To discredit and denounce the dangerous and destructive errors, which infested the purity and peace of the Christian Church, to present an uniform, clear, and scriptural rule of faith to each succeeding age, the creed in question was first composed. It was framed, not to explain a doctrine which the human mind could never comprehend, but to guard its simplicity from the misinterpretation of wild and fanciful delusion; to expose the fallacy of a false account, though it may be beyond the power of man to render a true one. It was to correct the glaring absurdities of former heresies, of which those who are not conversant in ecclesiastical history can have but a faint idea, that many of the doctrinal clauses were added, and in opposition to these erroneous fancies to state the several propositions of the Christian faith. Each proposition taken by itself is in its terms sufficiently intelligible, and all of them together are but an enlargement of the first, that there is one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity. Every proposition is but a different mode of stating the same truth, in opposition to the fancies of some absurd and heretical tenets. How the Unity exists in Trinity and Trinity in Unity is not, because it cannot be explained, nor is there a single proposition which attempts its explanation. If we could view it in this light, and consider every proposition respecting the Trinity, as but another mode of stating the first

grand article, every obscurity would surely vanish, and however superfluous some of these might appear to be in the present age, none are difficult or unintelligible. We make a difficulty where we find none.

The second and most serious objection to this creed in the eyes of many good and charitable men, is the doctrine contained in what are usually termed the damnatory clauses. Shall a fallible man, say they, frame his system of belief on a most difficult, and in some manner, incomprehensible subject, and condemn to eternal destruction all those who differ from him in so tender and questionable a point? And shall the mild and tolerant Church of England sanction such an unwarrantable temerity?

It may not be improper to observe, that from the sixth century to the present day, it has been received by the whole Western Church, and with the alteration of one doctrinal clause, by great part of the Eastern. When therefore the Church of England is accused of intolerance in retaining this creed, the charge is equally applicable to nearly the whole Christian Church throughout the world. It is true that this is no argument for its retention, but it is a point which is seldom considered, or is carefully removed from view, by the generality of those who make the charge.

But the Church of England claims no authority which exists in man alone. The validity of her witness is to be tried by a greater witness, even the witness of God. In her eighth article she affirms indeed, that the creed of Athanasius ought thoroughly to be received and believed, not as the work of a man, not on her own authority, but as it may be proved by the most certain warrants of the holy Scripture. To every clause throughout the creed this assertion equally and unequivocally applies. Let us first consider what the assertion really is, to which we so strongly object, and then let us consider whether that assertion is not warranted by the whole tenor of the Christian dispensation. When then we say in the strongest clause of the whole, that "this is the Catholic faith, which except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly;" we cannot be supposed to mean, that every trifling verbal difference, on a subject above our knowledge, shall doom even the best of men to eternal destruction; this is contrary to our belief as sons of the Church of England; it is contrary to our charity as Christians. But when words grow into things, when verbal distinctions, as they very rapidly do, grow into practical evils, when a man shall wilfully reject, insidiously undermine, or knowingly degrade any leading doctrine of the Chris

tian dispensation, then is he amenable to this clause. The revelation of God to man, the glories and graces of the Christian dispensation, are not the objects of capricious sport, or idle contention. They are not to be received at pleasure, nor rejected with impunity. Those who have the power and the opportunity of ascertaining, of receiving, and of defending their truth, must, in reason, be answerable for their wilful rejection, or intentional corruption. "God is not mocked." "What a man soweth, that also will he reap." But even here we must remember, that God, not man, is the Judge. And when the judgments of God are threatened, they neither are, nor can be, threatened absolutely, but with a final and essential reservation for the mercies of infinite wisdom.

Thus then, when after a black catalogue of human crimes, the Apostle declares," that they which do such things shall not enter the kingdom of God;" and when, in consequence of such declaration, we believe that the wages of sin is everlasting death, do we by this belief exclude the prerogative of infinite mercy? The analogy holds good in both cases. Both in the trial of faith and of works, there are venial, there are mortal sins; and though we know the law is equally explicit in its threatenings against sin in general, we know that justice will be tempered

by mercy, according to the judgment of infi nite wisdom. When then we say that he who keeps not whole this Catholic faith, without doubt shall perish everlastingly; we mean, that against a wilful rejection, or corruption, of any of the leading and fundamental doctrines of the Christian dispensation, the judgment of death in the Scriptures is pronounced; reserving ever the exercise of that mercy, which infinite wisdom can alone with equity dispense.

Is then this declaration in conformity with the whole tenor of Scripture? Is the witness of man authorized and confirmed by the witness of God? It is not my present intention to multiply texts in its defence. He that will examine for himself, will find the witness of God not only greater but stronger than the witness of man. He will find the most positive, the most awful penalties, denounced against the wilful rejection, not of one, but of every article, both separately and conjointly, of the Christian faith. Beyond this, there is no appeal. "He that hath the Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son hath not life, but the wrath of God remaineth upon him."

Such then being the witness of Scripture to the essential importance of every article of our faith, it is surely neither useless nor uncharitable, to prefix a solemn warning to their general profession. It is for us to apply to those general