late to the general doctrine of the Trinity, and to the other articles of the Creed, are strong; asserting positively that the points must be believed, and that too on pain of everlasting damnation: but that which is annexed to the explanation of the doctrine, asserts only, that a man who is in earnest about his salvation ought to think thus of the Trinity. The words in the original are, Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitate sentiat and this shews in what sense we are to understand the more ambiguous language of our translation: "He therefore that will be saved, (i. e. is willing or desirous to be saved,) must thus think (let him thus think) of the Trinity." Thus it appears that the things contained in the beginning and end of the Creed are spoken of as matters of faith; but this which is inserted in the midst, as a matter of opinion only; in reference to the first and last parts, the certainty of damnation is asserted; but in reference to the intermediate part, nothing is asserted, except that such are the views which we ought to entertain of the

point in question. Now I would ask, was this difference the effect of chance? or rather, was it not actually intended, in order to guard against the very objection that is here adduced?

This then is the answer which we give on the supposition that the part which appears so objectionable, is to be considered as an explanation of the doctrine in question.

But what if it was never intended as an explanation? What if it contains only a proof of that doctrine, and an appeal to our reason that that doctrine is true? Yet, if we examine the Creed, we shall find this to be the real fact. Let us in few words point out the steps of the argument.

The Creed says, "The Catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance;" and then it proceeds, "FOR there is one person of the Father," and so on; and then, after proving the distinct personality of

I

the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and their unity in the Godhead, it adds, "So THAT in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. HE THEREFORE that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity." Here are all the distinct parts of an argument. The position affirmed-the proofs adduced-the deduction made-and the conclusion drawn in reference to the importance of receiving and acknowledging that doctrine.

From hence then I infer, that the damnatory clauses should be understood only in reference to the doctrine affirmed, and not be extended to the parts which are adduced only in confirmation of it: and, if we believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is a fundamental article of the Christian faith, we may without any breach of charity apply to that doctrine what our Lord spake of the Gospel at large, "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned."

Thus, in either view, the use of the Creed may be vindicated: for, if we consider the obnoxious part as an explanation, the terms requiring it to be received, are intentionally softened; and if we consider it as a proof, it is to the doctrine proved, and not to the proof annexed, that the damnatory clauses are fairly applicable.

Still, after all, I confess, that if the same candour and moderation that are observable in all other parts of the Liturgy, had been preserved here, it would have been better. For though I do verily believe, that those who deny the doctrine of the Trinity, are in a fatal error, and will find themselves so at the day of judgment, I would rather deplore the curse that awaits them, than denounce it; and rather weep over them in my secret chamber, than utter anathemas against them in the house of God.

I hope I have now met the question of our Liturgy fairly. I have not confined myself to general assertions, but have set.

forth the difficulties which are supposed to exist against it, and have given such a solution of them, as I think is sufficient to satisfy any conscientious mind; though it is still matter of regret that any laboured explanation of them should be necessary.

Now then, acknowledging that our Liturgy is not absolutely perfect, and that those who most admire it would be glad if these few blemishes were removed; have we not still abundant reason to be thankful for it? Let its excellencies be fairly weighed; and its blemishes will sink into nothing: let its excellencies be duly appreciated, and every person in the kingdom will acknowledge himself deeply indebted to those, who with so much care and piety compiled it.

But these blemishes alone are seen by multitudes; and its excellencies are altogether forgotten: yea, moreover, frequent occasion is taken from these blemishes to persuade men to renounce their communion with the Established Church, in the hopes