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
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
doth thence repute it impossible for an Immaterial Being to move a Body But we who believe the Soul to be a a Spirit know it to be possible Much more is it possible for God though a Being infinitely Act. 17 25 27 28. more pure who giveth to all Life and Breath and All things and in whom we Live and Move and have our Being and who is not far from every one of us It would be hard for us to give an intelligible account either how God moves all things or how our Soul moves the Body yet we are sure it is so That a Body may move a Body seems not so strange to apprehend for we see one Engine move another But by what Mechanism shall a Spirit give Motion to a Body when at rest or Stop it when in Motion or Direct its Motions this way or that way It would be thought strange that a Thought of ours should Move a stone And it is as hard to conceive did we not see it daily How a Thought should put our Body in Motion and another Thought stop it again Yet this we see done every day though we know not How And it is almost the same thing in other Animals And more yet when an Angel assumes a Body There are none of these things we know How and yet we know they are done I shall press this a little farther Our Soul we all believe doth after Death continue to exist in a separate condition from the Body And I think we have reason to believe also that it will continue to Act as an Intellectual Agent not to remain in a stupid sensless 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Else I see not why Paul should desire to depart or to be dissolved and to be with Christ which is far better rather than to abide in Flesh. For while he abides in the Flesh he hath some enjoyment of Christ as well as an opportunity of doing some Service which is more desirable if when he is departed he have none at all And how can he then say That to Dye is gain Whether the Soul thus separated shall be said to have a Subsistence as well as an Existence Or whether it may be properly said then to be an intire Person as the Soul and Body are before Death and after the Resurrection I will not Dispute because that were to contend about Words and such Words so signify as we please to define them and bear such a Sence as we please to put upon them But it is as the Angels are an Intellectual Spiritual Agent and we use to say Actiones sunt Suppositorum and Suppositum Rationale is either a Person or so near a Person that it would be so if men please to call it so And the Spiritual Being which doth now separately Exist shall at the Resurrection resume a Body into the same Personality with it self and shall with it become one Person as before Death it had been Now if a Spiritual Immaterial Intellectual Being separately existent by it self and separately acting as an Intellectual Agent may at the Resurrection assume or reassume a Material Corporeal Being Heterogeneous to it self into the same Personality with it self or so as to become one Person with it while yet it self remains Spiritual as before What should hinder for it is but one step further but that a Divine Person may assume Humanity into the same personality with it self without ceasing to be a Divine Person as before it was If it be said That Person and Personality in the Sacred Trinity are not just the same as what we so call in other cases It is granted and by these words which are but Metaphorical we mean no more but somewhat analogous thereunto and which because of such analogy we so call as knowing no better words to use instead thereof According as we use the words Father Son generate beget and the like in a metaphorical sence when applied to God For no words borrowed from Created Beings can signifie just the same when applied to God as when they were applied to Men but somewhat analogous thereunto And if the Soul though we know not How may and do at the Resurrection assume a Body so as to become the same Person with it self though neither the Body be thereby made a Soul nor the Soul a Body but remain as before that a Body and this a Soul though now united into one Person Why may not a Divine Person assume Humanity so to be what is analogous to what we call a Person the Humanity remaining Humanity and the Divinity remaining Divinity though both united in One Christ though we do not particularly know How We should be at a great loss if to answer an Atheist or one who doth not believe the Scriptures we were put to it to tell him How God made the World Of what Matter With what Tools or Engines or How a Pure Spirit could produce Matter where none was He would tell us perhaps Ex nihilo nihil in nihilum nil posse reverti Where nothing is nothing can be made and what once is though it may be changed can never become Nothing And will never believe the World was made but rather was from all Eternity except we can tell him How it was made Now if in this case we may satisfie our selves though perhaps it will not satisfie him by saying God made it but we know not How The same must satisfie us here That Christ was Incarnate God and Man we are certain for so the Scripture doth assure us as well as That God made the World But How God made the World or How the Son of God assumed Humanity we cannot tell Nor indeed is it fit for us to enquire farther than God is pleased to make known to us All further than this are but the subtile Cob-webs of our Brain Fine but not Strong Witty Conjectures How it may be rather than a clear Resolution How it is Another Objection I have met with to which the Objecters must be contented with the same Answer We know it Is but we know not How It would be endless for us and too great a Curiosity to think our selves able fully to explicate all the Hidden things of God The Objection is this Since the Three Persons cannot be Divided How is it possible that One of them can Assume Humanity and not the other And why the Second Person and not the First or Third As to the Question Why I say It is so because so it pleased God And he giveth not account of his Matters He is not accountable to us why he so willeth As to the Question How is it Possible I see no difficulty in that at all The Persons are Distinguished though not Divided As in the Divine Attributes God's Justice and Mercy are Distinguishable though in God they cannot be Divided And accordingly some things are said to be Effects of his Justice others of his Mercy So the Power and Will of God
he had a desire to be dissolved or depart hence and to be with Christ as being far better for him than to abide in the flesh Phil. 1. 23 24. And willing rather to be absent from the body and present with the Lord 2 Cor. 5. 8. Now I do not understand the advantage of his being with Christ or being present with the Lord if he were then to be in a sensless condition not capable of pain or pleasure punishment or reward In Epist. 3. ad Dudithium we have these words Unusquisque sacrae Scripturae ex suo ipsius sensu Interpres eaque quae sibi sic Arrident pro veris admittere de bet ac tenere licet universus terrarum Orbis in alia omnia iret That is Every one is to interpret Scripture accerding to his own sence and what so seems Pleasing to him he is to imbrance and maintain though all the World be against it Socinus in his Tract de Ecclesia pag. 344. says thus Non attendendum quid homines doceant sentiantve vel antehac docuerint aut senserint quicunque illi tandem aut quotcunque sint aut fuerint Which is pretty plain I am not says he to regard what other men do teach or think or have before now taught or thought whosoever or how many soever they be or have been And if his whosoever are not here to be extended to the Sacred Writers he tells us of them elsewhere Ego quidem etiamsi non semel sed saepe id in sacris monimentis scriptum extaret non idcirco tamen ita rem prorsus se habere crederem Soc. de Jesu Christo servatore Par. 3. cap. 6. Operum Tom. 2. p. 204. As for me saith he though it were to be found written in the Sacred Moniments not once but many times I would not yet for all that believe it so to be And a little before in the same Chapter having before told us that he thought the thing Impossible he adds Cum ea quae fieri non posse aperte constat divinis etiam oraculis ea facta fuisse in speciem diserte attestantibus nequaquam admittantur idcirco sacra verba in alium sensum quam ipsa sonant per inusitatos etiam tropos quandoque explicantur That is When it doth plainly appear or when he thinks so whatever all the World think beside that the thing cannot be then though the Divine Oracles do seem expresly to attest it it must not be admitted and therefore the Sacred Words are even by unusual Tropes to be interpreted to another sence than what they speak Which Sayings are I think full as much as I had charged him with And if these Instances be not enough I could give him more of like nature But I shall conclude this with one of a later date at a Publick Disputation at Franeker Octob. 8. 1686. where amongst others this Thesis was maintained Scripturae divinitatem non aliunde quam ex Ratione adstrui posse Eosque Errare qui asserere sustinent Si Ratio aliud quid nobis dictaret quam Scriptura huic potius esse credendum And when Ulricus Huberus because it was not publickly censured as he thought it deserved to be did oppose it in Word and Writing the same was further asserted in Publick Disputations and in Print by two other Professors in Franeker in Vindication of that former Thesis that If Reason do dictate to us any thing otherwise than the Scripture doth It is an Error to say that in such case we are rather to believe the Scripture An account of the whole is to be seen at large in a Treatise entituled Ulrici Huberi Supremae Frisiorum Curiae ex-senatoris De concursu Rationis Scripturae Liber Franakerae apud Hen. Amama Zachar. Taedama 1687. And a Breviate of it in the Lipsick Transactions for the Month of August 1687. And after this I hope this Answerer will not think me too severe in charging such Notions on some of the Socinians while yet I said I was so charitable as to think divers of them were better minded But what should make him so angry at what I said of Guessing I cannot imagine That there is a Distinction between the Three we are sure this I had said before and the Answerer now says It is so But not such as to make three Gods this I had said also and the Answerer says so too That the Father is said to Beget the Son to be Begotten and the Holy Ghost to Proceed I had said also and I suppose he will not deny because thus the Scripture tells us And whatever else the Scripture tells us concerning it I readily accept But if it be further asked beyond what the Scripture teacheth as for instance What this Begetting is or How the Father doth Beget his only begotten Son This I say we do not know at least I do not because this I think the Scripture doth not tell us and of this therefore I hope this Gentleman will give me leave to be ignorant Certainly it is not so as when one Man begets another but How it is I cannot tell And if I should set my thoughts awork as some others have done and each according to his own imagination to Guess or Conjecture How perhaps it may be I would not be Positive That just so it is Because I can but Guess or Conjecture I cannot be sure of it For I think it is much the same as if a man born Blind and who had never seen should employ his Fancy to think What kind of thing is Light or Colour of which it would be hard for him to have a clear and certain Idea And if this Gentleman please to look over it again I suppose he will see that he had no cause to be so angry that I said We can but Guess herein at what the Scripture doth not teach us That the Socinians have set their Wits awork to find out other Subsidiary Arguments and Evasions against the Trinity beside that of its Inconsistence with Reason I do not deny But That is the Foundation and the rest are but Props And if they admit that there is in it no Inconsistence with Reason they would easily answer all the other Arguments themselves I thought not to meddle with any of the Texts on either side because it is beside the Scope which I proposed when I confined my Discourse to that single Point of it s not being Impossible or Inconsistent with Reason and did therefore set aside other Considerations as having been sufficiently argued by others for more than an Hundred Years last past But having already followed him in some of his Excursions I shall briefly consider the two signal places which he singles out as so mainly clear In the former of them Iohn 17. 3. This is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God and Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent he puts a Fallacy upon us which perhaps he did not see