an other place he asserts that Souls departed live not the life of Spirits and adds that it is contrary to Scripture to assert otherwise And further If souls lived thus it could not be said that the dead ARE NOT because they ARE as is their chief part If you would know the ground of this opinion it is this The Soul they say can't live without the Body and therefore when this dies the other doth so too The foresaid Author expresses it thus As the body without the spirit is a carkase so the spirit without the body can exert no actions i. e. is as it were a carkase is dead and in an other place he is as peremptory Slichtingius labours to prove that humane souls live not on this side of the last and general Resurrection which appears from their not having a Sense of any thing between the time after their departure hence and the Resurrection The dead are not sensible saith he and accordingly Separate Souls having no sense and perception are concluded to have no life Again in an other place in his Commentary he saith the Souls of the just are not sensible of Happiness till after the Resurrection Volkelius would seem at first to be a Trimmer for he tells us the Soul neither dies nor lives it is neither mortal nor immortal But when he comes to explain himself he lets us see that he is no dissenter from his brethren but concludes with them that the Souls of the departed are insensible of any thing before their re-union with the bodies Nay as you shall hear afterwards he improves this Insensibility into an Extinction I will mention Crellius in the last place though he is a Racovian of the first Rate he gives it us as his perswasion that the souls of the dead have no perception no knowledg of any thing And in an other place he determines that the departed Saints enjoy not the Happiness of Heaven before the End of the World And afterwards he undertakes the Proof of this and produces Eight Arguments for this purpose but he generally founds it on this Hypothesis that there is no Perception without the Body and therefore till there be a Reunion of soul and body the deceased can have no feeling of Celestial Joys they remain destitute of all sâ—…se Thus they all agree that Humane Spirits after death have no Life or Activeness for one is synonymous with the other no capacity of exerting themselves But what can be more contrary to those discoveries which are made to us in the Sacred and Inspired Writings Our Blessed Saviour saith God is not the God of the dead but of the living Mat. 22. 32. which words are spoken of Abraham Isaac and Jacob who are long since departed this life wherefore it is undeniably evident that these Patriarchs live But they do not live as to their bodies therefore it must be meant of their Souls The same Infallible Instructer ascertains us that he who hears his word and believes in him who sent him is passed from death to life John 5. 24. Which words though they may be interpreted concerning a state of spiritual death and spiritual life in this world yet they have a fuller meaning and comprehend in them the passing of believers at their death into a better life than they had before viz. that which is Everlasting of which he speaks in the very same verse And such are said to be passed as if it were already done which is usual in the Scripture-stile because of the Certainty of the thing hereafter But the Socinian Theology runs counter to this they say believers pass from life to death to a state that is wholly uncapable of sense life or action Those words of our Saviour this day shalt thou be with me in paradise Luke 23. 43. prove that the Soul enjoys it self immediately after death and is in a state of Bliss and Happiness The Apostle had a desire to depart and to be with Christ Phil. 1. 23. and assigns this as a reason which is far better that is far better than to abide in the flesh to continue in this world which he speaks of both before and after these words But according to Socinus's followers it is far worse for after the Soul's departure from the body it hath no understanding no perception at all of Christ or any thing appertaining to him Again these men confront not only Scripture but reason they shew themselves as bad Philosophers as Divines for if they had a right apprehension of the Nature of Humane Souls they would not talk after this rate Their notion destroys the very Soul of man for it deprives it of its Essential and Inseparable Quality which is Thinking And besides they grosly imagine that the Body helps the Soul in its operations yea that this cannot subsist without the assistance of that whereas according to the best notions we can form of the body as it is now corrupted it is a hindrance to the operation of the Soul And as for the Soul it is so far from being worsted by its Separation that it is in a much better condition as to its actings than it was Death is but snuffing of this Candle so 't is call'd Prov. 20. 27. it makes it shine the brighter When the Soul leaves the Body it becomes more brisk and active than ever being freed from that fleshly clog and luggage which depressed it This is True Philosophizing but the other is the very dregs of Epicurism It degrades the Rational Part of Man especially that of Good Men for all Separate Souls according to them go to the same place the wicked and the godly are alike as to that there is no difference between them till the Resurrection and Last Judgment Which is a great deal worse than the doctrine of the Church of Rome which assigns different Limbus's to the good and bad And then they are all equal as to this that they are Senseless and uncapable of knowing or acting or any ways exerting themselves Though the Soul exists yet it is as if it were not it hath nothing of its True Nature which is in a manner thrusting the Rational Spirit out of its being Who doth not see that the belief of the Insensibility and Inactivity of the Soul makes way for the belief of its Non-subsistence after the death of the body And so all Religion is dampt and the hopes of a Future State are quite laid in the dust The Socinian Writers verge upon this thus from the pen of one of the Authors before mention'd we have such words as these concerning the Soul Properly speaking it neither dies nor lives but only causes Life as long as it is joyn'd to the Body wherefore properly speaking it can't be said to be Immortal for Immortality belongs only to those beings which themselves actually live And speaking another time concerning the Souls that are separated from their bodies he
Justice for our Sins and thereby reconcile God to us And in the same places of their Writings where they assert this they also add that God remits the sins of men without any Compensation to his offended Holiness and Justice for this they say is contradictory to the other Nay they tell us that there is not in God that Justice whereby he is moved to punish Sin But shall we believe the Racovian Catechism or St. Paul's words God set him i. e. Christ forth to be a Propitiation to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins Rom. 3. 25. and in the next verse to declare his righteousness that he might be just i. e. to make it appear that God would not pardon sin without Satisfaction made to his Justice The Holiness and Righteousness of God's nature and the opposition of them to Sin oblige him to animadvert upon it Wherefore Sin cannot go unpunish'd and consequently it cannot be forgiven without Satisfaction that is either the guilty person must suffer or the fault and punishment must be transferr'd on another And whereas these Great Masters of Reason alledg that Christ could not be punish'd because he was an Innocent Person for it is injustice to punish the Innocent they cannot deny this to be a Maxim of clear Reason that an Innocent Person may voluntarily undertake to suffer for one that is Guilty as a man may take another's Debt upoâ—… him and oblige himself to discharge iâ—… for him This is an act of Mercy anâ—… Generosity And much more such wâ—… Christ's undertaking to discharge oâ—… debts to expiate our sins by suffering foâ—… us And seeing he gave himself for 〈◊〉 Tit. 2. 14. i. e. willingly offer'd himself seeing it was an act of his Choice anâ—… Consent we may conclude that theâ—… was no Injustice done him when the guiâ—… of our sins was laid upon him and wheâ—… he bore the Punishment which was primarily due to us This is so plain a thinâ—… that any man of correct thoughts mâ—… needs discern it The Case then is thiâ—… God would not pardon the sins of meâ—… committed against him without somâ—… Recompence and Satisfaction but weâ—… could not make Satisfaction for our selves therefore an Other did it Christ underwent the Punishment which we deserved and which should have been inflicted on us and thereby he fully satisfied God's Justice which as he is Absolute and Supreme Governour of all the world requires that Sin should be punished How unreasonably then do the Socinian Writers cry out against this Just and Wise Dispensation of Heaven Yea how Irreligious and Prophane are they in exploding and scoffing at that which is the Only Way of Man's Salvation I may justly take up the words of an Ancient and Pious Father on the like occasion I doubt not but if God had taken another way to effect our Salvation they would also have found fault with that for they are fastidious and hard to please and are only skill'd to Cavil at the Mysteries of the Divine Dispensation So far as we know this Particular Method of Redeeming lost Man was Necessary because Satisfaction could not otherwise be made to the offended Majesty of Heaven nor could the Injury done to him be fully repaired But we are sure of this that this Satisfaction and Reparation were really made by Christ the Son of God This is evident from those Texts of Scripture which acquaint us that he took the Guilt of our Sins upon himself He was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripeâ—… we are healed The Lord hath laid oâ—… him the iniquity of us all For the transgression of my people was he stricken Isai. 53. 5 7 8. In which words it is as evidenâ—… as any thing possibly can be that the Penalty which was due to us for our sins and transgressions was transferr'd on him and he thereby Satisfied for us And this is the meaning of Heb. 9. 28. Christ was once offer'd to bear the Sins of many and of Gal. 3. 13. He was made 〈◊〉 Curse for us he underwent the Punishment for sin which we in our own persons should have undergone and particularly he suffer'd that Cursed death of the Cross. His Satisfying for us is plainly denoted by the frequent mention of Reconciliation i. e. doing some Great thing whereby he purchased the favour of God for us when we were enemies to him When we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son Rom. 5. 10. God hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ 2 Cor. 5. 18. Or in other terms v. 19. God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell and having made peace through the blood of his cross by him to reconcile all things unto himself Col. 1. 19 20 21. And accordingly you hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death v. 22. And in several other places this Reconciliation is expresly mention'd And whereas they acknowledg being convicted by these plain Texts that Christ reconciled us unto God but then object that it is not said He reconciled God to us it is a vain and childish suggestion and a mere playing upon words and therefore is not worthy of a serious man for our being reconcil'd unto God and his being reconcil'd to us amount to the same one is included in the other or one at least follows upon the other If we are reconcil'd to God it is a natural consequence that God is so to us and therefore these Objectors shew themselves here as they do upon several other occasions to be very Triflers The Satisfaction made by our Saviour is likewise manifest from those places of the New Testament which make mention of his sufferings for us dying for us laying down his life for us Mat. 20. 28. John 10. 11 15. Rom. 5. 6. 2 Cor. 5. 14 15. 1 Thess. 5. 9 10. Heb. 2. 9. 1 Pet. 2. â—…1 3. 18. and many other places which inform us that Christ freely substituted himself in the room of lost men and suffer'd in their stead And this doctrine is undeniably proved from those Texts which represent Christ as a real Propitiation and Atonement for our sins and consequently as a true and proper Expiation for them I say proper because Socinus and his brethren are not backward to acknowledg that he expiated for Sin but then they mean it not in the proper sense i. e. that he deliver'd us from the guilt of Sin by the efficacy and merit of his Blood This likewise is plainly set forth to us in those Texts 1 Cor. 5. 7. Christ our Passover i. e. our Paschal Lamb is sacrificed for us Ephes. 5. 2. He hath given himself for us an Offering and a Sacrifice for a sweet-smelling savour especially those in the Epistle to the Hebrews which speak of Christ's Offering himself and
They deny that the dead shall rise with the same Bodies It is unreasonable to deny this merely because of some Difficulties that attend it Though we should suppose an Annihilation of humanâ—… bodies yet God can raise them the same Much more may we conceive the same bodies to be rais'd out of something The very notion of Resurrection implies the rising again of the same Individual Body This doctrine is founded on the evidenâ—… testimony of Scripture It is shew'd iâ—… what respects the contrary opinion is an argument of Impiety THirdly I proceed to consider the Groundless and Irreligious Sentiments of these Men concerning the First Man and the State he was in at his first Creation They all agree in this thaâ—… though Adam had a natural ability to do what God enjoyn'd him yet he was not created in a State of Uprightness He is said to be made upright Eccl. 7. 29. because he was not created depraved but if we speak properly he had no Natural Rectitude or Righteousness So Socinus And therefore he gives us his judgment very decisively thus Let us conclude that Adam even before he transgressed the commandment of God was not truly Just. Ostorodus hath the very same thoughts of him and another Warm Gentleman who is much applauded and admired by the Party tells us plainly but in no very clean language that it is an old stinking Fable that the first Man was adorn'd from his very creation with holiness and supernatural gifts But what if this Fable be in Scripture Yes most certainly that which he in such vile terms represents as such is the doctrine of the Old and New Testament God created man in his own image Gen. 1. 27. And that we may be more ascertain'd of it it is repeated in the very same place in the image of God created he him And that this Image consists in Holiness and Righteousness is clear from Eph. 4. 24. and Col. 3. 10. where the Apostle speaking of the Image of God in which man was at first created places it in Righteousness and true holiness as well as knowledg How then can it be said by these Writers that the Image of God wherein our first Parents were created did not consist in Sanctity and Righteousness how can it with truth be said by them that there was no Positive Moral Goodness and Rectitude in them This is directly contrary to what the Inspired Writers deliver concerning them Let the Reader now judg on which side the Fable is and at the same time let him judg how impiously the foresaid Writer represents the Word of God as an Old stinking Fable To proceed There being according to these New Theologists no Original Righteousness in the first Man his posterity can't be deprived of it and accordingly they deny Original Sin i. e. though they hold man's nature is corrupted and depraved yet they say it was not at all derived from our First Parents there is no defect blemish or depravity propagated to their posterity Socinus frequently vouches this and so do several of his Partizans who appear in great throngs upon this occasion and with one consent profess that by Adam's Apostacy the nature of man is not depraved men are not born with a propension and inclination to that which is Vitious by reason of that First Defection The contrary opinion is according to Socinus an arrant Cheat and Imposture for these are his own words Whatever evil effects in mankind the EVANGELICKS i. e. the Protestants and PAPISTS attribute to the first sin of our First Parent it must needs be that they are Vain Fictions and Dreams of men Whatever Divines dispute about Original Sin it is all of it clearly to be reckon'd as the mere invention and forgery of humane wit And then he pretends in another place to trace its Pedegree and to give you the Rise of it That Device of Original Sin is a Jewish Fable and brought into the Church from Antichrist If this be true then St. Paul's doctrine is fabulous By one man sin enter'd into the world Rom. 5. 12. By one man's disobedidience many were made Sinners v. 19. And this Great and Infallible Apostle himself must be reputed Judaical and Antichristian when he adds that death enter'd by sin i. e. by that One Man's Sin spoken of before and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned viz. in that first Man And again v. 17. By one man's offence death reigned by one Hence it is evident that Adam and his race became Mortal because of this First Transgression But Socinus is of another opinion for it is the first thing you meet with in his Prâ—…lections that the first man before his fâ—… was by nature mortal Smalcius will by no means grant that Adam was created in a state of Immortality but that he was naturally Mortal and though he had not sinn'd yet he should have died With whom agrees Volkelius confidently asserting that Mortality is not the effect and punishment of the Fall And the rest of them hold that Adam's Sin endamaged himself but no body else his posterity suffer'd not they derived no Infection no Stain no Depravity from him But are the English Socinians of this mind Yes for the Effects and Consequences which we ascribe to Adam's Fall are flatly denied by Bidle in his Scripture-Catechism chap. 3. And in one of their late Prints the Natural Depravity of man i. e. his propensity to evil and his aversness to good are represented as false and absurd And a little before they peremptorily deny that Adam's race have any sin derived much less imputed to them and that they are punish'd for it God cannot possibly do this they say yea they have the confidence to add these horrid words that this is the just character of an Almighty Devil Accordingly they cry down Original Sin as a mere Sham and Imposture And hence issue a great many Unsound Assertions which are in great vogue with all Socinians If there be no Corruption convey'd to Adam's race if they receiv'd no hurt by his Fall then they have as he had a natural power to do all that God requires of them They still have an ability by nature to imbrace all good and to avoid all evil which are the express terms used by their Writers And hear what their Catechism saith Qu. Is there not need of the inward gift of the Holy Spirit that we may believe the Gospel A. Not at all And the reason is assigned afterwards namely because this is a gift that is confer'd upon such as already believe the Gospel Here you see what is the Racovian Divinity It is not the Spirit of God that enlightens mens minds and enables them to receive the Truth the Spirit of God is not the original of all Grace in us This is clear from that notion which they form concerning the Holy Spirit by which is meant say they
nothing is rais'd but what fell or was laid down for Rising answers to these but that Matter which is supposed to be substituted in the room of our bodies did not fall was not laid down therefore it cannot Rise and consequently there is no Rising again at all This Argument is thus represented by a Great Man The Identity of the body rais'd from death is so necessary that the very name of the Resurrection doth include or suppose it so that when I say there shall be a Resurrection of the dead I must intend thus much that the bodies of Men which lived and are dead shall revive and rise again For at the death of man nothing falleth but his Body the spirit goeth upward and no other body falleth but his own and therefore the body and no other but that body must rise again to make a Resurrection So that it follows hence that those who disbelieve the Resurrection of the same body in effect deny the Article of the Resurrection of the body for the same body must rise or none at all This is evident from 2 Cor. 5. 10. We must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ that every one may receive the things done in his body The same individual body that died must revive that the same bodies wherein sin was committed may be punished for sinning And who can resist the force of those plain words Rev. 20. 13. which are spoken of the general Resurrection at the last day The sea shall give up the dead that are in it and death and the grave deliver up the dead which are in them What means this giving and delivering up the dead in those places unless the very same bodies that fell are to rise For bodies might be made and shaped out of matter in any other Places if the dead were not to appear at the day of Judgment in their own bodies in the very bodies they laid down in the grave or in the sea or any other Place It is true they shall not be the same as to their condition and quality for this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal immortality but their identity shall be preserv'd in respect of their nature and substance these being the same that they were at their fall This doctrine saith that Excellent Writer before named is most agreeable to the language of the Scriptures to the Principles of Religion to the constant Profession of the Church And being so it is no wonder that it is disrelish'd by the Persons I am speaking of who are wont to disregard the Sacred Writings to subvert the Principles of Christianity and to slight the suffrage of the Universal Church In all which they manifest an Irreligious temper and more especially in disbelieving and opposing this Explication of the Article of the Creed they have shew'd an Atheistical Spirit which always disgusts that Truth which flows from the Scriptures and is revealed to us by the Holy Spirit in them for herein they let us see that they are backward to give credit to the Supreme Truth God himself And besides there is a farther Tang of Impiety in this Opinion of theirs because it bereaves God of the Glory of his Infinite Power in reuniting the same bodies to the same souls at the last day it eclipses the honour of his Mercy in rewarding believers in the same flesh wherein they serv'd and worship'd him in this life it obscures his Justice in punishing sinners in those very fleshly Vehicles which they had here on earth and wherein they did so much mischief in the world And lastly it being such a Diminishment of the doctrine of the Resurrection it is to be fear'd it will have too great an influence on the lives and conversations of men They being dissetled as to the full belief of this they will waver in their Faith of the Future State they will be regardless of that Mighty Concern and they will be backward to fit themselves for it Thus the Racovian doctrine is an impediment to Religion and a nourisher of Vice and Ungodliness CHAP. V. Their false apprehensions concerning the Last Judgment are detected They are not consentaneous to the design of that Great Transaction They are contrary to that Description which is given of it in Scripture They are a gratification to Atheists It is their belief and profession that the Ungodly after the Resurrection shall not suffer Torment but shall be Annihilated This is disproved from Luk. 10. 14. Mat. 18. 8. Mark 9. 44. 2 Cor. 5. 10. An Objection answered The Perniciousness of this doctrine and its tendendency to Atheism on several accounts Iâ—… is no wonder that Socinianism for the sake of this doctrine is plausible Nevertheless the doctrine is irrational and groundless and exploded by some of the Wisest Pagans THIS will be further discover'd in their notion concerning the Last Judgment which say they consists not in any Trial or Judging of the World in any calling them to Account but only in assigning them their different lots and conditions To be judg'd saith Slichtingius is to be rewarded or punish'd Volkelius makes no distinction between the Judging and Punishing of the wicked The Judg knows who are to be saved and who to be damn'd and therefore need not use any Formal Citation or lay open mens lives But those who talk thus should remember that human actions are to be exposed at that day not because God hath not a perfect knowledg of them but because it is his Pleasure that Men should be acquainted with them that the Good Actions of the righteous may be applauded and that the Evil ones of the unrighteous may be condemned in the face of the whole World That this is the will of God we learn from the Sacred Writ and where can it be learnt but there Therefore for these men to Argue and reason the matter notwithstanding the express will and appointment of God is a sign of a very perverse and irreligious frame of mind Is not the Transaction of the Last day represented to us as a Formal Judiciary Process Doth not the Scripture speak of the Judg Acts 10. 42. 2 Tim. 4. 8. Heb. 12. 23. Jam. 5. 9. of the Judgment-seat Rom. 14. 10. 2 Cor. 5. 10. or the Throne or Tribunal for Judgment Rev. 20. 11 and yet will there be no Judging Is it not said with particular respect to that day that God will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and make manifest the counsels of the hearts 1 Cor. 4. 5. Is it not said he will bring every work into Judgment with every secret thing whether it be good or whether it be evil Eccl. 12. 14. And do we question then whether there will be this Judicial Action which we properly call Judging or Trying Iâ—… there shall be this Manifestation of the Hearts and Actions of Men can we imagine that rewarding and punishing at that day are the very same with Judging Further