on its many sides, if it has many; and to reconcile aspects of truth which to hasty and prejudiced thinkers seem contradictory. Hence he has given occasion to the charge of inconsistency. His opinions have been a battle-ground for critics ever since he left the world; and in this respect he has attained a position honourable in one point of view, dubious in another--like that of Origen. A great thinker, a great debater, an eloquent expounder of his own convictions, he has been pronounced a heretic by some members of his own Church, and his orthodoxy has been endorsed by members of Churches not his own. It is a curious illustration of the difficulty of deciding what were Baxter’s sentiments on some intricate subjects, that his most copious and intelligent biographer should first say, that he was neither a Calvinist, nor an Arminian--should next assert his claims to be considered a faithful follower of the Synod of Dort,--and should finally pronounce this verdict: “Baxter was probably such an Arminian as Richard Watson, and as much a Calvinist as the late Dr. Edward Williams.” [Sidenote: BAXTER.] After such a verdict, I cannot hope successfully to thread the mazes of Baxter’s theology. Yet there are a few conclusions which appear to me undeniable. He took a Calvinistic view of the Divine decrees. Several passages, probably, might be found in his writings apparently inconsistent with the Genevan doctrine, but what convinces me that he held it substantially, is not so much his confession, that he accepted the decisions of the Synod of Dort (upon which his biographer just mentioned insists), for Baxter sometimes interpreted statements after a manner of his own,--as the fact that in his treatise _On Conversion_, when dealing with such as say, “Those that God will save shall be saved, whatsoever they be, and those that He will damn, shall be damned,”--instead of cutting the matter short, as an Arminian would do, by denying the Calvinistic dogma altogether, our Divine goes on to guard against the abuses of that dogma; and to argue that people should act in relation to the decrees of Grace, as they do respecting the decrees of Providence. He finishes by saying just what Calvinists say,--“God hath not ordinarily decreed the end without the means, and if you will neglect the means of salvation it is a certain mark that God hath not decreed you to salvation.”[536] Baxter’s opinions of the efficacy of Christ’s death resemble those of John Goodwin, rather than those of Thomas Goodwin. For he remarks, “God hath made a universal deed of gift of Christ and life to all the world, on condition that they will but accept the offer. In this testament or promise, or act of oblivion, the sins of all the world are conditionally pardoned, and they are conditionally justified, and reconciled to God.”[537] [Sidenote: BAXTER.]