270 Deuteronomy, V. 28, 29. [193.

From this view of our subject it will be naturally asked, Do I then consider the Liturgy as altogether perfect ? I answer, No : it is a human composition ; and there is nothing human that can claim so high a title as that of absolute perfection. There are cer- tainly some few expressions which might be altered for the better, and which in all probability would have been altered at the Conference which was ap- pointed for the last revision of it, if the unreasonable scrupulosity of some, and the unbending pertinacity of others, had not defeated the object of that as- sembly. I have before mentioned two, which, though capable of being vindicated, might admit of some improvement. And, as I have been speaking strongly of the moderation and candour of the Liturgy, I will here bring forward the only exception to it that I am aware of; and that is found in the Athanasian Creed. The damnatory clauses contained in that Creed, do certainly breathe a very different spirit from that which pervades every other part of our Liturgy. As to the doctrine of the Creed, it is perfectly sound, and such as ought to be universally received. But it is matter of regret that any should be led to pro- nounce a sentence of damnation against their fellow- creatures, in any case where God himself has not clearly and certainly pronounced it. Yet whilst I say this, permit me to add, that I think this Creed does not express, nor ever was intended to express, so much as is generally supposed. The part prin- cipally objected to, is that whole statement, which is contained between the first assertion of the doc- trine of the Trinity, and the other articles of our faith : and the objection is, that the damnatory clauses which would be justifiable, if confined to the general assertion respecting the doctrine of the Trinity, become unjustifiable, when extended to the whole of that which is annexed to it. But, if we suppose that this intermediate part was intended as an explanation of the doctrine in question, we still, I think, ought not to be understood as affirming re- specting that explanation all that we affirm respecting