« AnteriorContinuar »
did not all prefer the same dish:—but have liking and disliking, have taste and distaste, nothing to do with religion? in the extended sense, a great deal. One man loves sacred music above all things; another abominates an organ: one is edified and moved with a fine picture, of a nativity, or a taking down from the Cross; another would banish all pictures from every place of worship:-and hymns, and Sermons, or pulpit-eloquence, and even the eloquence of Prayers, are much connected with taste; and, if some of the lofty sayings, on which speculative doctrines have been built, are really expressions of sentiment and affection, the reception and application of them may be guided by taste, in a considerable degree. Those, who are of noble and generous dispositions, and have been liberally educated, give into doctrines, which are sublime and pathetic: whilst the more cold, precise, barren minds rather give into those doctrines, which lower the dignity of Christ, and reduce all religious notions to vulgar and ordinary conceptions. Gloominess of temper has probably often made a man embrace the doctrine of absolute Reprobation, of condemnation by a direct decree of God to eternal misery. But moreover, dissensions concerning meats and drinks, though perhaps they really arise from taste, may be supported by much philosophical reasoning What may not be urged concerning acids, and alcalis, and inflammatory liquors? what concerning concoction and digestion? the effects, natural and moral, of animal and vegetable sustenance ? The Rules of Different Convents, Orders of Monks, &c. &c. are founded on these principles. If people were as much inclined to bigotry and persecution about these things, as some have been about spiritual food, a convivial meeting would be a thing impracticable.—And now, suppose men divided into small parties, refusing to eat, except with those who used the same quality and quantity of nourishment with themselves, what would you say to them? if your exhortations to unity of repast be in general terms, observe whether many of them are not applicable to unity of worship.
I conclude these remarks with observing, that what has been said in order to shew, that men might possibly unite in worship, though they differed greatly in opinion, does not affect the force of
any thing, which has been urged in defence of the doctrines of the Church of England, either as to their truth or importance. It supposes each person to rest in his peculiar notions, upon what seem to him good grounds : but only to shew great candour and forbearance towards the opinions of others, notwithstanding all his reasoning in favour of his
If agreement in mind and judgment, as well as in teaching and worship, is finally to be accomplished in any way, it must be in this.
ARTICLE ARTICLE III.
OF THE GOING DOWN OF CHRIST INTO HELL.
As Christ died for us, and was buried; so also is it to be believed, that he went down into Hell.
1. In treating on this Article, we shall follow our usual plan; attempting history, explanation, and proof; and then some application to the present state of things.
History is the first thing. The case seems to be the same with the doctrine of Christ's descent into Hell, and many others; they were believed in an indefinite way, before they were publicly and formally professed. The passage of Augustin seems to be well known; Quis ergo nisi infidelis negaverit fuisse apud Inferos Christum ?”
This continued for some Centuries; perhaps, if we speak with respect to the Church at large, we may say, till the beginning of the fifth Century; that is, as far as we are informed by the ancients. At length, the doctrine got to be inserted in Creeds. It isa said to have been inserted as an antidote to the Apollinarian Heresy", as it is inconsistent with the notion, that Christ had no human soul, and that the functions of the soul were performed by the Móyos. Yet, though the Apollinarians had some affinity to the Arians, the doctrine of Christ's descent into Hell does not seem to have entered into
6 Art. ii. Sect. 6,
· Lord King, Chap. iv. Vol. II.
the Arian controversy. It was in some Arian Creeds before it was (seemingly) in any that were orthodox; yet it was not to be called an Arian Doctrine, because several Arian Creeds omitted it. The Arian Presbyters, who write to Alexander Bishop of Alexandria", have it not; neither is it in the Creed delivered by Arius and Euzoïus to the Emperoro Constantine.
It appears, that the descent of Christ into Hell has been confounded with his burial. So that it has happened sometimes, that, where one of these was inserted in a Creed, the other was omitted. Our Nicene Creed has the burial without the descent; and the Athanasian Creed has the descent without the burial.
As this may seem unaccountable, we will just mention here, that the words youxri and ãåns have been used in various senses. Yuxn has been sometimes rendered the Body, as the context in some passages of the LXX fully allows. That it should be rendered Soul, will seem obvious. "Aềns is several times in Scripture translated Grave, on account of the meaning of the sentence, in which it occurs; and it is frequently translated Hell: η ψυχή εις άδου, then, may be construed according to these senses, either the Body in the Grave, or, the Soul in Hell; and therefore those, who thought it meant the one, might think it could not mean the other; and consequently, if they made profession of the burial of Christ's Body, might pass over the descent of his Soul into Hell.—Perhaps more satisfaction may be had with regard to yuxn, as understood to mean the body, when we come to the Explanation.
Bishop Bishop Pearson, in his exposition of the Creed, says, very truly, that “ The first place we find it” (the Article of the descent into Hell) “ used in, was the Church of Aquileia :” he means, about the year 400. Though this is true, yet perhaps caution may be required, lest it should induce us to think, that our first observation is ill-grounded: or, that the Doctrine was then invented (Voltaire), or not expressly acknowledged before.-Eusebius' gives a very short explication of the Christian Faith, which he reckons very ancient, and says, he translated it from the Syriac, as what had been given by St. Thaddæus to the people of Edessa: In this, we find katéßn els tòv ádnv.—And Lord King® mentions the Article or Doctrine as in a Creed
Bingham, 10. 3. end. Pearson, Creed, p. 472. 1st edit. b Epiphanius, Art. 2. Sect. 6.
c Socrat. Hist. 1. 19. Lev. xxi. 1, 2. Numb. v. 2.-vi. 6. These passages had better be considered in the Explanation.
of Epiphanius", and in an Arian Creed delivered to the Council of Ariminum, held under Constantius in 359.-Ruffinus does indeed mention, that it was not in the Roman, nor in the Oriental Creeds in his time: on which we may just remark, that the Roman Church was not then so extensive as it was afterwards :—and that there might possibly be Oriental Creeds unknown to Ruffinus, a Presbyter of Aquileia : and lastly, that the doctrine might be taught at many places, and even at Aquileia, before the time of Ruffinus.
Should this caution with regard to Bishop Pearson be thought unnecessary, yet it will be thought right to say something of Bishop Burnet. He has, in his contents, “ Ruffin first published this in the Creed;” which must not give us an idea, that it
Opening of 5th Article.
f Euseb. i. 13. cited by Bingham, 10. 4. end. Eusebius is placed in 315. 8 On the Creed,
261. Hær. lib. 3. Epiphanius is placed in 368. Ruffinus, in 397.