for, though they are not sufficient to make us understand the Trinity fully and distinctly, yet they are proper limitations to exclude all the false and unworthy apprehensions of this doctrine, which pretenders to a more particular explication might introduce." (Vide Enchiridion Theolog.)

In this light, as in every part intended to oppose some peculiar heresy, the writers, whose works are now before us, have been careful to place this creed. Mr. Richardson appears to us to have done so in a very plain and intelligible style, so that his publication will not fail, we should hope, to be of considerable service to the cause of truth; not perhaps among the more learned portion of the Church, but extensively among the community at large, with whom the absurd bombast of the Unitarian school is frequently mistaken for profound philosophy, and its malignant obloquies for rational liberality; and among whom, therefore, a little exposure of these fallacies, blunders, and extravagant conceits, must be peculiarly seasonable.

In the same light has this creed been viewed and illustrated both by Dr. Card, (p. 13,) and in a more extended manner by Dr. Miller, (p. 158, &c.) It is in reference to this view of the object of the creed, that he finds considerable ground for arguing in favour of the claim of Hilary, Bishop of Arles, in France, as its author; from the circumstance, that the Gothic tribes professing Arianism had, in his time, established themselves into a powerful kingdom in France: it was therefore his natural duty thus to protect the true faith.

At the commencement of his observations, Dr. Miller has entered somewhat in detail into the history of the Athanasian Creed. He has examined the various opinions respecting its origin, and is disposed to agree with Dr. Waterland (as we have already observed) in ascribing it to Hilary, and concluding that it was composed about the year 430. As to the origin of the name given to this creed, Dr. Miller conceives we have historical evidence to prove that the name was actually acquired, as meaning only that it contained a system of doctrine agreeing with the opinions maintained by Athanasius in his great contest with Arius: and that there was, in fact, no intention whatever of imposing the creed on Christians as the work of Athanasius. He shews, by numerous examples, that in almost all the ancient copies, and especially in those of greater antiquity, it is entitled," Fides Catholica," or "Fides Athanasii; and maintains, that it is not in any one called "Symbolum Athanasii," as it should have been denominated, if the intention had been, that it should be received as truly the creed of that distinguished Bishop.

Notwithstanding all the arguments which have been urged to shew the Latin origin of this creed, and stamped as they

are (among others) by the high authority of Bishop Jeremy Taylor, (in his Liberty of Prophesying;) the supposition, that it was in reality composed in Greek, and that in consequence of the old copies being lost, the only remaining ones are Latin versions, was maintained by Bishop Beveridge; and with him Dr. Card seems to agree. It is, moreover, well known to those who have investigated the history of this creed, that Felckman refers to a Greek manuscript of it, deposited in the Palatine library: ---Dr. Card quotes the following passage from Felckman to that purport, "Invenimus id ipsum etiam post in codice quodam Palatina bibliothecæ, expressi Athanasio inscriptum, (licet id recentiores Græci nolint,) ut videre est ex epistola Meletii Constantinopolitani Patriarchæ ad Douzam, ex quo etiam discrepantias quasdam notabimus." Dr. Card also mentions, (notes, p. 37,) that a friend of his lately met with, in the Vatican, a MS. of this creed in Greek, which he supposes to be the one referred to by Felckman; and its title is--" Evμßodov rov áyiov 'Abayagiov." We own we should like a little more information as to the authenticity of this MS., and its identity with Felckman's. The title especially deserves notice, and the whole statement is one of considerable importance, in reference to one of the most interesting questions in ecclesiastical antiquities. If the antiquity of the MS. be satisfactorily made out, its title would be strong evidence, viewed in connexion with the distinction just pointed out, as laid down by Dr. Miller.

In reference to the question of the reception of this creed in the Eastern Church, so strongly denied by many authors of celebrity, the following testimonies appear to us of considerable value; given by Dr. Card in one of his notes: (p. 38.)

"Dr. Smith however informs us, that the Greeks are wholly strangers to the Athanasian Creed.' (p. 196.) See a Translation of his work, De Græcæ Ecclesiæ hodierno statu. Traj. 1689, 8vo. But better authorities fully justify my assertion in the text. • The whole service of the Greek Church is performed by reading of certain psalms or chapters in the Bible; sometimes the priest adds St. Athanasius's Creed, or sings certain hymns and St. Chrysostom's Homily.' See a Relation of the Earl of Carlisle's three Embassies from Charles II. to the Courts of Muscovy, Sweden, and Denmark, in 1663-1664, by G. M. Lond. 1669. They (the Russians) receive the Creed of the Apostles and that of Nice and Athanasius.' See Ancient and Modern Religion of the Muscovites, written in French, and printed in Cologn, 1698, and afterwards translated into English. learned reader will recollect, that the Russians received their religion and rites from the Patriarch of Constantinople about the tenth or beginning of the eleventh century. Dr. Covel too, in his Account of the present Greek Church, Camb. 1722, præf. p. 9, has this remark, 'that Athanasius's Creed is owned as corrupted; by which expression he evidently means that the Greeks used that Creed, only taking out the article which relates to the denying of the Holy Ghost to proceed

The

from the Son at all, by any eternal procession; while that admirable scholar, Dr. Hickes, states, in the second volume of his Sermons, (p. 235,) that the Athanasian Creed, though of an uncertain author, was for its excellent composure received into the Greek and Latin Churches.'

Dr. Card has however well remarked, in a subsequent note, that perhaps the question, as to the origin of this creed, is not of that great importance of which it is sometimes supposed to be; since we receive it not on the authority of Athanasius, or any other of the fathers, but because it is agreeable to scrip

ture.

The author of the "Short Notes" adverts very little either to the history of the creed, or to its being designed to oppose heresies, but contents himself by illustrating it "simply as declaratory of the words of scripture." He merely quotes passages wherein the different terms adopted in this creed are in the letter of scripture applied to the Divine Persons. And in carrying on this mode of illustration, he has, we think, been very successful: it is one, which, after all, is the best suited to popular apprehension; and, in consequence, we do not hesitate to recommend this little tract for the purposes of distribution.

The use of the term "incomprehensible," in the Athanasian Creed, is well known to have given rise to considerable discussion. The original " "immensus" would seem to confine the meaning to local extension or ubiquity: and, in this sense, Archbishop Usher, and other divines, have ably and clearly defined it, and shewn it applicable equally to the three Divine Persons. Following their track, Mr. Richardson has argued, with great force, in support of the "incomprehensibility" of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, using it simply in the sense of omnipresence. Hooker rendered it "infinite ;" and several others have conceived more comprised in this term than a reference merely to local extension, and have understood its meaning as more nearly approaching the idea ordinarily conveyed by the term. Whatever may be conceived to have been the sense intended by the adoption of the word "incomprehensible" in our translation of the creed, it is certain, that the idea of the Divine Ubiquity or Immensity is an idea involving incomprehensibility to our faculties. And hence, when we ascribe it to each Person, we do, in fact, admit that the nature of each is inscrutable to our faculties. If, then, each Divine Person be in nature incomprehensible to our minds, it follows, that we cannot, in reason, find any difficulty in the assertion of any incomprehensible relation, such as that of Unity, which may be declared as subsisting between them. If we ascribe divinity to each Person, we must ascribe incomprehensibility also; and this, from the infinity of every attribute which we ascribe to the Deity; and the consequent

infinity (in every sense) of the divine nature; a term, which we use to express the aggregate of all the attributes. (See Whately's Notes on Archbishop King's Sermon on Predestination, p. 4.) This, then, is a strong ground for shewing, that there is no contradiction (as the Unitarians would make out) in asserting the unity of the divine essence. It is an undeniable principle, that between ideas, each of which, taken separately, is incomprehensible, there can be no contradiction, when the terms which stand for them are predicated one of the other. Union in Godhead being an incomprehensible idea, equally with the divinity of any of the Persons, we cannot say there is any contradiction, when unity with the other Persons is predicated of any one of them. This is, in fact, the principle of the acute argument of Leslie, in his Dialogues on the Socinian Controversy; (See Dial. I. p. 5. Ed. 1708. 4to.) and it is one which, we think, may fairly be conceived applicable to the expressions of the Athanasian Creed; or, at all events, a mode of reasoning, which at once dispels objections, and may clearly be suggested as an illustration of this creed. We particularly notice it, because the author of the "Short Notes" on this creed has expressly, though very concisely, deduced this argument from the clause respecting incomprehensibility. He seems to take that word simply in its metaphysical sense, which we consider at best doubtful; but the argument itself is unquestionably a very good one, and, we must do him the justice to say, is put in a very cogent form.

Mr. Richardson has also argued upon the same principle; but, to our apprehension, has not given his argument all the precision and force of which it is susceptible. He has, however, stated one branch of the same argument with great effect.

"As before it had met the Sabellian heresy, by distinguishing three co-equal and co-eternal Persons in the Godhead, and so distinct as not to be one the other, the creed now meets the Arian heresy, by stating these three, though personally distinct, yet essentially one. Many seem staggered at this, as if the assertion was equivalent to saying, one man is three, and three are one; and those who oppose the doctrine we maintain, are careful to magnify this seeming contradiction. But, however absurd or contradictory the assertion might be when applied to the persons of men, premises which our adversaries invariably, though improperly, argue from, yet we have no right to draw the same conclusion when speaking of the Deity. For, in respect to natures differing so essentially as the human and divine, we are by no means authorized, as our opponents assume, from a contradiction in the one to infer a contradiction in the other. What is contradiction, for instance, as to body, is not so to soul; what is in respect to time, is not so to eternity; and what is with men, is not so with God." (p. 50.)

This we consider a very good popular illustration of an argument which is, in itself, strictly philosophical and accurate.

In pursuing the subject, Mr. R. has introduced analogies, in order to illustrate the mysterious in religion by the mysterious in nature. It is perhaps, however, necessary to observe that the union of body, soul, and spirit in man, and that of light and heat in the sun, &c. to which the author refers, afford no real illustrations whatever of the mode of subsistence in the Trinity. If so applied, such comparisons would profess to explain what is conceded to be inexplicable. With respect to the incarnation, an illustration of this kind certainly occurs in the Athanasian Creed itself, where it is said "as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ,"---but this is not intended to be at all explanatory of the two-fold nature of Christ. It is, we think, very happily described, with his usual conciseness, by the author of the "Short Notes," as an argument against the implication of anything to which reason can refuse assent, in the doctrine of the union of the divine and human natures in Christ. The note upon the above passage is as follows:

"How the bodily is united to the thinking part of our nature, is to us utterly incomprehensible; yet we believe, and are assured, that it is so united. Therefore we have no right to disbelieve the union of the divine and human nature in Christ, because it is incomprehensible." p. 10.

The same argument very nearly is urged by Dr. Miller (p. 197, &c.); and it is, in truth, one of so simple and obvious a nature, that we are at a loss to understand how the objectors can possibly find in this article of the creed any ground of difficulty.

Upon the general topic of the incomprehensibility of the divine nature, and the argument thence deducible as above, Dr. Miller has made some excellent remarks; as well as on the adoption of metaphysical terms in general. He has stated the argument nearly as the best writers on the subject have done (p. 182, &c.) He has given some able observations on the terms person, substance, &c., and commented with considerable acuteness on the views of those who have carried their speculations on this awful subject to a presumptuous extent, by unwarily following up what are only analogical forms of expression, as if they were real representations and descriptions. He shews, that this creed is not metaphysical, but simply dogmatical in the proper and theological sense of the term, i. e. an authoritative statement of certain doctrines. In nothing is this more evident than in this, that the author of this creed carefully avoided all those terms which had been invented by subtle disputants in the futile attempt to make the mystery of the Holy Trinity not mysterious. Of this kind was the pоßоλй, or prolatio, introduced by one party to explain the eternal generation of the Son; as if, by a projection in space, we