and so they do in the Apostles Creed and are so also in the Articles of our Church Where it is only said because in the Creed it stands so That we are to believe That he descended into Hell without affixing any particular sence to it The words doubtless have respect to that of Acts 2. 27. where Thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell or Hades nor suffer thine Holy One to see Corruption is applied to Christ cited out of Psal. 16. 10. where the same had before been spoken of David And his not being left in Hades seems to suppose his having been for some time in Hades whatever by Hades is there meant And Verse 31. his being not so left is expresly expounded of his Resurrection And so again in Acts 13. 35. Now as we have no reason to think that David's being in Hell or Sheol though not to be left there can signifie his being in Hell among the Devils and damned Spirits but rather in the Grave or the Condition of the Dead so neither that Christ's being in Hell or Hades which is the Greek word answering to the Hebrew Sheol should signifie any other than His being in the Grave or condition of the Dead from whence by his Resurrection he was delivered And to this purpose seems that whole Discourse of Peter Acts 2. 24 32. and of Paul Acts 13. 30 37. But without determining it to any particular sence the Creed leaves the word Hell indefinitely here to be understood in the same sence what ever it be in which it is to be understood Acts 2. 27 31. and Psal. 16. 10. And so far we are safe It follows Hâ—â—scended into Heaven He sitteth on the right hand of the Father God Almighty From whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead At whose coming all men shall rise again with their Bodies and shall give account for their own Works And they that have done Good shall go into Life everlasting and they that have done Evil into everlasting Fire Of all which there is no doubt but that it ought to be believed Ending with This is the Catholick Faith That is this is true and sound Doctrine and such as every true Christian ought to believe And as he had begun all with a general Preface so now he closeth all with a general Conclusion Which Catholick Faith except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved That is the Doctrine here delivered is true and so I think it is in all the parts of it and is part of the Catholick Faith The whole of which Faith is the whole Word of God That is part of that Faith which all true Christians do and ought to Believe Which Catholick Faith the whole of which is the whole Word of God except a man so qualified as I before expressed do believe faithfully that is except he truly believe it as to the Substantials of it though possibly he may be ignorant of many particulars therein he cannot without such Repentance as God shall accept of be saved Which so limitted as it ought to be I take to be sound Doctrine and agreeable to that of Iohn 3. 16. He that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed on the Name of the only begotten Son of God And Ver. 36. He that believeth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him That is according to the words of this Creed he that believeth not aright of God and Christ cannot be saved Which words of Christ we may safely interpret both with an aspect on the Doctrine of the Trinity because of those words the only Begotten Son of God and to that of the Incarnation of Christ and the Consequents thereof because of those words in the beginning of the Discourse Ver. 16 17 God so loved the World that he Gave his only Begotten Son c. and God sent his Son into the world that the world through him might be saved Which are the two main Points insisted on in the Athanasian Creed And he who doth not Believe on the Name of this only Begotton Son of God and thus sent into the world the Text tells us shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him Which fully agrees with what is here said Except a man believe the Catholick Faith of which the Doctrine of the Trinity and of the Incarnation are there intimated and are here expressed to be considerable Branches he cannot be saved And what Limitations or Mitigations are to be understood in the one place are reasonably to be allowed as understood in the other And consequently those Damnatory Clauses as they are called in the Athanasian Creed rightly understood are not so formidable as some would pretend as if because of them the whole Creed ought to be laid aside For in brief it is but thus The Preface and the Epilogue tell us That whoso would be saved it is necessary or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he ought to hold the Catholick Faith Which Faith except he keep whole and undefiled or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 safe and inviolate he shall perish everlastingly or which except he believe faithfully he cannot be saved Which is no more severe than that of our Saviour Mark 16. 16. He that believeth not shall be damned He then inserts a large Declaration of the Catholick Faith especially as to two main Points of it that of the Trinity and that of the Incarnation And if all he there declares be true as I think it is we have then no reason to quarrel with it upon that account But he doth not say That a man cannot be saved who doth not Know or Understand every particular thereof Of the First he says but this He that would be saved ought thus to think or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let him thus think of the Trinity namely That the Unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity ought to be Worshipped Of the Second what he says is this Furthermore it is necessary to Eternal Salvation That he believe aright the Incarnation of our Lord Iesus Christ Which is no more severe than that of our Saviour He that believeth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him because he hath not believed on the Name of the only begotten Son of God whom God hath sent into the world that the world through him might be saved John 3. 17 18 36. Beside these there are no Damnatory Clauses in the whole All the rest are but Declaratory And if what he declares be true we have no reason to find fault with such Declaration Now as to those two Points that of the Trinity and that of the Incarnation which are the only Points in question there is a double Inquiry as I have elsewhere shewed Whether the things be Possible and whether they be True The Possibility may be argued from Principles of Reason The Truth of them from Revelation only And it is not
or wrong this is no fair play For hardly can any thing be so plain but that somebody may find a pretence to cavil at it It is enough for us therefore if it be thus meant without saying it is impossible to put a forced sence upon it But this would have spoiled his design in mustering up a great many forced sences not that he thinks them to be true for surely they be not all true and I think none of them are nor telling us which he will stick to but only that he may cast a mist and then tell us which is all that he concludes upon it the place is abscure he knows not what to make of it But when the Mist is blown off and we look upon the Words themselves they seem plain enough as to all the Points he mentions The Word which was with God and was God and by whom the World was made and which was made flesh and dwelt amongst us and we saw his glory and of whom Iohn bare witness must needs be a Person and can be no other than our Lord Iesus Christ who was born of the Virgin Mary And this Word which was in the beginning and by whom the World was made must needs have been pre-existent before he was so born And this Word which was with God the true God and was God and by whom the World was made and who is one with the Father Joh. 10. 30. and who is over all God blessed for ever Rom. 9. 5. is no other God than God Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth And this plain sence the words bear without any force put upon them Without any Incoherence Inconsistence or Contradiction sâ—â—e that they do not agree with the Socinian Doctrine And there is no other way to avoid it but what Socinus adviseth in another case Quantacunque Vis verbis adhibenda putting a Force upon the words no matter how great to make them not to signifie what they plainly do Or else to say which is his last refuge that St. Iohn writes Nonsence But let him then consider Whether this do savour of that respect which he would have us think they have for the Holy Scripture and whether we have not reason to suspâ—â—t the contrary of some of them And Whether we have not reason to complain of their putting a forced sence upon plain words to make them comply with their Doctrine And lastly Whether it be not manifest that the true Bottom of their aversion from the Trinity whatever other subsidiary Reasons they may alledge is because they think it Nonsence or not agreeable with their Reason For set this aside and all the rest is plain enough but because of this they scruple not to put the greatest force upon Scripture Nor is there any other pretence of Nonsence in the whole Discourse save that he thinks the Doctrine of the Trinity to be Nonsence So that the whole Controversie with him turns upon this single Point Whether there be such Impossibility or Inconsistence as is pretended That of 1 Iohn 5. 7. There be three that bear record in Heaven the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and these Three are One is wanting he says in some Copies And it is so and so are some whole Epistles wanting in some Copies But we will not for that quit the place For we have great reason to think it genuine If this difference of Copies happened at first by chance upon an oversight in the Transcriber in some one Copy and thereupon in all that were transcribed from thence it is much more likely for a Transcriber to leave out a line or two which is in his Copy than to put in a line or two which is not And if it were upon design it is much more likely that the Arians should purposely leave it out in some of their Copies than the Orthodox foist it in Nor was there need of such falsification since 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concludes as strongly as to a Plurality of persons and of the Son in particular which was the chief controversie with the Arians as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth as to all the Three And I think it is cited by Cyprian in his Book De unitate Ecclesiae before the Arian Controversie was on foot And therefore if it were done designedly and not by chance it seems rather to be razed out by the Arians than thrust in by the Orthodox And the Language of this in the Epistle suits so well with that of the same Author in his Gospel that it is a strong presumption that they are both from the same Pen. The Word in 1 Iohn 5. 7. agrees so well with the Word in Iohn 1. and is peculiar to St. Iohn and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 1 Iohn 5. 7. with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Iohn 10. 30. these three are One with I and the Father are One that I do not at all doubt its being genuine And that Evasion of his these three are one that is one in testimony will have no pretence in the other place where there is no discourse of Testimony at all but I and the Father are One unum sumus must be One Thing One in Being One in Essence For so Adjectives in the Neuter Gender put without a Substantive do usually signifie both in Greek and Latin and there must be some manifest reason to the contrary that should induce us to put another sence upon them The other place Matth. 28. 19. Baptizing them in or into the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is not so slight an evidence as he would make it For whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be rendred in the Name and taken to denote the joint Authority of Father Son and Holy Ghost admitting the person baptized into the Christian Church Or into the Name which this Answerer seems to like better and taken to denote the Dedication of the person baptized to the joint Service or Worship of Father Son and Holy Ghost Baptism it self being also a part of Divine Worship They are all conjoined either as in joint Authority or as joint Objects of the same Religious Worship and for ought appears in the same Degree And Socinus himself doth allow the Son to be Worshipped with Religious Worship as Adoration and Invocation as Lawful at least if not Necessary Now when this Answerer tells us of the First Commandment Thou shalt have no other God but me the God of Israel He might as well have remembred that of Christ Matth. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve And therefore since Socinus and other of his followers do allow Christ to be Worshipped they must allow him to be God even the God of Israel And I am mistaken if he be not expresly called the Lord God of Israel Luke 1. 16. Many of the children of Israel shall he John the Baptist turn to
be declared in Scripture we ought to Believe But I see not why it should be thought of it self more necessary to salvation if he do not know it to be declared in Scripture for a man to know that her Name was Mary than that the Name of Adam's Wife was Eve or Abraham's Wife Sarah or that one of Iob's Daughters was called Iemima for all these are declared in Scripture and supposing that we know them so to be ought to be believed as part of the Catholick Faith Nor do I know that it is of it self more necessary to know that the Name of the Judge who condemned our Saviour was Pontius Pilate than that the Name of the High-Priest was Caiaphus And though one of these and not the other be put into the Apostles Creed whereby we are more likely to know that than the other yet both of them being True and declared in Scripture they are both of them parts of the Catholick Faith and to be believed but neither of them I think with such necessity as that who knows them not cannot be saved And what I say of this General Preface in the beginning is in like manner to be understood of the General Conclusion in the end which Catholick Faith except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved Of which I shall say more anon After the General Preface concerning the necessity of holding the Catholick Faith he proceeds to two main Branches of it that of the Trinity and that of the Incarnation with the Consequents thereof which he declares likewise as what ought to be believed That of the Trinity he declares thus in General And the Catholick Faith is this that is this is one main part of the Catholick Faith namely That we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity Neither Confounding the Persons nor Dividing the Substance Which is what we commonly say There be Three Persons yet but One God And this General which after some particular Explications he doth resume is what he declares ought to be believed But he doth not lay such stress upon each Particular of that Explication though True He thus explains himself For there is one Person of the Father another of the Son and another of the Holy Ghost Which Persons therefore are not to be confounded But the Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is all One. That is one Substance one God Which is what he said of not Dividing the Substance as if the Three Persons should be Three Substances or Three Gods According as Christ says of Himself and the Father Iohn 10. 30. I and the Father are One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is one Thing one Substance one God not one Person And 1 Iohn 5. 7. These Three are One 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hi Ires sunt Unum not Unus These three Who 's are one What. They are one Thing one Substance one God though Three Persons And as their Godhead or Substance undivided is all one so it follows The Glory equal the Majesty co-eternal Such as the Father is as to the common Godhead such is the Son and such is the Holy Ghost The Father uncreate the Son uncreate and the Holy Ghost uncreate The Father incomprehensible the Son incomprehensible and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible The Father eternal the Son eternal and the Holy Ghost eternal For all these are Attributes of the common Deity which is the same of All. And yet they are not Three Eternals but One Eternal Not Three Eternal Gods though Three Persons but One Eternal God As also there are not three Incomprehensibles nor three Uncreated but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible One and the same Substance or Deity uncreated and incomprehensible So likewise the Father is Almighty the Son Almighty and the Holy Ghost Almighty and yet there are not Three Almighties but One Almighty So the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God and yet there are not Three Gods but One God So likewise the Father is Lord 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the word by which the Greeks do express the Hebrew Name Iehovah the proper incommunicable Name of God the Son Lord and the Holy Ghost Lord and yet not Three Lords but One Lord. Not three Iehovahs but one Iehovah For like as we are compelled by the Christian Verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord so are we forbidden by the Catholick Religion to say There be Three Gods or Three Lords Which are so many particular Explications or Illustrations of what was before said in general of not Confounding the Persons nor Dividing the Substance Which Explications though they be all true and necessary Consequents of what was before said in general yet to none of them is annexed such Sanction as that whosoever doth not Believe or not Understand these Illustrations cannot be saved 'T is enough to Salvation if they hold the true Faith as to the substance of it though in some other form of words or though they had never heard the Athanasian Creed Nor is any such Sanction annexed to the Personal Properties which next follow The Father is made of none neither Created nor Begotten The Son is of the Father alone not Made nor Created but Begotten The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son neither Made nor Begotten but Proceeding Where by the way here is no Anathematization of the Greek Church of which those who would for other reasons disparage this Creed make so loud an out-cry 'T is said indeed He doth proceed and so say they but not that he doth proceed from the Father and the Son And 't is said He is Of the Father and Of the Son 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some way or other and even this I suppose they would not deny but whether by procession from both or if so whether in the same manner it is not said but warily avoided Though indeed it seems to favour what I think to be the truth and what in the Nicene Creed is said expressly that he doth proceed from both and for ought we know in the same manner which yet we do not determine Nor do I see any reason why on this account we should be said to Anathematize the Greek Church or they to Anathematize us even though we should not exactly agree in what sence he may be said to be Of the Father and in what Of the Son And those who are better acquainted with the Doctrine and the Languages of the present Greek Churches than most of us are do assure us that the differences between them and us are rather in some forms of expressions than in the thing it self However those who would make so great a matter of this should rather quarrel at the Nicene Creed than the Athanasian where it is expresly said of the Holy Ghost that he proceedeth from the Father and from the Son 'T is not therefore for
the phrase Filioque that they are so ready to quarrel at this Creed rather than the Nicene but from some other reason and most likely because the Doctrine of the Trinity is here more fully expressed than in that at which the Socinian is most offended I observe also That these Personal Properties are expressed just by the Scripture words Beget Begotten Proceeding without affixing any sence of our own upon them but leaving them to be understood in such sence as in the Scripture they are to be understood Agreeable to that modest Caution which is proper in such Mysteries It follows So there is One Father not three Fathers One Son not three Sons One Holy Ghost not three Holy Ghosts And in this Trinity none is afore or after other That is not in Time though in Order None is greater or less than another But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and co-equal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The three 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 truly persons or properly persons and co-eternal each with other and co-equal Having thus finished these particular Explications or Illustrations concerning the Trinity without any condemning Clause of those who think otherwise other than what is there included namely that if this be True the contrary must be an Errour He then resumes the General as after a long Parenthesis So that in all things as is aforesaid the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be Worshipped And to this General annexeth this Ratification He therefore that will he saved must thus think of the Trinity or thus ought to think of the Trinity or Let him thus think of the Trinity 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And to this I suppose we do all agree who believe the Doctrine of the Trinity to be true For if the thing be true those who would be saved ought to believe it He then proceeds to the Doctrine of the Incarnation Which he declares in general as necessary to salvation Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Iesus Christ. Which is no more than that of Iohn 3. 36. He that believeth not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth on him And therefore we may safely say this also There being no other Name under Heaven whereby we must be saved neither is there Salvation in any other Acts 4. 12. After this as before he had done of the Doctrine of the Trinity he gives first a general Assertion of his being God and Man and then a particular Illustration of his Incarnation For the right Faith is that we believe and confess That our Lord Iesus Christ the Son of God is God and Man What follows is a further Explication of this General God of the substance of the Father begotten before the Worlds And Man of the substance of his Mother born in the World Perfect God and perfect Man of a reasonable Soul and humane Flesh subsisting Equal to the Father as touching his Godhead and Inferiour to the Father as touching his Manhood Who although he be God and Man yet he is not Two but One Christ. One not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh but by taking of the Manhood into God One altogether not by Confusion of Substance but by Unity of Person For as the reasonable Soul and Flesh is one Man so God and Man is One Christ. And thus far as to the Description of Christ's Person and Natures The Particulars of which I take to be all true and therefore such as ought to be believed when understood But such many of them as persons of ordinary capacities and not acquainted with School Terms may not perhaps understand Nor was it I presume the meaning of the Pen-man of this Creed that it should be thought necessary to Salvation that every one should particularly understand all this but at most that when understood it should not be disbelieved That in the general being most material That Iesus Christ the Son of God is God and Man the rest being but Explicatory of this Which Explications though they be all true are not attended with any such clause as if without the explicite knowledge of all these a man could not be saved He then proceeds to what Christ hath done for our Salvation and what he is to do further at the last Judgment with the Consequents thereof Who Suffered for our Salvation Descended into Hell Rose again the third day from the Dead That Clause of descending into Hell or Hades 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we meet with here and in the Apostles Creed as it is now read is not in the Nicene Creed nor was it anciently as learned Men seem to be agreed in what we call the Apostles Creed When or how it first came in I cannot well tell Nor will I undertake here to determine the sence of it The Hebrew word Sheol and the Greek Hades which here we translate Hell by which word we now-a-days use to denote the Place of the Damned was anciently used to signifie sometime the Grave sometime the Place State or Condition of the Dead whether good or bad And when Iob prays Iob 14. 13. O that thou wouldst hide me in Sheol as in the Hebrew or in Hades as in the Greek Septuagint certainly he did not desire to be in what we now call Hell but rather as we there translate it in the Grave or the condition of those that are Dead But what it should signifie here is not well agreed among learned Men. The Papists generally because that is subservient to some of their beloved Tenents would have it here to signifie the Place of the Damned and would have it thought that the Soul of Christ during the time his Body lay in the Grave was amongst the Devils and Damned Souls in Hell Others do with more likelyhood take it for the Grave or condition of the Dead and take this of Christ's descending into Hades to be the same with his being Buried or lying in the Grave The rather because in the Nicene Creed where is mention of his being Buried there is no mention of his descent into Hell or Hades And here in the Athanasian Creed where mention is made of this there is no mention of his being Buried as if the same were meant by both phrases which therefore need not be repeated And though in the Apostles Creed there be now mention of both yet anciently it was not so that of his descent into Hell being not to be sound in ancient Copies of the Apostles Creed If it signifie any thing more than his being Buried it seems most likely to import his Continuance in the Grave or the State and Condition of the Dead for some time And the words which follow 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say nothing of his coming out of Hell but only of his rising from the Dead But the words here stand undetermined to any particular sence