Mr. Baxters Aphorisms exorcized and anthorized. Or An examination of and answer to a book written by Mr. Ri: Baxter teacher of the church at Kederminster in Worcester-shire, entituled, Aphorisms of justification. Together with a vindication of justification by meer grace, from all the Popish and Arminian sophisms, by which that author labours to ground it upon mans works and righteousness. By John Crandon an unworthy minister of the gospel of Christ at Fawley in Hant-shire. Imprimatur, Joseph Caryl. Jan: 3. 1654.

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 en∣trance 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 per∣emptorily 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 to∣tally 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 adop∣tion of eggs layd by these Serpents, he discovers himself now in a manner to be wholly theirs: so fully doth he resemble, yea paral∣lel 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 7^th 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 Explica∣tion, i. e. an Exposition, explainning or making plain of the A∣phorism 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 threat∣ning? 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? Vari∣ous are the judgments of 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 imme∣diately separated from his body, as ours are by death, and so be the on∣ly 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 sepa∣ration 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 cur∣sed life on earth, through everlasting, in exclusion from Paradise, sepa∣ration 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 mise∣ry on earth should have been more than men do now endure? And the more importance are these questions of, because of some others that de∣pend 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 a∣gainst 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 que∣stion 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 Pa∣radise 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 unde∣nyable 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 de∣termining 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 determi∣nation 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 ra∣ther satisfaction than the payment of the proper debt, being such a pay∣ment 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 salva∣tion.

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 distin∣ction.

B. In regard of the meer weight of punishment considered as abstracted from person and duration, it was executed, [and to avoid the mi∣stake 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 man∣kind 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 2^ly 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 ju∣stice 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. Never∣theless such an artizan is Mr. Baxter, that with the spell of a few di∣stinctions, 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 un∣der the will of precept; and that which also intendeth the certain pre∣diction 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 mani∣festation of Gods justice, and hatred of sin, &c. was fulfilled,

and therefore the Law was fulfilled a. 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 in∣deed 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 predicti∣ons 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 mea∣ning 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 b.

Read the rest he that loves it, I have enough even to nauseous∣ness. What Jesuite reading this will not cry out, O delicatum animu∣lum, 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 impro∣ved 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 ob∣scure. 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 pretend∣edly explain? but the explication it self a dark labyrinth. Let A∣quinas 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 hap∣py

Kederminsterians that have attained such an Expounder and Ex∣plainer 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 do∣ctrines 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 wanton∣ness in the quirpo of their fancies, and such profligated conscien∣ces, 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 con∣clude in all things no less uncertainly than himself: so that after many and long disputes in this Scholastick way, wholly in con∣tradiction 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.

Notes

• He means the Popish Doctors specially, for they with him are the Divines.
• a

  Let the Judg of as∣sizes then chide, and lay by the feet a mur∣therer for an hour, declaring therby his justice and hatred of the offēce. M. Baxter must con∣clude him to be a just Judg, & to have fulfil∣led the Law, if hereupon he forth-with discharge him.
• b

  This 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.