Baxters Aphorisms, Part 2 · Chapter 10
CHAP. X.
Arg. The Authour of the Booke intituled, The Marrow of Moderne Divinity, vindicated from the Aſperſions wherewith Mr. Baxter defameth him and his Doctrine.
HEere becauſe I am to follow, and my taske is, not to leave Mr. Baxter untill I have examined all that hee ſaith to prove Juſtification by works; I am neceſſitated to fall into that which will be judged a Digreſſion.
After hee hath enacted by a Law, that to ſay, wee muſt not worke for life, is a Blaſphemy, or at leaſt an intolerable errour, and to hold it practically a neceſſarily damning Doctrine, that whoſoever doth it muſt be everlaſtingly damned for it. (All which wee acknowledge to bee in ſome ſenſe true after the ſound of the words, though after the meaning of the Authour they can never be ſaved which practically hold the contrary, as poſſibly I ſhall afterwards ſhew.) Now he proceeds to indite and arraigne to condemnation one Authour, as guilty of this damning Doctrine, viz. The Authour of the Book called, The Marrow of Moderne Divinity, and many his Acceſſaries, viz. all thoſe Divines that have annexed their approbatory ſubſcriptions to the uſefullneſſe of it; ſo finde we the man expreſſing himſelfe, Aphoriſm. pag 330.
B. When ſuch a Book as that ſtiled the Marrow of Modern Divinity, can have ſo many applauding epiſtles of ſuch Divines▪ when the doctrine of it is that we muſt not Act for juſtification and Salvation; but onelyonly in thankfulneſſe for it.
This he ſpeaketh onelyonly in generall, we ſhall finde his particulars following. To this therefore I anſwer onelyonly in generall;
1 That it were to bee deſired that Mr Baxter had inured no more diſhonour upon thoſ… Divines to whom he dedicates his book by ſuch his dedication; than thoſe forementioned Divines have attracted to themſelves by their applauding epiſtles.
2 And that thoſe Divines, with Mr. Baxter himſelfe, could mention ſo many ſound parts in his booke, both in the matter and ends of the Author; as hee hath picked out imaginary errours in the other.
3 As to the doctrine of that booke which he ſo accuſeth, I ſhall there examine in particulars where Mr. Baxter particularly drawes it into accuſation and judgement.
OnelyOnly by the way let me thus far excuſe my ſelfe.
1 I never knew who was the Author of that worke.
2. Neither have I read it otherwiſe than here and there a fragment as I found it lying in my friends houſes; ſo that I could no otherwiſe judge of it but ex ungue Leonem, what the whole was but by that which my ſlender judgement told me the part which I read was, not onelyonly orthodox but ſingularly uſefull.
3 That I never knew there was a ſecond part of it, much leſſe ſaw it until Mr Baxter by his quotation therof ſo told me. But that ſince I have gotten both parts, yet by meanes of other imployments have not had time any further to read it but where Mr. Baxter accuſeth it of error.
4. That if I knew the Author to be yet living, I ſhould have wholly left the defence of himſelfe to himſelfe. It was not ſo much the animoſity as the ingenuity of Scaliger which cauſed him when he heard that one had buſied himſelfe about the correcting of the errors in his writings, to cry out, Ego meos corrigam errores, I my ſelfe will be the corrector of my owne errors. The ſame taske may this Author juſtly challenge to himſelfe (if living) to be himſelfe the defender of his owne writings. Perhaps he is doing it, perhaps he hath done it, I ſhall therefore in my uncertainty what is done, onelyonly with ſuch brevity ſeeke to diſabuſe the doubting readers of both, that I ſhall in no wiſe prevent the Authors fuller vindicating of his owne or rather Gods cauſe in his hand. Let us then attend to Mr Baxters accuſations, particularized, Append. pag. 100. and ſo onward. It was queſtioned as may be ſeen pag. 99. why he excepted againſt the Book called the Marrow of Modern Divinity? he anſwers there, becauſe it is guilty of this hainous doctrine. This he begins now pag. 100 to ſhew in particulars, alleaging firſt the words of that booke thus:
B M. M. pag. 174. (he meanes 179) Qu. Would you not have beleevers to eſchew evill and do good, for feare of Hell or for hope of Heaven? Anſw. No indeed, I would not have any beleever to doe the one or the other, for ſo farr as they doe ſo, their obedience is but ſlaviſh &c. To which end he alleageth. Lu. 1. 74. 75.
Having thus alleaged the Author, he thus endeavours to accuſe and confute him:
B But that ſpeaks of freedom from feare of our enemies, ſuch as Chriſt forbids Lu. 12. 5. where yet he commandeth the fearing of God, and conſequently even that feare of enemies is forbidden, as they ſtand in oppoſition to God, and not as his inſtruments in ſubordination. Or if it be even a feare of God that is there meant; yet it cannot be all feare of him and his diſpleaſure: So farr as we are in danger of ſin and ſuffering, we muſt fear it: and ſo far as our aſſurance is ſtill unperfect: a jealouſie of our owne hearts and a dreadfull Reverence of God alſo are neceſſary. But not the legall terrors of the former bondage ſuch as ariſe from the apprebenſion of ſin unpardoned, and of God as being our enemy.
Who ever heard any doctrine more unanſwerably proved to bee hainous? If any man queſtion by what Arguments, he can eaſily anſwer himſelfe, by this …hat Mr. Baxter trying and finding himſelfe unable to do it, at length grants it to be ſound and good. Thus are they driven oft-times to wound themſelves who draw the Sword againſt the Truth. The Author of that booke proveth that beleevers or the redeemed of Chriſt are no longer to ſerve for feare of H…ll by the teſtimony of the H. G. Lu. 1. 74. 75. That we being delivered out of the hands of our enemies might ſerve him without fear, in holineſſe and righteouſneſſe &c. Mr. Baxter to evade the force of this Scripture, firſt contendeth that by enemies are here to be underſtood not ſpirituall but mortall enemies, wicked men and their perſecutions. Now may not a blind man perceive this to bee a ſhifting not an anſwer of this Scripture?
1. The groūd of this not fearing is here layd to be our deliverāce cut of their hands, whom elſe we ſhould feare. And will Mr▪ Baxter ſay that Chriſt came to deliver his elect from the perſecutions of men, and not from ſin, death, hell, which were our moſt formidable enemies? This were to make Chriſts kingdome to be of this world, and to joyn with the carnall Iewes that expected ſuch a carnall Chriſt and c…rnall kingdome that might be eminent in the world.
2. Or hath he actually purchaſed to us ſuch a deliverance? doth not experience declare the contrary?
3. Or muſt we ſo long ſuſpend our ſerving of God in Righteouſneſſe and Holineſs untill we be actually delivered from all feare and danger of mens perſecutions? For ſo runs the Text as well in the originall as in our tranſlation, that the deliverance is layd as the ground of the ſervice, and that put in our poſſeſſion, before this can be put in execution, at leaſt without feare.
4. Is not deliverance heere the ſame thing with the ſalvation mentioned ver. 77, which Iohn was to preach? but that was ſalvation, and ſo is this deliverance, by the remiſſion of ſins; and conſequently we muſt ſerve (who are in Chriſt,) without feare of vengeance and Hell.
He ſees that with this evaſion he cannot decline the edge of this Scripture; therefore takes up the right interpretation of it at laſt, thus: Or if it be even a feare of God that is there meant &c. Why had he not ſpoken full to the point in queſtion and ſaid the feare of Hell? This minſing will nothing help him. All that he ſaith againſt it in this ſenſe, is but ſuch as is wont to proceed from the extravagancy of an aſtoniſhed and ſelf confounded man. For who ever ſaid that a beleever muſt caſt off all feare of God and not be poſſeſſed ſtill with a filiall feare to diſpleaſe him? Or that as farr as he is in danger of ſin and ſuffering he muſt not feare it, to ſhun it? Or that ſo farr as our aſſurance is ſtill unperfect [or perfect] a jealouſy of our own harts and a dreadfull Reverence of God are [not] neceſſary? But what is all this to the ſerving of God for feare of Hell? How doth he daub with untempered morter? At length he determines the queſtion. But not the legall terrors of our former bondage, ſuch as ariſe from the apprehenſion of ſin unpardoned, and of Gods beeing, our enemy. I need to ſay no more, but where then is the feare of Hell in a beleever? doeth it ariſe from the apprehenſion of the pardon of his ſin, and of God reconciled to him in Chriſt? what can be ſaid more weakly to confute, or more ſtrongly to confirme that which he cals a hainous doctrine? Is Mr. Baxter an adverſary or an acceſſary to him whom he pronou…ceth the Author of this wicked, intolerable, damnable doctrine? Himſelf ſpeaks more to confirm it than the perſon whom he oppoſeth. But how according to his principles, the terrors of our former bondage as he deſcribes it, are in this life removed, neyther can I ſee, nor he make out without contradicting himſelfe.
B. In the 180. page, Hee denieth the plaine ſenſe of the Text, Mat. 10. 28.
Enough Magiſterially if it were true what he objecteth, to ſay only and not to demonſtrate the truth of what hee objecteth. But if falſe, who perceiveth not the cenſorious ſpirit of the Objector? That it is falſe appeareth evidently: for how doth hee deny the plain ſenſe which denieth no ſenſe at all of the Text, but onelyonly declares what he thinks to bee the more principall ſcope of Chriſt in that Text, than other? And in this the context will evince that hee ſpeaketh the truth.
B. In the 155. page, He maketh this the difference betweene the two Covenants: One ſayth, Doe this and live, the other ſayth, Live and doe this: the one ſayth, Doe this for life, the other ſayth, Doe this from life.
But I have provedfully that the Goſpel ſaith alſo, Doe this for life.
1. Now hee manifeſteth wherin the haynouſnes of the doctrine of this Book, and the intolerable damnable wickedneſs of the Author conſiſteth: viz. in his blindneſs that hee did not foreſee what Antichriſtian doctrine Mr. Baxter would afterward divulge to the world, and ſay hee had fully proved it: but for lacke of this foreknowledge, doth heer deliver the contrary truth of Chriſt prepoſſeſſing the minds of men therewith againſt Mr. Baxters future impoſtures.
But 2. Let him not ſay he hath fully proved, but let him fully prove that doing and works as the Scriptures doe oppoſe the ſame to faith and receiving of Chriſt, (in which ſenſe this Author ſpeaketh) are injoyned by the Goſpel to juſtification of life, or the life of juſtification, and then let him expect that his Goſpel ſhall ſtand, and the Goſpel of Chriſt lie proſtrate at his feet.
3. Becauſe Mr. Baxter will never bee able to prove this, the true Diſciples of Chriſt will ſtill hold this as one principle difference between the two Covenants, that the one requires us to ſeeke life after the tenour of Juſtice, the other after the tenour of Grace. The one bids us to ſeeke it by Works, the other by Fayth. The one preſuppoſeth the originall righteouſneſs given us in Adam, bidding us by it to follow after happineſs, the other offereth Chriſt unto us as the fountain of life both of Juſtification and Sanctification, calling upon us to receive or beleeve in him for both, that both may be ours when Chriſt is ours. He is our life, and when Chriſt our life (not works our life) ſhall appear, we alſo ſhall appear with him in glory. This is all that this Author meaneth in this paſſage, as himſelfe makes evident. If in this he be an Hereticke, let mee live and die with him in his Hereſie. To prevent miſtake, I meane heere the Covenant of works in Mr. Baxters ſenſe throughout this his Treatiſe, viz. the firſt Covenant made with Adam.
B. So in his ſecond part page 190. his great note to know the voyce of the Law by, is this, That when in Scripture there is any Morall worke commanded to bee done, eyther for the eſchewing of puniſhment, or upon promiſe of any reward temporall or eternall, or elſe when any promiſe is made with the condition of any worke to bee done which is commanded in the Law, there is to bee underſtood the voyce of the Law.
A notorious and dangerous miſtake, which would make almoſt all the New Teſtament, and the very Sermons of Chriſt himſelfe, to bee nothing but the Law of works. I have fully proved before, that Morall duties as part of our ſincere obedience to Chriſt, are part of the condition of our ſalvation, and for it to be performed. And even Faith is a Morall duty. It is pity that any Chriſtian ſhould no better know the Law from the Goſpel, eſpecially one that pretendeth to diſcover it to others.
About the matter heer delivered by this Author, enough hath been ſpoken before, in examining what Mr. Baxter hath ſayd in many parts of his Aphoriſms contrary to it. Touching the proofe of the contrary Aſſertion, Mr. Baxter hath ſayd no more than, nor ſo much as Bellarmine had ſayd before him, and left prepared to his hand. Hee ſhould therefore more properly have ſayd, Not I, but Bellarmine hath fully proved, and therefore fully becauſe Mr. Baxter ſo affirmeth. As to the Aſſertor of it, why doth hee pitch upon this Author alone, when Calvin, Fulk, Mr. Fox, (as I have before Chap. 15. alleadged and quoted them) Dr. Ameſius, Medul. Theol. lib. 1. cap. 22. Se. 19. In a word all Proteſtant Divines from Luther till this preſent time, have in ſubſtance, and moſt of them that have occaſion to pitch upon the ſame Subject, have even totidem verbis, delivered the ſame doctrine, (as to mercenary, or rewards of debt) having learned the ſame from the Apoſtle, why doth he ſingle out this one as a ſingular man? Let him with Bellarmine, Stapleton, Maldonat, and the reſt of that hair, roar out againſt all the Reformed Churches, A notorious and dangerous miſtake &c. A herd of Hereticks and ignorant Animalls; It is pity that any Chriſtian ſhould no better know the Law from the Goſpel, eſpecially ſuch as pretend to diſcover it to others.
As to his Morall duties, and even Faith as a Morall duty to bee performed for ſalvation; hee ſpeaks like ſuch morall men as nature now blinded and corrupted formeth, whoſe principle it is, Naturam ut optimam ducem ſequi, to follow Nature and naturall inſtinct, or Reaſon as their beſt guide, knowing not ſpirituall things, becauſe the Naturall man cannot receive them. If he ſavoured ſo much the Goſpel as Philoſophy, why doth not the phraſe which Chriſt & his Apoſtles uſe [of the ſpirit and ſpirituall things] ſo much delight him as that of the Philoſophers [Morall and Moralities?] As much was Chriſts offering himſelfe a ſacrifice and giving ſatisfaction to the Juſtice of God a Morall duty, and ſo not meritoricus for us, becauſe due to God from him by the Law for himſelfe: as Faith in Chriſt and other purely Goſpel duties ſubſervient unto Faith. For both theſe duties on Chriſts and on our part are comprehended under this one generall of the Law of nature: Whatſoever I ſhall command thee thou ſhalt doe. I ſhall leave the juſtification and ſalvation by Morall Faith and Morall duties to Mr. Baxter and with the Apoſtle, through the Spirit wait for the hope of Righteouſneſſe by Faith. Gal. 5. 5
B. So in the next page. 191. he intelerably abuſeth the Sripture in affirming that of 2. Theſ. 2. 12., to be the voice of the Law, and ſo making Paul a Legall preacher.
Is then every teacher, (after Mr. Baxters Canon) which declares what the voice, force, curſe, and condemnation of the Law is, a Legall and Anti-Evangelicall preacher? So he affirmes Paull to bee if he ſpeake out what the curſe and condemnation of the Law is. Then not onelyonly Paul, but Chriſt alſo and all his Apoſtles are Legall not Goſpel preachers. For he will not deny them to have ſo made out the Law in its force &c. Or when the Apoſtle in that quoted Stripture ſpeakes of their Damnation which would not believe the truth but had pleaſure in unrighteouſneſſe, doth he not leave them under the damnation of the Law for not embracing the Goſpell? doth not the Law hereby take occaſion to damne them the more deeply for neglecting and rejecting the truth? The proper office of the Goſpell is not to condemn but to ſave. OnelyOnly when its ſalvation is contemned it yeelds backe the contemners under the greater guilt to the Law to power out on them the larger, if not largeſt meaſure of its curſe and wrath. Do not thinke (ſaith our Saviour to the Iewes that rejected his Goſpell,) that I will accuſe you to the Father, there is one that accuſeth you, even Moſes in whom you truſt. Jo. 5. 45.
But whether the inference of making Paul a Legall Preacher, is to be aſcribed to Mr Baxter or to the Author of the Marrow of Modern Divinity is eaſily diſcernible. That Author had onelyonly ſayd that one ſentence of Paul in a whole Epiſtle was the voice of the Law. Mr. Baxter inferreth that ſo to ſay is to make Paul a Legall Preacher; & conſequentially that to preach any thing of the Law makes a Legall Preacher. Let now Mr. Baxter name one Miniſter within this Nation that hath taught ſuch ranke Antinomiſme, as himſelfe here that profeſſeth himſelfe an Antaegoniſt to deſtroy it. But wee may perceive by this he will be all things, as well Antinomian as Arminian and Papiſt to ſmother the truth of the Goſpell.
B. And as ſhamefully doth he abuſe 1 Co. 6. 9. 10. as if the Apoſtle, when he biddeth them not to be deceived, were deceiving them himſelfe in telling them; that no unrighteous perſon, fornicators, adulterers, &c. ſhall inherit the Kingdome of God. Is this Law? Then let me be a Preacher of the Law. If Paul be a Legalliſt then will I be a Legalliſt too. But theſe men know not that the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of thoſe that die ſuch and that theſe ſins exclude men the Kingdome as they are rebellious againſt Chriſt their Lord, and ſo a violation of the new Covenant.
How extreamly is this man in love (Narciſſus like) with his own beauty, or rather fancy? Every other Viſage not begotten of his ſeed, and faſhioned to his image is an Owle with him. The words of the Authour are theſe: [The Law ſaith], knoweſt thou not that the unrighteous ſhall not inherit the Kingdome of God. Be not deceived, &c. 1 Cor. 6. 9. And therefore thou being a ſinner and not righteous, ſhalt not inherit the Kingdome of God. This is all that he hath againſt which Mr. Baxter raiſeth his hubub, a ſhamefull abuſe of the Scripture! Let him deny if hee can this to bee (though leſſe principally and ſecondarily the voice of the Goſpel, yet) primarily and more principally the voice of the Law. If not, then ſurely as he hath a Goſpel, ſo alſo hath hee a Law of his owne making. Or what other ground is there why ſuch ſhall not inherit the Kingdome, but becauſe they are not in Chriſt? Fer whoſoever is baptized with the bloud of Chriſt to juſtification, is baptized alſo with his ſpirit to ſanctification. And if not in Chriſt, then under the Law. If under the Law, then under the curſe and condemnation of the Law; and conſequentially under the threat of the Law here denounced. Or what ſhould hinder the Apoſtle from denouncing the curſe of the Law againſt them that are and wilbe under the Law? Let Mr. Baxter have his will that the Goſpel condemnes them for their finall unbeliefe and rebellion againſt Chriſt: yet doth not the Law condemne them too for all their unrighteouſneſs, fornications, Adulteries, &c. If he deny it, wee ſhall finde him the Author of a ſweet peece of Goſpel Doctrine: That they which are in Chriſt are under the Curſe of the Law, (ſo hath hee before ſtoutly aſſerted) but they which are enemies of Chriſt, are exempted from it. If he confeſs it, then the ſhame returns upon himſelfe which he layes on this Author.
B. So in part. 1. pag. 189. hee mentioneth a Preacher that ſayd, hee durſt not exhort nor p…rſwade ſinners to beleeve their ſinnes were pardoned, untill hee ſaw their lives reformed; for feare they ſhould take more liberty to ſinne. And hee cenſureth that Preacher to bee ignorant in the Myſtery of Faith. [And putting a falſe conſtruction upon his words, he deſcanteth over him and inſulteth againſt him for delivering an abſurdity, in ſaying that which he ſaid not]
Let him but add what followeth, & it wil appear there is no footing for him in theſe his words, for al the abuſive carpings wherwith he ſeeks to diſgrace him. I thinke …ſayth the Author) that Preach…r was ignorant of the Myſtery of Fayth, for it is of the Nature of ſovereigne Waters, which ſo waſh off the corruption of the Ʋl…er, that they coole the heat, and ſtay the spreading of the inſection; and ſo by degrees heal the ſame: Neither did he know that it is the Nature of Cordialls, ſo to comfort the heart and …aſe it, as to expell the nox…ous humours, and ſtrengthen Nature againſt them.
Is it not heere evident that the fayling which hee cenſureth in that Miniſter, is his miſtake of the power and Nature of Spirituall and Goſpel comforts, that hee dared not to ſpeake a word o… conſolation to a wounded ſoule, before hee ſaw and had had p…oofe of his reformation, (though never ſo much burthened with the conſideration of his ſinne paſt, and gaſping after Chriſt and forgiveneſs by him) for fear ſuch ſpirituall comfort would carry him backe into carnall liberty againe. Nay, ſayth this Author▪ The Myſtery of Faith, or conſolation which is by faith in Chriſt Jeſus, is like ſovereigne Waters and Cordialls, doth not onelyonly comfort the wounded ſoule againſt the guilt, but alſo ſubdue the power, and ſtay the ſpreading of ſinn, ſtrengthening the ſoule againſt the future prevalency of corruption: ſo that the due application and reception of it is the beſt furtherance, and not at all a hinderance to the reformation of the Life.
This doctrine may poſſibly offend Mr. Baxters palate, but I am ſure it ſquares with the Goſpel. All that Mr. Baxter hath therefore, pag. 104. 105. againſt the Authors words wreſted into a wrong ſenſe expreſſeth Mr. Baxter what hee is, but in no wiſe weakeneth the eſtimation of the Author with them that are wiſe. …or he doth neyther explicitely nor implicitely affirme, that juſtifiing▪ Faith is a beleeving that our ſinnes are pardoned, as Mr. Baxter untruly ſuggeſteth▪ …nd thence draws matter of ſugillation
He names the Myſtery or …aith, which is one and the ſame as if he had ſayd the Myſtery of Chriſt, or the Myſtery of the Goſpel, all which in holy Writ, are …lent …rme. And what he affirms of this Myſtery of Faith or … the deeper it ſincks into the heart the more it purifies … ſtrengtheneth in the power of godlineſs. Mr. Baxter… … affixed to this Doctrine ſhall not hinder my [Amen] …
B. Many other intolerable errour… I could ſhew you in this booke▪ as his making the New Covenant to threaten nothing but preſent afflictions and loſſe of our preſent communion with God, pag. 208. And that we pray for no other kinde of Pardon. pag. 206. 210 Contrary to Mar. 16. 16. Heb. 10. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Heb. 2. 3. Jo. 15. 2. 6. and many other places.
He might more properly have ſayd, Many other intolerable ſlanders his candor and conſcience could have i…ured upon this booke. For ſo his next words would have verified what hee had ſayd; [as his m…king the New Covenant to threaten nothing &c.] When the Au…hor in the quoted place ſpeaketh nothing of the New Covenant, but of the Law of Chriſt, by which hee there declareth himſelfe to meane the Ten Commandements, as they are now in the hand and diſpoſing of Chriſt. And this Law he underſtands alſo in relation, not to the whole world, but to them that are implanted into Chriſt; his words being directed to Neophytus. To ſuch (Chriſt having already borne the penalty of the Law in their ſtead) temporall and fatherly chaſtiſements onelyonly for their purging and perfecting, are threatned in caſe through infirmity they tranſgreſſe the Law. In this, I conceive, hee alludeth to the priviledges of the Covenant made with David as the Type of Chriſt, and his ſeed as the Type of Chriſts ſeed, and ſo pertayning (as a Goſpel liberty) no leſſe fully to us than to them. If his children forſake my Law, breake my ſtatutes &c. Then will I viſit their tranſgreſſions with the rod, and their iniquity with ſtripes; nevertheleſs my loving kindneſs will I not take utterly from him, nor ſuffer my faithfulnes to fail, my Covenant will I not break &c. Pſ 89. 31-34. And this is M. Brs. own doctrine when he teacheth that there is no deathly violation of the new Covenant beſides final unbelief & rebellion againſt Chriſt, in and under Theſ. 32. 33. 34. and 37. But the Author whom Mr. Br. calls heer ad partes, ſpeaks not of finall unbeleefe or rebellion incident to the world, but of ſome particular tranſgreſſion of any of the Ten Commandements (as hee expreſſeth himſelfe) through the infirmity incident to the Saints. What fire and fury is there in this mans wrath, that having made an Adverſary, will have him wounded, vel per me, though through his owne heart, ani…am que in vulnere ponit. If it be an intolerable errour in this man, much more in Mr. Baxter, who much more vehemently and upon ſlig… er and ſlenderer grounds aſſerts it.
The Scriptures which Mr. Baxter alle…dgeth as contraried by this doctrine, ſpeak eytherof ſuch rebells▪ as when the Grace of Chriſt is offered them, perſiſt in a finall refuſall of it, or of ſuch hypocrites as having once ſeemingly taſted it, Apoſtatize utterly from it. And with theſe this Author hath nothing heere to doe. OnelyOnly Mr. Baxter being heavily burthened with another Monſter, which hee had a purpoſe to have disburthened himſelfe of in a Tractate of Univerſall Redemption, being prevented by another, muſt needs now and then caſe himſelfe of it, and ſpeake out how hatefull to him the doctrine of the certaine perſeverance of the Saints in grace is.
The other things which hee hints and but hints at as errours in this Author, might bee taken into examination, if Mr. Baxter would alleadge his words, and ſhew what hee excepts againſt in them. I ſee not but the paſſages are pure and cleare enough in the Booke, if hee would forbeare the caſting in of his ſalt-petre to corrupt them.
As he ſayth it was not his buſineſſe to have objected, ſo neither was it my buſineſſe to have defended, had h…e not ſought under a pretence of oppoſing this Booke, to defame many truths of Chriſt.