But, after all, give me leave to observe, that should. the interpretation of the text, before given, not meet with that general approbation which, however, I think it deserves; still there is no necessity, in order to explain St. Paul's words, to recur to the distinction under consideration. There are several other expositions of the place; one of which, supported by the authority of commentators f of eminent note, I shall just remind you of, and conclude. By a righteous man then, St. Paul may mean a good man, such a man as the scripture represents the righteous man to be; but one with whom we have no connexion, and from whom we have received no favour or obligation. On the other hand, by the good man may be intended a good friend, a bountiful and generous benefactor, who has done us good services, or conferred on us great benefits. The sense then will be, that scarcely any one will die for a good man, abstractedly considered; one with whom he has nothing to do, and no reason to esteem and love particularly above any other righteous men; yet peradventure for a generous and good friend, for a bountiful and beloved benefactor, for such a good man as this, some would even dare to dies. That the word ayatos is capable of this sense, and is sometimes used in it, can hardly be doubted. And one would embrace any sense, or any interpretation of the text that has any sense in it, rather than suppose St. Paul

f Wolfi Cura Philolog. Knatchbull. Animadvers. in lib. Nov. Test. See also Estius in loc.

g The late learned Dr. Heylyn, in his Interpretation of the New Testament, renders the text thus :-"Now scarcely will one die “for a just man: (though possibly one might be found, who "would have the courage to die for a benefactor.)"

would call a man righteous, who is only not mischievous; who has not one grain of real goodness, of the true love either of God or man in him; but only so much virtue or justice, (if justice and virtue it may be called,) as to keep himself clear from the lash and censure of the law. There is no such notion or character of a righteous man in scripture; and no such notion of a righteous man ever entered into the heart or head of this apostle.

SERMON XVIII.

1 TIMOTHY iii. 9.

Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. ALL the use I design to make of these words is to introduce a discourse upon the subject of the Athanasian Creed. It is appointed by our church to be read several times in the year, and amongst the rest on Trinity Sunday a; it contains an excellent summary of the Christian faith, concerning the Trinity of Persons in the Godhead, and the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore should not be repeated without understanding; and some persons are apt to express a dislike of it, though they pretend to believe the doctrines which it contains. Upon all which accounts it cannot be improper to make some observations upon it, partly to vindicate its use, and partly to explain its meaning.

It is no wonder that men, who disbelieve both the doctrine of the Trinity and the incarnation of the Son of God, should treat this exposition of these doctrines with contempt and scorn. Though this may be no very decent part with respect to others, it is however a consistent one with regard to themselves, as it is agreeable to their own principles. But with such men as these at present I have no concern; for be it remembered, that I am not now to

a Preached on that day.

prove the truth of these doctrines, but the expediency of this Creed; and the debate is with such only as believe the scripture to be the word of God, and that this Creed contains nothing in general that is contrary to it, but yet upon other accounts appear to dislike it. The proper inquiry therefore is, whether this dislike be founded in reason.

Now the exceptions of such men as these against this ancient exposition of the catholic faith, may, I believe, be reduced to two; the first whereof pretends that it is unintelligible, so that people, at least common people, cannot understand it; and the second, that it is uncharitable, as it excludes every man from salvation, who does not believe faithfully all the abstruse points of this Creed.

With regard to the first article, the difficulty of understanding the Athanasian Creed, it ought indeed in equity to be supposed, that they who make this complaint have no negligence to charge themselves withal in this affair. When a man complains that he cannot understand a composition, the very complaint seems to imply, that he has considered it, and endeavoured to understand it. For otherwise the fault may be owing, not to the composition, but to his own neglect. It should therefore be presumed, that when persons complain that they don't understand this Creed, they are able to acquit themselves of all blame, or suspicion of negligence in the case. And yet perhaps if we were to inquire of one of these complainers, it would not be easy for him to recollect, that ever in his whole life he seriously sat down for one half hour to study and consider it. But if he asserts, that he has fairly considered it, and yet is not able to understand it, we must go

further, and examine whether there be not still some mistake at the bottom.

For it is carefully to be observed, that there is a great difference between understanding the meaning of the Creed, or the doctrine which it sets forth; and comprehending the thing itself, or the mystery to which this doctrine relates. It is easy enough, for instance, to understand the catholic faith, to understand the orthodox doctrine concerning the Trinity, which the scripture teaches, and the church has always received: but it is so far from being easy, that it is impossible to comprehend the mystery of the Trinity itself, or to conceive the manner how three Persons are one God, or how the one God subsists in three Persons. And it may happen, by not attending to this distinction, and through a little confusion of ideas, that a man may imagine he does not understand the doctrine of the Creed, only because he does not understand the mystery of the Trinity. This latter, it is certain, is above his understanding. But is that any fault of the Creed? Take the Creed away, and will he understand the mystery of the Trinity one jot the better? Or will any other Creed, which the wit of man can devise, give him a clear conception of this mysterious truth, and enable a finite capacity to comprehend an infinite object? But that the meaning of the Creed, or the doctrine which it teaches, is not so dark and difficult as some men seem to apprehend, or affect to represent it, I shall now shew more distinctly, by laying a brief explication of it before you.

The two principal points inculcated in this Creed, are the doctrines of the Trinity, and of the Incarnation: that is, it teaches us, that there are three di