Hey on Article VIII: Of the Three Creeds

1. I need not say, that the word Creed comes from credo. In Greek, a creed 1s called paSnua, YeoOn, xavw and oup Conv. The last name only, Symbol, has occasioned any difhculty.-Some have taken it in the sense of contribution, or collection, under an idea of the Apostles contributing each his share; or of Doctrines being collected into a small compass:— Others in the senses of a watchword, a badge, or a tesera or ticket of admission. Lord King suits my notion best, when he says, it was {something among Christians analogous to symbols, which those heathens had, who were initiated into any mysteries, in order that they should know one another, and be admitted into the place where the mysteries were celebrated. This sense may be al- lowed to comprehend most of the others. Sym- bols* were either things to be /hewn, or forms of words (Ld. King): either visible or audible. A

| ne.

On the word ovpConom, one might consult $uicer, Vossius, &. — and, on the subject of Creeds, Ld. King, Bp. Pearson, Wall | on

86 BOOK IV. 7.

One can scarce conceive a Christian church without some kind of Creed. No person could be admitted into the Christian religion, without giving some account of his belief; that account, however short, must be a Creed. —The creed of the Trea- surer of the Æthiopian Queen, was only this, “ I believe, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God®.,”— On this belief he was baptized; and all Creeds are baptismal confessions z or those confeffions® enlarged. It soon got to be thought essential to declare a be- lief in each of the persons of the Holy Tixity, according to Matt. xxviii. 19; but all beyond, was addition. Additions, however, became necessary, by the evasions and perversions of Heretics* :— Whatever is wanted to preserve peace and unity of doctrine, is necessary to promote religious senti- ments, and to answer the ends of religious Society. Not but we may conceive some ule of a Creed even where men are unanimous; it may be usedꝰ as an Hymn*.—So long as no harm arose from it, eac/ Bishop was at liberty to express the faith of his Church in what terms he thought proper; and fo woul

on Baptism, Part 2, Chap. 9.— Nicholls on this Article; Bing- ham, Usher on Creeds.

Tefsera was sometimes a ticket to receive a share in a division of Corn; fometimes a kind of bill of exchange; then called nummar ia, (aflignat) : sometimes a kind of billet of a quarter- master, or, however, a ticket entitling to a reception in the way of Hospitality. Sometimes a watckword, or perhaps a /n used as a watchword. ;y X

e. | 110

© Pearson on the Creed, Art. viii. p. 665, 4to. p. 331. Fol. | Wal, Part. 2, Chap. . TOA Bp | A See an instance (of the insertion of indivi/ibilem, and impase febilem) Pearson on the Creed, p. 321, 4to. p. 1 5. fol.

© See Cyril’s th Catechesis, p. 58… quoted by Waterland, 8 285, 2d. Ed. on the Athan. Creed. Ref. Leg. de Trin.

ap. 13. SRL 2

The Creeds used to be called Salis. See Waterland ib. p. 50.

BOOK IV. ART. vII I. SECT. 11. 87

would suit its circumstances. Hence we have e impassible®” in the Aquileian Creed; -a word di- rected against the Patripasians. | 42 11. Our method will be, to take the most sim- ple and ancient Creed first; to give the History of each, fabjoining such remarks, as have not so con- venient a place elsewhere. — - _ dirt 97 The expression of the Article. is very like what we find in the Reformatio® Legum ; but I do not conceive the meaning to be, that we should athem, one creed to have been really made at Nice, or another by Athanasius, As, in the Article, we have % commonly called the Apostles Creed ;” fo, in our Rubric, we have “commonly called the Creed of St. Athanasius.” Some names must be given to the Creeds; and our Article gives them those names, which were most »usual*. y We come then to some History of the Apostles Greed.—It is sometimes called the Roman Creed, because used in the Roman Church; yet several clauses have been added at unknown times, by un- known persons. On these, Bp. Pearson and Lord King may be consulted ; and different forms may be seen in Bingham and Ulher, and Wall on Bap- tism.— But why has this Creed been commonly called the Apostles? Our reason for calling it fo, is, that some of the Fathers have called it fo. Yet, they do not seem to refer to any one fixed form; which would make one think, that their calling 1t so was eloquence rather than History. Dr. Wall says, * Id. King, p. 40. d Ref. Leg. de Trin. Cap. 5. & 13. / i A person calls the Translation of the Bible the Septuagint. who does not believe all the stories about the seventy Cells, &c.— In Ref. Leg. the Roman Creed is called the Creed of the 4po/tles.

The names given in English Liturgies to the Athanasian Creed

may be seen in Waterland, p. 244. Note to beginning of roth Chapter, | |

F 4

88 BOOK Iv. ART, VIII. SECT. 111. 1v.

says, every thing was called Apostolic, which was done at any See, where any of the Apostles had ever presided.—(See on Baptism, Part 2. Chap. . Sect. 13.) That each Apostle contributed his clause, is not credible, especially as St. Thomas’s contribution was said to be the Descent into Hell; the minor James’s, © the holy Catholic Church };” and that of Simon Zelotes, „the communion of Saints:” which clauses were not in the Creed till some centuries after the age of the Apostles. Vet it seems no way improbable, that part of this creed might originate from the Apostles, and be handed down as having been used by them, either orally, or in writing.

111. There are only two things in the Apostles Creed not treated by us elsewhere. * The holy catholic Church;”—and, the Communion of Saints.” |

Ne holy catholic Church” is indeed treated in Art.“ x1x and xx. in some sort; so that we need only speak of it here as part of a Creed, Ld. King says’, that this clause is first found in Tertullian, or rather, some part of it; for it came into the creed gradually; in this order, as I conceive; “ the Church,” © the holy church,” * the holy catholic church.” The reason of inserting it is not clearly known. Probably, it might be inserted in order to discourage Heresy, to unite Christians for their com- mon credit and support ; or to give weight to large bodies of Catholics assembled in councils, or to those, who were most ie e dae or govern, though living separate from each other.

Iv. The communion of Saints.” … I think Bp. Pearson says, that this clause was inserted /af.

Rp And

• See also Book 1. Chap. x1x, Set. xvi. and Book 111. Chap. x1. Set. Iv.

. BOOK iv. ART. vIII. SECT. iv. 89

And Lord King, that it was introduced by Au- gustin with a view to the Donatisis, who refused to hold communion with other Bodies of Christians — So that, in the primary sense, he who believed the communion of Saints, believed that all Christians (called Saints in Scripture) ought to communicate with each other, though they belongeu ro dif- ferent particular societies; that they should all be interested for the rest, and have a religious patriotism.

The © Necessary Doctrine,“ &c. makes the com- munion of Christians, {the members of Christ’s Body,) to be like the communion of the members of the natural body; such that the nourishment, which is given to the Body, benefits every mem- ber. In fo muche that it lieth not in the power of any manne to saie, that the meate whiche he putteth into his owne mouthe, shall nourish one particular membre of his bodie and not an other.”

Let to some, this clause has seemed to imply a common feeling, not only between cotemporartes, but allo between Christians of all different ages and generations.—That such an idea is not without tome foundation in Scripture, seems evident from several passages. Successive generations are bap- tized in one form; Christ is with his churchuuinto the end of the world; he prays (John xvii. 20.) for all his disciples without distinction of times; he was the Lamb lain from the foundation of the world; and © if we walk in the light as God is in the light, we have fellow/hip (or communion, x0w©v.&v) One with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all Sin.“ 1 John

1. 7.—the Holy Spirit guides men into all truth: these things must unite Christians to make a com- mon interest; nor does departure out of this life make any interruption in the views of the good

Christian;

—

ministratione recitatur, Kc.

90 BOOK IV. ART. VIII. SECT, V. *

Christian: there is still, for any friend he has lost, or for himself, <* the heavenly Jerusalem,” © the general assembly and church of the first-born,” and the spirits of just men * made perfect. —

. * Forgiveness of Sins” is treated under the fix- teenth Article.

v. In treating of the Nicene Creed, the same method may be used.

The common notion is, that this Creed, as far as the words © Holy Ghost,” was made at the Coun- cil of Nice, or Nicza, in Bithynia, in 325; and that the remainder was added at Constantin in a general Council, in 381, or 382.— The Nicena Council is often called the Council of 318; Beau- sobre® supposes, that though there might be about 300 Bishops present, the precise number 318 was borrowed from Gen. xiv. 14. about the 318 ser- rants* of Abraham, by whom he overcame his ene- mies. This Council was mentioned before; it was held on account of the disputes about Easter, and the Doctrine of Arius; and the Meletian Schism, relating probably to Ordinations.— The shorter Creed may be compared with the fuller in Books of Councils?; the shorter is in Dr. Rutherforth’s fourth Charge, and Archbithop Usher’s Disserta- non on Creeds; but they both seem to trust to the Liturgy for the longer. Waterland calls it “the Nicene or Constantinopolitan Creed.“

Archbishop

m Feb. xii. 23.

n Lardner’s account of the Council of Nice makesa Chapter in his Credibility, &c. Works, Vol. 4. p. 187.

e See. Pearson on the Creed about the Cross, beginning of « was crucified,”

» Labbe, Vol. 3. col. 27. gr.

r Symbolum autem hoc quod in divinorum mysteriorum ad- Uher p- 16.—Vet he says, his form from Epiphanius, is very near that of Constantinople in 381. + Hist. Athan, Creed p. 161, 2d. Edit.

A

Archbishop Usher was, at one time, of the com- mon opinion, but afterwards thought {as I un- derstand), that the whole of our Nicene Creed was known at Nice in 325, though no more was pub- kshed than what relates to Arius: the part published he looked upon as recital of fo much of the Creeds then in use, as was to the 21 * of the meeting: the remainder being easily supplied from other Creeds, when wanted. What made him change his opinion was, finding, in writings composed between 325 and 381, the substance of the last paragraph of that Creed, which we use, and com- monly call Njcene; and quoted as the doctrine of the Nicene Fathers. Vet there might be doctrines professed by the Nicene Fathers, which were not inserted into any Creeds at the time of the Council of Nice.

We now proceed to remark on those parts of our Nicene Creed, which have not before been treated, nor are likely to find a more convenient place hereafter. +

vI. © Light of Light,” that is, I believe” in Christ, © begotten of his Father,” © God of God;” —and I am willing to acknowledge the proprie of this expression or comparison, © Light of light.” Now, one does not see how this can appear an im- proper expression, even to an Arian or a Socinian; for both the Father and the Son are called Light in Scripture, The expression is in fact used be-

caule

t Yet did not Arius reckon the Holy Ghost © creaturam crea- […] Hær. 69, treats of Arius. And see Aug. Hzr. 49.

« Dr, Rutherforth maintains the same opinion. See his Charges, p. 84. |

But see Lord King, p. 319, from Epiphanius; quoted before : where the Macedonians about 360 boast, that they received the Whole Nicene Creed. See also: Wall 4to. p. 503.

See * Concordance, Zight, or John i. 5. and John

92 BOOK Iv. ART. vIII. SECT. vii.

cause it seems to contain an illustration of the eternal generation of the Son of God, likely to reconcile different parties. The Father is the Light as the luminary, the Son is the Light as the effulgence, or emanation : the sunbeams are coeva/ with the lu- minous body; they are inseparable, or of the same substance, and yet distinct. The word awrauyacua!, in the opening of the Epistle to the Hebrews, has given occasion to this illustration; it seems to have been adopted with pleasure by men fo eminent as Origen and Dionysius of Alexandria, before the Council of Nice, and about that time by Athana- Hus“. Every illustration must, in such a case, be inadequate, but he, at least, who scruples not to use the words, «God of God,” need not scruple to use the expression Light of Light.”

vii. In the fifth Article, though we proved several propositions concerning the Holy Ghost, the expressions of that Article did not lead us to prove, that he nught with propriety be called Lord,“ and * giver of Life;” ro wxvgiov* xa ro Cuoror, (not Lord of Life), though we used some rexts, from which that might be proved. These expressions were used, no doubt, in opposition to the degrading notions of Ariaus aud Macedonians.

The Church might think themselves authorized to call the Holy Ghost & Lord,” from a compari- {on of Acts i. 16, with Acts iv. 24 ;—and from a comparison between Exodus xxxvi. 34, and 2 Cor. 111. 173 the word xvp805 being used in its highest {ense in the former, and used of the Holy Ghost in

| the

y Heb. 1. 3.

z See Parkhurst’s Greek Lexicon, anavyacua. 2 To auge must be an adjective, agreeing with mvops, but xveroc seems sometimes /ub/antive, sometimes adjective, and sometimes a substantive put as an adjective; in the manner in which we say, a Master- Key. — The proof mult be the same, as it the Greek was a substantive as well as the English,

BOOK IV. vIII. 93

the latter, in speaking of one and the same fast.— Also from 1 Thess. iti. 12, 13, where the three per- sons of the Trinity are enumerated.

The council (of Nice, or Conlteneigople;) might call the Holy Ghost © giver of Life,” from Rom vill. 10, 11.—1 Pet. iii. 18.,—and indeed from Rev. xxii. 1, —if the enumeration of the three per- sons of the Trinity, and the“ proceeding out of che throne of God and of the Lamb“ were noticed, as well as the word © Life.” -

And though, when it is said, “ the Spirit giv- eth Life,” 2 Cor. iii. 6., and * it is the Spirit that quickeneth,” John vi. 63, Spirit may be opposed to Letter, or Body; yet these expressions seem to me to imply a sort of general maxim, that what- ever, in any sense, can be called Spirit, must be conceived as giving Life to that, of which it is the Spirit.

The Church might deduce the expression, © who spake by the Prophets,” from Acts i. 16,—And 1 Pet. i. 10, 11.

The propriety of these several expressions in their several places, would probably appear from a dili- gent and accurate attention to the circumstances, in which they were introduced.

viii. We now come to the Athanafian Creed. This was not always called a Creed, nor, when it was so called, was it always named Athanafian. It has been called Fides Catholica, Sermo fidei catho- licæ, Fides quicunque vult, Esalmus quicunque vult, Sermo Athanasii de Fide, Expositio Catho- lice fidei […] It was not called ‘Athanasian till near the end of the seventh Century, and then it might be called so as containing his

Opinions.

Ver. I of Rev. xxii. might be all read. © See Waterland’s History of this Composition, p. 12t, 2d, Edit. and p. 89.

Opinions. Athanasius flourished in 326, and died about 373: Yet some have thought it the compo» fition of Athanasius; nay, such eminent men as Baronius, Allatius, and Bp. Andrews.

It has been thought to have been composed by Hilary, a French Bishop, about the year 430, for use of the Gallican Clergy ; this was the opinion of Dr. Waterland.

Several writers have thought, that it was written by Vigilius Tapsensis, that is, Bishop of Tapsum, or Tapfus, i in the Byzacene, a region of Africa; about the year* 484.

Some give only a doubtful or a negative ume saying the Author was a Latin Author,” —“ a Gallican writer,” - doubtful,” - not Athana- sius “.“ And b have assigned Athanasius of Spire as the Author, before the middle of the seventh Century. Bishop Pearson says*, “a Latin author, and one later than the famous Athanasius.”

Dr. Waterland has written a very able book on this subject; he seems to have consulted all autho- rities, as a learned man ought to do. His MS, copies amounted to 74, and the authors, ancient and modern, to a much larger number. When he has given accounts of what information he has met with, he forms his recapitulations into zables, which are very useful in exhibiting a subject at one view.

As far as my reading goes, it inclines me to agree with this respectable writer; — therefore it seems

neceslary to take notice of one difficulty ; the Creed opposes

4 This opinion is adopted by Mr. Gibbon, Hist. Vol. 3. 544, quarto; whose decision is said, by the Author of a

R entitled Hints,” &c. to be acknowledged by all.“ See Bingham, 10. 4. 18.

© See Waterland A f Creed, p. 324. Fol. p. 647. 4to.

opposes the Nestorian and Eutychian doctrines; the former were condemned at Ephesus in 431 ; the latter at Chalcedon in 451; yet Waterland sup- poses the creed to have been composed about the year 430. We have had difficulties similar to this“ before; the general solution is, that doctrines have been often disseminated, or have even grown up so as to be very troublesome, before . by whom they are professed have acquired that name by which, as a sect, they are denominated in History. Waterland mentions the Apollinarians , as havi held a doctrine nearly the same with that of Euty- ches; and the N estorian doctrines were well known in 430.

It must not be thought inaccurate to f. of doctrines by their usual names, taken from those sects which were the most famous for professing them, though with reference to a time before those names were imposed.

It seems agreed, that the o inal lan of the Creed in question was Pap, wes how: are several Greek MSS. of it: this is so generally ac- knowledged, that even those, who ascribe it to Athanasius, say, that ke wrote it in Latin, when he was at Rome, or in Germany.

Comments on this creed have been made not un- frequently: at first, none were wanted; — as it con- tains nothing but what was to be found in the writings of the Fathers, the expressions and allu- sions were understood; but afterwards, comments were useful; some were made towards the end of

the

g Famil, 17 though aimed at in 1 had scarce their name

2, _ till near 1579.—Of the Socinians it Fe I think, been said, that their doctrines were forming in 1562.

Embryo Anabaptists also before, Art. v11. Sect. 111.

Waterland, Athan. p. 197, and thereabouts.— Wall, Bapt. 4to. p. 203, on Pelagius’s Creed.

96 BOOK Iv. ART. vIII. SECT. vi ft.

the sixth* Century; and before the year 1 500, there had been thirteen Commentators upon it, which are known now.

The reception of this Creed in the Western Church, was favourable; it was there read and admired ; but some have doubted whether it was ever in the Eastern Church*. Not with the Filio- que as we now have it, probably’. In England, it got ground in the freut] Century; but it was never

supported by any Council. Yet, in the middle® ages, it was appealed to as authority *.

Whoever wrote this Creed, he meant nothing more than to collect things said in various catholic writers, against the various Heręsies subsisting, and to /implify and arrange the expressions, so as to form a confession of faith the most concise, orderly, and comprehensive possible. Not with-any view of ex- plaining any mysterious truths, but with the sole design of rejefing hurtful or heretical errors.

Mr. Gibbon objects bitterly to this Creed as being /purious®; but the early Christians used some-

times

1 Waterland, P. 88. 8 by

k Why then so many Greek MSS?

See a curious paslage, p. 372, Octavo, 2d. Edit. of Travis’s Letters to Gibbon ; from Gibbon and Petavius,

m Middle ages continued from 475 to 1453, according to Harris. Philol p. 240.

n Opposite the title-page of D-5-6, Magd. Coll. Cambr. is the following MS. Note: in Bp. Gibson’s hand, as I have rea- son to think. |

« A Swedish Minister assures me to day, that the Athanasian Creed 1s read constantly in the publick Service, on Rogation and Trinity Sundays, and that all children are obliged to get it by heart.” EDM. LONDON.

Whitehall, Jan. 21, 1930-1. |

o « The famous Creed which so clearly expounds the myste- ries of the Trinity and the Incarnation,” &c.—Gibbon’s Hist. Vol. 3. p. 544, quarto.

Þ Gibbon as above, p. 544, this objection is adopted in

| Hints, &c. e

BOOK IV. 1x. 97

times to ascribe to others their own works, without any bad intention“; and what is customary does not deceive :—And, moreover, this creed may have been adopted on account of its excellence, in bringing the errors, which were to be shunned, into a small compass, in exposing them in a kind of poetic numbers, which strike and possess the ear; and may have been called Athana/ian, only on account of its containing Doctrines, which had been defended with peculiar force and brilliance, by the great Prelate of Alexandria*. “RE

Ix Let us now pals from the History of this Creed, to some Historical explanation of its several clauses. We will follow the order of the Creed itself.

Some condemning clauses come first ; but, as the Creed concludes with one of them, we may con- sider them last.

The doctrinal part of the Creed may be divided into to parts; one relating to the doctrine of the Trinity; the other to that of the [ncarnation of the

Son of God. I wish the paragraphs had been numbered.

1 The

r That it did contain his doctrines, see quotation from Dr. Burglis Inquiry, &c. p. 384, Note; made in the answer to Hints, &c. called an 4pology, &c. (supposed to bewritten by Bp. Hallifax) p. 48. Perhaps some of the old Titles of the Creed might bear such a construction as the following: The true faith, ac- cording to the opinions cf Athanasius, If it was not called Atha- nassan till the end of the 7th Century, it could scarcely have been published as Athanasius’s; in 4.30 at least; — and it does contain his Doctrines: No imposition therefore.

s Waterland observes, p. 273, that Athanasius has left some Creeds and confessions, undoubtedly his, which yet have never obtained the esteem and reputation that this hath done.?

Vor. it. G

. The first question which occurs is, have any Christians confounded the Persons of the Holy Trinity? the answer is, the Sabelliaus did this. Have any divided the substance * All those who denied consubstantiality; that is, who were not homoiihans; all those who have denied the Divinity of the second and third persons; and those also may be added, who have held zhree original prin- ciples, Tees * avagxes :—these would be Tritheists; but some would be called so, who only maintained three Persons in one Deity : therefore the Orthodox might have occasion to declare against such division of the divine nature, or substance.

I look upon all, down to“ three Lords,” to be in opposition to those, who divided the substance ; the first * sentence may seem an exception, but I think it is here only introductory to the rest.—The term “ wncreate” would appear to relate to the Arians, who thought the Son a Creature, and the Holy Ghost a Creature of a Creature: as also indeed to others.— The word comprehensible means here to express immensity, as appears from the Latin? and Greek, and from some old English : that which is unmense cannot be comprehended in any space,

| but

© The heretical opinions referred to in this explanation, lie fo in order, in the first and second Articles, and are so easily found by the Syllabus, or Heads of Lectures, that it seems needless to put down the pages where they are to be met with — 1795. I have also given . short accounts of them in my printed Ser- mon on Mark xvi. 16.

u See Bingham, 11. 3. 4.

• e For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.” - This sentence rather corres- ponds to what went before, ; neither confounding the Persons; and makes it easier to take the subje& of dividing the substance first.

. Y Waterland P+ 249. @XaTHANTT9, axe os, @jeT Rog, — UN- mensus.

Dub

it T5 oy JH A VA br . ES « I $3 tHe Cans F or wg i LY. 4 N + ugh

Is Y o I Is Py a — Pm & ?

”

POOK iv. 1X: 99

but we do not now commonly use the term incom- prehensible to signify this.—The expressions © 7hree eternals” and ** one eternal,” may seem out of the common way; but the thing to be expressed is, that each divine attribute 1s common to the three persons, though each has personal relative qualities, peculiar to himself, | All the rest, which relates to the Holy s except a kind of recapitulation, is against those, who confounded the Persons ; and sets forth the per- Jonal, relative, peculiar qualities now mentioned; —lso that what has been already said, expresses the Union of the three divine persons; what remains to be said (of the Trinity) will express the distinctions between them. But there seems no occasion for any explanatory remark, unless we observe, that those, who neglected the distinction of Persons, might

subtitute one for another at will; which would make

it indifferent to them whether they spoke of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or of three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Holy Ghosts.”

As the former part of the Creed rejects and ex- dudes all prevailing errors with regard to the Trinity, fo does the latter part with regard to the Incarnation of Christ. We will. proceed as before, inquiring who the persons alluded to, are. Who then have denied, that Christ is God? Ebionites, Nazarens, Photinians, Arians; as appeared under the second Article. — Who, that he was Man? The sects of Docetæ, the Apollinarians, and the Euty-

chians. Who, that he was God of the substance

of his Father?” The Arians called Christ a God, but denied the rest. Who held, that Christ was not © begotten before the worlds?” all who denied his Divinity, except the Arians.— Who denied, that Christ was * Man of the substance of his Mother?” the Eutychians; not to mention the Anabaptists,

“WV | who

who arose since the Creed was made. Who denied, that Christ had a reasonable soul? the Apollina- rians ; they maintained, that the Logos was to him in the place of a reasonable foul. By the way, the colon put after […] for chanting, may mistead : it should rather be after […] perfect man consists of foul and body. Who have spoken of Christ as of Hoo agents? the Nestorians. Who have conceived the Incarnation to be ef- fected by means of a conversion or transubstantia- tion of the Deity into Flesh ? And who, when such conversion took place, or was supposed to take place, imagined a confision or consolidation of the natures divine and human ?—Here perhaps Heretics have spoken less plainly, than in other cases; but they have said enough to require the attention and vigi- lance of the Catholics in rejefing their errors; which is all we are here concerned with. The Al ians conceived the Word to be made Flesh in such a sense, that he was susceptible of suffering “. The Eutychians seem to have conceived, that the Word was so united to Flesh, that the humanity was lost, or absorbed, annihilated, though the Body or Flesh evidently remained; which amounted to a conversion of the Godhead into Fleth ; and they, conceiving the nature to be but one, accounted for the unity, by a me/ting down of the two natures to- gether :—-In the Creed of Pelagius, we find some mentioned, who held a double? conversion of nature

Or

d Iltlorum quoque {:militur execramur Blasphemiam, qui nowve sensu asserere conantur, a tempore susceptæ carnis, omnia quæ erant Divinitatis in hominem demigrasse, et rursùm quæ humani-

= | tatls

W 1 ST My * O r he ke […] 8 an” Sond of wo 5 THREE 1 ood at’s; 7 “1 . e „ 3 BI, _ 4 \ 3 Fab n 1 N £ 2: n 24S v1 8g TE + 3Þ 2 ” ad 2 On Os * n - 4% 7 r Yay

4 o 4 1 2 1 — 0 . of . K * <4 n 5 i . *s #5 : 25 3+” CE e OE; 235 4 q E e deere. L ? “$6 N 4+ * n +: 2 8 7 ia 2 I 2 8 ru en

or substance at the same time, so that the divine nature became human, and the human divine: thus a confusion of substance was accomplished; and the Son, instead of being 0/4 God and Man, was xeither. These persons are not called by any name, as a sect, but are said to assert the incarnation in nouo sensu 1. — The expression, taking of the Man- hood unto God,“ answers to one in the same Creed of Pelagius: Verbum carnem esse factum, led a/sumendo hominem, non permutando Deitatem;“ and to one in the genuine works of Augustin ; % a divinitate carne sisceptd;“ and I do not sup- pose, that more is meant by taking the manhood into God, than by Christ’s taking man’s nature upon him. It a 1 is to be expressed, it can- not be expressed more harmlessly, than by saying, the finite was gsumed by the infinite, or taken into the infinite. We want to reed all notions incon- sistent with an union of t1e natures divine and human; or with their continuing din, though united.

Unity of person,” is opposed to Eutychian unity of Nature, as well as to the Nestorian duplicity of Per son.

The Paraphrase or Commentary of Waterland on this Creed, which makes his tenth Chapter, 1s the best that I know of.

x. After the explanation, should come the Proof; but it is the nature of a Creed to colle&

propositions supposed to have been already proved. e

tatis erant, in Deum transfusa: ut, quod nulla unquam hæresis ausa est dicere, videatur ac confusione utraque exinanita esse substantia, et Deitatis scilicet, et humanitatis ; et amisso proprio

statu, in aliud esse mutata: ut [nos] qui tam Deum perfectum

in Filio, quam hominem confitemur, nec Deum verè nec homi- uem tenere credamur.

102 BOOK 1V, ART, VIII. SECT. XI,

We have indeed, in the two former creeds, men- tioned a clause or two, which had been left un- proved, but we have no such clauses here. — There is only one thing, which wants proof here, that I am aware of, and that is, the propriety of the anathemas, or damnatory clauses But we will drop the word anathema, as that will be considered under the eighteenth Article.

XI. These damnatory clauses have occasioned much needless uncafiness. When such men, I say not as Chillingworth, for we have judged him weak in religious reasoning, but as Clarke, Tillotson *,

Secker, could be uneasy under them, I can ascribe

it to nothing but the influence of religious terror; a sentiment which operates in all possible degrees; which makes us /cruple to admit in religion, what would occasion no difficulty in common affairs, left our acquiescence should be owing to some corrupt or indirect motive. Indeed these great men, or some of them, might possibly attend as much ta presumed scruples in others, as to any of their own — They might judge, that, whatever they them- selves could do, it was not to be expected, that the generality of men would be induced to set their minds at ease. |

Scruples of this kind are owing to not freely admitting those limitations, which common sense suggests in the application of every general propo- sition. Here I would recommend a careful perusal of the opening of Dr. Ogder’s fifth Sermon on the Commandments; because it expresses well what 1 mean, and was written without the least view to our present subject. It also explains the expression,

t before all things it is necessary.“ I will oaly give

you

© See Hints, &c. p. 32. and Answer p. 51. Clarke perhaps, as favouring some degree of Arianism,

—

2, ee 2

eg 5 4 RS ef Wo I

F, 5 4 N n ** r

is I’s —— Yun

_ My. Ps

S& 2% WT a; N ia 0s a =, Y Y - x? a © COP fo. KEN V3

he = N.

A » by. vs

HY” o Ly

you a small part of it. The Preacher“,“ says

Dr. Ogden, “ prohibits in the most comprehensive expressions, and under the severest penalties. For the making of necessary exceptions and hmita- tions, we are left ro our own reflections, to nature, to experience, and the common sense of all the world.” The dimnatory clauses before us may be divided into zo kinds. The first declaring the evil of re- ject ing Christianity, orꝰ the Catholic Faith, without specifying wherein that faith consists: the second 28 the evil of rejecting the particular do&rines of the Creed. —The two first sentences speak of the Christian doctrine in general, be it what it may; and the last says the same thing;—that the Creed may end as it began. And that clause, which says, that we should believe rig the Incarnation, men- tions no particulars, and 1s therefore such, taken separately, as any Christian might agree to.—But the others relate to the doctrines of the Creed. — „The right faith is s:“, must Hus think of the Trinity :” and © the right faith is,” —and then specifying what it 1s, with regard to the Incar- nation. 5

First, let us take the threat, which concerns the right Faith in general, or genuine Christianity at large. Does this differ from Mark xvi. 16? *© He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved ; but

he

G 4

104 BOOK IV. xt.

he that believeth not, shall be damned.” —Suppose it does not, you say, that does not clear up my difficulties, But it ought, considering the Creed only as a Creed: for a Creed is perfect, if 1t agrees with Scripture. If you have any objections to the text of Scripture, those must not be objections to the Creed; in whatever the Scripture is blameable, the Creed is free from blame, supposing the Creed to quote Scripture, or say what is equivalent to it.

But we will not be so strict; we will consider this text a little, though commenting on Scripture is not now our immediate business. —Christ, having given all his proofs of the truth of his Religion, just before his ascension, commands his disciples to preach his Religion after his departure; and to those ministers, whom he commissions to preach, he says, Converts shall be saved, but those, who re- fuse to be converted, shall be condemned. The truth of this religion, which was to be preached, was all the while undoubted; taken for granted.

Therefore the meaning is, whoever accepts a message really sent from heaven, must gain some benefit from it; whoever rejects such message, must at least suffer the loss of that benefit; but he may moreover have positive punishment inflicted upon him, because of his rejecting what God gave him sufficient opportunity to accept. For it cannot be questioned, that God suits his evidence to our faculties, so that we may receive divine truth if we ule them rightly. Wat more reasonable than such a declaration?

Such is the case, when the Gospel is committed to Apostles or other authorized teachers, who be- lieve it, to be by them proposed to Mankind; or when it is preached amongst those, who have no prejudice against it. But, if a preacher proposes Christianity to * insidel, threatening punishment

| | ON

4 - 2’s ’ » 4 * e

Nn * ere N rd $6 NNE, n Wye

ad. E I bs: Lt % Ac &

bk 1 3 © * 3 4, Yes 3 D x 5 […] ä - ; 2 Mo Wy OR ** 3 2 5 = — CI PIO OV 5 4 N 8 een oe rs; 3+. Lo I. R [ pL. 2 q 5 OE 4 n 5 1 WIE * 8 3 i We: 8 . 4 — 8 . 2 5 5 * 4 rr

; * EDO, n 8 41 8 5 5 2 - 1 2

2, * W 4 Wd * e

Na

4h 8 N y 3

„ . | RTE EH Ox an Io, EC . i i A +

8 i * 0 22 Ep

A. £4 Sen TH #4 A _ th. * ö A 4 Derr a. 1 2 3 4 n cc TC SY TY

on refusal, the measure may seem more doubtful yet still the truth of what he proposes must be taken for granted, in oder to make his threaten- ing of any significance. And therefore, in that case, the meaning of the threat 1s, supposing my doc- trine true, you will incur great evil by rejecting it. This is a very great incitement to examine dili- gently and honestly, but it cannot afford any argu- ment to accept without examining. For, if the religion were false, it could not be accepted with- out excluding the true; and all threats of its preachers must be vain. Lk

It is strange, but, apparently, nothing more is wanted for easing all difficulties arising from such threatenings as we are speaking of, than the plainest and molt self-evident of all moral propositions; No man is punishable for rejecting fal/hood : Why then, you say, does not the Creed exprels this? because it is so plainly implied as to be needless; and be- cause it would (according to Dr. Ogden’s observa- tion) weaken the effect, which a warning must be intended to produce.—Why, you urge, need a Creed make any warning or threat? A threat is not indeed essential to a Creed; but if those, for whom it is made, are negligent, light minded, contemptuous, interested, timid, prejudiced, capri- cious, or devoted to pleasure; or if they rely on

being well-meaning, or commonly honest; or if

they have any religious faults, such as fanaticism, &c. a threat may be very useful to rouse them, or to restrain them, to make them follow their best reason, and exert their best facultiesf. It is a

solemn

f Perhaps the thoughts here offered, may appear better in the following order :

1. A threat promotes examination, instead of preventing it.

106 BOOK iv. ART. vIII. SECT. XI.

solemn thing to publish, amidst a crowd of here- fies and religious extravagancies, a system of sound doctrines: it must, in some cases, require all the efforts of the most powerful teacher to make rut ingenuouslly received. Yet it must always be need- ful to banish, as much as possible, all indifference for sacred truth. If it is indifferent to neglect Truth, then Reason was given us in vain; then error leads to no mischief; yet what are moral errors, but opinions that are hurtful to mankind ?— If it be indifferent to reje&t Christianity, then Christ died in vains: and the Prophets in vain foretold his coming, ever since the world began.

I suppose this might suffice to justify those threats of our Creed, which relate to rejecting pure Christianity, or the Catholic Faith at large, without specifying any particular doctrines: Yet it may be worth while to make one or two addi- tional remarks.

1. Being saved and being damned, or con- demned, do not imply any one fixed degree of happiness or misery; but admit of various degrees,

without

2. It is made needful by the many faults, which may hinder a man from allowing the infinite Importance of Religious Truth.

3. Wherein the Importance of religious truth consists: from the nature of the thing, and from the positive declarations of Scripture.

Whatever should be offered, in treating this subject of the necessity of acquiring a right belief, or right notions, as far as,

humanly speaking, we are able, would be so much in favour of the damnatory clauses in question.

BOOK IV. ART. vIII. SECT. Xl. 107

without limit. Both in Heaven and Hell, there may be many mansions. Nor is any great degree necessarily implied in the word “ everlasting,” taken singly. Indeed every five, however small, is an everlasting punishment. Yet we may easily sup- pole too small a degree of evil, as well as too large an one, to be implied in the word © damned.”

The endless number of degrees of happiness and misery, which may be comprized under the terms

• salvation and condemnation, might serve to com-

pole some disputes about the salvation of Heathens, and of those, who lived before the time of Christ. — These persons may possibly enjoy lower degrees of happiness than good Christians, and yet may be

saved ; or may suffer misery in a lower degree than

wicked Christians, and yet be condemned. It does not appear to me a Christian doctrine, that any person will be happy in the same degree with a good Christian ; whether his want of Christian Faith was his fault, or only his misfortune. Every man may miss happiness by misfortune ; by bad parents, by being amongst savages, &c. &c.—under a bad civil Government, &c. &c. indeed this is the very mean- ing of the word misfortune.

2. Mark xvi. 16. must be so understood, as to be consistent with the texts about udging; Matt. vii. 1,-Rom. xiv. 4.—James iv. 12. Therefore no man, not even a commissioned teacher, has a right to apply Mar. xv1. 16. to any particular case, Not even to his own case. That is, he is not, by the general denunciation, to imagine, that he can sce how any particular man will be finally rewarded

or punished.

. And, as Man is not a judge, and as God is

the only judge i in all particular cases, no extraordi-

nary situation ought to occasion any uneasiness. It is not to be supposed, that a Judge all-wife and all-

108 BOOK IV. ART. vIII. SECT. XI.

all-powerful will proceed mechanically: his remis- fon of punishment, as well as his adjusting of rewards, may fully be believed capable of suiting all situations, however nice and complicated.

As therefore a person, who believes and is bap- tized, may not in effect be saved, if he neglect the conditions stipulated in baptism ; so it may possibly happen, that a man may disbelieve and reje& the truth itself, and yet not be condemned to any great positive evil, if God knows that his disbelief is owing to some extraordinary want of the means of information. Hence no one should be unhappy about any extraordinary case, of himself or his friends : the true of Heart should be glad.

These additional remarks are often wanted, on a subje& which is apt to occasion uneasiness: if the are abused, the guilt mult fall on those who abuse them.

Let us now consider those condemning clauses of our Creed, which threaten all who rejeC its particular dofrines, Here Mark xvi. 16. will as- sume this form :— He that believeth the orthodox doctrines of this creed, (having been already bap- tized) will be saved; but he that believeth hem not, will be damned.“ When this form is ad- dressed to such as have no particular objections to those doctrines, but only think a good fort of man need not trouble himself about such matters, I sup- pose there is not much difficulty : the threats are then plainly seen to be, what in truth they always

are,

PEERS ot ans

E […] F to X Fn.

—

Fl

” fo 5)

ky

55 A A; ; : £ f * > W EO 2 A

“2.x “yo”

are, warnings and incitements to a fair and diligent study of religious truth.

But, if an orthodox preacher proposes his system to a Dissenter or Heretic, then the case, though it may seem more difficult, is the same as when an Apostle® proposes Christianity to an Heathen : to make his threats of any consequence, his doctrine must be supposed to be true. The orthodox teacher says, in effect, supposing my doctrines to be really thole of Christianity, or of the true catholic faith, you will suffer by rejecting them; to rej them, 1s to reject the catholic faith itself. This is, as before, an ncitement to attention, because till, if the person adopts what is false, he cannot be at

liberty to adopt what is true; —and therefore

the threat, in reality, operates against accepting implicitly.

If, as before, you ask, why does the author of the Creed say positively, © the catholic faith 15 this,” and not speak on supposition of truth? the answer is the same: it my be implied; and it would be unnatural, and unsuitable to the purpose of his solemn exordium, which is of the nature of an eloquent exhortation, to introduce doubts and hesitations, when he wanted to rouse an earnest attention to what he assured himself was truth: common sense, when you thought calmly, would easily supply you with the /uppoition or limitation, in case you found yourself unable to think that true, which

d So it seems to ne; our Divines in 1689 settled, that the condemning clauses should * be understood as relating only to those, who obstinately deny the /ub/ance of the Christian Faith.“ —A man cannot be condemned for rejecting the substance of the Christian Faith, but on supposition of the Truth of Christianity, And a man may suffer for rejecting the Doctrine of the Church of England, on supposition of the truth of that Doctrine: = and the same is true of the tenets of any set of D:/e»ter s from the Church of England.

which he imagined to be indisputably true. Tt will bear repeating, No man 1s punishable for re- jecting falshood : and every man sees this, when he thinks coolly ; and is ready to act upon it.

If you ask again, why need the Author of the Creed prefix a threat to his system of doctrines? the answer may be repeated; because he thought the errors of great importance, which his Creed was intended to exclude ; because he thought every effort wanted to animate men’s zeal in the cause.— You will do well to prefix a solemn warning to whatever * you publish as. true and highly im- portant.

One difference may be urged as subsisting be- tween the two cases. Some men may say, (if they receive Christianity, but not what is called Ortho- doxy) how unreasonable is it to alarm men with the denunciation of vengeance, in case they do not receive and profess doctrines, which are wintelli- gible lit may not be amiss to take some notice of this difficulty, though we before had a chapter on assenting to unintelligible propositions*.—In that chapter it was observed, that a proposition may be intelligible as resectiug an error, which is not so in elf, We can sometimes see, that a thing is

Wrong,

i J am told, that the Baptisis at a certain Town, at a solemn ordination, declared in their sermons repeatedly, that no one can be saved, who is only baptized as an i»fant, or, who does this or that, contrary to heir peculiar notions. I hope they meant as is here settled. — Mark xvi. 16. would assume this form; He that believeth our doctrine, and is baptized, as an adu/z, shall be saved; but he that is baptized as an unt, or believeth not our doctrines, shall be damned. |

Our Reformatio Legum has a short chapter on this subje&: De summa Trinitate et Fide Catholica, cap. 17.

k Book 111. Chap. x. |

1 The negative form of some propositions in the Creed of Pelagius, or the Ser. de Tempore 191 (236) are worthy of com- mendation; as has before been observed,

wrong, when we have not a distinct idea how to alter it, so as to make it right. I look upon the propositions of the Athanasian Creed as reject- ing errors, even when they are not in a negative form. Nay, it might bear an inquiry, whether even the unintelligible propositions contained in the Articles, ought not, in strictness, to be con- sidered in that light. But, if this is true only with regard to the Creed, the propositions of it may be all intelligible, if rightly taken. And, if this be true in part, they may be intelligible in part Some proposit ions in the Creed are unintelligible to some persons, because they know not the opi- mons rejected; as was observed in the chapter ahovementioned.—Bur these are only on the foot- ing of other unintelligible propositions, to which a man may have occasion to give a verbal affent, for the good of Religious Society. (Book 111. Chap. x.) For whatever reasons any propositions are unin- telligible, it should always be remembered by those, who are to assent to them, that, when we have no opinion, we can have no feeling of certainty, or clear conviction : our mind 1s unfixed; our assent fluc- tuating. The want of such fixed feeling has sometimes occasioned uneasiness and seruples; and so has excited prejudices against confessions of Faith.

We may here also make the same additional re- marks, as in the former case.

1. The word “ perish” admits of degrees, as well as * saved” and “ damned:” it is probably used either as equivalent to © damned,” or as being somewhat lets harsh.

2. An orthodox preacher has no more right to pass final judgement on an heretic or diflenter, than a preacher of Christianity at large on an infidel.— Nor has an orthodox preacher any right to apply the

threat

threat of St. Mark to any particular case; not even to his own. — That is, though any man may say, 1 “must be careful how ® I reje& ruth, because if I do, I shall suffer ; though any minister has authority to say, You must be very careful how you reject truth ; yet no man ought to make himself un- happy, as if he must of course be damned for dis- believing the tenets of a certain Creed; no Minister has a right to say, you will be damned, if you do not account my doctrines essential to the true Christian Faith.

4. The denunciations against heresy ought not to be interpreted more strictly than those against infidelity ; perhaps somewhat less striftly : —cer- tainly therefore not more strictly than denunciations against Vice.

I hope I may now conclude, that a mind not tinctured with superstition, or religious fear, will be able to supply such rational limitations to the general threatenings of our Creed, as to judge them harmless in all situations, and useful in many; that their tendency is, when terror does not dis- compose the judgement, to make men * prove all things,” and not to accept even the doctrines of the Creed itself implicitly, lest, in accepting any- thing erroneous, they should eventually reject the truth.

X11. But, m Would not this be the right idea for any one to have when

he said Amen to the curses or Anathemas in Deut. xxvii, intro- duced in our Commination ? * |

• -BOOK IV. XII; 113

x11. But, lest there should be some too seru- pulous in supplying limitations, I will put an end to my remarks on these damnatory clauses by an attempt to supply such limitation myself, in a kind of Parap/hrase on the opening of the Creed; and, as they make the most difficult part of our present Article, which does not come into some other Article, we may suppose the Application to begin here; and with a kind of form of Aseut. Heresies are very numerous; defiling the pu- rity of the Faith, making men act on wrong prin- ciples, affording handle to infidelity, and dividing Ces Christians amongst themselves, so as to defeat the ends of religious Society, and probably lose some degree of future happiness ; it seems needful there- 4 fore to draw the erroneous notions, which are so pernicious, into a small compass, and solemnly k reject them; that the unwary may be cautioned, and the bold and busy innovator discouraged. — And, left the unstable, who are tossed about with every wind of Doctrine, should continue to in- dulge their childish fondness for Novelty, and hve on without any regular and permanent principles, it seems also needful to remind them of the last _ solemn declaration of our blessed Lord: not surely with a view to bias the judgement, but only to in- force the duty of a sober-and serious attention to sacred Truth, uninfluenced by passion or caprice;

% =

to suggest, that what Christ died to accomplish, cannot be an indifferent matter. He, who 1s im- pressed with this thought, will of course describe particulars according to his own judgement ; but he will do that without denying, that all other men, duly qualified and authorized, may ” the | ame.“

n Mark xvi, 16.

VOL. 111. H

114 BOOK Iv. ART. vIII. SECT. xII.

same.“ Such an act of assenting, no one, I should hope, would deem unreasonable.

Mutual concessious seem to have little place in the present Article: such as relate to the Doctrines, have been proposed (or will be) under the several Ar- tides, in which those doctrines are respectively laid down.—-And concessions with regard to damnatory clauses seem to be rendered unnecessary, by the li- berty of using them being equally allowed to all. —As also by our declaration, that they are not essential to a Creed. —At least, if the explanations of them here given are not sufficient to prevent disputes, I know of nothing which would answer that purpose.

We may consider therefore whether anything in the way of Improvement occurs on looking back on this Article.

Arid the firit question which is suggested by such a review is, Whether on the whole it would be an improvement, if the Creed, of which we are treat- ing, were to be expunged from our Liturgy. In America, it is excluded; and several eminent men in our own church, from whose works the mem- bers of it receive continually instruction and im- provement, have seemed to wish it removed. Dr. Waterland, on the other hand, who seems to have attended to it molt fairly, is for retaining it. In the commission ® of 1689, it was to be retained. Bishop Gibson, whom I consider as very eminent for extensive knowledge, under the guidance of sound reason and plain unadulterated common sense, appears to have been a friend to the retaining of it.

Some

o See Hints, &c. p. 32, and Answer p. 47. ? See Waterland’s Pref. Nov. 7, 1727: and Apology, in answer do Hints, &c. P · 46.

BOOK IV.”ART. VIII, SECT, XIII. 115

Some have had an idea of throwing out the condemning clauses, and retaining the Doctrines: which is not an impractible plan, if desirable on the whole. But let us take them separately. *

With regard to the Doctrines, one does not see why they may not be retained as long as our Thirty- nine Articles are retained, which coincide in doctrine with the Creed”. The doctrinal part of the creed has been called a Bulwark*; and if it be maintained, it should be maintained as a fortification. In time of peace, the inconvenience of keeping up fortifi- cations occasions their being sometimes neglected, but when war breaks out afresh, every one 1s cla- morous in blaming the imprudence of such neg- left ; if we are at peace now with the powers, which would attack us where our Creed would be our defence, we are always liable to be at war with them again. We have seen © how naturally all the Heresies condemned in the Creed arise, when men once become eager in solving the difficulties of the Trinity and the Incarnation: and such eagerness might at any time arise, on any revolution, or great disturbance, or . confusion. The Eutyclian

• Notions,

4 This plan was recommended in a separate paper, or ve small pamphlet, printed at Ipswich, in 1794; which the Briti Critic approves. I am very much obliged to the Author for the handsome things, which he says of me. — Some time after the publication, and after I had spoken thus, my friend, Mr. Pearson, of Sidney college, Cambridge, owned himself to be the Author; a Gentleman, to whom our Country is obliged for the best et of Sermons on the State Fast and Festivals (as far as my judgement goes) that I ever read. Bp. Butler’s I have not read lately ; and they are only on two out of the four.

r The Candid disquisitors are for retaining the Creed, but never having it publicly read; in the same manner as we retain the 39 Articles, =p. 96. 2d Edit.

© Under the Second Article.

H 2

116 Bock IV, XI1.

• notions, which make the most difficult part of our Creed, were revived at the Reformation“; and the Maid of Kent suffered death at the stake rather than relinquish them, after a twelvemonth’s re- flexion in confinement. And in case of renewed attacks, our present Creed would be a much better defence than any new one that would be made at the time it was wanted. In the candid disquisi- tions, too much difference 1s made, in my opinion, between literate and 2//iterate people: an illiterate man understands the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, as well as the literate : there is no part of Learning, which is of any significance to the Creed, but an acquaintance with the opinions of some Christian Heretics, and that lies in a very small compals*. | But we are now in actual war about many doctrines, rejected by our Creed. And I suspect, that many of those, who are so impatient about it, secretly favour a change in the Doctrines of the Church; and are, at bottom, adverse to the Creed because it is so impregnable.

With regard to retaining the condemning clauses, they seem so little difficult to me, that I am scarce a judge what should .be. done. Some alterations they might admit ; but I think the explanation now given ?, both of them and the Doctrines, such

as,

_ = Whiston revived the Apollinarian Heresy. | * See Free and Candid Disquisitions, beginning of Chap. 6, Also p. 280, 2d Edit. 1795. It has sometimes occurred to me, that the explana- tions of the condemning clauses bere given, go more upon the idea of teaching others, than of confessing one’s own belief.— Yet Mark xvi. 16. is a general Declaration, applicable to all particular occasions: a man may use it in settling his own prin- ciples, and in listening to instruction, as well as in instructing others, Besides, in the more particular and fuller creeds, one who repeats them is really in controversy : he is professing in what

BOOK IV. XI1. 117

as, by proper language, might be made intelligible even to the people,

The Creed taken all together has been admired; can conceive it; I believe it is now * admired by many, who have not given themselves to specula- tions and scruples about it. Doubt and perplexity damp * the warmth of any sentiment ; but, if these were settled by some authoritative and received li- mitations, &c. I should expect it to be admired generally by those, who resigned their minds to its doftrines. If it really be admired and esteemed, though only by a part of our Congregations, that is some reason for retaining it. Christians, when they can, should be indulgent to wishes: of their Brethren.

What shall we say then? Let the Creed be re- tamed, read. 8 and explained (according to what has been said of explaining things unintelli- gible) to the people. The Szvedi/ custom intro- duces it too seldom, only twice in the year: ours perhaps rather too often, thirteen times; it is a matter, which need not be settled to a great nicety ®.

Bur before 1 quit the subject of improvements, I will submit to the judgment of the candid, whe-

ther

what he differs from his Brethren. He is making a tacit contrast between himself and others; and is, in effect, proposing to them to join his Society.

I was once warmly reproved by a sensible and respectable Parish Clerk for not reading it on both the two successive Sun- days, Whit-sunday and menen —The parish a small one in the Country.

• Book 111. Chap. 111. Sect. 1. *

d The Commission of 1689 had agreed, that it should be read Ax times a year, instead of thirteen. See Postscript to Waterland’s Preface, (to his Hist. Arkan. Creed) dated Nov. 7, 1727.—A note of Waterland, p-, 244, beginning of 10th Chapter, says, that it was, at one tune, 1555. read daily in the Church. |

KH 3

[…] 4 o—_— — 92 5

118 BOOK Iv. x11.

ther every Sect should not produce © a Creed, in order to entitle it to Toleration? and (leaving the two shorter Creeds, as being established) whether something thrown into the Athanasian Creed, about the nature of unintelligible Doctrines, and of ver- bal arguments made out of them, might not give satisfaction to many minds? — and 7afly, lest the damnatory clauses should {till occasion difficulty, whether it would not be better to have the 7/hreats in words of Scripture, than in words of human composition ? whether if Mark xvi. 16, was pro- nounced, or sung, at the opening and conclusion, instead of the -present application of it, and also between the rehearsal of the Doctrine of the Trinity and that of the Incarnation, in the manner of the Gloria Patri; and instead of * the Catholic faith 7s this,” some other expression was used, such as « the faith we hold is this;” the Creed would not be more generally satisfactory, and its solem- nity be at least equally great? — If Mark xvi. 16. appeared, aster all, too striking and alarming, perhaps that expression so often repeated in Scrip- ture, might sometimes supply its place; * He that hath ears to hear, let him hear ;”” but I must confess, that, if these passages of Scripture were introduced, I should give my suffrage tor the continuance of the Creed, 1n all its parts. And I do not decline assenting to it in its present Formè.

© Dr. Wall says, he fears that the Baptistis have no fixed Baprisneal Creed. See Hist. of Inf, Baptism, p. 509, Quarto. 1796.—In the year 1790, I seemed to have a kind of call upon me to lay before a respectable audience, at a Visitation, some thoughts on the Athanasian Creed; those, which the

Reader has now gone through, being in my mind, I of course

took such as seemed to suit the purpose: I was desired to print, I complied ; saying, in an advertisement prefixed to the Sermon, that I had delivered the same things more at length, in Lectures. This small publication was thought worth a pamphlet in — F: | calle

BOOK Iv. ART. VIII, SECT. XII, 119

called © a Review,” &c. but that Review contained so many things contrary to my ideas of Controversy, ideas expressed in the Second Book of this System, that 1 forbore replying to it. I felt, indeed, a natural propensity to set several things right, both relating to myself personally, and to the reasonings which I had used; but I have had the happiness to find, that those whose opinions I valued most, have done what I had wished to do, for themselves. —In my Lectures since the Review came out, I have declared to my hearers, that I had repeatedly perused it. in hopes of deriving improvement from it, but that I really had no new knowledge to communicate.—-I hope I shall always peruse with attention, and with a real desire of correcting my errors, whatever may be written in opposition to any work of mine: and as the present work contains many controverted opinions, this may be a proper occasion to say, that if ay per- sons, adversaries or friends, should ever make me sec any subject in a new light, 1 shall be desirous to make my new opinion as public as the old one; and therefore if I retract nothing, it may be concluded, that I think I have nothing material to retract.— As to defending, it is often, as was just now hinted, labour thrown away. Readers in general, or at least the more estimable sort, are able to see through Sophistry themselves, and to despise personal abuse. And J might now claim some ex- emptions on account of age, and of other works which want a finishing hand. Nevertheless if any candid person, kindly

disposed, will openly, under his own name, take the trouble to inform me, that, after a fair and attentive consideration, he can- not get over any particular obje&ion, either to my conduct or my reasoning, it will be my wif, at least, to give such a per · son satisfaRion,

120 BOOK IV. INTRO D. TO PART II. SECT. 1.

The Articles of the Church of England may be considered as consisting of three Parts, The first ends, and the second begins, here. The third begins with the eighteenth Article. That part which we have gone through, relates to what we are to study, in order rightly to obey God and his Word. That which we now enter upon, regards the nature of man, and human obedience ; taking man as an individual, The last part relates to the same, taking him as a member of a Christian Church. As our Articles were composed chiefly with a view to separating from the Church of Rome,

the doctrines of that Church are treated with pecu- liar attention.

/ sh 1 second part, which is now our im- mediate object, seems more easy to com- prehend in one’s own mind, than to explain to others; the doctrines it contains, if only zhought of, + may seem conlonant to common sense, but, if de- livered in words, may seem nice and abstruse. — These doctrines are connected together; and have all a tendency to determine how far the agency of God or the agency of Man should be conceived as effecting the salvation of Christians *. The many disputes and perplexities, which have arisen concerning this class of Doctrines, have been so much owing to the want of considering the

nature

2 Those, who favour the agency of man, speak, in their most formal discussions, the language of ordinary Life: those, who favour the agency of God, speak frequently the language of or- dinary Life; but, on more /o/emm occasions, introduce a mode of language, which makes man no agent at all, merely passive.

BOOK Iv. INTRO PD. TO PART IT. SECT. 11. 121

nature of human LANGUAGE, that it would be worth while to lay down a few preliminary remarks on that subje&, before we come to be biassed by our prejudices about any particular tenets.

And we shall do this with the greater clearness and effect, if we consider language, as relating to human actions, in the first place, independently of scriptural expressions.

We must not expect, by this method, to gain any thing that can be called a complete knowledge of the human mind; or of those principles of action, on which virtue and its rewards depend: it must be thought sufficient if we learn where to submit to the ignorance belonging to our present state, so as to avoid dispute and perplexity; which are generally owing to our speaking as it we understood that, which our Maker has placed beyond our compre- hension.

11. Some men are greatly prejudiced against this sort of discussion. Not so much on reslexion,

as before reflexion: they throw it aside in digt; it ĩs trifling, quibbling, perplexing; too difficult to do good, or perhaps too obvious to require any thought or care. And after reflexion, it is some- times condemned as having led men into great intricacies, and produced much false science.— There may be some truth in the acts; and it is really mortifying to find, that we know so little as we do about our own ions; but J consider the evil as having arisen from abuse rather than from the Nature of the thing: and I am persuaded, that great care to admit only what we really do see and feel, and that only just as we see and feel it, is a much better plan, than running away from

discussion, or shutting our eyes whenever we cannot lee distinctly.

11. If

12. If popular language is understood too strictly, it will always mislead. It is taken from our feelings, made for use, and suited to circum- stances; a proposition expressed universally is by no means to be taken as liable to no limitations”* A person indeed in the proper circumstances makes the due limitations easily, scarce conscious of what he does ; but one not in the proper circumstances, or not able to conceive himself in them, always gets wrong. This is true both of language about Bodies and language about Spirits: But yet we are less deceived by the former than the latter: especially since the improvements made by Mr. Locke. A man conversant in philosophy, when he hears of fire being © hot, gold being yellow and malleable, does not understand the expressions as if he had a knowledge of Bodies independent of their effects, though that is what the words seem to imply; but is aware, that nothing is meant but to describe the result of past experience. I fear, that, when any one speaks of the foreknowledge of God, or the Will of Man, the expressions do not get so ratio- nally reduced to what they really mean.—To pre- vent men from taking popular language concerning the mind, of God or Man, as if it were strictly philosophical and universal, is the intent of what J am going to offer.

iv. First, then, the language, which we make use of to express the acts of the mind, is not taken from any Theory, perfectly understood, but it is merely such as arises from our feelings, and such as is wanted for the active purposes of Life. It sounds as if it were more speculative and theoretical, but, if we take it as such, it will mislead us ;—when we

have

d See Book 1. Chap. x. Se. 1. & v. _ © Yee the last Section of Article 111.

BOOK IV, INTROD. TO PART 11. SET. v. 123

have said a thing first with a particular view, we are very apt to make our observation general, and then it appears like mere theory; but, in reality, words are only invented and used originally, when exprefling our feelings has some tendency to pro- cure good. —To compare the language of men with that of Brutes, might perhaps be invidious; else I would wish any one to consider, whether the difference is not more in degree than in kind? — When the Lions“ roaring after their prey, do seek their meat from God;”” When the Horse « faith among the Trumpets*, ha, ha,” they are not suspected of making abstract propositions ; they are only deemed to exprels that, which they really do express, their feelings, with a view to good. If men were more commonly suppoled to do the same thing, human language would be better un- derstood. Or, were mens expressions to be con- strued more with a view to particular facts than it is, less error and dispute would arite. v. A man says, I am my own master; T am certain I can do what I chute :”‘—he expresses what he feels, and there is no deceit. Of the fame man, another says, „hold a pistol to his breast, and tell him, you will shoot him if he does not give you a shilling; J am certain he must give it you; —this man expresses the result of experience, and again there is no deceit. Yet put these into abstract pro- positions, and then the first is, Man is free;” the second, Man is under necessity.“ And all the dif- putes about freedom aud necessity arise from no other cause, than the seeming interference between these two propositions. I say seeming, because, though they interfere when delivered abstractedly, they do not interfere at all in their primitive form.— One man, who is the agent, expresses an inward

8 | feeling ; 5

Palm civ. 21, e Job xxxix. 25.

Feeling; the other, who 1s the spectator, expresses a .result of experience. — These two cannot interfere, for they have no connexion with one another; any more than if one had said, I have the Gout in my foot,“ and the other had said, © the Sum will rife to- morrow morning;’ how strange it would seem to argue from the admission of one of these events to the exclusion of the other

Vi. Men are often misled by language about the mind, because they take it for proper language, whereas it is always metaphorical. We express the acts of the mind by a comparison with bodily actions. To restect, is originally to bend back; to fill, or inculcate, is to drop in, or tread in: and so on. Melancholy is black bile; dejection casting down, &c*. Now, what we know by comparison only, we must know much less di/in#ly than what we see imme- diately, and have a plain and proper wame for: and the less distinctly we fee anything, the less distinctly can we reason about it.—And, if we affix ideas to metaphorical terms, as if they were plain and pro- per, we are continually filling the mind with wrong Ideas; which must, in time, produce erroneous pro- positions and conclusions.

vii. Language about human voluntary actions is imperfect in other respects: in using positive terms in negative senses. Spirit is a word, which is used as if we had a positive idea affixed to it; yet the safest way is to consider it as a mere negation of matter: and fo the Soul, as a negation of the Body. But this observation 1s most wanted for the terms which imply infinity: for, though infinite is evidently in its etymology a negative term, yet ommuiscient, omni- present, immense, omntpotent, &c. are apt to occur to the mind as having a positive fignification : and

Mr.

This has been mentioned in Book 11. Chap. 111, Sect. Iv. but it 1s particularly wanted here.

BOOK Iv. IN TROPD. TO PART 11. SECT. VI1T. 125

Mr.* Locke says, © there be those who imagine they have po/etive ideas of infinite duration and space.” — This greatly affects our reasoning; for, if men go on connecting these terms in arguments, they get into errors, which they would have avoided if they had constantly kept in mind what kind of 1deas are really annexed to them. Such terms, indeed, of positive sound and negative meaning, do occur in common life ; Health means often only a negation of diseases; those particularly, to which the person in question, is subje&t ;—sweet often means only, not putrid; —and it may be the least * evil to use such terms in such senses; but this does not re- move our danger; in matters of a metaphysical fort, we cannot be too cautious about admitting false conceptions.

VIII. The imperfections of language in assign- ing canses should also be clearly seen. Assigning causes is a thing, which is so very frequently to be done, that it is done quickly, and familiarly ;—in- considerately, one might say; in words not weighed or attended to: chole to whom it is done, are left to supply, from the nature of the thing, what is deficient in the expression.

Sometimes a partial cause is assigned as if it were the whole ;—this happens when there is some par- ticular end in view, of recommending or depreciating. The Romans were freed from Kingly Government, and enjoyed liberty under Consuls. To whom was their Liberty owing? to Brutus, says an orator com- plimenting his family: To Lucretia, says another,

| either E Underst. 2. 17. 13. Dos OBS $176

t When I speak of imperfection in language, I only mean,

that it is imperfect if taken /ri#/y. The present manner of

speaking may possibly be as convenient as any; and it is that,

into which men naturally fall ; only we must take care it does not deceive and mislead us, ;

126 BOOK IV. INT ROD. TO PART 11. SECT. VIII.

either speaking in favour of her act of Suicide, or proving, that Providence brings good out of evil. Here, for Theory, that which is omitted should be supplied; as in assigning good principles as a cause of anything, good actious are implied; and in assign. ing good actions as a cause, good principles, What is the cause of that man’s preferment? his good conduct: this cannot be a complete account, except his good principles are supposed to be implied. — W hat is the cause why you are so attached to that man? because I believe him to be, a man of thorough good principles. This 1s a partial ac- count, in some sense, except good conduct be sup- posed to be implied.

Sometimes an effect is ascribed to a cause, which 1s merely verbal.— W hat 1s the cause of the Moon’s being retained in an orbit? Gravity, Attrafion :— but you know nothing of Gravity or Attraction, except those very effects which you ascribe to them.—In this way, events are ascribed to Na- ture, or to Fate; and, we might perhaps add, to Merit.

Errors frequently arise from our speaking of un- known causes, as if they were known before their effects: and from our losing fight of those effects, from which, all the little idea we have of the causes 1s derived. Whether we know the Being of a God a priori, has been doubted : but it seems, that we more commonly form our particular ideas of him à posteriori, from what we know of Man: we enlarge and purify human qualities to the ’ greatest degree possible, and thence form our conceptions of the character of God. This is the best we can do; but sometimes we are not con-

sistent;

i Book 1. Chap. 111. Sect. 11m. * Book 1. Chap. 111. Sect. 1.

fistent; we ascribe qualities to God, of which we have had no experience, though perhaps under old names : I should not wonder if the disputes about the Divine Prescience were found to have had this origin. |

I do not mean ascribing human actions, bodily members, &c. to God, but things too remote from humanity. When we speak of God’s using any human means, or powers, as arm, eye, &c. we only intend to assert, that God’ accomplishes some end, which, if it was performed by man, would be per- termed by the intervention of such means.

We are apt to say, Nature intended that such a thing should be so or so; our being right or wrong in this, seems to depend upon the distinction before us; if we gather the intention of Nature from ex- perience of what is best, we are safe; if from a notion that we know something of Nature as a Person, before any experience, the intentions of Nature, will prove to be nothing better than our own crude fancies’. 15 8

ix We have already hinted,“ that proposi- tions seemingly universal, are 1n reality calculated for {ome particular situation of things; so that the circumstances, in which any proposition is used, make a part of its sense; and you cannot change those circumstances, without changing the fn. But this should now be mentioned again, for the lake of some illustrations belonging particularly to our present subject. There are several pro- positions used in morals and religion, which are in strictness only declamatory expressions, used for the

purpose

| We have contended, B. 1. Ch. iv. Sect. rv. for reasoning from effect to cause, and then back from cause to effect, in some cases ; advantage is not taken of that here, because Nature seems nothing real; a mere name.

= Sect. 111,-also Book 1. Chap. x. Sect. 1.

—

123 BOOK iv. 1NTROD. TO PART II. SECT. x.

purpose of persuasion: or, as Mr. Harris calls lamentations on the comparative wickedness of the present age, natural declamations incidental to Man.” — The assigning of partial causes, before- mentioned, comes sometimes very near these elo- quent enunciations. But sometimes propositions in general terms have more the appearance of specu- lation than such descriptions, though they are made for a particular situation or conception of things. A state of Nature is a state of war;“ suppose the state of Nature mentioned to be a state of undisciplined passions, and the assertion may be true: suppose the state that, in which every prin- ciple of human action has the strength and influ- ence intended it by Nature, and the assertion is false. The former state comes nearer „act, the latter nearer ideal perfection; so we may say, the assertion is true in practice, though false in Theory: x, Hence, if due regard be not paid to cir- cumitances, propositions will seem to contradict each other, when they really do not: or, they will be contradictory in words, though not in meaning.— The Gravity of a Body, says one, 1s greater as the size of the body towards which it 1s attracted, and moves, is greater. No, says another, the gravity of a body mult be greater as its own size is greater; the larger a body is, the more it will weigh: no,

says a third, the gravity of a body is greater the

nearer it is to the center of attraction. These are all right, and only seem to contradict each other through want of attention to circumstances. — However, it has been thought worth while to mark the different situations here to be conceived,

by N gravity different names when spoken of in tho

e different situations. In morals, this is not done; n Harris’s Works, Vol. 4. p. 529.

BOOK IV. INTRO PD. TO PART II. SECT: XI. 129

done; therefore we should use the more caution, to answer the same end. The Hill of Man is sometimes understood as equivalent to his 20, or desire; sometimes to his determination; so that, when a man determines to do anything disagree- able, or contrary to his desire, his will is contrary to his will. —And sometimes a man permits another to follow his own choice; who may, by acting in consequence of the will of his superior, do some- thing against his will. Nothing can be more in- telligible than all this, (if the jingle of the words does not give some alarm) and yet, when things are said about the will of God, or man, without due attention to these circumstances, dispute and confusion are apt to arise.

xi. The subject reckoned most difficult in Religion, natural and revealed, is Predestination.— I believe, that most of the difficulties attending it are owing to want of attention to the elements now laid down.

All our observations are useful on this subject: about words being taken from fafs, being in- tended to answer some good purpose, and being metaphorical ; about negative lenses ; assigning causes, partial and verbal: and confining general affirma- tions to particular circumstauces; including decla- matory expressions ; for I am persuaded, that no say ing about Predestination is any thing more than a declamatory expression, calculated to persuade, or excite good sentimenrs or emotions. But to enter farther into this at present, would carry us into too great length for an Introduction. There- fore I pass on to expressions of Scripture; only hinting, that elements are seldom perfectly clear at first mention: that their justness must not, in general, be expected to appear fully, till they come to be applied to those particular cases, for which : VOL: $31: I | they

130 BOOK IV, INTRO PD. TO PART 11. SECT. XI.

they were intended, and from which, indeed, they were collected. X11. Let us then first observe, that the same

kind of expressions occur in Scripture, which have been now examined. Scripture-language is popular language; and must be fo, however imperfect that language be; otherwise it would have misled all thole, to whom it was addressed. As to words coming from fas, external and internal, it will suffice to say, that numberless in- Bp stances may be found, in which an agent speaks of himself as free, and in which a Spectator speaks of an agent subject to necessity. We might allege such instances as Matt. xvii. 7. — Luke xvii. 1,— which give merely the result of experience. —Scrip- tural terms relating to the mind must be meta- phorical ; there are no others :—Positive terms with

negative meanings are common in scripture; as | 8 Pr it, Almighty, All-wise, &c.— Partial causes are | assigned, as in the case of Faith and works; and | one of these is implied in the other. And I believe

Predestination may be, sometimes at least, con- sidered as a verbal or unknown cause of known effects: and much the same might be said of desert, or deserving. Descriptions of God taken from the qualities of men, and even from their bodily mem-

| bers, are more numerous in Scripture than in any | other Book.

| From general expressions supposed to be used | within certain situations, arise all the seeming con- tradifions of Scripture. I have already mentioned | declamatory expressions, and I might add instances of such lamentations as Mr. Harris was speaking of in the passage beforementioned : -* there is none

| that doeth good, no rot one,“ &c… the seeming | | inconsistencies about Temptations being desirable, or

| the contrary, and about the Will of God, are all :

to be referred to this head: and indeed every other seeming inconsistency whatsoever “.

X1I111. But, besides these difficulties, common to the scriptures and other popular writings, we seem to have some in addition, when we study the sacred Volume.

Our judgements are apt to be discomposed, by a warmth of veneration sometimes running perhaps 1nto superstition : or by admiration and devotion : or by fear of deceiving ourselves; or, sometimes possibly, by a fear of being obliged in conscience to give up the party, to which we have been at- tached ; or by suspicions, that we are not so ready to give it up as we ought to be: such feelings hinder us from judging calmly ; they prevent our common sense from doing its proper office.

xiv. Our belief, that Scripture is the word of God, makes us scrupulous of treating it fo freely as we would the word of man; and therefore we decline making those limitations, which are neces- sary to give us the true meaning. And though it must be a weakness to omit any thing, which we know 1s calculated to bring to light the truth, yet scruples do in effect produce the evil here described, |

xv. As the Scripture is a Revelation of the will of God, we are apt to expect, that every part will open to us some new truths; and therefore, that we must not use our reason and rules of interpreting here as in common cases… . New facts may pro- duce some new reasonings ; but in general it ap- pears, as we improve in the knowledge of the Scriptures, that the sacred writers took the know. ledge of our duties for granted ®: and, if we take

a

„ Book 1. Chap. x. Sect. x. Note Vol. 1. p. 73. ? Dr, Balguy, p. 196.—8See also p. 87, about Politics,

I 2

rn

\

I C_.

MW —_uC CY ur nn _—

— ü

[…] 2

• rr

——

— — IT ITS A

— _

)

——

—

132 BOOK IV. IN TROPD. TO PART 11. SECT. xvI.

a scriptural remark on a known virtue for a publi-

cation of a new one, we must run into error.— The scriptures have no doubt improved morality, by occasional remarks and reproofs, and by pro- posing new motives, &c. in short by methods which cannot now be particularly enlarged upon; bur nothing is delivered, which need be exempted from the ordinary rules of rational interpretation and criticism,

xvi. Another thing, which has occasioned dif- ficulties in understanding the Scriptures, is the use which the sacred reafoners sometimes make of the Argumentum ad hominem*. They sometimes do say things as true, and reason upon them, without seeming to mean more than that those, to whom they address themselves, will allow them to be true. And the length, to which they carry this, does not seem very easy to be ascertained. Some have thought, that St. Paul only speaks of the History of Adam in this light: and Christ of Demoniacs.— But it is easy to carry the notion too far. I should keep it in mind, when J read expressions of God’s hardening the heart of Pharaoh*, hating Esau, and leading men into femptation: and I should consider, whether St. Paul did not sometimes, through a principle of compliance with the Jewish notions

and expressions, use terms, which he might not

have used to gentiles.

These remarks about additional difficulties in the language of Scripture, seem to shew, that it might be useful, in considering the Articles which follow 1n the second part, to try how near to each

article

= Book 1. Chap. x. Sect ix.

article of revealed religion, a corresponding article of natural religion could be brought. Such an attempt might shew, that the difficulties in our way were not such as belonged peculiarly to the scriptures : and might contribute to make us satis- fied with several doctrines, which are at present apt to occasion uneasiness and discontent.

Notes

• Rutherforth’s Charges, p. 83.
• Lardner’s Works, Vol. 2. p. 310.—B. 1. Chap. x11. Sect. 1 v. of this. |
• Pearson on the Creed under © /uffered.” p. 380, Quarto, p. 187, Folio. |
• Serm. de Tempore 191, aut 236, inter _ Augistini.— This Creed of Pelagius is also in Ferom’s works: and in Wall on Baptism, Chap. 19. Sect. 29, 30.
• A proposer of a system of religion, may come under this idea of a preacher; it must have been the sense of our Lord, when he said, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every Creature,” - Mark xvi. 15. Ro By the Catholic faith seems to be meant, genuine Christi- anity ; unadulterated by fanciful notions, whims, refinements, &c.—the expression has come from such Christianity being held by what might be called the whole Church; reckoning a tew fanciful Sects as exceptions not worthy of notice.
• The necessity of a right Belief, or of endeavouring to attain one, might be more fully shewn, if it were made a separate sub- ject.— See Dr. Balguy Ser. 9. p. 158-160. What he says in one part answers exadly to my idea of our damnatory clauses when rightly taken; though he probably was not thinking of them. Let those, who think it a matter of small importance, whether the Religion of Jesus be true or false, atrend well to the force of thess expressions, (of Scripture) and tremble at the consequences of their own neglect.“
• . Denunciation of vengeance against vice is made in general terms, as in Rom. i. 18.—ii. 6, &c. yet it is not imagined, that repentance will be unavailing, or that much will be required of him, to whom little has been given. It would be dif- ficult to shew why threatenings against infidelity should be more strictly interpreted.
• . The Deity may exercise his power of remit- ting, on the Heretic, as well as on the Infidel; according to the circumstances of *education, &c. perhaps such power of remitting may be exer- cised in a greater degree on rejecting a right mode of Christianity, than on rejecting the substance. :
• Waterland, p. 274, from Luther.
• Book 1. Chap. xv11. Sect. x1x. near end.—Book 11. Chap. 11. Sect x111. Bp. Sherlock’s Discourses, Vol. 2. p. 2. Collyer’s Sacred Interpreter, Vol. 2. p. 228. Warburton on the Spirit, Pref. p. 17. also p. 175. Note,