A Critical History of the Athanasian Creed (1724)

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all Things it is necessary that He hold the Catholick Faith.

By the Words, before all Things, is meant in the first Place. Faith goes before Practice; and is therefore first in Order, tho’ Practice may be, comparatively, more considerable, and first in Value, as the End is above the Means.

2. Which Faith except every one do keep whole^b and undefiled, without doubt He shall perish everlastingly.

Which Faith, that is, the Catholick Faith before spoken of, which is another Name for the true and right Faith as taught in Scripture; called Catholick, or Universal, as being held by the Universal Church of Christ, against which the Gates of Hell shall never prevail. The meaning then is, that every one is obliged, under pain of Damnation, to preserve, as far as in Him lies, the true and right Faith, in opposition to Those that endeavor to corrupt it either by taking from it, or adding to it. That Men shall perish Eternally for unbelief, for rejecting the Faith in the Lump, cannot be doubted; when it is expressly said (Mark 16. 16.) He that believeth not shall be damned: And as to rejecting any particular Branch, or Article of it, it must of consequence be a Sin against the Whole; against Truth, and Peace, and therefore damnable in it’s own Nature, as all wilful Sins are without Repentance. As to the Allowances to be made for invincible Ignorance, Prejudice, or other unavoidable Infirmities; as they will be pleadable in the Case of any other Sin, so may they, and will they also be pleadable in This: But it was foreign to the purpose of the Creed to take notice of it in This case particularly, when it is common to all cases of like Nature, and is always supposed, and understood, tho’ not specially mention’d.

3. And the Catholick Faith is This; that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity.

One of the Principal Branches of the Catholick Faith, and which is of nearest Concernment (since our Worship depends upon it, and the main Body of the Christian Religion is bound up in it) is the Doctrine of a Trinity in Unity, of Three Persons and one God, recommended in our Baptism as the Object of our Faith, Hope, and Worship. He that takes upon Him to corrupt, or deprave This most Fundamental part of a Christian’s Faith, cannot be innocent; it being his bounden Duty to maintain and preserve it, as He will answer it another Day.

4. Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.

Here would be no need of these particular Cautions, or critical Terms, in relation to This Point, had Men been content with the plain primitive Faith in it’s native Simplicity. But, as there have been a Set of Men, called Sabellians, who have erroneously taught that the Father, Son, and Holy-Ghost are all one Person, who was incarnate, and suffered, and rose again; making the Father (and Holy-Ghost) to have suffered, as well as the Son (from thence call’d Patripassians) hence it becomes necessary to caution every pious Christian against confounding the Persons as Those Men have done. And as there have been Others, particularly the Arians, who have pretended very falsely, that the Three Persons are Three Substances, and of different Kinds, divided from each other, one being before the other, existing when the other two were not, as also being present, where the other two are not present; These false and dangerous Tenets having been spread abroad, it is become necessary to give a Caution against dividing the Substance, as These have done, very much to the Detriment of Sobriety and Truth.

5. For there is one Person of the Father, Another of the Son, and Another of the Holy-Ghost.

The Sabellians therefore were extremely to blame in confounding the Persons, and running them into one, taking away the Distinction of Persons plainly taught in Scripture.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy-Ghost is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.

The Arians therefore were equally to blame for dividing the Substance, and Godhead in the manner before hinted. To be a little more particular on this Head, we may go on to open and explain This Unity of Godhead, equality of Glory, and coeternity of Majesty.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy-Ghost.

That is, as to their Substance, and Godhead, there is no Difference or Inequality amongst them; tho’ there is a Difference in respect of some personal Acts, and Properties, as shall be observed in it’s Place. In real Dignity, and Perfection They are equal, and undivided, as in the Instances here following.

8. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy-Ghost uncreate.

These Three Persons were never brought into Being by the will of another; They are no Creatures, nor Changeable, as Creatures are; They are all infinitely removed from dependence or precarious Existence, one as much as another, and every one as much as any one: They exist in the highest, and most emphatical Sense of Existing, which is called Necessary-Existence, opposed to contingent or precarious Existence. In a word; every Person must, and cannot but exist; and all must exist together, having the same unchangeable Perfections.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy-Ghost incomprehensible.

These Words are not a just Translation of the Latin Original, tho’ containing as true and just a Proposition as the Latin Words do. Immensus signifies omnipresent, rather than incomprehensible, in the modern Sense of incomprehensible. But if by incomprehensible be understood, not to be comprehended within any Bounds, it will then answer to the Latin pretty nearly. The Translator here followed the Greek Copy^a, taking perhaps the Greek to be the Original Language wherein the Creed was written. However, some Latins have understood by immensus, incomprehensible^b, in such a Sense as has been hinted.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy-Ghost eternal.

None of the Persons ever began to be, nor shall ever cease to be; They always were, they always will be, and must be; the same yesterday, to day, and for ever.

11. And yet They are not Three Eternals, but one Eternal.

Some Account ought to be given of this manner of speaking, because it often occurs in the Creed, and may be thought most apt to offend the malicious, or to mislead the unwary. The way of speaking came in a little after the middle of the fourth Century, and then only into the Latin Church; for the Greeks never used it, but taught the same Things under a different Form of Expression. What Greeks and Latins Both intended was, that as the Three Persons are one Substance and one God, so every divine Perfection, and every substantial Attribute, belonging to any one Person, is common to all; and there is nothing peculiar to any one but the divine Relations: To the Father, Paternity and whatever it implies or carries with it; to the Son, Filiation; to the Holy-Ghost, Procession. In This Account, Eternity, Immensity, Omnipotence, and the like, being substantial Attributes, are common to all the Three Persons; who have therefore one Eternity, one Immensity, one Omnipotence, and so on, as one Substance and one Godhead: Thus far Greeks and Latins agreed both in Doctrine, and Expression. But the Latins, building hereupon, thought it very allowable to go a little farther, (which the Greeks did not) and to express the same Thing by saying, of the Three Persons, that They are one Eternal, one Immense, one Omnipotent, one Holy, one Uncreated, &c. And This was the current Language at the making, and before the making of this Creed. The Arians were the sole Occasion of introducing Both Kinds of Expression, which must therefore be interpreted accordingly. Two Things were design’d by them: One, to obviate the Arian Tenet, that the Three Persons were differing in kind, and in degree, as being of unequal Perfections; the other to obviate the Arian Charge, or Calumny, upon the Church as making Three Gods. In regard to the former, when the Catholicks speak of one Divinity, they intend equal Divinity, not Divinities differing in kind, or degree: And in regard to the latter, They further mean undivided and inseparable Divinity, not Many Divinities. The true meaning then, and the full meaning of the Expressions of the Creed will be very clear and obvious. The Three Persons are equal in Duration, and undivided too; one Eternity, (one, because undivided, and inseparable) is common to all, and therefore They are not Three Eternals, but one Eternal.

The oldest Writers who have used this way of Expression, are, so far as I have observed, Ambrose, Faustinus, and Austin: And their meaning in it is very plain and certain from the Places themselves where They make use of it. Fulgentius, who came not long after them, sometimes falls into the same manner of Expression^a; but sparingly, as if He either did not fully attend to it, or had some scruple about it: For his general way is to say, not three eternal Gods, but one eternal God^b, instead of the other in the Creed; and so in the like Cases. Which indeed is a very insipid and dull way of Expressing it, and if applied to every Article in the Athanasian Creed, would make it a very flat composition in comparison to what it is. It is true, that all at length resolves into This, that the Three Persons are not Three Gods, but one God: This is the Ground and Foundation, and the other is the Superstructure. But then it is a fine and elegant, as well as a solid Superstructure; improving the Thought, and carrying on a Train of new and distinct Propositions, and not meerly a jejune and sapless Repetition of the same Thing.

Immensus est Pater, sed immensus est Filius, & immensus est & Spiritus sanctus: Nec tamen tres *Dii* immensi, sed unus *Deus* immensus. *Fulgent.* ibid. p. 232.

Omnipotens est Pater; sed omnipotens est Filius, omnipotens est Spiritus sanctus; Nec tamen tres *Dii* omnipotentes, sed unus *Deus* omnipotens est Pater, & Filius, & Spiritus sanctus. *Fulgent.* ibid.

12. As also there are not Three Incomprehensibles, nor Three Uncreated; but one Uncreated, and one Incomprehensible^a.

Not Three Incomprehensibles, &c. as not differing either in kind, or degree of Incomprehensibility, nor yet divided in those Perfections: But one Incomprehensible, and one Uncreated, one as to the kind and degree of those Attributes, or Perfections; and one in number too, as much as Union, and Inseparability, infinitely close and perfect, can be conceived to make, or do really make one.

13. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy-Ghost Almighty.

Equally Almighty every one, without any Difference, or Inequality in Kind, or Degree.

14. And yet They are not Three Almighties, but one Almighty.

One Omnipotence, or Almightiness is common to all Three: One in kind as being of equal extent, and equally reaching over all; and one also in number, because of the inseparable Union among the Three, in the inward Perfection, and outward Exercise, or Operation.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy-Ghost is God.

The whole Three Persons equally divine, and enjoying every Perfection belonging to the Godhead.

16. And yet They are not Three Gods, but one God.

Because the Godhead, or Divinity which belongs to one, belongs to all: The same in kind because of the Equality, and the same in number because inseparably one.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy-Ghost Lord.

Having the same right of Dominion, and of equal Dominion; and equally exercising it, when, and where They please.

18. And yet not Three Lords, but one Lord.

Because one Dominion is common to all Three, jointly possessing, and jointly exercising every Branch of it; undividedly, and inseparably bearing supreme Rule over all.

19. 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.

That is to say, The whole Foundation of what hath been before taught, rests upon This, that the same Christian Verity, or Truth, laid down in Scripture, obliges us to acknowledge every Person distinctly consider’d to be God and Lord; and at the same Time to reject the Notion of Three Gods or Three Lords: which being so, all that has been here taught, must of Course be admitted as true, right, and just. And now, having consider’d the Equality, and Union of the Three Sacred Persons, it may next be proper to consider their Distinction, as it is set forth to us in Scripture by the several personal Characters belonging to the Father, Son, and Holy-Ghost.

20. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

Were I at liberty to make conjectural Emendations, I wou’d here read, Pater a nullo est: neque factus, nec &c. The Father is of none: neither made, nor created, &c. And thus the next Article (The Son is of the Father alone) wou’d better answer, and the whole would be more elegant. But having met with no Copy^a to countenance such a Correction; I must not pretend to it, lest it should appear like correcting the Author. However, the Sense is very plain, and obvious. All the Three Negatives here predicated of the Father amount to This one, That He is absolutely of None: This is his peculiar Property, his distinguishing Character, to be first in order, and the Head of every thing; to whom even the Son and Holy-Ghost are refer’d, but diversly and in different manner.

21. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten.

The Son is here said to be of the Father alone, in contradistinction to the Holy-Ghost, to be named after, who is not of the Father alone, but of Both. The Greeks that struck out the words, and of the Son, below, and left the word alone here, were not aware of it. This Conduct of Theirs betray’d a Shortness of Thought, and at the same Time served to show that the Latins had not been Interpolators of the Creed, but that the Greeks had been Curtailers. It must however be own’d, that the Greeks who drew up that Form which Bishop Usher printed from Junius, were wise enough to observe how this Matter stood; and therefore struck out the word alone here, as well as and of the Son below.

22. The Holy-Ghost is of the Father, and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

The peculiar and distinguishing Character of the Holy-Ghost is to proceed, and to proceed both from Father and Son. Indeed, the Son and Holy-Ghost are Both of the Father, but in a different manner, to us inexplicable; one by the way of Generation, the other by Procession, tho’ the word Procession, in a lax Sense, has been sometimes applied to Either. However, to proceed from the Father and the Son, or, as the Greeks will needlessly cavil, from the Father by the Son; That is peculiar to the Holy-Ghost. The Greeks and Latins have had many, and tedious Disputes about the Procession. One Thing is observable, that tho’ the Antients, appeal’d to by Both Parties, have often said that the Holy-Ghost proceeds from the Father, without mentioning the Son, yet They never said that He proceeded from the Father alone; so that the modern Greeks have certainly innovated in That Article, in Expression at least, if not in real Sense and Meaning. As to the Latins, They have This to plead, that none of the Antients ever condemn’d their Doctrine; that Many of them have expressly asserted it; that the Oriental Churches themselves rather condemn their taking upon them to add any thing to a Creed form’d in a general Council, than the Doctrine it self; that those Greek Churches that charge their Doctrine as Heresy, yet are forced to admit much the same Thing, only in different Words; and that Scripture it self is plain that the Holy-Ghost proceeds at least by the Son, if not from Him; which yet amounts to the same Thing.

I should here observe, that some time before the compiling of This Creed, the usual Catholick way of speaking of the Holy-Ghost, was to say, that He was nec genitus, nec ingenitus, neither begotten nor unbegotten, while This Creed by barely denying Him to be begotten, seems to leave Room to think that He is unbegotten. This raised a Scruple in the Minds of Some, here in England, concerning that part of the Creed, above 700 years ago; as we learn from Abbo Floriacensis of That Time. For Gregory’s Synodicon admitted here, as well as this Creed, had the very Expression concerning the Holy-Ghost, nec ingenitus, nec genitus. It might have been easy to end the Dispute, only by distinguishing upon the equivocal meaning of the word ingenitus. It had been taken from the Greek, ἀγένητος, which signified not barely unbegotten, but absolutely underived: in This Sense the Holy-Ghost could not be said to be ingenitus. But if it barely means not begotten, it may be applied to Him, as it is in the Creed. The whole Difficulty then arose only from the Scantiness of the Latin Tongue, in not affording a single word which should fully express the Greek, ἀγένητος, unoriginate. Ingenitus might tolerably do it; but the word was more commonly taken in a narrower Construction. Peter Abelard has hit off the whole Difficulty very clearly; whose Words therefore I have thrown into the Margin^a.

23. So there is one Father, not Three Fathers; one Son, not Three Sons; one Holy-Ghost, not Three Holy-Ghosts.

Whether This Paragraph be borrowed from St. Austin, or from an elder Writer under the Name of Ignatius, I know not. The Foundation of it was laid in 1 Cor. 8. 6. one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ; to which it was usual to add, after reciting it, and one Holy-Ghost, to compleat the whole number of the divine Persons. The intent and purport of the words, in This Creed, is to set forth the Distinction of the Three Persons, and their several Offices, and Characters: That there is one Father, and that He alone is unoriginate, is First Person, is Head, &c. and neither the Son nor Holy-Ghost have any share in these Titles, or Characters, to make Three Unoriginates, Three Heads, &c. That there is one Son, and He alone begotten, and afterwards incarnate, &c. which Characters and Offices belong not to the other Two, but are distinct, and appropriate to one. And there is one Holy-Ghost, whose Character is to proceed, and whose Office is to sanctify, which Character and Office are not to be ascribed, in the same Sense, to the other Two; for That would be confounding the personal Characters and Offices, and making Three Holy-Ghosts, instead of one.

24. And in This Trinity, none is afore or after other; none is greater or less than another; but the whole Three Persons are coeternal together, and coequal.

The Compiler of the Creed now returns to the Equality and Unity of the Persons; that He may at length sum up and throw into a short Compass what He had said upon the Trinity, before He should pass on to the other great Article, The Incarnation.

When it is said, none is afore or after other, we are not to understand it of Order; for the Father is First, the Son Second, and the Holy-Ghost Third in Order. Neither are we to understand it of Office; for the Father is supreme in Office, while the Son and Holy-Ghost condescend to inferior Offices. But we are to understand it, as the Creed it self explains it, of Duration, and of Dignity; in which respect, none is afore or after, none greater or less, but the whole Three Persons coeternal, and coequal.

25. So that in all Things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

In all Things, (per omnia,) as is aforesaid. One of the Greek Copies tacks these words to the former Article, making them run thus; coequal in all Things, as aforesaid. Another Greek Copy reads them thus, coequal in all Things: so that in all Things, as is now said, &c. Both interpret the all Things of the Coequality in all Things. And indeed Venantius Fortunatus in his Comment, long before, seems to have understood, per omnia, in the same way, to signify that the Son is what the Father is, in all essential, or substantial Perfections. And it is favoured both by what goes before and after: For from speaking of the Coeternity and Coequality, the Author proceeds to say, so that in all Things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worship’d; namely, on account of their perfect Coeternity, and Coequality: to which He subjoins, He therefore that will be saved, &c. Wherefore I incline to the moderate Opinion of Those who think that the Author here does not lay the stress upon every little nicety of Explication before given, but upon the main Doctrine, of a Coequal and Coeternal Trinity^a.

Quamquam non possum quin ingenuè fatear Nuncios Apostolicos consultiùs facturos fuisse, si ab ejusmodi Sententia pronuntianda sibi temperassent; *Qui credit Spiritum Sanctum non procedere ex Filio, in via perditionis est:* Tunc quippe Temporis Ecclesia Catholica in nulla Synodo Generali hoc de Capite judicium definitorium tulerat. *Panopl.* contr. Schism. Græcor. p. 360.

Wickliff’*s Comment on this Paragraph, put into modern* English, *will not appear contemptible: It is thus:*

“*And so we conclude here, as it is before said, that there is both an* Unity *of* Godhead, *and a* Trinity *of* Persons; *and that the* Trinity *in This* Unity is to be worshipp’d *above all other things: And* whosoever will be saved must thus think of the Trinity; *if not thus explicitely (or in every particular) yet thus in the* general, *or implicitely.*”

26. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

Thus, as consisting of Three Persons, coeternal and coequal, and all one God; distinct enough to be Three, united enough to be One; distinct without Division, united without Confusion.

27. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that He also believe rightly^a the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Much depends upon our having true and just Sentiments of the Incarnation, in which the whole Oeconomy of our Salvation is nearly concern’d. To corrupt and deprave This Doctrine, is to defeat and frustrate, in a great measure, the Gospel of Christ which bringeth Salvation: Wherefore it is of great Moment, of everlasting Concernment to us, not to be guilty of doing it our selves, nor to take part with Those that do.

28. For, the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.

There have been Hereticks who would not allow that our Saviour Christ was Man, but in such a Sense as a Shadow, or a Picture of a Man, may be called a Man: And there have been others who would not allow that Christ is God, but in such a Sense as any Creature whatever might be called, or may be made a God. But all good Christians have ever abhorr’d those vile Tenets, and conformably to Scripture, rightly and justly interpreted, have believed and confess’d that Christ is both really God, and really Man, one God-man.

29. God, of the Substance of the Father begotten before the Worlds; and Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the World.

We are forced to be thus particular, and expressive, in the wording of this Article, because of the many Wiles, Equivocations, and Disguises of Those, who endeavor to corrupt the Faith. The Arians make of Christ a created God, and call Him God on account only of his Office, and not of his Nature, or unchangeable Substance. For this reason, we are obliged to be particular in expressing his Substance, as being not frail, mutable, perishing, as the Substance of Creatures is, but eternal and unchangeable, and all one with the Father’s. On the other Hand, the Apollinarians and other Hereticks have pretended, either that Christ had no Human Body at all, or that He brought it with Him from Heaven, and took it not of the Virgin-Mother: We are therefore forced to be particular in this Profession, that He was Man of the Substance of his Mother: which, tho’ it be not taught in express words, yet is very plainly the Sense and Meaning of Holy Scripture on this Article; and was never question’d till, conceited Men came to pervert the true Doctrine of Sacred Writ, by false Glosses and Comments of their own.

30. Perfect God, and perfect Man of a reasonable Soul, and Human Flesh subsisting.

Here again, the Perverseness of Hereticks has made it necessary to guard the Faith by strong and expressive Words that cannot easily be eluded. Christ is perfect God, not such a nominal imperfect God as Arians, and Photinians pretend. He is moreover perfect Man, which it is necessary to insist upon against the Apollinarians, who pretended that He had a Human Body only without any Rational Soul; imagining the Logos to have supplied the Place of the rational, or reasonable Soul: whereas in reality He had both a Soul and Body, as all Men have, and was therefore perfect Man.

31. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and Inferior to the Father, as touching his Manhood.

Which needs no Comment.

32. Who altho’ He be God and Man, yet He is not Two, but one Christ.

This is said, to guard against Calumny and Mis-construction. For, because the Church asserted Two Natures in Christ, whereby He is both perfect God, and perfect Man, the Apollinarians, having an Hypothesis of their own to serve, pretended that This was making Two Christs, a Divine Christ, as to one Nature, and a Human Christ in the other: Which was a vain Thought, since Both the Natures join’d in the one God-man, make still but one Christ, both God and Man.

33. One, not by Conversion of the Godhead into Flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God.

The Apollinarian way of making one Christ by confounding the two Natures in one, and by subjecting the Godhead to Change, is here condemn’d. There is no need of running these injudicious, and absurd Lengths, for solving the Difficulty how the two Natures make one Christ: He did not change his divine Nature, or convert it into Flesh, tho’ He be said to have been made Flesh; He took Flesh upon Him, He assumed human Nature, took Man into an Union with God, and thus was He One Christ.

34. One altogether, not by Confusion of Substance, but by Unity of Person.

We are thus forc’d to distinguish, with the utmost Nicety and Accuracy, to obviate the Cavils, and Pretences of Hereticks. Christ then is one altogether, intirely one, tho’ his two Natures remain distinct. He is not one by confounding, or mingling two Natures or Substances, into one Nature or Substance; (as the Apollinarians pretended) but by uniting them Both in one Person; one I, one He, one Christ, as Scripture every where represents.

35. For, as the reasonable Soul and Flesh is one Man; so God and Man is one Christ.

That is to say, There are two very distinct, and different Substances in Man, a Body and a Soul; one material, the other immaterial, one mortal, the other immortal; and Both these Substances, nevertheless, make up but one Man. Not by confounding or mingling those two different Substances (for they are intirely distinct, and different, and will ever remain so) but by uniting them in one Person. Even so, may the Two distinct Natures Divine and Human in Christ, make one Person; And This is really and truly the Case in Fact.

36. Who suffered for our Salvation, descended into Hell, rose again the third day from the Dead,

The Author having finish’d his Explication of the great Article of God incarnate, now goes on to other Parts of the Creed, such as were commonly inserted in the Creeds before. The Article of The Descent into Hell had not indeed, at This Time, come into the Roman, otherwise called the Apostles Creed: But it had been inserted in the Creed of Aquileia, and had been all along the standing Doctrine of the Church. I shall leave it, as our Church has left it, without any particular Interpretation; referring the Reader to Those who have commented on the Apostles Creed, and particularly to the much admired Author of The History of it, who hath exhausted the Subject.

37. He ascended 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.

These are all so many Articles of the Roman Creed, and probably taken from it: excepting only, that the words, God Almighty, appear not in the most antient Manuscripts; and, very probably, were not originally in This Creed, any more than in the antient Roman.

38. At whose Coming, all Men shall rise again with their Bodies, and shall give account for their own Works.

Here are Two very expressive Phrases, All Men, All that have died, or shall die, to obviate the false Opinion of a partial Resurrection; and with their Bodies to obviate the Notion of those, who either thought that the Soul only should continue for ever, while the Body should be left to perish, or that the Resurrection-Body should be quite of another Matter, Form, or Kind, than what our Bodies are here. I have hinted in my Latin Notes above, that some Words are wanting in the Ambrosian Manuscript; and I may here observe farther, that in the words of the Creed, as they commonly run, there is not all the Accuracy that might have been: For All Men shall not rise, but only All that die. However, it seems that about that Time, there was some Variety of Sentiments in respect of That Article, as we may learn from Gennadius^a; which was owing to the different Reading of 1. Cor. 15. 51. from whence, probably, arose some Variation in the Copies of this Creed. See Pearson on the Apostles, Creed. Artic. 7.

39. And They that have done Good shall go into Life everlasting, and They that have done Evil into everlasting Fire.

This is the express Doctrine of Scripture, and appears almost in the same Words, Joh. 5. 28. Matt. 25. 46. to say nothing of many other Texts to the same Effect. Yet This Article, or rather these two Articles had not gain’d Admittance into the Apostles Creed so early as the IVth Century, the latter of ’em not at all. But, I suppose, the Opinion said to have been started by Origen, that wicked Men and even Devils, after a certain Revolution, should have their Release and Restoration, might make it the more necessary, or convenient at least, to insert these Articles in the Creeds, and to express the Punishment of the damn’d by the words eternal Fire: For the Origenists, at That Time, denied both the Eternity of the Fire, and also it’s Reality, as appears from Orosius in St. Austin^a.

40. This is the Catholick Faith, which except a Man believe faithfully^b, He cannot be saved.

This is to be understood, like all other such general Propositions, with proper Reserves, and qualifying Constructions. As for Instance, if after laying down a System of Christian Morality, it be said, This is the Christian Practice, which except a Man faithfully observe and follow, He cannot be saved; it would be no more than right, and just thus to say: But no one could be supposed hereby to exclude any such merciful Abatements, or Allowances, as shall be made for Men’s particular Circumstances, Weaknesses, Frailties, Ignorance, Inability, or the Like; or for their sincere Intentions, and honest desires of knowing, and doing the whole will of God; accompanied with a general Repentance of their Sins, and a firm Reliance upon God’s Mercy, through the sole Merits of Christ Jesus. There can be no doubt, however, but that Men are accountable for their Faith, as well as for their Practice: And especially if They take upon them to instruct and direct others, trusting to their own Strength and Parts, against the united Judgment and Verdict of whole Churches antient and modern.