what is so revealed, would seem a flagrant instance of "wise above what is written." being Now the doctrines, simply put, appear to be this: that the Godhead is in one sense One, in another Three: not that "one" can ever be the same with "three," but that which is one in one sense may well be more than one in another. In this, so stated, there seems nothing by which men would be deterred from accepting the doctrine. But to secure this it seems essential that the statement of it should be closely and strictly limited, according to Revelation, to the sacred name of God. It is this Nature of which we learn that it has this threefold unity and it seems material to bear this in mind in construing some of the clauses in the Athanasian Creed. : In the first place, some of these clauses are obviously elliptical, and the ellipsis must be supplied. We read that there are "not three uncreate, eternals, incomprehensible, Almighties:" but "one uncreate, eternal, incomprehensible, Almighty." Now these are adjectives : and the question occurs, with what understood substantives do they agree? To which I venture to reply that it must be clearly remembered that that substantive is, and is only, the sacred name, God. For it is plain on the face of the Creed that there are three eternal, &c. Persons: and if we chose to supply the ellipsis with the word Person, it is obvious that the document would contradict itself.* Similarly, when it is said that there *It is well known that it is questioned whether the word Person be the correct one to be used. This, however, though not an unimportant point, is a verbal one: nor does it seem of great moment in respect of the reception of the doctrine in the are "not three Lords, but one Lord," it must be understood that here "Lord" is strictly and exclusively synonymous with "God." And of the statement that each Person is God, and yet there are not three Gods, but one God, it needs only to be said, that it is hardly more than a mere repetition of the words of Scripture and that it does not appear how human language could admit of any further elucidation of it than this, that when the distinct Person is spoken of as God, the sacred Name is not then to be so understood as to exclude the coequality of other Persons. : Bearing these remarks in mind, and repeating what was above said, that the Creed does not in fact state any thing but the strict and full Scriptural doctrine of Trinity in Unity (which I do not set about proving—it would lead to superfluous length—as it may be assumed as generally admitted among Churchmen), it does not appear why what are called the "damnatory clauses should be objected to when appended to this formulary, unless it is meant that no such clauses ought to be appended to any formulary. This probably is the position taken by most of the objectors: and I will advert to it immediately. It is possible, however, that some persons may not go to this extent; but, for example, would not scruple at such words in reference minds of men. The difficulty does not turn upon that and we must remember that we are limited by the necessary imperfection of human language in dealing with such a subject. All we can do is to devise the best term we can which shall be as nearly adequate as possible to represent the relation and the intercourse between the Holy Three, as we find it in Scripture, without trenching on the other part of the doctrine, that of the Unity of God. to the Apostles' Creed. This view, if such there be, seems to proceed on the misconception above indicated. It is grounded on the doctrine of Fundamentals: as if the Apostles' Creed was all fundamental, and the Athanasian was not. Now the difficulty of accurately stating and mapping out that doctrine is well known.* But if done at all, is there any Churchman who will be content with it if the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity be left out? And I hardly think that any one will claim for this or for any other human document (when salvation is made dependent on its acceptance), more than this, that the substance of the doctrine as there laid down is essential. It cannot be meant that no one may entertain the opinion that words and expressions in it might advantageously be altered. It would seem that the appearance of those clauses in this place and no other, is hardly more than an accident. It must, I think, be understood that throughout her declarations of doctrine, the Church implies and intends that, in essential points (whatever they are), we are bound to accept them as conditions of salvation. Why not? Wherein does this go beyond the words of our Lord Himself, "He that believeth not shall be damned?" In what way can this and similar texts be interpreted, unless at least fundamental and essential doctrines are understood as that which must be the subject of the required "belief?" It is needless to go into the disputed questions, whether and how far any belief is voluntary or invo *See Palmer's Treatise on the Church, Chap. v. Appendix, on the Doctrine of Fundamentals, Vol. i. p. 122. Mark xvi. 16. luntary, can or cannot be the occasion of condemnation. For we are dealing simply with the construction of Scripture, in which some sense is to be put on the passages which undoubtedly speak of belief as a condition of acceptance; and whatever sense that is, the same must be put on statements deduced from the Bible. Thus, some may have stumbled at these clauses, because of the stringent and personal terms in which they are expressed. But this is only after the manner of Scripture in such cases. If it was said, instead of the present words, that such are the fundamental articles of the Catholic faith, it would make no real difference. Nor does the absence of exceptions, or the insertion of such words as "without doubt," do more than broadly affirm the truth of the proposition, or forbid the proper qualifications, which always, if we are to be guided by Scripture, must be supplied to statements of this kind. We would not say this except on the indisputable ground that Scripture itself, in repeated instances, qualifies in one part what it lays down in another. The student of the Bible well knows that he is never to dwell on isolated texts, but to gather the whole sense of the Book from a due collation of its several parts. And so, on the present or similar questions, he knows that he has to harmonise such passages as these (I only quote a few)" He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned;" "I beseech you that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you;" 'If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life;' —with such as these: "Grace be with all them who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity;" "In every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him;" "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." "'* There seems no great difficulty in doing this; but without attempting here to do so completely, it seems practically enough to say, that while the former passages forbid our setting forth any defective scheme of doctrine-any that shall not contain all the great truths revealed in the Gospel-or shrinking from the statement that we know of no other appointed way of salvation, the latter ones are to show us that it is not for us to limit in any way the free grace of God, and that especially in considering individual cases, we are not to assert that intellectual error or obliquity shall prevail to condemnation if the heart be right before God, which He alone can tell. The admission of the necessity of the two Sacraments is quite as open to dispute from the Bible as that of the doctrine of the Trinity or the Incarnation. Yet none of us, on the one hand, has any scruple as to the statement in the Catechism, that the Sacraments "are generally necessary to salvation"-words which in truth mean just the same as the damnatory clauses-and on the other hand few, I hope, if any, hold the opinion that Mrs. Fry was incapable of salvation. According to a figure often used, God's grace may overflow its appointed channel; but that does not prove that there is no appointed channel, or that it is not the only such channel. * Mark xvi. 16; 1 Cor. i. 10; Rev. xxii. 19; Eph. vi. 24; Acts x. 35; Rom. x. 9. |