8. Is there not at least one text of the New Testament in which the doctrine of the Trinity is expressly asserted?

In 1 John v. 7. it is distinctly asserted that there are 'three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, 'and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one!' The verse is very generally rejected as spurious; but though external evidence bears strongly against its genuineness, the grammatical construction is greatly in its favour. Bishop Middleton was of opinion that it ought not to be abandoned without a struggle.

9. Quote passages from the writings of the early Fathers, wherein the several points affirmed in this Article are maintained or illustrated.

Justin M. Cohort. ad Gr. c. 36. That there is but one God, is the first doctrine of true religion. Cyprian de Idol. Vanitate:-There is one God, who is Lord of all: for his sublime greatness cannot admit of a partner, being endued with all power. Theophilus ad Autol. 1. 3. The form or shape of God is ineffable and inexpressible, and cannot be seen with bodily eyes. He is infinite in glory, incomprehensible in greatness, superexcellent in power, incomparable in wisdom, immutable in goodness, unspeakable in beneficence. Clem. R. ad Rom. c. 27. There is nothing impossible with God. By the word of his majesty were all things made, and by his word he can destroy them. Justin M. Apol. I. c. 6. Him, and his Son begotten by him, and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore. Augustin. de Temp. Serm. 38. Without doubt it is to be believed, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are one Almighty God, eternal, immutable; and every one of these is God, and all of them but one God. See also Clem. Rom. ad Cor. c. 46. Ignat. ad Magnes. cc. 6. 33. Athenag. Legat. c. 10. Iren. Hær. 1. 19. Theoph. ad Autol. II. 15. Tertul. c. Prax. cc. 25. 30. Cyprian. Epist. 73.

10. In what spirit ought our inquiries into the nature of God, as revealed in the Scriptures, to be conducted?

From the uncertainty that prevailed among the most learned of the Heathen sages, as to the nature and attributes

of the Deity, the impotence of reason, unassisted by Revelation, is so palpably obvious, that the reflecting man will humble his pride before the light of Scripture; and, with a teachable temper, be content to believe what is there revealed, and submit his own erring judgment to the infallible guidance of God's word.

ARTICLE II.

1. WHAT is the purport of the second Article, as following out that of the first?

As the first Article, in asserting the being and attributes of the Deity, dwells more immediately on the character which the Scriptures furnish of the first person in the Trinity, this is devoted to the nature of the second person, and the atonement wrought by him for lost mankind.

2. Do the titles of Father and Son, as applied to the two first persons in the Trinity, indicate any superiority of nature in the one over the other?

The distinctive appellations Father and Son, by which our Lord himself and his Apostles continually designate the unrevealed God whom no man hath seen, and the incarnate Saviour, imply no superiority in the nature of the one above that of the other; but they are merely expressive of that mysterious relationship which exists between the first and second persons in the Godhead. In its ordinary sense, the term Father may imply priority of existence without superiority of nature; and it is manifest from the whole tenor of the Scriptures that, though the Father is greater than the Son (John xiv. 28.) as touching his manhood, they are otherwise co-eternally and co-equally one; so that what we believe of the glory of the Father, the same we believe of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, without any difference 'or inequality.' (Commun. Serv.)

3. Whence did St. John adopt the term Logos?

It has been thought that the term WORD, as applied to the Son of God by St. John (i. 1.), was borrowed from the writings of Philo Judæus; and doubtless there is a striking resemblance between the operations assigned to the Logos by the Platonic philosopher and by the holy evangelist. The Gnostics, however, and other heretics, against whom St. John wrote, had equally adopted the title; and it is therefore probable that he applied it to the Son of God, in order to prove that the person so called was not an inferior emanation from the Deity, but very and eternal God.

4. Whence is it evident that the Evangelist applies the term to the Son of God; and is it elsewhere employed in the same personal acceptation?

There can be no doubt as to whom the expression is applied, for he forthwith assigns it distinctly to the only begotten of the Father' (John i. 14.); and not only is it again employed in the personal sense in the opening of his first Epistle and in the Apocalypse (xix. 11.), but perhaps by St. Luke also in the Preface to his Gospel. In other passages (Heb. iv. 12, 13. James i. 18. 1 Pet. i. 23.), it has also been supposed to have the same meaning, but the interpretation is less apparent.

5. In what sense do you understand the word Aóyos as applied to Christ; what reason do you give for the meaning which you assign to it; and can you illustrate your answer by a reference to the tenets of any antient philosophical sect?

Some would render it WORD, others Reason; but the former meaning is certainly more conformable with the language in which Scripture, from first to last, represents Christ as the channel by which God has revealed his will to mankind. Compare John iii. 34. Heb. i. 2. At the same time he is also the 'Wisdom which God possessed in the be'ginning of his way' (Prov. viii. 22.); and therefore the term may properly be preserved untranslated, so as to express both the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος and the λόγος προφορικὸς of the Stoics: i. e. Reason as conceived in thought, and as embodied in speech, respectively.

6. What are the opinions of the Church respecting the eternal generation of the Son of God?

Christ was necessarily begotten of the Father, or he could not be his Son; and from everlasting, or he could not be God. He was however not only begotten, but povoyevns, only-begotten; and consequently, the Son of God in a restrictive sense, excluding any other, such as those who are called God's children by adoption and grace.

7. Does not the sonship of Christ involve the admission of his divinity?

That the Jews affixed a peculiar and excellent meaning to the sonship of Christ is manifest; for they sought to kill him because he called God τὸν ἴδιον πατέρα, and thus made himself God (John v. 18. x. 33.). He is also very and eternal God, for he was before the Baptist, and before Abraham, and before the flood, and the worlds were made by him, and he was in glory with the Father before the world was (John i. 1. 15. viii. 50. xvii. 5. Heb. i. 2. 1 Pet. iii. 18.). Hence the beloved disciple calls him o áλŋlivòs Ocós (1 John v. 20.); and he himself has said, 'I and the 'Father are one' (John x. 30.), not eiç but ev, indicating perfect identity of substance, nature, and essence.

8. Had not Christ two natures; and by what designation is the union of these two natures technically known?

The Article asserts the humanity of Christ as well as his divinity; and the union of the two natures in the person of the incarnate Saviour is known by the name of the Hypostatic Union, i. e. the combined substance of two natures in one person without confusion of substance.

9. Does not this union explain many passages in Scripture which would be otherwise unintelligible?

Although the character of this union is as utterly incomprehensible to man's understanding as that of the human soul and body, its reality is not only fully established by Scripture, but there are many passages in the Bible which can only be explained in accordance with this doctrine. Hence it is, that by a commutation of idioms, God is said to have shed his blood (Acts xx. 28.), and the man Christ Jesus to be worshipped by angels (Heb. i. 6.).

10. What were the errors of Nestorius and Eutychius with respect to the nature of Christ; in what general Council were they condemned; and in what terms?

Nestorius seems to have understood a distinction of persons as well as nature in the Son of God and the Son of man, asserting that the Virgin Mary should not be called Mother of God, but Mother of Christ; and Eutychius, on the other hand, maintained that Christ was not only one person, but had only one nature. Both errors were condemned in the Council of Chalcedon, which taught that Christ was one and the same in two natures, ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, αδιαιρέ τως, ἀχωρίστως.

11. What opposite opinions have been held respecting Christ's Humanity?

The human nature in Christ consisted of body and soul, as in mankind in general. While some of the early heretics, as the Docetæ, denied him a real body, regarding him a man in appearance only; others, as the Apollinarians, asserted