he does one thing with as great ease as another because the greatest thing he does is as far from setting his Omnipotent Power as the smallest his Power to act is infinitely greater than any Power to resist and though one thing may seem more difficult than another to us because we find their resistibility to be so much greater or less than our limited Power of acting yet God's Power is infinitely greater than the most difficult of them and therefore can do one as easily as the other It seems to us indeed that have a finite narrow understanding that can attend to and discern only a few things that are just before us very difficult to find out so many scatter'd Atoms that lie it may be in so many Millions of different places because we cannot discern different things lying in different places and therefore all such disorder confounds our understandings but God who is Omniscient and knows exactly all things every where nothing can lie disorderly to him he knows where every such Atom lies as well as when it possessed its place in the Organized Body and can with as great ease make them return to their former station as to make the new separated Soul go back to the Body that lies yet entire Nay 't is not so great an act of God's Power to range all this scattered matter together as to create another Body for the Soul to be united to for 't is possible that all this matter might be gathered together from never so many different places by a finite Power only and 't is not improbable to think God may do this by the Ministry of his holy Angels but 't is God alone that can create another Body and therefore this would be rather in our Authour's phrase to make God unaccountably exercise his Omnipotency because it would put God to the expence of a new Creation to make a Body to be united to the Soul when the old one would do as well His fourth Argument is against those that make it some advancement of the joys at the Resurrection that we shall be united to our old Bodies which will be like the joyful meeting and embracing of old Friends which he says will not be of old Friends but of old Enemies because of the War between the Flesh and the Spirit Rom. 7. and therefore the Soul cannot rejoice at her being united to her former Body 'T is true indeed that several Ancient and Modern Writers have made use of this as a Rhetorical Argument to set forth in some part the joy of that happy day and truly I think not without some reason For we find the Soul has a great love to the Body both by reason of its being so loth to part with it and because it is found to hanker after the Body after its separation which is the account which some give of Spectrums But besides we find in Men a secret love and esteem for every thing that has any relation to themselves they love their Relations as being born of the same stock they have an esteem for every thing belonging to their native Country they have an extraordinary kindness for their nutriculi Lares the House in which they were born and bred and this Love seems always greater after a considerable time of absence from them Now when a Mans Body is the most nighly related to him as being an essential part of himself he cannot but be more joyed to be united again to that which is so near to him than to see his native Country or the House he was born in after a long time of absence from him As for the enmity between the Flesh and the Spirit he mentions that is only an Enmity Metaphorically so called because all proper Enmity is between two rational beings which are endowed with free wills which the Soul and the Body are not nay that reluctancy of the sensual nature to the dictates of the understanding which is Metaphorically expressed by War or Enmity between the Flesh and Spirit that is very well appeased in the regenerate Man so that he has no reason to hate his Body for that especially now he has master'd it for these inward strugglings of the Flesh have made his Vertue greater to overcome them and therefore he may reasonably expect for this a greater Reward in proportion to his Vertue ENQUIRY II. What Changes or Additions latter Ages have made in Matters of Faith OUR Authour has been hitherto giving us a Hodge-podge of Arianism and Socinianism and some Heresie of his own which wants a Name and this he calls giving us an account What was the Gospel our Lord and his Apostles preached as necessary to Salvation which was the first Enquiry And now when he enters upon his second What Additions latter Ages have made in Matters of Faith one would expect that according to the Tenour of his Book he should give an account how the Doctrine of the Trinity came into the World what Platonick Notions gave rise to the Opinion of our Saviour's Divinity that Plato's Doctrine of the Logos came from the Greeks to the Hellenistical Jews and so from them to the Christians one would I say have expected something of this matter which is used to fill up the Books of the late Socinians and Atheists when they have a mind to blaspheme the ever Blessed Trinity But our Authour I find either wants Courage or Reading or something else to set upon this Enterprize and therefore contents himself only with a little nibbling at this Doctrine but turns the whole Current of his Argument against the Papists and their Innovations Indeed his Charge of Innovations seems to lie against the Orthodox in general but when he comes to make good his Challenge he shams us off with an Instance or two against the Popish Errours But let us consider what these Innovations are he so boldly charges us with 1. He says We extend the Empire of Faith as far as possible and this he proves very strenuously by that vast Army of new Doctrines of Faith which the School-men have got by the Bishop of Rome's setting up for an Oracle to declare that Matter of Faith which was before Matter of Curiosity by implicit Faith in the Church c. But what does all this stuff signifie to us of the Church of England or who else does he mean by this We If he means We Papists and so reckons himself one of that number his Brethren will give him little thanks for thus exclaiming against their Corruptions If he means We Protestants or Church of England here is not one Tittle of Proof of the Charge against us we abhorr all these Romish Corruptions as much as the Authour possibly can do We extend Faith no farther than the Holy Scripture does what that tells us we ought to believe that we readily do believe but do not take into our Belief anything but what the Scripture does expresly assert or but what may by manifest
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon necessity of his matter but otherways they decreed that these words were to be admitted because they do explode the Opinion of Sabellius that we may not through want of words call God under three Names but that every Name of the Trinity should signify God under a distinct or proper Person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And what other use do we desire to make of them than this Indeed we will allow the Doctor that some of his celebrated Councils in his other Book to have done as much as he would have this Council to have done or more His good Council of Sirmium published an Impious or Atheistical Exposition of Faith which forbid Nature or Essence to be predicated of God and the famous Council of Ariminum did the like Next he is much displeased that the Latin Schools have over-translated the first of these terms 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by rendring it Substance which bears too great a Cognation with matter But whatever Substance signifies in its primitive acceptation is no matter at all here it is enough if we understand what is meant by it in its Philosophical or Divine Sense We know as well the precise signification of a word used Metaphorically when we know 't is used so as we do when it is used properly so that 't is a silly exception against this word to say it is Metaphorical for unless some words were to be used Metaphorically ten times as many words as we have would not serve us But if the Latins mean the same by Substance as the Greeks do by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where is all the harm that is done then Now the only way of knowing the sense of words is by their Definitions and both the Latins and the Greeks define the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Substantia alike and therefore they must have the same signification Aquinas defines Substance to be a thing which has a Being by which it is by its self and is neither in a subject nor is predicated of a subject and Cyril defines a Substance or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a thing that subsists by its self which wanteth not any thing else to its Constitution or Subsistence and so Suidas to the same purpose So that if the Latins and the Greeks understand the same thing as 't is plain by these Definitions that they do then there is no injury done by rendring 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Substantia So again I can see no harm in translating the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Persona if the same thing be understood by both Words as 't is plain the later Authors in both Languages do understand Indeed the Latins at first did very much except against the word Hypostasis as the Greeks used it because they generally translated that word by Substantia who by the scantiness of their Language could not distinguish Hypostasis from Essence or Substance and not by Persona or Substantia and therefore to assert three Hypostasis was the same with them as to make three Gods Now this mistake indeed about the sense of the word did occasion some contention for a while till the Council of Alexandria was celebrated in the Year 372 and then they came to a right understanding and ever after both Latins and Greeks used the word alike Indeed the Arians did always except against the word Hypostasis as Acacius and his Faction in the Council of Constantinople and the Eusebians in the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia but that I hope will be no prejudice against it for they excepted against the word and the sense of it too So that we have no reason to quarrel with these terms which serve so excellently to express these Divine Truths of this Holy Mystery we only ought to take care to understand and them aright which is easy enough to do by their so long and constant use in the Church and not to run off from these to any new whimsical Explications Next the Doctor sets to work to his exposition of the Trinity which because he will not have it be mysterious he is resolved to have it demonstrable by the Light of Nature for he says the Light of Nature doth demonstrate what St. John affirmeth There are Three Persons that bear witness c. There are a great many in the world that the Doctor would oblige with a little of this Demonstration but whatever we may expect from him hereafter since this wonderful Illumination I am sure what he has given us in this Chapter is far enough from it He tells us That the Three Persons in the Trinity are Mind Reason and Power the Reason or the Logos is begotten or conceived of the Mind the Father both which are imperfect unless perfected by Power or Action which is the Holy-Ghost Now is this the Explication that agrees to a Syllable both to the Holy Scripture and the Church of England is this the putting the old Materials into a new and better Frame which he so boasts of They are old Materials indeed as old as Sabellius and the other Hereticks of his stamp but neither older nor newer than their Heresies For I pray what difference is there between Sabellius's Explication of the Trinity and the Doctor 's The Sabellians taught That the Father Son and Holy-Ghost were the same so that there were Three Names in One Person and as in a Man there is Body Soul and Spirit or Mind 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So the Body is as it were the Father the Soul the Son and that which is the Spirit in Man is the Holy-Ghost in the Deity All the Difference between these two Notions of the Trinity is That Sabellius's inclines a little more to the Epicurean and the Doctor 's to the Platonick Philosophy but both of them are far enough from Truth and Scripture Nay the Doctor 's Explication is the more Sabellian of the two because his Distinction of the Persons is the more nominal for Body Soul and Spirit are more distinct than Mind Reason and Operation So that by striving to avoid Sabellianism as he pretends he has out-done Sabellius himself in his own Heresie But after all what can we make of our Author's Trinity which any Vnitarian will not agree to Mind Reason and Action why are not all these in every Man and every rational Being as well as in God and I hope he will not make as many Trinities as there are intelligent Beings Besides Mind Reason and Energy or Action are but divers Modus of the same thing Mind is the rational Principle simply considered Reason is the same Soul considered Discursive or Reasoning and Action or Energy is the Soul putting the determination of such Reasoning into act but still these are but distinct Modus's of the same Soul But what are these to Three distinct Persons in one Essence There every Person is by a proper personal difference distinguished from
just exception is a social duty and which any Man that speaks truth and has not justly lost his reputation may claim from us as Fellow Creatures But when the matter related is incredible or which my Reason tells me is not enough probable or when the Relater is sufficiently exceptionable or if any thing else accompany the Relation which will give sufficient suspition of falsity to a prudent Man then if I believe such a Relation I am truly said to be Credulous because there I make my Belief exceed its just bounds I give more credit to the Relater than he ought to have whereas my Faith in this case ought to stop at the confines of probability I let it pass over them and believe things improbable But there can be no such thing in a divine Faith for taking that in our Authour's sense to be only a piece of justice to God there can be no excess in believing what he reveals or relates to us 't is impossible there should lie any exception against him as a Relater for he is most true and cannot deceive us as to whatever difficulty there lies in the matter related he is most powerful and can make good what he promises his Wisdom is infinite and knows exactly the express Modus of those Truths he had revealed to us which our finite understandings cannot comprehend It is impossible for us to believe too much what God affirms unless we could suppose that our Belief could be greater than God's Veracity or that God could say something was so which we knew impossible to be so So that to make Credulity an excess of Faith is to prescribe bounds how far Men should believe God and to give them caution that they should not credit him any farther than they saw reason for it but when his Relations began to them to seem unreasonable that then they should choose whether they would believe him or no that then they should stand upon their own guard for fear of being censur'd for easy Men and being thought the worst of all Fools the Credulous So that in short whatever Credulity is 't is not an excess of divine Faith unless we could believe God too true or that God could tell us something was true which was manifestly false Secondly That an acquiescence in the determinations of General Councils though in matters of Faith is not Credulity I would not have our Authour think that we ground our Faith in the Blessed Trinity upon the determinations only of general Councils which he means by his greatest humane Authority as if we had nothing in Scripture to urge for it we have Arguments enough from thence to confound all the force and subtilties of our Heretical Adversaries and several learned Men in the beginning of this Age have brought so much from thence as perfectly silenced this Heresy for a time and has baffled their Cause for ever I am sure at least against all such espousers of it as this Authour seems to be And as for Councils when we rely upon their determinations in asserting and explaining the Ancient Faith I do not think we are so much credulous as these fort of Gentlemen are saucy to say no worse when they bespatter these August Assemblies with so much Contumely and Buffoonry as they use to do There are none of our Church that look upon the determinations of general Councils to be the infallible Oracles of God they are as our Authour speaks humane Authorities but then they are the greatest humane Authority upon Earth they are the Representatives of the Church Universal and if our judgments are apt to be inclined by the Authority of single Doctors they ought to be much more so by the Authority of such a number of good and learned Men convened from all the parts of the Christian World We do not run up the Authority of Councils so high as to give them power to constitute new Articles of Faith as the Papists do but then we look upon them to be the best Judges in the World of old ones and of what was the true ancient and Catholick Faith to declare what Doctrines according to Lirinensis's Rule have Universality Consent Antiquity when they come to be contested by Hereticks For the Members of these Councils being Bishops drawn from all parts of the World are able to give an account of the Belief of the Faithful in their Districts and of the uncorrupted Writings and Traditions of their Fore-fathers Neither yet do we allow them if they shall oppose their Opinions or Traditions against the express word of God but only when they declare the truth of their Doctrine as Theodoret speaks of the Nicene Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Scripture words piously understood of which there is no oâ—e but must allow them to be the most excellent and the most authentick Expositors And yet though we cannot grant it to be an Article of our Christian Faith That general Councils cannot err because there is no such proposition found in Scripture nor by any necessary consequence to be deduced from thence but most good Men look upon it as a Theological Verity for which there are some probable Arguments out of Scripture alledged as Mat. 18. 20. When two or three are gathered together in my name I will be in the midst of them and Joh. 16. 3. When the spirit of Truth is come he will guide you into all Truth and the most good and learned Men in all times have generally thought that the inerrability of a general Council that was fairly called and duly celebrated was one of the piè credibilia which a good Man though he is not necessitated is yet well disposed to believe For if we consider the great love which God does bear to his Church and the peculiar Providence he does exercise over it if we consider the promises that he has made to it that it is his desire that all Men should be saved and should come to the knowledge of all necessary Truth there is no good Man but will be inclined to believe that God out of his infinite love and goodness which he has declared to bear to his Church will not suffer the Representatives of it in these sacred Assemblies to err in any important matter of Faith that he will not permit any deadly poison thus to sink into the bowels of his Church when they use all the fair and honest means they can to avoid it but that he will give his holy Spirit to direct them in settling the true Faith as may be best for the edification of his Church But though general Councils have not a divine inerrable Authority yet they have in matters of Religion the greatest humane and coercive one especially when owned and confirmed by the secular Power therefore though we were certain that they had determined something erroneously and which our own reason and judgment told us was so yet we ought to keep this reason to our selves and
thing against the Orthodox Believers Leonas himself was in all probability an Arian as being such a Favourite of Constantius and being sent to preside in that Council which did mostly consist of Arians and if any plaid the Fool in this Council 't was the Arians for the two quarrelling Parties here were both Arian both agreed against the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Nicene Creed the Opinion of the Acacian Party we may see at large in Socrates in their Creed which they set forth when they met again at Constantinople An. 364. and the other Party subscribed the Creed set out by the Council of Antioch which was Arian too So that Leonas might well think them to play the Fools when they were both agreed upon the point and were very unanimous as to the main of their Heresy that they should wrangle and squabble and fall to Loggerheads about nothing For all their bustle was whether they should express their Arian Notions by altering an old Creed to their purpose or by framing a new one CHAP. VIII A belief with respect to the Person of Christ fruitless towards the Inquirers own satisfaction THE Authour begins this Chapter with a Testimony from the Emperour Constantine again who in his Letter to Arius and Alexander says that the Question they were disputing about was so abstruse that they could make few among the Multitude to understand it And what then the matter of Alexander's Belief might be plain enough and yet they by their disputes might render it abstruse and puzzling I have known ordinary Questions in Logick and Morality drawn into such fine Threads by Argumentation that both the Disputants have lost the sight of the Question and have hardly at last understood their own meaning And this might be the Case of Arius and Alexander for ought I know But the Reason why the Emperour thought the Question it self so puzzling was because he could see little difference between their Opinions for he could not so well understand their distinction of a Generation and a Production out of nothing he thought this was only a Metaphysical notion too transcendent for vulgar Brains but was not aware of the Consequence which Arius drew from the Son 's being produced out of Nothing that this must make him a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Creature Then he proceeds to shew That the Messias was a Person of whom the Scripture did foretel that his Generation should not be known But he does not produce any of these Prophecies and therefore I shall not be obliged to answer those which some others have brought to our Authour's purpose All that he brings is a Text out of John and another out of the Hebrews the first is we know whence this man is but when Christ cometh no man knoweth whence he is Joh. 7. 27. This place does not prove That Christ is not the eternal Son of the Father nay it rather makes for it than against it because by the Phrase no man knoweth it supposes a Generation above all humane understanding But it no ways proves That we cannot tell whether Christ be the Son of God or no and this it must prove if it will do the Authour any kindness All that this Text proves is That the Jews thought that Christ was to be of no earthly Extraction not the Son of any Man but of God But we know say they whence this Man is that he is born of Joseph and Mary this is the Carpenter's Son and therefore he cannot be the Messias who is to be of a heavenly original the Son of God in a manner we cannot tell for if it was not to be known whether the Messias were to be the Son of God or no why does our Saviour call himself so and require others to believe him such and if he was the Son of God then it was to be known whence he was in this Sense so that all that can be drawn from this Text is That Christ is not of an earthly Original and this we would have granted him without his pains of proving it The other Text is out of Heb. 7. where Melchizedeck being brought as a Type of our Saviour and being there declared to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Father and without Mother without Descent therefore Christ's original is not known Indeed Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without Mother in respect of his Divinity but he is not without Father unless that we suppose him falsly to call God his Father in so many places But neither was Melchizedeck without Father and without Mother as not being of an earthly extraction he was without Father without Mother without descent in relation to the Aronical Priests whose Fathers and Mothers and all their Pedigree was exactly set down and preserved in the Jewish Records but there was no constat of Melchizedeck's Pedigree the Scripture is perfectly silent of his Original and no other Records give an account of it But our Saviour's Original according to the flesh is set down by the Evangelists an exact Catalogue given us of all his Progenitors therefore Melchizedeck is no Type of our Saviour in this respect His being like unto the Son of God as the Apostle speaks in his abiding a Priest continually v. 3. that is being of that blessing kind of Priesthood which shall always continue when the other of the Jews shall be abolished Well but the Authour says That the Evangelists derive Christ's Pedigree from a wrong Father and two different ways on purpose to amuse us This is a bold stroke to tax these inspired Writers with Errour and Deceit and to make the Holy Spirit of God the Spirit of Delusion But what though the Evangelists do shew Christ's descent two different ways they may be both true for all that the intermingled Marriages of Families in our modern manner where all nigh degrees are prohibited do often occasion one Person to descend from another two ways which must be much more so among the Jews who were often to marry their nighest Relations to keep up their Families Therefore 't is no wonder if the Evangelists relate this Pedigree divers ways where as it might have been related several other ways and all true for 't were easie to draw his present Majesties descent only from William the Conquerour in it may be seven or eight different Branches But if any one has a mind to see the difficulties of this Genealogy explained he may see it at large in those excellent Men Grotius and Bochartus for it would be too long to enter upon a Discourse of this nature here So that 't is a most impudent Falsity in the Authour to say That it is left impossible to prove our Saviour deriv'd from David when the Evangelists have written these Genealogies for that end Next the Authour quarrels with the Bishop of Alexandria for offering to explain the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity or as he speaks for boldly answering I will
is and bring as a proof of this that Text of Isai 53. Who shall declare his generation But then upon second thoughts least the People should laugh at their Inconstancy they themselves revoke this second Creed and strive to get in all the Copies of it and procure an Edict from the Emperour which threatens all those that shall detain them Now indeed we may see here a very foolish inconstancy in these Hereticks and that they had a very ill hand at making Creeds to oblige all the World under the pain of an Anathema to believe such a thing at one time and the next day to disbelieve it themselves but this is nothing to the Orthodox Faith which stood always firm and unchangeable After the Authour has been spitting his Venom against the union of the three Persons he now begins to do the same against the union of Christ's Divinity with his humanity For he would have that upon supposition there are three persons in the same Individual nature that either the Nestorian or the Eutychian Doctrine was the true For says he there are but two ways imaginable in reason either Christ must be two Persons because he has two such different natures or he must have but one nature because he is but one Person But for all our Authours hast why can't we imagine a third way that he should be two Natures and but one Person This is as easy to imagine and I am sure as reasonable too For first It does not follow that because he has two Natures he must be two Persons for Nature and Personality are not reciprocal terms for there may be two or three or more Natures where there is but one Person The Athanasian Creed most excellently expresses this As the reasonable Soul and flesh is one Man so God and Man is one Christ There is the sensitive nature in Man as well as the rational there is the rational Soul one distinct substance united to the Body another distinct substance and yet these two so distinct Natures are but one Person Now what more contradiction does it imply that there should be a Personal Union between Divinity and Humanity than there does between Rationality and Sensibility If there be any more difficulty in one than the other it is this That in the former the union of the Divinity with the Humanity there is an union of two reasonable Natures which are distinct Persons of themselves as all rational Individuals are and therefore they must be as distinct Persons after the union as before But why so If they are united they are not distinct for all union is a negation of distinction or division Two single pieces or pounds of Gold are two distinct Substances or Bodies but if these be united by melting down into one they are still two pounds but yet they are but one Individual Body And so it is in the Union of all other Bodies Well but what is this to the Union of Spirits or rational Beings Yet it is something for if Spirits be united they must follow the Laws of Union as well as other Beings If they be united they must be one in something for to be one in nothing is no Union at all Now in the Union of the Divinity with the humanity wherein possibly can their Oneness consist but only in their personality Their Natures are most certainly distinct for Gods is one Nature and Mans is another and therefore if they be one in any thing it must be in their Personality Upon this Union they acquire an Oneness which they had not before and as the two distinct pounds of Gold upon their melting become one Individual piece which is the Oneness they gain so the Divinity and Humanity upon their Union gain one Individual Personality which is the Oneness they acquire Well but here are two rational Natures united which must have two Reasons and two Wills and therefore must be two Persons It does not therefore follow that because there are two Reasons and two Wills there must therefore be two Persons any more than it follows that a Man is three living Creatures from the Union of the Vegetative the Sensitive and the Rational Soul in his nature For as the Subordination of these Souls one to another make him but one Vivens so the Subordination of these rational Natures one to the other make them but one Person or rational Suppositum The Divine Nature is indeed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or governing Principle in the Union of the Godhead with the Humanity as the rational Soul is in the Union with the two other Souls and therefore though there are two Reasons and two Wills yet those of the Inferiour Nature are subordinate to the Superiour and therefore are determined by the operations of that Nor Secondly is it necessary that if he be one Person he should be but one Nature because Nature and Person are not reciprocal terms and because as we have already shewn that more Natures may be united into one Person for 't was the Person of the Godhead that took upon him the Humanity so that he has no other Personality than what he had from all eternity but yet he has another Nature than what he had from all eternity because he likewise took upon him our Nature which he had not from eternity but took it upon him at that time when he was conceived in the Womb of the Blessed Virgin Though he still continued one Person yet he had two Natures the Nature of God which he had from all eternity and the Nature of Man which he assumed at that particular time and this without any change but only in the manner of his subsisting which was before in the pure Glory of the Son of God and afterwards in the habit of our Flesh All the Properties of each Nature are as distinguishable now as before the Properties of the Humanity are incommunicable to the Divinity and those of the Divinity to the Humanity 'T is proper only to the Divinity to be the cause of all things to be immense eternal omnipresent c. and 't is proper only to the Humanity to have a beginning to be circumscribed in place to be passible c. If therefore they have these distinct and incommunicable Propertie they must have distinct Natures from which these Properties flow though they be united into one Person And thus I think I have answered every thing that is material in this Chapter and I could very willingly have done with it but only because it may be expected I should say something to those invidious Remarks he makes upon some of the first holy Councils for the Determinations they made in matters of Faith and the condemnation of Hereticks As to what he says about the Heresie of Nestorius 't is not worth considering but he has a little too grosly represented the matter of Eutyches which I must not pass over without a little Reflection He would insinuate that Eutyches was first
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