Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

Earth; and the Tenth, Eleventh and Twelfth Propofitions of Dr. Clarke's Demonftration.

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

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

The Seventh Propofition. See Bishop Pearfon 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 laft Affertion (fufficient to manifeft, &c.

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

The SECOND ARTICLE.

Of the Word or Son of God which was made very Man.

TH

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 Subftance: So that two whole and perfect natures, that is to fay, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one perfon, never to be divided, whereof is one Chrift, very God and very Man, who truly fuffer'd, was crucified, dead and

buried,

buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a Sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual fins of

men.

This Article contains Ten Propofitions,

For: The Son is the Word of the Father.

2. The Son is begotten from everlafting of the Father.

3. The Son is the very and eternal God.

4. The Son is of one Subftance with the Father 5. The Son took Man's Nature in the Womb of the Bleffed Virgin, of her Substance.

6. By the Son's taking Man's Nature, two whole and perfect Natures, that is to fay, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one Perfon.

7. The two Natures join'd together in one Perfon, are never to be divided

8. Of thofe two Natures joyn'd in one Person is One Christ.

9. Chrift is very God and very Man.

10. Chrift truly fuffer'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 Propofition is evident from John 1. 14. where Chrift (who is the Incarnate Son, as the Article afterwards declares) is exprefly call'd 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 laft Propofition of the Firft Article afferts.

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

E

The

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

The Fifth and Sixth Propofitions. See Bishop Pearfon on the Third Article.

The Seventh Propofition needs no other Proof, befides this fingle Confideration, viz. That fince Christ must ever continue in that Glory which he is poffeffed of; therefore that Union of the two Natures, by which he is Chrift, muft ever conti

nue.

The Eighth Propofition is included in the Sixth. The Ninth Propofition is included in the Third and Fifth.e

The Tenth Propofition. See what References I have already made touching Chrift's Satisfaction, in the foregoing Directions for Studying a General Syftem or Body of Divinity, p. 16.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

A

S Chrift died for us, and was buried: So alfo it is to be believed, that he went down into Hell.

That Chrift died for us, and was buried, we have feen in the Tenth Propofition of the Second Article. Of his Defcent into Hell, fee Bishop Pearfon on the Fifth Article, down to He rofe again.

[ocr errors]

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

ly.

ly that the Defcent into it is the fame with Burial. And perhaps there is good Ground to believe, that this was the Original Senfe of that Word in this Article. At least I am perfuaded, that in Pfal. 16. 11. which is quoted and applied by St. Peter, Alts 2. 27, 31. and upon which the Belief of the Defcent into Hell is generally grounded, it is to be underftood in this Senfe. But then 'tis plain, that our Church by the Defcent into Hell means fomething different from the Burial of Chrift. For fhe manifeftly diftinguishes 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 Acts 2. 27,31. betokens nothing but the Grave (as the Reader may perhaps find good Reason to do) can honestly fubfcribe this Article.

I answer, that the Church excludes no Sense of the Word Hell in this Article, except that which faies, that by Hell is meant the Grave. Wherefore the Church very freely allows us to fubfcribe this Article in Bishop Pearfon's Senfe, 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 thofe who believe that the Word Hell in Pfal. 16. 11. and Acts 2. 27, 31. betokens the Grave. So that tho' they interpret thofe Texts in the Senfe before mention'd, yet they acknowledge the Truth of what the Church allows them to mean by Christ's Defcent into Hell. And confequently they may fubfcribe it. For the Church does not require them to declare, that the Word Hell in Pfal. 16. 11. and Acts 2. 27, 31. fignifies the State of feparate Souls; but only to fubscribe to the Defcent into Hell in general; whe ther it be prov'd by thofe, or by any other Texts; E 2

and

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

'Tis true, thofe who fubfcribe after this manner, must then understand the Word Hell in the Article, in a Senfe very different from that in which 'tis us'd in thofe Texts; and perhaps in a Senfe very different from that in which 'twas understood by the greater part of that Convocation which paffed the Article it felf: 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 fometimes to the quite contrary, as we find by a Variety of Instances in our own Tongue. And therefore that Perfon, who fubfcribes the Word Hell in a Sense which the Church allows (tho' it be different from what it bears in fome other Places, or perhaps from what was firft intended by the Convocation it felf) does very honestly..

It may be objected perhaps, that the Church diftinguishes the Defcent into Hell, not only from the Burial, but alfo 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 Chrift, and his Defcent into Hell, are the fame thing; because a Man's dying implies his Departure into the State of feparate Souls. But I answer, that tho' a Man's Departure into the State of feparate Souls be the Confequence of Death, confidering that State and Order of things, which God has appointed; yet 'tis not Death it felf. For Death betokens only the Separation of Soul and Body; and 'tis poffible 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

« ÖncekiDevam »