does not feel the force of this evidence, there is no other evidence by which we shall ever be able to convince him.

may

If we now take up Dr. Nares's view of the subject,-namely, that the attributes of the Deity are common attributes, which possibly be communicated, but cannot be divided; still we shall find ourselves exposed to cavil. For the objector will affect to recognize distinct properties in each of the three persons.-The Father is our creator; the Son is our redeemer; the Holy Ghost is our sanctifier. Could this order have been altered or reversed? The answer must be that it could not. Also, it is the property of the Father to beget; it is the property of the Son to be begotten; it is the property of the Holy Ghost to proceed. Could this order have been altered or reversed? The answer must be that it could not.-Then will the objector reply that there are attributes in the Trinity which are not common. How is this difficulty to be obviated?-Dr. Nares furnishes us with the following solution: "Every divine perfection and essential attribute of the Deity is common to the three;-what is peculiar applies only to their relations, order, or office; paternity, filiation, procession;-first, second, third persons ;-creation, redemption, sanctification.""

The third is the Athanasian creed, the uncertainty of whose date and author Dr. Nares admits, but regards the sentiments and opinions contained in it as being sufficiently conformable to those of Athanasius to have given occasion to the name. It is to be recollected, however, that the Church of England adopts it, not upon the authority of St. Athanasius, but because she believes it "may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture." This we do not see how any one can well refuse to admit. Is it to be supposed that the clergy of the Church of England subscribe to a symbol which they do not believe to be founded on the word of God? We have too high an opinion of that venerable body to indulge for a moment such an unwarrantable supposition. We believe that the subscribers subscribe ex animo; and we believe that the original author of the Athanasian creed drew it up ex animo; but still he was liable to error; he may have erred, and his creed is to be received only so far as it is found to be conformable to Scripture. Hence it is a fair subject of investigation and discussion; and this, Dr. Nares acknowledges. "Every man must be left at liberty to dispute, if he chooses, the human explanation of a Divine mystery;" an acknowledgment that does great credit to Dr. Nares's candour and liberality of sentiment.

At the article beginning with the words-" And this is the catholic faith," which seem to relate to what follows, Dr. Nares thinks that we should rather suppose an implied reference to

some previous profession of faith already broken, corrupted, or disfigured; and this previous profession he believes to be the Apostles' creed. We confess that we do not see any very good evidence for this supposition; as the doctrine of the Trinity, but especially of the Trinity in Unity, is certainly not asserted in the Apostles' creed; while the main object of the Athanasian creed is to illustrate that doctrine.

With regard to the terms employed in this creed, Dr. Nares admits that the propriety of some of them, such as the terms person, and substance, may indeed be questioned; but contends that human language furnishes no better, and that as a distinction is evidently made between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, we must maintain and express it as well as we can. But to this the

objector will still reply, that where men have had clear ideas they have seldom been much at a loss for words to express them; and that in a concern of so much difficulty and importance as that of the doctrine of the Trinity, they could never have done better than to adhere to the language of Scripture. We learn, however, what it is that the Church of England intends by the terms person and substance as applied to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, namely, " to express a common nature and Divinity with personal distinctions." This statement seems to us to simplify the subject as much as it is possible for language to simplify it. But still it does not divest it of all difficulty. For what, it may be said, is a person if not a distinct individual?-And yet, according to the catholic faith, we are neither to confound the persons nor divide the substance. Thus, after all our illustrations, a mystery there still remains, which we must ever be content to place amongst the hidden things of God. "How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"

Finally, we come to Dr. Nares's vindication of the Church of England from the charge of uncharitableness in adopting, as a standard of belief, a symbol which consigns to eternal perdition, all who do not profess the doctrines contained in that symbol. Here Dr. Nares corrects a mistake which Unitarians and others, either fall into, or run into, with regard to the creed in question, and the church by which it is adopted. They seem to think that it involves in one sweeping clause of condemnation all men whatever who may not profess the same faith; whereas it regards such only as have previously received the true faith, and do not keep it; due allowance being always made for those who, through any invincible necessity, are ignorant of that faith; in conformity to the declaration of Christ in the text which is prefixed to the sermons: "Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We sce; therefore your sin remaineth."

The damnatory clauses with which this creed begins and ends, have always been the subject of much controversial clamour; and it must be admitted that they have a very harsh sound. upon the presumption that the Athanasian creed contains nothing but what may be proved from scripture, Dr. Nares contends that less than what the clauses contain could scarcely have been said; since scripture itself repeatedly and peremptorily declares that— "He which believeth not shall be damned."--Upon this single ground alone, independently of all other considerations, we regard the vindication of the Church of England as complete. But we will allow Dr. Nares to speak for himself.

"I now come to the principal object of the several discourses I have delivered from this place, the vindication of the church from the charge of" uncharitableness," in the use of what is commonly called the Athanasian creed. The charge is this: that by the use of this formu lary she dooms to "eternal perdition all who do not believe exactly as she does, or who do not worship with her forms." I should not be afraid to undertake her defence upon the grounds of the formulary itself. It is an adopted formulary, of very great antiquity, composed at a time when it was entirely customary so to set forth the necessity of a right faith, and it was opposed to some errors so exceedingly pernicious, so destructive either of the personality of the Son and Holy Ghost, or of the unity of the Godhead, as to be accounted entirely inconsistent with Christianity. And where the very fundamentals of Christianity are at stake, i know not that any terms can be stronger than those of holy writ; so that it is not without reason that a very sensible writer has remarked, " In the sacred Scripture there is no mention but of two ways, one leading unto destruction, the other bringing unto life. [Matth. vii. 13, 14] Of two sorts of men, whereof some believe and they are saved; some believe not and they are damned; [Mark xvi. 16. John iii. 18]; and of two states, one blessed, where Lazarus is, the other cursed, where Dives abides. [Luke xvi.] A third way, sort, or state, cannot be found in the Word of God." But at all events, neither the Church, nor the individual rehearsing the creed, is responsible for these denunciations. It is a formulary which happens to express suitably and well the exact opinions of the Church of England, in regard to the two great mysteries of the Trinity and incarnation, as far as they can be understood; opinions so sacred and fundamental in the eyes of all sound members of the Church, that the penalties of apostasy are, perhaps, moré strongly directed against themselves, than against those who differ from them. The Churchman, when he rehearses it, may very justly say, This formulary of Athanasius so exactly expresses what I think of the Trinity, that I willingly adopt it, as to me a proper form of confession, a proper declaration of my Christian faith, that faith into which I was baptized, and from which if I draw back, I am sensible I shall draw back unto perdition; that faith, by which I hope to live, if I be but careful to keep it "whole and undefiled:" and which I am persuaded every other man would do well to believe," to the saving of his soul."*

* See Vincent's Sermons, 100, 101.

But the just defence of the Church of England is, I must maintain, to be sought elsewhere. We must look to her Articles for her proper opinion upon such high points as these. There, and there only, it is that her sentiments are officially declared. Now in her sixth article she affirms that "Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or to be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." This is her rule of faith, and what Protestant can object to it? True it is indeed, that in her eighth article, she further asserts, that the three creeds, Nicene creed, Athanasian creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed, for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture." And has the Church of England no right to make this declaration? Is she to be the only Society of Christians that shall not have permission to assert that her faith is the right faith, because it may be proved by most certain warrants of Scripture? What dissenter from the Church of England would hesitate to assume this liberty? Who is there that scruples to speak thus exclusively of his own mode of thinking? Or is not the Church of England a competent judge of such warrants of Holy Scripture? Is she so particularly incapable of examining and ascertaining the great truths of Holy Writ, as to be excluded from the common right which all enjoy of pronouncing her opinions, and passing her judgment? Has she produced no eminent theologians, no learned divines, no critics, competent to the task of such investigation?- And how is this declaration made? Is this accompanied with any anathemas? Can any thing be more candidly or unexceptionably stated, than her confidence that these creeds ought to be believed, because they may be proved by warrants of Holy Writ. In saying this, does she preclude any man from examination? docs she lock up the volume of Holy Writ? does she prohibit the public from verifying or contradicting her assertions by an appeal to the very warrants on which she builds her faith? or, lastly, does she compel any to accept or subscribe her articles, under pain of absolute perdition."

The three remaining sermons form a separate set; not, generally, upon the subject of the three creeds; but, particularly, upon the divinity of Christ. We can state, only, the mere outline; which is that the divinity of Christ is inferred-first, from his being called the Son of God, or claiming that title; secondly, from his not disclaiming the worship that was offered to him, whether from men, or devils; thirdly, from the unqualified use which the Apostles make of the term "pocxUvew in speaking of that worship, though an expression of doubtful import; and lastly, from the practice of the primitive church.-To each of the two sets is added a copious appendix, in which the principal topics are discussed more in the detail than was consistent with the nature and limits of sermons from the pulpit; but particularly that of the Trinity in Unity, as being the inain object of

the author's defence, as well as, no doubt, the main object of the adversary's attack.

If we were called upon to give an opinion upon this dark and mysterious subject, it would be as follows: We believe that the doctrine of a Trinity in Unity is legitimately to be inferred from Holy Scripture; and we accept of the Nicene, and Athanasian creeds as humble and human attempts to explain that stupendous mystery; but we fear that it is, after all, absolutely incapable of explanation by any human means, and that all laboured efforts to make it plainer than the scriptures have left it, will terminate, only in embarrassing the understanding, and in generating doubt. Still, we do not mean that the clergy of the Church of England are to sit down in silence when their symbols are attacked, and to shrink from the defence of "the faith which was once delivered to the saints."-They are to search and study the scriptures; they are to make themselves well acquainted with the controverted points; they are to conduct their discussions with temper; and they are to contend boldly for the truth. In all of these particulars Dr. Nares has eminently distinguished himself. To an intimate acquaintance with the scriptures, he joins the most profound erudition; and to an agreeable suavity of expression, he joins the most formidable argument; exhibiting very abstruse doctrines in the plainest and simplest forms, and avoiding those metaphysical subtilties which tend but to entangle and to perplex. Furnished with qualifications so appropriate, Dr. Nares has most ably and satisfactorily discussed the previous important topics; and the sermons on the three creeds, we regard -first, as a model of controversial disquisition worthy of the imitation of the clergy; and, secondly, as a defence of the catholic faith claiming the perusal of all enquiring Christians.

ART. V.-Principles and Practices of pretended Reformers in Church and State. By Arthur H. Kenney, D. D. Dean of Achonry, and late Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin. 8vo. pp. 444. Rivingtons. London, 1819.

WE take up this volume with mixed sensations of pain and pleasure; of pleasure, that so learned and respectable an advocate has been found to expose those fallacious principles of reform in church and state, which it becomes every wise and good man to dread and to deprecate; of pain, that in his zeal for so just a cause, he has not made some very necessary and important distinctions, without which his work becomes, in effect, a libel on many of the best and most exalted characters in the United King