Baxters Aphorisms, Part 1 · Part 1 · Chapter 2
CHAP. II.
Mr. Baxters Sophiſticall way and Method of diſpute to obſcure, and not to cleer the truths of the Goſpel, diſcovered: And that therein he imitates the Papists.
IN the former Chapter we have found Mr. Baxter before his entrance upon his Treatiſe, ſomewhat diſcovering with whom he joyns in opinion, ſo far that we may diſcern and gueſs ex ungue leonem, by one little piece of the man, what he is in his whole bulk and frame. It contents him not to be one and the ſame with the Papiſts in his judgment, but that he will next alſo diſcover himſelf to be the ſame with them in their ſlights and artifice, to bring all others into the ſame judgment and opinion with them. That generation of the Popiſh Schoolmen are fitly likened by Sir Francis Bacon, in his Advancement of learning, to Spiders, which ſpin out their webbs out of their own bowels. So theſe ſpinn all their doctrines in religion out of their own brains, their own reaſon, naming Chriſt ſometimes therein, but rather hiding and darkning the authority of his word, than following it as their leading threed in all their doctrines. All their writings about Evangelicall and ſaving points of knowledg, are but as ſo many webs of their fancy to catch and carry away from the purity of Chriſts Goſpel; not ſo many well-ordered threeds of ſacred Scriptures to guide and bring us to him. Who is there of all that have but curſorily read their works, that finds them not conſiſting of large heaps of needleſs and ſuperfluous queſtions, to obſcure the light of the word, and to bring all to the tryall of reaſon, yea ſophiſticall and ſophiſticated reaſon, ſurmounting the reaſon and capacity of the people to comprehend? And theſe queſtions which they ſpin and ſpit out by dozens, yea hundreds & thouſands, as they are moſtly ſuperfluous, vain, uſeleſs, and many of them preſumptuouſly and arrogantly propoſed, about things which the Lord hath kept ſecret in his own boſom, not revealing them by his word: ſo are they oft no leſs peremptorily and audaciouſly by theſe men anſwered and determined out of their Philoſophicall and Metaphyſicall fancies, without one particle of the word to ground their determinations upon. Thus by their queſtionary ſophiſtry they have both obſcured, if not totally quenched all true Divinity, i. e. the Doctrine of the Goſpel, and have foyſted in a confuſed Chaos of titular Divinity, that hath nothing of light or life in it, ſuch as the Scripture owns not, from their own reaſon.
Compare we now Mr. Baxter with theſe, to ſee whether as the Apoſtle calleth Timothy his own, or his naturall ſon in the faith, 1 Tim. 1. 2. becauſe he walked directly after him in the ſteps of his faith: So Mr. Baxter doth not alſo declare himſelf the own and naturall ſonn of theſe ſophiſters, by walking directly after them in the ſteps of their cunning and ſubtlety to deſtroy the Faith. The Poets feigned that Minerva was begotten and born of Jupiters brain, becauſe ſhe was all wiſedom it ſelf. And I think Mr. Baxter would be offended, if it ſhould be denyed that all the quintiſſence of ſophiſticall learning that hath been in all the brains of all the Schoolmen and Jeſuits, were not ſo extracted from them, as to have its reſidency now in his. He was (as far as I can underſtand) born and brought up in the Proteſtant Church within this nation, as Coſtor, Pollux, &c. were in the houſe of Leda; but by a new and ſtrange generation or adoption of eggs layd by theſe Serpents, he diſcovers himſelf now in a manner to be wholly theirs: ſo fully doth he reſemble, yea parallel them, that unum nôris, omnes nôris; you may read in him alone, the Genius and the Craft of them all. Attend we els to his own words in his explication of his 7th Theſis, pag. 25, &c. All that he hath written before, I paſſe by without exception againſt it, pag. 19. he layeth down his 7. Aphoriſm in theſe words:
Bax. Jeſus Chriſt, at the will of his Father, and upon his own will, being perfectly furniſhed for this work, with a Divine power and perſonall Rigteouſneſs, firſt undertook, and afterward diſcharged this debt [viz. mans debt to God] by ſuffering what the Law did threaten, and the offender himſelf was unable to bear.
To this as to the reſt he addeth that which he calleth an Explication, i. e. an Expoſition, explainning or making plain of the Aphoriſm or point ſo laid. Let us trace him how now he makes it plain, beginning at the 25. p. before mentioned. I ſhould be too large to write all his words, yet ſhall not wrong him by writing any ſave his own words, or the very ſubſtance of them.
Bax. Here we are caſt upon many and weighty and very difficult queſtions. 1 Whether Chriſt did diſcharge this debt by way of ſolution, or by way of ſatisfaction? 2 Whether in his ſuffering and our eſcape, the threatning of the Law was executed, or diſpenſed with? 3 And if diſpenſed with, how it can ſtand with the truth and juſtice of God? 4 And whether ſinners may thence be encouraged to conceive ſome hope of a relaxation of the threatnings in the Goſpell? 5 And whether the faithfull may not fear leſt God may relax a promiſe as well as a threatning? 6 And whether if the Law be relaxable, God might not have releaſed his Sonn from the ſuffering, rather then to have put him to ſo great torment, and to have freely pardoned the offenders? And p. 27. The reſolving of the firſt queſtion depends upon the reſolving of two other queſtions, both great and difficult 1 What it was which the Law did threaten? 2 What it was that Chriſt did ſuffer? Various are the judgments of *He means the Popiſh Doctors ſpecially, for they with him are the Divines.Divines about the former, &c. 1 Whether Adams ſoule and body ſhould have been annihilated and deſtroyed, ſo as to become in ſenſible? 2 Or whether his ſoule ſhould have been immediately ſeparated from his body, as ours are by death, and ſo be the only ſufferer of the pain? 3 Or if ſo, whether there ſhould have been any reſurrection of the body, after any ſpace of time, that ſo it might ſuffer as well as the ſoul? 4 Or whether ſoul and body without ſeparation ſhould have gone down quick into hell, ar into any place or ſtate of torment ſhort of hell? 5 Or whether both ſhould have lived a curſed life on earth, through everlaſting, in excluſion from Paradiſe, ſeparation from Gods fav…ur and gracious preſence, loſs of his image, &c. 6 Or whether he ſhould have lived ſuch a miſerable life for a ſeaſon, and then be annihilated or deſtroyed? 7 And if ſo, whether his miſery on earth ſhould have been more than men do now endure? And the more importance are theſe queſtions of, becauſe of ſome others that depend upon them: As 1. What death it was that Chriſt redeemed us from? 2 And what death it is that periſhing Infants dye, or that our guilt in the firſt tranſgreſſion doth procure? For it being a ſinn againſt the firſt covenant only, will be puniſhed with no other death than that which is threatned in that Covenant. And pag. 31. Beſides it is needfull to know what life was the reward of that Covenant, that we might know what death was the penalty [and this alſo comes into queſtion about the reward] whether (if he had not fallen) he ſhould after a ſeaſon have been tranſlated into heaven without death, as Enoch and Elijah, or whether he ſhould have lived for ever in this terreſtriall Paradiſe without addition of further bliſs to that which he had at his firſt Creation? And as touching the death which Chriſt ſuffered, whether it were the ſame that was threatned to Adam? Pa. 33. If we take the threatning at its full extent, as it expreſſeth not only the penalty, but alſo its proper ſubject and its circumſtances, then it is undenyable that Chriſt did not ſuffer the ſame that was threatned. For the Law threatned the death of the offender, but Chriſt was not the offender. Adam ſhould have ſuffered for ever, but ſo did not Chriſt. Adam did dye ſpiritually by being forſaken of God, in regard of holineſs, as well as in regard of comfort, and ſo was deprived at leaſt of the chief part of his image, ſo was not Chrſt.
Yet [neither is this certain that Chriſts death was not the ſame, &c. for] It is diſputable whether theſe two laſt were directly contained in threatning or not? whether the threatning were not fully executed in Adams death, and the eternity of it were not accidentall, even a neceſſary conſequent of Adams diſability to overcome dea…h, and deliver himſelf, which God was not bound to do? And whether the loſs of Gods image were part of the death threatned, or rather the effect of our ſin only, executed by our ſelves and not by God? whether God did take away his image, or man did thruſt it away?
Admirable profoundneſs and learning! but after all this ſtirr, and ſuch egregiouſly deep ſpeculations as preparatories to the determining of the firſt queſtion, whether Chriſt did diſcharge our debt by way of ſolution, or by way of ſatisfaction? how doth he at length determine it?
Bax. P. 29, & 30. Much may be ſaid, this ſeemeth, that is unlikely, one thing probable, another poſſible: But for a finall concluſion, p. 31. It is hard to conclude peremptorily [any thing] in ſo obſcure a caſe.
And ſo he leaves us ſo wiſe, as if he had ſlept and ſaid nothing. But afterwards recalling himſelf, though he can conclude nothing as to the forementioned particular preparatories to the determination of the queſtion; yet p. 35. to the ſubſtance of it in generall he thus anſwereth.
Bax. I canclude then, that in regard of the proper penalty, Chriſt did ſuffer a pain and penalty of the ſame ſort, and of equall weight with that threatned; but yet becauſe it was not in all reſpects the ſame, it was rather ſatisfaction than the payment of the proper debt, being ſuch a payment as God might have choſen to accept.
I liſt not to quarrel with him about the concluſion, it being not a point mainly controverted between us and the Papiſts. Only who ſees not that he might as eaſily have thus concluded, without medling with ſo many frivolous and arrogant queſtions, leaving them where he found them, as not giving the leaſt fulture to ſuch a concluſion? And when he hath thus determined the queſtion, they that lock up to themſelves his Concluſion as a treaſure, ſhall gaine ſo much by it as he that rejoyceth of a chip in his pottage. Poſſibly it may do no hurt, but certainly it will do no good to ſalvation.
But the anſwer to the ſecond queſtion comes without the help or puſh of a leaver to heave it after, viz. whether the threatning was executed, or relaxed and diſpenſed with?
B. The anſwer to this is plain in the Anſwer to the former, p. 35.
Both alike; for were it worth the ſcanning, we ſhould find both either anſwered or unanſwered: and the things ſearched after, no leſs plain to be ſeen and taken up than a needle in a bottle of hay. And ſo much M. Baxter ſeeth, for he comes after, 1 with his diſtinction.
B. In regard of the meer weight of puniſhment conſidered as abſtracted from perſon and duration, it was executed, [and to avoid the miſtake of the Printer, I conceive it ſhould be] not relaxed. Yet taking the threatning entirely as it was given out, and we muſt ſay [viz. if we ſay after Mr. Baxter] it was diſpenſed with, for mankind doth not ſuffer all that was threatned.
When I attain the meaning of the words, I ſhall be able to judg of the ſtrength of the reaſon therein contained. And 2ly he brings in a doubt, viz.
B. If the death threatned did conſiſt in our preſent miſeries, and temporall death only, then the anſwer muſt be recanted, &c.
And a little further Conference with theſe Diviners rather than Divines (it ſeemeth) would make him of their minds. And ſo the anſwer to the queſtion depends upon ifs, if Mr. Baxter change his mind, his anſwer muſt fall after him. In the mean while the third queſtion muſt depend upon the uncertain anſwer to the ſecond.
B. If the threat be diſpenſed with, how it can ſtand with the truth and juſtice of God ſo to diſpenſe with it?
Lo the anſwer to the former queſtion is ſtuck ſo deep in the mire, that the beſt Team in Worceſterſhire cannot draw it out. Nevertheleſs ſuch an artizan is Mr. Baxter, that with the ſpell of a few diſtinctions, he doth it while a man would wipe his mouth, thus.
B. Concerning the juſtice of God the queſtion is not difficult, and I ſhall ſay nothing to that.
See, he is half out of the labyrinth already, and never moves a finger for it. O rare dexterity! It coſts a little more labour to get free from the other half, and thus de doth it.
B. The queſtion is, how to reconcile this diſpenſation with Gods truth? Here you muſt diſtinguiſh, 1. Betwixt the letter of the Law and the ſenſe. 2. Betwixt the Law and the end of the Law. 3. Between a threat with exception, either expreſſed or reſerved, and that which hath no exception. 4. Between a threatning which only expreſſeth the deſert of the ſinn, and what puniſhment is due, and ſo falleth under the will of precept; and that which alſo intendeth the certain prediction of event, and ſo falleth under the will of purpoſe alſo.
And now I Anſwer.
1. The end of the Law is the Law, and that being the manifeſtation of Gods juſtice, and hatred of ſin, &c. was fulfilled, and therefore the Law was fulfilled aLet the Judg of aſſizes then chide, and lay by the feet a murtherer for an hour, declaring therby his juſtice and hatred of the offēce. M. Baxter muſt conclude him to be a juſt Judg, & to have fulfilled the Law, if hereupon he forth-with diſcharge him.. 2. Moſt think that the threatning had this reſerved exception. Thou ſhalt dye, i. e. by thy ſelf or thy ſurety: and though it be ſinfull for man to ſpeak with mentall reſervations, when he pretends to reveal his mind, yet not in God, becauſe as he is ſubject to no law, ſo he is not bound to reveal to us all his mind, nor doth he indeed pretend any ſuch thing. 3. So that the ſenſe of the ſame is fulfilled. 4. But the ſpecial anſwer that I give is this, when threatnings are meerly parts of the Law, and not alſo predictions of the event, and diſcoveries of Gods purpoſe thereabouts, then they may be diſpenſed with without any breach of truth. For as when God ſaith, Thou ſhalt not eat of the tree, &c. the meaning is only, It is thy duty not to eat, and not eventually that he ſhould not eat. So when he ſaith, Thou ſhalt dye the death, the meaning is, Death ſhall be the due reward of thy ſin, and ſo may be inflicted for it at my pleaſure; and not that he ſhould certainly ſuffer it in the event bThis Doctrine wipes off all feare from ſcandalous ſinners having this plea put into their mouth by Mr. Baxter: God hath ſaid, thou ſhalt not ſo offend but his meaning is not that I ſhould eventually abſtain, and hath ſaid, Thou ſhalt be condemned, not meaning eventually to execute it. Ergo, I may go on in ſin without fear..
Read the reſt he that loves it, I have enough even to nauſeouſneſs. What Jeſuite reading this will not cry out, O delicatum animulum, a babe of the ſame mould with the Scholaſtick Doctors of the holy mother Church, li…ked by them Bear like into their own form. If Scotus could now awake to ſee how this man hath improved and perfected his method in diſputing, it is a queſtion whether envy or joy would more work in him. It was his rule to evidence ignotum per ignotius, an obſcure point by that which is more obſcure. This man hath proceeded further, to illuſtrate and prove Notiſſima, per ignotiſſima, that which is moſt cleer of it ſelf, by that which is as dark as darkneſs it ſelf. For what more evident and plain than the Aporiſm or Doctrine which he doth here pretendedly explain? but the explication it ſelf a dark labyrinth. Let Aquinas now and his Cajetan riding him with his Comments, both together, yea the whole rabble of the Scholaſticks appear, and ſhew whether among them all there be any that in ſo ſhort a room and narrow a compaſs couched together ſo many ſubtle queſtions, backed them with ſo many dainty diſtinctions, and then anſwered them with ſo much profoundneſs as this one Mr. Baxter? Oh happy Kederminſterians that have attained ſuch an Expounder and Explainer of ſacred things, whom when they have heard and read, if they attend exactly to him, what they ſaw before cleerly of Chriſt, they ſhall ſo ſee no more! How can they ever ſtray which have ſuch a leader guiding them with a dark Lanthorn? By that time that Maſter Baxter hath ſo fully and learnedly explained all other doctrines of the Goſpel to them as he hath this Aphoriſm, they ſhall be able to ſee ſo farr into the myſteries of Chriſt, as they can kenn at Sea thorow a planck ſix inches thick.
Nevertheleſs Mr. Baxter (I ſuppoſe will not deny but that he hath left unto others (if there be any that have ſo much wantonneſs in the quirpo of their fancies, and ſuch profligated conſciences, that they dare to play with ſacred things) a power to derive from the Schoolmen whom he followeth, ſo many pertinent or impertinent queſtions, ſo many vain and ſophiſticall diſtinctions, that their gleaning ſhall match his vintage; and with theſe may ſtand in oppoſition to Mr. Baxter ſo ſtoutly, that they may conclude in all things no leſs uncertainly than himſelf: ſo that after many and long diſputes in this Scholaſtick way, wholly in contradiction to him, they may prove themſelves to be as far eſtranged from the plainneſs and ſimplicity of the Goſpel, as himſelf ſeems ambitious to be found.