nature that it is called in Scripture the generation of the Son (Heb. i. 5).

In the case of human generation, man begets a son in his own likeness, but with a separate individuality from his own. God, as the Father, has a more perfect relation to God the Son, in that He communicates the whole nature and properties of the Deity, not by dividing Himself, but by a full communication of Himself.

Hence it is concluded that the Son is God. But that He is not the same Person as God the Father, inasmuch as they stand in a peculiar relation in respect of origin, and because in many passages they are plainly distinguished from each other in will and operation (e.g. John v. 30, 37; xvi. 26, &c.). The third main proposition before us is this: The Holy Ghost is God.

We refer again to Pearson (Art. VIII. 'I believe in the Holy Ghost'). The mode of dealing with this subject may be thus exhibited :

1. The Holy Ghost is a Person, and not a mere quality or influence, because

a. He is contrasted with evil spirits, who are persons. See the cases of Saul and Micaiah.

b. He can be grieved, He makes intercession, searches all things, distributes spiritual gifts, spake to Peter and to prophets at Antioch. As the Paraclete, He is sent, teaches, testifies, comes, reproves, guides, speaks. All these are Personal acts.

2. The Holy Ghost is not only a Person, but uncreated and divine.

a. See 1 Cor. ii. 11.

b. The sin against the Holy Ghost is irremissible. Since all sin against God is not so, sin against a created being cannot be unpardonable.

c. (John i. 3). All created things were made by the Son. But the Spirit of God was in the beginning (Job xxvi. 13), and therefore is not a creature.

d. (Luke i. 35). Jesus is called the Son of God as being conceived by the Holy Ghost, who must, therefore, be God.

e. Further proofs are alleged from the following passages :

2 Cor. iii. 15-17. Acts v. 3, 4. is a lie to God. 1 Cor. vi. 19.

The lie to the Holy Ghost

The inhabitation by the

Spirit makes man a temple of God. Acts xxviii. 25. The Holy Ghost is identified with Jehovah.

f. The divine attributes-Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence are attributed to the Holy Ghost.

3. But though a Person and divine, the Holy Ghost is not to be confused with the Father or the Son.

For

a. He proceeds from the Father (John xv. 26); therefore He is not the Father.

b. He receives of that which is the Son's, and glorifies the Son. He is sent on condition of the Son's departure (John xiv. 26, and xvi. 7, 14); therefore He is not the Son.

c. He is distinguished from both Father and Son (Matt. iii. 16; Eph. ii. 18, &c.).

The above is a brief sketch of the argument of Pearson in support of the doctrine before us, that in the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

The Trinitarian controversy in the Church of England belonged chiefly to the commencement of the eighteenth century. In 1685 the celebrated work of Bishop Bull appeared, the Defensio Fidei Niceni. It is a learned investigation of the opinions of the fathers of the first three centuries on the doctrine of the Trinity. It remains the standard work on that part of the subject. Bishop Bull died in 1709, and the controversy took another form, mainly in consequence of the publications of Dr. Samuel Clarke, which were considered to be a revival of Arian opinions. This led to the valuable treatises of Waterland on the Trinity; they appeared in succession for some years, and remain'as a copious storehouse of theology on the various points of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

A short treatise, entitled 'The Catholic Doctrine of a Trinity proved from Scripture,' by Jones of Nayland, of which there is an edition published by Rivington, will be found a brief and able compendium, which may be useful.

14

ARTICLE II.

NOTES ON THE TEXT OF ARTICLE II.

The Latin text invites no special comment. The substance of this Article is identical with that of Edward, excepting that the clause, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father,' was added in Elizabeth's time from the Wurtemberg Confession, and one or two slight verbal changes were made.

The Article itself is derived from the Third of the Augsburg Confession, which runs thus:

'The Word, that is, the Son of God, took man's nature in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, so that two natures, the divine and human, were joined together in one person, never to be divided (whereof is), one Christ, very God and very Man, born of the Virgin Mary, (who) truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.'

It is manifest that no code of Christian doctrine could be complete without an explicit confession of faith on this fundamental Article. But the circumstances of the age of the Reformation also made it needful; for, omitting for the present any reference to the more ancient heresies, it is certain that in the confusion created by the great movements of the Reformation every conceivable misbelief about the nature and person of the Lord Jesus Christ found some utterance. For this we may refer to the notice of the Anabaptists, under Art. VII. We may further illustrate it by some lamentable occurrences in the reign of Edward VI. These will show how strong was the hold on men's minds of the persecuting principles of the middle ages. It was perceived to be an intolerable wrong that the Gospel should be resisted. But it was held to be the inviolable duty of the civil ruler to punish blasphemy with death, according to the precepts of the Mosaic law and the example of Jewish sovereigns. The taunts of Romanists quickened zeal in this matter. The Reformers were anxious to clear themselves of any complicity with those who in any way denied the Saviour. Thus we read of sundry heretics being brought before Cranmer, Latimer, and others, sitting as the King's Commissioners, and being compelled to recant. A more terrible example is the death of Joan Bocher, who was burnt by warrant of the Council of Regency. Latimer 2 gives an account of her, evidently without the slightest misgiving on his own part or that of his hearers that the slightest wrong had been committed in dealing with her. 'I told you,' says he, 'the last time, of one Joan of Kent,

'Strypes' 'Cranmer,' book ii. ch. viii.

24

'Remains,' p. 114.

which was in this foolish opinion, that she should say our Saviour was not very Man, and had not received flesh of His mother Mary, and yet she could show no reason why she should believe so. Her opinion was this. The Son of God, said she, penetrated through her, as through a glass, taking no substance of her. But our Creed teacheth us contrariwise.' Two others likewise suffered for a similar reason. And in like manner, it is notorious that Servetus was put to death at Geneva, how far with the co-operation of Calvin is disputed. If the Romanists, like ourselves, had been led to repudiate and detest this mode of casting out false doctrine, such instances as these (however few, comparatively speaking) would prevent our reproaching them on this score. Our just ground of indignant rebuke is this, that all the authoritative utterances of their Church, down to the encyclical of the present Pope, maintain the right of persecution for the sake of religion, and complain of their present state as one of discouragement and oppression, because the civil power no longer enforces the ecclesiastical domination.

OBSERVATIONS ON ARTICLE II.

For reasons already stated, we shall again recur to 'Pearson on the Creed' for the exposition of this Article, and, as far as possible, confine ourselves to his treatment of the several doctrines it contains. We may conveniently break up the Article into these principal sections:

I. The Deity and Sonship of the Second Person of the Trinity.

II. The Incarnation.

III. The Nature of the Person of the Incarnate Son.

IV. The sufferings of Christ.

V. The purpose of those sufferings.

I. The Deity and Sonship of the Second Person of the Trinity.

It has already been needful, in commenting on the first Article, to prove that the Son is very God, and of one substance