hold certain is, that no infant can be consigned to suffering; and with this we may surely be content. By infant, I mean one in whom no accountable will is at work. Of course this tells nothing against Church rules of general application, as about the Burial Service; for how can the line be drawn? We do not know at how early an age there may be a responsible will. But it is indisputable that there is a period during which it exists not. After that period, as is admitted on all hands, the fruits of grace, however conferred and nourished, are to be looked for. And the practical importance of the doctrine is, that it is the sure, unconditional, basis and foundation. of Christian education. Without it I know not what I am handling and leaning on; with it I know that I am attempting to train a young soldier in his conflict with evil, who has the effectual sword of the Spirit put into his hands, if he will use it.

I have only a few words to add on the common objection, that this, or indeed any similar doctrine, is that of the opus operatum; what Mr. Gorham termed the "unconditional bestowment of grace,"

66

tying heavenly gifts to outward ordinances," and so forth. Now the opus operatum I understand to be distinguished from the opus operantis, and to mean a gift conferred on a merely passive recipient, with no conditions or co-operation on his part. But, be it remembered that we are speaking of the actual, not prospective, state of a baptized infant; and how can an infant be otherwise than passive, and insusceptible of conditions and co-operation? I know it is sometimes held-I believe not by all the supporters of the hypothetical doctrine-that the blessing depends on the faith

and prayers of those who bring the child; surely one of the hardest of sayings, that of two helpless infants one will be effectively received into God's favour, and the other not, according to the poor, and weak, and inadequate, often indeed casual and accidental, state of mind of two or three other people.

But even if it were so, the objection seems to prove too much. For I do not understand the opus operatum to mean this or that heavenly gift, but any gift; and it seems admitted that the baptized child is no longer in a state of nature.

My object, it will have been seen, is to suggest the possibility of agreement of opinions, not to exhort to ratification of differences on equal terms.

I cannot pretend a wish to strengthen that desire for comprehension of all possible opinions within the Church, which seems somewhat in excess in these days. It may almost be said that in the English Church any thing may be taught, from the confines of Romanism to the verge of Socinianism; but I, for one, have no sort of pleasure in that state of things. I do not forget such texts as these: "In every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with Him;”* and, "Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity." But such passages plainly refer to our feelings about and towards individuals, and go far beyond the case of persons professedly united in the same outward confession of faith; nor do they in any way affect the desirableness of concord in matters of opinion. St. Paul beseeches us, by the name of Christ, that we should "all speak the same thing, and that there * Acts x. 35. † Eph. vi. 24.

We

be no divisions among us; but that we be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment."* Modern laxity has substituted for these immortal words the comfortable maxim, "Let us agree to differ:" or, indeed, on this question, "Let us determine to differ, and that nobody shall make us agree.” are told that such agreement in matters of doctrine is unattainable. No doubt of it. I know another precept quite as unattainable : "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect."+ But I have never heard it said that therefore we should give up the attempt to attain unto it; the truth being, that in either case indefinitely near approaches may be made. And one who so believes may deem himself well rewarded if on any point he can say or do, however slightly, any thing to bring, even here and there a few, nearer to such agreement.

A FEW REMARKS ON THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 1857.

My object is to say a few words on one or two points in this Creed, on which explanation may tend to remove difficulties and misapprehensions which perhaps obstruct, in some minds, its cordial acceptance.

The general scope of the Creed is twofold: to set forth the doctrine of the Trinity, and the doctrine of the Incarnation. The latter, however, is less elaborately dealt with than the former: as so dealt with it is not the subject of very much controversy or difficulty among Churchmen in these days, and I do not purpose to advert to it. It is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and what are commonly called the Damnatory Clauses, at which men stumble and on these I have to venture a few observations.

They will not be in vindication of the Scriptural truth of the doctrine of the Trinity. I am addressing Churchmen, by whom the doctrine is received, who test their belief by Scripture, and who mostly hold that in fact nothing can anywhere be found more plainly and more explicitly set forth than this great truth is in the Bible. Starting indeed from the fundamental axiom of the Unity of God, it is difficult to say, of the two opposite heresies of Arianism and Sabellianism, whether the one, when confronted with such texts as John i. 1, or the other, with such as John xvii. 5, be the more violently repugnant to the word of God.

Nor is it needful to dwell on that shallow misconception, more common perhaps formerly than at the present day, that the Creed is an attempt to explain the inexplicable. It is evidently no such thing. In that part of it which relates, not to the Trinity, but to the Incarnation, there is one verse which suggests some sort of analogy to the doctrine, in the natural constitution of man. But this is the only verse in the whole symbol which in any way resembles an explanation. The Creed states the doctrines, positively and in some fulness of detail; but it does not attempt to explain them, following herein the guidance of Scripture, in which no such attempt is to be found.

No doubt it states the doctrine in terms which are not precisely the same as those of Scripture. It must be so from the nature of Creeds, which are a summary of doctrine, setting forth formally what is informally taught in the Bible; and from the occasion and history of the later Creeds in particular, which were framed to meet erroneous opinions arising subsequently to the Bible being written. What we maintain is, that the Creed only asserts what is necessarily involved in the Scriptural doctrine.

It is, however, manifest that we must assume, and it is important to bear in mind, that the dogmatic expressions of the Creed must be construed in the most exact conformity with the terms of revelation. The unfathomable nature of God, we believe, is made known to us only so far as is needful for our salvation; and to attempt, on any part of the subject, certainly not the least on that of the Trinity in Unity, to go beyond what is either distinctly revealed, or properly involved in