〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he calls it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Word of God and the Divine Word the Idea of Idea's and says That it is the beginning and end of the good pleasure of God that it abides with God that God had a power of Generation that the First-begotten is comprehended in the Mind only Tractat. Allegor Post sex dies and in the Treatise of the Modesty of Women the first 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is called The Eternal Character of God and is God Now these obscure Notions which both Jews and Gentiles had of the Son of God are by St. John more plainly delivered for the Instruction of all Men and applied to the Person of our Saviour to convince us that he is the true 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Word and that this Word is God that God that was made Flesh and dwelt among Men and that they beheld his Glory the Glory of the only begotten Son of God full of Grace and Truth And the Jews in our Saviour's time concluded That Christ calling himself the Son of God made himself equal When our Saviour requires our belief of such Propositions as exceed our understanding it is a contempt and undervaluing of his Authority and Veracity to expect Demonstrations for them The Notion of a Christian is one that believes in Christ and St. August Serm. de Tempore 189 speaks of Adult Persons that were Baptized saying I am now one of the Faithful and believe what I cannot comprehend And St. Basil de S. S. c. 7. I testifie saith he to all that profess Christ and yet deny him to be God that Christ shall profit them nothing What Philosopher knows the Nature and Motions of his own Soul how it informs the Body and is Tota in toto tota in qualibet parte or by what Ligaments it is united to the Body and shall we presume not to believe the Union of the Godhead to the Manhood and other Revelations of the Gospel because our Reason cannot demonstrate how these things can be Si potes Cape si non potes Crede saith St. August Tract in John 35. The way to get a right understanding in spiritual things is to believe and practice them 'T is not we know and believe in Matters of our Salvation but we believe and are sure as the Original is Joh. 6.69 Believe that thou mayst understand saith St. Aug. on St. John Tract 29. If ye believe not that I am he saith our Saviour i. e. he that said Joh. 8.16 I am not alone but I and the Father that sent me I whom if you had known you should have known the Father also v. 19. I that came to die for your sins If ye believe not that I am he ye shall die in your sins It is well saith an ingenious Commentator that he said not Except you know that I am he ye shall die in your sins Tu rationare ego miror tu disputa ego Credam saith St. Augustine Do you reason I admire do you dispute I will believe And what was that he would believe Ipse Deus tria est unum quodque horum trium Deus est Omnia tria non Dii sed Deus est i. e. God is Three and each of these Three is God and all Three are not many but One God Tertullian was a Person of as profound Reason as any Socinian yet he submitted it to Revelation Natus est Dei Filius non pudet quia pudendum mortuus est Dei Filius prorsus Credibile quia ineptum certum est quia impossibile And Christianorum est Deum mortuum credere contra Marcion l. 2. n. 41. When in the Primitive Times Adult Persons were baptized they were question'd thus Credis in Deum Patrem the answer was Credo and so Credis in Deum filium Credis in Deum Spiritum Sanctam And hence they were called The Faithful St. Ambrose de Sacrament l. 2. c. 7. 1. The Doctor adds And if we descend to particulars in the Doctrines that are imposed as Articles of Faith the more Objections will rise in force and number By the way it is necessary to consider of what sort of Faith and Articles thereof he speaks if of an Antinomian Faith as separated from new Obedience and such Articles as are the Inventions and Impositions of Men then the Doctor acts impertinently and fights his own Shadow which he would ill resent His following Discourse will evidence what Faith he speaks of for p. 13. col 2. It is says he an acknowledged foundation in all Sciences that we must seek Truth by application of generals to particulars and it is the general scope of the Gospel to advance Natural Religion 'T is then the Faith of the Gospel which he treats of under his Notion of advancing Natural Religion and the sting of the Objection he says is this That Faith hath no place among Vertues but Credulity hath one among Vices So that the truth of Evangelical Precepts and Revelations must be sought and approved by application of the Generals in Natural Religion The Objection which he says hath a Sting p. 13. Col. 2. is this That Faith hath no place among Vertues but Credulity hath among Vices The Doctor well knows that the Faith we of the Church of England do profess is such a Faith as for the Objects of it is contained in the Creeds which we receive and such as for the nature of it doth work by Love and doth both purifie the heart and makes the Believer fruitful in every good Work a Faith that keeps us humble and holy not presuming to be justified by the merit of any Works of our own but through the Satisfaction made by Christ for which God will accept us and our sincere Obedience not imputing our Sins to us Moreover we acknowledge this Faith to be the Gift and the Work of God in us as Joh. 6.28 and St. Paul To you it is given not only to believe but to suffer And Phil. 1.29 By faith ye are saved and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God Ephes 2.8 This is the Faith which he would make as Naked as his Gospel as if it were an effect of natural Reason as the Pelagians hold and wholly in our power without any operation of the Spirit of Christ without whom we can do nothing as to obtaining of the Grace of Faith or bringing forth the Fruits of Holiness If this be the Faith which he opposeth a belief of the Holy Trinity the Redemption of Mankind by the Eternal Son of God the Operation of the Holy Spirit in our Sanctification as it clearly appears he leaves all Christians in a State of Nature without any remedy by the Fountain of Grace of whose Fulness we have all received grace for grace In this Chapter Page 14. the Doctor mentioning that Scripture Rom. 4. ult Christ was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification he says That though the
that place of this Author in his second Apology where he says The Christians are not Worshippers of many impure Gods but they worship the Father Son and Holy Ghost in reason and in truth Athenagoras a Philosopher and Christian in his Apology for the Christians to Antoninus saith Least any should think me ridiculous in saying that God hath a Son as the Poets who speak of Gods which were 〈◊〉 other than Men the Word or Reason of God is of the same Form and Efficacie with the Father for of him and by him all things were made and the Father and the Son are one the Father being in the Son and the Son in the Father for the Word of the Father is the Son of God united together in Power Vertue and Substance but distinguished in Subsistence and Personality Tatianus a Disciple of Justin Martyr in his Oration against the Greeks says That Christ was begotten not by any abscission but by participation or communication because that which is cut off is separated from the Original but that which is communicated doth not diminish that which doth communicate as the light of one Torch is not diminished by communicating light to another so the Word going forth from the Power of the Father did not leave the Father destitute of the Word Clement Bishop of Alexandria the Disciple of Pantenus a Martyr and Master of Origen saith That the Word was and is the Divine Principle of all things which Word hath now appeared unto Men who alone is both God and Man In his Admonition to the Gentiles speaking on Titus 2.13 of the Great God he applies it to Christ who saith He teacheth us to live well that he may as God bestow eternal Life on us hereafter And then he perswades the Gentiles Believe O Man in him that was God and Man believe him that suffered and is worshipped the living God believe in him all ye Men who alone is the God of all Men. And there he tells them That he is most manifestly the true God equal with the God of the Universe the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son And in his Pedoag l. 1. calls him The Holy God Jesus Tertullian in his Apology against the Gentiles c. 21. speaking of Christ saith We affirm'd him to be begotten of God and therefore to be the Son of God by unity of substance for both are one Spirit as when a Beam is extended from the Sun the Sun is in the Beam because it is a Beam of the Sun the substance being not seperated but extended thus he is God of God as is Light of Light for whatsoever thus proceeds from God is God Prolatum a patre non separatum dispositione alium non divisione as Grotius on John 1. quotes him In his Book against Praxeas he saith That God alone was before all things but he was alone because there was nothing without him yet was he not alone because he had his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reason with him And Grotius on John 1. quotes Tatianus speaking to the same sence That Christ was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Tertullian calls him God of God and Light of Light the Son not separate from the Father of one undivided Substance le cont a Proxeam c. 4. teneo unam substantium in tribus coherentibus That the whole Trinity is of one Dignity and Power In c. 17. he ascribes all the Attributes of God the Father to the Son and chap 2. against Praxeas he says The name of the Father is the Almighty God the most High the God of Israel all these agree to the Son and on Christ's words I and my Father are one he shews that they are two whom he makes equal and joyns in one Theophilus Antiochenus writing to Autolocus l. 2. says That which is begotten of God is God Which he speaks of the Word alway existing in the heart of God Ireneus l. 3. c. 6. says That neither our Lord nor the Holy Spirit nor the Apostles would so distinctly and absolutely have called Christ God unless he had been the true God and if at any time it gives the name to them that are not Gods it is with some addition and signification to manifest that they are not true Gods And from Christ's words to the Pharisees concerning the Resurrection I am the God of Abraham c. he concludes That Christ with his Father is the God of the Living who spake to Moses and was manifested to the Father And he applies that of the Apostle to the Rom. 9. v. 5. Whose were the Father's and of whom was Christ according to the flesh who is God over all blessed for ever which Scripture is so expounded by most of the Fathers He proves also the Deity of Christ he says That Christ is the measure of the Father because he comprehends him And this he appropriates to our Saviour who only comprehends the Father and he excludes the whole Creation from knowing or apprehending the Father according to his Greatness L. 2. c. 43. he says Thou O Man were created and didst not alway exist with God as doth his own Word And l. 3. c. 8. he says Nothing can be compared with the Word of God by whom all things were made Caius an ancient Presbyter of whom Photius makes mention in these words That he taught expresly of the Deity of Christ our God and of his Ineffable Generation by the Father Hyppolitus a Martyr about the Year 220 speaking of Christ says He was the infinite God and also a Man that had perfectly the perfect substance of both and that his Divinity was the same after his Incarnation as before infinite incomprehensible impassible unalterable and in brief a substantial subsistence Origen whose most mature and perfect Work being that of his Dispute with Celsus written when he was about sixty Years old confirms the same Doctrine speaking of the wise Men that presented their Gifts to our Saviour says That they offered them to him that was God and Man Gold as to a King Mirrh as to a Mortal Man and Frankinsence as to GOD. And that Christ had something that was Divine under the Humane Nature which was properly the Son of God God the Word the Power and Wisdom of God We do not separate says he the Son of God from Jesus for both the Soul and Body of Jesus were strictly united with the Word of God and of the Body of Christ he says It was the Temple of God the Word St. Cyprian another Latine Father a Bishop of Africa and an eminent Martyr writing to Quirinus against the Jews mentioneth divers Scriptures to prove Christ to be God as Isa 45. Psal 46. and proves That Christ being God and Man became Mediator between us and his Father In his Epistle to Cecilian speaking of Christ saith He is the Power Reason and Wisdom of God he descended into the Virgin and was God mixt with Man he is our God our Christ And to name no
one like the Son of Man came to the Ancient of Days and received from him Glory and Power and a Kingdom The second from Rev. 5.7 Where the Lamb whom all confess to be Christ received a Book from him that sate on the Throne Where the Giver and the Receiver are really distinguished Ans If the Son of Man in the first Vision doth denote Christ as we acknowledge then he did exist before he was born of the Virgin which confutes the Adversaries In the second the Lamb had the same Honour given him from the twenty four Elders and from all the Creatures as he that sate on the Throne which argueth an Equality of Excellency so that all these imply a distinction of Persons not a diversity of Nature 4ly They urge those places wherein Christ is said to receive all things from the Father as Matth. 28.18 All power is given to me in heaven and earth Joh. 5.26 The Father hath given to the Son to have Life in himself whence he is said to be the Image Brightness and Character only of his Father's Person Heb. 1.3 Now it is say they necessary that he who receiveth be inferior to him that giveth and the Image or Character to its Proto-type Ans John 5.2 resolves all these Objections That God gave him authority of exercising Judgment as he is the Son of Man not of God for so he is God of God Light of Light the essential Image and Character of the Person of his Father and inferior only in Order not in Nature or Time But these Men will not distinguish with St. John between Christ's Humane and his Divine Nature nor with St. Paul between the Form of God and the Form of a Servant but this is their constant practice to confound the Essence and the Person 5ly They object that Christ is numbred among the Creatures being called the first born of every Creature Col. 1.15 and the beginning of the Creation Revel 3.14 He that shall deliver up the Kingdom to God the Father and be subject to him therefore he cannot be of the same Nature and Excellency To this it is answered before That he is called the first begotten not the first created for he was begotten from Eternity before all Creatures which were made by him as it there followeth he was not created in Time as the Creatures were And if he had been so the first born he had been before the Angels and the Virgin Mary which the Socinians do deny against the Arians 2. The Apocalipt calls him the beginning of the Creatures of God as the Active Principle from whom all the Creatures had their beginning not the Passive as if he were the first of those things that were created 3. The delivering of the Kingdom into the hands of the Father and his subjection thereupon is not the subjection of the Nature but of the Economy after the finishing of the Mediatorial Office or if I may so speak the resignation or laying down of that Office that he might resume that Glory forever which he affirms he had with his Father before the World was John 17.5 6ly They oppose this External Generation and Glory of the Son by reasons for upon supposition of such Generation Crellius saith it would follow 1. That the Son would be the Son of himself 2. There would be infinite Sons 3. That the Son would be from Eternity and not from Eternity 4. That the Son was yet to be generated and to be generated to Eternity which are things irrational and not to be admitted Ans Reason doth not comprehend things Infinite though Faith may apprehend them therefore it is unreasonable to measure by the Rule of Reason those things which are peculiar to Faith only and depend on Revelation only and it is sufficiently revealed to us in the Scripture that there is One God and that in this Unity there are three Persons Father Son and Holy Ghost This we believe because it is written and do not doubt though it appear not by Humane reasoning how this can be however we deny that from the Arguings of the Adversaries or from Reason rightly informed it would follow First That according to our Opinion the Son should be the Son of himself because one Essence doth not beget another but one Person begets another as the Father the Son who of him becomes another Person not another thing 2. It is but his Dream of infinite Sons seeing that the only begotten is of infinite Perfection which is not divisible or multiplicable 3. Nor is Eternity repugnant to Generation for Moscorovius against Smigletius defends the probability of it the Materia Prima to be eternal and uncreate and so still to remain which yet the Leaders of this Opinion will not grant to be and not to be from Eternity thus supposing the Sun to be eternal its splendor which all would grant to have been to be and to endure with it must be eternal 4. Therefore when the Nicene Fathers do express this eternal Generation of the Son by the Emanation of Light from Light they do not mean that which is fleeting from that which is fixed but do manifest as much as they could the Equality and Co-eternity of Persons in their Order affirming the Son to be begotten Genitum non generandum 7. Lastly They load the Incarnation with so many Absurdities as if from thence it would follow 1. That the Father and Holy Spirit were as much incarnate as the Son 2. That the Person of the Son did wholly cease 3. That things in themselves different did unite Or 4. or at least that as Nestorius says two Persons did yet subsist in the Son But this Heap of Trifles hath been long since confuted by those of our Party Hierome Zanchy whose words are worthy to be repeated treating of this Controversy saith I affirm that I never read any thing in the Writings of Lelius Socinus Ochinus Servetus and the rest of that Bran whose Dirt is flung about by the Modern Socinians that hath any thing of that Accuracy which many Books of the Ancient Hereticks had for they are all either the old Song repeated an hundred times or new Impertinencies condemned before they were conceived Thus that Strenuous Doctor a Person of Primitive Discipline and of great Learning and Experience in these Controversies To whom we may add the Acurate Bisterfield The Sum of all is this We do not say that the Essence was Incarnate but the second Person in the Trinity 2ly That he did not by this cease to be a Person because he assumed the Humane Nature not a Person 3ly Not that by this Assumption the Divine Nature were any way perfected but that he thereby perfected the Humane Whence 4ly different Natures as the Soul and Body in Man did unite in one Person by an ineffable but possible Union not making two Persons as Nestorius dreamed because they have but one Subsistence which the Humane Nature that was assumed brought not with
be divided as Enemies by your strife about small and unnecessary things These Actions are more agreeable to the Ignorance of Boys than to the Wisdom of Priests and wise Men but seeing you have the same Faith and the same Opinion of our Religion and our Law requires concord of Minds and the Controversie between you doth not concern the Substance of Religion there ought not to be any discord between you This he said before he had been duly informed of the State of the Controversie what his thoughts were afterward you shall hear anon But as Socrat. l. 1. c. 8. says neither the Emperours Letters nor the Endeavours of Hosius could compose the Dissention the Emperour therefore resolved to summon a General Council at Nice in Bithinia to which all the Bishops of Europe Africa and Asia were called and there met above 300 Bishops besides Presbyters Deacons c. many of whom were eminent for Wisdom in Speaking Holiness of Life Patience in Suffering Modesty and Meekness of Manners these being assembled the Emperour appears the Bishops having done their Reverence he sate not down himself until he had beckned to them to sit down and he spake first exhorting them to Peace and Unity and whereas they had accused one another in several Libels the day before he injoyn'd them to burn those Libels and to forgive each other as they expected Christ should forgive them Then he gave them leave to propose the Differences that concern'd Religion of which Eusebius in the Third Book of the Life of Constantine gives this Account That many things being proposed by both Parties the Emperour attended with great patience and intention of mind weighing what was offered by both Parties moderating and allaying their heats and by his own arguments convincing some and perswading others they were at last brought to an agreement which was committed to Writing Some particulars whereof saith Socrates l. 1. c. 8. I will repeat least any should condemn the Proceedings of that Council or as Sabinus did account them ignorant and simple Men as particularly he did Eusebius who subscribed not until he had strictly examined the Controversie however he commends the Emperour as being very skilful in the Matters of Faith Socrates also commends Eusebius Pamphyli as a faithful Witness of what was done in that Council The Faith then agreed on was drawn into the Form which is now in our Liturgy to which they added an Anathema against such as should affirm That there was a time when the Son of God was not and that was made of things that were not or that he had some other Substance or Essence created or subject to change To this 318 Bishops subscribed five only refused because of the word Consubstantial whereof Eusebius and Theognis afterward recanted and were reconciled the rest kept in Banishment with Arius This Eusebius having after long deliberation assented to the Nicene Creed sends a Copy of it to his People of Caesarca with a particular Account how it was examined and tells his People That it was the same which he had received from the Bishops his Predecessors when he was first instructed by them and which they professed at their Baptism and which he would defend with his Life he tells them the Emperour confirm'd it first with the addition of the word Consubstantial to which they all agreed And to remove the prejudices which his People might have conceiv'd against him for standing out so long till he was sentenced to Banishment and then conforming he tells them with how great Judgment he considered both the Reasons of his Dissent and of his Consent suspending his Assent from the first to the last however as long as he met with any thing that offended him but when after due examination he found the sence of the words controverted to agree with that Faith which he at first received he embraced them And what those were he gives a particular Account viz. 1. These words were examined Of the Substance of the Father concerning which there arose divers Questions and Answers and after Examination it was agreed That the words of the Substance signified That the Son was of the Father but not as a part of the Father to this I consented as also to the word Consubstantial for the sake of Peace and that I might not fall from the right understanding of it in like manner to the words Begotten not made because it was urged that the word made was common to the Creatures which were made by the Son to which he had no likeness being of a more excellent Substance which the Scripture teach was of the Father by a secret manner of Generation not to be expressed and this Consubstantiality was not to be in a corporeal manner as in mortal Creatures for it was not by division of Substance nor Abscission nor change of the Father's Substance and Power because this was different from all those but it signifies that the Son had no likeness with the Creatures that were made by him but was in all things like to the Father by whom he was begotten and of no other Substance and to this we consented knowing that many ancient famous Bishops and learned Writers speaking of the Divinity of the Father and the Son used the same word The Emperour also expressed the same sence of the word Consubstantial which he said Was not to be understood as if the Son were of the Father by Division or any Section as in corporeal Substances because an intellectual and immaterial Nature admits not of the Affections of Bodies And that you may know something of the History of Arius I shall give you this brief Account Arius was a Priest of Alexandria in Egypt a Man infinitely desirous of Glory and Novelty as Ruffinus who knew him reports one that corrupted many Virgins who had professed Virginity he and some others of that Church whereof Alexander was Bishop a Learned and Orthodox Divine who suspecting that the Ancient Heresie which denied the Godhead of our Saviour was crept into this Church as the Event shews it was summoned his Clergy and discoursing to them concerning the Mystery of the Trinity told them of the Unity in the Trinity Arius one of the Presbyters skilful in Logick supposing the Bishop affected to the Doctrine of Sabellius thus objects to his Bishop If the Father begot the Son then he that was begotten had a beginning of his Existence and so there was a time when the Son was not and if so he had his Existence out of nothing Socrat. l. 1. c. 5. From these unheard of Assertions he provoked many to consider that Question and from this Spark a great Fire was kindled which spread through all Egypt Lybia and the Upper Thebais and many other Provinces for many others favoured Arius especially Eusebius of Nicomedia which much displeased Alexander so that by a Council of Bishops he removed Arius and some others and writes to the neighbouring Bishops to this purpose That
the promise of Eternal Life to the Believer and therefore he says p. 42. Col. 2. Whoever ascribes it to any other Doctrine however true however revealed makes himself equal to Christ in Authority and superiour in Faithfulness If then that Scripture of our Saviour This is life eternal to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent Joh. 20.31 And 1 Joh. 5.20 We are in him that is true even his Son Jesus Christ this is the true God and eternal life 1 Joh. 5.20 St. Augustine reads the Text thus To know thee and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent to be the only true God and so doth St. Chrysostom Now if I say Eternal Life be appropriate to this knowledge that Christ is the true God then it is a fundamental Article of Faith P. 43. There can be no need of an Interpreter of Scripture or Determiner of Doubts concerning Matters of Faith saith the Doctor How then comes it to pass that there are so many Controversies concerning Matters of Faith and that each Party denies Salvation to their Adversaries that differ from them His appeal to natural Faith will never be able to determine the Controversies that are yet undecided concerning such Fundamental Doctrines as are necessary to Salvation Socinus de Adoratione Christi says Bonas rationes rectas ex verbo dei consecutiones in sacris disputationibus aspernare nec admittere velle hominis est suae causae parum fidentis He says 3. 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 appropriate But is Eternal Life any where promised to those that believe that Jesus Christ was only a Creature and a meer Man Can we hope for Salvation without satisfaction to the Divine Justice or can we make satisfaction Is it not good Divinity to say there is no Salvation but in the Name and through the Merits of Jesus Christ who died for our Sins and rose again for our Justification I have shewn you how the Doctor would interpret this latter Scripture Rom. 4. ult Commodius interpretationis as they call them there but if their little Criticisms and false Punctations should be admitted the Scriptures would indeed be made as he says A Nose of Wax witness their interpretation of John 8.58 Before Abraham was I am i. e. say they Before Abraham was made the Father of the Faithful and of many Nations that were converted by the preaching of the Gospel I am viz. the Light of the World So Eniedinus renders the Confession of St. Thomas as an Exclamation directed to God the Father O my Lord and my God as saith he we are wont to do when we behold any strange sight And Christ's words to the Thief Luke 23.43 are thus pointed I say unto thee this day Thou shalt be with me in Paradise viz. When I shall come to Judgement Thus Francis David on the words of St. Stephen Act. 7.59 makes this Comment O God the Father who art the Lord of Jesus receive my Soul In this ch p. 44. c. 2. the Doctor says that the Remission which the prophets promised reached only to temporal punishments but that by Christ to eternal life How then can a natural Faith secure us of Life eternal when that Faith though greatly improved by the Prophets could not do it Ch. 11. in this Chapter he revives and pleads for another Socinian Tenet for the Resurrection not of the same but another Body He propounds the Question thus Whether any Promise doth necessarily import a restitution of the same numerical Matter and undertakes to prove That it is more honourable to God and more serviceable to the Design of the Gospel to believe the contrary But First This is contrary to the Grammatical Signification of the Word and to the Scripture by him quoted viz. That God gives to every seed his own Body And Ruffinus mentions the word Hujus the Resurrection of this Body which though it shall have a kind of Transfiguration by substraction of the old earthly Qualities and the addition of such as are new and heavenly yet the subject shall continue the same which St. Paul means 1 Cor. 15.53 This corruptible shall put on incorruption that as we have born the image of the earthly we may bear the image of the heavenly and as Job says With these eyes see God Job 19.25 And the Justice of God requires this that as the Faithful have born the Marks of the Lord Jesus Christ in their Bodies wherein they were Partakers of the Sufferings of Christ and were consecrated to him as the Temples of the Holy Ghost may partake of the Reward and Crown of Glory in the same Bodies What he says of our being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proves as well that we shall have no Bodies as that we shall not have the same The change that shall be made in our vile Bodies doth not alter the form of our Bodies no more than it doth the Body of Christ which though it be now a glorious Body yet is still the same numerical Body and to call that a Load of Carion which the Apostle calls the Temple of the Holy Ghost is not becoming a Christian Doctor As we believe therefore that the same Body our Saviour which suffered is now glorified and that the same Bodies that remain to the last day shall be taken up to meet the Lord in the Air shall be the same Bodies that shall be ever with the Lord. And as we believe that Christ arose from the Grave in the same Body wherein he died so we believe that he carried the same into the heavenly Sanctuary and shall come at last in the same Body to judge both the Quick and Dead that all Eyes may look on their Crucified Saviour and unless it shall be the same Body it cannot properly be called a Resurrection And no doubt but our Resurrection shall be conform with that of Christ's as the Apostle intimates Rom. 8.11 He that raised up Jesus from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies To this purpose St. Augustine Epl. 57. That as Christ glorified his own Body but destroyed not its nature so will he give Glory to our Bodies but not take away the nature of them Nor indeed do other qualities any more alter the nature of our Bodies than of our Souls which for substance shall be the same But lastly if this Enquiry be a matter of Curiosity not of Faith why doth he oppose the Doctrine so long received in the Church to bring in a Socinian Tenet And now p. 50. c. 1. he gives us the Socinian Scheme of the Naked Gospel such as Socinus Crellius Sclichtingius Smalcius and the whole Tribe have fancied and published to the World before him That its business was to reduce the Jews from their Bondage under the Law of Moses and the Gentiles from their worse bondage under the Worship of Devils to the