the actual justifying and saving of all_, nor of any but those
that come to be justified and saved; he did not, therefore, die for all,
nor for any that perish, with a decree or resolution to save them, _much
less did he die for all alike, as to this intent_. Christ hath given
_faith_ to none by his law or testament, though he hath revealed, that
to some he will, as benefactor and _Dominus Absolutus_, [absolute Lord,]
give that grace which shall infallibly produce it; and God hath given
some to Christ that he might prevail with them accordingly; yet this is
no giving _it to the person_, nor hath he in himself ever the more title
to it, nor can any lay claim to it as their due. It belongeth not to
Christ as _satisfier_, nor yet as _legislator_, to make wicked refusers
to become willing, and receive him and the benefits which he offers;
therefore he may do all for them that is fore-expressed, though he cure
not their unbelief. Faith is a fruit of the death of Christ, (and so is
all the good which we do enjoy,) but not _directly_, as it is
_satisfaction_ to _justice_; but only _remotely_, as it proceedeth from
that _jus dominii_ [right of dominion] which Christ has received to send
the Spirit in what measure and TO WHOM HE WILL, and to succeed it
accordingly; and as it is necessary to the attainment of the farther
ends of his death in the certain gathering and saving of THE ELECT.”
Thus the whole theory amounts to this, that, although a _conditional
salvation_ has been purchased by Christ for all men, and is offered to
them, and all legal difficulties are removed out of the way of their
pardon as sinners by the atonement, yet Christ hath not purchased for
any man the gift of FAITH, _or the power of performing the condition of
salvation required_; but gives this to some, and does not give it to
others, by virtue of that _absolute dominion_ over men which he has
purchased for himself, so that, as the Calvinists refer the decree of
election to the sovereignty of the _Father_, Baxter refers it to the
sovereignty of the _Son_; one makes the decree of reprobation to issue
from the Creator and Judge, the other, from the Redeemer himself.
If, however, any one expects to find something in the form of system in
Baxter’s opinions on the five disputed points, he will be much
disappointed. The parties to whom he refers as the authors of this
supposed “middle way,” differ as much among themselves as Baxter
occasionally does from himself. Bishop Davenant and Dr. S. Ward differed
from Amyraut, Martinius, and others of that school, on the topic of
_baptismal regeneration_; and, as the subjects of baptism, according to
the sentiments of the two former, are invested with invisible grace, and
are regenerated in virtue of the ordinance when canonically performed,
such divines far more easily disposed of their baptized converts in the
ranks of strict predestination, than the others could who did not hold
those sentiments. But they exhibited much ingenuity in not suffering it
to “intrench upon the question of perseverance.” Their friend Bishop
Bedell, however, maintained, that “reprobates coming to years of
discretion, after baptism, shall be condemned for original sin; for
their absolution and washing in baptism was but conditional and
expectative; which doth truly interest them in all the promises of God,
but under the condition of repenting, believing and obeying, which they
never perform, and therefore never attain the promise.” Bishop Overal
has also been claimed as a patron of this diversified “middle system;”
but it will be evident to every one who peruses his productions, that
his chief endeavour was to display the doctrines of the English church
as identical with those of St. Augustine, yet basing them upon _the
antecedent will of God_ and _conditional decrees_. After all the refined
distinctions which Baxter employed to render the theory of _common_ and
_special_ grace plausible and popular, the real meaning of the inventors
was frequently elicited when such a question as this was asked, “Have
any men in the world grace sufficient to repent and believe savingly who
do not?” After asserting that he knows nothing about the matter, the
reply of Baxter is, “If we may conjecture upon probabilities, it seemeth
most likely that there is such a sufficient grace, or power, to repent
and believe savingly, in some that use it not, but perish.” “This,” says
one of Baxter’s apologists, “seems to me very inexplicable!” and in the
same light it will be viewed by all who recollect that this “sufficient
grace or power” is that “portion of special grace which never fails to
accomplish its design,--the salvation of the individual on whom it is
bestowed!” Baxter’s celebrated “Aphorisms of Justification,” published
in 1649, afforded employment to himself and his theological critics till
near the close of his life; and in the many modifications, concessions,
and alterations which were extorted from him by men of different
religious tenets, he sometimes incautiously proved himself to be more
Calvinistic than Calvin, and at others more Arminian than Arminius. The
following observations, from “ORME’S _Life of Baxter_,” are on the whole
just and instructive:--
“Thus did Baxter, at a very early period of his life, launch into the
ocean of controversy, on some of the most interesting subjects that can
engage the human mind. The manner in which he began to treat them was
little favourable to arriving at correct and satisfactory conclusions.
Possessed of a mind uncommonly penetrating, he yet seems not to have had
the faculty of compressing within narrow limits his own views, or the
accounts he was disposed to give of the views of others. All this arose,
not from any indisposition to be explicit, but from the peculiar
character of his mind. He is perpetually distinguishing things into
physical and moral, real and nominal, material and formal. However
important these distinctions are, they often render his writings
tiresome to the reader, and his reasonings more frequently perplexing
than satisfactory. Baxter is generally understood to have pursued a
middle course between Calvinism and Arminianism. That he tried to hold
and adjust the balance between the two parties, and that he was most
anxious to reconcile them, are very certain. But it seems scarcely less
evident, that he was much more a Calvinist than he was an Arminian.
While this seems to me very apparent, it must be acknowledged, that if
certain views which have often been given of Calvinism are necessary to
constitute a Calvinist, Richard Baxter was no believer in that creed.
“While satisfied that among Baxter’s sentiments, no important or vital
error will be found, yet in the style and method in which he too
generally advocated or defended them, there is much to censure. The
wrangling and disputatious manner in which he presented many of his
views, was calculated to gender an unsanctified state of mind in persons
who either abetted or opposed his sentiments. His scholastic and
metaphysical style of arguing is unbefitting the simplicity of the
Gospel, and cannot fail to injure it wherever such is employed. It not
only savours too much of the spirit of the schools, and the philosophy
of this world; but places the truths of revelation on a level with the
rudiments of human science. I am not sure whether certain effects which
began early in the last century to appear among the Presbyterian part of
the Nonconformists, may not be traced, in some degree, to the
speculative and argumentative writings of Baxter. His influence over
this class of his brethren was evidently very great. He contributed more
than any other man to mitigate the harsh and forbidding aspect which the
Presbyterians presented during the civil wars and the commonwealth. This
was well, but he did not stop here. He was inimical to all the existing
systems of doctrine and discipline then contended for, or ever before
known in the world; while he did not present any precisely defined
system as his own. He opposed Calvinism; he opposed Arminianism; he
would not allow himself to be considered an Episcopalian, in the
ordinary acceptation of the word; he denied that he was a Presbyterian,
and scorned to be thought an Independent. He held something in common
with them all, and yet he was somewhat different from all. He contended
for a system more general, and more liberal, than was then approved;
and, as we have stated, wished to place a variety of theological truths
on grounds belonging rather to philosophy or metaphysics, than to
revelation.
“On himself, this species of latitudinarianism produced little injurious
effect, but I fear it had a baneful influence on others. The rejection
of all human authority and influence in religion, requires to be
balanced by a very strong sense of the divine authority, to prevent its
generating a state of mind more characterized by pride of intellect, and
independence of spirit, than by the humility and diffidence which are
essential features in the Christian character. It is a singular fact,
that the Presbyterians, though at first more rigid in their doctrinal
views, and more exclusive in their spirit and system of church
government, than the Independents, became before the death of Baxter the
more liberal party. High views began to be ascribed by them to their now
moderate brethren; and, to avoid the charge of Antinomianism, which
Baxter was too ready to prefer against such as differed from some of his
views, the Presbyterians seem gradually to have sunk into a state of
low, moderate orthodoxy, in which there was little of the warmth or
vitality of evangelical religion.
“In farther illustration of the influence now adverted to, it must be
remarked, that the first stage in that process of deterioration which
took place among the Presbyterian Dissenters, was generally
characterized by the term Baxterianism; a word to which it is difficult
to attach a definite meaning. It denotes no separate sect or party, but
rather a system of opinions on doctrinal points, verging toward
Arminianism, and which ultimately passed to Arianism and Socinianism.
Even during Baxter’s own life, while the Presbyterians taxed the
Independents with Antinomianism, the latter retorted the charge of
Socinianism, or at least of a tendency toward it, in some of the
opinions maintained both by Baxter and others of that party. To whatever
cause it is to be attributed, it is a melancholy fact, that the
declension which began even at this early period in the Presbyterian
body, went on slowly, but surely, till, from the most fervid orthodoxy,
it finally arrived at the frigid zone of Unitarianism.
“I wish not to be understood as stating that Baxter either held any
opinions of this description, or was conscious of a tendency in his
sentiments toward such a fearful consummation; but, that there was an
injurious tendency in his manner of discussing certain important
subjects. It was subtle, and full of logomachy; it tended to unsettle,
rather than to fix and determine; it gendered strife, rather than godly
edifying. It is not possible to study such books as his ‘_Methodus_,’
and his ‘Catholic Theology,’ without experiencing that we are brought
into a different region from Apostolic Christianity; a region of fierce
debate and altercation about words, and names, and opinions; in which
all that can be said for error is largely dwelt upon, as well as what
can be said for truth. The ambiguities of language, the diversities of
sects, the uncertainties of human perception and argument are urged,
till the force of revealed truth is considerably weakened, and
confidence in our own judgment of its meaning greatly impaired.
Erroneous language is maintained to be capable of sound meaning, and the
most Scriptural phrases to be susceptible of unscriptural
interpretation, till truth and error almost change places, and the mind
is bewildered, confounded, and paralyzed. Into this mode of discussing
such subjects, was this most excellent man led, partly by the natural
constitution of his mind, which has often been adverted to; partly by
his ardent desire of putting an end to the divisions of the Christian
world, and producing universal concord and harmony. He failed where
success was impossible, however plausible might have been the means
which he employed. He understood the causes of difference and contention
better than their remedies; hence the measures which he used frequently
aggravated instead of curing the disease. While a portion of evil,
however, probably resulted from Baxter’s mode of conducting controversy,
and no great light was thrown by him on some of the dark and difficult
subjects which he so keenly discussed, I have no doubt he contributed
considerably to produce a more moderate spirit toward each other,
between Calvinists and Arminians, than had long prevailed. Though he
satisfied neither party, he must have convinced both, that great
difficulties exist on the subjects in debate, if pursued beyond a
certain length; that allowance ought to be made by each, for the
weakness or prejudices of the other; and that genuine religion is
compatible with some diversity of opinion respecting one or all of the
five points.” A similar effect as that which Mr. Orme ascribes to
Baxter’s writings on the English Presbyterians, followed also, on the
continent among the reformed churches. It was the same middle system
with its philosophical subtleties, which Camero and Amyraut taught
abroad, and which produced in them those effects that have been falsely
ascribed, both in England and abroad, to Arminianism. See AMYRAUT and
CAMERON.