as signifying, not merely the exterior appearance, but the inherent character with its attributes. Our Saviour has been accordingly described, in the epistle to the Hebrews, as having taken on himself, not merely a human body, but "the seed of Abraham;" and it is added, that therefore "in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren."-We should therefore understand the meaning of this part of the creed to be, that the entire nature of man was, in the person of Jesus Christ, united with the divine λóyos, or the Word, the divinity of the proper character of our Lord being retained, and yet subjected to a feeling of all the weaknesses of humanity, "though without sin." The first Adam had been formed without sin, and the second Adam, by whose interposition the penalty incurred by the former was removed, was so fashioned in our nature, as to be nevertheless free from the impurity, which the former had contracted, and entailed upon his posterity.

The author of the creed has been so solicitous to maintain against the arians the divinity of our Saviour, that he has said little of the primary dignity of the Father, and it may even be supposed, that the acknowledgment of that dignity has been wholly omitted. This however is not so. The primary dignity of the Father is distinctly acknowledged in the creed. In the Ch. 2. v. 16, 17.

*

first place, the existence of the Father is represented as underived, whereas that of the Son and that of the Holy Spirit are stated to have been derived from him, each in a peculiar mode, which has not been explained, and probably could not, even by divine revelation itself, have been rendered intelligible to our faculties. Nor is this all, for, in the latter part of the creed, our Saviour is described as sitting, after his ascension, "on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty." Here is a distinct acknowledgment, that the divine character, though common to the three Persons, is by preeminence applicable peculiarly to him, who is the only self-existent Person. The unity of the godhead is in this manner maintained, not by any metaphysical subtleties concerning the communication of properties, and the identity of a substantial nature, but simply by attributing to the three Persons a participation of one common divinity, underived, and therefore primary, in the Father, who is made of none, neither created, nor begotten." The unity of the godhead is thus the unity of the Father, comprehending, by some unknown derivations, the Persons of the Son and Holy Spirit.

"

The history of the creed affords a curious and strong confirmation of this interpretation. The words God Almighty are not found in

• Waterland, p. 241.

the more ancient manuscripts after the word Father; nor in the most ancient is any epithet whatsoever connected with that name. It seems however to have been early perceived, that sufficient care had not been used to express the primary dignity of the first Person of the sacred Trinity. The epithet almighty was accordingly first joined to the name of the Father, and afterwards was used alone to designate the first Person. This epithet was then omitted, and the word God was substituted in its place, connected with the Father. The two terms were afterwards combined with the word Father, though not in the same order, in which they occur in the english translation, the latin phrase being "dextram Dei Patris Omnipotentis." These successive changes appear to indicate a continued anxiety to characterise the primary dignity of the Father, at first not sufficiently considered in the controversy with those, who denied the divine dignity of the Son. It may be thought, that our english translation, "on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty," by placing together the two characteristic terms God and Almighty, exhibits a more distinct and determinate assertion of the primary dignity of the Father, than even the latest form of the latin creed, in which these terms and the Father are promiscuously connected in one compounded description.

That no epithet should have been originally

added, is easily explained from this consideration, that no epithet is added in the corresponding part of the nicene creed, which had been composed about a century before, and was probably in the contemplation of the author. It seems to have been afterwards perceived, that in that other creed a sufficient, and indeed a very strong acknowledgment, of the primary dignity of the Father had been made in the introductory sentence; and as the athanasian creed contained no passage corresponding to that introductory sentence, in which it might be introduced, the acknowledgment was then, though with some variations, inserted in that, which corresponded to the other.

The creed does indeed assert that "in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is greater or less than another :" but the acknowledged advocates of orthodoxy agree in explaining this only of perfection, or of duration. Bishop Bull* maintains, that the subordination of the Son is as much a part of the true faith, as the doctrine of his eternity, or consubstantiality. Bishop + Pearson, while he contends for the preeminence of the Father, remarks of the passage last quoted from the athanasian creed, that we must understand it of the priority of perfection, or time. Doctor Waterland + observes of the same passage, that

* Defensio Fidei Nicænæ, Sect. 4. + Exposition of the Creed, p. 34, 37. Crit. Hist, of the Athan. Creed, p. 260, 261.

*

we are not to understand it of order, or of office, for the Father is first in order, and supreme in office; but, as the creed itself explains it, of duration and dignity. The opinion of these writers is also approved by bishop Horseley, who charges his adversary with misrepresentation, in insinuating that he, by maintaining the entire independence of the three Persons, would set them at a greater distance, than the athanasians of the preceding age allowed.

The comparison of the athanasian with the nicene creed, just now made in regard to the priority of the Father, may supply another argument, confirming the reasoning already urged to prove, that the damnatory clauses contained in the former were merely declaratory of the denunciation already pronounced by our Saviour, and not at all applied to the particular tenets of the creed. The creed of Nice was formed in a general council of bishops, and was therefore invested with all the authority, which an assembly of the church could bestow, instead of being, like the athanasian creed, the unaccredited work of an individual bishop, composed merely for the regulation of the opinions of his own vicinage. That assembly, excited by a strong disapprobation of the

* Horseley's Tracts, p. 205.