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
of his being certified of the Resurrection My Lord and my God our Saviour gives his blessing not only to him but to all those that shall believe this without being Eye-witnesses of his Resurrection to confirm them in it Blessed are they which have not seen and yet have believed And thus we find our Saviour did many of his miraculous Cures in requital of their Faith and their ready confession of his Divinity as on the blind Man Mat. 20. that cryed out so vehemently have mercy on me O Lord thou Son of David and Luke 17. when the blind Man cries out Jesus thou Son of David have mercy on me our Saviour tells him upon his Cure thy faith hath saved thee v. 4. Where by the Son of David is meant the Messias who according to the Jewish Doctors was to be God So that this Confession of his being the Son of David was a Confession of his Divinity which was a great means to incline our Saviour to work their Cure and to tell one of them that his Faith had saved him And thus we have let our Author know there was some other use of Faith at the beginning of the Gospel than what he mentions and that there was not only a need of Faith to strengthen them against the dangers c. which the Gospel brought on them but to make them believe in Christ's Divinity and to profess that most important Article of our Christian Faith 2. The next thing which the Authour in this Chapter would have is That Faith in the Gospel has no relation to Christ's Divinity because he says God like a good Prince would not load his good subjects with unnecessary burdens but only such as there was reason for and which were necessary to Piety and a good Life Now I hope that our Authour and his Friends for all their pretence to reason will not be so bold with God Almighty as to give the Rationale of all his Commands and exactly to shew the motives that inclined his Eternal Will whose Judgments are unsearchable and his ways past finding out I confess I have always lookt upon it as a very daring piece of Confidence in these sort of Authours to say in case of a positive Command That God has not Commanded such a thing or This Command must not be understood in this manner because there is no reason that he should thus command us or as our Authour says 'T is to dishonour God to believe him to require Faith for any other reason than because it is necessary for our incouragement to Holiness or as he says afterwards For its serviceableness to the Divine Life For though we could see no reason for such a Command yet God may and 't is but reasonable as well as modest to think that God understands the reason of his own Laws best and that he that gave us these Precepts best understood the ends for which he designed them But because the Authour should not triumph too much over us poor dull Trinitarians or think there is no reason to be given why Faith in the persons of the Blessed Trinity should be commanded us or in particular that the Belief of the Divinity of our Saviour which it is our Authour 's chief design to impugn as appears by his following Chapters least I say he should think this Belief does contribute nothing to Religion and Piety let him be pleased to take with him these considerations First That to believe the Divinity of our Saviour is necessary to Religion because by it there is gained a greater Authority to his Laws For we find that Men are more and more inclined to respect Rules and Laws from the dignity of the person that gives them The Rules and Injunctions of ordinary persons are usually contemned and slighted though if the same came from a great and magnificent Person they would be embraced with a great deal of eagerness and veneration Therefore in compassion to this infirmity of Mankind it has pleased the infinite Wisdom and Goodness of God to let a Person of the Divine Nature the Son of his Bosom to take our nature upon him to be himself the propounder of these Heavenly Rules of his holy Gospel to be himself the Promiser of all those glorious Rewards which he vouchsafes to propose to those that shall obey his Precepts Now such a Person as this could be liable to no exceptions though a Prophet might be mistaken in his Revelation might outgo or misapply his Credentials yet when God himself undertakes the Embassage malice it self can except nothing here so that this will be proof against the utmost Infidelity Secondly This Belief does further Religion because it improves our Love and Gratitude to God upon consideration of so immense a benefit Indeed it had been a great token of God's love to Mankind any ways to have contrived our Redemption to have rescued us from that forlorn miserable Estate into which we were fallen and to have placed us in a Capacity of attaining Everlasting Happiness But then his love is far greater to us when he hath sent his only begotten Son to die for our sins and to purchase our Redemption by such an unvaluable price And we may take notice that the Apostles do place the choisest mark of God's love in chusing such extraordinary means to work Mens Salvation by as the Incarnation and Death of his own Son God so loved the World that he gave his only begotten Son Joh. 3. 16. God spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all Rom. 8. 32. Herein is love not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins 1 Joh. 4. 10. And truly this consideration that a Person of the glorious Trinity one that is God blessed for ever should for the sake of us wretched Sinners undergo such an exinanition as to take our nature upon him to live a miserable Life and to die a shameful Death to reconcile us unto God this consideration I say is of all most apt to work upon generous Minds to hinder them from offending so good and gracious a God after such an unparallel'd Mercy and nothing can be so effectual to make Men ashamed of the ingratitude of their Sins if they have any the least spark of Generosity or Vertue when they reflect upon this so inexpressible goodness Thirdly Because this Belief does secure us of the remission of our sins by an assurance we now have of the compleat satisfaction which Christ has made for the sins of all Men. We know our Saviour came into the World that Repentance and Remission of Sins should be Preached in his Name Now we are certain that it is not possible for the blood of Bulls and Goats to take away sin Heb. 10. 4. and we are as certain that the blood of meer Man would be as far from doing it as the other so that we could have no assurance of our Redemption
Nebuchadnezzar or Daniel who relates this matter understood by the Son of God was an Angel who from their nigh Conversation with God from the great Portion of Happiness and Glory he communicates to them and their so resembling him by their Purity and the Spiritualness of their Nature and from their living in Heaven with him like Children under the wing of their Parent from these and the like circumstances they were and not improperly called the Sons of God as we find in many places of Scripture as Psal 82. I said ye were Angels or the Children of the Most High So Job 1. 6. There was a day when the Sons of God or Angels presented themselves before the Lord. And the LXX translate this very place in Daniel by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the form of the Fourth was like the Angel of God So that we must grant That the Son of God here mentioned was an Angel of God But our Blessed Saviour was the Son of God in another manner than his for his Sonship is not founded upon any such Analogy as theirs is but upon the eternal generation of the Father for he being made so much better than the Angels as he hath by Inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they Heb. 1. 4. In short 't is impossible that our Saviour's Sonship should be such a Sonship as that of the Angels because the Apostle spends this whole Chapter to prove him a Person distinct from and above the nature of Angels and does besides set the Son of God in direct opposition to the Angels of God And of the Angels he saith c. v. 7. But unto the Son he saith c. v 8. When he bringeth in his first begotten into the world he saith Let all the Angels of God worship him v. 6. So that Christ's Sonship must be of another kind than that of the Angels or else there would be no ground for their contradistinction unless he was in a peculiar manner the Son of God in a supereminent extraordinary way not at all common to them The Authour having made these Remarks upon this Title of our Saviour The Son of God he proceeds to reckon up some others as the Messias or Christ Onely begotten Son of God which Characters he allows to speak a Person of unmeasurable Greatness a Person like his Emblem the Light so glorious that by our most intent view we cannot discover any thing of it but this That we cannot discover Now for all our Authour's haste one would imagine that something was discoverable in our Saviour by these Eulogies that God did design to manifest or discover something to us of him by these Revelations and not to make Revelations of things that were not revealable 'T is not to be expected indeed that by the help of Revelation we should dive into the Nature of our Saviour's eternal Essence for we are so far from a possibility of doing that that we are ignorant of the Essential Constitutions of the most inconsiderable Being we are conversant with But though we are ignorant of this yet we can tell when 't is revealed to us by God what kind of Nature our Saviour's is whether finite or infinite whether divine or humane The Gloriousness of his Nature does not so dazzle our Eyes as to make us confound distinct and express Idea's I have a certain though not an adequate Idea or Notion of God as a Being infinite incorporeal c. And when I am informed by Revelation tâ—at such a Person is that infinite incorporeal Being or that he has in such Revelation those Characters ascribed to him as are inseparable from the Divine Nature I must conclude That such a one is a Person of the Divine Nature such an infinite incorporeal c. Being which is my Notion of God Indeed the gloriousness of this Being keeps Men from discovering its Essence and from prying into its Nature but yet we may observe such Marks and Properties in it so as to have a distinct Conception of it from all other Beings in the World The Sun is a glorious Body and the more we strive to pry into its Constitution by gazing on it the more we are blinded and what then don 't we know the Sun when we see it for all this because our Eyes are so weak that we cannot stare into the Furnace of the Sun must we therefore take it for a Candle The Person of our Saviour is glorious and if it were a thousand times less glorious than it is I might not understand its Nature but when I am told that this Person is God that he is one of the Persons of the Divine Nature my Understanding tells me very clearly That all the marks and properties I have in my Mind of the Divine Nature must be attributed to this Person and though I understand nothing of his Essence or the precise modus of his Hypostasis yet I am sure he is that Being which I have a certain Idea of and which I call God So that 't is a great Fallacy in the Authour to say we don't know what our Saviour is because we cannot dive into his Essence for our discriminative Knowledge of one thing from another is not by discovering the Essences or internal Constitutions of them but by regarding their outward marks and properties and these every one has a Knowledge of for a Child knows a Rose from a Stone as well as a Philosopher though it knows not the Qualities and internal Constitutions of either Therefore when I am infallibly informed that such a Person is God I am infallibly assured he is that kind of Being I have the fore-mentioned Idea of though I am infinitely short of understanding its Nature II. Our Authour now comes to shew what is meant by believing in his Person which he branches into Two Parts First Believing in him with respect to his word Second In respect to his Person The First of which onely he speaks to in this Chapter and says that Christ is to his Followers as the Sun to Travellers 'T is no matter what they think of its magnitude or whether they think it be no bigger than a Bushel it guides them all alike and thus it is he says with the Sun of Righteousness 't is no matter what we believe him to be if we have but a Practical Faith which is all our Saviour he says requires And this he attempts to prove out of Joh. 10. a place than which one would have thought he should rather have chosen any Text in the New Testament besides How long dost thou make us to doubt if thou be the Christ tell us plainly Jesus said I told you by calling God my Father and ye believe me not Joh. 10. 24 25. And presently after he tell them I and my Father are one v. 30. at which they took up stones to stone him saying thou being a man makest thy self God Now what can the Authour draw from this Why he says our
our Church speaks spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith in so much that a true and lively Faith may be known by them as a Tree is discerned by its Fruit. But still it is Faith not works that do justifie for they having no intrinsick value of their own cannot conferr it on any but Faith alone which takes hold as some speak of the all-sufficient merits of our Blessed Saviour Or as our Church speaks sends us directly to Christ for the remission of our Sins and by which we embrace the Promise of God's Mercy and of the remission of our Sins which thing none other of our Vertues or Works properly doth therefore the Scripture useth to say That Faith without Works doth justifie Not that even Faith it self is a proper and necessary cause of Justification but that it has pleased God to accept it as a cause or means by embracing or taking hold of the merits of Christ which are the true proper meritorious cause of Justification Which justification or righteousness which we so receive of God's mercy and Christ's merits embraced by Faith is taken accepted and allowed of by God as our perfect and full Justification And this is the reason that the Gentlemen of the Authour's persuasion are so unwilling to have Faith onely to justifie Secondly This ought to be an Orthodox Faith in all Fundamentals at least All the admirable Effects which the Scripture does attribute to Faith must be understood of a true Faith such as is agreeable to God's word which is to be the rule of our Faith and not of a false or Heterodox Faith which any one takes up from a Party of Men or from his own Imagination A Heterodox Faith is no more Faith than a dead man or a painted man is a Man they agree in one common equivocal Name 't is true and in nothing else So that an Heterodox Faith can no more pretend to those supernatural Effects which a true Faith by God's grace does produce than a dead Man can pretend to all the Properties and Operations of a live one There is but one Faith as well as one Baptism so that to hope to be justified by a false or another Faith is as unreasonable as to expect to come into the Church by another Baptism So that they that teach a Justification by works or any other Faith than an Orthodox one do themselves for ought as I see teach another Gospel Thirdly The reason why Faith is so pleasing to God as that he should make this the great Means of Justification And here I hope to give an Answer to the Authour's Dilemma and to shew that our Faith in Christ is not irrational and then we are no Fools and as for our merit by Faith we are far from pretending to it we acknowledge it as an infinite mercy of our gracious God that he will accept our Faith in Christ's blood for our Justification and do not go about to argue the worth of it which is none And as for the grounds of our Faith in Christ for Justification I know not what can be more reasonable than to expect only to have our weak Performances accepted for the sake of his all-sufficient Merits And of all our Actions that we can perform I know not what can be more pleasing and acceptable in the sight of God than for an humble and desponding Christian considering his own unworthiness and the insufficiency of his Repentance it self and all other Vertues to incline God to mercy so far as for their sakes to accept him for just and innocent he as the last refuge he hath quitteth all worth and merit in himself and fleeth with a full and undoubting Faith in all God's revelations and a firm confidence in all his promises unto the free grace of God revealed in Christ Jesus and hopes for the sake of his Righteousness alone that he will justifie his imperfect Performances This certainly when we have done the utmost of our Endeavours is more pleasing to God than any action we can do more For if we could be justified by our works it would tempt us to reflect with Pride upon our vertuous Actions but this teaches us a pious despondency in our selves and to cast all our hopes upon our blessed Saviour And this is the summ of the Apostles Arguments Eph. 2. 8. For by Grace ye are saved through Faith not of your selves nor of works least any one should boast And the learned Cassander though a Papist says thus much in favour of this Doctrine of the Protestants that in this Question by the word Faith they mean only the grace of God which is correspondent to faith quae fidei ex adverso respondet and to be justified by faith alone signifies the same as by grace alone in opposition to all kind of works CHAP. III. What figure Faith made in natural Religion OUR Authour in the beginning of this Chapter lays down Faith as a duty in natural Religion that it is a branch of Justice by which we pay to God what is due to his Veracity that this was before all positive Law and that upon this the Gospel is built because the Faith of Abraham which is recommended for our pattern Rom. 4. was nothing else but this Justice that the lack of this Faith was reproved by the Angel in Sarah and was punished in Lot's Wife Gen. 18. and in the incredulous Lord 2 King 7. And that this is the Faith lastly which is commended in the Worthies mentioned Heb. 11. And last of all he endeavours to shew the excellency of Abraham's Faith to consist in believing God against so many difficulties from this natural notion of his Veracity Any one that understands the nature of the Authour's Book will easily see into his design here which is to bring down all Faith to be a meer Creature of Reason to be no longer that which the Schools call an infused Habit or the inspiration of God but only a bare rational belief upon divine Testimony Now as to his notion of Faith its being a branch of Justice and that by the light of nature we are taught to believe God upon his Testimony this is in some measure most certainly true as appears by the practice of the Heathens themselves who had nothing but the light of nature to walk by in their believing their Oracles Auguries Prophesies c. and in suiting their actions according to them So that 't is plain that natural Religion tells us God is to be believed upon his Testimony so that when a Man under natural Religion does believe any thing upon God's Testimony our Authour may if he pleases call this Faith But Theological Faith or Faith under the Gospel is quite of another kind this is not only an assent of the understanding but a divine Grace or Habit infused though our Authour would have them the same by saying the Gospel is built upon this and moreover That Faith in Abraham
Thebais and Libya to receive Arius and Euzoius with willing Minds as being restored they say by so great a Synod and they write another to the Emperour to give him an account of what was done and to desire him to see them actually restored Arius then comes to Alexandria but Athanasius who understood all the Fraudulence of the proceeding looking on him still as excommunicate avoided him as an execrable Person and would not restore him Then Arius strives by infusing his Heresie into the People of the City to raise a Tumult thereby to attain his end that way but this not succeeding Eusebius procures a Letter from the Emperour to command him to it This Athanasius civilly answers and informs him That Arius being anathematized by a general Council he cannot be restored by him again This very much inflames the Emperour not well understanding the merits of the Cause and occasions an angry Letter from him in which he threatens his deposing him from his Bishoprick upon refusal This Opportunity Eusebius gladly improves and suborns one Ischyras a rascally Fellow that had usurped the Priesthood without Ordination in the Diocess of Athanasius but being detected by him flies to Eusebius in Nicomedia who receives him as a Priest and promises him a Bishoprick if he would accuse Athanasius which having done he did afterwards procure him Then were trumpt up the Forgeries of the broken Chalice and the cutting off Arsenius's Hand and using it for Magick c. which were the subject of the Debates of the Arian Council at Tyre and have of late made such a noise in our Socinian Pamphlets Now in all this here is no real Disobedience at all of the Bishop to the Emperour as the Authour would pretend for the Emperour will not have him restored unless he be of the opinion of the Nicene Council and besides he does not think it a Point in which he ought to meddle but leaves it to the Council which he thought Orthodox when it was mostly Arian But Athanasius finds that Arius's Creed was drawn up so ambiguously that any one might see he designed nothing but shuffling the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was the Test of Arianism was left out and Arius still as fond of his Doctrines as ever and moreover that the Council which pretended to restore him was but Provincial at best and most of the Orthodox in it retired and the Eusebian Party taking off his Excommunication by a trick and therefore thinks he may very well upon these considerations refuse to restore him notwithstanding the Imperial Letters And truly he or any other Bishop that would take into his Flock such a Wolf as this upon these terms would little deserve the name of a good Pastour and he that should refuse to do so might justify himself from disobedience to any Earthly Authority whatsoever He that will see more of Athanasius's Vindication may see it in his own Apologies I have been more full in the Vindication of this good Man because the scurrillous Pens of late have made it their business after so many hundred years to calumniate him again The next thing that the Authour offers is against the word Consubstantial and this from a saying of Socrates Lib. 1. Cap. 18. not Book the 2. as he quotes it in which the Authour would have him to condemn the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a word which did trouble Mens Minds and which the Bishops themselves did not understand Now Socrates is Friend enough to the Orthodox Cause every one knows which makes the Authour brand him with the name of partial and in many places shews he had no dislike to the word Consubstantial but he has one fault which is common to many Historians that he makes too many remarks upon his Relations and oftentimes in matters the true reason of which we was far from understanding But 't is no great matter what the Historians remarks are 't is their Relations and not their reflections which we are to value and yet after all Socrates does not in the least reflect upon the Orthodox Doctrine or the test of it the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He shews his dislike indeed to those that made too nice explications of it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those that crumbled this question into many little Cavils and raised upon it some nice disputes and therefore they that did so were to blame but they might believe what was signified by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without any of these Cavils and they might without any of these Niceties stand up for the word as being thought by the wisdom of the Council to be the best Test to discover the Arian Heresy Then the Authour applauds himself mightily in fansying that the Doctrine of the Trinity is not the same now as it was in Athanasius's time because he in his Dialogues explains this Mystery by the similitude of three Men who are one in their common nature and three in their individual Capacity this the Authour would have to infer a Tritheism and as well to justify the Heathen Polytheism as the Trinity Now these Dialogues though bound up with Athanasius's Works are not his but according to the Opinion of most learned Men are Maximus's but however there is nothing in them which would infer any thing like that which the Authour pretends to He and several other of the Fathers give many Illustrations to explain as far as possible to humane understandings this Mystery but yet they as all other similitudes must not be strained farther than the Authours designed them 't is enough if they bear that Analogy or likeness which are there singled out not that these should have in their whole nature an uniform similitude Now Peter James and John three Individual Men and yet agreeing in one common nature Man are a very good illustration of the Blessed Trinity for as Peter is Man James is Man and John is Man and yet there is but one Man that is one common nature of humanity so the Father is God the Son God and the Holy Ghost God and yet there is but one God that is one common Divine Nature but yet this illustration does not bear an universal Analogy with the Trinity for Peter James and John agree only in the same common collective nature and are only collectively one but Father Son and Holy Ghost are essentially one So that I say this illustration of the Trinity may be very good though it does not hold universally 't is enough if the three Persons in each agree in a general Unity though they differ in the specification of this Unity 't is enough if both are three and yet one though one be by a collective and the other an essential Oneness So Bishop Priest and Deacon agree in one common Office of Ministry in general and this is brought by the same Father as a farther illustration of this Mystery and so may any other three Species of a Genus or any
the Bodies of their deceased Friends upon which Tertullian says they were more prodigal than the Heathens were in incensing their Gods If they thought their dead Friends Souls would never have any further relation to their Bodies they would certainly never have treated them with that extraordinary respect and honour as they did Secondly As to the answering of the objections which the Authour makes against the truth of this Doctrine I shall consider them singly as they lie in his Book which I shall do within a little compass for though his Chapter is long his Arguments are but few and what is somewhat better those not over-strong neither His first Argument is grounded upon the words of the Apostle Thou Fool thou sowest not that body which shall be but God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him Doth not this says the Authour plainly deny a Resurrection of the same numerical Particles As plain as this is no one can see it without a pair of Socinian Spectacles and how clear sighted they may make a Man I thank God I do not know But let us see a little how plain this is This place alledged is at best but a similitude the Apostle uses to explain the Resurrection by and therefore it must not be drawn further than the Apostle designed it should we must not extend it beyond his purpose which was only to inform us of the quality of the bodies we are to arise with and not to assert a substantial diversity But to keep to the instance the Body which is here sown is not the Body which arises in respect of the quality indeed but yet it is in respect of the substance the substance is the same still though it be changed by alteration of quality or augmentation of quantity it does not arise such as it was sown 't is true but yet it does arise the same it arises 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle speaks though not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 For Augmentation does not make a thing not the same it only increases the Bulk but does not diversify the Individuum as a Tree which is grown to a fathom or two about is the same Tree as when it was but an inch or two over But however it is not necessary that this simile of the Seed should hold universally as to the matter of the Resurrection for there is no need of that extraordinary addition of quantity to our Bodies which are to arise as there is to the Grain to be changed into the Blade 'T is not necessary that our Bodies should be larger than they are now that there should be need of growth to increase them as there is to increase the Grain therefore our Bodies will be more the same than the Bodies the Apostle instances in are for they need not so great an Addition of matter as the Grain does and so may be the same as to quantity too His second Argument is that there is no reason that the same numerical Body should arise upon that account which many of the Ancients have given that those Bodies which were sharers in the Sin should be sharers in the Punishment because Matter says he has no share in either it neither acts nor perceives and therefore is not liable to punishment This indeed is an Argument which several of the Ancients use to prove a Resurrection of the same Body which they do not lay such stress upon as if the whole Truth of this Doctrine was built on this they use it as a probable Argument which though by it self is not of so great weight yet when joined with others it may add some strength to them But to examine this a little It is true matter in its own nature is not capable of being punished because it has no perception but yet matter is capable of undergoing the divine Malediction God may set a mark of his displeasure upon it or in the Scripture Language Curse it and that in inanimate beings is analogous to punishment in sensible ones And thus we find God frequently Curses inanimate things for some relation they have or had to guilty persons thus he is said Gen. 3. 17. to curse the ground for mans sake Thus the places where the wicked Inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah dwelt lie under such a Malediction suffering the Vengeance of eternal fire Jud. 7. Thus the Prophet tells the People of Judah because of the Abomination they have committed their land is become a Curse Jer. 44. 22. Now though the Body being considered purely as matter cannot undergo punishment properly so called because it cannot suffer pain yet it may undergo the Divine Execration as other inanimate Bodies do and so be raised up to suffer this in lieu of a proper punishment for being so nighly related to a wicked Soul But however the Body is not to be esteemed as only pure insensible Matter and only an instrument of pain and pleasure for the Body it self is sensible by an internal principle of its own and not by the rational Soul though that be the governing Principle and is therefore of its self capable of suffering pain and enjoying Corporeal Pleasure without relation to the Soul Now though the Body in this sense cannot be said to deserve punishment because it cannot contract guilt as wanting reason yet as being an essential part in the composition of a Man it is reasonable that that should partake of all the rewards and punishments which the Soul doth and because it was the whole Man the Compositum of Body and Soul that sinned so likewise it is reasonable that the whole Compositum should suffer And upon this account Tertullian would have the Body in a manner to undergo a judgment because it is not so much an instrument of the Soul as a Servant which though it does not act of it self is yet a portion of that which does act His third Argument is that though God might by his Omnipotence raise up the same numerical Bodies yet it would argue a defect in his Wisdom to exercise his Omnipotency when less means will serve I am sure the Authour by this Argument does undervalue the Divine Nature a thousand times more than that opinion he endeavours to overthrow by it For he supposes things are difficult and easy in respect of God which is a manifest absurdity For to be difficult and easy for any thing to do does suppose an imperfection because it supposes a limited power For a thing is then difficult to be done by any person or thing when the power that resists is almost equal to the power which acts and a thing is easy to be done when the power which acts is much greater than the power which resists but this always supposes a limited Power But in an infinite Power there is no proportion with any thing that is finite and therefore nothing can be difficult or easy in respect of that God does every thing by his Omnipotent Power
the Orthodox Tritheites and Athanasius Tritheitarum Antesignanum He got a great sum of Money by his Practice in the Polish Court but was at last as a signal Example of God's Vengeance murdered in his Bed by his Nephew whom he designed to make his Heir Paulus Alicatus who was the intimate Friend of Blandrata and a busy Vnitarian of this time was born at Millain a Souldier by Profession a Man of fiery Zeal for his Opinions as appears by those blasphemous Expressions he used against the Trinity For Calvin relates that he was wont to say That we worshipped in our Trinity three Devils worse than all the Idols of the Papists So that the Divine Judgment was very Remarkable in suffering him to fall away into the Mahometan Infidelity after so great Impiety Franciscus Stancarus a Mantuan was now likewise a violent asserter of the same kind of Heresy who tho' he began his Heterodoxy at first by denying only Christ's Mediatorship as to his Divine Nature yet he proceeded at last to deny the Persons of the Trinity and with Sabellius to make God only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one Person under three Names He was as Zanchius says a Learned Man but only unquiet and proud and too curious which lead him into these Errors Franciscus Lismaninus was another Heretick of this time of the same stamp he was Doctor of Divinity and formerly a Franciscan Monk who after a pertinacious spreading of his Opinions died mad Bernardus Ochinus was another promoter of the Anti-trinitarian Doctrine who as Beza says of him was something cunninger than the rest of the Vnitarians and like the Academicks would seem rather to doubt of than to define any thing For in his Dialogues against the Trinity he makes his other Collocutor to oppose the Trinity and himself to defend it tho' by such mean Arguments as always gave away the Victory to his Antagonist He was a favourer of Polygamy too as appears by his 21 Dialogue which has this Title thus made up of mirth and prophaneness To all Husbands that complain of their Wives and all Wives that complain of their Husbands Bernardus Ochinus wishes patience in Christ Jesus In which Dialogue he lets his Antagonist Telipolygamus strenuously make good his point against himself Franciscus Davidis was another very Famous one of these Hereticks who assisted Blandrata in his Book against Major he was Superintendent or Bishop as Sandius says of the Vnitarians in Transylvania but tho' he agreed with the rest of the Vnitarians in denying the Divinity of our Saviour yet he dissented from most of them about the Invocation of him and did to his Death maintain that as he was not God so he was not to be worshipped There were besides these several others that were fore-runners to Socinus or else contemporaries with him who did not agree to all the System of his Heresy which now the Vnitarians do generally maintain Such as were Nicolaus Parula an Italian a great Friend of Laelius Socinus Andreas Tricicius Modrevius a Polish Knight Adam Pastor who had several Disputes with the Anabaptists Gregorius Paulus who was first a Tritheite and afterwards an Vnitarian Petrus Statorius formerly Beza's Scholar Paulus Latomirskius and Simon Budnaeus a violent man afterwards in the anti-adoration Faction with several others But however these at best were but Labourers or Coadjutors in the building up the Socinian Heresy but the two great Master-builders were Laelius and Faustus Socinus of whom now we come to speak Laelius Socinus was born A. D. 1525. at Siena in Tuscany of a Noble Family his Fathers Names was Marianus Junior a famous Lawyer in Italy at that time his Mothers Name was Camilla the Daughter of Paulus Salvettus He was an Auditor of Servetus when he was in Italy and before he was of Age he began to model a New System of Divinity upon the Vnitarian Principles He as the Author of the Life says reading the Scriptures chiefly to further him in the Study of the Laws and relying only upon his own Judgment finds many of the Doctrines of the Church contrary to the Divine Testimony as he thought and therefore explains them without farther search according to his own Judgment He having thus for a considerable time been laying the Grounds of his Heresie travelling into England France Holland Germany he fixed his seat at last at Zurick in Helvetia yet not so but that after this he goes twice into Poland A. D. 1551 and again 1557 where he infected many of the Polish Nobility He infected also his own Brothers Celsus Cornelius and Camillus and Faustus his Brother Alexander's Son And Zanchius in his Preface to his Book de Tribus Elohim further says He for many Years pursued the Samosetanian Heresie and drew as many as he could into the same Errour and those were not a few He endeavoured likewise by many Temptations to pervert me into the same Errour and to involve me in the same eternal Destruction with himself Whilst he lived at Zurick or in his Travels he contracted some Familiarity with Melancton Brentius Musculus Bullinger and Calvin and therefore Calvin when he heard of his audacious Curiosity in Divinity wrote to him to dissuade him from it Si tibi per aëreas illas Speculationes volitare libet sine me quaeso humilem Christi discipulum ea meditari quae ad fidei meae aedificationem faciunt You may if you please fly through these aereal Speculations but suffer me an humble Disciple of Christ to meditate upon those things which serve to the Edification of my Faith And now so many of the Family of the Socinus's being perverted by Laelius the whole Family began to be suspected for Heresie which brought a storm upon all the House so that as the Authour of the Life says the Harvest was spoil'd in the springing Blade Cornelius being imprisoned and the rest being either forced to fly or afraid to profess their Opinion This Fear drove young Faustus being now but Twenty Years old not only from his place of abode but from Italy who went to live for some time at Lyons in France in the same Year in which the Magistrates of Basil digged up the Body of David George after he had been dead Three Years and burned it Laelius continued still to study at Zurick till he died which was in the Year 1562. on the 16th of May. He was the first that brought to light that notion of the Person of Christ and his Sufferings c. which the Socinians do since maintain and was forming some great Designs for the furthering his Heresie but did not live to perfect them The only Books that he published were the Dialogue between Calvin and Vaticanus against the persecution of Hereticks upon the occasion of Servet's execution in which he makes Calvin a great Instrument which Book was reprinted in Holland by some of the Remonstrant Party 1612. and has