arian heresy, concluded its decree with * a damnatory sentence, by which all those were anathematised, who should hold any opinion contradictory to the divinity of the Son. Their sentence however has been omitted, and the creed has come down to posterity divested of this denunciation. Is it then reasonable to

"And those who say, there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that he did not exist before he was begotten, and that he was made out of things not existing, or who say that he was of another substance or essence, or that he was created, or convertible, or mutable, the catholic and apostolic church anathematises them." Socratis Hist. Eccles. lib. 1. c. 8.

Though this anathema has been abandoned by the church, yet, as it forms a part of the history of the nicene creed, it may be useful and satisfactory to explain that part of it, which condemns those who say, that the Son "did not exist before he was begotten." This indeed has already been well done by doc. tor Randolph. "Some ancient writers," says he, "had represented the Son as coming forth from the Father, and manifesting his divine power and glory in the creation of the world: and this manifestation they called by the name of generation, though they constantly maintained that he existed with, and in the Father, before this manifestation or generation. Of this the arians took advantage, and finding that this manifestation or coming forth of the Son had been called his generation, they from thence inferred, that he did not exist before. And this gave birth to those phrases, which the arians affected to usethere was a time when the Son was not—he did not exist before he was begotten he was made out of nothing. By these phrases they meant to express that the Son was not really and actually eternal: and the nicene fathers condemned these phrases in the sense in which these heretics used them, thereby intending to assert and establish the real and actual eternity of the Son. Vind. of the Doct. of the Trinity, p. 115, 116.

believe, that another creed, having the same object indeed of proscribing arianism, but destitute of all authority except that which was derived from the justness of its principles, should have been in the next century framed in a spirit, which had not been admitted by the church in the expression of the sentiments of a general council? The difficulty is however removed, if it be supposed that the denunciations of the athanasian creed were understood to have no direct reference to the creed itself, but to be merely declaratory.

Doctor Buchanan has * stated, that the creed of the syrian christians accords with the athanasian, but without the damnatory clauses. From this observation it might be hastily inferred, that these clauses had been disapproved and rejected, like the anathema originally annexed to that of Nice. But the particulars of the syrian creed, which he has subjoined to this observation, sufficiently prove that it was wholly a distinct profession of faith, though agreeing in doctrine with the athanasian. No argument therefore can be founded on it, except as it proves the wide and general establishment of the trinitarian doctrine; and the difference existing between the two creeds in regard to damnatory declarations, is sufficiently explained from the consideration, that the

* Christian Researches in Asia, p. 125. Lond. 1811.

athanasian was addressed to ignorant barbarians, who required to be roused to a sense of the indispensable importance of a right faith, by pressing upon their attention the solemn declaration of their Saviour.

*

"Were I, says bishop Horseley, "to undertake the defence of the damnatory clause in the athanasian creed, it should indeed be upon this principle, that it is a thing somewhat of the same nature with the anathema annexed to the nicene. The anathema is no part of the nicene creed; it is only a sentence of the church, against the impugners of a particular article. What is called the damnatory clause, is no part of the athanasian. It is a clause, not of the creed, but of a prefatory sentence, in which the author declares his opinion of the importance of the rule of faith he is about to deliver." this passage there is much softening, for it represents only as the opinion of the author of the creed, that which every member of the established church is required to repeat as expressing his own sentiments. It is not indeed recited as a part of the christian faith, but it is certainly recited as declaring the persuasion of each individual concerning that faith. The just view of the subject seems rather to be, that both the anathema of the nicene, and the damnatory declarations of the athanasian creed,

* Horseley's Tracts, p. 322, note.

In

were understood to be proposed, not indeed as articles of faith necessary to salvation, but as declarations to be solemnly made; and that, while the anathema was discontinued, because it was felt to be presumptuous to sanction in a manner so solemn a human exposition of faith, the damnatory declarations were nevertheless retained, because it was perceived, that they merely repeated the denunciation of Jesus Christ.

When protestants have charged the church of Rome with holding the doctrine of exclusive salvation, the accusation has commonly been answered by referring them to the athanasian creed, as maintaining a doctrine not less exclusive. If it has been shown that this is not indeed the character of the athanasian creed, the exclusive pretension of the church of Rome must be defended on some other ground, or abandoned to the attack. The athanasian creed, it is contended, does not limit the hope of christian salvation to those who profess that, which it however states to be "the catholic," or christian" faith." It only admonishes all christians of the importance of a true faith to their everlasting interest.

In these observations the author trusts that he has shown, that the parts of the athanasian creed, which have been understood to condemn to everlasting perdition, those who should not faithfully hold the particular opinions detailed

in the creed, are really but declaratory of the judgment of our Saviour, recorded by Mark the evangelist, and have been introduced only that attention may be awakened to a subject of so great importance: that the creed does not propose any metaphysical explanation whatsoever of the doctrines which it maintains, but, asserting them in an authoritative manner, refers all to the scriptures as revealed truths: that the apparent contradictions in the statements of the creed arise only from the negations opposed to the contrary errors of those, who on the one part rejected the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and on the other maintained an entire distinctness of three divine beings that the divine unity is represented as consisting in a common godhead, in which however the Father, being the only underived Person, and the source of the divinity of the others, is especially distinguished by the title of God Almighty, as of primary dignity that the difficulty of this great mystery consists in the utter inadequateness of our limited faculties to comprehend any infinite object, and should therefore be considered as exclusively to be referred to the authority of revelation that the question of the eternity of the Son belongs to a consideration of existence, to which we know that we cannot apply our notion of successive time, though we are incapable of conceiving existence independently of succes