enforcing the full residence,-or by ceasing to admit applicants, at the different colleges.

Mr. Perry's case is singular, and had he not attacked the Bishop, who refused to recognize his claim to Holy Orders, it would, probably, from the circumstances attached to it, ultimately have been considered as such; and he might possibly have been enabled to complete his exercises. But, even then, it would have been by indulgence; yet when he resorts to the press to announce his grievances, and indulges in sarcasm and reproach, he evinces himself to be an unfit object of this indul, gence. Of the merits of his pamphlet we can say nothing; of the spirit in which it is written, we have said enough.

66

A Catechetical Exposition of the Apostles' Creed, with Preliminary Observations. By JAMES THOMAS LAW, A.M. Chancellor of Litchfield and Coventry. 8vo. pp. 364. 9s. London. Rivingtons. 1825.

IN a modest and sensible preface, the author of this work states his motives for its composition and publication. They are such as do him the highest credit. Conceiving it to be the duty of every clergyman to devote his time and talents to the promotion of "the great cause of Christianity;" and finding himself in a class of the Clergy, who have more leisure than the Incumbents or Curates of parishes,-namely, of those who are attached to colleges or cathedrals,-he resolved to give the fruits of his study of the Sacred Volume" to the public, in the form of this "Catechetical Exposition of the Apostles' Creed." Being aware that notwithstanding the excellence of "sterling works on divinity of the last and preceding ages," they are now much neglected on account of their "antiquated style and manner;" he justly concludes that little is left to writers of the present day, but "to re-dress, to re-model, and to re-edite" the labours of their predecessors. And this he declares to be the nature of his own undertaking,—namely, an abridgment of the observations of former writers, particularly of Bishop Pearson. Many other great authorities are, however, continually referred to by Mr. Law; such as Bishops Bull and Burnet, Barrow, Hooker, and Waterland; and amongst the Fathers, St. Augustine, Irenæus, Tertullian, &c. But above all these, the work exhibits an extensive search into, and a judicious application of, the

Holy Scriptures themselves; the only solid foundation upon which the defence of any creed can securely rest.

Having offered this sincere testimony to the commendable views and exertions of Mr. Law, it is not without reluctance that we express a doubt, whether his efforts might not have been directed more profitably into some other channel of theological discussion. After a careful perusal of the work we cannot perceive that it is calculated to supersede the abridgment of Bishop Pearson, which we have, by Dr. Burney. Nor can we discover any advantage which the catechetical form of composition has over the more usual mode, except where the questions and answers are short and precise, and the whole is intended to be committed to memory,-which we can hardly suppose to be contemplated in the present instance. On the other hand, the disadvantages of this method are considerable and obvious. It makes a work much longer than is necessary; and yet frequently leaves the reader unsatisfied. For it is much easier, upon most subjects, to put questions than to answer them; and upon none does this difficulty press with greater force than upon that now under our consideration.

The author, following Bishop Pearson, deduces the doctrine of the Trinity from the Apostles' Creed. But this, though a just, is not a necessary exposition of it. There is nothing in the terms of it to which an Arian, a Socinian, or even an Unitarian, who believes in the miraculous conception of our Saviour (of whom we are told there are some) might not assent *. Upon the supposition that the doctrine of the Trinity is really contained in the Apostles' Creed, where is the utility of the other two creeds, the Nicene and the Athanasian? the former of which Mr. Law truly tells us "explains most clearly the opinion of our Church concerning some doctrines which were formerly, and still are disputed: and the latter of which defends our faith in the doctrine of the Trinity at all points against misconstruction or evasion.' There seems to be much obscurity about the history of the Apostles' Creed; but if it be true (as Waterland says) that it is not so old as the Nicene Creed, whatever the object of its author was, in its composition, we cannot suppose it to have been the assertion of the doctrine of the Trinity; which was already asserted more fully and clearly in other creeds. Waterland says the Creed in question "is certainly no other than the creed of one particular church, the Church of Rome; and is neither so old, (taken all together) nor of so great authority as the Nicene Creed itself." And he agrees with

* Dr. Priestley says this was the case in the time of Tertullian.

Stillingfleet that "the Apostles' Creed does not in express words declare the Divinity of the Three Persons in the unity of the Divine Essence; although taking the sense of those articles as the Christian Church understood them from the Apostles' times, we have as full and clear evidence of this doctrine, as we have that we received the Scriptures from them*." But this is evidently debateable + ground; which we think it is wiser as much as possible to avoid. When the doctrine of the Trinity is to be defended, let it be done upon the basis of those two creeds in which it is explicitly asserted; and let the proofs of it be drawn from Scripture, and from that alone. All attempts to explain it beyond this are fruitless. Even Waterland himself, who avails himself of all that learning and ingenuity can supply for this purpose, is continually forced to admit, that "our faculties are not sufficient for these things. And our ideas of the Unity even are too imperfect to reason solidly upon ‡."

When we recollect how often we have endeavoured ineffectually to obtain any clear ideas even from Bishop Pearson's masterly explication of the difficult points of this Creed, we are not much surprised to find that Mr. Law has not been more successful in bringing them to the level of our understandings. The mysteries of the Incarnation and the Trinity remain as profound as ever. Not a ray of fresh light is shed upon the Descent into hell. The language of the prophet Isaiah must still continue to be that of ourselves: "verily, thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour."

It is hardly necessary to cite passages from the work before us in proof of these general observations. The author himself seems to be perfectly aware of their truth. He admits that

"On subjects of such sublime mystery as those which relate to the nature of the Godhead, there never can be perfect safety, but in the very words of Holy Writ §. In proportion as we are obliged to deviate from this caution, we become exposed to the risk of being wounded through the sides of our own explanations."

It is quite clear that Mr. Law intends to deliver none but the most orthodox opinions; and we do not mean to impute it as a fault to him, that he is occasionally compelled to bend to the

Waterland's Sermons at Lady Moyer's Lecture.

+ Dr. Priestley contends that it was not till 400 years after the times of the Apostles that Christ was thought to be equal to the Father.

Waterland's Second Defence of Queries, &c.

Leibnitz in arguing for the Trinity has the same remark, “Ainsi, en matière de mystères, le meilleur seroit de s'en tenir précisément aux termes revélés, autant qu'il se peut."

force of invincible difficulties. Upon certain points, whether he use his own words, or adopt the phrases even of the highest authority, we are sometimes unable to affix any distinct ideas to them; and at other times they exhibit a direct contradiction in terms. For instance :

"Q. How does Bishop Bull prove the eternity of the Son's exis

tence?

"A. His eternity, he says, necessarily follows from his divinity. For although among men it must be that the son is posterior to his father, with God reason itself teaches it is otherwise. No person can begin to exist in and from the divine essence, who was not before in existence, without destroying the immutability of the divine nature. But that God is immutable, the common sense of mankind declares. Therefore, if the Son is the true and genuine Son of God the Father, i. e. has his origin from the substance of the Father, and subsists in him, it follows necessarily, that as he is equal in nature, so must he be co-eval and co-eternal."

What a number of terms are here to which it is impossible to annex any precise ideas whatever? "Eternity necessarily follows from divinity." Does not divinity as necessarily follow from eternity? "No person can begin to exist who was not before in existence," &c. And this of a Being who is eternal. Nor is the matter made at all clearer by the quotation in a note from one of Dr. Waterland's sermons. "In the beginning, before there was any creature, consequently from all eternity, the Word existed." What sort of a consequence is this? What is the definition of eternity but that which has neither beginning nor end? And yet we are told that it follows as a consequence from the phrase "in the beginning.' But were this all that is recorded of the Word, it would exclude rather than imply the idea of his eternity. It is from the context and other passages of Scripture that this important doctrine is established. The Word we read was God. Now God is necessarily eternal. It is an essential part of the definition of Deity. Dr. Lightfoot says "in the beginning" is used in the same sense in the first chapter of St. John as in the first chapter of Genesis. His existence in the beginning will at most prove that he was before the creation, but certainly not his eternity.

We think that there is much wisdom in the caution which the late learned Norrisian professor, Dr. Hey, has left us upon this subject. After proving the doctrine of the Trinity in his lecture upon the first Article, he says, "I fear we in general pretend too much, that our doctrine is intelligible; or we use language which seems to imply such pretension: Bishop Pear

son and Dr. Waterland would have written with greater effect, if they had taken occasion, from time to time, to say, that, though they exposed the misrepresentations of others, they did not pretend to have any clear ideas of their own doctrine." We have shewn that Dr. Waterland has made some admissions of this sort; and we could cite other passages from his writings to the same effect. We do not recollect that Bishop Pearson has been equally considerate.

As a specimen of the difficulty which Mr. Law has imposed upon himself by adopting the catechetical form of composition, and putting questions to which no satisfactory answer is or can be given, we may take the following amongst many others.

"Q. How does the excellent Barrow explain the mystery of the incarnation?

"A. He observes, the manner of that operation, whereby the Holy Ghost did effect the human generation of our Lord, is by the archangel Gabriel expressed to be from the supervention of the Holy Ghost, and the divine Power overshadowing the blessed virgin."

So far is well, because it is Scripture. But what follows?` "The which words being of so general interpretation, and as to precise meaning so little intelligible by us, may well serve to bound our curiosity, and to check farther enquiry."

And then we have much more, which serves chiefly

"To puzzle e'en by explanation,

And darken by elucidation."

Upon the Descent into hell, we have such expositions as the following:

"Q. What was the opinion of the early Christians in the ages immediately succeeding the apostolic, on this point?

"A. It is difficult to say, as the subject is seldom, if ever, mentioned by them. Referring to our 'preliminary observations,' we perceive that the descent into hell does not form part of the creeds of Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen, Gregory, or Lucian. We do not find it in the Nicene Creed. Many of the ancient fathers make no allusion whatever to it; and Ruffinus states, that it was not in his time to be found in the Roman, or any of the Oriental Creeds. The Creed of the Church of Aquileia, which he expounds, is the first in which we find it mentioned but it is not known to have been there before the end of the fourth cen tury. It is indeed to be found in the Athanasian Creed; but, on the whole, the stream of ancient testimony appears certainly not in its favour.

"Q. What do the Evangelists say on the subject?:

"A. The descent into hell is not mentioned by any of them; at least not in the Gospels."