BAXTER, Andrew, an able metaphysician, the son of a merchant in Old Aberdeen, was born in 1686 or 1687, and educated at King’s College there. After leaving the university he acted for some years as tutor to various young gentleman, among others to Lord Gray, Lord Blantyre, and Mr Hay of Drummelzier. In 1733 he published, in quarto, but without date, Àn Inquiry into the Nature of the Human Soul, wherein its immateriality is deduced from the principles of reason and philosophy. In 1741 he went abroad with Mr Hay, and resided several years at Utrecht, from which place he made excursions into Flanders, France, and Germany. He returned to Scotland in 1747, and resided at Whittingham, in Haddingtonshire, till his death, which occurred on April 23, 1750. His principal work, besides the Inquiry, was a short dialogue entitled Matho, sive Cosmotheoria puerilis, Dialogus in quo prima elementa de mundi ordine et ornatu proponuntur, &c. This was afterwards greatly enlarged, and published in English in two volumes 8vo. In 1750 was published an appendix to his Inquiry into the Nature of the Human Soul, in which he endeavoured to remove some difficulties which had been started against his notions of the vis inertice of matter, by Maclaurin, in his Account of Sir Isaac Newton’s Philosophical Discoveries. To this Baxter prefixed a dedication to John Wilkes, with whom he had formed acquaintance abroad. The Inquiry is a work of no small ability. The author begins by examining, after the principles of the Newtonian philosophy, the properties of matter. All, save one, result from forces which act on matter. The one essential property of matter is its inactivity, vis inertice, or resistance to motion. From this single fact it at once follows that all action or movement must be the effect ...of some immaterial cause, i.e., of God. The spontaneous motions of the body are not of the same kind as the mechanical movements of the external universe, and are accordingly to be ascribed to a special immaterial force, or spirit, the soul. From the immateriality of the soul its immortality is, of course, deduced. Nor does the conscious existence of the soul depend upon that of the body; it lives after death. Baxter supports his argument by a long analysis of the phenomena of dreams, which he ascribes to direct spiritual influence, and finally attempts to prove that matter is not eternal. A second edition of the Inquiry was published in 1737, and a third in 1745.
BAXTER, Richard, one of the most eminent of English divines, styled by Dean Stanley “the chief of English Protestant Schoolmen,” was born at Rowton in Shropshire, at the house of his maternal grandfather, on November 12, 1615. His family connections were favourable to the growth of piety. But his early education was much neglected, and he did not study at any university, a circumstance worthy of notice, considering the eminent learning to which he afterwards attained. His best instructor was a Mr John Owen, master of the Free School at Wroxeter. His diligence in the acquirement of knowledge waβ remarkable; and from the first he had a strong bent towards the philosophy with which religion is concerned,—Mr Francis Garbet of Wroxeter being the director of these studies. For a short time his attention was turned to a court life, and he went to London under the patronage of Sir Henry Herbert, master of the revels, to follow that course; but he very soon returned home with a fixed resolve to cultivate the pursuit of divinity. Practical rather than speculative theology seems to have occupied his mind, and he therefore presented himself for ordination without any careful examination of the Church of England system. He was nominated to the mastership of the Free Grammar School, Dudley, in which place he commenced his ministry, having been ordained and licensed by Thornborough, bishop of Worcester. His popularity as a preacher was, at this early period, very great; and he was soon transferred to Bridgnorth, where, as assistant to a Mr Madstard, he established a reputation for the vigorous discharge of the duties of his office.
During this time he took a special interest in the controversy relating to Nonconformity and the English Church. He soon, on some points, became alienated from the Church; and after the requirement of what is called “the et cetera oath,” he rejected Episcopacy in its English form. He could not, however, be called more than a moderate Nonconformist; and such he continued to be throughout his life. Though commonly denominated a Presbyterian, he had no exclusive attachment to Presbyterianism, and often manifested a willingness to accept a modified Episcopalianism. All forms of church government were regarded by him as subservient to the true purposes of religion.
One of the first measures of the Long Parliament was to effect the reformation of the clergy; and. with this view, a committee was appointed to receive complaints against them. Among the complainants were the inhabitants of Kidderminster, a town which had become famous for its ignorance and depravity. This state of matters was so clearly proved that an arrangement was agreed to on the part of the vicar, by which he allowed £60 a year, out of his income of £200, to a preacher who should be chosen by certain trustees. Baxter was invited to deliver a sermon before the people, and was unanimously elected as the minister of the place. This happened in 1641, when he was twenty-six years of age.
His ministry continued, with very considerable interruptions, for about nineteen years; and during that time he accomplished a work of reformation in Kidderminster and the neighbourhood which is as notable as anything of the same kind upon record. Civilized behaviour succeeded to brutality of manners; and, whereas the professors of religion had been but small exceptions to the mass, the unreligious people became the exceptions in their turn. He formed the ministers in the country around him into an association for the better fulfilment of the duties of their calling, uniting them together irrespective of their differences as Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Independents. The spirit in which he acted may be judged of from The Deformed Pastor, a book published in relation to the general ministerial efforts he promoted. It drivée home the sense of clerical responsibility with extraordinary power. The result of his action is that, to this day his memory is cherished as that of the true apostle of the district where he laboured.
The interruptions to which his Kidderminster life was subjected arose from the condition of things occasioned by the Civil War. Worcestershire was a cavalier county, and a man in Baxter’s position was, while the war continued, exposed to annoyance and danger in a place like Kidderminster. He therefore removed to Gloucester, and afterwards settled in Coventry, where he for the most part remained about two years, preaching regularly both to the garrison and the citizens. After the battle.of Naseby he took the situation of chaplain to Colonel Whalley’s regiment, and continued to hold it till February 1647.
His connection with the Parliamentary army was a very characteristic one. He joined it that he might, if possible, counteract the growth of the sectaries in that field, and maintain the cause of constitutional government in opposition to the republican tendencies of the time. He regretted that he had not previously accepted an offer of Cromwell to become chaplain to the Ironsides, being confident in his power of persuasion under the most difficult circumstances. His success in converting the soldiery to his views does not seem to have been very great, but he preserved his own consistency and fidelity in a remarkable degree. By public disputation and private conference, as well as by preaching, he enforced his doctrines, both ecclesiastical and political, and shrank no more from urging what he conceived to be the truth upon the most powerful officers than he did from instructing the meanest followers of the camp. Cromwell shunned his society; but Baxter having to preach before him after he had assumed the Protectorship, chose for his subject the old topic of the divisions and distractions of the church, and in subsequent interviews not only opposed him about liberty of conscience, but spoke in favour of the monarchy he had subverted. There is a striking proof of Baxter’s insight into characteι∙ in his account of what happened under these circumstances. Of Cromwell he says, “I saw that what he learned must be from himself.” It is worthy of notice that this intercourse w ith Cromwell occurred when Baxter was summoned to London to assist in settling “the fundamentals of religion,” and made the memorable declaration in answer to the objection, that what he had proposed as fundamental “might be subscribed by a Papist or Socinian.” “So much the better,” was Baxter’s reply, “and so much the fitter it is to be the matter of concord,”
After the Restoration in 1660 Baxter settled in London. He preached there till the Ejectment Act took effect in 1662, and was employed in seeking for such terms of comprehension as would have permitted the moderate dissenters with whom he acted to have remained in the Church of England. In this hope he was sadly disappointed. There was at that time on the part of the rulers of the church no wish for such comprehension, and their object, in the negotiations that took place, was to excuse the breach of faith which their rejection of all reasonable methods of concession involved. The chief good that resulted from the Savoy Conference was the production of Baxter’s Reformed Liturgy, a work of remarkable excellence, though it was cast aside without consideration. The same kind of reputation which Baxter had obtained in the country he secured in the larger and more important circle of the metropolis. The power of his preaching was universally felt, and his capacity for business placed him at the head of his party. That he should have been compelled by the activity of party spirit to remain outside the National Church is to be deeply regretted. He had, indeed, been made a king’s chaplain, and was offered the bishopric of Hereford, but he could not accept the offer without virtually assenting to things as they were; after his refusal he was not allowed, even before the passing of the Act of Uniformity, to be a curate in Kidderminster, though he was willing to serve that office gratuitously. Bishop Morley even prohibited him from preaching in the diocese of Worcester. The whole case illustrates afresh the vindictive bitterness of ecclesiastical factions in the heat of party contests, and especially in the hour of secular triumph.
From the Ejectment of 1662 to the Indulgence of 1687, Baxter’s life was constantly disturbed by persecution of one kind or another. He retired to Acton in Middlesex, for the purpose of quiet study, and was dragged thence to prison on an illegal accusation of keeping a conventicle. He was taken up for preaching in London after the licences granted in 1672 were recalled by the king. The meetinghouse which he had built for himself in Oxendon Street was closed against him after he had preached there but once. He was, in 1680, seized in his house, and conveyed away at the risk of his life; and though he was released that he might die at home, his books and goods were distrained. He was in 1684 carried three times to the sessions’ house, being scarcely able to stand, and without any apparent cause was made to enter into a bond for £400 in security for his good behaviour.
But his worst encounter was with Judge Jeffreys in May 1685. He had been committed to the King’s Bench Prison for his Paraphrase on the New Testament, which was ridiculously attempted to be turned into a seditious book, and was tried before Jeffreys on this accusation. The scene of the trial is well known as among the most brutal perversions of justice which have occurred in England. Jeffreys himself acted like an infuriated madman; but there were among his blackguardisms some sparks of intelligence.
Mr Rotlιeram, one of his counsel, said that Baxter frequently attended divine service, went to the sacrament, and persuaded others to do so too, as was certainly and publicly known; and had, in the book charged against him, spoken very moderately and honourably of the bishops of the Church of England. “Baxter for bishops !” Jeffreys.exclaimed, “that’s a merry conceit indeed; turn to it, turn to it.” Upon this, Rotheram read out:—“That great respect is due to those truly called to be bishops among us,” or to that purpose. “Ay,” said Jeffreys, “this is your Fresbyterian cant— truly called to be bishops—that is himself and such rascals, called to be bishops of Kidderminster and other such places, bishops set apart by such factious, snivelling Presbyterians as himself. Λ Kidderminster bishop he means. ’
That was sharp, however coarse; for, putting the case vulgarly, it was “a Kidderminster bishop” that Baxter meant. He was sentenced to pay 500 marks, to lie in prison till the money was paid, and to be bound to his good behaviour for seven years. It was even asserted at the time that Jeffreys proposed he should be whipped at the cart’s tail through London. The old man, for he was now seventy, remaiued in prison for two years.
During the long time of oppression and injury which followed the Ejectment, Baxter was sadly afflicted in body. His whole life was indeed one continιred disease, but in this part of it his pain and languor had greatly increased. Yet this was the period of his greatest activity as a writer. He was a most voluminous author, his separate works, it is said, amounting to 168. A considerable proportion of these, including folios and quartos of the most solid description, were published by him while thus deprived of the common rights of citizenship. How he composed them is matter of wonder. They are as learned as they are elaborate, and as varied in their subject as they are faithfully composed. Such treatises as the Christian Directory, the Methodus Theologiae Christianae, and the Catholic Theology, might each have occupied the principal part of the life of an ordinary man. One earthly consolation he had in all his troubles; he was attended upon by a loving and faithful wife, whom he had married in the Ejectment year. She was much younger than himself, and had been brought up as a lady of wealth and station; but she adhered to him in all his wanderings, sharing his sufferings, and following him to prison; and she has her reward in that Breviate of the Life of Mrs Margaret Baxter, which, while it records her virtues, reveals on the part of her husband a tenderness of nature which might otherwise· have been unknown.
The remainder of Baxter's life, from 1687 onwards, was passed in peace and honour. He continued to preach and to publish almost to the end. He was surrounded by attached friends, and reverenced by the religious world. His saintly behaviour, his great talents, and his wide influence, added to his extended age, raised him to a position of unequalled reputation. He died in London on the 8th of December 1691, being seventy-six years old, and was buried in Christ Church. His funeral was attended by a very large concourse of people of all ranks and professions, including churchmen as well as dissenters. A similar tribute of general esteem was paid to him nearly two centuries later, when a statue was erected to his memory at Kiddermineter in July 1875. On that occasion clergy of all denominations, among whom the bishop of Worcester and the dean of Westminster were conspicuous, took part in the proceedings. - ·
There are few persons of whom we can form a more distinct conception than we can of Richard Baxter. His face is quite familiar to us. His thin and stooping figure we seem to have seen. We can imagine the glance of his piercing eye. Who has not smiled at the intensity of his argumentative nature Ï He thought every one was amenable to reason—bishops and levellers included. See him contending with the military sectaries in the church at Chesham, from morning to night, when “he took the reading-pew, and Pichford’s cornet and troopers took the gallery.” Follow him, undeterred by his former want of success, to the church at Bewdley, where he disputed all day with Mr Tombs about infant baptism. Read his correspondence with Dr John Owen relative to the union of Presbyterians with Independents, in which his eagernese amusingly contrasts with Owen’s hesitation. Watch him hour after hour in hand-to-hand controversy with Dr Gunning at the Savoy Conference, when all the town looked at them as at two boxers in a ring. These are but specimens of other like exhibitions. And yet he was as far as possible from being a quarrelsome man. It was in charity for his opponents that he fought. His pertinacity in contention was the fruit of the sincerity of his aims. He must have been a delightful companion to those who shared his religious or scholastic sympathies. How pleasant and profitable it would have been to witness the intimate intercourse at Acton between him and Sir Matthew Hale! He was at once a man of fixed belief and large appreciation, so that his dogmatism and his liberality sometimes came into collision. There was a universality in his genius which distinguishes him from most other men. His popularity as a preacher was deservedly pre-eminent; but no more diligent student ever shut himself up with his books. He was singularly fitted for intellectual debate, but his devotional tendency was equally strong with his logical aptitude. Some of his writings, from their metaphysical subtilty, will always puzzle the learned; but he could write to the level of the common heart without loss of dignity or pointedness. His Reasons for the Christian Religion is still, for its evidential purpose, better than most works of its class. His Poor Man’s Family Book is a manual that continues to be worthy of its title. His Saints’ Everlasting Rest will always command the grateful admiration of pious readers. Perhaps no thinker has exerted so great an influence upon Nonconformity as Baxter has done, and that not in one direction only, but in every form of development, doctrinal, ecclesiastical, and practical. He is the type of a distinct class of the Christian ministry,—that class which aspires after scholarly training, prefers a broad to a sectarian theology, and adheres to rational methods of religious investigation and appeal. The rational element in him was very strong. He had a settled hatred to fanaticism. Even Quakerism he could scarcely endure. An infusion of ideal sentiment would have been beneficial to the conduct of his life, as well as to his expositions of truth. The ministers of whom he was the type are to be found in all divisions of the Christian church, but with characteristic modifications. Sometimes their rationalism is most distinctive, sometimes their learning, sometimes their sympathetic feeling. But Baxter excels most of the men he thus represents in his union of those qualities, as well as in the intense sense of religion by which he was actuated. Religion was with him all and in all,—that by which all besides was measured, and to whose interests all else was subordinated.
A good Life of Baxter, by the Rev. William Orme, was prefixed to his Practical Works (published in 23 volumes); Dr Calamy abridged his Life and Times. The abridgment forms the first volume of the account of the ejected ministers, but whoever refers to it should also acquaint himself with the reply to the accusations which had been brought against Baxter, and which will be found in the second volume of Calamy’s Continuation. Sir James Stephen’s interesting paper on Baxter, contributed originally to the Edinl>urgh Review, is reprinted in the second volume of his Essays. The best recent estimates of Baxter are those given by Principal Tulloch in his English Puritanism and its Leaders, and by Dean Stanley in his address at the inauguration of the statue to Baxter at Kidderminster. But most valuable of all is Baxter’s autobiography, called Reliquioe Baxterianoe, or Mr Richard Baxter’s Narrative of the most memorable Passages of his Life and Times. It is almost as real as a personal knowledge of its subject could have been. The account he gives at the end of Part I. of the spiritual changes he had undergone will never cease to be regarded as a rare and profoundly interesting instance of faithful self-knowledge, and it has served the cause of Christian charity more, probably, than any treatise ever written on the subject.
There are two testimonies to Baxter’s worth which, though they have frequently been quoted, cannot be omitted from any fair notice of him. Dr Barrow said that “his practical writings were never mended, and his controversial ones seldom confuted,” and Bishop Wilkins asserted that “if he had lived in the primitive time he had been one of the fathers of the church.”
[419 words — estimated reading time: 3 minutes]
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. BAY-TREE. אזרח. It is mentioned only in Psalm xxxvii, 35, 36: “I have seen the ungodly in great power, and flourishing like a green bay-tree. Yet he passed away, and lo, he was not. Yea, I sought him, but he could not be found.” Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Kimchi, Jerom, and some others say that the original may mean only _a native tree_; a tree growing in its native soil, not having suffered by transplantation. Such a tree spreads itself luxuriantly. The Septuagint and Vulgate render it _cedars_; but the high Dutch of Luther’s Bible, the old Saxon, the French, the Spanish, the Italian of Diodati, and the version of Ainsworth, make it the laurel.
[3,407 words — estimated reading time: 20 minutes]