either can from hence conclude that God is in some manner he does not understand three and yet one which is all the notion any one can have of the Trinity Here is no such remote distance between the word and the consequence but any one of the meanest Capacity may find out for Men in their ordinary business every day make conclusions at a wider distance from their premises than this or else I am sure they are not fit to live or deal in the World As to what he instances in the consequence which the Papists draw from Christ's bidding Peter seed his Lambs the Papists when they think fit may answer that for themselves 3. The Third Qualification he gives for Matter of Faith is That it be expresly honoured in Scripture with the promise of Eternal Life Now 't is a little arbitrary methinks in the Authour to lay down a Rule here as he does and give no reason for it especially such a one as he might reasonably expect would be contested and 〈◊〉 one should make bold to deny it he would I believe have a difficult Task of it to prove That every particular Article of only the Apostles Creed had the Promise of Eternal Life expresly annexed to it in Scripture He first tells us a wonderful thing That every thing in Scripture though it be equally true yet it is not equally Gospel and for the Proof of this he brings in the business of Paul's Cloak which he left behind him But I hope the Doctrine of our Saviour's Divinity is of something more Importance to those that believe it especially than the Relation of Paul's Cloak And if we should ask any Socinian in the World whether supposing it true it was not of greater Importance than this I believe the Vnitarian himself would give such an Answer as would make the Authour ashamed of such an impudent and saucy Comparison And now one would think that the Man that would be so bold as to make this Comparison would bring something to prove That the Belief of Christ's Divinity had not Eternal Life promised to it or that all other Doctrines which were required to be believed had But instead of this he brings one Text of Scripture which makes perfectly against the Doctrine he designs to establish and that is Mark 16. 15. Go ye into all the World and preach the Gospel to every Creature He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned Now if the Doctrine of our Saviour's Divinity be revealed in the Gospel as we have shewn it is and the Belief of the Gospel have Eternal Life promised to it then the Belief of Christ's Divinity has a Title to this Promise as well as the Belief of the Resurrection or any other Christian Doctrine because it is revealed in the Gospel as well as that From this Rule thus firmly established he draws four Corollaries First There is no need of an Interpreter of Scripture or Determiner of Doubts in Matter of Faith Secondly The Scriptures cannot be denyed to be sufficient Thirdly We need not ought not to be uncharitable to any who differ from us in other Doctrines to the Belief whereof the Promise is not appropriated Fourthly There is no need of a Catalogue of Fundamentals How well these Corollaries follow from his Proposition I shall not now dispute though upon examination I believe the Consequence would not be so genuine and there might be some occasion for one of the Authour's Heralds to derive it but as for the Two first of them they make nothing at all against the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity which the Authour knows well enough we do not ground upon Infallibility and pure Tradition but only he has a Mind to give us a Cast of his Heretical Malice by blackening this Doctrine as much as he could and by making it look something more of a Romanish Complexion As to his Third Corollary First That is grounded upon Supposition That the Belief of Christ's Divinity has not the Promise of Eternal Life annexed to it Now I wonder with what Confidence the Authour can go about to invalidate a Truth which is so firmly established even upon his own Principles How often in one Chapter of St. John's Gospel Joh. 3. is Eternal Life promised to Belief in the Son God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life Joh. 3. 16. He that believeth on him is not condemned v. 18. He that believeth on the Son hath eternal Life By all which believing is meant a believing in Christ's Divinity and not a believing the Truth of his Doctrine for believing in is only attributable to God as implying an unlimited Trust and Relyance in him which it is Idolatry to afford to any Creature For there is a great deal of difference between credere Deo believing God and credere in Deum believing in him which is a Distinction which is made great use of by some of the Latin Fathers and the School-men they allowing bare believing to be applicable to a Creature but that none is to be believed in but Almighty God But besides there are other Texts of Scripture which do promise Eternal Life namely and expresly to the Belief of Christ's Divinity This is life eternal that they may know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Joh. 17. 3. Now what can be meant by knowing Jesus Christ but knowing or believing his Divinity That he was Man they could not chuse but know that he was a Prophet his Miracles shew'd so that they could know him no other way truly but only by knowing his Divinity And this was the Purport of our Saviour's Prayer just before That God would glorifie him that is would make his Divinity conspicuous to the World v. 1. which he puts out of all doubt by his explaining his meaning v. 5. And now O Father glorifie thou me with thy own self with the glory which I had with thee before the World was Now that Glory which he had before the World could be only the Glory of his Divinity therefore the Promise of Eternal Life was made to the knowing or believing Christ's Divinity The same thing is as plainly expressed 1 Joh. 5. 20. And hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true and we are in him that is true even in his Son Jesus Christ This is the true God even eternal life Where he that is the true God is said to be Jesus Christ and the knowing him to be the true God i. e. believing him to be such is promised to be rewarded with Eternal Life Secondly As to his saying we ought not to be uncharitable to those that differ from us in Points which have not this Promise this depends upon the Truth of his Assertion that those Truths he means have not such a Promise in Scripture
of his being certified of the Resurrection My Lord and my God our Saviour gives his blessing not only to him but to all those that shall believe this without being Eye-witnesses of his Resurrection to confirm them in it Blessed are they which have not seen and yet have believed And thus we find our Saviour did many of his miraculous Cures in requital of their Faith and their ready confession of his Divinity as on the blind Man Mat. 20. that cryed out so vehemently have mercy on me O Lord thou Son of David and Luke 17. when the blind Man cries out Jesus thou Son of David have mercy on me our Saviour tells him upon his Cure thy faith hath saved thee v. 4. Where by the Son of David is meant the Messias who according to the Jewish Doctors was to be God So that this Confession of his being the Son of David was a Confession of his Divinity which was a great means to incline our Saviour to work their Cure and to tell one of them that his Faith had saved him And thus we have let our Author know there was some other use of Faith at the beginning of the Gospel than what he mentions and that there was not only a need of Faith to strengthen them against the dangers c. which the Gospel brought on them but to make them believe in Christ's Divinity and to profess that most important Article of our Christian Faith 2. The next thing which the Authour in this Chapter would have is That Faith in the Gospel has no relation to Christ's Divinity because he says God like a good Prince would not load his good subjects with unnecessary burdens but only such as there was reason for and which were necessary to Piety and a good Life Now I hope that our Authour and his Friends for all their pretence to reason will not be so bold with God Almighty as to give the Rationale of all his Commands and exactly to shew the motives that inclined his Eternal Will whose Judgments are unsearchable and his ways past finding out I confess I have always lookt upon it as a very daring piece of Confidence in these sort of Authours to say in case of a positive Command That God has not Commanded such a thing or This Command must not be understood in this manner because there is no reason that he should thus command us or as our Authour says 'T is to dishonour God to believe him to require Faith for any other reason than because it is necessary for our incouragement to Holiness or as he says afterwards For its serviceableness to the Divine Life For though we could see no reason for such a Command yet God may and 't is but reasonable as well as modest to think that God understands the reason of his own Laws best and that he that gave us these Precepts best understood the ends for which he designed them But because the Authour should not triumph too much over us poor dull Trinitarians or think there is no reason to be given why Faith in the persons of the Blessed Trinity should be commanded us or in particular that the Belief of the Divinity of our Saviour which it is our Authour 's chief design to impugn as appears by his following Chapters least I say he should think this Belief does contribute nothing to Religion and Piety let him be pleased to take with him these considerations First That to believe the Divinity of our Saviour is necessary to Religion because by it there is gained a greater Authority to his Laws For we find that Men are more and more inclined to respect Rules and Laws from the dignity of the person that gives them The Rules and Injunctions of ordinary persons are usually contemned and slighted though if the same came from a great and magnificent Person they would be embraced with a great deal of eagerness and veneration Therefore in compassion to this infirmity of Mankind it has pleased the infinite Wisdom and Goodness of God to let a Person of the Divine Nature the Son of his Bosom to take our nature upon him to be himself the propounder of these Heavenly Rules of his holy Gospel to be himself the Promiser of all those glorious Rewards which he vouchsafes to propose to those that shall obey his Precepts Now such a Person as this could be liable to no exceptions though a Prophet might be mistaken in his Revelation might outgo or misapply his Credentials yet when God himself undertakes the Embassage malice it self can except nothing here so that this will be proof against the utmost Infidelity Secondly This Belief does further Religion because it improves our Love and Gratitude to God upon consideration of so immense a benefit Indeed it had been a great token of God's love to Mankind any ways to have contrived our Redemption to have rescued us from that forlorn miserable Estate into which we were fallen and to have placed us in a Capacity of attaining Everlasting Happiness But then his love is far greater to us when he hath sent his only begotten Son to die for our sins and to purchase our Redemption by such an unvaluable price And we may take notice that the Apostles do place the choisest mark of God's love in chusing such extraordinary means to work Mens Salvation by as the Incarnation and Death of his own Son God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son Joh. 3. 16. God spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all Rom. 8. 32. Herein is love not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins 1 Joh. 4. 10. And truly this consideration that a Person of the glorious Trinity one that is God blessed for ever should for the sake of us wretched Sinners undergo such an exinanition as to take our nature upon him to live a miserable Life and to die a shameful Death to reconcile us unto God this consideration I say is of all most apt to work upon generous Minds to hinder them from offending so good and gracious a God after such an unparallel'd Mercy and nothing can be so effectual to make Men ashamed of the ingratitude of their Sins if they have any the least spark of Generosity or Vertue when they reflect upon this so inexpressible goodness Thirdly Because this Belief does secure us of the remission of our sins by an assurance we now have of the compleat satisfaction which Christ has made for the sins of all Men. We know our Saviour came into the World that Repentance and Remission of Sins should be Preached in his Name Now we are certain that it is not possible for the blood of Bulls and Goats to take away sin Heb. 10. 4. and we are as certain that the blood of meer Man would be as far from doing it as the other so that we could have no assurance of our Redemption
at all unless we were redeemed by the blood of God Act. 10. 28. For because our sins had received an infinite aggravation by being against a God of infinite Dignity as all offences are increased proportionably as the person offended is of greater worth and therefore these sins had entailed upon them an infinite punishment it was impossible that any satisfaction could be made by any thing less than an infinite Person because none but such an one could pay the infinite price that was due and he might do it because the temporary punishment in the infinite dignity of his Person was a full equivalent to the infinity of punishment which was due to us So that this belief of our Saviour's Divinity is necessary to the believing the remission of our sins and so to be sure is necessary to Piety CHAP. VI. Of Faith in Christ as the Saviour of the World THE Authour here divides the Faith of Christ into two objects of Belief I. The Person in whom we believe II. The Word in which we believe upon the credit of the Person In treating of the first of these he declares First What kind of Person our Lord requires us to believe him to be Secondly What is meant by believing in him And when he comes to shew what kind of Person our Saviour declares himself to be he makes a fine Company of Socinian glosses upon Scripture which it will be worth our while a little to consider For whereas he is mightily afraid that the titles of the Son of God c. would be a pregnant proof of our Saviour's Divinity he is resolved to distinguish them of by a few Polish Criticisms For first he says that God in Scripture is used to express something which is indefinite and which implies more than we can readily express From whence he would inferr that the Title of Son of God is no Argument for Christ's Divinity but only that he is some extraordinary remarkable Person But let us a little examine the Instances he brings The first is God do so to me and more also Now can any mortal Man conclude from hence that the word God is used to signify something indefinite The word more does signify something indefinite indeed but the word God signifies no more than it does in other places and the Authour might as well have transcribed all the Texts in the Bible in which he found the word God as this and they would have been as much to his purpose I know not what particular Text the Authour does refer to for this expression for 't is in many and as far as can be collected 't was a form of Cursing in use among the Jews about the time of Samuel and some time after for 't is found only in the Historical Writers of those times 1 Sam. 3. 17. and 4. 44. and 25. 22. 2 Sam. 3. 9. and 35. 2 Sam. 19. 3. 1 Kings 2. 23. 2 King 6. 13. Sometimes by way of adjuration to another as of old Eli to Samuel God do so to thee and more also if thou hide any thing from me of all the things that he said unto thee 1 Sam. 3. 17. that is I charge thee to tell me all the threatnings which God tells thee or else may all and more than he threatens light on thee Other times by way of imprecation of mischief on ones self as in the case of Solomon 1 King 2. 23. God do so to me and more also if Adonijah have not spoken this against his own life i. e. I will for this Crime take away Adonijah's Life or else may God take away mine or punish me worse than I intend to punish him And so in the other places where the word God has not an indefinite Sense but there is only a wishing of some Evil or Punishment which is indefinite greater than the Evil there pointed at but not expressed of how large a Degree of Greatness His Second Instance is out of Joel 4. 12. Because I will do this unto thee prepare to meet thy God O Israel Now I don't see what more indefinite signification there is in the word God here than in other places Indeed there is the severest denunciation of God's Judgments upon an irreclaimable People after Famine Pestilence Sword and Fire so that God tells them seeing they are proof against all these scourges he will try what they can do against him when he personally becomes their Adversary and see if they are able to cope with him too Prepare then to meet thy God O Israel 'T is not the word God here that does signifie any indefinite number of Evils but that God does Sarcastically upbraid their Obstinacy after all his Judgments having been ineffectual upon them by proposing his infinite Power as a Match for them if nothing else can be Prepare c. A bitter Sarcasm says the excellent Dean of Paul's as if a man could be a match for God and a poor weak creature be in any wise able to encounter him to whom Power belongs Another Notion the Authour has got Why Christ should be called the Son of God is because he is a considerable Person one of great Note and Eminence it being the Scripture Idiom to advance things by entitling them to God as the Mountains of God and the Rivers of God were those that were most eminent in their kind It is true That this sort of Expression is usual in Scripture to denote something that is great as the Mountain of God the Cedar of God Nimrod was a mighty Hunter before the Lord or a Hunter of God With great Wrestlings have I wrestled with my Sister says Rachel or with the Wrestlings of God Baptholi Elohim Luctationibus Dei But it does not follow from hence That our Saviour was called the Son of God because he was a great Person By this way of speaking he might well enough be stiled the Man of God or the Prophet of God to denote him a great Man or a great Prophet but in no propriety of speech the Son of God for the word Son does not denote the Person but Relation so that the Son of God is one to whom God does bear the relation of a Father Therefore 't is not his Greatness that entitles him thus to God but his Filiation for if it was only his Greatness that entituled him to this Character the mighty Nimrod or the great Mountain might upon this account be called the Sons of God as well as he because they were great in their kind as well as he Well but says the Authour Daniel makes the Son of God be a Character of one of great Beauty and Majesty by calling the Fourth Person in Nebuchadnezzar's Furnace by that name There is no reason to assert That this Fourth Person here was the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity for as the Authour says we can't suppose Nebuchadnezzar to have seen the Son of God before and upon that account to have known him All that
Trinity And though all that is recorded of the belief of this Eunuch is that he believed that Jesus Christ is the Son of God yet it is to be supposed that he believed in God the Father too or else Philip would not have baptized him and 't is also very reasonable to think that he that was so inquisitive about the sense of the Prophecies would not be less exact in endeavouring to understand the meaning of this strange form of his Baptism a Ceremony which was of so grand import But we find in latter times when History and Relations are more distinct that persons to be baptized were to recite their Creed into which they were throughly instructed before by a full explanation of all its Articles and if in case of extream danger they were like to die before they were sufficiently instructed though they were then baptized yet they were obliged to be sufficiently instructed afterwards if they recovered They were also particularly obliged to give their assent in Baptism to each single person of the Trinity upon each of the three immersions Now this trine immersion in token of the Faith in the Trinity St. Jerom says was observed by ancient Tradition in the Church and that they were thrice immerged that there might appear one Sacrament of the three Persons Nay the same Father tells us farther in another place that 't was a Custom in the Church for the forty days before Baptism that in the days of Lent they being baptized at Easter the Persons to be baptized should be throughly instructed in the Doctrine of the Trinity So that whereas it was the use of the Church in the most early times to instruct Persons to be baptized in the Doctrine of the Trinity and this Custom was deliver'd down to them by Tradition and it being not to be supposed but that Men of sense would enquire of their own accord into the meaning of the form of their Baptism which would lead them into the knowledge of this Doctrine for to be baptized into the name of any one is to be baptized into the belief and worship of him so that this does necessarily inform them of three Persons to be believed in and worshipped which three Persons they are sure can be but one God therefore these primitive Proselytes were instructed in the Mystery of the Trinity The next Argument the Authour urges is from a place in Justin Martyr in whose days the Authour acknowledges the Doctrine of our Saviours Divinity to be the Doctrine most received but because Justin says in a very soft expression there are some my Friends among us who profess him to be Christ and affirm him to be Man born of Men therefore they that did believe so were reckoned true Believers I know not but that the Authour was helped to this Argument by Faustus Socinus who brings this Authority of Justin to prove that many in that Age held Christ only to be meer Man But however if by Unbelievers the Authour means perfect Infidels that did not own the Doctrine of Jesus Christ or that he was sent of God but looked on him as a downright Imposter I do not think that those persons Justin speaks of were such or were reputed such in the Church at that time yet though they were not reckoned Unbelievers in that sense they were reckoned false Believers or Heterodox they were probably Ebionites or some such Hereticks that looked upon Christ as meer Man or else an Angel incarnate or something of that nature and though they were reputed Christians it was never as Orthodox ones though they might be thought to be in a state of Salvation yet they were always lookt upon to be in very gross Errours But it does not follow that their Opinions were harmless because Justin calls them Friends he undoubtedly had Friends among the Heathens as well as the Hereticks and I suppose our Authour would take it very ill if all Orthodox Christians should commence Enemies to him for his Opinions in this Book So that the good nature and charitableness of this good Man could no more palliate the guilt of these Mens wicked Heresies than their Blasphemies could lessen his Vertues The Authour afterwards begins to be very gay and florid and says that the Orthodox belief of our Saviour's Divinity which he pretends to be contrary to that of the Ancients is like Diamonds costly hard and useless that our Saviours being brought into Questions of this nature is like Gold being made into a Pin which is only to debase his dignity and to employ it at Boys-play But who ever said that our Lord's name being in any Proposition gave truth or dignity to it purely as such Our Authour may be as merry with his Push-pin simile as he pleases but I think there is as little sense in this Declamatory stuff as there is to use his expression of that noble Metal in the point of his Pin. But though the Question of our Saviour's Divinity does not receive its importance by having our Saviour's name in it yet it may from the Command of God who has obliged us to believe aright in this point it may from the conducibleness of such a belief to a good Life as we have proved before and then all these fine simile's are not to much purpose But our Authour as he began this Chapter with the Testimony of an Emperour he ends it with one of a Lord though perhaps he had plaid the Orator better if he had given out his least Testimony first and have begun with the Lord and ended with the Emperour Though this Testimony I believe will stand him in no more stead than the former as upon examination will appear Now this Testimony is of one Leonas a Courtier in Constantius's Court who was sent by that Emperour to preside in the Council of Seleucia who seeing the Bishops fierce and endless he says at this push-pin Doctrine of our Lord's Divinity dismissed them with this reprimand Go and play the Fools at home The Authour quotes Socrates for this though these words are not in him there are indeed these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Get you gone and play the Fool again in the Church or in Church matters But I cannot imagine why the Author should translate it as he does unless perhaps he has met with some latin translation of Socrates or some latin Authour that quoted this place out of him which led him into this errour And this in all probability is the true case He finds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated by abite domum or ite domum and so thinks the word domum belongs to the latter part of the Sentence not to abite but to nugas agite the translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so renders it into English play the Fool at home But whether this be the case or no it is no great matter the Testimony is not very considerable and besides it does not make any
which we have proved the Doctrine of our Saviour's Divinity to have So that upon our Authour 's own Principles we may reason thus If Eternal Life be promised to those and to those only that believe Christ's Divinity then those that do dis-believe it have no Title to Eternal Life But we have proved that Christ has promised it to those and to those only that believe his Divinity therefore c. For Christ's promising Eternal Life to those that should believe his Divinity supposes the Promise is to them only for if it were to be given to others it were no kind of Invitation and Encouragement to them for to believe it seeing then they might attain it without it If the Consequence which is naturally drawn from this be uncharitable 't is what results from the Author 's own Principles which he himself has laid down and then he may thank himself for that As to his Fourth Corollary That then there is no need of a Catalogue of Fundamentals this is a stroke too of his usual Confidence by which he taxes no less Men than the very Apostles themselves of a foolish uncessary labour For if there was no need of a Catalogue of Fundamentals why should the Apostle exhort Timothy so earnestly to hold fast the form of sound words which was undoubtedly in our Authour's Phrase a Catalogue of Fundamentals or some brief Summary of Faith probably that Creed which we have now under the Apostles Names Why should the Apostles or some other Apostolical Men set themselves to collect together the Chief Heads of our Christian Faith for the Instruction of their new Converts if it were nothing but a needless Work The Apostles hands were then too full of business to do any thing but what was absolutely necessary and the Holy Spirit which was to guide them into all Truth would certainly keep them from writing what was unnecessary as well as what was false for Impertinence though it is not a Contradiction to yet is a Hindrance of Truth as well as Falshood I shall not insist here how he reflects by this upon the Actions of so many Venerable Councils for 't is the usage of this Gentleman's Tribe to be saucy with those Sacred Assemblies but methinks he should be more civil to his beloved Friends the Arians and Socinians Will he allow that Arius and Euzoius and Eusebius of Caesarea c. were only playing the Fools whilst they were drawing up their Creeds Will he own his celebrated Arian Councils of Antioch Ariminum Seleucia c. to be only at his Push-pin whilst they were contriving their Heterodox Forms of Faith And had the Socinian Brethren nothing to do when they wrote their Summaries of Religion which are Catalogues of their Fundamentals I am afraid this is something more than upon second Thoughts he will readily grant But for all our Authour's Positiveness a Creed is no such unnecessary Work as he may think What though the Scripture be a compleat Rule of Faith a Creed may not be a needless one for all that Though the Scripture contains every thing necessary to Salvation yet Comments upon Scripture and Sermons and Catechisms I hope are not wholly impertinent All the necessary Points of Faith 't is true are found somewhere or other dispersed through the Bible but 't is too difficult for Children and Novices and many others who have not so much leisure to search them out there therefore 't is very necessary for these to have a brief Summary of Faith to be drawn up out of them for their use which they may quickly read over and easily remember Besides Creeds are of great advantage in the Church to shew us the Belief of the Primitive Ages which as they were nigher to the Apostolick times so they could know better the Apostolick Faith than others that were at a remoter distance and therefore by these we have a better Knowledge of the Primitive Faith than if we had the Assistance of the Scripture only Though the Scripture it self is a good and sufficient Rule yet these Ancient Creeds are useful Explanations of it though the Scripture be the great primary Rule of Faith yet the Creeds of the Ancient Church may be secondary ones as being formed by the first and more adapted to some particular Capacities and some peculiar Circumstances The Authour next I find is afraid that he has not laid his first Proposition firm enough upon which he has been building all these Corollaries and therefore he is for butteressing it afterwards as well as he can But instead of this he has unluckily made his Foundation weaker than it was before for whereas at first he allowed some Truths to be honoured with the Promise of Eternal Life here he will allow but one in all the Bible to be so and that is the Belief of our Saviour's Resurrection And now having brought the Q. of the 10th of the Romans v. 9. to prove this If thou shalt believe in thy heart that God hath raised Jesus from the dead thou shalt be saved he very triumphantly asks the Question Do we in the whole New Testament find any other Doctrine so honoured Yes we have proved the Doctrine of our Saviour's Divinity to be so honoured and I wonder what the Authour thinks of the Doctrine of Repentance whether any Man can be saved without that or whether Eternal Life be not promised to it Whether it is not promised to the Belief of the true God This is life eternal to know thee the onely true God c. Joh. 17. 3. In short Eternal Life is promised either expresly or vertually to every Article of the Christian Belief and to the Practice of every Christian Precept but not to one singly without the other The Apostle tells us Rom. 8. 24. We are saved by hope and yet undoubtedly he requires the Exercises of other Vertues with it and though Salvation is promised to the Belief of Christ's Resurrection yet to be sure God expects our Assent likewise to all other Articles of the Christian Faith Bare Hope will as well save a Man without Faith and Charity as a bare Belief of our Saviour's Resurrection without a Belief of his Divinity for one is revealed in Scripture as well as the other and each of them have the same Promises of Eternal Life annexed to them But suppose one of them lacked this Promise expresly made to it it were not less to be believed for all that any more than we do not think our selves at liberty to neglect the Practice of Charity because we are not in Scripture said to be saved by it as we are by Hope The Reason why the Scripture particularly the Epistles of the Apostles does often back the Belief of the Doctrine of the Resurrection with this Promise is because this Point of all others in the Christian Religion was the most difficult to go down with the Heathens which the Apostles had to do withal it was so contrary to the received
Principles of their Philosophy and the avowed Opinions of the great Masters in the Grecian Schools and therefore 't was but reasonable that the Apostles should give the greatest Encouragement they could to further the Belief of it when it lay under so many Prejudices amongst them CHAP. XI Of the Manner of the Resurrection whether in the same Body or another I cannot imagine why the Authour should single out this Heterodoxy alone out of all the Socinian Errours to join with his Denial of our Saviour's Divinity One would have thought He might rather have contested the Doctrine of the Satisfaction or the Divinity of the Holy Ghost which would have made his Book look more of a piece than now it does But why he should single out this above all the other Points of the Socinian Controversie I can give no reason for unless having talked about Resurrection in the last Chapter that gave him a hint to make a ramble into a discourse of it here How ever the Case stands I shall give an Answer to what he says against the received Doctrine of the Church in this Point as short and as plain as I can And in order to this I will shew First the Necessity of Mens rising again in the same numerical Bodies Secondly I shall answer those Arguments which this Authour brings against the Truth of this Doctrine First The Necessity of Mens rising again with same numerical Bodies they laid down in the Grave 'T is not easie to guess what 't is these Socinian Gentlemen would have to rise again if not the Body 't is impossible that the Soul should be said to rise again because that never fell for all Rising supposes a Falling Resurgere non est nisi ejus quod cecidit Nothing can rise but what has fell says Tertullian in the same case adv Marc. lib. 5. cap. 9. Therefore it does necessarily follow That 't is the Body must arise if there be any Resurrection Besides our Saviour who is the great Original and Archetype of our Resurrection or as the Apostle speaks the first fruits of them that sleep he arose in the same Body that he deposited in the Grave and therefore our Bodies that are to be fashioned like to his glorious Body must be the same Bodies as his was the same or else they will not be conformable to their Original but farther I know not what Truth can be revealed plainer than this is in the holy Scripture Not to insist upon Job 19. 26. I know that my Redeemer liveth c. nor on Dan. 12. 2. Many of them that sleep in the Dust c. though these are evident Proofs enough of this Doctrine yet several Texts in the New Testament are unexceptionable as particularly Joh. 5. 28 29. For the Hour is coming in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice and shall come forth they that have done good unto the Resurrection of Life and they that have done evil unto the Resurrection of Damnation Now what is that which is in the graves but only the Bodies of Men to be sure their Souls are not there therefore if these Words have any propriety of speech it must be that then the Bodies of Men that are in their Graves shall arise The consequence of this is so plain that Smaltzius the Socinian will have this to be understood only in a figurative sense that nothing is meant here but the Calling of the Gentiles that by the Dead are meant Aliens from the Faith that by hearing the Voice of the Son is understood the Hearing the Gospel preached but how foolish this Interpretation is may be known from the Distinction which is here made of those that are to arise into Good and Bad. For if here be meant only such a Resurrection as he means from Sin to Grace then all were Bad because they all were in a state of Sin and so there is no room for the other Branch of the Distinction those that have done good so that this must be perfectly superfluous And so again this is as plain from Rom. 8. 11. He that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your Mortal Bodies by his Spirit which dwelleth in you Where those Bodies which are to be quickned or revived are the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the mortal or dying Bodies and therefore the Bodies to be quickned or raised cannot be any other Bodies than those which did die Besides those Bodies are said to be quickned in which the Holy Ghost dwells now they are these very Bodies which are the Temples of the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 3. 16. cap. 6. 15. therefore they are these very Bodies which are to be quickned or raised again To this may be added the constant Consent of the Catholick Church The Latins understood this by their Carnis resurrectionem in their Creed and the Greeks by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in theirs but of all the Aquileian Creed was most particular for this had hujus Carnis resurrectionem the Resurrection of this very Flesh This was the Doctrine of the Ancient Fathers of the Church Justin Tertullian Anaxagoras Cyprian Austin Hierom and all others till the Socinians began to turn all the Articles of the Christian Faith upside down and among the rest to overthrow the Orthodox Belief of the Resurrection This is enough to shew that this was the belief of learned Men in the first Ages of the Church not was it less the belief of other Christians Or else what should be the cause that this Doctrine of the Resurrection should seem so difficult to be believed if the Ressurrection was nothing but the Soul 's being cloathed with another Body why should that be more hard to be credited than that God could cloath it with a Body at first For he that gave it a Body at first could with as great ease give it another Body when that was gone Here is no difficulty at all here but this was the thing that confounded their Faith how a Body should be raised again that had so long lain rotten in the Grave that had passed through so many Transmutations that was turned into the substance of so many different Bodies how all these scatter'd parts should leave the Bodies they should then help to make up and be ranged together into their old form This indeed would be apt to strain the Faith of a great many but no one could be so foolish to stand out against Christianity upon the incredibility of the other opinion Besides if this was not the Faith of the Ancient Christians what meant those malicious exprobrations of the Heathens to them by shewing them the Bodies of their Martyrs half devoured by Lyons by burning their Bodies and then scattering their Ashes into Rivers but only because they thought this did make the Resurrection they believed utterly impossible What else could be the meaning of the great care which the Primitive Christians took of