66 66 gotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, "not made, being of one substance with the Father." The personal character of the Holy Ghost is, that he" is of the Father," (though not of the Father alone, but of the Father,)" and of the Son;" yet "neither made, nor created, nor begotten" of or by them, “but proceeding" from them, as the Spirit of both the mode or manner of which procession is above our capacities, and consequently a point we have no concern with. These characters then being proper and peculiar to the divine Persons, to whom they respectively belong, sufficiently distinguish them from one another, and shew, that "there is one Fa"ther, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; "one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts." But lest this distinction of Persons should lead us to suspect some difference or inequality of nature, the Creed inculcates once more, before it leaves the subject, their co-equality and co-eternity: "In this Tri 66 66 nity none is afore, or after other," with regard to duration; "none is greater, or less than another," with respect to essential dignity; "but the whole "three Persons are co-eternal together, and coequal." This Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Godhead is to be adored and worshipped by all Christians, and this doctrine concerning it embraced and held fast by them, as they tender their everlasting salvation. “So that in all things, as is aforesaid, "the Unity in Trinity," one God in three Persons, "and the Trinity in Unity," the Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the divine nature," is to be worshipped." And he that is desirous to preserve 66 as to this point, let him "thus think of the Tri There is another doctrine which is of the foundation of Christianity, any change or alteration whereof affects and alters the very essence of our religion; and that relates to the incarnation of the Son of God. To this therefore the Creed next proceeds, and declares, that “it is necessary to everlasting salvation "that we believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord "Jesus Christ." St. John had declared long before, that whosoever confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is a deceiver and an antichristc. If therefore the denial of this doctrine be, in the judgment of an apostle, a certain mark of an antichristian spirit, there can be no great rashness in declaring, that the belief of it, upon the known terms of the gospel, is necessary to salvation. Now concerning this point the "right faith is this, that 66 we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, "the Son of God, is both God and man; God of "the substance of the Father, begotten before the "worlds;" as has been above declared; " and man "of the substance of his mother, born in the world;" at the time, and in the manner, related in the Gospels. Perfect God, and perfect man;" in opposition to the vain dreams of some heretics, some of whom believed him to be only a made or nominal God; while others denied the reality of his body, or else his rational human soul: as an antidote against whose pernicious tenets follow the words, " of a rea“sonable soul, and human flesh subsisting;" that is, he had a human soul and body both, as other men have. He is, as God, equal to the Father in nature c 2 Epist. ver. 7. and essential dignity; but as man, he is, and must be, his inferior. "Who although he be God and 66 66 66 man,” and has therefore two natures, yet he is not two persons, or two Christs, as some heretics have falsely imagined, "but one Christ." One he is, "not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh," or by changing God into man, which is impossible," but by taking of the manhood into God;" assuming our human nature, and uniting it with the divine. And this altogether without "confusion of sub“stance,” that is, without any mixture of the divine and human natures, so as to compose a third nature out of both; for the two natures remained distinct, though united in the same Person: who is therefore" one altogether, not by confusion of sub 66 stance, but by unity of Person." There is some resemblance or image of this even in our own frame and constitution; in which two different substances, the body and the soul, are united without confusion, and yet so closely and intimately united as to make but one man. This illustration therefore the Creed gives us by adding, "As the reasonable soul and flesh "is one man, so God and man is one Christ." The remaining articles need no particular explication; and if those we have been considering have some difficulty in them, it should be remembered, that they are upon the abstrusest and sublimest points of our religion. If other creeds seem more easy, with reference to these points, it is only because they are more general, and descend not to such a particular explication. But for that very reason they are liable to this disadvantage, that they are sooner evaded, and the true sense of them ex reconcile the service and offices of our church with the Arian tenets, that when they were almost all turned aside by too artful a hand from their original meaning, it was, upon second thoughts, judged too desperate an undertaking to tamper with the Creed before us, which stood the great bulwark and preservative of the catholic faith. No wonder therefore that Arians and Socinians should rail against it; the wonder is, that men of better principles should join the cry, and upon very slight grounds should endeavour to defame an ancient and valuable exposition of the faith which they themselves profess to believe. One of their exceptions has been now considered; and to the other I must say a word or two before I conclude. In the second place then they say, that they dislike this Creed because it is uncharitable, and excludes every man from salvation, who does not believe all the abstruse points which it contains. Now the truth is, this Creed neither contains more, nor more abstruse points of faith, than other creeds do. With regard to two articles, which appear to be of the very essence of our religion, it enters indeed into a more minute detail, and is more particular in its explications: but, I speak it upon the authority of wise and learned mene, the condemning clauses, as d The interpretations of the Athanasian Creed, in the first edition of Dr. Clarke's Scripture Doctrine, were in the second and subsequent prudently omitted. e The commissioners in 1689, thirty eminent divines, appointed to review and correct the Liturgy, close the rubric they had prepared in the following words: " And the condemning clauses (viz. in the Athanasian Creed) are to be understood as relating only to those who obstinately deny the substance of the Chris 66 they are called, do not extend to these particular explications, but are intended only to secure the general doctrine. And it should seem that there is no want of charity in declaring, that according to the terms of the gospel it is necessary that Christians believe that there are three divine Persons who are one God, and that one of them was truly made man. If any Christian pretends that he knows not these things, I would ask him, Unto what then were you baptized? and what, or whose religion do you profess? Were you solemnly dedicated to the honour and service of three divine Persons? And do you constantly worship them, offering up your prayers and devotions directly to them, sometimes jointly to all, and sometimes separately to each? And can you say after this, that you know not, or believe not, that faith in them is any necessary part of your religion? What is, or can be, necessary in religion, if it be not necessary to believe rightly concerning the very object of your worship, and the God whom you adore? So again, with regard to the doctrine of Christ's incarnation, will you say that you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and that you hope to be saved through faith in his blood? And can you with any consistency say at the same time, that the doctrine of his incarnation is a point of little consequence, or that the belief of it is not necessary to salvation? Is not this to set truth and error, belief and unbelief, upon an equal foot, and to make religion and no religion the same thing? If therefore these doctrines belong to the "tian faith." And since them, to the same purpose, archbishop Synge, Dr. Bennet, Dr. Waterland, Dr. Randolph, Mr. Wheatly, |