Page images
PDF
EPUB

Earth; and the Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth Propositions of Dr. Clarke's Demonstration.

The Fifth Proposition. See Bishop Pearson on the First Article, beginning at Maker of Heaven and Earth, and the last Paragraph of the Seventh Proposition of Dr. Clarke's Demonstration, wherein he confutes the Error of Spinoza.

The Sixth Proposition. See Dr. Clarke's first Paragraph of his Seventh Proposition before mentioned.

The Seventh Proposition. See Bishop Pearson on the First Article, from I believe in God the Father, down to I believe in God the Father Almighty; and on the Second Article, from His Only Son, down to Our Lord; and on the Eighth Article, from the Begining down to the Paragraph which begins thus, Our Sixth and last Affertion (sufficient to manifeft, &c.

The Eighth Proposition is therefore true, because chiere can be no more Gods than one, according to the Sixth Proposition.

[ocr errors][merged small]

Of the Word or Son of God which was made

very Man.

T!

HE Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten

from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one Substance with the Father, took Man's nature in the Womb of the blessed Virgin, of her Substance: So that two whole and perfeët natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man, who truly sufferid, was crucified, dead and

buried,

buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a Şacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for a&tual fins of

men.

ú

This Article contains Ten Propositions, D: The Son is the Word of the Father. 2002. The Son is begotten from everlasting of the

Father. 0:3. The Son is the very and eternal God.

4. The Son is of one Substance with the Father5. The Son took Man's Nature in the Womb of

the Blefsed Virgin, of her Substance. 6. By the Son's taking Man's Nature, two whole

and perfect Natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in

one Person. 7. The two Natures join’d together in one Per

son, are never to be divided. 8. Of thofe two Natures joyn'd in one Person

is One Christ. 9. Christ is very God and very Man. 10. Christ truly suffer'd, was crucified, dead and

buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to : be a Sacrifice, not only for Original Guilt,

but also for Actual Sins of Men.

The First Proposition is evident from John 1. 14. where Christ (who is the Incarnate Son, as the Article afterwards declares) is exprefly callid the Word, that is, the Word of the Father ; because he was in the beginning with the Father, v. 2. and is One God with the Father, as the last Proposition of the Firft Article afferts.

The Second and Third Propofitions. See Bishop Pearson on the Second Article, beginning at His only Son, and ending at Our Lord.

E

Thé

See Bishop

The Fourth is therefore true, because there can be no more than One God, according to the Sixth Proposition of the First Article.

The Fifth and Sixth Propositions. Pearson on the Third Article.

The Seventh. Proposition needs no other Proof, besides this fingle Consideration, viz. That since Christ must ever continue in that Glory which he is possessed of; therefore that Union of the two Natures, by which he is Christ, must ever conti

nue.

The Eighth Proposition is included in the Sixth.

The Ninth Proposition is included in the Third and Fifth.

The Tenth Proposition. See what References I have already made touching Christ's Satisfaction, in the foregoing Direktions for Studying a General System or Body of Divinity, p. 16.

The THIRD ARTICLE.

i Of the Going down of Christ into Hell. A

S Cbrist died for us, and was buried : So also it is to be believed, that he went down into Hello

That Christ died for us, and was buried, we have feen in the Tenth Proposition of the Second Article. Of his Descent into Hell, see Bishop Pear. fon on the Fifth Article, down to He rose again.

Here it may not be improper to observe one thing. We learn from Bishop Pearson, that there are different Senses of this Article. One of them is, that Hell betokens the Grave; and consequent

ly

[ocr errors]

ly that the Descent into it is the same with Burial. And perhaps there is good Ground to believe, that this was the Original Sense of that Word in this Article. At least I am persuaded, that in Psal. 16. 11. which is quoted and applied by St. Peter, Aets 2. 27, 31. and upon which the Belief of the Descent into Hell is generally grounded, it is to be understood in this Sense. But then ’tis plain, that our Church by the Descent into Hell means something different from the Burial of Christ. For the manifestly distinguishes the one from the other. This is evident from the Words of the Article. The Question therefore is, how that Man who believes that the Word Hell in Pfal. 16. 11. and Axts 2. 27,31. betokens nothing but the Grave (as the Reader may perhaps find good Reason to do) can honestly subscribe this Article.

I answer, that the Church excludes no Sense of the Word Hell in this Article, except that which saies, that by Hell is meant the Grave. Wherefore the Church very freely allows us to subscribe this Article in Bishop Pearson's Sense, who faies, that Hell betokens the State of departed Souls. And that our Savior did go into the State of departed Souls, is acknowledged even by those who believe that the Word Hell in Psal. 16. 11. and Aets 2, 27, 31. betokens the Grave. So that tho' they interpret those Texts in the Sense before mention’d, yet they acknowledge the Truth of what the Church allows them to mean by Christ's Defcent into Hell. And consequently they may subscribe it. For the Church does not require them to declare, that the Word Hell in Pfal. 16. 11. and Aets 2. 27, 31. signifies the State of separate Souls ; but only to lubscribe to the Descent into Hell in general ; whether it be prov'd by those, or by any other Texts ; E 2

and

[ocr errors][merged small]

and this they may certainly do in the Sense before mention’d.

'Tis true, those who subscribe after this manner, must then understand the Word Hell in the Article, in a Sense very different from that in which 'tis us’d in those Texts'; and perhaps in a Sense very different from that in which 'twas understood by the greater part of that Convocation which passed the Article it self: But then it must be remembred, that Words are but arbitrary Signs, and that the Signification of them may by inveterate and allow'd Practice be alter'd, or even chang'd sometimes to the quite contrary, as we find by a Variety of Instances in our own Tongue. And therefore that person, who subscribes the Word Hell in a Sense which the Church allows (tho' it be different from what it bears in some other Places, or perhaps from what was first intended by the Convocation it self) does very honestly.

It may be objected perhaps, that the Church distinguishes the Descent into Hell, not only from the Burial, but also from the Death of Christ : whereas, if by the Descent into Hell we mean his Departure into the State of separate Souls ; then the Death of Christ, and his Descent into Hell, are the same thing ; because a Man's dying implies his Departure into the State of separate Souls. But I answer, that tho' a Man's Departure into the State of separate Souls be the Consequence of Death, considering that State and Order of things, which God has appointed ; yet 'tis not Death it self. For Death betokens only the Separation of Soul and Body ; and 'tis possible in the Nature of the thing, that this Separation may be made, altho' the Parts separated did from the Moment of their Separation cease to be. Wherefore Death

and

« PreviousContinue »