Baxters Aphorisms, Part 2 · Chapter 18
CHAP. XVIII.
Whether Mr. Baxters Plea here be of ſufficiency to prove his Doctrine free from Socinianiſm.
THe ſecond aſperſion of infamy, from which he endeavours to vindicate his doctrine is Socinianiſm: This hee goeth about to do in theſe words:
Bax. p. 306. But what difference is there betwixt it and the Socinian doctrine of Juſtification? Anſw. In ſome mens mouths, Socinianiſm is but a word of reproach, or a ſtone to throw at the head of any man that ſaith not as they. Mr. Wotton is a Socinian, and Mr. Bradſhaw, and Mr. Gataker, and Mr. Goodwin, and why not Piſcator, Pareus, &c. if ſome zealous Divines know what Socinianiſm is. But I had rather ſtudy what is Scripture-truth than what is Socinianiſm. I do not thinke that Fauſtus was ſo infauſtus as to hold nothing true. That wch he held according to Scripture is not Socinianiſm. For my part I have read little of their writings, but that little gave me enough, and made me caſt them away with abhorrence. In a word, The Socinians acknowledg not that Chriſt had ſatisfied the Law for us, & conſequently is none of our legall righteouſneſs, but only hath ſet us a Copie to write after, and is become our pattern, and that we are juſtified by following him as a Captain and guide to heaven; and ſo all our proper Righteouſneſs is in this Obedience. Moſt accurſed Doctrine! ſo far am I from this, that I ſay, The Righteouſneſs which we muſt plead againſt the Laws Accuſation, is not one grain of it in our Faith or Works, but all out of us in Christs ſatisfaction. Only our Faith, Repentance, and ſincere Obedience are the conditions upon which wee muſt partake of the former: And yet ſuch conditions as Chriſt worketh in us frely by his Spirit.
How forcible and unreſiſtible is the power of Conſcience, flying in the face of the guilty, and accuſing where men applaud, or at leaſt hold their peace? Who either of men or Angels could have charged Mr. Br. for ſaying that which he had not yet ſaid? or for venting Socinian Doctrine in his writings before he had yet written? What none els can do, M. Br. is forced by Conſcience to do againſt himſelf: to arraign himſelf at the Bar for Socinianiſm. Conſcience is the accuſer, what Patron will he retein to be his defender? Nothing out of himſelf can ſuffice to anſwer an accuſer within himſelf: Therefore he fees Reaſon, that is his ſophiſticated, and ſopiſticall wit, art, and craft, to plead his Cauſe againſt Conſcience.
The firſt of theſe exceptions which theſe make for him againſt the Charge, is the abuſe which ſome make of this imputation, laying it upon all that ſpeak not as they.
But 1. This is beſides the Charge: Theſe ſome had not then ſpoken againſt Mr. Br. it is the accuſation of his own conſcience which he ſhould have anſwered, and he hnows it not to have confederated with thoſe ſome of whom he ſpeaketh.
2. I know none of thoſe ſome that have layd that aſperſion upon any of thoſe Divines which he mentioneth ſave one; and that one I ſuppoſe would be very angry with any other man in England (M. Br. alone excepted) that ſhould go about to rob him of that honour which Mr. Br. calls a reproach. It is for brotherhoodsſake that he hears it from him.
3. But his craft herein is to befool his Readers with an opinion that he is of the ſame judgment with Pareus, Wotton, Gataker, &c. of whom they that are dead have as much ſhewed their abhorrency from, and oppoſition againſt his Doctrines, as any that have lived upon earth. And thoſe that are living, if they be conſiſtent with themſelves in their former writings (whereof I nothing doubt) are as far from Mr Br. as he is from Chriſt and his truth.
4. His jeer that he caſteth upon them that are Adverſaries to his Doctrine, terming them Zealous Divines, infinuating that they have zeale without knowledg and learning, I leave as proper to him that in that way of wiſdom and righteouſneſs which his own reaſon either as refined with Philoſophy, or corrupted with Sophiſtry ſuggeſteth, ſeeks for juſtification and eternall glory. Let us be accounted fools to the world, and no bodies in that which is falſly called ſcience, ſo that we may be wiſe in, and zealous for that which is the power and wiſedom of God to ſalvation.
The ſecond Plea which he makes for himſelf is the ſinglenes and ſincerity of his ſtudies, bent rather to ſeek out what is Scripture truth than what is Socinianiſm, & that he thinks that Socinus his Nature, Studies, and Attainments did not ſo much vary from his name. Fauſtus, the happy, that he ſhould be ſo unhappy as to hold nothing true: and conſequently that neither himſelf is ſo unhappy, but that he hath learned ſome Truths from this happy Socinus, and perhaps ſuch as he could never learn from Chriſt, his Apoſtles, or faithfull Miniſters.
But 1. This may be ſaid of Fauſtus the Conjurer, who by giving himſelf to the Devill, did not exterminate all notions of all truths from his ſoul. Will Mr Br. be his Diſciple alſo? Both had the like effectuall influence from Satan, neither know I which to prefer.
2. Who ſent Mr. Br. to learn from ſuch Teachers? to ſeek for light in darkneſs, or Heaven in Hell, or Scripture-Truth, in the precept of Pagans, or gloſſes of Papiſts, or Socinus his God Reaſon? Is it not becauſe there is no God in Iſrael, that he goes to enquire of Baal-zebab the God of Ekron? 2 King. 1. 3. The Lord Jeſus rebuketh, ſilenceth, and refuſeth to hear the Spirit of lies, even when hee ſpeaks truth, Mar. 1. 23, 24, 25. and abandoneth the ſpirituall Devil no leſs than if he had blaſphemed, Mat. 4. So alſo Paul, Acts 16. 16-18. The truth of Chriſt needs not any, diſdains all props from Hell to ſuſtain it. He that will not dip from the fountain, but at the pools which the unclean beaſts have defiled, let him without our envy have mudd and dung enough in the water which he drinketh.
3. It is much to be doubted the mans heart deceives him. Were his ſtudie ſo unfeigned and ſerious to know what is Scripture truth, he would more ſtudy the Scripture it ſelf, and leſs Bellarmin, Socinus, Arminius, and ſuch like Sophiſters, whoſe whole ſtudy it is to corrupt all, and to leave no Scripture unperverted.
4. Had he not ploughed with Socinus his Heyfers (or rather Bulls) he could never have ſowed ſo much darnell in the field of Chriſt.
The third Plea which he bringeth to prove that his Doctrine is free from Socinianiſm is, becauſe there is one point wherein hee diſſenteth from Secinus. That Socinus and his followers deny any expiatory ſacrifice that Chriſt hath offred to God to ſatisfie his Juſtice for our ſins; or that ther is any effectual vertue in Chriſts death to purge our Conſciences from dead works. But that he becomes our Saviour only in this, that [he hath given us more perfect precepts of Righteouſneſs than were contained in the Law and the Prophets, and withall he] hath given us a Copie or pattern by his own practice to which we muſt be conformed: And ſo we muſt be juſtified (not by the blood of Chriſt, but) by our own obedience in following theſe precepts and this pattern which he hath given us. In this point Mr. Br. profeſſeth himſelf ſo farr from joyning with him, that hee caſteth off this Doctrine with abhorrence.
But this reaſoning hath no ſoundneſs in it: For
1 It is the ſame, as if I ſhould argue, that Goliah was not of the race of the Giants, becauſe he had not upon each hand ſix fingers, and upon each foot ſix toes, at ſome of the Giants progeny had, and poſſibly the Giant himſelf. Or that Mr. Br. ſhould ſeek by this Argument to prove himſelf no Engliſh-man, becauſe he dwels neerer the Severn than Thames. So alſo might the Jews elude the words of Chriſt, and Elymas the words of Paul, as ſlanderous, arguing themſelves not to be the children of the Devill, becauſe they had fleſh and bone, ſo had not the Devill. They had never carried Chriſt aloft, and ſet him on a pinacle of the Temple (fearing they might fall headlong thence themſelves) ſo had the Devill. The ſeed, the Luſts of the Devil abiding and reigning in them, ſpake them out to be children of the Devill, though they brake not out in them into every particular Act as in the Devill. The utmoſt that M. Br. can from ſuch premiſſes conclude is, that (though in many things els it be, yet) in this one his Doctrine is not aſperſed with Socinianiſm.
2. I think it will not be objected by any to M. Br. that he is ambitious in all things to be a Socinian, but in ſuch only wherein the Socinians are moſt ſubtle Sophiſters than the Jeſuites, and doe bring more ſhew of ſophiſticated reaſon to exalt Popery than the Papiſts themſelves, and with greater plauſibility and craft do pervert the truth and ſimplicity of the Goſpel, more extolling mans pride, and more nullifying Gods grace, than any of the Champions of the Pope had either the wit or the audacity to do untill theſe had taught them. If then in the before-mentioned point hee holds not with Socinus, no marvell, for then ſhould he have relinquiſhed the Papiſts. I do not think that his wits do run in Pilgrimage to Racovia, upon any other grounds but in love to Rome, and in abhorrence of free Jeruſalem, Gal. 4. 26.
3. Hee ſhould have cleered (if hee could) his Doctrine from other peeces of Socinianiſm, which he knows it guilty of, & would be objected againſt him. As 1. His To Credere, or Act of believing, juſtifying a ſinner 2. All other works of obedience, as our Acts or works, juſtifying in an equality, and in the ſame manner with Faith (without mentioning any vertue that they have from the death of Chriſt to this end, as the Papiſts teach, but rather that Chriſt fetcheth vertue from theſe to juſtifie:) 3 His doctrine of Gods diſpenſing with, and relaxing of his Law. To which I might add in the 4th. place, his canonizing and almoſt deifying Reaſon, and that without any adject of (renewed or ſpirituallized, even of) naturall and ſophiſticall reaſon, to which he doth ſo frequently in his book almoſt ſacrifice as to the ſole and ſufficient Judg of the Scriptures, and guide unto ſalvation. Theſe things he cannot deny to be originally from Socinus, though probably brought home to him by other dirty Channels, and not dipt from the ſpring or rather puddle it ſelf. It is but a vain piece of his ſophiſtry to defend himſelf where none will accuſe, and to hide himſelf in the dark, where ke knows he ſhould meet with oppoſition and accuſation.
4 He profeſſeth himſelf to be but yet a puny in the School of Secinus, hath read but little of their doctrine, yet is much ſowred with the Leaven thereof, when hee hath more fully tryed the quaintnes & depth of their ſophiſtry (in which his ſoul delighteth more than in the plainnes & fooliſhnes of the Goſpel) who knoweth whether he may not, following ſuch a guide as reaſō, at length alſo ſup up with pleaſure what now he caſteth off with defiance? the Apoſt. ſpeaks ſomthing that may put us in fear of it, 2 Tim. 3. 13.
5 Even this error of Socinus, againſt which in ſpeciall he proteſteth his abhorrence, he doth in generall maintain with as ſtrong a Front as any of the Socinians. They ſay that Chriſt offereth ſalvation to all, but it is every particular mans particular faith and obedience, their actuall believing and obeying, following his precepts and treading in his ſteps to the end, that in the end makes him to be actually and effectually a Saviour to them. And this is the ſum and full dimenſion of Mr. Brs. doctrine. Only they make Chriſt the Prophet chiefly, but this man Chriſt as Prieſt and King, to be the Saviour. In this they both agree, that except we by our own righteouſneſſ become ſelf-Saviours, we ſhall have no ſalvation by him.
What elſe he hath in this Section for the vindicating, yea magnifying of his doctrine, hath been oft ſpoken to already, and will a little after be examined again, where hee uſeth the Tantundem, though not literally the Idem of theſe words, to apologize for his doctrine againſt other crimes imputable to it.