IN pursuance of what I have said in a former Letter, concerning (what we commonly call) the Athanasian Creed; it may not be amiss to express it a little more distinctly.

We call it commonly the Athanasian Creed, not that we are certain it was penned (just in this form) by Athanasius himself; (for, of this, I find that learned men are doubtful,) but it was penned either by himself, or by some other about that time, according to the mind and doctrine of Athanasius. In like manner as what we call the Apostles Creed, we take to be penned (very anciently) according to what Doctrine the Apostles had taught them, though not perhaps in those very words.

But whoever was the Compiler (whether Athanasius himself, or some other) of the Athanasian Creed, I suppose, the Damnatory Sentences (as they are called) therein, were not by him intended to be understood with that Rigor that some would now insinuate, (who, because perhaps they do not like the main Doctrines of that Creed, are willing to disparage it, by representing it to the greatest disadvantage they can,) as if it were intended, That whoever doth not explicitely and distinctly know, and understand, and assent to, all and every clause and syllable therein, could not be saved. (Which, I suppose, neither the Author did intend, nor any other sober person would affirm.) But, that the Doctrine therein delivered (concerning God and Christ) is sound and true Doctrine in it self, and ought, as to the substance of it, to be believed as such, by all persons (of Age, and Capacity, and who have opportunity of being well informed in it,) who do expect salvation by Christ; at least so far as not to disbelieve the substance of it, when understood. There being no other ordinary way to be saved, (that we know of) than that by the Knowledge and Faith of God in Christ.

But what measures God will take in cases extraordinary, (as of Infancy, Incapacity, Invincible Ignorance, or the like,) is not the thing there intended to be declared; nor is it necessary for us to know; but to leave it rather to the Wisdom and Counsel of God, whose Iudgments are unsearchable, and his Ways past finding out, Rom. 11. 33.

Much less do I suppose, that he intended to extend the necessity of such explicite Knowledge, to the Ages before Christ. For many things may be requisite to be explicitely Known and Believed by us to whom the Gospel is revealed, which was not so to them, before the Veil was taken away from Moses face, and Immortality brought to light through the Gospel, 2 Cor. 3. 13, 14. 2 Tim. 1. 10.

Nor are we always to press words according to the utmost rigor that they are possibly capable of; but according to such equitable sence as we use to allow to other Homiletical Discourses, and which we have reason to believe to have been the true meaning of him whose words they are.

And I have the more reason to press for such equitable construction, because I observe those hard Clauses (as they are thought to be) annexed only to some Generals; and not to be extended (as I conceive) to every Particular, in the Explication of those Generals.

It begins thus; Whosoever will be saved; before all things, it is necessary, that he hold the Catholick Faith. Where, before all things, is as much as Imprimis; importing, that it is mainly necessary, or a principal requisite, to Believe aright; especially, concerning God, and Christ.

Which, as to persons of Years, and Discretion, and who have the opportunity of being duly Instructed, I think is generally allowed by all of us, to be necessary (as to the Substantials of Religion) in the ordinary way of salvation, without disputing, what God may do in extraordinary Cases, or how far God may be pleased, upon a general Repentance, as of Sins unknown, to pardon some culpable Misbelief.

It follows; Which Faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled, ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. That is, (as I conceive) Unless a person (so qualified and so capacitated, as I before expressed) do keep it whole or sound, as to the Substantials of it (though possibly he may be ignorant of some Particulars of the true Faith;) and undefiled, or intemerate, (without adding thereunto, or putting such a sence upon such Substantials, as shall be destructive thereof,) shall (except he repent) perish everlastingly. Which, I think, is no more than that of Mar. 16. 16. He that Believeth not, shall be Damned. And what Limitations or Mitigations are there to be allowed, are (by the same equity) to be allowed in the present Clause before us. Which therefore may (in this true sence) be safely admitted.

And here I think fit to observe, That whereas there may be an ambiguity in the English word whole, which sometime signifies totus, and sometime sanus or salvus, it is here certainly to be understood in the latter sence, as answering to the Greek 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . It is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 totam, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sanam or salvam. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , to keep the Faith salvam & intemeratam, which is translated whole and undefiled, might (to the same sence) be rendered safe and sound. Now a man may well be said to be safe and sound, notwithstanding a Wart or a Wen, or even a Hurt or Maim, so long as the Vitals be not endangered. And so, of the Catholick Faith, or Christian Doctrine, so long as there is nothing destructive of the main Substantials or Fundamentals of it, though possibly there may be an Ignorance or Mistake, as to some particulars of lesser moment.

After this Preface (between it and the Conclusion, or Epilogue) there follows indeed a large Exposition of (what he declares to be) the Catholick Faith; (That is; to be some Part of it: For I take the whole Scripture to be the Catholick Faith; whereof this Collection is but a part.) beginning with, The Catholick Faith is this: And Ending with, This is the Catholick Faith.

But it is not said, That except a man Know and Believe every particular of that Explication, he shall perish eternally; but only, Except he keep the Catholick Faith (as to the Substantials of it) safe and sound.

For doubtless there may be many Particulars of Catholick Faith (contained in the Word of God) which a man may be ignorant of, and yet be saved. It is True, That the Name of our Saviour's Mother was Mary; and the Name of the Judge who condemned him was Pontius Pilate: and both these are put into (what we call) the Apostles Creed; and are part of the Catholick Faith; and which (supposing that we know them to be declared in Scripture) we ought to Believe. But I see not why it should be thought (of it self) more necessary to salvation (if he do not know it to be declared in Scripture) for a man to know that her Name was Mary, than that the Name of Adam's Wife was Eve, or Abraham's Wife Sarah, or that one of Iob's Daughters was called Iemima; (for all these are declared in Scripture; and, supposing that we know them so to be, ought to be believed as part of the Catholick Faith.) Nor do I know, that it is (of it self) more necessary to know that the Name of the Judge who condemned our Saviour was Pontius Pilate, than that the Name of the High-Priest was Caiaphus. And though one of these, and not the other, be put into the Apostles Creed, whereby we are more likely to know that than the other: yet both of them being True, and declared in Scripture; they are, both of them, parts of the Catholick Faith, and to be believed: but neither of them (I think) with such necessity, as that, who knows them not, cannot be saved.

And what I say of this General Preface in the beginning, is in like manner to be understood of the General Conclusion in the end; which (Catholick Faith) except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved. Of which I shall say more anon.

After the General Preface, (concerning the necessity of holding the Catholick Faith,) he proceeds to two main Branches of it, (that of the Trinity, and that of the Incarnation, with the Consequents thereof;) which he declares likewise, as what ought to be believed.

That of the Trinity, he declares thus in General; And the Catholick Faith is this; (that is, this is one main part of the Catholick Faith;) namely, That we worship One God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither Confounding the Persons, nor Dividing the Substance. Which is what we commonly say, There be Three Persons, yet but One God. And this General (which, after some particular Explications, he doth resume) is what he declares ought to be believed. But he doth not lay such stress upon each Particular of that Explication, though True.

He thus explains himself; For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. (Which Persons therefore are not to be confounded.) But the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all One. That is, one Substance, one God. (Which is what he said of not Dividing the Substance, as if the Three Persons should be Three Substances, or Three Gods.) According as Christ says of Himself and the Father, Iohn 10. 30. I and the Father are One: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , (not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,) that is, one Thing, one Substance, one God, not one Person. And 1 Iohn 5. 7. These Three are One; ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) Hi Ires sunt Unum, not Unus. These three Who's, are one What. They are one Thing, one Substance, one God, though Three Persons.

And as their Godhead, or Substance undivided, is all one; so it follows, The Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, (as to the common Godhead) such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. For all these are Attributes of the common Deity, which is the same of All. And yet they are not Three Eternals, but One Eternal. Not Three Eternal Gods, (though Three Persons) but One Eternal God. As also there are not three Incomprehensibles, nor three Uncreated; but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible. One and the same Substance or Deity, uncreated and incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty; and yet there are not Three Almighties, but One Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet there are not Three Gods, but One God. So likewise the Father is Lord, ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , the word by which the Greeks do express the Hebrew Name Iehovah, the proper incommunicable Name of God,) the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord; and yet not Three Lords, but One Lord. (Not three Iehovahs, but one Iehovah.) For like as we are compelled by the Christian Verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the Catholick Religion, to say, There be Three Gods, or Three Lords. Which are so many particular Explications or Illustrations of what was before said in general of not Confounding the Persons, nor Dividing the Substance. Which Explications, though they be all true, (and necessary Consequents of what was before said in general;) yet to none of them is annexed such Sanction, as that whosoever doth not Believe or not Understand these Illustrations, cannot be saved. 'Tis enough to Salvation, if they hold the true Faith, as to the substance of it, though in some other form of words, or though they had never heard the Athanasian Creed.

Nor is any such Sanction annexed to the Personal Properties, which next follow; The Father is made of none; neither Created, nor Begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not Made, nor Created, but Begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son; neither Made, nor Begotten, but Proceeding.

Where, by the way, here is no Anathematization of the Greek Church, (of which those who would, for other reasons, disparage this Creed, make so loud an out-cry.) 'Tis said indeed He doth proceed, (and so say they,) but not that he doth proceed from the Father and the Son. And 'tis said, He is Of the Father and Of the Son ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) some way or other; (and even this, I suppose, they would not deny;) but whether by procession from both, or (if so) whether in the same manner, it is not said; but warily avoided. (Though indeed it seems to favour what I think to be the truth, and what in the Nicene Creed is said expressly, that he doth proceed from both; and, for ought we know, in the same manner; which yet we do not determine) Nor do I see any reason, why, on this account, we should be said to Anathematize the Greek Church, or they to Anathematize us, even though we should not exactly agree, in what sence he may be said to be Of the Father, and in what Of the Son. And those who are better acquainted with the Doctrine and the Languages, of the present Greek Churches, than most of us are, do assure us, that the differences between them and us are rather in some forms of expressions, than in the thing it self. However, those who would make so great a matter of this, should rather quarrel at the Nicene Creed, than the Athanasian: where it is expresly said of the Holy Ghost, that he proceedeth from the Father and from the Son. 'Tis not therefore for the phrase Filioque, that they are so ready to quarrel at this Creed rather than the Nicene, but from some other reason, and, most likely, because the Doctrine of the Trinity is here more fully expressed than in that, at which the Socinian is most offended.

I observe also, That these Personal Properties are expressed just by the Scripture words, Beget, Begotten, Proceeding, without affixing any sence of our own upon them; but leaving them to be understood in such sence as in the Scripture they are to be understood. Agreeable to that modest Caution, which is proper in such Mysteries.

It follows; So there is One Father, not three Fathers; One Son, not three Sons; One Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity, none is afore or after other. (That is, not in Time, though in Order.) None is greater or less than another: But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co-equal. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The three ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) are ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) truly persons, or properly persons, and co-eternal each with other, and co-equal.

Having thus finished these particular Explications, or Illustrations, concerning the Trinity, (without any condemning Clause of those who think otherwise, other than what is there included; namely, that if this be True, the contrary must be an Errour:) He then resumes the General, (as after a long Parenthesis,) So that in all things (as is aforesaid) the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be Worshipped. And to this General, annexeth this Ratification, He therefore that will he saved, must thus think of the Trinity: or, thus ought to think of the Trinity, or, Let him thus think of the Trinity, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . And to this, I suppose, we do all agree, who believe the Doctrine of the Trinity to be true. For, if the thing be true, those who would be saved, ought to believe it.

He then proceeds to the Doctrine of the Incarnation. Which he declares in general as necessary to salvation. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Iesus Christ. Which is no more than that of Iohn 3. 36. He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. And therefore we may safely say this also: There being no other Name under Heaven whereby we must be saved, neither is there Salvation in any other, Acts 4. 12.

After this (as before he had done of the Doctrine of the Trinity) he gives first a general Assertion of his being God and Man; and then a particular Illustration of his Incarnation. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, That our Lord Iesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.

What follows, is a further Explication of this General. God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the Worlds. And Man, of the substance of his Mother, born in the World. Perfect God, and perfect Man; of a reasonable Soul and humane Flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and Inferiour to the Father, as touching his Manhood. Who, although he be God and Man, yet he is not Two, but One Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God. One altogether, not by Confusion of Substance, but by Unity of Person. For as the reasonable Soul and Flesh is one Man, so God and Man is One Christ.

And thus far, as to the Description of Christ's Person and Natures. The Particulars of which I take to be all true; and therefore such as ought to be believed, when understood. But such (many of them) as persons of ordinary capacities, and not acquainted with School Terms, may not perhaps understand. Nor was it, I presume, the meaning of the Pen-man of this Creed, that it should be thought necessary to Salvation, that every one should particularly understand all this: but, at most, that, when understood, it should not be disbelieved. That in the general, being most material, That Iesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man: the rest being but Explicatory of this. Which Explications, though they be all true, are not attended with any such clause, as if, without the explicite knowledge of all these, a man could not be saved.

He then proceeds to what Christ hath done for our Salvation, and what he is to do further at the last Judgment, with the Consequents thereof. Who Suffered for our Salvation, Descended into Hell, Rose again the third day from the Dead.

That Clause of descending into Hell, or Hades, ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ,) which we meet with here, and in the Apostles Creed, as it is now read, is not in the Nicene Creed; nor was it anciently (as learned Men seem to be agreed) in what we call the Apostles Creed. When or how it first came in, I cannot well tell: Nor will I undertake here to determine the sence of it.

The Hebrew word Sheol, and the Greek Hades, which here we translate Hell, (by which word we now-a-days use to denote the Place of the Damned,) was anciently used to signifie, sometime the Grave, sometime, the Place, State, or Condition of the Dead, whether good or bad. And when Iob prays (Iob 14. 13.) O that thou wouldst hide me in Sheol (as in the Hebrew;) or in Hades, (as in the Greek Septuagint;) certainly he did not desire to be in what we now call Hell; but rather (as we there translate it) in the Grave, or the condition of those that are Dead.

But what it should signifie here, is not well agreed among learned Men. The Papists generally (because that is subservient to some of their beloved Tenents) would have it here to signifie the Place of the Damned; and would have it thought, that the Soul of Christ, during the time his Body lay in the Grave, was amongst the Devils and Damned Souls in Hell. Others do, with more likelyhood, take it for the Grave, or condition of the Dead: and take this of Christ's descending into Hades, to be the same with his being Buried, or lying in the Grave. The rather, because in the Nicene Creed, where is mention of his being Buried, there is no mention of his descent into Hell, or Hades: And here, in the Athanasian Creed, where mention is made of this, there is no mention of his being Buried; as if the same were meant by both phrases, which therefore need not be repeated. And though in the Apostles Creed there be now mention of both, yet anciently it was not so; that of his descent into Hell, being not to be sound in ancient Copies of the Apostles Creed. If it signifie any thing more than his being Buried, it seems most likely to import his Continuance in the Grave, or the State and Condition of the Dead, for some time. And the words which follow, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , say nothing of his coming out of Hell, but only of his rising from the Dead.

But the words here stand undetermined to any particular sence; and so they do in the Apostles Creed; and are so also in the Articles of our Church. Where it is only said, (because in the Creed it stands so,) That we are to believe, That he descended into Hell, without affixing any particular sence to it.

The words, doubtless, have respect to that of Acts 2. 27. where, Thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell, (or Hades) nor suffer thine Holy One to see Corruption, is applied to Christ, (cited out of Psal. 16. 10. where the same had before been spoken of David.) And his not being left in Hades, seems to suppose his having been (for some time) in Hades, whatever by Hades is there meant. And Verse 31. his being not so left, is expresly expounded of his Resurrection. And so again in Acts 13. 35. Now, as we have no reason to think, that David's being in Hell, or Sheol, (though not to be left there) can signifie, his being in Hell among the Devils and damned Spirits, but rather in the Grave, or the Condition of the Dead; so neither that Christ's being in Hell, or Hades, (which is the Greek word answering to the Hebrew Sheol) should signifie any other than His being in the Grave, or condition of the Dead; from whence, by his Resurrection, he was delivered. And to this purpose seems that whole Discourse of Peter, Acts 2. 24,—32. and of Paul, Acts 13. 30,—37.

But, without determining it to any particular sence, the Creed leaves the word Hell indefinitely here to be understood, in the same sence what ever it be, in which it is to be understood, Acts 2. 27, 31. and Psal. 16. 10. And so far we are safe.

It follows; H • • scended into Heaven; He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty. From whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their Bodies; and shall give account for their own Works. And they that have done Good, shall go into Life everlasting: and they that have done Evil, into everlasting Fire. (Of all which, there is no doubt but that it ought to be believed.) Ending with, This is the Catholick Faith. That is, this is true and sound Doctrine, and such as every true Christian ought to believe.

And, as he had begun all with a general Preface, so now he closeth all with a general Conclusion: Which (Catholick Faith) except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved. That is, the Doctrine here delivered is true, (and so I think it is in all the parts of it,) and is (part of) the Catholick Faith: (The whole of which Faith, is the whole Word of God.) That is, part of that Faith, which all true Christians do, and ought to Believe. Which Catholick Faith, (the whole of which is the whole Word of God) except a man (so qualified as I before expressed) do believe faithfully, (that is, except he truly believe it) as to the Substantials of it, (though possibly he may be ignorant of many particulars therein) he cannot (without such Repentance as God shall accept of) be saved. Which, so limitted, (as it ought to be) I take to be sound Doctrine, and agreeable to that of Iohn 3. 16. He that believeth not, is condemned already; because he hath not believed on the Name of the only begotten Son of God: And Ver. 36. He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him: That is, (according to the words of this Creed) he that believeth not aright (of God and Christ) cannot be saved.

Which words of Christ, we may safely interpret both with an aspect on the Doctrine of the Trinity (because of those words, the only Begotten Son of God;) and to that of the Incarnation of Christ, and the Consequents thereof; (because of those words in the beginning of the Discourse, Ver. 16, 17, God so loved the World, that he Gave his only Begotten Son, &c. and God sent his Son into the world—that the world through him might be saved:) Which are the two main Points insisted on in the Athanasian Creed. And he who doth not Believe on the Name of this only Begotton Son of God, and thus sent into the world, (the Text tells us) shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. Which fully agrees with what is here said, Except a man believe the Catholick Faith, (of which the Doctrine of the Trinity, and of the Incarnation, are there intimated, and are here expressed, to be considerable Branches) he cannot be saved. And what Limitations or Mitigations are to be understood in the one place, are reasonably to be allowed as understood in the other. And, consequently, those Damnatory Clauses (as they are called) in the Athanasian Creed (rightly understood) are not so formidable (as some would pretend) as if, because of them, the whole Creed ought to be laid aside.

For, in brief, it is but thus; The Preface and the Epilogue tell us, That whoso would be saved, it is necessary, or ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) he ought to hold the Catholick Faith. Which Faith, except he keep whole and undefiled, or ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) safe and inviolate, he shall perish everlastingly; or, which except he believe faithfully, he cannot be saved. Which is no more severe, than that of our Saviour, Mark 16. 16. He that believeth not, shall be damned.

He then inserts a large Declaration of the Catholick Faith, especially as to two main Points of it; that of the Trinity, and that of the Incarnation. And if all he there declares be true, (as I think it is,) we have then no reason to quarrel with it upon that account. But he doth not say, That a man cannot be saved, who doth not Know or Understand every particular thereof.

Of the First, he says but this, He that would be saved, ought thus to think, or ( 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) let him thus think of the Trinity; namely, That the Unity in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, ought to be Worshipped.

Of the Second, what he says is this, Furthermore it is necessary to Eternal Salvation, That he believe aright the Incarnation of our Lord Iesus Christ: Which is no more severe than that of our Saviour, He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him; because he hath not believed on the Name of the only begotten Son of God, whom God hath sent into the world, that the world through him might be saved, John 3. 17, 18, 36.

Beside these, there are no Damnatory Clauses in the whole. All the rest are but Declaratory. And, if what he declares be true, we have no reason to find fault with such Declaration.

Now as to those two Points; that of the Trinity, and that of the Incarnation, (which are the only Points in question,) there is a double Inquiry, (as I have elsewhere shewed,) Whether the things be Possible; and whether they be True. The Possibility may be argued from Principles of Reason: The Truth of them from Revelation only. And it is not much questioned, but that the Revelation, in both Points, is clear enough, if the things be not impossible.

As to that of the Trinity; I have already shewed, (in a former Letter) That there is therein no Impossibility, but that what in one consideration are Three, (which we commonly call three Persons,) may yet (in another consideration) be One God.

I shall now proceed to shew, That neither is there any Impossibility, as to the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Now this consists of two Branches; That of his being born of a Virgin; and that of the Hypostatical Union (as it is commonly called) of the Humane Nature with the Second Person of the Sacred Trinity.

As to the former of the two, there can be no pretence of Impossibility. For the same God who did at first make Adam of the Dust of the Earth, without either Father or Mother, and who made Eve of Adam's Rib, (without a Mother at least, however Adam may be fansied as a Father,) and who shall at the last day recall the Dead out of the Dust, may doubtless, if he so please, cause a Woman, without the help of Man, to conceive a child. There is certainly no Impossibility in nature, why it may not, by an Omnipotent Agent, be brought to pass. And when the Scripture declares it so to be, there is no reason (if we believe the Scripture) to disbelieve the Thing.

It is no more than when Christ cured the blind man's eyes with day and spittle: OrJoh. 9. 6. when he said, Lazarus, come forth, andJoh. 11. 43. 44. he did so. Or when God said, Let Gen. 1. 3. there be Light, and there was Light: And, of the whole Creation; He spake, Psal. 33. 9. and it was done, he commanded, and it stood fast. No more than when he made Aaron's Rod (a dry Stick) to bud Numb. 17. 8. and blossom, and yield Almonds: Or what is implied in that, Let not the Eunuch Isai. 56. 3. say, I am a dry tree. And not much more than when God gave Abraham Gen. 18. 11, 12. a Son in his old age; and, notwithstandingRom. 4. 19. the deadness of Sarah's womb.

I was about to say, (and it is not much amiss if I do) it is not much more than what (pretty often) (happens amongst men, when God gives both Sexes to the same person, (such there are, and have been; and I think there is one yet living, who was first as a Woman married to a Man, and is since as a Man married to a Woman;) and what hinders then, but that God, if he please, may mingle the Effects of both these Sexes in the Same Body? A little alteration in the structure of the Vessels would do it. For when there is in the same body, and so near, Semen virile & muliebre, what hinders but there might be a passage for them to mix? And Plants, we know, do propagate without a fellow, though it be otherwise in Animals. And whereas this is said to be by the Holy Ghost coming upon her, Luke. 1. 35. and the Power of the Highest over shadowing the Blessed Virgin; it is not much unlike that of the Spirit of God's Incubation, or moving upon the face of the Waters. So that, as to this Point,Gen. 1. 2. here is nothing Impossible, nothing Incredible.

The other Particular, as to the Hypostatical Union; How God and Man can be united in one Person, may seem more difficult for us to apprehend, because we understand so little of the Divine Essence, and consequently are less able to determine, what is, and what is not, consistent with it. And, when all is done, if we be never so certain, that there is such an Union, yet it will be hard to say How it is.

But we have no reason from thence to conclude the thing Impossible because we know not How it is done. Because there be many other things in nature, which we are sure to Be; of which we are almost at as great a loss as to the manner How they be, as in the present case.

Solomon, as wise as lie was, and how well so ever skilled in Natural Philosophy, doth yet acknowledge himself, in many things to be at a loss, when he would search out the bottom of Natural things, and even when he made it his Business so to do. When (says he) I applied my heart to know wisdom, and to see the business that is done upon the earth: Then I beheld all the work of God; that a man cannot find out the work of God that is done under the sun: Because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it. Yea further, though a wise man seek to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it, Eccles. 8. 16, 17. And shall we then say, of the deep things of God, The1 Cor. 2. 10, 11. thing is impossible, because we cannot find it out? And if we consider how many puzzling Questions God puts to Iob, in the 37, 38, 39, 40, 41. Chapters of Iob, even in natural things, we may very well (as Iob did) abhor our selves in dust and ashes, and be ashamed of our ignorant curiosity; and confess (as he doth) I have uttered what I understood not; things too wonful for me which I know not: when he found he had talked like a fool, while he thought to Rom. 1. 22. be wise, and would measure the Power and Wisdom of God by the narrow limits of our understanding: And might come to Iob's Resolution (when he had well weighed the matter) I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee, Job 42. 2, 3, 6.

The wind bloweth where it listeth, (not where you please to appoint it,) thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, Joh. 3. 8, 12. or whither it goeth, (saith Christ to Nicodemus:) But shall we therefore conclude, The Wind doth not blow, because we know not how or whence it bloweth? Or, that God cannot command the Winds, because we cannot? We should rather conclude, The Wind doth certainly Blow, (because we hear the sound of it,) though we know neither How, nor Whence: And, though they do notMat. 8. 26, 27. obey us, yet the Wind and the Seas obey him. Now (as he there further argues) If, when he tells us of earthly things, we do not apprehend it, how much more if he tell us of Heavenly things? of the deep things of God?

But (to come a little nearer to the business) consider we a little the Union of our own Soul and Body. 'Tis hardly accountable, nor perhaps conceivable by us, (who are mostly conversant with material things,) How a Spiritual Immaterial Being (such as our Souls are) and capable of a separate existence of its own, should inform, actuate, and manage a material substance, such as is that of our Body, and be so firmly United as to be One Person with it. By what handle can a Spirit Intangible take hold of a Tangible Material Body, and give Motion to it? Especially if we should admit Lucretius's Notion; Tangere vel Tangi, nisi Corpus, nulla potest res: (which he repeats almost as often as Homer doth his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) who doth thence repute it impossible for an Immaterial Being to move a Body. But we who believe the Soul to be a a Spirit, know it to be possible. Much more is it possible for God (though a Being infinitely Act. 17, 25, 27, 28. more pure) who giveth to all, Life and Breath and All things; and in whom we Live and Move and have our Being; and who is not far from every one of us. It would be hard for us to give an intelligible account, either how God moves all things, or how our Soul moves the Body; yet we are sure it is so. That a Body may move a Body, seems not so strange to apprehend, (for we see one Engine move another;) But, by what Mechanism, shall a Spirit give Motion to a Body when at rest? or, Stop it when in Motion? or, Direct its Motions this way or that way? It would be thought strange, that a Thought of ours should Move a stone: And it is as hard to conceive (did we not see it daily) How a Thought should put our Body in Motion, and another Thought stop it again. Yet this we see done every day, though we know not How. And it is almost the same thing in other Animals. And more yet, when an Angel assumes a Body. There are none of these things we know, How; and yet we know, they are done.

I shall press this a little farther. Our Soul (we all believe) doth (after Death) continue to exist, in a separate condition from the Body. And, I think, we have reason to believe also, that it will continue to Act as an Intellectual Agent, (not to remain in a stupid sensless 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) Else I see not why Paul should desire to depart, or to be dissolved, and to be with Christ, which is far better; Phil. 1. 21, 23, 24. rather than to abide in Flesh. For while he abides in the Flesh, he hath some enjoyment of Christ, (as well as an opportunity of doing some Service) which is more desirable, if when he is departed, he have none at all. And, how can he then say, That to Dye is gain? Whether the Soul thus separated shall be said to have a Subsistence as well as an Existence; Or, whether it may be properly said then, to be an intire Person; (as the Soul and Body are, before Death, and after the Resurrection) I will not Dispute, because, that were to contend about Words, and such Words so signify, as we please to define them, and bear such a Sence, as we please to put upon them. But it is (as the Angels are) an Intellectual, Spiritual Agent; and we use to say, Actiones sunt Suppositorum; and Suppositum Rationale, is either a Person, or so near a Person, that it would be so if men please to call it so. And the Spiritual Being, which doth now separately Exist, shall at the Resurrection, resume a Body into the same Personality with it self, and shall with it become one Person, as before Death it had been.

Now if a Spiritual Immaterial Intellectual Being, separately existent by it self, and separately acting as an Intellectual Agent, may, at the Resurrection, assume or reassume a Material Corporeal Being (Heterogeneous to it self) into the same Personality with it self, or so as to become one Person with it, while yet it self remains Spiritual as before: What should hinder (for it is but one step further) but that a Divine Person, may assume Humanity, into the same personality with it self, without ceasing to be a Divine Person as before it was? If it be said, That Person and Personality in the Sacred Trinity, are not just the same as what we so call in other cases: It is granted; and by these words (which are but Metaphorical) we mean no more, but somewhat analogous thereunto; and which, (because of such analogy) we so call, as knowing no better words to use instead thereof: According as we use the words, Father, Son, generate, beget, and the like, in a metaphorical sence, when applied to God. For no words, borrowed from Created Beings, can signifie just the same when applied to God, as when they were applied to Men, but somewhat analogous thereunto. And if the Soul (though we know not How) may and do (at the Resurrection) assume a Body so as to become the same Person with it self (though neither the Body be thereby made a Soul, nor the Soul a Body; but remain as before, that a Body, and this a Soul, though now united into one Person:) Why may not a Divine Person assume Humanity, so to be what is analogous to what we call a Person; the Humanity remaining Humanity, and the Divinity remaining Divinity, though both united in One Christ; though we do not particularly know How?

We should be at a great loss, if (to answer an Atheist, or one who doth not believe the Scriptures) we were put to it, to tell him, How God made the World? Of what Matter? With what Tools or Engines? or, How a Pure Spirit could produce Matter where none was? He would tell us perhaps, Ex nihilo nihil, in nihilum nil posse reverti; Where nothing is, nothing can be made: and what once is, (though it may be changed) can never become Nothing: And will never believe the World was made, (but rather was from all Eternity) except we can tell him, How it was made. Now, if in this case, we may satisfie our selves (though perhaps it will not satisfie him) by saying, God made it, but we know not How: The same must satisfie us here; That Christ was Incarnate, (God and Man) we are certain, (for so the Scripture doth assure us, as well as, That God made the World;) But, How God made the World; or, How the Son of God assumed Humanity, we cannot tell. Nor indeed is it fit for us to enquire, farther than God is pleased to make known to us. All further than this, are but the subtile Cob-webs of our Brain: Fine, but not Strong. Witty Conjectures, How it may be; rather than a clear Resolution, How it is.

Another Objection I have met with: to which the Objecters must be contented with the same Answer; We know it Is, but we know not How. It would be endless for us, and too great a Curiosity, to think our selves able fully to explicate all the Hidden things of God. The Objection is this: Since the Three Persons cannot be Divided; How is it possible, that One of them can Assume Humanity, and not the other? And why the Second Person, and not the First or Third?

As to the Question, Why? I say, It is so, because so it pleased God; And he giveth not account of his Matters; He isJob 33. 13. not accountable to us, why he so willeth.

As to the Question, How is it Possible? I see no difficulty in that at all. The Persons are Distinguished, though not Divided. As in the Divine Attributes, God's Justice and Mercy are Distinguishable; though in God they cannot be Divided. And accordingly, some things are said to be Effects of his Justice, others of his Mercy. So the Power and Will of God (both which are Individual from himself:) But when we say God is Omnipotent, we do not say he is Omnivolent. He wills indeed All things that Are, (else they could not be) but he doth not will all things Possible. And the like of other Attributes.

If therefore we do but allow as great a Distinction between the Persons, as between the Attributes, (and certainly it is not less, but somewhat more,) there is no incongruity in ascribing the Incarnation to One of the Persons, and not to the rest.

'Tis asked further, How I can accommodate this to my former Similitude, of a Cube and its Three Dimensions; representing a Possibility of Three Persons, in one Deity. I say, Very easily. For it is very possible, for one Face of a Cube, suppose the Base, (by which I there represented the Second Person, as Generated of the Father,) to admit a Foil, or Dark Colour, while the Rest of the Cube is Transparent; without destroying the Figure of the Cube, or the Distinction of its Three Dimensions, which Colour is adventitious to the Cube. For the Cube was perfect without it, and is not destroyed by it. Which may some way represent Christ's Humiliation. Who being Equal with God, was made Like unto Us, and took upon him the Form of a Servant, Phil. 2. 6, 7.

So that, upon the whole Matter, there is no Impossibility in the Doctrine of the Incarnation, any more than in that of the Trinity. And, supposing them to be not Impossible; it is not denied but that they are, both of them, sufficiently Revealed; and therefore to be Believed, if we believe the Scripture. And of the other Articles in the Athanasian Creed, there is as little reason to doubt.

There is therefore no just Exception, as to the Declarative part of the Athanasian Creed. And, as to the Damnatory part; we have before shewed, that it is no more severe, than other passages in Scripture to the same purpose; and to be understood with the like Mitigations as those are. And, consequently, that whole Creed, as hitherto, may justly be received.

'Tis true, there be some Expressions in it, which, if I were now to Pen a Creed, I should perhaps chuse to leave out: But, being in, they are to be understood according to such sence as we may reasonably suppose to be intended, and according to the Language of those times When they did use to Anathematize great Errors, which they apprehended to be Destructive of the Christian Faith, as things of themselves Damnable, if not Repented of. And, I suppose, no more is here intended; nor of any other Errors, than such as are Destructive of Fundamentals.