Skip to main content

Full text of "The works of the Rev. Daniel Waterland ... To which is prefixed a review of the author's life and writings"

See other formats

This  is  a  digital  copy  of  a  book  that  was  preserved  for  generations  on  library  shelves  before  it  was  carefully  scanned  by  Google  as  part  of  a  project 
to  make  the  world's  books  discoverable  online. 

It  has  survived  long  enough  for  the  copyright  to  expire  and  the  book  to  enter  the  public  domain.  A  public  domain  book  is  one  that  was  never  subject 
to  copyright  or  whose  legal  copyright  term  has  expired.  Whether  a  book  is  in  the  public  domain  may  vary  country  to  country.  Public  domain  books 
are  our  gateways  to  the  past,  representing  a  wealth  of  history,  culture  and  knowledge  that's  often  difficult  to  discover. 

Marks,  notations  and  other  marginalia  present  in  the  original  volume  will  appear  in  this  file  -  a  reminder  of  this  book's  long  journey  from  the 
publisher  to  a  library  and  finally  to  you. 

Usage  guidelines 

Google  is  proud  to  partner  with  libraries  to  digitize  public  domain  materials  and  make  them  widely  accessible.  Public  domain  books  belong  to  the 
public  and  we  are  merely  their  custodians.  Nevertheless,  this  work  is  expensive,  so  in  order  to  keep  providing  this  resource,  we  have  taken  steps  to 
prevent  abuse  by  commercial  parties,  including  placing  technical  restrictions  on  automated  querying. 

We  also  ask  that  you: 

+  Make  non-commercial  use  of  the  files  We  designed  Google  Book  Search  for  use  by  individuals,  and  we  request  that  you  use  these  files  for 
personal,  non-commercial  purposes. 

+  Refrain  from  automated  querying  Do  not  send  automated  queries  of  any  sort  to  Google's  system:  If  you  are  conducting  research  on  machine 
translation,  optical  character  recognition  or  other  areas  where  access  to  a  large  amount  of  text  is  helpful,  please  contact  us.  We  encourage  the 
use  of  public  domain  materials  for  these  purposes  and  may  be  able  to  help. 

+  Maintain  attribution  The  Google  "watermark"  you  see  on  each  file  is  essential  for  informing  people  about  this  project  and  helping  them  find 
additional  materials  through  Google  Book  Search.  Please  do  not  remove  it. 

+  Keep  it  legal  Whatever  your  use,  remember  that  you  are  responsible  for  ensuring  that  what  you  are  doing  is  legal.  Do  not  assume  that  just 
because  we  believe  a  book  is  in  the  public  domain  for  users  in  the  United  States,  that  the  work  is  also  in  the  public  domain  for  users  in  other 
countries.  Whether  a  book  is  still  in  copyright  varies  from  country  to  country,  and  we  can't  offer  guidance  on  whether  any  specific  use  of 
any  specific  book  is  allowed.  Please  do  not  assume  that  a  book's  appearance  in  Google  Book  Search  means  it  can  be  used  in  any  manner 
anywhere  in  the  world.  Copyright  infringement  liability  can  be  quite  severe. 

About  Google  Book  Search 

Google's  mission  is  to  organize  the  world's  information  and  to  make  it  universally  accessible  and  useful.  Google  Book  Search  helps  readers 
discover  the  world's  books  while  helping  authors  and  publishers  reach  new  audiences.  You  can  search  through  the  full  text  of  this  book  on  the  web 

at|http  :  //books  .  google  .  com/ 



















-^/,  o  '/6 





AN    ANSWER    TO     SOME     QUERIES     PRINTED     AT    EXON, 




TRINITY     389 








WATEELAKD,  VOt.  III.     /A 



iSlNC£  the  publication  of  my  Second  Defence  in  the  cause  of 
our  blesBod  Lord's  Divinity^  I  have  been  waiting  to  see  what 
further  attempts  we  were  to  have  from  the  Arians.  I  perceive 
thqr  are  still  resolute  in  their  opposition  to  the  faith  of  Christ, 
blaspheming  his  Godhead,  impugning  his  worship^  and  despising 
every  kind  ofiTer  of  instruction,  or  exhortation,  to  convince  or 
redaim  them.  I  have  the  satisfaction  however  to  observe,  that 
they  daily  give  ground  more  and  more ;  that  the  defensive  part, 
which  they  begun  with,  is,  in  a  manner,  yielded  up ;  their  main 
icheme  appearing  so  groee^  and  so  untenable,  that  they  themselves 
are  afraid  or  ashamed  to  oum  it.  As  to  the  offensive^  which 
is  now  all  that  they  are  willing  to  abide  by,  they  hold  it  on 
still  as  far  as  they  are  able :  and  yet  even  here  one  may  observe, 
that,  as  to  matter  of  argwmni^  their  attacks  are  as  harmless  as  a 
man  might  wish ;  only  there  is  a  oertsin  Jlerceness  or  biUemess 
of  spirit  still  remaining,  and  which  seems  to  increase,  as  their 
strength  decreases;  and  which  perhaps  may  grow  upon  them 
more  and  more  to  the  last,  as  is  natural  and  common  in  such 
But  to  come  to  the  point. 

B  2 


Their  first  effort  to  renew  the  contest  appeared  under  the 
title  of  Remarks,  &;o.  by  one  Phiialethes  Cantabrigiensis, 
printed  for  J.  Noon.  Having  no  manner  of  acquaintance,  that 
I  know  of,  with  the  man  under  that  conceited  name ;  and  find- 
ing little  in  the  piece  more  than  tedious  repetition  and  studied 
confusion^  I  sh'ghted  it^  as  apprehending  myself  not  at  all  obliged 
to  take  notice  of  it. 

Waiting  a  while  longer^  there  comes  out  another  pamphlet, 
entitled.  Observations,  &c.  and  by  the  Author  of  the  Reply  to  my 
First  Defence,  printed  for  James  Knapton,  &c.  which  when  I 
saw,  I  immediately  concluded  as  I  had  some  leisure  upon  my 
hands,  that  here  was  a  call  to  me  to  set  pen  to  paper  once 
more.  For  however  low  an  opinion  I  might  have  of  the  per- 
formance, after  reading  it,  yet  the  Author  of  the  Reply ^  when  he 
has  any  thing  to  say,  and  while  our  readers  are  not  quite  weary, 
may  always  command  my  more  especial  notice.  Whether  it  be 
Dr.  Clarke,  or  whether  it  be  Mr.  Jackson,  (for  though  it  be 
doubted  which,  all  agree  that  it  lies  between  them,)  they  are 
both  men  whom  I  must  attend  to :  one,  as  he  is  the  principal 
in  the  cause;  the  other,  as  he  is  second,  and  had  the  first  hand 
in  committing  my  Queries  to  the  press,  engaging  me  ever  after 
in  the  public  service.  Let  but  either  of  those  tux>  gentlemen  stand 
accountable  in  the  opinion  of  the  world,  (I  mean  no  more,)  for 
oxiy  fold  play  on  their  side,  as  I  by  setting  my  name  am  answer- 
able for  any  on  mine,  and  then  I  shall  think  myself  upon  even 
terms  with  them  in  that  respect :  and  as  to  any  other,  I  humbly 
conceive,  I  have  no  reason  to  fear  their  gaining  any  advantage. 

The  author  of  the  Observations  begins  with  giving  us  his  judg- 
ment of  his  oton  performance ;  assuring  his  reader,  in  the  most 
solemn  manner^  that  the  Observations  contain  in  them  no  argu- 
ment^ nor  branch  of  any  argument,  but  what,  upon  the  most 
serious  consideration  and  careful  review,  appears  to  him  strictly 
and  perfectly  conchid'oe.  Thus  far  perhaps  may  be  true :  for  I 
know  not  how  things  may  appear  to  him,  nor  how  defective  he 


may  be  \n  judgment.  But  I  wish  he  could  have  added,  no  repre- 
serUatums  but  what,  upon  calm  examination,  he  had  found  to  be 
strictly  jusi ;  no  reports^  but  what  he  knew  to  be  trtie ;  no  charges 
upon  his  adversary/  but  what  he  believed  to  be  hmest  and 
upright ;  no  personal  reflections  beyond  what  he  had  clear  and 
sufficient  grounds  for.     But  I  pass  on  to  his  book. 

He  has  cast  his  work  into  fourteen  observations ;  the  weightiest, 
no  doubt,  tiiat  the  whole  compass  of  the  controversy  could  afford. 
I  shall  consider  what  to  say  to  them,  after  I  have  given  the 
reader  some  brief  hints  of  the  past  and  present  state  of  the 
dispute  between  us.  It  should  be  remembered,  that  this  gentle- 
man at  his  first  setting  out,  and  all  along  till  now^  undertook  to 
answer  queries,  to  satisfy  ohjecticnSy  to  assoil  difficulties^  to  recon- 
dle  the  new  scheme  to  itself ,  to  Scripture^  to  antiquity,  and  to 
reason ;  that  so  having  first  cleared  his  own  doctrine  in  every 
part,  beyond  any  thing  that  could  be  done  for  the  faith  received, 
he  might  then  with  a  better  face  disturb  the  peace  of  the  Churchy 
and  plead  the  more  earnestly  (but  modestly  withal)  for  a  thorough 
change.  This  was  what  he  undertook :  and  had  he  been  as  able 
to  execute,  as  he  was  forward  to  project,  I  profess  sincerely,  he 
should  not  have  wanted  any  encouragement,  or  even  thanks  of 
mine ;  so  far  should  I  have  been  from  giving  him  further  moles- 
tation. But  it  hath  happened  to  him,  (as  it  ordinarily  must  to 
every  man,  who  undertakes  a  business  before  he  has  seen  into 
it,)  that  he  has  met  with  many  difficulties,  more  than  he  at  first 
apprehended,  and  is  by  no  means  able  to  surmount  them. 

To  mention  a  few  particulars,  out  of  a  great  number : 

1.  He  has  not  been  able  to  clear  his  scheme  of  the  unsup- 
portable  charge  of  making  ttco  Gods,  one  supreme  and  another 

2.  He  has  not  been  able  to  get  over  the  diificulty  of  supposing 
God  the  Son  and  God  the  Holy  Ghost  ttco  creatures^  in  direct 

*  See  my  First  and  Second  Defence,  Query  v.  vol.  i.  and  ii. 
^  See  my  First  and  Second  Defence,  Query  xi.  xii.  vol.  i.  and  ii. 


opposition  to  Scripture  and  antiquity.  He  has  indeed  avoided 
giving  them  the  name  of  creature^  which  yet  can  contribute  but 
little  satigfaction  to  as  many  as  plainly  see  how  the  thing  is  other- 
wise fully  and  repeatedly  owned  under  other  names<^. 

3.  He  has  not  been  able  to  defend  or  excuse  creature-ux^rship^ 
so  fully  condemned  by  Scripture^  and  by  the  ancient  Jews  and 
Christians,  with  one  voioe^. 

4.  Nor  hath  he  been  able  to  disprove  or  elude  the  proofs 
brought  from  Scripture  and  antiquity y  of  the  divine  worship  due 
to  Christ®. 

5.  He  hath  not  been  able  to  salve,  or  so  much  as  to  colour 
over  a  notorious  flaw  in  his  scheme^  relating  to  the  faundatian  of 
the  ioanhip  of  Christ ;  taking  up  principles  there  which  can  suit 
only  with  the  Socinian  scheme,  at  other  times  espousing  the 
Arian,  though  it  be  impossible  for  both  to  stand  together^ 

6.  He  has  not  been  able  to  give  any  tolerable  account  of 
the  divine  titles^  attributes^  and  honours  being  ascribed  to  a 

7.  He  has  given  no  satisfaction  at  all  about  Christ  being 
Creator  and  creature  too ;  not  being  able  to  elude  the  proofs  of 
the  former,  nor  to  reconcile  both  parts  together^. 

8.  Though  he  set  out  with  pompous  pretences  to  antiquity,  he 
cannot  make  them  good :  but  it  is  proved  upon  him^  nor  can  he 
elude  the  proof,  that  in  thirteen  instances  of  doctrine,  containing 
the  main  branches  of  his  scheme,  he  runs  directly  counter  to  all 
Catholic  antiquity^ 

9.  He  has  not  been  able  to  vindicate  Dr.  Clarke's  quotations 
from  the  ancients :  which  have  been  proved,  all  of  them,  to  be 

^  See  my  Supplement  to  the  Case,  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  676,  &c. 
&c.  vol.  ii.  p.  324.    Second  Defence,        f  First  and  Second  Defence,  Query 

vol.  ii.  p.  643,  &c.  z.  zi.  vol.  i.  and  ii.  Sermons  vii.  viii. 

^  Fmi  and  Second  Defence,  Query  vol.  ii. 
xvi.  xvii.  vol.  i.  and  ii.  ^  First  and  Second  Defence,  Query 

<  See  my  First  and  Second  Defence,  zii.  vol.  i.  and  ii. 
Query  zvi.  zviii.  vol.  i.  and  ii.  *  First    Defence,   vol.  i.    p.   497. 

'  nrst  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.  434,  &c.  Second,  vol.  ii.  p.  739,  &c. 


eitheriio^/Mffjfi^,  or  nai  justly  quoted^  or  not  fairly  translated,  or 
not  rightly  understood^ 

The  author  of  the  Reply  having  thus  failed  in  the  main 
business,  I  might  reasonably  deeline  any  further  dispute  with 
him.  He  is  so  sensible  of  the  lameness  of  his  former  performances 
in  the  defensive^  that  he  is  now  pleased  to  quit  that  part  entirely, 
and  to  attempt  it  no  longer.  My  Queries  remain  queries  still ; 
and  the  oracle  shuts  up  in  sullen  silence.  All  that  I  contended 
for  seems  to  be  tacitly  yielded  up  to  me ;  and  I  stand  in  quiet 
and  peaceable  possession  of  it.  What  room  then  is  there  for 
]my  further  dispute?  Yes,  there  is  room  still,  this  gentleman 
thinks,  to  act  upon  the  offensive :  and  since  he  has  been  so  un- 
happy as  to  give  no  satisfaction  in  respect  of  his  own  scheme,  he 
hopes  however  to  be  even  with  us  in  some  measure,  by  declaring 
himself  still  dissatisfied  with  ours.  He  had  many  objections 
formerly,  which  he  has  been  pleased  to  drop  one  after  another 
in  the  course  of  the  debate :  and  he  has  some  left  still,  which  he 
resolves  to  abide  by ;  though  the  force  even  of  these  few  remain- 
ing have  been  already  so  broken  and  blunted,  that  were  it  not 
for  the  ignoranc-e  of  some  readers,  and  the  convenient  use  of  mis- 
representations, misreportSj  Jlouts,  and  scoffiy  and  an  assuming 
positiveness,  in  lieu  of  a  just  reply,  he  could  do  nothing  with 

For  the  benefit  therefore  of  weal  readers,  who  may  be  moved 
by  weak  things,  and  for  the  sake  of  truth  and  godliness,  and  in 
regard  to  the  character  of  the  men  I  am  engaged  with,  I  proceed 
to  examine  the  Observations.  The  author  has  taken  his  own 
method ;  and  so  will  I  mine,  as  to  me  seems  most  proper,  and 
most  convenient  for  the  reader.  As  his  work  is  a  rhapsody  of 
independent  thoughts,  thrown  under  heads,  at  discretion :  and 
as  the  author  in  the  composition  observes  very  little  coherence, 
but  jumps  from  thing  to  thing,  blending  matters  together  as  it 

^  First  and  Second  Defence,  Query  xxvu.  vol.  i.  and  ii. 


happened,  or  as  came  into  his  head,  I  shall  not  think  it  necessary 
to  follow  him  all  the  way  in  his  rambling  chase.  But  some 
method  I  must  have  too ;  and  it  shall  be  this,  to  rank  his  most 
material  observations  under  several  heads,  viz.  FaUe  Charges, 
Misrq>re8eni€Ui(m8y  Flouts  and  Scoji,  &c.  And  these  heads  shall 
make  so  many  chapters. 




CHAP.   I. 
FaUse  and  injurious  Charges  contained  in  the  Observations. 

I.  In  the  list  of  false  charges,  I  shall  first  place  one  that  stands 
in  page  iiSth,  as  being  a  very  remarkable  one,  and  proper  to  be 
first  spoken  to^  by  way  of  introduction  to  what  shall  come  after. 
The  words  of  the  Observator  are, 

''  Not  so  much  as  one  single  writer  in  the  three  first  centuries 

" has  presumed  to  teach,  but,  on  the  contrary,  they  would 

"  all  have  judged  it  the  highest  blasphemy  either  to  say  or  think, 
"  (which  is  the  very  point  in  which  Dr.  Waterland^s  whole  doc- 
"  trine  centres,)  that  God  the  Father  Almighty,  even  the  one 
**  God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all,  has  no  natural  and 
'^  necessary  supremacy  of  authority  and  dominion  at  all;  has  no 
'  *  other  supremacy  of  authority  and  dominion,  than  what  is  founded 
''  merely  in  mutual  agreement  and  voluntary  concert ;  but  has, 
"  naturally  and  necessarily,  a  priority  of  order  only." 

Here  is  a  high  charge,  a  charge  of  blasphemy  laid  to  me,  and 
in  the  name  too  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  whose  memory 
will  be  ever  precious,  and  whose  judgment  I  respect  and  reve- 
rence. Now,  that  the  reader  may  the  better  judge  of  this  ex- 
traordinary paragraph  of  the  Observator,  I  must  take  care  to 
inform  him  how  the^se  stands  between  him  and  me  in  regard 
to  the  supremacy.  In  the  preface  to  my  Second  Defence,  and 
again  in  the  book,  I  intimated  over  and  over,  in  as  plain  words 


as  I  could  speak,  that  provided  the  Son^s  necessary  existence  be 
secured,  that  he  be  acknowledged  not  to  exist  precariously,  or 
contingently,  but  necessarily,  that  his  coetemity  and  consubstantiality 
be  maintained,  his  creative  powers,  his  infinite  perfections,  his 
being  no  creature,  but  one  God  with  the  Father,  and  the  like ; 
that  then  the  supremacy  shall  be  no  matter  of  dispute  with  me. 
Any  supremacy  of  the  Father  that  is  consistent  with  these  certain^ 
plain,  Catholic  tenets,  always  and  universally  believed  by  the 
churches  of  Christ ;  I  say,  any  supremacy  consistent  herewith, 
I  hold,  assert,  and  maintain :  any  that  is  not  consistent,  I  reject, 
remove,  and  detest,  with  all  the  Christian  churches  early  and 
The  case  then,  betwixt  this  gentleman  and  me,  lies  thus  : 
It  is  agreed,  I  presume,  on  both  sides,  that  God  the  Son  is 
either  strictly  equal  with  God  the  Father,  as  to  all  essential  per- 
fections, or  that  he  is  infinitely  inferior  to  him,  as  one  that  does 
not  exist  necessarily,  must  of  course  be  infinitely  inferior  to 
another  that  does. 

The  equality  of  nature,  it  seems,  is  not  consistent  with  this 
writer's  supremacy;  and  he  readily  acknowledges  that  it  is  not : 
but  he  will  maintain  however  the  supremacy  at  all  adventures ; 
which  is  directly  making  God  the  Son  naturally  subject  to  the 
Father,  who  is  therefore  his  sovereign  Lord  and  Ruler,  to  reward 
him  if  he  does  well,  to  punish  him  if  he  does  amiss,  to  do  with 
him  according  to  his  will  and  pleasure,  as  with  any  other  crea- 
ture. The  consequence  is,  making  God  the  Son  a  creature;  the 
Jehovah,  the  trus  Grod,  and  God  blessed  for  ever,  &c.  a  creature^  a 
being  that  might  never  have  existed,  and  might  cease  to  exist, 
if  God  so  pleased.  These  are  the  plain  certain  consequences  of 
this  gentleman's  scheme,  and  such  the  tendency  of  his  doctrine 
about  the  supremacy.  He  urges  the  supremacy  to  destroy  the 
equality :  I  stand  by  the  equality,  and  insist  upon  it,  that  it  is 
consistent  with  all  the  supremacy  that  either  Scripture  or  Ca- 
tholic Fathers  taught.  And  I  have  this  plain  reason  to  offer, 
with  respect  to  the  Fathers,  that  while  they  maintained  the 
supremacyy  they  maintained  also  the  necessary  existence,  the  co- 
eternity,  the  consubstantiality  of  God  the  Son,  and  his  unity  of 
Godhead  with  the  Father ;  which  points  once  secured,  I  am  very 
ready  to  admit  any  consistent  supremacy.  The  consequences  which 
Dr.  Clarke  and  his  adherents  draw  from  the  supremacy,  I  answer, 
as  the  Church  of  Christ  has  always  done  from  the  time  such 


oonsequenoes  were  pleaded,  by  admitting  a  supremacy  of  crder^ 
which  is  natural,  and  a  supremacy  of  office^  which  is  economical. 
The  consequences,  on  the  other  hand,  which  we  draw  against 
them,  as  destroying  the  equality^  (so  manifestly  taught  through 
the  whole  Scripture  and  by  the  primitive  churches,)  they  have 
never  answered,  nor  can  they  answer  them :  which  they  are  so 
sensible  of,  that  they  do  not  care  to  have  them  mentioned^  but 
perpetually  disguise,  conceal,  dissemble  them,  and  keep  them  out 
of  sight. 

I  must  therefore,  in  my  turn,  now  tell  the  objector,  that  he  is 
the  blasphemer,  upon  the  avowed  principles  of  the  Ante-Nicene 
churches ;  in  making  Gk>d  the  Father  naturally  sovereign  Lord 
and  Ruler  over  Crod  the  San  and  God  the  Holy  Ghost;  in  reducing 
both  the  divvM  Persons  to  the  condition  of  creatures^  or  preca- 
rious beings ;  brought  into  existence  at  pleasure^  and  reducible 
to  nonrexistence  again  at  pleasure.  This  is  not  the  doctrine  of 
Scripture  or  Fathers,  but  diametrically  repugnant  to  both ;  is 
derived  from  ancient  heresies^  and  is  false,  wicked,  and  de- 

There  may  be  some  difficulties  objected  to  the  Churches  way 
of  reconciling  (the  ChurcKs  way  I  call  it,  for  such  it  is,  not  mine) 
the  equality  and  supremacy  together :  but  no  greater  difficulties 
than  what  occur  in  almost  every  other  controversy.  They  that 
have  seen  into  the  heart  of  the  controversy  between  Jews  and 
Christians,  or  between  Atheists  and  Theists,  or  between  Papists 
and  Protestants  in  some  points,  or  between  Galvinists  and  Ar- 
minians,  must  acknowledge  the  same  thing  in  every  one  of  them : 
which  is  owing  to  this,  that  human  capacity  is  finite^  and  our 
igfiwrance  of  wider  compass  than  our  knou)ledge;  and  that  there- 
fore it  is  much  easier  to  raise  doubts  and  difficulties,  than  it  is 
to  solve  them.  But  difficulties  are  one  thing,  and  demonstrations 
another:  and  it  very  ill  becomes  this  gentleman,  when  he  has 
such  large  scores  of  his  own,  and  while  he  bends  under  the  weight 
of  many  insuperable  objections,  to  grow  so  exceeding  flippant, 
and  above  measure  assuming,  upon  the  strength  only  of  two  or 
three  stale  cavils,  borrowed  from  ancient  heresies. 

I  should  take  notice  of  his  wording  the  charge,  about  the 
natural  and  necessary  supremacy  of  dominion.  He  gives  it  out 
that  I  have  totally  disowned  and  denied  that  the  Father  has 
any,  asserting  that  he  has  none  at  all.  I  think  there  is  a  great 
deal  of  difference  between  saying,  that  the  Father  has  a  natural 
and  necessary  dominion  over  the  creatures  in  common  with  the 


Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  and  saying,  that  he  has  no  natural  supre- 
macy of  dominion  at  all.  And  this  toriter  oould  not  be  ignorant 
with  what  iniquity  he  thus  worded  the  thing,  to  leave  room  for 
a  false  construction,  and  to  shock  and  astonish  every  careless 
and  ignorant  reader.  However,  thus  much  may  be  said^  that, 
in  strictness,  no  supremacy  of  dominion  can  be  natural  and  ne- 
cessafy^  in  such  a  full  sense  as  God's  attributes  are  natural  and 
necessary,  eternally  and  constantly  residing  in  him.  All  supre- 
macy of  dominion  supposes  an  inferior^  and  commences  with  the 
existence  of  that  inferior ;  and  is  therefore  so  far,  and  so  much 
voluntary,  as  the  creating  of  an  inferior  is.  But  upon  the  in/erior'^s 
coming  into  being,  then  indeed  commences  the  supremacy;  which 
is  an  extrinsic  relation,  no  essential  attribute:  only,  thus  far  it 
may  be  called  natural  and  necessary,  as  being  necessary  ex  hypo- 
thesiy  or,  upon  that  supposition,  as  being  a  relation  founded  upon 
the  natural  and  necessary  perfections  of  the  Godhead,  which  set 
it  above  the  creatures^  and  make  an  infinite  disparity  of  nature 
between  that  and  them.  So  that,  after  all,  this  superabundant 
eagerness  and  vehemence  for  a  natural  supremacy  over  God  the 
Son,  and  God  the  Holy  Ghosts  is  only  contending,  in  other  words, 
for  a  disparity  or  inferiority  of  nature  in  those  two  Persons :  and 
this  is  the  sole  meaning  of  appointing  them  a  governor.  The  blas- 
phemy I  am  charged  with,  is  only  the  denying  that  they  have 
naturally  any  ruler  and  governor,  I  venture  once  and  again  to 
repeat,  that  they  have  not,  nor  ever  could  have :  and  this  I  main- 
tain upon  the  clear  and  undoubted  principles  of  all  the  ancient 
and  modem  churches. 

This  gentleman  may  call  it,  if  he  pleases,  (words  are  free,)  my 
wonderful  fiction,  p.  7,  my  new  and  unheard  of  fiction,  p.  23,  en- 
tirely of  my  inventing,  p.  28,  my  own  invention^  p.  46,  52,  100. 
If  he  really  thinks  so,  I  should  advise  him  to  read  the  ancients ; 
or  if  that  be  too  much,  to  read  only  Bishop  Pearson,  or  Bishop 
Bull,  to  inform  himself  better :  or  if  he  does  not  believe  it,  and 
yet  says  it,  I  should  entreat  him  to  correct  that  evil  habit  of 
romancing,  that  outrageous  method  of  reviling^  and  to  learn  the 
due  government  of  his  mind.  I  have  invented  nothing,  have 
coined  no  new  notion,  but  have  plainly  and  sincerely  followed 
what  the  ancients^  with  one  voice,  have  led  me  into,  and  the  two 
excellent  modems,  just  mentioned,  have  taught  and  maintained 
upon  the  same  bottom.  Bishop  Bull  may  be  consulted  at  large  : 
I  shall  quote  one  passage  of  Bishop  Pearson,  because  short : 
*'  The  Word,  that  is,  Christ  as  God,  hath  the  supreme  and  uni- 


"  versal  dominion  of  the  world*."  Which  is  to  all  intents  and 
purposes  denying  the  FcUher^s  sufremacy  as  much  as  I  have  ever 
done.  But  what  a  pass  are  things  come  to,  that  the  knovcn 
standing  doctrine  of  all  Christian  churches,  ancient  and  modem, 
must  be  treated  as  a  novelty^  as  a  fiction  or  invention  of  mine  ! 
If  the  reader  desires  a  specimen  of  the  ancient  doctrine  in  this 
point,  he  may  turn  to  the  quotations  in  my  First  Defence, 
(vol.  i.  p.  443O  which  express  the  Catholic  doctrine,  and  to  which 
all  the  Fathers  are  conformable.  So  much  in  answer  to  the 
charge  of  blasphemy. 

Whether  this  gentleman  can  ward  off  that  very  charge,  or 
prevent  its  returning  on  his  own  head,  may  deserve  his  consi- 
deration. The  good  Christians  of  old  would  have  stopped  their 
ears  against  such  blasphemy  as  his  tenets  amount  to.  All  reclaim 
against  it:  some  directly  and  expressly^  as  often  as  they  pronounce 
any  ttDo,  or  the  whole  three^  to  be  one  God^  or  one  subsiance^  of 
one  dominion^  of  onepotoer  or  glory :  and  the  rest  conseqtientiallyy 
by  maintaining  the  necessary  existence,  consubstantiaHty^  coetemity, 
or  other  divine  attributes  of  the  Son  or  Spirit. 

I  have  now  done  with  the  first  charge;  which  I  have  dwelt  the 
longer  upon,  because  it  runs  in  a  manner  through  the  book ;  and 
the  answering  it  here  in  the  entrance  will  give  light  to  what  follows : 

II.  A  Becond  false  charge  upon  me  is  in  these  words:  ^^  Neg- 
''  lecting  therefore  the  reason  upon  which  the  Scripture  expressly 
^'  founds  the  honour  we  are  to  pay  to  Christ,  the  Doctor  builds 
*'  it  entirely  upon  another  foundation,  on  which  the  Scripture 
"  never  builds  it,  viz.  on  this,  that  by  him  Gk>d  created  all 
"things,"  p.  7. 

I  shall  say  nothing  here  of  the  absurdity  o{  founding  the  wor- 
ship of  Christ  in  the  manner  this  author  does,  by  tacking  So- 
dnianism  and  Arianism  together,  though  entirely  repugnant  to 
each  other,  as  I  have  observed  elsewhere^ :  but  as  to  the  charge 
brought  against  me,  of  founding  Christ's  worship  as  is  here  said ; 
I  must  beg  leave  to  confute  it  by  producing  my  own  words. 
"  I  found  the  Son's  title  to  worship  upon  the  dignity  of  his 
"  Person ;  his  creative  powers  declared  in  John  i.  and  elsewhere ; 
«  his  being  0609  from  the  beginning ;  and  his  preserving  and 
'*  upholding  all  things,  (according  to  Coloss.  i.  16,  17.  and 
"  Heb. 

»  Pearson  on  the  Creed,  p.  188.  Oxf.     Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  676. 
edit.  1847.  ^  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.  434. 

^  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.  434.     Second 


'^  I  say 9  his  honour  is  founded  on  the  intrinsic  excellency  and 
"  antecedent  dignity  of  his  Person ;  whereof  the  power  of  judg- 
^^  ment  committed  is  only  a  further  attestation,  and  a  provisional 
^'  security  for  the  payment  of  his  due  honour.  It  did  not  tnale 
"'  him  toorthy^  hut  found  him  so :  and  it  was  added^  that  such  his 
*'  high  worth  and  dignity  might  appear,  &c.^" 

Is  this  founding  it  entirely  upon  what  the  author  here  pre- 
tends ?  As  to  his  pleading,  that  his  way  of  founding  it  is  scrips 
tural,  and  mine  not  scriptural:  both  the  parts  of  his  pretext  are 
abundantly  confuted  in  my  First  and  Second  Defence®,  and  in  a 
preface  to  my  Sermons^ 

III.  Another  false  charge  is  in  these  words,  p.  ii.  "  Here  the 
"  Doctor  directly  corrupts  the  Apostle's  assertion ;  not  allowing 
^'  him  to  say  (what  he  expressly  does  say)  that  to  tu  there  is  one 
"  Gody  the  Father,  but  only  on  the  reverse,  to  give  the  Father 
"  the  style  or  title  of  the  one  God."  He  grounds  the  charge  upon 
what  he  finds  in  my  Second  Defence,  voL  ii.  p.  527, 694.  In  the 
first  I  have  these  words :  ''  Yes,  he  (the  Apostle)  tells  us,  that 
^'  the  Father  J  of  whom  are  aU  things^  is  the  one  Gody  (N.B.)  in 
*^  opposition  to  false  ones,  to  nominal  gods  and  lords :  and  it  is 
'^  plain,  that  he  meant  it  not  in  opposition  to  God  the  Son,  be- 
'^  cause  he  reckons  him  God  to  usJ*  Rom.  ix.  5. 

Now  where,  I  pray,  is  the  corruption  of  what  the  Apostle 
asserts  f  Or  how  do  I  refuse  to  aVmo  him  to  say  what  he  does 
say  i  This  gentleman,  it  seems,  will  shew  it  by  this  wise  remark ; 
"  It  is  one  thing  to  say,  that  the  one  God  is  the  Father,  of 
"  whom  are  all  things ;  and  another  thing  to  say,  that  the 
"  Father  (though  not  the  Father  only)  is  the  one  God.  Now  it  is 
"  evident  the  Apostle  in  this  text  is  not  reciting  the  characters 
'^  of  the  Father,  and  telUng  us  that  he  may  be  styled  the  one 
^*  God ;  but — he  is  declaring  to  us  who  the  one  Grod  is,  viz.  the 
^^  Father.'^  The  difference  then  between  us  is  only  this ;  that 
I  suppose  the  Apostle  to  tell  us  who  is  the  one  God,  he  supposes 
him  to  tell  us  who  the  one  God  is.  A  notable  criticism^  to  found 
such  a  charge,  of  directly  corrupting  and  disallowing  Scripture, 
upon  !  Especially  considering  that  the  Greek  words  {th  Ocd;  6 
Ucerrip)  may  bear  either  construction,  (if  they  be  really  two  con- 
structions,) and  either  may  equally  suit  with  the  context.  For 
though  the  text  is  not  reciting  the  Father's  characters,  not  all 

d  Second  Defence,  vol.ii.  p.  685.        and  ii.  Query  xvi.  xvii.  xviii.  xix. 
«  First  and  Second  Defence,  vol.i.       '  Pk^faoe  to  Eight  Sermons,  vol.  ii. 


his  charaoiers,  yet  the  design  was  to  point  out  who  is  the  one  God; 
and  he  fixes  that  character  upon  the  Person  of  the  Father y  as 
bemg/^mori/y  and  eminently ^  though  not  exclusively ^  the  oneGk)d. 

I  have  been  considering  (longer  perhaps  than  it  deserves)  where 
the  difference  lies  between  asking  who  is  the  one  God,  and  asking, 
who  the  one  God  is :  and  to  me  it  appears  so  very  small  and  im- 
perceptible, that  I  can  lay  no  hold  of  it.  I  have  tried  what  I 
could  do  in  another  instance :  let  it  be  inquired,  Who  is  the  apo- 
stle of  the  Gentiles  f  The  answer  is,  Paul  of  Tarsus,  &c.  Well, 
but  inquire,  Who  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles  is  f  The  answer  is 
still  the  same,  Paul  of  Tarsus,  &c.  Put  the  questions  into  Latin, 
we  are  still  never  the  nearer,  they  are  plainly  tantamount :  at 
least  the  difference  to  me  is  undiscemible ;  unless  by  who,  in  the 
latter  case,  be  meant  what :  upon  which  supposition,  the  text  we 
are  concerned  with  should  not  be  translated^  To  us  there  is  but 
one  God,  the  Father  s  but  thus ;  To  us  the  m^  God  is  a  Father, 
&c.  Perhaps  this  ingenious  gentleman  may  be  able  to  clear  up 
the  matter  to  satisfaction  :  but  since  he  has  not  yet  done  it,  it 
is  plain  he  was  too  hasty  in  charging  me  at  all,  but  very  injurious 
in  running  it  up  to  such  an  extravagant  height. 

IV.  "  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  delivered  in  these  words 
"  (Eph.  iv.  3, 5, 6.)  by  the  Apostle,  is  so  expressly  contradictory 
^^  to  Dr.  Waterland^s  scheme,  and  so  impossible  to  be  perverted 
^*  even  into  any  appearance  of  consistency  with  it,  that  the 
*-*  Doctor  finds  himself  here  obliged  even  fairly  to  tell  us^  that 
"  St.  Paul  ought  not  to  have  writ  thus  as  he  did,  &c.''  p.  17. 

This  is  a  charge  so  malicious  and  petulant,  and  withal  so 
groundless,  that  I  cannot  well  imagine  what  could  transport  the 
man  into  such  excesses.  For  supposing  I  had  misinterpreted 
St.  Paul,  and  very  widely  too,  would  it  amount  to  a  declaration 
that  the  Apostle  ought  not  to  have  writ  what  he  did  write !  How 
hard  would  it  be  with  commentators,  if  upon  every  misconstruction 
of  a  text,  really  such,  they  were  to  be  thus  charged  with  taking 
upon  them  to  be  wiser  than  the  sacred  penmen,  and  to  correct 
the  Spirit  of  God ! 

After  all,  if  the  reader  pleases  to  look  into  my  Defences,  he 
will  be  surprised  to  find  how  innocent  the  words  are,  which  have 
been  wrought  up  into  this  high  charge.  In  my  Defence,  I  say, 
^^  Ephes.  iv.  6  has  been  generally  understood  by  the  ancients  of 

f  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.  a8o. 


"  the  whole  Trinity :  above  aU^  as  Father ;  through  all,  by  the 
"  Word;  and  in  all,  by  the  Holy  Ghost. '^  I  refer  to  Irenseus, 
Hippolytus^  MariuB  VietorinuB,  Athanasius,  and  Jerome,  for 
that  construction :  I  conclude^  "  However  that  bo/^  (that  is, 
whatever  becomes  of  that  interpretation^  be  it  just  or  otherwise,) 
yet  "  the  Father  may  be  reasonably  called  the  one,  or  only  God, 
"  without  the  least  diminution  of  the  Son's  real  divinity  ^/^ 

In  my  Second  Defence,  all  I  pretend  is,  that  '^I  see  no 
"  absurdity**^  in  the  interpretation  now  mentioned :  and  I  ob- 
serve, that  "  we  are  not  there  inquiring  into  the  sense  of  the 
^'  text,  but  into  the  sentiments  of  the  ancients  upon  it  r  and  I 
exhibit  their  testimonies  at  large.  And  to  take  off  the  pre- 
tended absurdity  of  that  ancient  interpretation,  in  making  the 
one  God  and  Father  of  all  include  all  the  three  Persons,  I 
observe  how  Irenaeus  (one  of  the  Fathers  quoted)  reckons  the 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost  to  the  Father,  as  being  his  very  self  in  a 
qualified  sense.  And  I  further  add,  that  "  nothing  is  more 
^^  common  than  for  a  head  of  a  family,  suppose  Abraham,  to  be 
"'  understood  in  a  stricter  or  larger  sense,  either  as  denoting  his 
*^  own  proper  person,  or  as  denoting  him  and  all  his  descendants 
^^  considered  as  contained  in  him,  and  reckoned  to  him.""  I  shew 
further  from  the  plain  and  express  testimonies  of  Hippolytus 
and  Tertullian,  that  they  also,  as  well  as  Irenaeus,  sometimes 
considered  the  Fatltsr  in  that  large  sense  before  mentioned'. 

These  are  ihe facts;  which  this  gentleman  should  have  con- 
futed, instead  of  bringing  against  me  railing  accusations.  If 
there  be  any  force  (as  there  is  none)  in  the  charge,  it  falls  upon 
the  Fathers ;  whose  interpretation  I  defended  no  further  than  by 
shewing  it  not  to  be  absurd,  nor  unsuitable  to  the  language  of 
the  early  times.  As  to  myself,  I  did  not  so  much  as  condemn 
the  common  interpretation,  but  was  content  to  admit  of  it :  and 
yet  if  I  had  condemned  it,  I  should  not,  I  conceive,  have  been 
therefore  chargeable  with  condemning  St.  Paul. 

This  writer  has  a  further  complaint,  it  seems,  in  relation  to 
the  present  text.  He  is  positive  that  the  title  oi  Father  ofaU  is 
very  disagreeable^  to  me :  and  he  insinuates,  that  pure  decency 
here  restrained  me  from  finding  fauU  with  St,  Paul,  for  choos- 
ing such  a  Pagan  expression.     A  mean  suggestion,  and  entirely 

s  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.  280.  *  See  my  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p. 

^  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  430.       431,457.        ^  Obsen'ations,  p.  18. 


groundless.  For  neither  did  I  give  any  the  least  hint  of  dislike 
to  St.  Paul's  expression,  nor  did  \findfauU  toith  the  Fathers  for 
adapting  sometimes  their  style  to  Pagans,  but  commended  them 
rather  for  doing  it,  in  the  cases  by  me  mentioned ^^  as  doing 
what  was  proper.  And  certainly  it  was  commendable  in  St.  Paul, 
and  I  acknowledged  it  to  be  so*",  to  adopt  the  Pagan  phrase  of 
unknown  Gody  and  to  apply  it  in  a  Christian  sense,  to  lead  the 
Pagans  into  a  belief  of  the  true  God. 

Before  I  leave  this  article,  I  would  take  notice  of  this  gentle- 
man's affectation^  (to  call  it  no  worse,)  of  loading  every  thing 
beyond  measure,  in  a  way  uncommon ;  and  pointing  and  edging 
his  expressions  to  such  a  degree  as  to  make  them  ridiculous. 
It  is  not  enough,  with  him,  to  say,  as  another  man  would  in 
such  a  case,  that  a  text  has  been  misconstrued,  and  its  sense 
perverted  or  misapplied ;  no,  that  would  sound  flat  and  vulgar : 
but  it  is  to  be  called  corrupting  the  Apostle's  assertion,  not 
allowing  Aim  to  write  what  he  did  write ;  or,  it  is  finding  fault 
with  him,  or  fairly  telling  us  that  he  ought  not  to  have  writ  thus 
as  he  did ;  or,  it  is  an  attempt  to  expose  and  render  ridiculous 
the  Apostle's  doctrine,  and  arguing,  not  against  Dr.  Clarke,  but 
against  plain  Scripture^  and  against  the  Evangelists  and  Apostles 
themselves".  This  it  is  to  be  elegant  and  quaint,  and  to  push 
the  satire  home.  I  can  pardon  the  pedantry,  and  the  false 
sublime,  in  a  man  of  such  a  taste :  but  I  desire  he  may  use 
it  somewhere  else ;  and  not  where  he  is  laying  an  indictment,  or 
making  a  report,  which  requires  truth  and  strictness. 

y .  '*  The  supreme  authority  and  original  independent  absolute 
'<  dominion  of  the  God  and  Father  of  all,  who  is  above  all;  that 
*•  authority  which  is  the  foundation  of  the  whole  law  of  nature, 
"  which  is  taught  and  confirmed  in  every  page  of  the  New  Tes- 
"  tamont;  which  is  professed  and  declared  in  the  first  article 
"  of  every  ancient  creed,  in  every  Christian  church  of  the  world, 
"  and  which  is  maintained  as  the  frst  principle  of  religion  by 
"  every  Christian  writer,  not  only  in  the  three  first  centuries,  but 
**  even  in  the  foUowing  ages  of  contention  and  ambition :  this 
**  supreme  authority,  &c.  Dr.  Waterland  in  his  last  book  (merely 
"  for  the  more  consistent  salving  of  a  metaphysical  hypothesis) 
*'  has,  by  a  new  and  unheard  of  fiction,  without  any  shadow  of 
•*  evidence  from  any  one  text  of  Scripture,  in  direct  contra- 

^  See  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  486.    ^  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  530. 
n  See  Reply,  p.  195,197. 



*'  diction  to  the  first  article  of  all  the  ancient  creeds,  without  the 
**  testimony  of  any  one  ancient  (I  had  almost  said,  or  modem) 
"  writer,  very  presumptuously  (and  had  he  himself  been  an  op- 
''  poser  of  the  hypothesis  he  defends,  he  would  have  said,  bias- 
"  phenwusly) — reduced  entirely  to  nothing."  p.  23. 

Here  seems  to  be  something  of  sounding  rhetoric  in  this  para- 
graph ;  which  had  it  been  intended  only  for  an  exercise,  or  by  way 
of  specimen,  might  have  been  tolerable :  but  it  was  wrong  to  bring 
it  in  here,  in  a  grave  debate,  because  there  is  not  a  word  of 
truth  in  it. 

To  speak  to  the  matter,  all  this  hideous  outcry  against  an 
innocent  man  means  only  this,  as  hath  been  above  hinted  ;  that 
I  have  been  willing  to  think,  and  as  willing  to  say,  that  God  the 
Son  and  God  the  Holy  Ghost  have  7iaturaMy  no  Governor,  are 
not  naturaUy  subject  to  any  Ruler  whatever.  This  gentleman 
is  here  pleased  to  intimate  that  they  are,  and  is  very  confident 
of  it.  Let  me  number  up  the  many  palpable  untruths  he  has 
crowded  into  half  a  page.  One  about  the  foundation  oftlie  law  of 
nature:  a  second^  about  the  New  Testament:  a  third,  about 
every  a/ndent  creed:  ti  fourth,  about  ihiQ  first  principle  of  religion, 
and  every  Christian  writer :  four  or  Jive  more,  about  Dr.  Water- 
land.  There  is  not  a  syllable  of  truth  in  any  of  the  particulars 
of  which  he  is  so  positive.  For  neither  does  any  law  of  nature, 
nor  any  text  of  the  New  Testament,  nor  any  ancient  creed,  nor 
any  Christian  and  CathoUo  writer,  early  or  late,  ever  assert,  or 
intimate,  that  God  the  Father  is  naturaUy  supreme  Governor 
over  his  own  Son  and  Spirit ;  or  that  they  are  naturaUy  under 
his  rule  or  government.  And  as  to  Dr.  Waterland,  it  is  no  new 
or  unheard  of  fiction  in  him,  to  assert  one  common  dominion  to  all 
the  three  Persons,  and  to  deny  that  either  the  Son  or  Holy 
Ghost  is  naturally  subject  to  (that  is,  a  creature  of)  the  Father. 
He  has  full  evident  for  his  persuasion,  from  innumerable  texts  of 
Scripture,  from  all  the  ancient  creeds,  as  understood  by  the  Chris- 
tian churches  from  the  beginning  to  this  day:  and  he  has 
neither  blasphemously  nor  presumptuously ,  but  soberly,  righteously, 
and  in  the  fear  of  God,  stood  up  in  defence  of  the  injured  honour 
of  the  ever  blessed  Trinity,  grievously  insulted  and  outraged  by 
the  Arians  of  these  times ;  who  when  they  have  carried  on  their 
resolute  opposition  as  far  as  argument  and  calm  reasoning  can 
go,  and  are  defeated  in  it,  rather  than  yield  to  conviction,  come 
at  length  to  such  a  degree  of  meawness,  as  to  attempt  the  sup- 


port  of  a  baffled  cause  by  the  low  methods  of  declaiming  and 

VI.  "  When  Dr.  Waterland  says,  that  many  supreme  Gods  in 
"  one  undivided  substance  are  not  many  Gods,/or  that  very  reason^ 
''  because  their  substance  is  undivided^  he  might  exactly  with  the 
"  same  sense  and  tnUh  have  affinned,  that  many  supreme  persons 
''  in  one  undivided  substance  are  not  many  persons ;  for  that 
**  very  reason,  because  their  substance  is  undivided."  p*  5 1  • 

Here  I  am  charged  with  saying,  that  "  many  supreme  Gods 
"  are  not  many  Gods."  Let  my  own  words  appear  as  they 
stand.    Second  Defence^  vol.  ii.  p.  645. 

"  I  assert,  you  say,  many  supreme  Gods  in  one  undivided  sub- 
"  stance.  Ridiculous :  they  are  not  many  Gods,  for  that  very 
''  reason,  because  their  substance  is  undivided."  Is  this  saying, 
that  many  Gods  are  not  many  Gods?  No;  but  they,  that  is, 
the  three  Persons,  supposed  by  the  objector  to  be  three  Gods 
upon  our  scheme,  are  not  three  Gods,  not  many,  but  one  God 
only.  This  gentleman  appears  to  be  in  some  distress  ;  that,  in 
order  to  form  his  objection,  he  is  forced  to  invent  words  for  me, 
and  to  lay  them  before  the  reader  instead  of  mine.  He  seems 
however,  in  the  same  paragraph,  to  aim  obscurely  at  an  argument 
which  the  Author  of  the  Remarks  has  expressed  plainly,  and 
ui^ged  handsomely  enough  o,  though  with  too  much  boasting. 

The  answer,  in  short,  is  this :  though  the  union  of  the  three 
Persons  (each  Person  being  substance)  makes  them  one  substance, 
yet  the  same  union  does  not  make  them  one  Person ;  because 
union  of  svhsiance  is  one  thing,  and  unity  of  Person  is  another : 
and  there  is  no  necessity  that  the  same  kind  of  union  which  is 
sufficient  for  one  must  be  sufficient  for  the  other  also.  There  is 
no  consequence  from  one  to  the  other,  but  upon  this  supposition, 
that  person  and  acting  substance  are  equivalent  and  reciprocal: 
which  the  Author  of  the  Remarks  had  acuteness  enough  to  see, 
and  therefore  fixes  upon  me,  unfairly,  that  very  supposition.  If 
he  pleases  to  turn  to  my  definition  of  person,  he  will  find,  that 
though  I  suppose  Person  to  be  intelligent  acting  substance,  yet 
that  is  not  the  whole  of  the  definition,  nor  do  I  ever  suppose  the 
terms  or  phrases  reciprocal;  any  more  than  the  asserting  man  to 
be  an  animal  is  supposing  man  and  animal  to  be  tantamount, 
or  to  be  reciprocal  terms.  I  have  taken  this  occasion  of  replying 
to  the  Remarks  upon  this  head,  to  let  the  author  see  that  I  do 

^  Remarks,  p.  36. 


not  neglect  his  performance  for  any  strength  it  bears  in  it.  That 
which  I  have  now  answered  is,  in  my  judgment^  the  best  and 
strongest  argument  in  the  whole  piece :  and  I  believe  he  thinks 
so  too. 

VII.  "  When  the  Doctor  affirms  that  the  one  supreme  God 
''  is  not  one  supreme  God  in  Person^  but  in  substance :  what  is 
''  this  but  affirming,  that  the  one  supreme  God  is  two  supreme 
''  Gods  in  Person,  though  but  one  supreme  God  in  substance  V* 
p.  51. 

Let  the  reader  see  my  words  upon  which  this  weak  charge  is 
grounded :  they  are  in  my  First  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.  294. 

"  Father  and  Son  both  are  the  one  supreme  God :  not  one  in 
''  Person,  as  you  frequently  and  groundlessly  insinuate,  but  in 
"  substance,  power,  and  perfection.'*^  I  neither  said,  nor  meant 
to  say,  not  one  supreme  God  in  Person ;  but,  not  one  in  Person : . 
the  rest  is  of  this  writer's  foisting  in  by  way  of  blunder,  first  to 
make  nonsense,  and  then  to  comment  upon  it,  and  add  more  to 
it.  In  the  meanwhile,  it  is  some  satisfaction  to  me  to  observe, 
that  in  a  controversy  where  it  is  not  very  easy  to  express  every 
thing  with  due  accuracy^  the  keenest  adversaries  have  not  yet 
found  any  offensive  or  unjustifiahle  expression  to  lay  hold  on,  till 
they  have  first  made  it  so,  by  artifice  and  management. 

VIII.  "Another  method  whereby  Dr. Waterland  attempts 
"  to  destroy  the  supremacy  of  the  one  God,  &c. — is  by  denying 
''  any  real  generation  of  the  Son,  either  temporal  or  eternal.'' 
Obsero.  p.  56. 

Here  are  two  false  and  injurious  charges :  one  of  my  denying 
any  temporcU  generation  of  the  Son ;  the  other  of  my  denying  any 
eternal  generation.  Every  body  that  has  seen  my  books  knows 
that  I  assert,  maintain,  and  inculcate  three  generations ;  the  first 
eternal,  the  other  two  temporal:  so  that  this  charge  of  the 
Observator  must  be  made  out,  if  at  all,  by  inference,  or  conse- 
quence only,  and  not  directly :  and  therefore  he  ought  not  to  have 
expressed  this  article  in  such  general  terms  as  he  has,  but  should 
have  said,  consequentially,  implicitly,  or  the  like,  if  he  had  not 
been  exceeding  prone  to  set  every  thing  forth  in  the  falsest  and 
blackest  colours. 

What  he  advances  in  support  of  these  two  charges  betrays 
such  con/usion  of  thought,  and  such  surprising  forgetfulness  of 
ancient  learning,  (for  I  am  unwilling  to  impute  it  all  to  formed, 
premeditated  malice^)  that  I  stand  amazed  at  it. 


1 .  One  of  his  first  blunders  is,  his  attributing  the  words  hefot^e 
aU  ctges  {-npo  Trivrtav  aUaimv)  to  the  Council  of  Nice :  this  he 
repeats,  p.  67,  70,  though  every  body  knows  that  those  words 
were  not  inserted  by  the  Nicene  Council,  but  the  Constantino- 
politan,  above  fifty  years  after.  It  is  necessary  to  remark  this, 
because  part  of  the  argument  depends  upon  it.  There  can  be  no 
doubt  but  that  the  Constantinopolitan  Council  intended  eternal 
generation :  but  as  to  the  Nicene  Council,  it  may  be  questioned 
whether  they  did  or  no.  These  two  our  writer,  as  his  way  is  to 
confound  every  thing,  has  blended  together,  and,  I  suppose,  very 

The  use  he  makes  of  it  is,  bringing  me  in  as  his  voucher 
(p.  67.)  for  the  Nicene  Fathers  professing  no  more  than  a  tem- 
poral generation,  though  they  expressly  say^  it  was  irpo  vim-fav 
aUipoov,  be/ore  all  ayes.  I  do  indeed  offer  such  a  conjecture  about 
the  Nicene  Fathers  P ;  but  then  I  know  nothing  of  the  itivrfav 
aJUiwAv  which  this  gentleman  puts  upon  them ;  nor  do  I  allow 
that  either  the  Nicene  or  Ante-Nicene  CathoUcs  understood 
that  phrase  in  the  limited  sensed. 

2.  Another  mistake,  or  rather  gross  misreport,  is  what  he 
says  of  the  writers  before  and  at  the  time  of  the  Nicene  Council, 
that  using  the  similitude  of  Ught  from  light,  or  fire  from  fire, 
they  "always  take  care  to  express  this  one  difference  in  the 
^^  similitude,  that  whereas  light  shineth  forth,  and  is  communi- 
"  cated  not  by  the  mil  of  the  luminous  body,  but  by  a  necessary 
"  property  of  its  nature,  the  Son  of  God  is,  by  the  power,  and 
'*  mil,  and  design  of  the  Father,  his  substantial  image." 

I  do  not  know  that  any  single  writer  ever  expressed  this 
before  Eusebius ;  if  it  may  be  said  of  him.  If  it  be  pretended, 
that  they  meant  it  at  least ;  yet  neither  can  that  be  proved,  in 
the  JiUl  extent  of  what  is  here  asserted,  of  any  one  of  them.  All 
that  is  true  is,  that  as  many  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  as  went  upon 
the  hypothesis  of  the  temporal  ante-mundane  generation,  so  many 
acknowledged  such  generation  to  be  by  tvill  and  counsel:  but 
none  of  those  writers  ever  used  that  similitude  upon  which  Eu- 
sebius made  the  remark  now  mentioned ;  viz.  that  of  light  and 
tplendor;  but  that  of  one  lights  or  one  Jire  of  another^  which  has 

P  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  595.    Socrat.  Eccl.  Hist.  p.  24.  ed.  Cant. 
Compare  Bull.  D.  F.  aeot.  iii.  cap.  9.        4  See  my  First  Defence,  vol.  i.  p. 
But   see    also  Lowth'a    note   upon    355,  &c. 


a  very  different  meaning'  and  application.     But  it  is  not  the 
Observator's  talent  to  think  or  write  accurately. 

I  must  further  add^  that  Origen,  Theognostus^  Dionysius  of 
Alexandria,  and  Alexander,  making  use  of  the  same  similitude 
that  Eusebius  does,  give  no  such  account  of  it^.  And  none  that 
intended  to  illustrate  eternal  generation  thereby  ever  intimated 
that  it  was  by  vyill^  design,  or  counsel,  in  opposition  to  what  is 
natural  or  necessary,  in  our  sense  of  necessary, 

3.  A  third  instance  of  this  writer's  great  con/tision^  upon  the 
present  head,  is  his  blending  and  confounding  together  what  I 
had  laid  down  distinctly  upon  different  subjects.  What  I  say 
of  Post-Nicenes  only,  he  understands  of  Ante-Nicenes  too  :  and 
what  I  say  of  one  Ante-Nicene  writer,  he  understands  of  another ; 
and  thus,  by  the  confusion  of  his  own  intellect,  I  am  made  to  be 
perpetually  inconsistent.  It  would  be  too  tedious  to  repeat.  All 
may  be  seen  very  distinctly^  and  with  great  consistency^  set  forth 
in  my  Second  Defence ;  whither  I  refer  the  reader  that  desires  to 
see  the  sentiments  of  every  particular  center  fairly  considered*. 

4.  A  fourth  instance  of  this  author'^s  confusion,  is  his  pretend- 
ing that  none  of  the  Ante-Nicene  writers  ever  mention  any  prior 
generation,  any  other  ante-mundane  generation,  beside  that  temporal 
one  before  spoken  of.  It  is  trm  that  many,  or  most  of  the  Ante- 
Nicone  writers  were  in  the  hypothesis  of  the  temporal  generation, 
mentioning  no  other :  but  it  is  very  false  to  say,  that  none  of 
them  speak  of  any  higher.  Origen,  and  Dionysius  of  Alexandria, 
and  Methodius,  and  Pamphilus,  and  Alexander,  are  express  for 
the  eternal  generation,  or  filiation  ^ :  and  Iremeus,  and  Novatian, 
and  Dionysius  of  Rome  may,  very  probably,  be  added  to  them. 
These  together  make  eight,  and  may  be  set  against  Ignatius, 
Justin,  Athenagoras,  Tatian,  Theophilus,  Clemens  of  Alexandria, 
Tcrtullian,  Hippoljrtus,  who  make  an  equal  number  for  the  other 
hypothesis.  And  I  have  often  observed,  and  proved,  that  the 
difference  between  these  writers  was  verbal  only,  all  agreeing  in 
the  main  doctrines,  and  differing  only  about  terms,  whether  this 
or  that  should  be  called  generation^. 

5.  Another  instance  of  his  great  confusion  under  this  head,  is 

'  See  my  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.    355,  &c.    Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p. 
98,  r 

p.  614.  8  Ibid.  598,  &c. 

*  Ibid,  from  p.  590  to  p.  609.  »  First  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.  266,  & 

"  See  my  First  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.     Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  443, 617 


his  objecting  to  me  again,  as  before  in  the  Reply,  my  appealing 
to  the  ancients  for  the  miderstanding  of  toill  in  the  sense  of 
acquiescence  and  approbation^  meaning  by  ancients^  Post-Nicene 
writers.  This  I  did  to  obviate  Dr.  darkens  pretences  from  some 
Post-Nicene  writers,  such  as  Hilary,  Basil,  Marias  Victorinus, 
and  Gregory  Nyssen.  And,  certainly,  in  expounding  these 
writers,  heed  must  be  given  to  their  way  and  manner  of  using 
their  phrases.  And  as  to  calling  them  ancients^  the  Author  of 
the  Reply  had  done  the  same  twice  together  y. 

6.  This  writer  discovers  his  ipnorance^  or  infirmity  rather,  in 
calling  my  interpretation  of  ivdyKri  (pvaiKri  ridiadouSy  as  taken 
only  from  some  later  Christian  writers.  I  proved  my  interpreta- 
tion from  Athanasius,  Epiphanius,  Hilary,  and  the  history  of  the 
times  in  which  the  Sirmian  Council  was  held,  in  order  to  fix  the 
meaning  of  the  phrase  about  that  time,  which  is  the  first  time 
we  find  it  applied  in  this  subject'.  And  I  fully  answered  all 
this  yentleman^s  cavils,  which  he  now  repeats. 

7.  Another  instance  of  his  confusion,  is  his  saying  of  the  pro- 
cession, or  temporal  generation^  that  it  is  no  generation  at  all ;  and 
that  "  not  one  Ante-Nicene  writer  ever  was  so  absurd,  as  to  call 
^'  that  a  generation  by  which  the  generated  person  was  no  more 
"  generated  than  he  was  before."  As  to  the  fact,  that  the  Ante- 
Nicene  writers,  in  great  numbers,  called  this  procession  genera- 
tion^  I  proved  it  at  large ;  nor  can  any  scholar  make  doubt  of  it. 
And  as  to  the  poor  pretence,  which  he  here  repeats,  I  answered 
it  before  in  these  words,  (Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  598.) 
*'  Though  the  Logos  was  the  same  essentially  before  and  after 
*'  the  generation,  he  was  not  the  same  in  respect  of  operation, 
'^  or  manifestation^  and  outward  economy ;  which  is  what  those 
^^  Fathers  meant.''  And  I  particularly  proved  this  to  be  their 
meaning,  from  the  express  testimonies  of  Justin,  Methodius, 
and  Hippolytus*;  and  confirmed  it  by  quotations  from  Zeno 
Veronensis,  Hilary,  Phoebadius,  and  others.  And  what  does  it 
signify  for  the  Observator  to  set  his  raw  conceptions  and  fond 
reasonings  about  the  meaning  of  a  word,  against  such  valuable 
authorities  t  Can  any  thing  be  more  ridiculous,  than  to  sit  down 
and  argue  about  what  an  ancient  writer  must  or  must  not  have 
said,  from  pretended  reasons  ex  absurdo  ?   I  assert  it  to  he  fact j 

Reply,  p.  256,  257,  and  my  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  609. 
my  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  D.601, 607. 
>na  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  593,  016. 


that  they  said  and  meant  what  I  report  of  them ;  and  I  have 
produced  their  iestimimies :  the  author  may,  if  he  pleases,  go  on 
with  his  dreams. 

This  writer  having  performed  so  indifferently  upon  one  part 
of  the  cliargey  will  not  be  found  less  defective  in  regard  to  the 
other  ;  wherein  he  charges  me  with  denying  eternal  generation, 
or  reducing  it  to  nothing.  He  will  not,  I  presume,  pretend  that 
I  either  deny  it  or  destroy  it,  as  he  does,  by  pronouncing  all 
eternal  generation  absurd  and  contradictory.  If  I  deny  it  or 
destroy  it,  it  is  in  asserting  it  however  at  the  same  time  :  and  it 
must  be  by  explaining  it,  if  any  way,  that  I  reduce  it  to  nothing. 
If  it  happens  not  to  be  so  explained  as  to  fall  under  this  gentle- 
man^s  imagination^  it  is,  according  to  him,  reduced  to  nothing. 
But  before  he  comes  to  his  metaphysical  speculations  on  this 
head,  he  gives  us  a  taste  of  his  learning,  in  respect  of  the  ancients ; 
boldly  asserting,  that  they  never  express  the  Jlrst  (or  eternal) 
generation  of  the  Son,  hyjUiation^  or  generation,  or  begetting^  or 
by  any  other  eqmvalent  term.  This  is  a  notorious  untruth.  For 
when  Irenseus  reproves  some  persons  as  attributing  any  beginning 
to  the  prolation  of  the  Son,  {prolationis  initium  donantes,)  he  uses 
a  term  equivalent  to  filiation,  or  generation^.  When  Origen  de- 
clares there  was  no  beginning  of  the  Son's  generation,  he  uses  the 
very  word<^,  as  also  when  he  speaks  of  the  only  begotten,  as  being 
always  with  the  Father.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  expresses  it 
by  the  word  dcLyevris,  eternally  generated^  ;  which  surely  is  very 
express.  When  Methodius  asserts,  that  he  never  became  a  Son, 
but  always  was  so^,  what  is  this,  but  saying  the  same  thing ! 
And  when  other  writers  assert,  that  the  Father  was  always  a 
Father,  this  is  at  least  asserting  an  eternal  generation  in  equiva- 
lent terms.  But  this  writer^s  knowledge  of  antiquity  has  been 
sufficiently  shewn.  Let  us  see  whether  he  can  perform  any 
thing  better  in  metaphysics.  He  forms  his  attack  thus :  "  Dr. 
"  Waterland — desires,  you  woidd  by  no  means  understand  him 
''  to  intend  eternal  generation  indeed,  but  a  mere  coexistence 
"  with,  and  not  at  all  any  derivation  from  the  Father.'*  p.  72. 

And  certainly  Dr.  Waterland  is  very  right  in  making  eternal 
generation  to  be  eternal,  amounting  to  a  coexistence  with  the 
Father,  without  which  it  could  not  be  eternal.     It  is  observable 

*>  See  my  First  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.  353.  «  Ibid.  p.  353. 

d  Ibid.  p.  357.  e  n,id.  p.  357. 


however,  that  this  gentleman  opposes  derivation  to  coexistence ; 
which  shews  what  kind  of  derivation  he  intends ;  a  derivation 
from  a  state  of  non-existence,  a  derivation  commencing  a/ier  the 
existence  of  the  Father,  and  because  later  than  the  Father's 
existence,  in^nitely  later,  as  it  must  he  if  at  all  later.  In  short 
then,  it  is  a  derivation  of  a  creature  from  his  Creator:  this  is  the 
eternal  generation  he  is  contending  for,  in  opposition  to  mine; 
while  he  is  endeavouring  to  shew  that  mine  is  not  generation;  as 
his,  most  certainly,  is  not  eternal,  nor  generation,  but  creation. 
The  sum  of  what  he  has  to  advance  is,  that  coexistence  is  incom- 
patible with  generation;  that  an  eternal  derivation  is  absurd,  and 
contradictory.  No  doubt  but  such  a  derivation  as  he  is  imagining 
(which  he  explains  by  a  real  motion  of  emission,  and  growth  of 
one  out  of  the  other)  is  incompatible  with  coexistence.  But  what 
the  primitive  Fathers  intended,  and  what  the  Scripture  intended 
by  eternal  generation,  implies  no  such  motion  of  emission,  no  such 
grotcth  of  one  out  of  the  other,  but  an  eternal  relation  or  reference 
of  one  to  the  other  as  his  Head,  An  eternal  relation  has  no 
difficulty  at  all  in  the  conception  of  it.  All  the  difficulty  lies  in 
the  supposition  of  its  not  being  coordinate,  though  the  Persons 
be  coexistent.  And  when  it  can  be  shewn  that  all  priority  of  order 
must  of  course  imply  b, priority  of  duration  too,  then  the  objection 
may  have  some  weight  in  it.  Till  that  be  done,  the  notion  of 
eternal  generation  will  stand :  an  eternal  Logos  of  the  eternal 
Mind,  which  is  the  aptest  similitude  to  express  the  coetemity  and 
headship  too;  and  is  the  representation  given  of  it  both  by 
Scripture  and  antiquity.     I  proceed  to  a  new  charge. 

IX.  "  Another  method  by  which  Dr.  Waterland  endeavours 
"  to  destroy  the  supreme  dominion,  &c. — is  his  labouring,  by  a 
*'  dust  of  learned  jargon,  to  persuade  men  that  the  very  terms 
**  one  God  mean  nobody  knows  what."  p.  85.  To  this  I  answer, 
that  one  God  means  one  necessarily  existing,  all-perfect^  all-sufficient 
substance,  or  Being:  which  substance,  &c.  consists  (according  to 
Scripture  account)  of  three  Persons,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,  one  Jehovah.  This  is  one  God.  Let  this  gentleman  dis- 
prove it,  when  he  is  able. 

I  had  said,  '"  If  Scripture  makes  the  three  Persons  one  God 
"  either  expressly  or  by  necessary  consequence,  I  know  not  what 
*'  men  have  to  do  to  dispute  about  intelligent  agents  and  identical 

'  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  434. 


"  liees,  fee.  as  if  they  understood  better  than  God  himself  does, 
"  what  one  God  is,  or  as  {(philosophy  were  to  direct  what  shall  or 
"  shall  not  be  Tritheism,'*'  Upon  this  our  Observator  remarks ; 
*^  Better  than  Dr.  Waterland  himself  does,  is  all  that  he  means." 
I  would  allow  the  justice  of  his  reflection,  were  we  disputing 
what  one  God  is,  upon  the  foot  of  Scripture:  for  then  it  would 
amount  only  to  this  difference,  that  his  interpretation  leads  one 
way,  and  mine  another.  But  as  the  competition  is  made  be- 
tween Scripture  and  philosophy,  he  may  easily  perceive  both  the 
impertinence  and  iniquity  of  his  reflection.  While  the  point  is 
removed  from  Scripture  to  philosophy  for  a  decision  of  it,  I  insist 
upon  it,  that  this  is  interpretativelyy  and  in  ejects  though  not  in 
design,  pretending  to  understand  the  thing  better  than  Gorf  himself 
does.  But  to  proceed  with  our  writer's  pretences  against  the 
account  I  had  before  given  from  the  ancients. 

He  objects,  (p.  86,)  that  '^  one  substance  is  not  the  same  as 
"  one  God ;  because  two  equally  supreme,  two  unoriginate  di- 
"  vine  Persons  would  be  two  Gods,"  by  my  own  confession :  for 
I  say  (vol.  ii.  p.  537.)  that  "  two  unoriginate  divine  Persons, 
"  however  otherwise  inseparable,  woidd  be  two  Gods  according  to 
"  the  ancients.*"  I  knew  very  well  what  I  said,  though  I  per- 
ceive this  gentlenmn  does  not  apprehend  it.  The  ancients  thought 
this  reference  of  one  Person  to  the  other,  as  Head,  was  one  re- 
quisite among  others,  to  make  the  substance  one,  being  thus  more 
closely  allied,  and,  as  it  were,  of  one  stock.  This  made  me  say, 
hoioever  otherwise  inseparable:  that  is,  whatever  other  union  may 
be  supposed,  the  Persons  would  not  be  perfectly  inseparable,  not 
perfectly  one  substance,  (according  to  the  andents,)  and  so  not  one 
God,  but  upon  the  present  supposition.  And  now  how  does  this 
shew  that  one  substance  and  one  God^  are  not,  in  this  case,  tan- 
tamount?  To  me  it  seems,  that  it  both  confirms  and  explains  it. 

X.  The  Observator  charges  me  (p.  94.)  with  making  one  com- 
pownd  person  of  many  distinct  persons.  His  words  are :  '^  He 
"  thinks  a  person  may  be  compounded  of  many  distinct  persons." 
He  refers  to  page  the  652nd  of  my  Second  Defence.  If  the 
reader  can  find  any  such  thing  there,  or  any  where  else  in  my 
books,  let  the  charge  of  false  doctrine  lie  upon  me:  if  not,  let 
the  charge  of  slander  and  caltwrny  lie  upon  the  accuser. 

XI.  He  charges  me,  p.  62,  with  referring  to  a  passage  in 
Modest  Plea,  without  '*  pretending  to  make  any  the  least  answer 
'*  to  it.*"    This  is  Uke  his  other  misr^innis ;  I  abundantly  answer 


it,  (vol.  ii.  p.  545,)  by  allowing  necessary  existence  to  be  pasitivef 
but  denying  it  of  self-exutence. 

From  the  instances  here  given,  (to  which  more  will  be  added 
under  the  next  chapter,)  the  reader  may  perceive,  that  speaking 
of  the  truths  in  simplicity  and  singleness  of  hearty  is  none  of  this 
gentleman^s  talent.  If  he  hits  upon  any  thing  really  true,  and 
which  he  might  perhaps  make  some  litde  advantage  of,  he  has 
such  a  faculty  of  inventing  and  straining,  that  he  quite  spoils  it 
in  the  telling,  and  turns  it  into  romance.  One  would  not  expect 
such  exorbitances  as  these  are  from  men  of  their  profession  and 
character :  but  it  now  brings  to  my  mind  the  Postscript  to  the 
Beplys :  and  I  shall  wonder  at  nothing  of  this  kind  hereafter. 


Misreports  and  Misrepresentations  contained  in  the 


EVERY  page  of  the  pamphlet  is  concerned  in  this  charge : 
the  whole  is,  in  a  manner,  one  continued  misrepresentation  from 
beginning  to  end.  But  some  of  the  misrepresentations  have  been 
afaready  shewn  in  the  first  chapter,  among  false  charges ;  and 
others  will  fall  under  a  subsequent  chapter.  I  shall  select  a 
convenient  number  to  fill  up  this. 

1.  Page  II.  the  author  writes  thus:  "The  Doctor  is  forced 
"  further  to  affirm^  that  the  Son  is  tacitly  included,  though  the 
"  Father  be  eminently  styled  the  one  Grod:  nay,  (which  is  very 
•'  hard  indeed,)  tacitly  included,  though  by  name  expressly  ex- 
*'  duded^  and  contradistinguished  by  a  peculiar  character  of  his 
"  own,  in  the  very  words  of  the  text  itself/'  Thus  he  leaves  the 
remark,  without  informing  the  reader  in  what  sense  I  suppose 
the  Son  tacitly  included.  I  explain  it  in  my  Second  Defence, 
vol.  ii.  p.  720  : 

"  I  have  before  shewn  what  we  mean  by  saying  that  the  Son 
*'  is  tacitly  included^  though  the  Father  be  eminently  styled  the 
"  one  God:  not  that  the  word  Gody  or  the  word  Father,  in  such 
"  cases,  includes  Father  and  Son  ;  but  the  word  Gody  is  predi- 
'*  cated  of  one  only,  at  the  same  time  that  it  is  tacitly  understood 
"  that  it  may  be  predicated  of  either,  or  both :  since  no  opposition 
''  is  intended  against  either,  but  against  creatures  snd  false  gods." 

This  gentleman  pretends  indeed  that  the  one  Ood  is  opposed  to 

«  See  my  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  765. 


the  one  true  Lord,  (in  i  Cor.  viii.  6,)  as  well  as  to  faUe  gods. 
But  this  is  gratis  dictum;  and  he  does  not  consider  that  then  the 
Son  can  be  no  God  at  all  to  us,  contrary  to  Rom.  ix.  5.  besides 
many  other  places  of  Scripture.  I  say  therefore  that  the  exdur- 
sive  term,  in  this  case,  is  not  to  be  understood  with  utmost 
rigour,  but  with  such  qualifying  considerations,  as  other  Scrip- 
tures manifestly  require  to  be  consistent  with  this.  I  gave  in- 
stances, in  good  number,  of  exclusive  terms  so  used,  ^^  which  this 
laconic  gentleman  confutes^  first,  by  calling  them  ridiculous;  and 
next,  by  positively  affirming ,  that  "wherever  any  particular  thing 
"  or  person  is  by  any  particular  title  or  character  contradistin- 
''  guished  from  any  other  thing  or  person  mentioned  at  the 
^'  same  time  under  another  particular  title  or  character,  it  is 
''  infinitely  absurd  to  suppose  the  latter  tacitly  included  in  the 
"  former,  from  which  it  is  expressly  excluded.''  Now  allowing 
him  the  whole  of  what  he  here  asserts,  all  that  follows  is,  that 
in  I  Cor.  viii.  6.  the  Son  is  excluded  from  being  God  in  that  emi- 
nent  manner,  that  unoriginate  manner  as  the  Father  is ;  not  from 
being  God  in  the  same  sense  of  the  word,  >nor  from  being  one  God 
with  him.  But  it  will  be  difficult  for  him  to  prove  any  thing 
more,  than  that  the  Father  is  there  described  under  the  charac- 
ter of  the  one  God,  of  whom  are  all  things,  and  the  Son  under 
the  character  of  the  one  Lord,  by  whom  are  all  things,  in  oppo- 
sition only  to  nominal  gods  and  lords,  and  not  to  each  other. 
For  since  all  things  are  of  one,  and  by  the  other,  they  together 
are  one  Fountain  of  all  things,  one  God  and  Lord :  and  thus 
may  this  text  stand  with  verse  the  4th  of  the  same  chapter, 
which  declares  that  there  is  but  one  Ood;  and  with  Rom.  ix. 
and  5,  which  declares  the  Son  to  be  ''  over  all,  God  blessed  for 
"  ever.'' 

II.  Page  the  18th  of  the  Observations,  I  am  found  fault  with 
for  misunderstanding  a  passage  of  Athanasius,  in  his  Epistle 
to  Serapion^.     I  had  said,  that  the  one  God  is  his  siii/ect  in 

^  Vol.  ii.  Sermon  iv.  Second  De-  xarh  t6  iv  &naat,  bih  rov  A($yov  iv  avrm 

fence,  vol.  ii*  P*  405*  434, 444*  ivtpytiv,  ovrtu  yap  koi  «va  but  ttjs  rpia- 

*  See  my  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  dos  Sfiokoyovfutf  «unu  t6v  Qtbv^^-ori 

p.  435.  TTjv  fiiap  €v  Tpiabi  6(6rrfra  ff>povovfifv, 

^  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  430.  Athan,  Orat,  iii.  p.  565. 

*Ev  yap  €tdos  ^f  ($nirof,  Sirtp  tarl  xal         Eiip  9c6f  cV  r^  iKkXrjo'Uf  tcrfpurrtrcu,  6 

€v  r9>    Aoy^^   irai  ccr   Ocdr.   6  iran^p  eiri  navrcav,  Ka\  bia  navTw,  leai  €P  na- 

€<f>  iavT^  av  Kar^.  t6  eVc  ndvrtiv  thai,  <nv*  in\  iravrfov  fiiv,  ox  narfip,  i>s  apxff» 

Ka\  iv  r^  vl^  dt  <f)aiv6iAfvos  Kar^.  t6  bia  Ka\  mjyfi*  bih  nayrtov  di  did  rov  A6yov' 

naPTttv  dirfK€iv,  Ka\  iv  r^  irvtvfMari  dc  iv  irao't  d«  iv  r^  irvrufueri  rf  ayi^ — 


that  passage;  as  is  manifest  to  eveiy  one  that  can  read  and 

My  smart  corrector  here  says,  **  And  yet  not  only  the  neces- 
"  sary  construction  of  this  very  passage^  but  moreover  Athana- 
*'  sius  himself  declares^  on  the  contrary,  in  the  fullest  and  most 
''  express  words,  that  he  is  speaking  of  the  Father  all  the  way.'' 
And  to  prove  this,  he  refers  me  to  Athanasius's  third  Oration 
against  the  Arians;  b»  prior  work,  and  which  therefore  could  de- 
clare nothing  about  his  meaning  in  the  place  I  had  to  deal  with : 
so  far  from  declaring  in  the  fullest  and  most  express  words.  It 
would  have  been  sufficient  for  a  cooler  writer  to  have  said,  that 
Athanasius  had  explained  his  meaning  in  one  place  by  what  he 
had  said  in  another:  and  to  have  offered  it  as  b»  probable  argument 
to  determine  a  doubtful  construction. 

Certain  it  is^  that  Athanasius  did  not,  amid  not  in  full  and 
express  words,  declare  beforehand  in  his  third  Oration  against 
the  Arians,  that  he  should  be  ''  speaking  of  the  Father  all  the 
"  way,"  several  months  or  years  after,  in  an  epistle  not  yet 
written,  nor  perhaps  thought  of.  I  can  with  better  reason 
plead,  that  since  the  Epistle  to  Serapion  was  written  after  the 
other,  and  contained  his  later,  thoughts,  that  either  the  former 
treatise  should  be  interpret^  by  the  lattery  or  at  least  that  his 
second  thoughts  upon  the  text  should  be  preferred.  However, 
upon  a  careful  review  of  both  the  places,  and  upon  considering 
the  context,  and  the  argument  Athanasius  is  upon  in  both, 
(namely,  to  prove  one  Godhead  in  all  the  three  Persons,  one  God 
in,  or  by,  a  Trinity^  his  express  words,)  I  am  so  far  from  think- 
ing that  the  passage  in  his  Oration  is  at  all  against  me,  that  it 
rather  confirms  my  construction  of  the  other ;  allowing  only  a 
different  pointing  from  what  appears  in  the  prints,  such  as  I 
have  here  given.  And  I  desire  the  words,  iva  0foi;  hia  r^y 
rpuido9,  may  be  attended  to,  one  God  in  Trinity,  If  iva  0f or 
means  the  Father  only,  then  the  sense  is,  one  God  the  Father^  in 
(or  by)  Father  J  Son^  and  Holy  Ghost ;  which  is  a  sense  that  this 
writer  will  call  perfectly  absurd.  I  submit  this  whole  matter  to 
the  judgment  of  the  learned.  In  the  mean  while  it  is  evident, 
that  our  Observator  has  let  his  pen  run  too  fast;  has  been 
exceeding  positive  in  a  thing  which  he  cannot  make  clear,  or  so 

ovK  lion  fU9  t6  rotovrov  vfiMV  ff>p6vrifjia  ovk  ^x'^'*  ^^(^^povvrts  Kal  ano^fvovvrts 
mnu9,  Kol  §¥  waai.    T6  yap,  cV  vturiy    ad  Scrap,  i.  p.  677. 


much  as  probable ;  and  that  he  has  expressed  his  posUiveness  in 
such  a  manner,  and  in  such  words^  as  cannot  be  justified  by 
common  rules. 

I  may  just  note,  before  I  leave  this  article,  that  this  gentleman 
has  not  shewn  his  skill  in  Greek,  by  rendering  iif)"  kavr^  oiv,  (as 
if  it  had  been  4<^'  iavrw,  or  i(  kavrov,)  existing  of  himself:  nor 
does  he  apprehend  the  force  of  iirl  iriirroav,  or  what  Athanasius 
is  talking  of  in  that  place.  When  he  understands  the  maxim  of 
Irenaeus,  (invisibile  FiUi  Pater,  p.  234,)  and  considers  how  God 
the  Son  was  supposed  to  be  let  down,  as  it  were,  to  the  creatures, 
while  the  Father  remained  in  excelsiSy  and^  as  it  were,  within  him- 
self;  he  will  then  know  how  to  construe  that  passage. 

III.  Page  19th  of  the  Observations,  we  meet  with  another  mis- 
representation, a  very  great  one. 

'*  It  was  further  alleged,  that  Dr.  Waterland  most  absurdly 
"  so  interprets  this  phrase,  {ixapla-aro)  given  him  a  name ;  as  if 
''  it  could  signify  extolling  and  magnifying  in  such  a  sense  as 
"  men  extol  and  magnify  God ;  as  if  men  could  (\apl(raadai) 
"  graciously  grant  any  thing  to  God."  1  had  interpreted  exalting 
to  signify  ^ratjtn;^,  (in  such  a  sense  as  men  exalt  God,)  in  oppo« 
sition  to  the  other  sense  of  exalting,  which  is  raising  up  to  a 
higher  place  or  dignity.  This  is  all  the  objector  has  to  ground 
his  weak  suggestion  upon.  As  to  xapCaaaOat,  giving,  gratifying 
with,  or  the  like>  as  it  may  be  done  by  equals  to  equals,  or  even 
by  inferiors  to  superiors,  as  well  as  by  superiors  to  inferiors ; 
where  is  the  inference  that  the  Father  must  be  superior  to  tho 
Son,  because  of  his  giving  him  a  name  f  My  answer  therefore 
was  in  these  words :  "  I  see  no  absurdity  in  interpreting  giving 
''  a  name  to  be  giving  a  name.  But  it  is  absurd  to  imagine  that 
"  God  may  not  glorify  his  Son,  as  well  as  his  Son  may  glorify 
"  him ;  by  spreading  and  extolling  his  name  over  the  whole 
"  creation ' : "  which  this  writer  transcribes,  and  leaves  as  he 
found;  not  being  able  to  answer  it.  Nor  indeed  is  there  any 
just  objection  against  an  equal  doing  thus  to  an  equal :  nor  does 
XCLpla-aarOoL  intimate  any  thing  more  than  its  being  a  free  and 
voluntary  act.  But  it  is  trifling  in  this  case  to  strain  the  words 
(used  in  the  other  case)  in  such  a  sense  as  men  exalt  God;  which 
were  intended  only  in  opposition  to  another  quite  different  sense 
of  exaltation :  and  are  still  to  be  understood  with  allowance  for 
the  different  circumstances. 

^  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  550. 


IV.  Page  34th,  this  writer  cites  some  words  of  my  Second 
Defence,  (vol.  ii.  p.  516,)  which  are  these:  "If  you  ask  why 
''  that  Person  called  the  Son  might  not  have  been  Father,  I 
<<  have  nothing  to  say,  but  that  in  fact  he  is  not.  So  it  is 
"  written,  and  so  we  believe :  the  Father  is  Father^  and  the 
"  Son  is  Son."  Upon  which  he  is  pleased  to  remark  as  follows : 
"  By  the  Doctor's  hypothesis  therefore,  there  was  no  impossi- 
'^  bility  in  the  nature  of  things,  but  unoriginate  might  have  been 
*'  originate,  and  originate  unoriginate  ;  underived  might  have 
**  been  derived,  and  derived  underived ;  the  Father  might  have 
'*  been  begotten,  and  the  Son  unbegotten."  Such  is  his  maliciam 
or  thoughtless  misconstruction  of  very  plain  and  very  innocent 
words.  In  the  same  paragraph,  from  which  he  cited  my  words, 
I  assert  the  priority  of  order  (that  is,  the  originateness  of  one, 
and  unoriginateness  of  the  other)  to  be  natural,  that  is,  neces- 
sary or  tmaUerable,  and  eternally  so :  so  that  one  could  never 
have  been  the  other ;  which  is  my  constant  doctrine.  But  if 
you  ask  why  they  could  not^  which  is  asking  a  reason  a  priori  in 
a  case  which  admits  of  none,  I  pretend  not  to  it ;  being  content 
to  prove  the  fact  a  posteriori,  which  is  all  that  can  be  done. 
Will  any  man  give  me  a  reason  a  priori,  why  there  must  have 
been  a  Grod,  or  tohy  it  could  not  have  been  otherwise  ?  It  is  im- 
possible. It  is  sufficient  to  prove  a  posteriori^  that  in  fact  there 
ifl  a  God,  and  that  he  could  not  but  be,  because  we  find  that  he 
exists  necessarily^  and  without  a  cause.  But  we  shall  have  more 
of  this  in  the  sequel. 

V.  Page  35.  Observat.  "  Instead  of  eternal  generation,  the  Doc- 
''  tor^  if  he  was  at  liberty,  had  much  rather  say  eternal  existence 
'*  of  a  real  and  living  Word,  &c. — And  for  this  reason,  I  suppose, 
<'  it  is,  that  instead  of  the  Nicene  words,  begotten  of  the  Father, 
**  and  from  the  substance  of  the  Father,  the  Doctor,  by  a  new  and 
''  unheard  of  expression,  affirms  the  Son  to  be  the  substance  of  the 
"  Father"  First  Defence,  vol.  i.  p. 496. 

Answ.  As  to  what  he  is  here  imagining  of  what  the  Doctor 
had  r€tt/ier  say,  and  if  he  was  at  liberty,  it  deserves  no  answer  : 
my  sentiments  in  that  article  are  sufficiently  known,  and  fully 
laid  down  in  my  writings.  His  other  remark  about  a  new  and 
unheard  of  expression,  betrays  his  ignorance  in  antiquity,  or  some- 
thing worse.  Ever  since  the  terms  substance  and  person  came 
into  this  controversy.  Father  and  Son  have  been  always  believed 
and  professed  to  be  on^  substance :  as  high  as  Tertullian,  all  the 


three  have  been  called  one  substance.  Una  substantia  in  tribus 
cohcerentibm.  What  is  this  but  saying,  that  both  the  Son  and 
Holy  Ghost  are  the  Father's  substance,  since  all  are  one  sub^ 
stance,  which  one  substance  is  the  Father's,  as  well  as  theirs ! 
This  is  all  that  I  say  in  the  place  referred  to,  ''  that  the 
"  Son  might  be  justly  called  the  Father's  substance,  both 
"  being  one." 

VI.  "  Tertullian  presumes  to  add,  speaking  of  one  of  Dr. 
"  Waterland's  principal  assertions,  if  the  Scripture  itself  had 
"  taught  it,  it  could  not  have  been  true.""  Observ.  p.  52.  comp. 
p.  47.  This  is  misrepresentation  both  of  Tertullian  and  me.  The 
assertion  of  which  Tertullian  speaks  is,  that  ''  the  Father  was 
"  actually  incarnate,  suffered,''  &c.  the  tenet  of  the  Praxeans. 
And  he  does  not  say,  it  could  not  have  been  true^  but  could  not 
have  been  believed^  and  that  with  n,  perhaps^  [fortasse  non  credenda 
de  Patre  licet  scripta,)  to  shew  that  it  was  rather  a  rhetorical 
figure  of  speech,  than  to  be  taken  strictly,  and  with  utmost 
rigour :  and  his  chief  reason  why  he  said  so  much,  was  because 
such  a  tenet  could  hardly,  if  at  all,  be  reconciled  with  other 
Scriptures  and  their  description  of  the  Father^  and  the  standing 
economy  of  the  three  Persons  therein  revealed.  How  does  this 
at  all  affect  my  assertion  that,  antecedent  to  the  economy,  ''there 
*'  was  no  impossibility  in  the  nature  of  the  thing  itself,  but  the 
**  Father  himself  might  have  done  the  same  that  the  Son  did  ?" 
This  is  not  the  assertion  which  Tertullian  strikes  at :  nor  did  he 
say  of  the  other,  that  it  could  not  be  true^  nor  positively^  that  it 
could  not  be  believed.  Three  false  reports  this  gentleman  has 
here  crowded  into  one  short  sentence.  And  I  must  remind  him 
of  what  I  before  told  him  *",  (though  he  is  pleased  to  forget  it,) 
that  the  same  Tertullian,  in  the  same  treatise,  when,  in  the 
course  of  the  dispute,  he  was  brought  closer  up  to  the  pinch  of 
the  question ;  had  nothing  to  say  about  the  natural  impossibility 
of  the  supposition :  but  he  resolves  the  case  entirely  into  this, 
that  Scripture  had  warranted  the  assertion  in  regard  to  God  the 
So7hy  and  had  not  done  so,  but  the  contrary,  in  regard  to  God 
the  Father.  So  little  reason  had  this  writer  to  appeal,  twice^  to 
Tertullian  upon  this  article. 

VII.  "  The  three  Persons  in  the  Trinity  are  (with  Dr.  Water- 
'*  land)  real  Persons,  each  of  them  an  individual  intelligent 
'*  agent,  undivided  in  substance,  but  still  distinct  Persons :  so 

™  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  480. 


*^  difltmct,  that  were  they  all  unoriginated,  he  himself  allows 
"  they  would  be  three  Gods.*"  [Good  reason  trAy,  when  upon 
that  supposition  they  would  be  more  distinct  than  they  now  are : 
bat  this  is  one  of  our  author's  shrewd  remarks.]  ''  Yet  at  the 
'«  same  time,  in  a  most  unintelligible  manner,  and  with  the 
^^  utmost  inconsistency^  he  professes  them  to  be  all  but  one  living 
"  Person/'  Where  do  I  profess  any  such  thing!  This  hasty 
gmtleman  might  better  have  stayed  a  while  to  prove  what  he 
pretends,  instead  of  fixing  upon  me  a  comequence  of  his  oton,  and 
in  such  a  manner  as  must  make  an  ignorant  reader  think  he  had 
yw4ed  my  own  toords.  He  brings  some  passages  of  mine  to  prove 
his  charge,  which  yet  prove  nothing  like  it.  If  the  reader  pleases 
to  turn  to  my  definition  of  person^ ,  he  will  easily  perceive  that 
the  same  life  may  be  common  to  three  Persons,  and  that  identical 
life  no  more  infers  singularity  of  Person,  than  identity  of  essence. 
When  this  writer  pleases  to  give  us  another  definition  of  person, 
or  to  confute  nUne^  we  may  give  him  a  further  hearing. 

VIII.  In  the  next  page,  (p.  90,)  I  meet  with  a  nmrepre- 
sentatum  of  so  odd  a  kind,  that  I  could  never  have  suspected  it, 
and  can  scarce  think  he  was  well  awake  when  he  made  it.  He 
pitches  upon  a  passage  of  my  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  531. 
which  runs  thus : 

''  You  have  taken  a  great  deal  of  fruitless  pains  to  shew,  that 
^  the  particular  glories  belonging  to  the  Son,  on  account  of  his 
''  offices^  are  distinct  from  the  glories  belonging  to  the  Father. 
**  You  might  in  the  same  way  have  shewn  that  the  particular 
^*  glories  due  to  the  Father  under  this  or  that  consideration, 
*'  are  distinct  from  the  glories  of  the  Father  considered  under 
**  another  capacity.**'  Now  let  us  come  to  the  remark  of  this 
acute  gentleman  upon  it.  It  13  thus :  '^  What  is  this,  but 
'^  saying,  that  the  Persons  of  the  Father  and  Son  differ  no  other- 
^^  wise  than  as  capacities  of  the  same  Person  T  I  am  content  to 
put  it  off,  and  to  refer  the  reader  to  my  book,  which  fully  ex- 
plains the  whole  thing ;  hinting  only,  that  the  writer  might  as 
well  have  said  offices^  (as  capacities,)  when  his  hand  was  in ;  and 
that  nothing  is  more  evident  than  that,  if  distinct  offices  in 
different  persons  are  a  foundation  for  distinct  worships,  then 
distinct  offices  in  the  same  person  will  make  as  many  distinct 
worships  as  there  are  offices. 

■>  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  650. 



IX.  One  noted  misrepresentatmi  must  not  be  neglected :  the 
author  insults  mightily  upon  it.     I  shall  cite  part  of  what  he 

"  A  coordination  or  subordination  of  mere  order,  without 
"  relation  to  time,  place,  power^  dominion,  authority,  or  the  like, 
''  is  exactly  the  same  manner  of  speaking  and  thinkings  as  if  a 
''  man  should  say,  a  coequality  or  inequality  of  equality.  Dr. 
"  Waterland  therefore  was  really  much  weaker  than  he  imagines, 
''  when  he  loantonly  declared,  he  was  so  wealz  as  to  thinks  that  the 
'^  words  coordination  and  subordination  strictly  and  properly 
*'  respected  order^  and  expressed  an  equality  or  inequality  o/ order  p. 
'^  Are  not  things  come  to  a  fine  pass,  if  the  prime  foundation  of 
''  religion,  the  first  and  great  commandment,  is  to  be  ludicrously 
"  placed  on  such  a  quicksand  as  this  ?'*  p.  33. 

The  reader,  I  suppose^  is  pretty  well  acquainted  with  this 
gentleman's  manner,  before  this  time,  [so]  that  I  have  the  less  need 
to  take  notice  of  his  afiecting  big  swelling  words,  and  his  running 
out  into  extravagant  exclamations  on  very  slight  occasions.  It 
is  his  unhappiness,  that  he  never  knows  where  to  stop,  nor  how  to 
be  moderate  in  any  thing.  It  is  ludicrous  indeed  for  him  to  pretend 
a  zeal  for  the/r8^  and  great  commandment^  while  he  is  preaching 
up  tux)  Gods,  and  is  a  friend  to  creature-worship :  but  that  I 
mention  by  the  way  only.  As  to  the  point  in  hand  ;  had  I  made 
any  mistake  in  a  very  nice  part  of  the  controversy,  he  might 
have  borne  it  with  temper^  as  I  have  many  and  great  ones  of  his, 
where  there  was  less  excuse  for  them.  To  come  to  the  business : 
he  will  not  find  it  easy  to  confute  a  very  plain  thing,  that  co- 
ordination and  subordination  strictly  and  properly  respect  order^ 
(to  say  nothing  here  what  the  order  respects,)  as  much  as  con- 
temporary  or  coeval  respects  time  or  age,  collateral  place,  con- 
comitant  company ;  or  as  any  other  word  of  like  nature  bears 
a  signification  suitable  to  its  etymology,  and  to  the  analogy  of 

Against  this  he  objects,  that  a  ^'  coordination  or  subordination 
'^  of  mere  order  is  exactly  the  same  manner  of  speakings  as  a 
"  coequality  or  inequaUty  of  equality  :*'  which  happens  to  be  a 
blunder.  For  as  coequality  and  equality  are  the  same,  in  this 
case,  the  expression  to  answer  a  coequality  or  inequality  of  equality 
would  be  this ;  a  coordination  or  subordination  of  coordination ; 

P  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  456. 


which  is  not  my  expression,  nor  any  thing  like  my  sense.  What 
order^  abstractedly  considered,  may  signify,  or  what  in  this  par- 
ticular case,  are  questions  which  may  come  in  presently.  But  in 
the  mean  while  it  is  evident,  that  there  is  no  solecism  nor  im- 
propriety, but  trtUh  and  accuracy  too,  in  saying  that  coordination 
and  subordination  respect  order ;  not  dominion^  not  dignity,  &c. 
as  this  author  pretends ;  unless  all  order  implies  dominion^  as  it 
certainly  does  not.  Order  is  a  general  word,  and  is  sometimes 
determined  to  a  particular  meaning  by  what  it  is  joined  with :  as 
order  of  time,  order  of  situation^  order  of  dignity^  order  of  nature^ 
order  of  conception,  order  of  existence^  order  of  causality ,  order  of 
dominion,  and  the  like.  But  then  order  is  also  frequently  used 
simply  and  absolutely^  without  any  thing  further  to  determine  or 
specify  its  signification :  and  thus  it  hath  been  anciently^y  as  well 
as  in  later  times,  made  use  of  in  our  present  subject.  Thus  far 
then,  I  hope,  it  may  be  very  excusable  to  use  the  word  order  in 
this  subject  simply  and  absolutely.  If  any  word  is  to  be  put  to 
it,  to  make  the  sense  more  specicU,  I  admit  order  of  conception^ 
with  Tertullian^;  or  order  of  existence^  as  the  Son  exists  of  and 
/rom  the  Father:  which  may  be  likewise  called  order  of 
causality "^^  in  the  old  sense  of  causality  respecting  emanative 
necessary  causes.  That  I  did  not  use  the  word  order  without  a 
nuaning,  may  appear  from  the  very  passages  which  this  writer 
quotes  from  me,  p.  34,  though  he  is  pleased  to  call  them  empty 
words;  as  every  thing  here  is  empty  with  him  that  carries  not  in 
it  his  crude  conceptions  about  natural  dominion.  His  argument 
to  prove  them  empty,,  being  founded  on  nothing  but  his  own 
shufflings  and  mistakes,  is  answered  above,  p.  3 1 . 

<l  Aryoi^rar   Gciv  naripa,   Ka\   viov  Tip  irvpi  7rp6s  to  (f)S)S  cWi  t6  f(  avrov 

&€6p,iM\np€VfiaSyiov,dfiKvvvTasavTS>v  rivos  oZv  €V€K€v  aOtrti  t^v  to^iv 

tcai  TTfP  fP  TJ  fp&Gti  bvpofup,  Kal  T^p  €P  cirl    0COU    Xafi^dptaBai ; rffifls  d€, 

rj  ni^i  biaip€crip,     Athenag,  hegat.  KaTafAtprriprcapatTiaPTrp^sTaf^avTap 

cap.  I O.  (T\(i(np,  TpOT€rax  Oai  tov  viov  top  naripa 

Ovl6sTa^ifjLipbfVT€poiTov7raTp6s,  0a/icV  &c.  Basil.  1.  i.  p.  232. 
ortemtic^ipov*  Kaid(u>paTioTidpxfiKai        '    Principaliter     determinatur     ut 

airloy  T^ ,  «ip€u  atrrov  nartpa,  koi  on  Bi  prima  Persona,  quae  ante  Filii  nomen 

ixvTov  if  vpovohos  Ka\  npoattyayfi  irphi  erat  proponenda,  quia  Pater  ante  cog- 

r6p  Ot^p  Ka\  varipa'  ^vati  d€  oviccn  noscitur,  et  post  ratrem  FiliuH  nooii- 

dtvrtpot,  Mri  VI  BtArrjs  «V  tKortpK^  fiia,  natur.    Tertull.  contr.  Prax.  cap.  18. 
Basil,  contr.  Eunom.  lib.  iii.  p.  272.        ^  Nihil  plane  difiert  in  substantia, 

ed.  Bened.     See  my  Second  Defence,  quia  verus  Filius  est :   difTert  tamen 

m  relation  to  this  passage,  vol.  ii.  p.  cat<«a/i7afijrgradu;quiaomnispotentia 

^4^»723»75i'  a  Patre  in  Filio  est :  et  in  substantia 

*EaTt  T«  ra^cdf  tUos,  ovk  €k  nap*  minor  non  est  Filius  ;auc/ort/a/etamen 

ffftiW  BifTtui  avptarofAtpoPf  oXX*  avr^  major  est  Pater.      Auct.  Qiuest.  utr. 

TJ  Kara  ffivaip  oKokovOiq  ovpfialpop,  cbr  Testam.  apud  August.  QtuBSt.  122. 

D  2 


The  meaning  however  of  (yrder^  in  this  case,  may  be  thos  in- 
telligibly set  forth  to  the  meanest  capacity. 

While  we  consider  the  wale  of  persons  from  God  the  Father 
down  to  many  or  ascending  from  man  up  to  God  the  Father,  he 
is  the  first  in  the  scale  from  whom  all  things  descend;  and  he  is 
the  lasty  in  the  way  of  ascent^  in  whom  all  things  terminate.  The 
Father  by  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  conveys  all  his  blessings  to 
his  creatures ;  and  his  creatures  in  the  Holy  Ghost  and  by  the 
Son  ascend  up  to  the  Father.  Such  is  the  scale  of  existences, 
such  the  order  of  things :  and  this,  I  hope,  is  intelligible 

If  it  be  next  inquired  what  the  foundation  of  this  order  is, 
and  why  the  Father,  if  but  equal  in  nature  to  the  Son  or  Holy 
Ohost,  shall  yet  be  at  the  top  of  all,  and  stand  first ;  we  have 
this  to  say,  that  both  the  parts  are  true  and  certain ;  and  that 
the  Son  and  Holy  Ohost,  though  in  nature  equal,  are  yet  re/erred 
up  to  the  Father  as  their  head  and  source,  because  of  him  and 
from  him,  in  a  mysterious  and  inscrutable  manner,  they  both  are. 
The  Father  is  from  none ;  they  from  the  Father.  This  is  the 
Catholic  doctrine^,  and  as  old  as  Christianity  itself,  so  far  as  we 
can  find  in  the  primitive  records :  all  acknowledging  (conformable 
to  Scripture)  this  order,  and  reference  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost 
up  to  the  Father,  and  at  the  same  time  asserting  their  eonsub- 
stantialityy  coetemity,  necessary  existence,  equality  of  nature,  and 
unity  of  Godhead. 

If  our  ideas  of  this  eternal  reference  of  one  Person  up  to  an- 
other be  no  more  than  general  and  confuse ^  not  full  and  adequate; 
what  wonder  is  it  that  we  should  find  it  so  in  a  subject  so  sub- 

*  Hcura  bi  rov  Kvplov  «vfpy€ta  im  GcAy  dt  t^prrtn  Xrycroi,  nrct^  9 

t6v  iravTOKparopa  ttjv  dvdcf>opidv  e;(Ci,  cVaxrir,  ^oi  dvatnv(iSt  icai  ayaxc0a- 

Ka\  toTiVf  or  rifrcly,  TrarpiKrj  ris  cWp-  XaUaais  Trj£  rpidbot  6  narfip  €{m  m£ 

ytia  6  vl6s,     Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  7.  tiirtv  6  Btokoyos.     Theod.  Abucar.  ap. 

*llv&(r3ai  yhp  avayicrj  r^  9(^  tS>v  Petavium,    Trin.   lib.  iv.   cap.  15.    p. 

oXo»v  t6v  Btiov  \.6yov'    ip/ffiiKoxdaptiv  262. 

dc  r^  6e^  Koi  MtavrdurBta  b€i  r6  Syunf  **  This  origination    in  the    divine 

iryfvfia.  mtj  Kal  r^v  Btiap  rpiada  tis  €va,  "  Paternity  hath  anciently  been  looked 

&<nrtp  iU  Kopvi^fjiv  Tiva,  rov  Q*6v  r&v  "  upon  as  the  assertion  of  the  unity : 

Skav  TOP  navTOKpoTopa  \tyto,  ovyicf^-  **  and  therefore  the  Son  and  Holy 

XtuovaBai   t€   km    avpaytaBai    nwra  "  Ghost  have  been  believed  to  be  but 

ap6yiaj.    Dionys.  Roman,  ap.  Athan.  **  one  God  with  the  Father,  because 

vol.  i.  p.  331.  "  both  from  the  Father,  who  is  one, 

^wris  dc  ToU  Tpurl  fUa  0€6s.  hfwns  "  and  so  the  union  of  them."  Pearson 

di  6  var^p,  «(  ol,  Kal  np6s  ty  dp6yrnu  on  the   Creed,  p.  40.     See  also  mv 

rii  €$^£.  Gregor.^azia$iz.  Orat.mjdi.  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  417,  510, 

p.  520.  767. 


lime  t  Is  it  not  the  tremendous  siU^stanee  or  essence  of  the  Divine 
Being  that  we  are  here  oonsideriDg!  And  who  is  sufficient  for 
these  things !  Let  any  man  try  the  utmost  stretch  of  his  capacity, 
in  any  thing  else  inunediately  pertaining  to  the  divine  substance ; 
and  he  will  soon  perceive  how  short  and  defective  all  his  ideas 
are.  He  cannot  tell  us  what  it  is,  nor  whereunto  we  may  liken 
or  compare  it:  cannot  say  hotn  it  is  present  every  where,  or  hato 
it  acts  any  where.  Every  thing  belonging  thereto,  as  simplicity, 
infinity y  eternity,  necessary  existence^,  is  all  dark  and  mysterious  : 
we  see  but  "  through  a  glass  darkly/'  and  cannot  ^'  see  God  as 
''  he  is.*"  It  may  therefore  become  these  gentlemen  to  be  a  little 
more  modesty  and  leaa  positive  in  these  high  matters ;  and  not  to 
insnlt  us,  in  their  manner,  as  teaching  a  collocation  of  words,  or 
an  order  of  empty  words ;  only  because  we  cannot  give  them, 
what  we  cannot  have,  full  and  adequate  ideas  of  the  mysterious 
order  and  relation  of  the  blessed  Three^  one  among  another.  We 
might  as  reasonably  object  to  them  an  eternity  of  words,  or  an 
omnipresence  of  words^  a  verbal  ubiquity,  simplicity,  infinity^  and 
the  like,  as  often  as  we  perceive  that  they  are  not  able  to  give 
ns  more  than  general^  confuse,  and  inadequate  conceptions  of 
those  things. 

Such  is  our  answer,  such  our  just  defence,  after  attending  to 
every  consequence  the  adversary  can  object,  and  after  suffering  it, 
in  the  way  of  fair  debate,  to  be  run  up  to  the  utmost  height. 
We  acknowledge  God's  essence  to  be  inscrutable,  as  did  the  ancient 
Catholics  in  the  same  cause,  against  the  Eunomians ;  who  find- 
ing themselves  thereby  pinched,  had  no  way  left  but  to  put  on 
a  bold  face,  and  flatly  to  deny  the  incomprehensibility  of  God's 
essence^.  If  their  successors  at  this  day  are  of  the  same  mind, 
let  them  speak  out.  It  should  be  observed  how  differently  our 
adversaries  here  behave,  from  what  we  do  when  pursued  with 
consequences.  They  deny  the  necessary  existence  of  God  the  Son. 
Bun  them  down  but  to  the  next  immediate  consequence,  preca- 
rious existence,  and  they  are  amazed  and  confounded :  and  in- 
stead of  frankly  admitting  the  consequence,  they  fall  to  doubling, 
shifting,  equivocatmg,  in  a  most  childish  manner,  to  disguise  a 
difficulty  which  they  cannot  answer!.  Push  them  a  little  further, 
as  making  a  creature  of  God  the  Son ;  and  they  fall  to  blessing 

■  See  my  Fhret  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.        »  Ibid.  p.  452. 
456,  &c.  y  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  545* 


themselves  upon  it.  They  make  the  Son  a  creature  f  No,  not 
they ;  God  forbid.  And  they  will  run  you  on  whole  pages,  to 
shew  how  many  quirks  they  can  invent  to  avoid  giving  him  the 
name  of  creature,  and  at  the  same  time  to  assert  the  thing.  Carry 
the  consequence  a  little  lower,  till  their  whole  scheme  begins  to 
shew  itself  more  and  more  repugnant  to  the  tenor  of  Scripture 
and  all  Catholic  antiquity ;  and  then  what  do  these  gentlemen 
do,  but  shut  their  eyes  and  stop  their  ears :  they  do  not  under- 
stand a  word  you  say ;  they  will  not  be  answerable  for  conse- 
quences ;  they  never  taught  such  things,  nor  think  them  fit  to 
be  mentioned.  This  is  their  way  of  management,  as  often  as  we 
go  about  to  pursue  the  consequences  of  their  scheme  down  as  far 
as  they  can  go ;  at  the  same  time  that  we  suffer  them  to  exhaust 
all  their  metaphysics^  in  drawing  any  imaginable  consequences 
against  the  Catholic  doctrine,  and  both  attend  to  them,  and 
answer  them,  with  all  Christian  fairness,  openness,  and  sincerity^. 
The  meanest  reader  may  here  see,  by  this  different  conduct, 
where  truths  where  integrity,  where  reason  is,  and  where  it  is 
not :  truth  does  not  use  to  shun  the  light ;  nor  is  it  any  sign  of 
a  good  cause  to  want  so  much  art  and  colouring.  And  let  it  not 
be  pretended,  that  all  this  shuffling  and  disguise  is  only  to  screen 
their  sentiments  from  the  popular  odium,  and  themselves  from 
public  censure:  there  may  be  something  in  that;  and  so  far 
perhaps  their  conduct  may  appear  the  more  excusable.  But 
there  is  certainly  more  in  it  than  that  comes  to ;  because  the 
same  men  can,  upon  occasion,  discover  their  low  sentiments  of 
GodihQ  Son  very  freely*^;  and  it  is  chiefly  when  they  are  pressed 
in  dispute,  and  when  they  see  plainly  how  hard  an  argument  bears 
upon  them,  from  Scripture  and  antiquity,  that  they  have  recourse 
to  evasion  and  disguise^  and  refuse  to  speak  out^.   But  to  proceed. 

X.  *'  The  Doctor  frequently  appeals  from  reason  and  Scrip- 
"  ture  to  authority.  When  his  argument  is  reduced  to  an  ex- 
^'  press  contradiction,  a  contradiction  in  itself,  as  well  as  to 
^^  Scripture,  then  he  alleges  that  the  thing  he  contends  for  must 
"  be  so  upon  the  principles  of  the  primitive  churches,  (Second  De- 
'^  fence,  vol.  ii.  p.  478.)  meaning,  that  it  must  be  so  upon  his 
"  own  hypothesis."  Observations,  p.  1 15. 

«  See  my  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  ii.  p.3i8,&c. 
p.  644,645.  b  See  instances  in  the  Reply,  p. 

»  See  a  collection  of  passages  in  45, 175,  223,  224,  237,  319*  S^S*  339^ 

my  Supplement  to  the  Case,  &c.  vol.  343,  347 «  402. 


Let  the  reader  see  my  words,  upon  which  this  gentleman 
makes  his  tragical  exclamation. 

''  One  substance  with  one  Head  cannot  make  two  Gods  upon 
*'  the  principles  of  the  primitive  churches :  nor  are  your  met€h 
''  physics  strong  enough  to  bear  up  against  their  united  testimo- 
^'  nies,  with  Scripture  at  the  head  of  them."  How  is  this  ap- 
pealing from  Scripture  to  authority  ?  So  far  am  I  from  it^  that 
in  another  place  ^,  while  I  commend  the  ancients  for  their  way  of 
solving  the  unity ^  as  taking  the  best  that  human  wit  could  in- 
vent or  rest  upon,  yet  I  declare  at  the  same  time,  that  there  is 
no  necessity  at  all  for  shewing  how  the  three  are  one :  it  is  suffi- 
cient that  Scripture  bears  testimony  to  the  fuct,  that  so  it  is ;  we 
are  not  obliged  to  say  how.  And  there  also  I  obviate  what  this 
writer  here  pretends,  in  his  vain  confidence  of  boasting,  as  if  he 
was  able  to  do  great  things  in  the  way  of  natural  reason ;  by 
observing  that  the  adversary  can  do  nothing  in  this  case,  unless 
he  be  able  to  shew  (which  is  impossible)  that  '*  no  unity  what- 
«^  ever  can  be  sufficient  to  make  more  Persons  than  one,  one 
"  Being,  one  Substance,  one  God^ 

XL  '*  When  an  argument  is  worked  up  to  the  evidence  even 
*'  of  an  identical  proposition,  (which  is  the  essence  of  demonstra- 
"  tion,)  then,  it  is  contrary  (he  says)  to  the  sentiments  q/*  wiser 
"  men^  who  have  argued  the  other  way!*  Observations^  p.  87, 1 15. 

It  is  very  true  that  I  preface  my  answer  to  some  big  pretences 
of  theirs  with  the  words  here  recited^.  I  suppose  the  great  of- 
fence is  in  reminding  them  that  there  have  been  men  u^iser  than 
they  are.  As  to  the  identical  proposition^  the  demonstration  here 
talked  of,  I  shew  in  the  same  place®  that  it  is  built  upon  no- 
thing but  the  equivocal  meaning  of  sameness.  Reduce  it  to  syUo- 
gism^  and  it  will  be  found  a  sophism  with  four  terms  in  it. 

In  page  the  87th,  arguing  against  the  supposition  of  powers 
derived  and  underived  being  the  same,  he  says,  **  If  it  were 
*^  possible,  it  would  follow^  that  the  supreme  power  of  all^  the 
"  power  of  begetting,  or  deriving  being  and  powers  down  to 
*'  another,  would  be  no  power  at  all.*"  That  is  to  say,  if  the 
essential  powers  of  the  Godhead  be  the  same^  then  the  personal 
properties  are  lost.     But  I  humbly  conceive,  that  as  union  of 

«  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  433.        **  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  543. 
4J4.    Compare  First  Defence,  vol.  i.    Compare  p.  556, 557. 
p.  464, 465.  «  Ibid.  p.  543,  544. 


substance  accounts  for  the  one,  the  digiinction  of  persons  may 
account  for  the  other :  and  this  supreme  power  of  deriving,  &c. 
amounts  to  nothing  more  than  a  mode  of  existing,  or  a  relation 
of  order'. 

N.  B.  The  supreme  power  of  beffettino,  which  the  author  here 
speaks  of,  means  with  him  nothing  more  nor  less  than  the 
supreme  power  of  creating;  which  is  plainly  his  sense  of  begets 
ting,  as  may  appear  from  what  hath  been  observed  above, 
p.  24. 

XII.  *'  Again,  when  two  very  different  assertions  are  affirmed 
''  not  to  be  the  same  assertion,  then  he  asks,  koto  do  you  know  9 
''  Or,  how  came  you  to  be  toiser  in  this  particular  than  all  the 
"  Christian  churclies  early  or  late  f  Who  yet  never  affirmed  two 
*'  such  different  assertions  to  be  the  same  assertion ;  and  if  they 
*'  had  affirmed  it,  still  the  assertions  would  not  have  been  the 
"  same"  Observations^  p.i  19. 

Let  my  words  appear ;  E  '*•  You  add,  that  making  one  substance, 
"  is  not  making  one  God :  to  which  it  is  sufficient  to  say.  How 
''  do  you  know  ?  &c."  The  thing  here  maintained  is,  that  upon 
the  principles  of  the  primitive  and  modem  churches,  if  the  three 
Persons  be  one  substance,  they  are  of  consequence  one  Crod.  The 
assertions  in  this  case  are  equivalent  and  tantamount.  This 
is  the  plain  avowed  doctrine  of  the  Church  ever  since  the  term 
substance  came  in.  They  that  impugn  this  doctrine  ought  first 
to  confute  it,  if  they  can.  Sometimes  indeed  I  express  this  pri- 
mitive doctrine  by  one  substance  with  one  head^  for  greater  dis- 
tinction: but  one  substance  implies  both^  because  the  notion  of 
headship  is  taken  in  with  the  union  of  substance,  as  rendering  the 
union  clos^^  and  making  the  substance  more  perfectiy  one^. 

XIII.  ''  When  he  is  told,  that  it  is  great  presumptuousness 
"  to  call  the  particularities  of  his  own  explication,  the  doctrine  of 
"  the  blessed  Trinity ;  then  he  cries  oui^  Great  presumption  indeed  ! 
*'*'  to  believe  that  the  Catholic  Church  has  kept  the  true  faith ;  which 
"  are  the  very  words,  and  the  very  argument  wherewith  the 
*'  writers  of  the  Church  of  Rome  perpetually  insult,  and  will  for 
*'  ever  with  justice  insult,  over  all  such  protestants  as  endeavour 
"  to  discourage  all  serious  inquiry,^'  &c. 

This  writer,  to  introduce  his  weak  reflection,  is  forced  to  cut 

^  See  my  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.        '  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  6a6. 
]).  545.  ^  See  above,  p.  36. 


off  part  of  my  sentenoe,  which  ruoB  thus  : '^  kept  the  true 

^^iiuth,  while  Eunomiana  and  Arians  made  shipwreck  of  it." 
This  shews  that  I  was  speaking  of  the  Catholic  Church  justly  so 
called,  of  the  primitive  times,  and  before  Popery  was  in  being ; 
which  observation  would  have  entirely  prevented  his  sarcasm,  or 
have  discovered  the  impertinence  of  it.  As  to  the  Church  of 
Bome,  I  desire  no  better^  no  other  argument  against  her,  than  the 
MUM  I  make  use  of  against  the  Arians,  viz.  Scripture  interpreted 
by  primitive  and  Catholic  tradition.  Down  falls  Pcpery  and 
Arianism  too,  as  soon  as  ever  this  principle  is  admitted.  But 
this  author,  I  conceive,  was  a  little  too  liberal  to  Popery,  or  did 
not  know  what  he  was  talking  of,  when  he  presumed  to  intimate, 
that  the  vriters  of  the  Church  of  Rome  can,  with  justice,  insult  us 
on  that  head.  I  hope  it  was  a  slip,  and  he  will  retract  it  when 
he  comes  to  consider.  But  here  again  his  eagemese  overcame 
him,  and  carried  him  too  far. 

XIV.  ''  It  had  been  alleged^  that  he  who  never  acts  in  subjec- 
**  tion,  &c.<— and  every  other  person  always  acts  in  subjection  to 
**  his  will,  is  alone  the  supreme  Governor.  In  reciting  this  argu- 
**  ment  twice.  Dr.  Waterland  does  twice  omit  the  word  altoays^  in 
"  which  the  stress  of  the  argument  lies."     Observations,  p.  24. 

In  abridging^  not  reciting,  the  argument,  I  omitted  the  word 
always;  having  indeed  no  suspicion  that  any  stress  at  all  could 
be  laid  upon  it,  but  thinking  rather  that  it  had  been  carelessly 
or  thoughtlessly  put  in  by  the  author.  If  the  stress  of  the  argu- 
ment lies  there^  the  argument  is  a  very  poor  one,  being  grounded 
only  upon  a  presumption  of  v^fact  that  can  never  be  proved.  I 
aDow  indeed,  if  God  the  Son  antecedently  to  the  economy ,  and 
before  the  world  was^  acted  in  sutjedion  to  the  Father,  that  then 
the  aif^ment  will  have  some  force  in  it :  but  as  I  very  well 
knew  that  the  author  never  had,  never  could  prove  any  such 
thing ;  so  I  could  not  suspect  him  to  be  so  weak  a  man  as  to 
lay  the  stress  of  the  argument  there.  I  insist  upon  it,  that 
millions  and  millions  of  ages,  an  eternity,  a  parte  ante,  had  pre- 
ceded, before  ever  the  Son  or  Holy  Ohost  are  introduced  as 
acting  in  subjection.  Let  the  author  disprove  this,  and  he  will 
do  something.  I  have  read  of  the  ghry  which  our  Lord  had 
with  the  Father  before  the  world  was :  but  never  heard  any  thing 
of  his  then  acting  in  subjection  to  him :  wherefore  it  does  not  ap- 
pear that  he  always  did  it. 

XV.  ^  There  is  no  argument  in  which  Dr.  Waterland  is  more 


^^  insolmtj  or  with  less  reason,  than  in  this  which  follows.  There 
''  are,  he  thinks,  as  great  difficfidties  in  his  adversary's  notion  of 
''  the  divine  omnipresence^  as  there  are  in  his  notion  of  many 
'*  equally  supreme  {in  nature)  independent  Persons,  constituting 

"  one  supreme  Governor  or  Monarch  of  the  universe. Upon 

"  this  toeak  comparison  he  seems  to  build  all  his  hopes ^and 

"  yet  the  whole  of  the  comparison  is  as  entirely  impertinent,  as 
'^  if  a  man  should  pretend  that  to  him  there  are  as  great  difficul- 
"  ties  in  conceiving  immensity  or  eternity,  as  in  conceiving  tran- 
*'  substantiation,"  &c.     ObservcUions,  p.  95. 

How  juLst,  how  dvil,  how  pertinent  this  representation  is,  will 
appear,  when  I  shall  have  given  the  reader  a  true  and  faithful 
account  of  this  whole  matter  from  the  beginning,  which  is  as 
follows : 

In  the  year  1704,  Dr.  Clarke,  then  but  a  young  man,  published 
his  Demonstration  (as  he  is  pleased  to  call  it)  of  the  Being  and 
Attributes  of  God :  in  which  work,  not  content  with  the  common 
arguments  for  the  existence,  a  posteriori,  he  strikes  a  note 
higher,  and  aims  at  a  proof  a  priori  ;  which  every  man  of  sense 
besides  knows  to  be  contradictious  and  impossible,  though  he  was 
not  aware  of  it.  However,  to  countenance  his  pretended  Demon- 
stration,  he  laid  hold  of  the  ideas  of  immensity  and  eternity,  as 
antecedently  forcing  themselves  upon  the  minds  of  all  men :  and 
his  notion  of  the  divine  immensity  is,  that  it  is  infinite  expansion, 
or  infinite  qxsu^e,  requiring  an  infinitely  expanded  substratum,  or 
subject ;  which  subject  is  the  very  substance  of  God,  so  expanded. 
Upon  this  hypothesis,  there  will  be  substance  and  substance,  this 
substance  and  that  substance,  and  yet  but  one  numerical,  indivi- 
dual, identical  substance  in  the  whole.  This  part  will  be  one 
individual  identical  substance  with  that  part:  and  a  thousand 
several  parts  will  not  be  so  many  substances,  (though  every  one 
be  substance,)  but  all  will  be  one  substance.  This  is  Dr.  Clarke'^s 
avowed  doctrine :  ho  sees  the  consequence,  he  owns  it ;  as  may 
appear  from  his  own  words^,  in  answer  to  the  objection.  And 
he  must  of  course  admit,  that  the  one  individual  substance  is 
both  ona  in  kind,  in  regard  to  the  distinct  parts,  and  one  in 

^  '*  No  matter  is  one  substance,  but  <<  are  distinct   substances,  ununited, 

"  a  heap  of  substances.    And  that  I  **  and  independent  on  each    other : 

"  take  to  he  the  reason  why  matter  is  "  which  (I  suppose)  is  not  the  cane  of 

"  a  subject  incapable  of  thought,  not  "  other  substances."   Clarke^s  Answer 

"  because  it  is  extended,  but  its  parts  to  the  Sixth  Letter,  p.  40. 


number  also,  in  regard  to  the  union  of  these  parts  in  the  whole. 
Upon  these  principles  does  the  Doctor's  famed  Demonstration 
of  the  existence  proceed ;  and  upon  these  does  it  now  stand. 

I  must  next  observe,  that  the  same  Dr.  Clarke,  in  the  year 
1712,  was  disposed  to  publish,  and  did  publish^  a  very  ill  book 
against  the  received  faith  of  the  Church ;  which  he  entitled,  The 
Scripture  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity.     He  made  a  pompous  show 
of  iexis^  and  pretended  much  to  antiquity  also :  but  as  many  as 
could  look  through  the  surface,  and  penetrate  into  the  work^ 
easily  saw  that  the  main  strength  of  his  performance  rested  upon 
^wo  or  three  philosaphicctl  principles,  by  virtue  whereof  he  was  to 
-turn  and  wrest  Scripture^  and  FcUhers  too,  to  such  a  sense  as  he 
^shed  for ;  that  is,  to  the  Arian  hypothesis.     Among  YnAphilo- 
^MophiccU  principles,  the  most  considerable  of  all,  and  which  he 
^rftenest  retreated  to  in  distress^,  was  this ;  that  the  defenders 
^  the  received  doctrine,  whenever  they  should  come  to  explain, 
:3nust  inevitably  split  either  upon  SabeUianism  or   Dritheism: 
"which  presumption  he  grounded  upon  this  reasoning ;  that  the 
^ree  Persons  must  be  either  specifically  one,  (one  substance  in 
Mnd  only,  while  three  substances  in  number^)  which  is  Tritkeism: 
or  else  they  must  be  indimduaUy  one  substance,  one  in  number 
in  the  strictest  sense,  which  is  plain  SabeUianism.     Which  rea- 
soning at  length  resolves  into  this  principle  ;  that  substance  and 
substance,  however  united^  must  always  and  inevitably  make 
substances;  and  that  there  cannot  possibly  be  such  a  thing  as 
erne  substance  in  number  and  in  hind  too  at  the  same  time. 

And  now  it  could  not  but  be  pleasant  enough  to  obseiTe  the 
Doctor  and  his  friends  confuting  the  Atheists  upon  this  principle, 
that  substance  and  substance  waited  does  not  make  substances, 
and  at  the  same  time  confuting  the  Trinitarians  upon  the  con- 
tnuy  supposition.  Against  Atheists,  there  might  be  substance 
one  in  Hnd  and  number  too :  but  against  the  Trinitarians  it  is 
downright  nonsense  and  contradiction.  Against  Atheists,  union 
shall  be  sufficient  to  make  sameness,  and  numerical  substance 
shall  be  understood  with  due  latitude :  but  against  Trinitarians, 
the  tables  shall  be  turned  ;  union  shall  not  make  sameness,  and 
no  sense  of  numerical  substance  shall  serve  here  but  what  shall 
be  the  very  reverse  of  the  other.  In  a  word,  the  affirmative 
shall  serve  the  Doctor  in  one  cause,  and  the  negative  in  the  other : 

^  See  my  First  and  Second  Defence,  Query  xxii.  vol.  i.  and  ii. 


and  the  self-same  principle  shall  be  evidently  true  there,  and 
demonstrably /a28&  here,  to  support  two  several  hypotheses. 

I  had  observed  the  thing  long  ago,  before  I  published  a  syllable 
in  the  controversy:  and  that  I  might  be  the  better  satisfied, 
discoursed  it  sometimes  over  with  friends ;  which  still  confirmed 
me  the  more  in  it.  Having  tried  the  thing  every  way,  and  being 
secure  of  that  point,  a  point  upon  which  the  main  cause,  as  I 
easily  foresaw,  would  at  length  turn,  I  then  proceeded  to  engage 
those  gentlemen  :  and  as  often  as  they  have  been  retreating  to 
their  dilemma  about  Sabellianism  and  Tritheism^  (their  impr^- 
nable  fortress  as  they  esteemed  it,)  I  have  objected  to  them  their 
sel/'Cantradictian  and  inconsistency^;  have  retorted  upon  them 
their  own  avowed  doctrine  in  another  cause;  have  reminded 
them  of  their  former  (their  present)  sentiments  in  that  article, 
and  have  sometimes  pretty  smartly  taxed  their  notorious  pre^ 
varication  said  partiality  in  the  cause  of  the  Trinity;  while  they 
insist  upon  principles  here  as  of  undoubted  certainty,  thou^ 
they  believe  not  a  word  of  them,  though  they  really  iUsbeKeve 
them  in  any  cause  else.  For  this  I  am  called  insolent  by  the 
meek  and  modest  Observator :  and  by  the  judicious  Author  of 
the  Remarks  my  conduct  herein  has  been  censured  as  ridiculous 
and  monstrous^ :  by  which  I  perceive,  that  the  men  are  stung 
somewhere  or  other,  and  have  sense  enough  to  know  when  they 
are  hurt ;  but  have  not  learned  how  to  bear  it.  One  tells  me, 
that  I  build  almost  aU  my  hopes  upon  this  discovery :  another 
intimates,  how  happily  for  me  my  adversaries  had  advanced  their 
notion^  because  otherwise  I  should  have  had  nothing  at  all  to  say^. 
It  is  a  great  favour  in  them  to  allow  that  I  have  something  at 
last :  let  us  now  examine  what  they  have  to  say :  I  will  reduce  it 
to  heads,  for  distinction  sake. 

I.  They  are  sometimes  inclinable  to  disoton  any  such  notion 
as  I  have  charged  upon  them.  The  Author  of  the  Remarks, 
being  a  nameless  man,  thinks  he  may  safely  say,  that  he  "  has 
"  nothing  to  do  with  that  notion,  one  way  or  other®."  And 
even  the  writer  whom  I  am  now  concerned  with  says,  that  '*  it  is 
^'  by  mere  conjecture  only  that  Dr.  Waterland  has  taken  it  to 
^'  be  his  opinion  at  all^.'^     If  it  be  Dr.  Clarke  that  says  this,  his 

1  See  Firet  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.  371,  Second  Defence,  p.  38. 

173,  374, 446,  448,  479.  Second  De-  ^  Remarks,  p.  36. 

fence,  vol.ii.  p.423. 433»  539» ^25, 646,  ""  Ibid.  p.  14. 

689,  697,  698,  708,  709,  713,  714.  P  Observations,  p.  100. 

n  Remarks   on    Dr.  Waterland's 


own  booh  confute  him :  if  Mr.  Jackson,  he  knows  that  I  am 
perfectly  well  acquainted  with  hia  real  and  full  sentiments  in 
that  question.  However,  if  Dr.  Clarke's  friends  meanly  desert 
him  here,  and  in  a  point  too  on  which  his  famed  Demonstration 
^eiy  much  depends ;  I  will  endeavour  to  do  the  Doctor  justice 
JO  far,  and  shall  not  suffer  him  to  be  run  down  in  a  right  thing, 
however  I  may  blame  him  when  I  find  him  torong, 

2.  Sometimes  they  complain  of  me  as  very  unfair  to  take  an 
advantage  of  an  opinion  of  thein^  and  to  plead  it  as  true^  at  the 
same  time  that  I  myself  judge  it  to  be  erroneous  and  falser. 
But  this  is  gross  misrepresentation.  I  plead  nothing  but  what 
I  take  to  be  very  true ;  namely,  that  substance  and  substance  in 
fudtm  does  not  always  make  substances;  which  is  Dr. Clarke's 
doctrine  as  well  as  mine ;  and,  if  true  against  Atheists,  cannot 
be  fabe  against  the  Trinitarians.  Indeed,  I  do  not  admit  (at 
least,  I  doubt  of)  their  hypothesis  about  God's  expanded  substance : 
but  their  general  principle  of  union  being  sufficient  to  make  same- 
ness^ and  of  united  substance,  in  things  immaterial,  being  one  sub- 
stance,  this  I  h^irtily  close  in  with,  and  make  no  question  of  its 
truth  and  certainty. 

3.  They  sometimes  plead  that,  at  best,  this  is  only  aryumentum 
ad  hominem^^  and  that  it  is  therefore  mean  to  insist  upon  it. 
Let  them  then  first  condemn  Dr.  Clarke  for  leading  me  int^  it : 
and  when  they  have  done,  I  will  defend  the  Doctor,  so  far^  by 
the  concurring  verdict  of  the  whole  Christian  worlds  by  the 
mftTima  of  common  sense,  and  by  the  prevailing  cmtom  of  speech, 
which  never  gives  the  name  of  substances  to  any  thing,  but  where 
the  substance  is  separate,  or  separable.  And  I  will  further  plead, 
that  upon  the  hypothesis  of  extension  this  principle  must  be 
true ;  or  else  there  is  no  such  thing  as  one  substance,  or  one  being, 
in  the  world '.  Further,  if  I  had  not  such  plain  and  cogent 
reasons  for  the  truth  of  this  principle ;  yet  since  I  am  here  upon 
the  defensive  only,  and  am  warding  off  an  objection^  I  have  a  right 
to  suppose  it  true,  till  my  adversaries  can  prove  the  contrary.  All 
these  considerations  put  together  are  more  than  enough  to  answer 
the  pretence  of  my  arguing  eui  hominem. 

4.  They  add  fiirther,  that  their  explication  of  the  omnipresence 
is  not  exactly  parallel  to  my  notion  of  the  Trinity^.     Nor  did  I 

^  See  the  Remarks,  p.  37,  &c.  p.  633, 623,  708. 

^  Ibid.  p.  13.  *  Remarks,  p.  38. 

"  See  my  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii. 


ever  pretend  that  it  was  exactly  parallel :  I  have  myself  particu- 
larly shewn"  wherein  and  how  far  the  two  cases  differ.  But, 
forasmuch  as  both  agree  in  one  general  principle,  (which  was  all 
that  I  wanted,  and  all  that  I  insisted  upon^)  that  substance  in 
union  with  substance  does  not  necessarily  make  substances^  they 
are  so  far  parallel :  and  so  long  as  this  principle  stands  its 
ground^  (which  will  be  as  long  as  common  sense  shall  stand,)  so 
long  will  the  received  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  stand  clear  of  the 
most  important  and  most  prevailing  objection  that  metaphysics 
could  furnish :  and  the  boasted  pretence  of  no  medium  between 
Sabellianism  and  IMtheism^  which  has  been  in  a  manner  the  sole 
support,  the  laM  refuge  both  of  Socinians  and  Arians,  is  entirely 
routed  and  baffled  by  it.  Hinc  iUce  lacrynuB^  &c.  that  I  may 
use  now  and  then  a  scrap  of  Latin,  as  well  as  our  Observator. 
I  pass  over  several  remarks  of  his^  relating  to  this  article,  be- 
cause now  the  reader  will  perceive  how  wide  they  are  of  the 
point  in  hand ;  and  that  they  are  only  the  uneasy  struggles  of  a 
man  fast  bound  and  fettered ;  bearing  it  with  great  regret,  and 
very  desirous,  if  possible,  to  conceal  it ;  though  he  shews  it  so 
much  the  more,  by  the  laborious  pains  he  spends  upon  it. 

XVI.  "  What  I  suppose  the  Doctor  more  strictly  means — 
^'  is  this ;  that  if^  from  the  highest  titles  given  to  Christ  in  Scrip- 
''  ture^  he  cannot  prove  the  Son  to  be  naturally  and  necessarily 
"  the  God  supreme  over  all ;  then  neither  can  we,  from  the 
"  highest  titles  given  to  the  Father  in  Scripture,  prove  him  to 
^'  be  naturally  and  necessarily  the  God  supreme  over  all,  so  as  to 
**  have  no  one  above  or  superior  to  him  in  dominion.'"  Observat, 
p.  no. 

This  representation  of  the  case  is  pretty  fair  in  the  main,  had 
but  the  author  in  his  further  process  kept  close  to  it,  and  made 
no  change  in  it.  My  argument  was  this^ ;  that  Dr.  Clarke  and 
his  friends,  by  their  artificial  elusions  of  every  text  brought  for 
the  divinity  of  GtoA  the  Son,  had  marked  out  a  way  for  eluding 
any  text  that  could  be  brought  for  the  divinity  of  God  the 
Father.  To  make  this  plain,  let  it  be  premised,  (as  granted  on 
both  sides,)  that  there  is  discoverable,  by  the  light  of  reason^ 
the  existence  of  some  eternal,  immutable,  necessarily  existing 
God:  and  now  the  question  will  be,  how  we  prove  from 
Scripture  that  any  particular  Person  there  mentioned  is  the 

»  First  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.  372.  341.      Second    Defence,  vol.  ii.  p. 

'  See  my  First  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.    565,  &c. 


eternal  God,  whose  existence  is  proved  by  reason.  We  urge  in 
favour  of  God  the  Son,  that  he  is  God,  according  to  Scripture 
in  the  true  and  fiill  meaning  of  the  word ;  therefore  he  is  the 
eternal  God^  and  has  no  Ood  above  him.  We  urge  that  he  is 
Jehovah,  which  implies  necessary  existence;  therefore,  again,  he 
is  the  eternal  God,  who  has  no  Grod  above  him.  We  plead 
further,  that  he  is  properly  Creator^  since  the  ''heavens  are 
"  the  works  of  his  hands,  &c."  therefore  again  he  is  the  eternal 
God,  who  has  no  Ood  above  him.  We  further  urge,  that  he  is 
"  over  all,  God  blessed  for  ever,"  Bom.  ix.  5.  And  Trawoicpcirwp, 
Almighty,  or  Ood  over  all,  who  ''  is,  and  was,  and  is  to  come,"^ 
Rev.  i.  8.7  which  expressing  necessary  existence,  and  supreme 
dominion  too,  proves  further  that  he  is  the  eternal  God,  &c.  The 
same  thing  we  prove  from  several  titles,  and  attributes^  and 
honours,  being  all  so  many  marks  and  characters  of  the  one  true 
and  eternal  God.  These  proofs  of  the  Son^s  divinity  are  at  the 
same  time  applicable  to  the  Father,  and  so  are  proofs  of  the 
eternal  divinity  both  of  Father  and  Son.  Now  to  come  to  our 
Ariamasing  gentlemen :  they  have  found  out  ways  and  means, 
artifices,  colours,  quibbles,  distinctions,  to  elude  and  frustrate 
them  all.  Crod  is  a  word  of  office  only',  not  substance :  Jehovah 
means  only  one  faithful  to  his  promises^:  TravroKpaTfap,  God  over 
all,  and  the  like,  may  bear  a  subordinate  sense  ^.  Every  title  or 
attribute  assigned  may  admit  of  a  Umited  construction.  Well 
then :  what  remains  to  prove  the  eternal  Godhead  of  the  Person 
of  the  Father  against  any  Marcionite,  or  other  heretics  that 
should  assert  another  God  stiperior  to  him  ?  Here  is  the  pinch  of 
tiie  present  argument.  This  gentleman  in  answer  asks,  ''  Does 
**  he  by  whom  God  created  all  things  claim  as  much  to  be  the 
''  first  cause  of  all  things,  as  he  that  created  all  things  by  him  ? 
"  Does  he  who  came  not  to  do  his  own  will,  but  the  will  of  him 
**  that  sent  him,  claim  as  much  to  have  no  superior,  os  he  whose 
*'  will  he  was  sent  to  fulfil?'  And  he  has  more  to  the  same  pur- 
posa  To  which  I  answer,  that  when  all  the  proofs  before  men- 
tioned of  the  Son's  having  no  God  above  him  are  set  aside,  I 
aUow  that  there  would  remain  but  very  weak  and  slender  pre- 
sumptions of  the  Son's  being  equal  to  the  Father,  or  of  his 

y  See  my  Pint  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.  '  Garke'8  Reply,  p.  no,  aoo,  301. 

537,  538.    Sermons,  vol.  ii.  p.  141,  Scripture  Doctrine,  p.  396.  ed.  i8t. 

«c.     Second    Defence,  vol.   ii.    p.  *  Collection  of  Queries,  p.  19. 

5^3,  &c.  to  Reply,  p.  159. 


having  no  God  alow  him.  But  suppose  (for  argument  sake) 
the  Son  thus  proved  to  be  inferior  to  the  Fathsr^  when  the  texts 
before  mentioned  are  all  set  aside ;  next  shew,  that  the  eternal 
God^  known  by  the  light  of  reason,  is  not,  or  may  not  be,  another 
God  ahove  them  both.  What  I  assert  is,  that  the  same  elusions^ 
at  least  the  same  kind  of  elusions,  will  serve  to  frustrate  every 
argument  that  has  been  or  ean  be  brought.  Let  us  try  the  ex- 
periment upon  those  which  this  gentleman  (after  the  last  strain- 
ing and  racking  of  invention)  has  been  able  to  produce.  He 
builds  his  main  hopes  and  confidence  upon  i  Cor.  viii.  6.  ^*  To 
''  us  there  is  one  God,  the  Father,  of  whom  are  all  things.""  To 
which  a  Marcionite  may  make  answer,  that  to  us  may  not  sig- 
nify to  the  whole  compass  of  beings;  neither  is  there  any  necessity 
of  interpreting  aU  things  in  an  unlimited  sense,  when  it  may  very 
well  bear  a  limited  one.  And  supposing  of  whom  are  all  things 
(that  is^  some  things)  to  be  meant  of  creating;  yet  since  the  work 
of  creating  is  allowed  not  to  prove  the  essential  divinity  of  the 
Creator^  here  is  nothing  done  still.  The  words  one  God  prove 
nothing :  for  God  being  a  word  of  office,  it  means  little  more 
than  one  King^  or  one  Ruler.  And  so  the  whole  amounts  to  this 
only^  that  to  tM  of  this  earthy  this  system^  there  is  one  Ruler^  who 
made  all  things  in  it.  How  does  this  prove  that  our  JRuler  is 
the  eternal  and  necessarily  existing  Gk>d !  The  like  may  be  said  of 
Eph.  iv.  6.  One  Rider  over  this  system^  supreme  King  over  eM 
the  earthy  above  all,  and  through  all,  and  in  all  theU  belong  to  ii. 
The  last  thing  the  gentleman  has  to  offer  is,  that  this  Ruler 
claims  to  have  no  other  God  above  him.  This  is  not  without  its 
weight  and  force,  though  it  has  not  a  tenth  part  of  the  force  of 
those  arguments  I  have  above  mentioned^  and  which  this  gentle- 
man knows  how  to  elude.  By  a  lUtle  straining,  (as  this  writer 
knows  how  to  strain  much  upon  occasion,)  this  may  be  interpreted 
in  a  suboTiKnate  and  limited  sense,  to  signify  supreme  in  these  his 
dominions,  having  no  rulers  here  to  control  or  command  him,  or, 
no  God  of  this  kind^  (that  is^  God  by  office  only,)  which  does  not 
exclude  any  God  of  another  kind,  the  supreme  God  of  the  uni- 
verse :  for  it  would  be  improper  to  say^  that  the  supreme  Ood  has 
an  office^.  It  is  not  therefore  proved,  that  there  may  not  be^ 
above  him,  another  God ;  who  is  really  and  truly^  and  in  the 
metaphysical  sense,  the  eternal  and  necessarily  existing  Gt>d.   This 

«  See  Reply,  p.  220. 


gentkman  adds,  speaking  still  of  the  Father,  that  he  is  sent  by 
none,  receives  power  and  authority  from  none,  acts  by  no  one's 
commissianj  fulfils  no  one^s  toiU.  It  is  true,  it  is  not  said  that  he 
is  sent  by  any,  or  receives  power  from  any  one :  and  this  may 
afford  a  probable  presumption  in  favour  of  his  being  absolutely 
without  any  superior^  and  be  as  good  a  proof  of  it,  as  a  mere 
negative  proof  can  be.  But  as  this  is  not  said,  so  neither  is  the 
contrary  ;  or  if  it  were,  it  might  bear  a  limited  construction,  so 
that  the  demonstration  at  length  appears  lame  and  defective. 

I  should  have  been  very  sorry  to  engage  in  an  argument  of 
tius  kind,  but  to  convince  some  persons  of  the  great  imprudence, 
as  well  as  impiety^  of  throwing  aside  so  many  clear,  solid,  and 
substantial  proofs,  which  the  holy  Scripture  affords,  of  the  eternal 
divinity  of  QoA  the  Father ,  and  resting  it  at  last  upon  so  weak 
and  so  precarious  a  bottom  \  at  the  same  time  introducing  such 
a  voanton  way  of  eluding  and  frustrating  the  plainest  texts^  that 
it  looks  more  like  burlesquing  Scripture^  than  commenting  upon 
it.  I  heartily  beseech  all  well-disposed  persons  to  beware  of 
that  priie  of  pretended  reason^  and  that  levity  of  spirit,  which 
daily  paves  the  way  for  infidelity^  and  a  contempt  of  all  religion ; 
which  has  spread  visibly,  and  been  productive  of  very  ill  effects, 
ever  since  this  new  sect  has  risen  up  amongst  us. 

XVII.  "  The  Doctor  cannot  possibly  express  Aw  (notion)  in 
"  any  words  of  Scripture :  and,  when  called  upon  to  do  it,  he 
«»  has  only  this  jesting  answer  to  make,  Do  you  imagine  that  I 
"  cannot  as  easily^  or  more  easily,^  find  Scripture  words  for  mine  ? 
"  But  this  is  trifling^.  And  again :  You  blame  me  for  not  ex- 
''^  pressing  my  faith  in  any  Scripture  position ;  cls  if  every  thing  I 
**  (usert  as  matter  of  faith  toere  not  as  much  Scripture  position,  ac- 
•*  carding  to  my  vmy  of  understanding  Scripture,  as  yours  is  to  you  «, 

"  &c. Undoubtedly  it  is  just  as  much  so  ;  that  is,  not  at  all. 

"  For  neither  one  man's  nor  another  man's  interpretation,  or 
"  way  of  understanding  Scripture,  is  at  all  a  Scripture  position  : 
*^  but  the  texts  themselves  only  are  Scripture  positions,  with  which 
••  no  man^s  interpretation  can  without  the  greatest  presump- 
**  tuousness  be  equalled."     Observations,  p.  1 13. 

The  civility  and  the  sense  of  this  worthy  passage  are  both  of 

^  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  706.  '*  the  Doctor's /wopo«7tofw,  to  see  how 

where  I  add,  "  Why  have  you  not  "  far  they  exc^,  or  come  short  ?" 
'*  laid  down  your  doctrine  in  Scripture  ®  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  694. 
"  words,  that  I  might  compare  it  with 



a  pieoe.  Why  \a  my  answer  called  a  jesting  answer!  I  never 
was  more  serious,  nor  ever  said  a  thing  with  better  reason^  than 
when  I  called  that  pretence  trifling.  If  nothing  will  satisfy  but 
exposing  his  weak  reasoning  at  full  length,  it  must  be  done. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  what  has  he  gained  by  giving  us  the 
tchole  of  his  notion  (as  he  calls  it)  in  the  very  words  of  Scripture  ? 
The  words  are,  '^  one  Spirit ;  one  Lord ;  one  God  and  Father 
''  of  all,  who  is  above  all.*"  Had  Dr.  Clarke  done  no  more  than 
cited  these  words^  could  any  man  have  ever  known  the  tohcle  of 
his  notion^  or  ever  suspected  him  to  be  an  Arian  i  His  propo- 
sitions and  replies  are  the  things  that  contain  the  tohole  of  his 
notion,  and  not  these  words,  which  do  not  contain  it. 

2.  Again,  let  but  a  Socinian  understand  these  words  as  he 
pleases,  and  they  may  as  well  contain  the  whol^  of  his  notion, 
A  Sabellian  will  tell  you  the  same.  I  shall  not  despair,  reserving 
to  myself  my  own  construction,  of  maintaining  my  claim  also, 
and  making  the  same  words  contain  the  whole  of  my  notion. 
Well  then,  here  will  be  four  different  or  contrary  positions,  and 
all  of  them  Scripture  positions,  to  their  respective  patrons  and 
abettors.  What  must  we  do  now  ?  Oh,  says  the  Arian,  but  min0 
is  the  Scripture  position,  (for  it  is  in  the  very  words  of  Scripture,) 
yours  is  interpretation.  Ridiculous,  says  the  Socinian ;  are  not 
my  words  the  very  same  with  yours,  and  as  good  Scripture  as 
yours !  I  tell  you,  yours  is  interpretation,  and  mine  only  is  the 
Scripture  position.  Hold,  I  beseech  you,  gentlemen,  says  a 
Sabellian,  or  any  Athanasian,  why  do  you  exclude  me  ?  I  tell 
you,  the  words  contain  my  notion  to  a  tittle,  and  they  are  Scrip- 
ture words;  mine  therefore  is  the  Scripture  position. 

Now  if  this  writer  can  end  the  dispute  any  other  way  than  by 
shewing  whose  is  the  best  interpretation  of  the  four,  and  by  ad- 
mitting that  best  interpretation  for  the  only  Scripture  position  ;  he 
shall  have  the  reputation  of  a  shrewd  man,  and  the  honour  of 
being  the  author  of  that  sago  maxim,  that  texts  themselves  only 
are  Scriptwe  positions. 

3.  I  cannot  help  observing  further,  what  a  fine  handle  he  has 
here  given  for  such  as  adhere  to  the  letter,  in  any  instance,  against 
the  sense  of  Scripture.  For  the  letter,  in  such  a  case,  upon  this 
gentleman^s  principles,  must  pass  for  the  Scripture  position :  and 
the  other  being  interpretation  only,  or  drawn  out  by  reason  and 
argument,  must  not  be  equalled  with  it,  under  pain  and  peril  of 
presumptuousness.   The  Quakers  must  thank  him  highly.  ^'  Swear 


^  not  at  all,^  say  they :  Can  there  be  ever  a  plainer  Scripture 
ptmiionf  Can  the  opposite  party  bring  any  text  like  it!  Can 
they  express  their  noiian  in  Scripture  loards  like  these  \  No :  their 
notion  can  be  reckoned  only  as  interpretaiion^  and  must  never 
be  set  against  a  plain  Scripture  positian. 

An  Anthropomorphite  wUl  insult  over  his  adversary  on  the 
same  foot.  He  will  produce  many  and  plain  texts,  where  God 
is  represented  with  eyes^  ears^face,  hearty  hands,  or  feet.  There 
are  no  texts  so  plain  on  the  other  side.  The  plainest  is  where 
it  is  said,  God  it  irpevim,  which  yet  is  capable  of  divers  construe- 
tionSy  and  every  one  is  only  interpretation,  never  to  be  equalled 
with  Scripture  position. 

The  Apollinarians,  or  other  heretics,  will  insult.  "  The  Word 
^  was  made  flesh  :^  was  fnade,  not  took  upon  him  ;  and  Jlesh^  not 
man.  They  will  challenge  their  adversaries  to  produce  any  text 
so  plain  on  their  side,  and  will  value  themselves,  no  doubt,  upon 
the  Scripture  position ;  to  which  the  interpretation^  however  just 
or  necessary,  must  not  be  equalled. 

To  mention  one  more,  the  very  Papists  will  assume  upon  it, 
and  even  in  favour  of  transubstantiation.  ^^  This  is  my  body/' 
is  a  Scripture  position :  and,  ''  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the 
^  Son  of  man,  and  drink  his  blood,  you  have  no  life  in  you.'' 
Let  any  Protestant  produce  a  text,  if  possible,  as  full  and 
expressive  of  his  notion^  as  these  are  of  the  other;  or  else  let  him 
oonfess  that  his  is  interpretation  only,  which  is  by  no  means  to  be 
squatted  with  Scripture  position. 

This  gentlenuin  is  pleased  to  say,  that  transuistantiation  has 
some  colour  in  the  ^^  bare  words  of  Scripture,  though,"  as  he 
adds,  '^none  in  the  sense."  But  what  is  the  sense  till  it  be 
drawn  out  by  interpretation  f  The  toords,  according  to  him,  are 
the  Scripture  position ;  to  which  no  interpretation  must  be 

To  conclude  this  head;  if  this  writer  will  understand  by 
Scripture  position^  the  sense  and  meaning  of  Scripture  rightly 
interpreted,  1  shall  readily  prove  to  him  that  my  main  positions, 
in  regard  to  the  ever  Messed  Trinity,  are  all  Scripture  positions. 
But  if  he  means  any  thing  else,  let  him  first  answer  the  Quakers^ 
the  Anthropomorphites,  the  ApoUinarians,  and  Papists,  as  to 
the  texts  alleged ;  and  then  we  shall  take  caro  to  answer  him 
abont  Ephes.  iv.  6.  or  any  other  text  he  shall  please  to  produce. 

He  talks  much  of  my  putting  my  '*  own  explications  of  a  doc- 

E  2 


''  trine,  in  the  place  of  the  doctrine  to  be  explained ;"  and 
spends  a  whole  observation  upon  it.  He  certainly  aims  at  some- 
thing in  it ;  though  I  profess  I  cannnot  well  understand  what : 
nor  do  I  think  that  he  himself  distinctly  knows  what  it  is  that 
he  means.  If  he  means,  that  I  have  put  what  I  have  collected 
from  many  texts^  or  from  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture^  into  a 
narrow  compass,  or  into  Q,few  words ^  as  our  Churchy  as  all  Christ- 
ian churches  have  done ;  I  see  no  harm  in  it.  If  he  means, 
that  I  substitute  my  oton  doctrine  in  the  room  of  the  Church's 
doctrine,  or  of  the  Scripture  doctrine,  I  deny  the  charge^  and 
leave  him  to  prove  it  at  leisure.  If  he  means  that  I  take  upon 
me  to  call  the  received  doctrine  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  in 
opposition  to  his  doctrine,  which  is  not  properly  the  doctrine  of 
a  Trinity  ^^  nor  true  doctrine,  but  heresy ;  I  own  the  fact,  and 
have  said  enough  to  justify  it.  And  this  gentleman  will  be 
hard  put  to  it,  to  make  good  his  pretended  parallel  between 
teaching  this  doctrine,  and  asserting  transuhstantiation ;  which 
is  a  calumny  that  he  has  twice  repeated,  p.  95, 112,  and  which 
he  has  borrowed  from  the  Papists,  though  abundantly  confuted 
long  ago  by  learned  and  judicious  hands  K. 

XIX.  This  gentleman  represents  me  (p.  63,  64,  and  120.) 
as  changing  the  word  iyivinfros  into  iyivrjros^  in  innumerable 
passages  of  ancient  authors,  without  any  pretence  of  Tnanuscripts ; 
nay,  without  any  pretence  of  authority  for  so  doing.  This  is 
great  misrepresentation:  and  he  is  herein  guilty  at  least  of 
fraudulently  concealing  what  I  do  pretend,  and  what  authority  I 
had  for  it.  Let  but  my  Second  Defence  be  consulted  ^^  and  it 
will  there  be  seen,  that  I  had  good  reason^  and  sufficient  authority^ 
even  for  correcting  the  manuscripts  in  relation  to  that  word; 
shewing  by  an  historical  deduction,  and  critical  reasons,  what  the 
reading  ought  to  be,  and  what  it  anciently  was :  which  is  of 
much  greater  weight  than  the  readings  of  manuscripts  (sup- 
posing them  to  agree,  which  yet  is  doubtful)  in  an  instance  of 
this  kind,  where  the  copyists  might  so  easily  mistake,  the  differ- 
ence being  no  more  than  that  of  a  single  or  double  letter.  I 
laid  down  rules  whereby  to  judge  of  the  readings  in  this  case. 
If  this  gentleman  can  either  confute  them,  or  give  better^  1  shall 
stand  corrected.     In  the  mean  while,  he  has  been  acting  an 

'  See  my  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.    relating  to  the  Popish  Controveray. 
p.  689.  ^  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  57a, 

s  See  the  Collection  of  Pamphlets    &c. 


unffeneroHS  and  unrighteous  part,  in  the  representation  here  given, 
and  ought  to  make  satisfaction  to  his  readers  for  it. 


CoHceming  the  Author's  Flouts^  Abuses,  declamatory  Exclamations, 
Repartees^  Sfc.  in  Keu  of  Answers, 

WE  shall  meet  with  many  instances  of  this  kind  in  the 
course  of  his  work :  I  shall  point  out  some  of  them  in  order 
as  they  occur. 

I.  Page  9th,  and  10th,  to  the  solutions  I  had  given  of  his 
great  ohjection,  wherein  he  pleads  for  a  natural  superiority  of 
dominion  over  God  the  Son,  and  to  what  I  had  urged  about  the 
Father  and  Son  mutually  glorifying  each  other^ ;  he  is  pleased 
only  to  say,  *^  If  any  man  who,  to  say  no  more,  reads  seriously 
**  this  chapter,  (John  xvii,)  can  believe  this  to  be  the  doctrine  of 
**  Christ,  I  think  it  can  be  to  no  purpose  to  endeavour  to  con- 
"  yinoe  him  of  any  thing." 

He  introduces  these  words,  indeed,  with  some  pretence  to 
reasoning ;  though  it  is  really  made  up  of  nothing  else  but  his 
own  shufflings  and  mistakes.  I  have  never  said  that  the  Father 
WMght  not  have  disdained  to  have  been  incarnate.  He  might,  he 
oould  not  but  disdain  to  be  so ;  because  it  was  not  prcper  nor 
congruous  for  the  Father^  ov  first  Person^  to  condescend  to  it. 
And  admitting  that  it  was  possible  for  him  to  have  been  incar- 
note;  it  does  not  follow  that  the  Father  could  become  a  Son, 
or  the  Son  Father;  their  relation  to  each  other  being  naturcd, 
and  unalterable. 

n.  Page  the  13th,  he  is  pleased  to  cite,  imperfectly,  my 
words  wherein  I  answer  and  obviate^  his  pretences  from  1  Cor. 
viii.  6.  by  reasons  dravm  from  the  context^  and  very  plain  ones. 
He  tells  us,  instead  of  replying,  that  "  the  Doctor  endeavours  to 
'<  cover  the  reader  with  a  thick  dust  of  words,  that  have  no  sig- 
•*•  nification ;"  and  that  it  could  scarce  "  have  been  believed,  that 
^  such  a  twist  of  unintelligible  words  should  have  dropped  from 

1  Bzpostulatio  clarifieationis  dan-  can  se  Filius  a  Patre  oret,  et  clariii- 

d»,  viciMimque  reddendae,  nee  Patri  cationem  Pater  non  dedignetur  a  Filio. 

qoidquam  aaimit,  nee  infinnat  Fill-  Hilar,  p.  814. 
am;  led  eandem  dwkdtatis  oetendit        ^  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  701. 
in  utvoqne  virtmiem;   cum  et  clariii- 


''  the  pen  of  a  serious  writer."^  I  am  sorry  for  his  alownets  of 
apprehension :  but  I  am  persuaded  rather,  that  he  fuuhniood 
the  ttoist  of  words  too  well  to  attempt  any  answer, 

III.  To  the  objection  about  the  Son's  receiving  dominion,  I 
had  shewn  1^  how  both  Father  and  Son  may  receive  dominion,  and 
increase  of  dominion;  intimating  that  dominion  is  an  external 
relation  which  may  accrue  to  any  of  the  divine  Persons,  and  is 
no  argument  against  their  equal  perfection.  This  gentleman 
turns  it  off  by  misrepresentation^  (p.  i6,)  to  this  purpose;  ^*  As 
^^  if  the  Father^s  receiving  the  kingdom,  &c.  was  as  much  ao 
"  argument  of  the  Son's  supremacy  over  the  Father,  as  the 
**  Son'*s  receiving,"  &c.  and  concludes :  **  Was  ever  any  thing  so 
*<  ludicrous  upon  so  important  a  subject  T*  Which  is  first  making 
a  ridiculous  blunder  of  his  otcn^  and  then,  to  shew  still  greater 
indecency  and  levity,  beginning  the  laugh  himself.  I  did  not 
plead  for  any  supremacy  of  the  Son  over  the  Father ;  but  was 
shewing,  that  economical  conveyance  of  dominion  on  one  hand,  or 
economical  reception  of  dominion  on  the  other,  is  no  bar  to 
equality  of  nature. 

IV.  To  a  reply  made  by  me^^  about  the  sense  of  exaUing^ 
(Phil.  ii.  9,)  which  sense  I  vindicated  at  large,  and  then  asked, 
where  now  is  there  any  appearance  of  absurdity !  to  this  the 
author  here  returns  me  ajhut^  though  in  the  words  of  an  Apo- 
stle :  ''  If  any  man  be  ignorant,  let  him  be  ignorant."  This,  he 
thinks,  is  the  only  proper  answer^  p.  19.  The  next  time  he  is 
disposed  to  jest^  or  shew  his  tmV,  he  should  be  advised  to  choose 
some  other  than  Scripture  words  to  do  it  in.  I  shall  endeavour 
however,  that  he  may  not  be  ignorant  hereafter,  by  taking  care 
to  inform  him,  that  when  I  interpret  exalting  in  such  a  sense  as 
men  exait  God,  in  opposition  to  another  sense  of  exalting  to  an 
higher  place  or  dignity,  I  could  not  be  supposed  to  mean,  that 
the  Father  is  inferior  to  Christ  as  men  are  inferior  to  God :  it 
must  be  great  maliciousness  to  insinuate  that  I  had  any  such 
meaning.  But  as  inferiors  may  exalt  superiors  in  the  sense  of 
extolling,  or  praising ;  so  undoubtedly  may  equals  exalt  eqwls 
in  the  same  sense  of  extolling j  or  praising ;  and  thus  God  the 
Father  exalted  his  coequal  Son. 

V.  Upon  a  remark  of  mine**,  or  rather  not  mine^  in  relation 
to  the  construction  of  two  Greek  words,  (cis  b6^°,)  this  gentle- 

1  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  445,        ^  Ibid.  p.  668. 
446.  "»  Ibid.  p.  549.  ^  Phil.  ii.  II. 


man,  full  of  hiimielf,  breaks  out  into  *'  wonder,  that  some  men 
*^  of  great  abilities  and  great  learning  can  never  be  made  to 
^  understand  grammar  P."  These  men  that  our  toriier  so  insults 
oyer,  as  not  understanding  grammar^  are,  we  should  know,  such 
men  as  Beza,  Grotius,  Schmidius,  and  the  top  critics ;  who  una- 
nimously assert  that  ds  is  often  put  for  hy  and  some  admit  it 
even  in  this  very  text.  This  gentleman  is  pleased  to  deny  that 
ime  is  ever  put  for  the  other.  I  might  very  justly  decline  entering 
into  that  dispute,  because,  as  it  happens,  our  learned  gramma^ 
rian  confirms  the  construction  he  finds  fault  with  in  this  text, 
by  the  very  instance  brought  to  confute  it ;  which,  if  it  does  not 
ehew  want  o{  grammar,  shews  want  of  thought. 

His  words  are :  ^^  If  I  mean  to  affirm  that  a  man  is  in  the 
''  field,  I  can  with  equal  propriety  of  speech  say  either  that  he  is 
^  iv  iyp^y  or  th  iypov,  because  the  sense,  in  this  case,  happens 
'^  to  be  the  same  whether  I  say  that  he  is  in  the  field,  or  that 
^  he  is  gone,  or  carried,  into  the  field.*"  Admitting  this  to  be  so, 
then  I  hope  el;  b6(aif  may  as  well  signify  in  the  glory,  because 
the  sense,  in  this  case,  is  the  same,  whether  Christ  be  said  to  be 
im  the  glory,  or  gone  into  the  glory ;  that  glory  which  he  had 
**  before  the  world  was,"  and  into  which  he  reentered  after  his 
passion  and  ascension,  which  is  called  *^  entering  into  his  glory," 
Luke  xxiv.  26.  This  is  sufficient  for  me,  in  regard  to  the  teoBt 
I  am  concerned  with. 

As  to  this  authoT*s  new  rule  of  grammar,  (which  happens  to  do 
him  no  service,)  I  may  leave  it  to  the  mercy  of  the  critics ;  who 
periiaps  may  take  it  for  a  vain  conceit  in  matter  oi  criticism,  as  he 
has  discovered  many,  both  in  dimnity  and  philosophy :  the  same 
torn  of  mind  will  be  apt  to  shew  itself  in  like  instances  in  all. 
I  know  not  whether  this  gentleman  will  be  able,  upon  the  foot 
of  his  mew  rule^  to  give  a  tolerable  account  of  the  use  of  the  pre- 
position tls  in  such  examples  as  here  follow :  ds  rov  K6k'nov,  John 
i.  18,  ds  hv  tvh6ia\<T€v,  Matt.  xii.  18.  ds  qbov^  (suppl.  oIkov^)  Acts 
ii.  31,  €ls  biarayhs  iyyikoav.  Acts  vii.  53,  €U  10  yrjpas.  Gen.  xxi. 
2.  He  must  suppose,  at  least,  something  understood  (as  in  his 
other  instance,  gone  into,  or  carried  into,)  beyond  what  is  ex- 
proosod,  to  make  the  preposition  cis  stand  with  equal  propriety: 
and  00  he  must  solve  by  an  ellipsis  what  others  solve  by  a  change 
of  prepositions.     Which  at  last  is  changing  one  phrase  for  another 

P  Observations,  p.  20. 


phrase^  or  using  one  form  of  speech  instead  of  another  which 
would  be  clearer  and  more  expressive.  To  me  it  seems,  that  the 
easier  and  better  account  is  that  which  our  ablest  critics  hitherto 
have  given ;  that  one  prqxmtion  or  particle  may  be,  and  often 
is,  ptU  for  another :  which  may  be  owing  to  several  accidental 
causes  among  the  different  idioms  of  various  languages  borrowing 
one  from  another.  To  instance  in  quia,  or  quoniam,  for  quod^ 
by  a  Grecism:  for  since  it  happens  that  Srt  may  sometimes  sig- 
nify this  and  sometimes  that,  these  two  renderings  by  degrees 
come  to  be  used  one  for  the  other.  The  like  might  be  observed 
in  many  other  cases  of  the  same  kind :  but  I  am  not  willing  to 
weary  the  reader  with  grammatical  niceties,  of  small  importance 
to  the  point  in  hand. 

VI.  To  an  assertion  of  mine,  namely,  that  there  was  no  im^ 
poBsihUity^  in  the  nature  of  the  thing  itself,  that  the  Father 
should  be  incarnate^  (an  assertion  which  all  that  have  professed 
a  coeqiiol  Trinity  have  ever  held,  and  still  hold,)  only  it  is  not  so 
suitable  or  congruous  to  the^r^  Person  to  have  been  so :  to  this 
the  gentleman  replies,  "  Do  not  the  reader's  ears  tingle  T  And 
he  goes  on  declaiming  for  a  whole  page  of  repetition.  This  is  the 
gentleman,  who  in  his  preface  enters  a  caveat  against  making 
"  applications  to  the  passions  of  the  ignorant  C  as  if  he  meant 
to  engross  the  privilege  entirely  to  himself, 

VII.  In  the  next  page,  (p.  29,)  he  seemed  disposed  to  give 
some  answer  to  an  observation  of  mine,  that  by  voluntary  ecwwmy 
the  exercise  of  powers  common  to  many  may  devolve  upon  one 
chiefly,  and  run  in  his  name  9.  After  some  fruitless  labouring, 
as  we  may  imagine,  to  make  some  reply,  out  comes  a  scrap  of 
Latin,  from  an  old  comedy,  Q^id  est^  si  hcec  contumeKa  non  est  f 
which,  if  the  reader  pleases,  he  is  to  take  for  an  answer. 

VIII.  From  page  39th  to  47th,  this  writer  goes  on  declaim- 
ing about  the  supposed  absurdity  of  the  Father's  appearing  ac- 
cording to  the  ancients. 

Bishop  Bull^  and  after  him,  I  have  particularly,  fully,  and 
distinctly  considered  that  whole  matter,  and  have  answered  every 
thing  that  has  been  or  can  be  brought  in  the  way  of  reason  or 
argument,  against  the  divinity  of  God  the  Son  from  that  topic". 
Yet  this  writer,  applying  only  to  the  passions  of  the  ignorant^  and 

<i  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  686.  •  Answer  to  Dr.  Whitby,  vol.  ii.  p. 

'  Bull.  D.  F.  sect.  iv.  c.  3.  Breves  253.  Second  Dcf.  vol.  ii.  p.  479 
Animadv.  in  Gilb.  Cler.  p.  1044,  &c.    to  485. 


roving  in  generals,  displays  his  talent  for  eight  or  nine  pages 
together.  And  among  other  Fathers,  he  is  weak  enough  to 
bring  St.  Austin  in,  as  voucher  for  the  absurdity  of  the  Father^s 
being  ssnty  appearing,  &c.  For  verily,  if  St.  Austin,  who  un- 
doubtedly believed  there  was  no  natural  impossibility  ^,  but  only 
great  incongruity  in  the  thing,  could  yet  use  such  a  strong  ex- 
pression of  it  as  absurdissime  u,  what  consequence  can  be  drawn 
from  the  expressions  of  other  Fathers,  which  scarce  any  of  them 
oome  up  to  this !  But  St.  Austin  was  professedly  for  the  Father's 
appearing^  and  objects  only  against  his  being  sent;  which  this 
writer  seems  not  to  know.  I  have  remarked  upon  him  before 
in  relation  to  TertuUian  in  this  very  matter,  nor  need  I  add 

IX.  There  is  a  sentence  in  my  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  507, 
(repeated,  in  sense,  p.  5 12, 5 13,)  which  has  happened  to  fall  under 
the  displeasure  of  this  gentleman.     My  words  are  : 

"  What  has  supremacy  of  office  to  do  with  the  notion  of  su- 
*'  preme  God  I  God  is  a  word  expressing  nature  and  substance : 
*'  he  is  supreme  God,  or  God  supreme,  that  has  no  God  of  a 
**  superior  nature  above  him.  Such  is  Christ,  even  while  he 
**  submits  and  condescends  to  act  ministerially."  To  the  former 
part  of  this  passage  we  have  the  following  smart  repartee: 
"  What  has  supremacy  of  office,  or  authority  and  dominion  to 
**  do  with  the  notion  of  supreme  man. — Is  not  man  (in  the  same 
"  way  of  reasoning)  a  word  expressing  nature  and  substance  I 
*'  Quam  ridicule!^'  p.  50.  Now,  for  my  part,  I  never  heard  of 
wpreme  man,  Man  is  the  word  upon  which  the  argument  turns ; 
for  which  reason  I  have  thrown  out  supreme  King,  or  Governor^ 
as  not  pertinent.  And  as  no  supremacy  of  office  can  make  one 
man  more  truly  or  more  properly  man^  or  man  in  a  higher  sense 
of  the  word  man;  so  it  seemeth  to  me  that  no  supremacy  of 
office  can  make  God  the  Father  more  truly  Gody  or  God  in  a 

*  Solas  Pater  non  legitur  missuB,  enim  habet  de  quo  sit,  aut  ex  quo 

qaoniam  solus  non  habet  auctorem  a  procedat si  voluisset  Deus  Pater 

quo  genitus  sit,  rel  a  quo  procedat.  per   subjectam   creaturam  visibiliter 

£t  ideo  non  propter  natura  aMversUa"  apparere,  absurdissime  tamen  aut  a 

ton,  quae  in  Tnnitate  nulla  est,  sed  Fmo   quern   genuit,   aut   a    Spiritu 

propter  ipsamaiic/or»ra/«m,  solus  Pater  Sancto  qui  de  illo  procedit,  missus 

non  didtur  missus.    Non  enim  splen-  diceretur.    August,  ae  Trin.  lib.  iv. 

dor,  ant  fervor  ignem,  sed  ignis  mittit  c.  38,  33. 

me  splendorem,  sive  fervorem.  Au-        '  See  my  Answer  to  Dr.  Whitby, 

ymst.  camtr.  Serm.  Arian.  c.  4.  vol.  iL  p.  353.  Second  Defence,  vol.  li. 

o  VstaT  non  dicitur  missus ;  non  p.  480,  &c. 


higher  sense  than  is  God  the  Son.  There  was  no  great  reason 
for  the  gentleman's  bursting  out  into  merriment  upon  it,  with 
his  quam  ridicule:  but  perhaps  his  infirmity,  as  usual,  overoame 

X.  To  a  well  known  plea  on  our  side,  that  God  could  not  be 
God  merely  in  the  sense  of  dominion,  having  been  God  from 
everlasting,  and  before  dominion  commenced,  the  Observator 
thus  speaks :  **  But  is  it  in  reality  no  character  of  dominion, 
"  no  relative  character,  to  have  in  himself  an  essential  power 
"  from  eternity  to  eternity,  of  producing  what  subjects  he  thinks 
''  fit,  and  of  destroying  what  subjects  he  thinks  fit,  and  of  pro- 
**  ducing  new  subjects  of  his  government  at  pleasure  i  Was  ever 
*'  such  trifling  in  serious  matters?"  Truly,  I  think  not,  if  the 
last  part  be  intended  for  an  answer  to  the  first ;  as  any  stranger 
might  judge,  who  knows  not  that  both  come  from  the  same 
hand.  This  gentleman  is  so  taken  up  with  grammar,  it  seems, 
that  he  has  forgotten  the  first  elements  of  logic;  which  will 
teach  him  that  relate  and  correlate  always  rise  and  fall  together. 
Where  can  the  relative  character  be,  while  as  yet  there  is  sup- 
posed  to  exist  but  one  term  of  relation  f  It  is  true,  God  can 
make  to  himself  new  relations  by  making  new  creatures  when  he 
pleases :  but  when  he  had  as  yet,  for  an  eternity  backwards,  no 
relation  to  any  creature  at  all,  none  being  created,  I  humbly 
conceive  he  was  under  no  such  relative  character,  nor  had  any 
dominion ;  consequently  could  not  be  God  in  the  sense  of  do* 
minion  y.  This  writer  therefore  might  have  spared  his  ridicuk 
for  a  more  proper  occasion,  had  the  gaiety  of  his  heart  permitted 
him  to  think  seriously  of  the  matter.  As  to  what  he  has  further 
upon  the  same  question,  it  is  no  more  than  repetition  of  what  I 
ftdly  answered  long  ago  2.  And  the  main  of  the  question  waa 
before  given  up  in  the  Reply  ^ :  as  I  observed  also  in  my  Second 
Defence  ^. 

XL  When  this  writer  comes  to  the  head  of  worship,  (Ob- 
servat.  viii.)  he  repeats  some  stale  pleas  used  by  the  parfy,  and 
which  have  all  been  particularly  considered  and  confuted  in  my 
Defences,  vol.  i.  and  ii.  As  to  reinforcing  the  pleas  with  any 
new  matter,  or  taking  off  the  force  of  the  answers  given,  he  is 

y  See  my  Second  Defence,  voL  iL  *  Reply,  p.  1 19. 

p.  517.  ^  Second  Defence,  vol.  iL  p.  510^ 

s  Firat  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.  302,  &c.  539, 566. 
Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  517,  518. 


not  solicitous  about  it.  But  here  a  woff  and  there  a  jhi^  he 
flings  at  his  adversary.  P.  78,  he  cites  a  sentence  of  mine<^  in 
a  aooffing  manner,  calling  it  an  excellent  commentary  upon  two 
texts,  (i  John  ii.  i.  Hebr.  vii.  25.)  which  texts,  he  conceives, 
teriich  us  to  ''  pray  to  Christ,  to  pray  in  heaven  for  us :''  in  the 
mean  while  taJdng  no  notice  of  what  I  had  said  to  obviate  so 
low  and  mean  a  notion  of  God  the  Son,  and  to  cut  off  the  pre- 
tence  of  creature-^oorAip.  Having  gone  on  with  repetition  as  far 
as  he  thought  proper,  he  next  vouchsafes  to  take  notice  that  I 
had  made  some  replisi :  and  one  of  them  he  confutes^  by  saying, 
that  there  will  be  found  in  it  a  tinffular  dexterity,  p.  81.  An- 
other, by  saying,  ''If  any  serious  reader  finds  any  instruction  or 
^*  improvement  in  it,  it  is  well,"  p.  84.  A  third,  by  a  scrap  of 
Latin,  from  the  Comedian,  Quid  cum  isto  hamine  facias  f  The 
EInglish  of  which  seems  to  be,  that  he  has  thought  every  way  to 
oome  at  some  solution,  is  disappointed  in  all,  and  knows  not  what 
to  do  more;  except  it  be  to Jhui  and  scqf,  that  whatever  reputa- 
tion he  and  his  friends  had  once  gained,  by  beginning  like  serious 
men,  (in  which  way  I  was  ready  to  go  on  with  them,)  they  may 
at  length  throw  up,  by  ending  like 

XII.  Page  the  86th,  this  writer  comes  to  speak  of  individuality 
and  sameness;  in  which  I  had  been  beforehand  with  him,  answer- 
ing aU  his  pretences  on  that  head  ^.  Instead  of  replying,  he  goes 
cm  in  his  way.  ''  Individuality  and  sameness,"  says  he,  *'  are 
**  words,  it  seems,  which  signify  nobody  knows  what : "  because, 
forsooth,  I  had  exposed  his  weak  pretences  to  shew  what  mates  it, 
or  what  its  principle  is.  He  refers  me  to  his  Reply  S  to  convince 
me  of  the  absurdity  of  my  way  of  talking.  I  had  seen,  I  had  consi- 
dered his  Reply  long  ago,  and  exposed  the  weakness  of  it  ^ :  what 
|nty  is  it  that  he  is  forced  to  leave  it  at  last  helpless,  and  entirely 
destitute  of  any  reinforcement. 

XIII.  He  is  further  angry  with  me  for  calling  upon  him  to 
explain  his  terms s,  particularly  supreme  and  independent.  As  to 
the  first  of  them,  he  says,  (p.  87,)  it  is  ''  a  term  which  no  man,  he 
**  believes,  before  Dr.  Waterland,  misunderstood.^'  Whether  I 
misunderstood  it  or  no,  may  be  a  question.  I  think  the  English 
of  it  is  highest:  and  as  high  or  low  may  have  respect  to  variety 
of  things,  to  place^  to  dignity^  to  dominion^  to  office,  to  order^  to 

«  Second  Defence,  vd.  ii.  p.  655.  '  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  619. 

^  Ibid.  p.  618.  &c.  556,  707,  708.  s  Ibid.  p.  674. 

•  Beply,  p.  307. 308. 


nature,  &c.,  it  was  but  just  in  Dr.  Waterland  to  call  for  an  expla 
nation,  that  so  the  word  supreme  might  be  admitted  or  rejected 
under  proper  distinctions. 

Independent  is  likewise  a  word  variously  understood  according 
to  variety  of  respects.  God  the  Son,  for  instance,  is  dependent 
on  the  Father,  as  being  of  him,  and  from  him,  and  referred  up 
to  him :  but  he  is  not  dependent  on  the  Father's  will,  or  pleasure, 
being  necessarily  existing  as  well  as  the  Father.  Every  Person 
of  the  Trinity  is  independent  of  any  thing  ad  extra;  but  none  of 
them  are  entirely  independent  of  each  other^  having  a  necessary 
relation  to  one  another,  that  they  must  and  cannot  but  exist 
together,  never  were,  never  could  be  separate,  or  asunder.  This  is 
sufficient  to  justify  my  calling  for  an  explanation  of  independent. 
Which  this  gentleman  would  not  have  been  offended  at,  but  that 
it  touches  him  in  a  tender  part :  it  is  breaking  through  his 
coverts,  letting  the  toorld  in  upon  him,  when  he  has  a  mind  to  be 
retired,  and  to  lie  concealed  under  equivocal  and  ambigwrns 

The  term  authority  was  another  equivocal  word,  which  I  was 
willing  to  distinguish  upon  K  This  writer  being  extremely  desirous 
of  finding  a  governor  for  Grod  the  Son  and  God  the  Holy  Ghost, 
says ;  ^*  As  if  any  man,  since  the  world  began,  ever  did  or  ever 
"  could  mean,  by  those  terms,  not  power  and  dominion.''  It  virere 
easy  to  quote  a  multitude  of  writers,  ancient  and  modem,  that 
use  the  word  authority,  without  reference  to  dominion;  and  who 
when  they  ascribe  it  to  the  Father,  as  his  peculiar,  never  meaa 
to  express  any  the  least  dominion  over  the  other  two  Persons  by 
it.  I  content  myself  here  with  two  only,  both  quoted  in  my 
Second  Defence  >,  namely,  St.  Austin  and  Bishop  Pearson.  It 
would  be  endless  to  instruct  this  gentleman  in  all  the  use/id 
things  which  he  wants  to  know.  He  does  not  know,  that  as 
early  as  the  days  of  St.  Austin,  the  very  distinction  which  I  in- 
sist upon,  as  to  the  equivocal  sense  of  authority  in  this  case,  was 
taken  notice  of,  and  pleaded  against  one  of  his  Arian  predecea- 
sors,  Maximin^ :  so  little  is  he  acquainted  with  what  men  of  letters 
have  been  doing  since  the  toorld  began. 

Upon  this  occasion  he  drops  a  maxim^  as  he  takes  it  to  be, 

^  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  417,  13.  lib.  ii.  c.  2.  sect.  9.  and  in  BuU. 

517.  D.  F.  sect.  iv.  c.  i.  p.  354. 

'  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  516,  ^  Augustin.  cont.  Maxim,  lib.  iii. 

6^0.    See  other  testimonies  in  Peta-  c.  5, 14. 
vms,  de  Trin.  lib.  v.  c.  5.  sect.  1 1, 13, 


that  **  nothing  can  be  the  same  in  kind  and  in  ntmber  too.** 
The  Author  of  the  Remarks  is  full  of  the  same  thing^.  I  have 
already  hinted,  how  contradictory  this  pretended  maxim  is  to 
Dr.  Clarke's  known  and  avowed  principles  in  another  cause.  To 
answer  now  more  directly,  and  to  cut  off  their  main  argument 
at  once;  I  observe,  that  though  in  finite  things,  especially  things 
corporeal,  those  that  are  one  substance  in  kind  are  more  than 
one  substance  in  number ;  yet  the  reason  is  not,  because  they 
are  one  in  kind^  but  because  they  are  really  separate,  or  separable 
from  each  other:  and  so  it  happens,  that  while  they  are  one 
sabstance  in  kind,  they  are  not  one  in  number.  But  where  the 
sabstance  is  neither  separate  nor  separable,  (as  in  the  (Kvine 
Persons,)  there  unity  of  kind  and  number  are  consistent,  and  meet 
in  one :  and  thus  the  unity  is  both  specific  and  individual,  without 
any  the  least  repugnancy,  or  appearance  of  it°*. 

XIV.  Page  the  93rd,  we  meet  with  several  little  efforts  to  say 
something,  but  with  a  very  ill  spirit,  and  shewing  more  of  the 
anthor'^s  spleen  than  his  abilities.  He  scoji  at  the  advice  given 
him,  not  to  pretend  to  be  icise  in  the  deep  things  of  Gk>d.  He 
is  positive  that  an  infinitely  active  Being  can,  if  he  pleases, 
entirely  cease  to  act;  that  God's  loving  himself,  however  it  may 
be  the  prime  mover  in  all  the  divine  acts,  is  no  act  at  aU;  and 
that  €h>d  never  naturally  or  necessarily  exerts  any  poxcer ;  for 
this  wise  reason,  because  in  such  a  case  he  can  have  no  power  to 
exert :  that  is,  because  the  will  is  the  original  (with  this  writer) 
of  all  exerting  of  power,  which  was  the  point  in  question.  He  has 
left  several  very  material  things  I  urged  upon  this  head  perfectly 
untouched'^:  but  seems  to  be  affronted  that  any  man  should 
question  whatever  he  has  been  pleased  to  affirm,  or  should  not 
take  his  dictates  for  demonstrations. 

XV.  There  is  a  place  which  I  have  passed  over  in  p.  62.  but 
deserves  to  be  mentioned  under  this  chapter.  I  happened  to  find 
&ult  with  Dr.  Clarke,  for  pretending  to  prove  the  existence  of  a 
first  Cause,  a  priori^ :  which  has  no  sense  without  supposing  a 
caxtBe  prior  to  the  Jirst,  which  is  flat  contradiction.  This  plain 
reasoning  is  called  turning  the  pretended  proof  into  ridicule ; 
though,  in  my  notion,  reasoning  is  one  thing,  and  ridictding  an- 
other.    However,  the  gentleman  being  grievously  offended,  re- 

1  RemarkB,  p.  25.  ^  Ibid.  p.  633,  634. 

°>  See  my  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.        ^  Ibid.  p.  695. 
p.  620,  671. 


flolves  to  revenge  himself  in  a  note.  Repeating  some  words  of 
mine^  out  of  the  place  I  have  referred  to  in  my  Second  Defence, 
vol.  ii.  he  enters  a  remark :  ''  These  words  shew  that  Dr. 
<'  Waterland  does  not  understand  what  the  meaning  of  a  proof 
*'  a  priori  is^  I  should  be  glad  to  receive  information  on  this 
head  from  our  great  dictator  in  science :  and  if  he  und&rstandB 
the  thing  so  well,  the  reader  might  have  expected  some  expli- 
cation of  it  at  his  hands,  that  it  might  be  seen  where  Dr.  Water- 
land's  mistake  lay.  Till  this  be  done,  I  will  presume  to  think, 
that  what  I  said  was  perfectly  right;  and  that  neither  Dr. 
Clarke  nor  his  friends  can  return  any  reply^  more  than  aiuies  to 
it.  Dr.  Cudworth  was  one  that  had  travelled  in  the  argument 
as  far  as  any  man,  and  had  as  good  an  inclination  to  prove  the 
existence  a  priori,  as  Dr.  Clarke  could  have.  But  he  was  a  wise 
man,  and  saw  clearly  how  that  matter  stood.  Let  us  hear  what 
he  says,  after  many  years'  thought  and  meditation.  Speaking 
of  what  he  had  done  in  his  last  chapter,  he  has  these  words: 
*'  We  therein  also  demonstrate  the  absolute  impossibility  of  all 
*'  atheism,  and  the  actual  existence  of  a  God :  we  say  demote 
'*  straie ;  not  a  priori^  which  is  impossible^  and  eontradietious^  but 
**  by  necessary  inference  from  principles  altogether  undeniableP.^ 
I  do  not  want  Dr.  Cudworth's  or  any  man's  authority  for  a 
maxim  of  common  sense,  and  as  plain  as  that  two  and  two  are 
four :  but  the  plainer  it  is,  so  much  the  greater  wonder  that 
men  of  parts  and  abilities  could  not  see  it,  or  are  yet  iffnorofU 
of  it. 

The  most  knowing  men  hitherto  have  been  contented  with  the 
proofs  a  posteriori,  as  being  sufficient,  and  the  only  ones  that  are 
so.  And  they  have  rightly  judged,  that  to  pretend  more  is 
betraying  great  ignorance  of  things,  and  is  exposing  the  dearest 
and  best  cause  in  the  world  to  the  insults  of  atheism  and  infidelity. 
These  gentlemen  endeavour  to  blind  this  matter  by  substituting 
ground  and  reason  in  the  room  of  cause.  Let  them  say  plainly 
what  they  mean  by  this  cause^  ground,  or  rectson^  or  whatever 
else  they  please  to  call  it.  They  will  at  length  find  the  w<wda 
either  to  have  no  sense,  or  to  contain  that  absurd  sense  of  a  cause 
prior  to  the  first  Is  this  ground^  reason,  &c.  the  substance 
itself!  The  consequence  then  is,  that  the  substance  is  the  cause 
or  ground  of  itself.    Is  it  any  attribute  or  attributes  of  that  sub- 

P  Cudworth's  Intellect.  Syst.  Preface. 


stance  I  The  consequence  then  is,  that  attributes  are  the  cause 
or  ground  of  the  subject  or  substance.  Let  them  turn  it  which 
way  they  will,  the  absurdity  still  recurs,  till  they  please  to  allow, 
(what  is  both  sense  and  truths)  that  the  Jlrst  Cause  is  absolutely 
uncaused;  and  that  it  is  nonsense  to  talk  of  any  ground  or  cause 
of  that  substance  which  is  itself  the  ground  sixA  cause  of  all  things. 
But  it  is  pleaded  (p.  63.)  that  if  God  may  *^  exist  absolutely 
^^  without  any  ground  or  reason^'  (that  is»  cause)  "  of  existence, 
"  it  would  follow  that  he  might  likewise  as  well  without  any 
**  cause  or  reason  cease  to  exist."  Which  is  as  much  as  to  say, 
that  unless  there  be  a  cause />rior  to  ihe  firsts  which  exists  neces- 
scurily,  it  will  follow  that  the  Jirst  Cause  does  not  exist  necessarily ^ 
but  may  cease  to  be.  What  is  this,  but  making  the  notion  of  a 
first  Cause  repugnant,  and  contradictory  to  itself;  or  in  short, 
denying  any  such  thing  as  Sk  first  Cause?  I  think  it  su£Bicient  to 
«ay,  that  it  is  the  property  of  the^r^  Cause  to  exist  necessarily : 
he  must,  and  cannot  but  exist  from  eternity  to  eternity.  If 
essistemee  be  considered  as  an  attribute  of  that  first  Cause,  the  sole 
ground^  reason^  or  suJbject  of  it  is  the  substance  itself  so  existing ; 
which  is  therefore  the  support  of  that  and  of  every  other  attribute. 
All  pretended  grounds,  reasons,  causes,  &c.  in  this  case,  can  re- 
solve into  nothing  but  the  actual  existence  of  such  a  Being. 
Prove  first  aposteriariy  that  it  is  fact  that  he  does  exist ;  and  the 
fseeessary  manner  of  his  existing  is  proved  at  the  same  time.  It 
ia  nonsense  to  run  up  higher  for  an  antecedent  ground,  reason,  or 
cause,  after  we  are  come  to  the  top,  and  can  go  no  higher; 
unless  this  writer  is  disposed  to  go  on  ad  infinitum,  and  never  to 
eome  at  &  first  Cause  at  all.  But  he  has  been  so  used,  it  seems, 
to  talk  in  this  way  upon  other  subjects,  that  he  thinks  it  strange 
he  may  not  do  it  here  too ;  and  that  he  may  not  talk  of  an  ante- 
cedent reason  for  what  has  not  any  thing  antecedent^  as  well  as  for 
•  what  has.     Such  is  his  great  proficiency  in  metaphysics. 

I  should  have  been  willing  to  have  passed  over  the  Doctor^s 
mifleonduct  in  this  argument,  had  it  not  accidentally  fallen  in 
with  our  present  subject.  The  cause  of  Theism,  and  his  good  in- 
ienticns^  and,  I  believe,  very  honest  endeavours  in  it,  might  have 
been  his  protection.  But  since  tliis  matter  has  at  length  been 
brought  in,  and  admits  of  no  just  defence ;  it  is  good  to  acquaint 
this  gentleman,  that  it  will  not  be  carried  through,  either  by 
confident  dictating^  or  by  throwing  out  abuses.  But  I  proceed. 

XVI.  Page  the  9i8t,  this  gentieman,  speaking  of  me,  says  as 


foUowB :  ''  Having  been  told,  that  whenever  the  Deity,  or  divine 
''  nature,  [rb  ®€iop^]  is  spoken  of  as  an  object  of  adoration,  it  is 
''  not  by  way  of  accuracy,  (as  the  Doctor  had  absurdly  pretended,) 
"  but  on  the  contrary  by  a  mere  figurative  way  of  speaking,  put 
"  for  God  himself,  just  as  we  frequently  say  the  kinfs  majesty^ 
*'  not  meaning  the  majesty  of  the  king,  but  the  king  himself; 
^  his  answer  is,  that  his  affirming  the  contrary  is  sufficient  agaimt 
'*  our  bare  affirmation.  If  the  reader  thinks  it  so,  I  am  willing 
"  to  leave  it  to  him." 

That  this  writer  is  oiFended,  one  may  perceive.  I  shall  en- 
deavour to  set  the  matter  however  in  a  clear  light.  In  my 
Defence^  I  have  these  words : 

"  God  alone  is  to  be  worshipped,  the  Creator  in  opposition  to 
**  all  creatures  whatever,  the  to  0cu»^,  as  Clemens  of  Alexandria^ 
**  and  Origen^  sometimes  accurately  express  it :  which  also  Ter- 
''  tuUian^  seems  to  intimate  in  the  words,  quod  colimus^  above 
"  cited." 

The  Author  of  the  Reply  having  a  fancy,  that  worship  cannot 
be  properly  said  to  be  paid  to  the  divine,  or  any  nature^  but  to 
Person  only,  was  pleased  to  put  in  his  answer"  to  what  I  had 
said,  in  the  words  he  has  since  repeated.  To  a  bare  affirmation 
of  his,  and  positively  laid  down,  only  to  serve  an  hypothesis^  I 
first  returned  a  counter  affirmation,  (disputants,  as  I  thought' 
being  always  upon  a  level  in  such  cases,  and  never  obliged  to 
take  each  other^s  toord  {or  proof,)  but  presently  subjoined^  some 
remarks  and  references,  about  the  sense  of  to  Geibv  in  Greek 
writers,  and  particularly  in  Clemens  and  Origen :  from  which  I 
had  reason  to  conclude,  that  to  Gelov  properly  signifies  the 
divine  nature^  or  substance^  or  God  considered  substantially  as 
res  divina^  and  not  according  to  personal  characters,  acts,  or 
offices.  That  this  was  the  sense  of  Clemens,  when  he  speaks  of 
the  TO  &€lov^  as  the  object  of  worship,  might  appear  plainly  from 
the  places  I  referred  to ;  particularly  from  those  I  have  again 
noted 7  in  my  margin.  And  the  reason  why  both  Clemens  and 
Origen  chose  that  expression  rather  than  Qeds,  was  to  be  more 

<»  First  Defence,  vol.i.  p.  420.  contr.  Cels.  p.  189. 

'  OptjtrKfvfiv  r6  Gctov.   Clem.  Alex,        ^  Quod  colimus  Deus  unus  est,  &c. 

p.  778.  Ox.  ed.  Tertull.  ApoL  cap.  xvii. 

•  lUfiti  rb  ectov,  &c.     Orig,  Contr,         »  Reply,  p.  356. 
Cels,  p.  367.  «  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p,  667, 

'  Aya/Satvf  cv  «rt  Tr)v  ayivrirov  rov  9€ov  668. 
^voiy,  K^K^'uKf  fi6iHp  ipopav,      Orig,        7  Clem.  Alex.  p.  50,  836. 


emphatioal  and  expressive  against  Pagan  worship  offered  to 
things  of  a  frail  and  oorruptible  ncUure,  to  created  beings.  I 
thmk,  it  was  paying  great  respect  to  this  gentleman's  bare 
qffirmatum,  to  trace  the  sense  of  t6  ©^hv  so  far  as  I  did  in  oppo- 
sition to  it;  as  may  appear  by  my  references.  And  though  I 
threw  in  a  parenthesis,  saving  to  myself  the  just  claims  of  every 
disputant,  he  need  not  have  been  offended  at  it,  as  if  it  were 
intended  as  an  affront  to  his  superior  learning  or  judgment,  to 
set  mine  against  it :  I  had  no  such  thought  in  it.  But  however 
raised  and  extraordinary  his  abilities  may  be,  and  however 
Mffh  an  opinion  he  conceives  his  readers  should  have  of  them,  he 
ought  nevertheless  to  have  taken  some  notice  of  what  I  had 
pleaded ;  if  not  as  a  critic,  yet  as  an  honest  man:  and  I  cannot 
but  think  it  too  assuming  still,  to  expect  that  his  bare  dictates 
shall  have  more  weight  than  another^s  reckons. 

XVII.  To  an  observation  of  mine  out  of  Tertullian,  that  God 
the  Son  is  an  Angel  and  Messenger y  not  by  nature  but  by  office  2, 
he  returns  me  this  answer :  ''  Can  any  man  tell  what  the  being 
''  a  messenger  by  nature  means^!''  No :  but  he  may  know  what 
an  angel  by  nature  means,  which  was  the  word  I  designed  the 
distinction  for,  and  to  which  alone  it  referred ;  as  my  argument, 
and  the  quotation  at  the  bottom,  sufficiently  shewed :  and  all  the 
fault  was  in  not  throwing  the  word  Messenger  into  brackets. 
The  reason  of  bringing  it  in  appears  from  what  went  before. 
This  is  low  carping :  but  no  doubt  the  author  intended  a  smart 
repartee.  He  has  such  another  piece  of  smartness  in  the  same 
page,  relating  to  the  word  servility;  which  he  charges  me  with 
adding  deeeit/tdly,  as  synonymous  to  subjection^ ^  because  of  the 
quite  different  sense  of  that  word  in  the  English  language.  What- 
ever sense  it  be  that  he  speaks  of,  as  to  the  English,  I  am  sure 
nobody  but  himself  can  mistake  my  sense  of  it,  in  the  place  where 
I  used  it,  nor  think  the  word  improper.  But  this  gentleman 
seems  to  be  so  elated  upon  his  skill  in  language^  that  he  can 
scarce  allow  others  to  understand  their  mother  tongue. 

XVIII.  He  has  some  ingenious  thoughts  and  smart  sayings, 

p.  40,  which  must  not  be  omitted.     They  are  bestowed  upon  a 

passage  of  mine<^,  where  I  say,  that  the  Father  was  not  to  be 

visible,  so  much   as  per  assumptas  species^  by  visible  symbols, 

Vweause  be  was  not  to  minister^  or  be  incarnate.     The  remark 

*  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  479.         ^  See  my  Second  Def.  vol.  ii.  p.  464. 
^  ObiervatioDs,  p.  26.  ^  Ibid.  p.  490. 


i  *8e 


hereupon  is :  "  It  seems  from  these  words,  that  Dr.  Waterland 
**  does  not  suppose  the  incarnation  of  Christ  to  be  at  all  real, 
'*  but  merely  a.  phantasm^  per  nemmptas  epecies:  this  being  con- 
"  fessedly  the  only  way  in  which  there  was  any  natural  poseUnliUf 
*'  for  the  Father  to  be  incarnate.  And  accordingly  in  his  expli- 
''  cation  of  that  text,  (Phil.  ii.  7,)  he  tells  us  that  Christ  emptied 
"  himself  in  appearance."*^ 

I  passed  over  this  uncommon  turn  of  his,  when  I  met  with  it 
in  the  Reply <i.  I  saw  he  was  strangely  lost  and  bewildered; 
and  I  was  willing  to  give  him  time  to  recover  and  recoUeot. 
But  by  his  repeating  it  here,  he  appears  to  be  very  fond  of  it : 
and  this^  no  doubt,  is  one  of  the  arguments  which,  (as  he  tell  us 
in  his  preface,)  upon  the  most  careful  review^  he  believes  to  be 
strictly  and  perfectly  concluei^.  I  am  ashamed  to  answer  such 
impertinencies :  but  sometimes  it  must  be  done.  His  first  mis- 
take is,  understanding^^  asswnptas  species  of  a  phantasm :  but 
this  was  to  make  way  for  what  was  to  come  after,  and  to  answer 
to  appearance.  His  second  is,  in  pretending  that  this  was  the 
only  voay  that  it  was  naturcdly  possible  for  the  Fatlier  to  be  in- 
carnate. For  neither  would  this  way  have  amounted  to  any  iii- 
camaiion  at  all,  being  only  prahdium  incamatianis,  as  it  was 
anciently  called  :  nor  is  a  real  incarnation  naturally  less  possible 
than  that  was.  His  third  is,  in  not  distinguishing  between  the 
taking  up  visible  symbols  for  a  while  to  appear  by,  and  being 
personally  united  to  the  human  nature^  which  is  incanuUion.  His 
fourth  is  so  gross,  (not  to  perceive  the  difference  between  veiling 
the  glories  of  the  Godhead,  and  having  no  real  manhood,)  that  I 
can  hardly  suppose  his  thoughts  were  at  home  when  he  wrote  it 
But  the  word  appearance  seems  to  have  struck  his  imagination  at 
once,  and  to  have  made  him  jump  immediately,  without  any  pre- 
mises, into  a  marvellous  conclusion. 

XIX.  Page  the  74th,  &c.  he  undertakes  to  shew,  that,  upon 
his  hypothesis,  the  existence  of  God  the  Son  is  not  precarious. 
I  could  scarce  have  believed,  till  I  saw  the  Reply,  that  any  man 
of  tolerable  parts  or  discretion  would  have  engaged  in  so  ally  an 
argument.  But  there  is  a  necessity  for  it,  it  seems :  and  this  is 
the  second  time  that  he  has  resolved  to  shut  his  eyes  against 
common  sense*  in  this  very  article. 

We  are  to  observe,  that  he  denies  the  necessary  existence  of 

^  Reply,  p.  59, 181.  «  See  my  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  545. 


God  the  Son ;  whioh  is  directly  making  his  existence  continffent^ 
iriiich  is  another  word  for  precarious^  and  is  proper  to  a  ereatwre. 

This  gentleman  endeavours,  p.  75,  with  a  dust  of  words,  to 
obscure  this  plain  state  of  the  question.  At  last,  he  comes  a 
little  oloser  to  the  point,  and  begins  the  debate.  "Gkxi,  says 
**  the  Apostle,  cannot  lie :  the  only  reason  why  he  cannot,  is 
**  because  he  will  not/'  [Note  thea,  that  the  only  reason  why 
Ood  does  not  or  cannot  reduce  QoA  the  Son  to  nothing^  is 
because  hs  will  not.]  '*  Is  therefore  the  veracity  of  God  a  thing 
**  as  mutable  and  precarious,  because  it  entirely  depends  upon 
**  his  will,  as  is  the  existence  of  any  creature  whatever  !^  But 
this  gentleman  should  have  shewn  that  Ood  was  as  much  bound 
up  by  his  own  attributes  to  give  the  Son  existence,  and  to  continue 
him  in  it,  as  he  is  bound  nener  to  He,  to  make  the  case  parallel : 
and  upon  this  supposition,  Gk>d  could  no  more  want  his  Son  one 
moment  from  all  eternity,  than  he  could  be  ever  one  moment  capa- 
ble of  lying:  which  is  making  the  Son  as  necessarily  existing,  by 
necessary  will,  (which  this  gentleman  would  call  no  wiU,)  as  Otod'a 
attribute  of  f)eracity  is  necessary  and  immutable.  God's  moral 
attributes  are  founded  in  the  natural  perfections,  and  are  indeed 
no  other  than  natural  and  necessary  perfections  of  the  Deity, 
which  he  can  no  more  cease  to  have,  than  he  can  cease  to  be. 
And  even  the  rectitude  of  his  toill  is  natural,  necessary,  and  «»- 
mUerahle:  and  the  reason  why  he  never  unUs  amiss  is  because  he 
cemnot.  But  not  to  run  further  into  this  point,  which  is  perfectly 
remote  and  foreign,  and  brought  in  only  for  a  blind;  what  be- 
comes of  the  distinction  between  the  necessary  existence  proper 
to  the  divine  Being,  and  ihQ  precarious  existence  proper  to  crea- 
tures  f  If  God  may  be  obliged  by  any  of  his  moral  attributes 
of  msdomf  goodness^  veracity^  &e.  to  preserve  the  Son  in  his 
being;  so  may  he  likewise  to  preserve  angels,  or  men,  or  any 
other  creature :  and  is  this  a  reason  against  calling  their  exist- 
ence precarious  f  If  it  be,  then  there  may  be  creatures,  many 
besides  Grod  the  Son,  whose  existence  is  not  precarious:  and 
thus  the  distinction  between  necessary  and  precarious  existence  is 
lost.  The  meaning  of  precarious  existence  is,  not  necessary^  of 
what  might  either  never  have  been,  or  may  cease  to  be,  if  God 
pleases.  Let  this  gentleman  either  affinn  this  of  God  the  Son, 
or  deny  it  of  any  creature  whatever. 

This  writer,  who  is  used  to  wise  questions,  asks  me,  whether 
the  supreme  dominion  of  Grod  the  Father  (that  which  I  found  in 

F  2 


voluntary  economy)  be  precarious  ?  Undoubtedly  every  voluniafy 
office  may  cease  to  be,  is  not  necessary ^  but  depending  on  pleasure, 
and  is  therefore  so  far  precarious.  And  even  as  to  natural  do- 
minion, God  might  choose  whether  he  would  make  any  creatures  ; 
he  may  choose  whether  he  will  contintie  any :  that  is,  he  may 
choose  whether  he  will  exercise  any  such  dominion  at  all ;  for  all 
such  dominion  supposes  the  existence  of  creatures^  over  which  only 
such  dominion  is.  Supremacy  therefore  of  dominion  is  as  pre- 
carious as  the  existence  of  the  creature :  and  if  that  be  not  pre- 
carious, I  know  not  what  is  so.  But,  I  think,  I  am  over-abun- 
dantly civil  to  this  writer  to  debate  a  maxim  of  common  sense  with 
him.  The  sum  is,  that  that  existence  which  is  not  necessary  is 
contingent ;  and  contingent  \%  precarious^  or  depending  on  pleasure^ 
in  opposition  to  what  is  naturally  inunutable,  and  cannot  but  be : 
such  is  the  existence  of  God  the  Son  with  this  writer :  therefore 
his  existence  is  precarious  in  the  same  sense,  though  perhaps  not 
in  the  same  degree,  that  the  existence  of  any  creature  whatever  is 
called  precarious.     Q.  E.  D, 

XX.  Page  92nd,  this  gentleman  tells  me  of '' affecting  to  ex- 
'^  press  a  ridiculous  seeming  repugnancy  in  maintaining,  that  the 
'^  same  act  is  certain  as  being  foreknown,  uncertain,  as  depending 
"  on  the  will  of  a  free  agent^/*  I  should  be  glad  to  see  the 
difficulty  dexterously  hit  off  by  this  a^mie  writer,  to  make  U8 
some  amends  for  his  failures  in  other  things.  He  does  it,  he 
thinks,  in  two  words ;  that  what  depends  on  the  will  of  dbfree 
agent  may  be  certain,  though  not  necessary.  But  to  me  it  seems 
that  the  difficulty  stands  just  where  it  did :  for  how  is  that  cer^ 
tain  which  is  not  necessary,  which  may  or  may  not  be ;  which  b 
all  the  meaning  of  not  necessary,  and  which  seems  to  amount  to 
the  same  with  7iot  certain,  in  the  present  case.  And  how  is  that 
fixed,  or  certain,  which  is  yet  floating  and  hanging  in  suspense^ 
either  may  or  tnay  not  be  f  Possibly,  some  solution  may  be  found 
for  these  and  the  like  difficulties :  but  I  am  afraid,  not  by  this 
gentleman,  who  does  not  appear  hitherto  to  have  gone  to  the 
bottom  of  the  subject,  or  to  hs\e  patience  or  coolness  of  temper 
requisite  to  go  through  with  it. 

Concerning  Quotations  from  the  Ancients. 
THE  14th  observation  is  spent  upon  this  subject:   and  I  shaU 
'  See  my  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  692, 693. 


think  it  worth  the  while  to  bestow  a  chapter  upon  the  same; 
that  as  we  have  seen  this  gentleman's  penetration  in  matters  of 
arffum&nt,  we  may  now  also  see  his  diligence  and  accuracy  in 
matters  of  learning.  I  have  had  frequent  occasion,  in  both  my 
Defences,  to  take  notice  of  his  superficial  acquaintance  with  the 
ancient  Fathers. 

1 .  Sometimes  he  has  endeavoured  to  put  spurious  or  worthless 
pieces  upon  us^  as  being  of  considerable  value  and  authority. 
The  Apostolical  Constitutions ^^^  Ignatius's  larger  epistles^,  the 
Arian  Councils  of  Sirmium',  Philippopohs'',  and  Antioch',  (in- 
stead of  the  Catholic  and  approved  synods,)  and  the  tenets  of 
Semi-Arians  for  those  of  Epiphanius^n.  See  the  instances  of 
this  kind  up  and  down  in  the  Reply".  The  doing  this,  unless  it 
be  done  ipnarantly,  is  much  the  same  honesty  in  the  way  of  writ- 
ififf,  as  the  putting  off  bad  wares  or  damaged  goods  at  the  price 
of  good  ones  in  the  way  of  trading. 

2.  Sometimes  he  has  expressed  wonder  and  amazement  at  me, 
as  if  I  had  been  teaching  some  new  and  strange  thing,  or  some- 
thing merely  scholastic^  when  I  have  been  only  following  the  con- 
curring judgment  of  the  ancient  Fathers**. 

3.  Sometimes  you  will  find  him  representing  a  doctrine  as 
unanimously  taught  by  all  the  ancients^  when  they  were  all  di- 
rectly against  it,  or  none  clearly  for  it  P. 

4.  False  histor}'  and  misreports  of  the  Fathers  have  been  very 
ordinary  and  common  with  him^. 

5.  Misrepresentations  of  the  Fathers,  as  to  their  real  sense  and 
meaning,  have  been  numberless :  the  greatest  part  of  my  labour 
has  been  all  the  way  to  lay  them  open  and  confute  them. 

6.  Misquotations^  or  cleceitful  translations,  I  have  often  had 
occasion  to  observe  and  corrects 

Now  this  gentleman  being  very  desirous,  as  it  seems,  to  make 

ff  Second  Defence,  p.  590, 591,618.  485,503,536.    Second  Defence,  vol. 

h  Ibid.  p. 590, 591.  ii.  p. 600,  601, 637,  700,  733v734. 

t  Ibid.  p.  603, 618.  4  See  the  same  detected  :  First  De- 

^  Ibid.  p.  604.         >  Ibid.  618.  fence,  vol.  i.  p. 328, 382, 380, 428, 497, 

«  Ibid.  p.  688.  507,  536,  538,  545,  547.   Second  De- 

n  Reply  to  Dr.  Waterland,  &c.  p.  fence,  vol.  ii.  p.  389,  391,  429,  439, 

17,  18,  19,  22,  25,  29,  58,  61,  258,  459^481, 489.49i»495»498,537»64i. 

260,  274,  275,  276,  290,  404,  410.  563,  ^64,  618.  714,  717,  728. 

®  See  my  First  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.  *"  See  my  First  Defence,  vol.  i.  p. 

287,  324,  49^»  549-    Second  Defence,  350,  351,  381,   389,  523,  &c.  560. 

vol.  ii.  p.  422,  541.  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  444,  473, 

P  See  these  fallacies  noted:  First  485,  595,  597,  618,  641,  674,  737, 

Defence,  vol.  i.  p.  295,  333,  470,  484,  &c.  755. 


reprisals  upon  me,  undertakes  to  furnish  out  a  whole  section  of 
gross  misrepresentations  made  by  me  in  my  quotations.  He  gives 
them  for  a  specimen  only,  as  he  says,  and  calls  them  some  few ; 
being  willing  the  reader  should  think  he  had  been  very  tender 
and  compassionate.  The  reader  perhaps  may  really  think  so^ 
when  he  finds  what  the  sum  total  of  this  worthy  cliarge  of  gross 
misrepresentations  amounts  to :  nothing  but  an  account  of  some 
very  fair  a^ndjiLst  representations  set  in  a  bad  light,  misreported 
under  ya&^  colours,  and  called  by  a  wrong  name.  I  hope  every 
intelligent  reader  will  apprehend  the  difference  between  making 
a  charge  and  proving  one;  between  ^  fahe  report  and  a  true 
one ;  between  an  unrighteous  calumny  and  Hjust  censure.  I  am 
willing  to  put  the  issue  entirely  upon  the  justice  and  merits  of 
the  case,  upon  the  evidence  produced  here  or  there,  to  justify  the 
charges  respectively.  Let  but  the  reader  compare  my  remarks 
on  Dr.  Clarke's  quotations^  \vith  what  this  writer  would  lay  to 
me ;  and  then  the  difference  betwixt  the  one  and  the  other  will 
be  throughly  understood.  Now  to  come  to  particulars:  they 
are  twelve  in  number :  which  were  they  all  faults^  it  were  easy 
to  select  hundreds  greater  out  of  their  pieces.  But  I  confined 
myself,  in  my  collection,  to  such  only  as  betrayed  manifest  par^ 
tiality  and  deceit,  or  great  want  of  care  and  exactness. 

I.  In  the  first  place,  he  finds  fault  with  my  way  of  under* 
standing  a  passage '  of  Philo,  and  gives  me  his  own  judgment 
against  it:  which  I  have  as  much  regard  for,  as  he  has  for 
mine.  The  very  passage  which  he  cites  from  Philo,  to  confute 
my  construction,  confirms  it :  as  it  shews  that  the  Logos  was 
betwixt  the  ro  yevdfx^vov  and  6  TraTYip,  and  was  therefore  neither. 
And  if  he  is  not  reckoned  with  the  ra  ycvS^icva,  he  is  of  course 

II.  The  second  is  my  reading  iyimjTos  in  two  places  of  Justin, 
where  he  chooses  to  read  iyivvrjfros.  His  reasons,  it  seems,  are 
good  to  Am,  and  mine  to  me,  which  is  the  whole  matter.  I  vin- 
dicated my  reading  against  his  exceptions  in  my  Second  Defence, 
vol.  ii.  p.  506,  579  :  and  he  has  nothing  to  add  by  way  of  rein- 
forcement. A  mighty  business  to  found  a  charge  of  gross  mttre- 
presentation  upon :  he  must  have  been  hard  put  to  it,  to  strain 
so  much  for  one. 

III.  A  third  article  of  my  gross  misrepresentations  begins  with 
a  neto  invention  of  his  oum ;  a  very  forced  interpretation  of  a 

»  First  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.  523,  &c.  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  737,  Sic. 


passage  in  Irenaeus^ ;  which  interpretation  was  never,  I  believe, 
thought  on  by  any  man  before  himself,  and  rests  only  in  strength 
of  imagination.  For  what  if  the  Father  be  called  Adyos  in  that 
chapter  as  well  as  the  Son,  could  Irenseus  be  there  talking  of 
the  emissUm  or  generation  of  the  Father  ?  If  this  gentleman  will 
but  please  to  look  forwards,  as  far  as  page  157.  and  158.  and 
view  the  whole  process  of  the  argument,  he  will  see  what  Irenaeus 
meant  by  the  Logos,  namely,  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father,  the 
same  that  Isaiah  speaks  of  chap.  liii.  8. 

This  writer  also  tells  me  of  citing  two  passages  of  Iremeus,  as 
containing  the  Church's  notion,  when  he  is  ridiculing  the  notions 
of  the  ViUentinians :  as  if  a  man  might  not  be  ridiculing  the  no- 
tion of  the  Valentinians,  and  at  the  same  time  discover  his  o^vn. 
Had  the  author  undertaken  to  vindicate  this  his  new  and  extra- 
ordinary construction,  I  should  have  taken  care  to  consider  it  at 
large :  but  as  he  has  only  given  a  few  dark  and  obscure  hints 
of  what  he  would  have,  I  think  it  sufficient  to  refer  the  reader 
to  my  Second  Defence",  and  to  Irenseus  himself*,  and  to  his 
learned  editor,  who  has  particularly  considered  his  author's 
meaning  7. 

A  further  complaint  against  me  is  for  falsely  interpreting 
non  alius  et  aliuSy  in  Irenaeus',  of  Father  and  Son ;  which  is  so 
trifling  and  groundless,  that  nothing  can  be  more  so.  He  has 
invented  another  imaginary  construction,  peculiar  to  himself, 
which  he  endeavours  to  help  out,  by  supplying  something  in 
Irenseus^s  text,  which  the  good  Father  never  thought  on,  and 
which  the  whole  context  strongly  reclaims  against.  See  my 
Second  Defence*,  where  I  cite  the  passage,  with  another  parallel 
place  of  TertuUian.  In  this  way  of  charging  me  with  gross  mis- 
representations,  the  author  may  be  copious  enough ;  for  invention 
is  fruitful. 

As  to  the  fourth  place,  all  the  fault  is,  that  I  follow  the  com- 
mon reading,  {cum  Fierbo  suo,  Iren.  p.  183,)  though  there  is  one 

^  Qui  ffenerationein  prolativi  homi-        °  Vol.  ii.  p.  435,  583. 
Dum  K«rSi  transfenintin  Dei  sternum        ^  Iren.  p.  133, 139.  ed.  Mass. 
Verlmmj  et  prolationis  initium  donan-        7  Massuet.  Dissert.  Prsv.  p.  128. 
iem  et  genesun,  quemadmcNdum  et  sno        '  Non  er^o  alius  erat  qui  cognosce- 

Verbo.    Et  in  quo  distabit  Det  Fer-  batur,  et  alius  qui  dicebat ;  nemo  cog- 

hmm,  tmo  magis  ipse  DeuSj  cum  sit  noscit  Patrem,  sed  unus  et  idem,  om- 

VerimM,  a  Verbo  hominora,  ti  ean-  nia  su^iciente  ei  Patre,  &c.  Iren.  p. 

dem  habuerit  ordinationem  et  emis-  234.  Mass,  Pren.  Diss.  p.  131. 
nooem  genentionis  ?  Iren,  p.  132.  ed.        *  Vol.  ii.  p.  436. 



manuscript  which  leaves  out  cum:  a  manuscript  scarce  above 
4CX)  years  old,  and  of  no  great  authority  ^.  The  manuscript  is 
the  Arundel,  in  the  library  of  the  Royal  Society :  I  have  seen 
it,  and  find  the  readirhg  to  be  as  Dr.  Grabe  represented.  But 
that  the  reading  is  ''  without  doubt  the  truer  reading,""  as  the 
Reply  pretends^,  against  the  faith  of  all  the  other  manuscripts^ 
about  ten  in  number,  several  of  them  much  older^  and  most  of 
them  moTQ  faithful  in  the  whole^  will  not  be  taken  for  granted 
upon  a  bare  affirmation, 

A  ffth  place  of  Irenaeus  by  me  cited  <>,  I  am  willing  to  leave 
with  the  reader :  who  may  please  to  consider,  whether  what  this 
writer  objects  be  of  any  force  against  what  I  said ;  since  I  did 
not  pretend  that  the  Son  did  any  thing  contrary  to,  or  unthaut 
the  FeLiher's  good  pleasure, 

IV.  This  gentleman  proceeds  to  Clemens  Alexandrinus  and 
charges  me  with  misrepresenting  him.  I  vindicated  my  sense  of 
that  passage  at  large  before  ^^^  and  obviated  every  pretence  to 
the  contrary :  nor  has  this  writer  so  much  as  attempted  to  reply 
to  what  I  there  urged ;  except  calling  a  thing  monstrous  be  the 
same  with  confuting  it.  His  repeating  here  his  former  opinion 
about  Christ  being  representative  only,  (which  has  been  so  abun- 
dantly answered  and  bafiled  in  both  my  Defences^,  beyond  any 
just  reply.)  only  shews  to  what  a  degree  of  hardiness  a  man  may 
arrive  by  long  opposing  the  truth. 

There  is  another  place  of  Clemens  s,  as  to  which  he  insixts  upon 
his  construction,  and  I  also  upon  mine^ ;  though  it  is  sufficient 
for  me,  if  mine  may  be  true;  he  should  prove,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  his  must.  He  appeals  to  all  that  understand  Greek. 
So  do  I;  and  to  the  context  likewise.  Bishop  Bull,  Le  Nouny, 
and  the  learned  editor  of  Clemens,  (who,  I  believe,  understood 
Greek,)  had  declared  beforehand  for  my  construction.  Let  this 
gentleman  produce  his  better  vouchers,  if  he  has  any,  to  support 
his  pretences  about  the  ruxture  of  the  Greek  tongue :  which  he  may 
sometimes  happen  to  mistake,  and  pretty  widely  too,  as  appears 
by  his  versions.     His  translation,  as  he  calls  it,  of  this  very  plaoe 

^  See  Massuet.  prsef.  p.  8.  rov%  dc  rolr  r^tpcrtfc  irciricrmMcdow 

^  Reply,  p.  103.  dirovfifios  rifids.  0C6*  v^*  Mpov  naXu- 

^  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  447.  Otlri  vror*  &»,  6  iram»v  Kvputt,  Koi  ftd" 

^  Ibid.  p.  488.  Xurra  t(vinip€T&p  r^  rov  ayaBov  ud 

^  First  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.  294,  &c.  navroKpdropos  ^fX^/iari  varfidt.  Ciem, 

iSecond  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  505,  &c.  Alex.  Strom,  vii.  cap.  2.  p.  83a. 
s  0{jT  ovu  fbOovolr)  nor  av  ritriv,  6        ^  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  755. 


of  demeos,  is  no  trantlaiian,  but  a  loose  paraphrase^ ;  and  such 
a  one,  that  no  man  could  ever  imagine  from  it  what  the  Greek 
words  are.  Whether  I  am  righi  or  no,  he  is  most  certainly 
tcnmff  in  taking  the  liberty  he  has,  of  foisting  in  words^  and 
altering  the  turn  of  the  expression,  to  help  out  his  construction. 
But  besides  that,  the  construction  itself  appears  to  me  somewhat 
/arced  and  unnatural,  as  referring  «ccU  fxaXiora  to  the  negative 
going  before,  and  to  the  first  member  of  the  sentence,  rather 
than  the  second;  when  in  the  preceding  sentence,  of  like  kind, 
the  third  part  hangs  upon  the  second.  The  most  natural  con- 
struction therefore  seems  to  be  this ;  Who  is  Lord  of  all,  etiam 
maxime  sermens\  &c.  even  when  most  subservient,  &c.  that  is, 
even  in  his  lowest  condescension,  becoming  incarnate,  which 
Clemens  had  been  speaking  of.  In  the  very  next  page,  resuming 
the  assertion  of  the  Son's  being  Lord  of  aU,  he  again  qualifies 
it,  in  like  manner,  by  referring  all  up  to  the  supreme  Father. 

V.  We  now  come  to  Tertullian :  where  he  taxes  me  with  a 
misconstruction ;  owning  however  that  he  had  gone  before  me  in 
the  same.  I  must  acknowledge  I  looked  upon  the  construction 
of  that  place  as  doubtful,  at  least ;  for  which  reason  I  had  never 
cited  it  in  my  First  Defence,  or  elsewhere,  to  prove  Father  and 
Son  one  God.  But  finding  at  length  that  some  learned  men  so 
understood  the  place,  and  observing  that  the  Reply  ako  came 
into  it,  I  thought  I  might  then  safely  use  it.  If  it  be  a  mistake, 
(as  probably  it  may,)  it  should  not  however  have  come  under  the 
head  of  gross  misrepresentations. 

He  next  charges  me  with  a  great  neglect,  as  omitting  to  take 
notice  of  what  the  Reply  had  objected  to  my  construction  of  a 
place  in  Tertullian,  though  I  again  quote  the  place.  It  is  un- 
reasonable in  the  man  to  expect  particular  notice  of  every  thing 
that  he  has  any  where  occasionally  dropped,  when  he  has 
slipped  over  many  and  more  material  things  of  mine :  but  I 
have  accustomed  him  so  much  to  it,  that  now  he  insists  upon  it. 
After  all,  his  construction  of  suojure\  in  Tertullian'",  which  he 
makes  to  be  the  same  with  sensu  sibi  proprio,  is  so  extravagant, 

'  Replv,  p.  511.    Compare  my  Se-  cur  non  et  nomina?  Cum  ei^o  legis 

cond  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  755.  Deum  omnipoteniemj  et  altissitnum,  et 

^  A«  to  the  like  oonstmction  of  /la-  Deum  virtutum,  et  Regem  Israelis,  et 

Xi^ra  in  Clemenn,  8eep.i38, 350, 436,  md  est ;  vide  ne  per  hsc  Filius  etiam 

44 J,  630,  759,  8a I.  demonstretur ;  suo  jure  Deus  omni- 

■  RepljT,  p.  509.  potens,  qua  Sermo  Dei  omnipotentis, 

^  Omnia,  inquit,  Patris  mea  sint,  &c.  Tertull.  adv,  Prax.  cap.  17. 


that  it  might  be  safely  left  with  any  man  that  knows  Tert^llian, 
or  knows  Latin.  What  could  TertuUian  say  less,  than  that  God 
the  Son  was  God  Omnipotent  in  his  otcn  rigid,  when  he  so  often 
proclaims  him  to  be  of  the  same  substance  with  the  Father !  It 
is  not  said  merely  siko  jure  omnipotens,  but  suo  jure  Deus  omni- 
patens :  and  as  the  meaning  of  suo  jure  is  well  known  to  all  that 
know  Latin;  so  are  Tertullian's  principles  well  known  to  as 
many  as  know  him ;  and  that  he  makes  the  Son  God  in  the  same 
sense  as  the  Father  is,  as  partaking  of  the  same  divine  substance. 
TertuUian  therefore  could  not  mean,  as  this  gentleman  says, 
that  the  Son  is  God  Almighty,  in  a  sense  proper  to  him,  or  upon 
a  ground  peculiar  to  himself;  since  TertuDian's  principles  plainly 
make  Father  and  Son  God  in  the  same  sense^  and  upon  the  same 
ground,  as  being  of  the  same  dimn>e  suhtance.  But  this  he  might 
mean^  and  this  he  did  mean,  that  the  Son  is  Almighty  God 
distinctly^  and  in  his  own  proper  Person  and  right ;  and  not  con- 
sidered as  the  Person  of  the  Father^  which  Fraxeas  pretended. 
This  gentleman  however,  by  endeavouring  to  find  out  some  mis- 
interpretations of  mine,  does  nothing  else  but  discover  more  and 
more  of  his  own. 

He  is  in  the  same  page  (p.  1 25,)  cavilling  at  a  very  innocent 
translation  of  an  Arian  passage  in  my  book";  where  I  render 
sua  virtutCy  by  his  oum  power.  He  will  have  it,  that  it  does  not 
mean  the  Son's  own  power ^  but  his  Father's,  because  supposed  to 
be  given  him :  which  is  nothing  but  equivocating  upon  the  word 
oum.  The  meaning  undoubtedly  is,  that  the  Son  created  all 
things  by  his  own  natural,  inherent  power ;  though  supposed  to 
be  given  him,  with  his  nature,  by  the  Father.  And  this  is  aU  I 
meant  in  my  version  of  the  words:  it  is  observable  however,  that 
this  gentleman  never  yet  came  up  so  high  in  his  doctrine  as  the 
ancient  Arians  did.  They  supposed  Christ  invested  with  creative 
powers  by  the  Father ;  which  is  a  great  deal  more  than  making 
him  merely  an  instrument  in  the  work  of  creation. 

As  to  Tertullian^s  meaning  in  some  passages  which  this  author 
produced  to  prove  that  souls  were  constd>stantial  with  Grod^, 
(according  to  that  writer,)  as  much  as  the  Son  was  supposed  to 
be  by  the  Nicene  Council ;  it  was  so  mean,  and  so  unworthy  a 
suggestion,  that  I  thought  it  proper  to  vindicateP  TertuUian,  as 

^  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  684.  p  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  459. 

^  See  Reply,  p.  55,  325,  338.  Pre-  Compare  Pamelii  Paradox.  TertuUian. 
face,  p.  6.  n.  3. 


falfiely  charged  in  that  matter.  It  was  of  some  moment  that 
TertuUian  had  utterly  denied  it  of  angeb ;  or  even  archangels^ 
and  of  the  highest  order.  This  the  objector  takes  no  notice  of. 
TertuUian  denies  that  the  soul  comes  up  usque  ad  vim  divinitatiSy 
and  explains  himself  inoffensively  on  that  head ;  as  I  observed. 
Nay,  he  argues  through  the  whole  chapter  against  Marcion'^s 
tenet,  of  the  soul  being  substantia  Creatoris,  the  substance  of  (or 
cansubstantial  with)  its  Creator.  Yet  this  writer  here  goes  on 
with  the  same  ridiculous  charge,  founding  it  upon  words  that 
express  nothing  of  it.  What  the  words  mean,  I  intimated  at 
large  in  the  place  referred  to^ :  and  this  gentleman  makes  no 
reply  to  it.     Why  he  did  not,  is  best  known  to  himself. 

VI.  We  come  next  to  Origen,  whom^  it  seems,  I  have  greatly 
injured  in  rendering  ji^ribcaKC  yap  kavrov  koI  rfjs  /leyoAciJn/ro;, 
hath  imparted  even  his  greatness^,  instead  of  has  imparted  even  of 
his  greatness^.  But  I  am  sure  he  has  injured  Origen  a  great  deal 
more  by  suppressing  the  remaining  part  of  the  sentence,  which 
shews  what  Origen  meant,  viz.  that  the  Son  is  commensurate  with 
the  Father  in  greatness.  This  was  not  imparting  some  small 
pittance  of  his  greatness,  but  equal  greatness^  or  his  whole  great- 
ness :  and  this  gentleman  might  have  considered  that  /icra5i5fi»/u 
commonly  governs  a  genitive  case ;  which  is  sufficient  to  take  off 
the  force  of  his  criticism :  though  I  must  own  I  see  but  little 
difference  in  the  two  ways  of  speakings  nor  that  either  of  them 
may  not  be  admitted  ;  provided  only  that  the  whole  sense  of 
Origen  in  that  passage  be  taken  along  with  it. 

As  to  another  place  of  Origen^  this  writer  desires  that  my 
Defence^  and  his  Reply "  may  be  compared;  which  I  desire 

The  same  I  say  as  to  a  third  place*  of  Origen. 

As  to  a,/aurth  place  in  Origen,  this  writer  is  pleased  to  stand 
corrected  in  respect  of  his  transkttion  of  it,  which  I  found  fault 
withy.  As  to  his  further  endeavours  to  defeat  the  meaning  of 
that  place^  I  am  willing  to  trust  them  with  the  reader^  after  he 
has  seen  the  passage  itself,  and  what  I  have  said  upon  it. 

4  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  47a.        ^  Reply,  p.  83, 84, 85. 
Vid.  Tertall.  oontr.  Marc.  lib.  li.  c.  9.        ^  Compare  Reply,  p.  295,  and  Ob- 

'  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  419.        servations,  p.  63,  with  my  Second  De- 
*  Sec 

p.  310. 

•  Observitionfl,  p.  35, 136.  fence,  vol.  ii.  p.  587, 677. 

*  Second  Defence,  voL  ii.  p.  436,        y  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  673, 
465.     Reply  to  Dr.  Whitby,  vol.  ii.    674. 


Another  passage  of  Origen  I  shall  likewise  trust  with  the 
reader,  if  he  pleases  but  to  look  into  my  Second  Defence'. 
This  writer  here  (p.  127,)  talks  of  my  construction  being  "oon- 
*'  trary  to  the  nature  of  all  language  ;*'  as  if  the  nature  of  lan- 
guage never  admitted  any  adjective  to  stand  alone,  the  stibstan- 
tive  being  sufficiently  intimated  from  the  context.  But  this  is 
his  forward  way  of  talking:  and  he  seems  to  think  he  has  a 
right  to  be  believed  upon  his  word, 

VII.  This  article  concerns  Novatian.  I  have  fully  expressed 
myself,  as  to  this  author,  in  many  places  of  my  Defences,  which 
the  reader  that  thinks  it  of  importance  may  please  to  consult.  I 
forbear  any  further  dispute  about  the  reading  of  a  certain  pas- 
sage, till  the  learned  Mr.Welchman^s  new  edition  of  that  author 
appears,  which  may  probably  give  us  some  further  light  into  it. 

VIII.  The  eighth  article,  instead  of  proving  any  misrepre- 
sentation upon  me,  only  revives  the  memory  of  a  great  one  of 
his  own^ ;  which  discovered  his  small  acquaintance  with  the 
ancients.  As  to  this  writer's  exceptions  to  Hippolytus,  I  have 
sufficiently  obviated  them  elsewhere^:  and  one  would  think  that 
TertuUian's  use  of  the  word  Persona,  in  the  same  sense  with 
Hippolytus's  TrpoaonTTov,  might  have  screened  the  latter  from  this 
author's  censure  in  that  particular.  But  supposing  I  had  less 
to  plead  for  my  saying  that  the  Sabellian  singularity  consisted 
in  making  the  Grodhead  fiovoTrpoaoiirosy  and  that  I  had  expressed 
it  in  a  phrase  that  came  not  into  use  till  the  fourth  century ;  can 
there  be  a  greater  mark  of  pedantry,  than  for  a  man  to  take  me 
up,  and  cavil  at  the  bare  expression,  and  to  charge  me  with  an 
untrtUh  upon  it  ?  How  would  it  look  to  charge  Basil,  and  Chry- 
sostom,  and  Theodoret,  as  reporting  a  thing  notorioudy  untrus^ 
when  they  represent  Sabellius  as  making  the  Godhead  ^2;  TTp6a' 
(onovy  just  as  I  do  ?  Would  not  the  man  be  taken  for  ajester,  or 
a  very  ignorant  man,  in  doing  it,  as  caviUing  only  at  a  mode  of 
expression  f   But  I  proceed. 

IX.  The  author  here  censures  me  for  rendering  yiovapxl^as  by 
unity,  rather  than  monarchy,  in  a  passage  of  Pope  Dionysius^^. 
My  reasons  for  so  doing,  I  conceive,  were  such  as  these :  i.  That 
the  same  Dionysius  had  expressed  the  same  thing  a  little  higher 
by  the  word  fioviba,  which  signifies  unity :  and  he  seems  to  have 
chosen  ixovapxias  after,  only  to  vary  the  phrase.     2.  Because  in 

'  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  j).  436.  »  Ibid.  p.  541. 

^  Ibid.  p.  463,  563.  c  ii,id^  p,  ^5p. 


the  words  immediately  preceding,  he  is  speaking  of  the  union  of 
Father  and  Son ;  by  which  he  solves  the  difficulty  objected,  and 
not  by  throwing  the  oneness  of  Grodhead  a[K)n  the  Father  alone^ 
exclusive  of  the  other  Persons.  3.  Because  rpias.  Trinity y  is  the 
word  opposed  to  yuovapxias  in  the  same  sentence ;  Dionysius  shew- 
ing  that  there  must  be  a  Trinity^  and  withal  an  Unity  (say  I)  pre- 
served. These  reasons  made  me  prefer  the  word  unity.  When 
this  author  has  better  for  the  word  monarchy,  and  in  his  sense  ^, 
I  shall  be  ready  to  accept  it,  instead  of  the  other. 

X.  Here  I  am  charged  with  mistranslating  a  word  in  Eusebius, 
riprmUvri,  which  I  render  compacted ^^  that  is,  constituted;  which, 
it  seems,  is  ioonderfuUy  done.  But  the  wonder  may  cease,  if  it 
be  considered,  i.  That  in  the  same  place  the  equality  is  mentioned 
as  belonging  to  the  ternary  number,  here  considered  as  a  figure 
of  the  Trinity,  2.  That  the  rpuis  is  there  also  made  the  one 
iiff)^,  Source  of  all  things.  3.  That  the  whole  rpia;  is  said  to  be 
rjpTrjiiivri ,  compacted,  as  I  render  it.  For  had  the  meaning  been 
that  two  Persons  were  dependent  on  one^  the  epithet  would  not 
have  been  applied  to  the  whole  Trinity.  4.  There  is  a  plain 
opposition  between  the  rpihs  and  the  rwv  y€vrjTCiv.  Whether 
these  reasons  may  convince  our  loriter  or  no,  I  know  not :  if  he 
pleases,  he  may  go  on  wondering  at  very  plain  things,  to  shew 
his  want  of  reflection.  He  will  have  it  that  fipTrjpLivrj  there  sig- 
nifies a  connection  of  things,  one  depending  on  or  derived  from 
another.  He  has  not  thought  fit  to  give  us  any  translation  of 
the  place,  according  to  his  own  sense  of  it;  but  all  he  says  in 
favour  of  it  is  only  misreport  of  the  use  of  the  word  iivap\o%,  as  I 
shall  shew  hereafter. 

The  second  passage^  of  Eusebius  I  leave  to  the  reader ;  this 
gentleman  having  no  way  of  eluding  my  sense  of  it,  but  by  misre- 
presenting it^  after  his  manner. 

XL  The  next  relates  to  Gregory  Nysseng,  where  this  writer 
has  nothing  to  shew  but  chicane.  I  translate  some  words 
that  may  be  seen  in  the  place  referred  to,  thus :  "  Neither  let 
"  us  dissolve  the  immediate  connection,  by  considering  the  will 
"  in   the   generation."     Upon   which    my   acute    censor  thus 

^  It  is  to  be  noted,  that  fiovapxia,  BtoTrjTos,  koi  ov  duo  dpvai'  o6tv  Kvplas 

in  this  tulnect,  sometimes  sijyrnifies,  Koi  fiovapxia  iariv.    Athan.  Orat.  4. 

not  monarehf,  bnt  unity  of  headship,  init. 

m  principle,  source,  or  fountain,  as  m        «  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  475. 
Atnanasius.  '  Ibid.  p.  406. 

ArxjBtiff  dc  dv  Kai  ovr»t  fiia  dpx^         ^  Ibid.  p.  007,  608. 


remarks :  as  if  the  author  meant  to  say^  that  *'  considering  the 
"  will  of  the  Father  in  the  generation  of  the  Son,  would  be  a  dis- 
"  solving  of  the  immediate  connection."  No,  neither  the  author 
nor  I  meant  to  say  it :  the  words  immediately  foregoing  shew 
that  we  did  not ;  nor  does  my  translation  imply  any  such  thing. 
But  the  meaning  is,  that  the  notion  of  toill  was  not  to  be  carried 
so  far  as  to  destroy  that  necessary  connection, 

XII.  As  to  the  passage  of  Cyril,  and  my  inf&rmoe,  as  he  calls 
it,  from  it,  (which  is  not  my  inference,  but  an  inference  which  is 
mentioned  as  having  some  colour,  and  at  the  same  time  confuted 
by  the  late  learned  Benedictine  editor,  as  I  observed^,)  this 
writer  might  as  well  have  let  it  alone,  unless  he  had  known  more 
of  it.  Had  not  that  learned  editor  given  us  much  better  argu- 
ments against  that  inference  than  the  Observator  has,  it  would 
be  more  considerable  than  he  imagines.  The  reader  that  desires 
to  know  more  of  this  matter  may  consult  the  learned  Tenth's 
Dissertation',  before  referred  to;  and  which  this  writer  has 
fraudulently  concealed  from  the  reader,  in  order  to  make  way 
for  his  charge  upon  me. 

My  words  are  these :  "  If  there  is  any  thing  to  be  suspected 
"  of  Cyril,  it  is  rather  his  excluding  the  Father  from  being 
'^  Creator,  than  the  Son  from  being  efficient:  but  the  late  learned 
**  Benedictine  editor  has  sufficiently  cleared  up  CyriFs  orthodoxy 
^^  on  that  head."  Now  after  I  had  so  plainly  declared  against 
the  inference^  is  it  not  very  unaccountable  in  this  gentleman  to 
charge  me  with  it,  and  in  the  manner  he  does  ?  "  The  Doctor's 
"  inference,*"  says  he,  "  from  the  words  of  Cyril,  is  as  remarkable 
"  an  instance  of  the  strength  of  prejudice,  as  (I  think)  I  ever 
*'  met  with/'  p.  131.  I  may  much  more  reasonably  say,  that 
this  representation  is  as  remarkable  an  instance  of  the  strength 
of  malice^  as  I  ever  met  with.  See  my  Second  Defence,  vol.  11. 
p.  629,  631, 687,  where  I  take  notice  of  the  Father  being  repre- 
sented as  issuing  out  orders  for  creating,  and  the  Son  as  creating: 
which  is  CyriFs  notion  also,  and  which  affords  some  cohur  for 
the  infetence  before  mentioned ;  but  cohur  only,  and  not  ground 
sufficient  for  it,  as  I  before  intimated,  acquitting  Cyril  of  it. 

I  have  now  run  through  the  whole  charge  of  "very  gross 
"  misrepresentations/'  of  which  the  foregoing  instances  are  the 
specimen,  all  that  this  gentleman  could  find.     Nobody  doubts  of 

^  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  630. 

^  Dissert,  iii.  de  Doctrin.  CyriUj,  p.  139,  &c. 


his  inclination  to  have  picked  out  the  very  toorst  that  my  books 
could  any  where  aflTord ;  and  these  are  they.  I  thank  him  for 
them.  I  could  not^  I  think,  have  desired  a  fuller  testimony  from 
an  adversary  than  this  is,  of  my  fidelity  in  the  matter  of  quota- 
tions; I  might  almost  say,  care  and  exactness  beyond  what  I  had 
expected.  For  though  I  had  taken  the  best  care  I  could,  in  re- 
vising every  thing  of  that  kind^  and  again  comparing  it  with  the 
books  themselves^  as  my  papers  went  through  the  press,  and  was 
certain  not  to  be  wilftdly  guilty  of  any  mistake ;  yet  I  knew  not 
what  an  (Mble  critic  might  possibly  discover  after  me,  in  a  work 
that  had  not  long  time  to  lie  by,  nor  had  passed  through  the 
hands  of  my  judicious  and  learned  friends.  But  perhaps  our 
Observator  has  been  negligent  in  examining,  or  is  not  very  a4:ute: 
and  so  I  shall  not  assume  upon  it. 

One  thing,  I  hope,  will  be  observed,  that  though  this  writer 
haa  found  no  gross  misrepresentations  of  mine,  he  has  made  several 
of  his  oum ;  which  may  now  be  added  to  the  rest  above  mentioned, 
under  my  second  chapter.  And  to  his  former  misreports  of  the 
ancients  may  be  added  another  great  one  which  he  has  in  p.  130. 
^*  It  is  notorious,"  says  he,  *'  that  the  word  ii/apxps  was  always 
*'  appropriated  to  the  Father.*"  The  contrary  is  notorious  to  all 
that  know  antiquity.  "Avapxos  is  very  often  applied  to  God  the 
Son,  by  the  Post-Nicene  Fathers^,  of  the  same  century  with  Eu- 
sebitts^  though  some  years  later ;  and  more  than  once  directly  by 
the  Ante-Nicenes  also^:  as  to  indirect  application  of  it  to  him,  in 
respect  of  his  generation  or  existence,  as  being  ivapxos  or  avipxtas, 
nothing  more  common"^:  Eusebius  himself  is  an  evidence  for  it''. 
But  why  will  this  positive  gentleman  make  reports  of  antiquity, 
till  he  knows  more  of  it  ? 

CHAP.  V. 
A  summary  View  of  the  Judgment  of  the  Ancients  upon  the  qiiestion. 
Whether  God  the  Father  be  naturally  Ruler  and  Governor 
over  God  the  Son. 
SINCE  the  Author  of  the  Observations  has  been  pleased  to 

^  EptphanilU  passim.  Gregor.  Na-  ^ep  €<rr\v  rj  Xeyovcra  (ro4>ia,  ryo)  rlfirjv 

siaDZ.  Orat.  p.  431,  563,  630.  Greg,  j    npo<r€xaip€,    Dionys.   Alex,  apud 

NjTss.  coDtr.  Eunom.  lib.  i.  p.  1 18.  Athanas.  vol.  i.  p.  254. 

1  Ti  vptcfiintpov  (V  ytptati,  tiJf  5-  "»  Clem.  Alex.   p.  832.     Alexand. 

Xpomnf  Koi  Sviipxov  apxfiy  Tf  Koi  cartipxriv  Alex,  apud  Theod.  lib.  i.  cap.  4.  p.  19. 

rwr^wFy T^vldir.  Clem.  Aiex.p,  Sag.  Cyrill.  Hieros.  Catech.  xi.  cap.  13.  p. 

ZtWcrrur  avT^  t6  atravvaa'fui  avap^  155.  Athanas.  vol.  i.  p.  99, 526. 

Xoif,  KOI  dciyfycf,  frpof^vop*vov  avrovy  ^  Euseb.  in  Psalm,  p.  15. 


reduce  the  controversy  to  this  single  question^ ,  and  to  boast 
highly  of  the  ancients  as  holding  the  affirmative,  charging  the 
negative  as  being  an  unheard  oS  fiction  and  invention  of  mine,  with 
repeated  instUts^  and  such  a  degree  of  groundless  assurance  as  is 
scarce  to  be  paralleled ;  I  say,  since  he  has  indulged  himself  in 
these  peculiar  strains,  it  may  not  be  improper  to  lay  before  the 
reader  a  summary  view  of  the  ancient  doctrine  upon  that  head. 
I  shall  content  myself  with  references^  for  the  most  part,  to  my 
own  books ;  pointing  out  to  the  reader  such  material  quotations^ 
relating  to  this  question,  as  lie  scattered  in  several  parts,  under 
several  heads,  in  the  course  of  our  debate.  I  shall  follow  the 
chronological  order  of  the  Fathers,  shewing  all  the  way  for  what 
reasons  I  judge  that  every  one  respectively  was  in  the  same  per- 
suasion that  I  defend,  and  not  in  the  contrary  hypothesis. 

A.  D.  1 1 6.  Ignatius. 

Ignatius  did  not  believe  that  the  Father  is  naturally  Governor 
over  the  Son,  but  the  contrary :  because  he  acknowledged  the 
consubstantialttyv^  and  coetemity%  and  necessary  existence^  of  God 
the  Son.  Any  supremacy  of  the  Father,  consistent  with  these 
doctrines  of  the  Son^  may  be  readily  admitted.  But  the  adver- 
sary has  not  been  able  to  produce  any  testimony  from  him  to 
prove  the  natural  dominion  of  the  Father  over  the  Son.  What 
he  has  pleaded  may  be  seen  in  the  Reply^,  and  a  confutation  of 
it  in  my  Second  Defence*. 

I  may  just  take  notice  of  an  incidental  remark  which  this 
writer  drops  (p.  63.)  to  invalidate  some  of  my  testimonies  for  the 
Son's  necessary  existence.  He  says  that  <f>t;(r€i,  or  Kara  c^vo-ir,  does 
not  express  necessary  existence ;  for  man  is  <f>i;(rei,  or  Korh  4>i(riv 
ivOpfjuTTos.  Admitting  this,  yet  ^t/o-ci  i)v  can  never  be  applied  to 
any  thing  but  what  exists  necessarily:  and  it  may  always  be 
certainly  determined  from  the  eantezt^  or  circumstances,  or  from 
the  author^s  usual  phraseology,  what  (fwaci,^  or  Kara  <^t;(ni;,  sig- 
nifies in  any  ancient  writer :  and  this  gentleman  will  not  be  able 
to  shew  that  I  have  misconstrued  the  phrase  so  much  as  in  a 
sir^le  testimony.     Suppose,  for  instance,  natura  bonus  may  be 

o  The  main  thing  he  lays  to  my  '  See  my  Second  Defence,  voL  it 

charge  is,  the  denying  the  alone  natu-  p.  57a. 

ral  dominion,  p.  8,  9,  15,  24,  27,  32,  «  Reply,  p.  261,  294. 

49,  44,  46,  89,  118,  no.  t  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  572, 

fl  See  BuU.  Def.  F.  N.  p.  40.  &c.  591,  592. 

P  Ibid.  p.  1 74,  &c. 


sometimes  applicable  to  a  man  or  an  angel;  yet  it  may  at  other 
times  signify  necessary  existence  so  plainly,  that  no  one  can  doubt 
of  it :  particularly  in  TertuUian,  in  this  sentence :  Bonus  natura 
Deus  solus:  qui  enim  quad  est  sine  initio  habet,  non  institutione 
habet  iOud,  sed  natura^  &c.     TertvM.  adv.  Marc,  lib.  ii.  cap.  6. 

146.  Justin  Mabttr. 

Justin  Martyr  did  not  believe  that  the  Father  is  naturally 
Baler  or  Governor  over  the  Son. 

1.  Because  he  declares  that  Qod  the  Son  is  not  another  God^ 
besides  the  Father ;  at  the  same  time  acknowledging  the  Son  to 
he  God. 

2.  Because  he  asserts  the  Son's  consubstantiality^. 

3.  Because  he  gives  to  God  the  Son  such  high  and  great  titles 
as  Scripture  appropriates  to  the  one  true  God  of  Israeli. 

4.  Because  he  teaches  the  necessary  existence  of  God  the  Son>. 

5.  Because  he  declares  for  the  worship  of  Gt)d  the  Son,  yet 
admitting  no  worship  as  due  to  any  but  to  Ghd  oloneK 

Any  supremacy  of  the  Father^  consistent  with  these  doctrines 
of  the  /Sm,  may  be  admitted.  But  the  adversary  has  not  pro- 
duced any  testimony  that  may  not  be  fairly  accounted  for  upon 
the  foot  of  w)luntary  economy,  or  natural  priority  of  order.  The 
principal  pretences  from  this  Father's  writings  may  be  seen  in 
the  Beply^,  and  the  anstoers  in  my  Second  Defence  <^.  Let  this 
gentleman  disprove  the  particulars  here  asserted  ;  or  if  not,  let 
him  admit  them,  and  then  we  need  not  dispute  further. 

170.  LuciAN. 

Lucian,  or  some  other  contemporary  Pagan  writer,  bears  tes- 
timony to  the  faith  of  the  Christians  in  his  time,  in  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost :  which  means  there  one  God  supreme^  in 
the  whole  three.  This  doctrine  is  not  consistent  with  any  natural 
dominion  of  God  the  Father  over  God  the  Son:   but  is  rather 

"  See  my  Answer  to  Dr.  Whitby,  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  438,  666. 

voL  ii.  p.  2^  8cc.    Second  Defence,  ^  Reply,  p.  129,  &c.  263,  &c.  393, 

vol.  ii.  p.  430.  375. 

'  See  BoU.  D.  F.  p.  65,  &c.  <=  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  481, 

7  See  my  Second  Ddtence,  vol.  ii.  &c.  506,  578,  593,  &c.  666,  672,  &c. 

p.  481.  Compare  Nourrii  Apparat.  ad  Bibl. 

*  nrid-  p.  578.  Max.  p.  405,  &c.  vol.  i. 

»  My    Sermons,   vol.  ii.    p.  178.  ^  See  my  Sermons,  vol.  ii.  p.  179. 

Defence,  vol.  i.  p.  418,  423.    Second  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  439. 



a  full  and  clear  testimony  for  one  common  dominion  of  all  the 
three  Persons. 

177.  Athenagoras. 
Athenagoras  could  not  believe  any  natural  rule  over  God  the 

1 .  Because  he  asserts  his  consubgtantiaUty^, 

2.  Because  he  asserts  his  coetemity^. 

3.  Because  he  makes  Father  and  Son  one  God*, 

4.  Because  he  maintains  the  Son's  necessary  existence^. 

5.  Because  he  is  express  for  the  common  dominion  of  both>. 
Nothing  can  be  pleaded  on  the  contrary,  but  what  is  easily 

reconciled  by  admitting  a  temporal  procession,  generation,  or 
manifestation  of  the  Son,  and  a  priority  of  order  in  the  Father. 
The  pretences  of  the  Reply  ^^  are  all  answered  in  my  Second 

181.    THBOPmLUS. 

For  the  constibstantiality  and  coetemity  maintained  by  this 
writer.  Bishop  Bull  may  be  consulted.  Besides  which,  he  gives 
Christ  the  title  of  Kvpios  6  0€69,  GW  absolutely  so  called"^ :  and 
he  drops  some  intimations,  by  a  similitude  which  he  makes  use 
of,  that  Father  and  Son  are  one  God,  and  have  one  dominion^. 
Objections  of  the  Reply"  have  been  considered  and  answered  p. 

187.  Iren^sus. 

Irenasus  could  never  believe  that  the  Father  is  naturally 
Governor  over  the  Son. 

f.  Because  he  ascribes  to  God  the  Son  titles  and  attributes 
peculiar  to  the  God  of  Israeli,  God  supreme. 

2.  Because  he  asserts  his  consubstarUiality,  coetemity,  and  na- 
cessary  existence^ 

3.  Because  he  makes  Father  and  Son  one  God^. 

4.  Because  he  expressly  excludes  any  inferior  God,  and  dearly 
intimates  that  God  the  Son  has  no  God  above  him^ 

c  See  Bull.  D.  F.  p.  71.    Nourrii  "»  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.p.  485. 

Appar.  vol.  i.  p.  487.  °  Ibid.  p.  486. 

'  See  Bull.  D.  F.  p.  203.   Noorrii  ^  Reply,  p.  114,  143,  ayo. 

Appar.  vol.  i.  p.  489.  P  Second  Defence,  vol.  iL  p.  486, 

s  See  my  Sermons,  vol.  ii.  p.  178.  597,  &c. 

Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  439.  <i  Ibid.  p.  487. 

h  Second  Defence,  vol.ii.  p.  580.  '  Ibid.  p.  583,  &c. 

i  Ibid.  p.  442.  ^  Sermons,  vol.  ii.  p.  179.    Seeond 

^  Reply,  p.  57,  105,  &c.  299.  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  436,  44^,  &o. 

^  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  439,  ^  See  First  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.  jo6. 

&c.  580,  &c.  597,  666.  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  45a 


There  is  nothing  on  the  contrary  to  be  pleaded  from  this 
author,  but  what  may  be  fairly  and  easily  reconciled  upon  the 
foot  of  the  economy^  and  the  natural  order  of  the  Persons ;  as 
hath  been  particularly  shewn"  in  answer  to  the  Reply*. 

192.  Clemens  of  Alexandria. 

This  ancient  writer  could  never  have  a  thought  of  svhjecting 
Grod  the  Son  to  the  natural  nde  and  governance  of  God  the 
Father.     For, 

1.  He  asserts  the  necessary  existencev  of  the  Son,  which  is  an 
insuperable  bar  and  obstacle  to  any  such  subjection. 

2.  He  makes  him  to  be  the  Jehovah^  the  Almighty  God*  of  the 
Jews,  who  had  no  God  above  him. 

3.  He  even  equaUzes^  the  Son,  that  is,  proclaims  him  equal  to 
the  Father. 

4.  He  gives  him  the  titles  6  0€O9^,  and  'navroKpinap^,  titles 
expressive  of  dominion  supreme,  and  such  as  the  Observator 
would  translate  supreme  Gody  and  supreme  Buler,  whenever 
spoken  of  the  Father. 

5.  He  makes  Father  and  Son  one  God  of  the  whole  universe^  : 
which  certainly  expresses  equality  and  union  of  dominion, 

6.  Lastly,  he  addresses  to  both  together  as  one  Lord^-,  which 
does  not  look  like  addressing  to  a  Sovereign  and  his  natural  Sfuh- 
ject^  but  to  one  God  and  Lord  supreme.  The  Author  of  the 
Beply  shewed  his  good  wishes  and  endeavours^  to  elude  the 
testimonies :  but  failed  in  the  performances. 

2CX).  Tbbtullian. 

Tertullian  could  never  think  that  the  Father  is  naturally  the 
Son's  Buler,  or  Governor. 

1 .  He  admits  the  necessary  existence  of  the  8on^. 

2.  He  makes  both  to  be  one  substance,  and  one  GodK 

^  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  430,  *  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  435, 

434.  435»  &c-  487»  557»  &c-  582, 583*  45 1-    Sennons,  vol.  ii.  p.  180. 

599, 607.  «  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  451. 

»  Reply,  p.  10,  17,  19,  33,  41,  60,  '  Reply,  p.  80,  &c.  140,  190,  227, 

61,  6a,  93,  &c.  140,  339,  283,  295,  377. 

379,  393,  4I7»  484*  496,  507.  ^  Second  Defence,  vol.  li.  p.  451  to 

y  Sea>nd  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  584.  457,  488,  599. 

<  Ibid.  p.  488.  ^  Ibid.  p.  586. 

^  Ilrid.  P-4S3.  i  Sermons,  vol.  ii.  p.  181.    Second 

*>  Ibid.  p.  520.  Drfence,  vol.  ii.  p.  457, 435.  Compare 

«  Ibid.  p.  531,  755.  p.489- 

G  2 


3.  He  rejects  with  indignation  the  notion  of  an  inferior  God^. 

4.  He  directly  and  expressly  asserts  the  one  power  and  dignity 
of  both  ^  The  objections  made  by  the  Reply  m  are  answered  at 

225.    HiPPOLYTUS. 

This  ancient  writer  could  not  suppose  God  the  Son  to  be 
naturally  under  the  rule  of  God  the  Father. 

1.  Because  he  makes  them  both  one  God^,  and  consequently 
one  God  supreme. 

2.  He  asserts  the  consubstantialityP  and  necessary  existence^  of 
God  the  Son. 

3.  He  joins  all  the  three  Persons  equally  in  his  doxology^, 
which   can  by  no  means  be  suitable   to  a  Sovereign  and  his 

The  objections  made  by  the  Reply ^  have  been  easily  solved^ 
upon  the  foot  of  the  economy^  and  distinction  of  order, 

249.  Orioen. 

Origen^  in  his  certainly  genuine  works^  no  way  favours  the 
notion  of  the  Son^s  being  naturally  subject  to  the  Father. 

1.  He  asserts  Father  and  Son  to  be  one  God^. 

2.  He  makes  but  one  object  of  worship''  of  both. 

3.  He  maintains  the  Son's  necessary  existenceJ, 

4.  He  is  very  express  for  the  coexistence,  coetemUy,  and  consuls 
stantiality  of  Gt)d  the  Son*. 

5.  He  asserts  that  the  Son  is  commensurate  to  the  Father, 
equal  in  greatness^ 

Any  possible  supremacy  of  the  Father,  consistent  with  these 

k  First    Defence,    vol.  i.    p.  306.  p.  149.  and  Hippolytus,  vol.  ii.  p.  18. 

Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  534.  Fabric. 

1  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  458,        »  Reply,  p.  13,  16,  20,  39,  61,  65, 

535.  Bull.  D.  F.  p.  261.    Statu  ab  al-  91,  117,  &c.  509. 
tero  diversum  non  esse,  idem  valet        ^  Se^cond  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  413, 

ataue  illud  ipsi  non  esse  subditum,  &c.  430,  462,  &c.  599,  Sec, 
sed  par  et  sequale.  Bull  ibid.  «  See  my  Sermons,  vol.  ii.  p.  i8a. 

^  Reply,  p.  55,  1 1 1,  76.  Answer  to  Dr.  Whitby,  vol.  ii.  p.  315. 

»  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  457  to  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  436, 465. 
462,  489.  X  First   Defence,   vol.  i.   p.  434. 

^  See  my  Sermons,  vol.  ii.  p.  182.  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  673. 
Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  464,  490.        r  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  $86. 
First  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.  287.  ^  First  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.  386.  Scr- 

P  First  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.  488.  mons,  vol.  ii.  p.  148,  149.    See  also 

^  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  414.  Bishop  Bull. 

^  Ibid.  p.  586.     Sermons,  vol.  ii.        *  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  418. 


plain  and  avowed  doctrines,  will  not  be  scrupled.  The  Reply ^ 
has  boasted  much  of  Origen  the  other  way^  and  produced 
counter- evidences;  but  such  as  are  either  not  to  bo  compared 
with  ours  for  genuineness  and  certainty^  or  such  as  may  be  recon- 
ciled «^  with  the  doctrine  here  mentioned,  by  allowing  a  superiority 
of  office  and  order.  Let  him  either  disprove  these  particulars, 
or  reconcile  them  with  his  notion  of  the  alone  supremacy, 

250.  Cyprian. 

Cyprian  bas  nothing  in  favour  of  the  pretended  natural 
dominion  over  God  the  Son ;  but  the  contrary. 

J .  As  including  all  the  three  Persons  in  the  one  God'K 

2.  As  applying  to  God  the  Son  the  appropriate  titles  of  the 
one  true  God^. 

The  few  things  which  the  author  of  the  Reply  ^  had  to  offer 
are  answered  in  my  Second  Defences. 

257.  NOVATIAN. 

Novatian  looks  more  favourably  to  the  notion  of  a  natural 
superiority  of  dominion  than  any  writer  before  him.  But  as  he 
has  several  tenets  inconsistent  with  such  a  notion,  so  what  he 
has  that  seems  most  to  favour  it  does  not  necessarily  require 
any  such  sense,  but  may  veiy  well  bear  a  candid  construction. 

1.  He  maintains  equality y  and  unity  of  substance^. 

2.  He  asserts  the  eternity'^  of  Grod  the  Son  ;  and,  as  it  seems, 
eternal  generation  ^, 

^.  He  applies  such  texts  to  Christ  as  are  intended  of  the 
Jehowiky  and  one  true  Gk>d  of  Israeli 

These  tenets  are  by  no  means  consistent  with  a  natural  supe- 
riority of  dominion  over  God  the  Son :  neither  does  Novatian 
assert  any  subjection  but  what  may  reasonably  be  understood  of 
the  economy^  as  I  have  observed"^.  The  pretences  of  the  Reply 
are  all  distinctly  considered  in  my  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii. 
And  though  the  Observatory^  has  since  charged  me  as  being 

^  Reply,  p.  4,  5, 10, 18,  20,  23,  28,        f  Reply,  p.  10,  24,  28,  146. 
31,  42,  49,  56,  69,  70,  84,  85,  187,        s  Vol.  ii.  491,  678. 
a  19,  243,  372,  2p5,  319,  327,  375,        ^  See  my  First  Defence,  vol.  i.  p. 

380,  &c.  4^2,  44^  &c.  282,  295,  486,  527.   Second  Defence, 

^  Second  Ddence,  vol.  ii.  p.  418,  vol.  ii.  p.  477,  492,  745. 
466,  587,  &c.  600,  638,  &c.  607, 673,        i  First  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.  354,  &c. 
&c.  ^  Ibid.  p.  356. 

^  See  mv  Sermons,  vol.  ii.  p.  183.  ^  Second  Defence,  vol. ii.  p.  492, 427. 

c  Secona  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  490.        ^  Ibid.  p.  427,  493. 
Bon.  D.F.  p.  131.  "  Observations,  p.  54. 


too  hasty,  in  saying  that  the  ancienta  never  speak  of  Christ  as  a 
constitiUed  Ood.  because  of  a  passage  of  Novatian,  where  the 
phrase  is  Deus  constitutus;  yet  he  thought  proper  to  conceal 
from  the  reader  what  I  had  said^  to  obviate  his  construction  of 
that  very  place. 

259.  DiONYsiDS  of  Alexandria. 

Dionysius  of  Alexandria  could  not  be  in  the  hypothem  of 
natural  rule  over  God  the  Son. 

1.  Because  he  asserted  the  coetemity  of  God  the  Son,  in  very 
full  and  express  words p,  and  his  eternal^  beffinningless^  generation. 

2.  Because  he  was  as  express  for  the  consubstantialUy^  name 
and  thing  ^ 

3.  Because  he  taught  the  necessary  existence  of  the  Son,  repre- 
senting it  as  necessary  for  the  Son  to  coexisit,  as  for  the  Father 
to  exist ;  as  may  be  seen  at  large  in  Athanasius.  Besides  that 
in  other  words'*  he  has  also  expressed  the  same  thing. 

4.  He  included  all  the  three  Persons  in  the  Monad,  or  the 
one  Gody  as  I  have  shewn  elsewhere* :  which  is  making  all  to- 
gether one  God  supreme,  directly  contrary  to  the  notion  of  a 
natural  superiority  of  dominion.  The  Reply*  has  some  few 
things  to  say  of  this  author ;  which  had  been  long  ago  obviated 
by  Bishop  Bull,  and  are  since  answered  in  my  Second  Defence  '. 
I  might  observe  too,  how  Dionysius  particularly  guards  7  against 
the  notion  of  the  Son's  being  created  by  the  Father,  which  is  the 
only  thing  that  could  be  a  foundation  of  natural  dominion. 

259.  Dionysius  of  Rome. 

This  excellent  writer  is  no  less  full  and  plain  against  the 
hypothesis  of  natural  superiority  of  dominion. 

I.  By  declaring  it  blasphemy  to  suppose  the  Son  a  creature*^ 

^  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  555.  p.  254. 

P  See  my  Sermons,  vol.  ii.  p.  150.  *  Sermons,  vol.  ii.  p.  185.    Second 

Q  'O  df  y€  Ot6s  alc»vi6v  tori  0&ff,  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  420. 
offrc  dp^dfuvov,  oUrt  \fj(6viroT(t  ovkovv         ^  Reply,  P-  7I»  33l» 
alavtov  irp6K«iT(u,  Koi  avpttrriv  avr^         '  Vol.  ii.  p.  419,  420. 
TO   dTTovyaa-fUL,   SoKkpxov  Koi  dtiytv€S         y  'Eav  hi  ris  rav  avKOtfuofrmv  imtd^ 

irpo(f)at»6fji€vov    avrov,       Dionys,    ap.  tS>v  arrdvrav  iroifir^v  r^y  Othv  xal  d)|- 

Athian.  vol.  i.  p.  254,  258.  luavpyhv  cZvroy,  obrjTal  yut  jcul  not)  X/m- 

''  Vid.  ap.  Athanas.  vol.  i.  p.  255,  otoC  \iyttp,  aKovcant  /uv  wpAnptm 

230.  iraripa  (ftrfa'apTos  aMy,  iv  f  ical  6  vl6f 

•  Mdyoff  ^c  6  vl6^  dti  awCitv  rm  irarpi,  irpooyrypttirrM,  Apud  Atkam,  p.  357. 
Koi  rov  SpTos  nXfjpovfitvos,  Koi  airrds         *  First  Defence,  voL  i.  p.  357,  487. 

€OTty  iay  cfc  Tov  narpds.    Apud  Athan,  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  408,  634. 


nnderetanding  creature  in  the  common  sense  of  precarious,  or 
temporal  exigence. 

a.  By  teaching  the  nsceemry  existence  of  God  the  Son,  inas- 
much as  the  Father  never  was,  never  could  be  without  him*. 

3.  By  including  all  the  three  Persons  in  the  one  true  Godhead^. 
Some  little  objections  of  the  Reply  to  the  genuineness  of  the 
piece  are  abmidantly  answered  in  my  Second  Defence<^. 

260.  Gregory  of  Neocsesarea. 

This  celebrated  Father  is  full  and  express,  in  his  famous 
ereed^  against  any  thing  created^  or  servient^  in  the  Trinity^; 
aaserting  one  undivided  plory  and  dominion  of  all  the  three 
Persons.  There  have  been  suspicions  raised  against  the  genuine- 
ness of  this  creed  ;  but  such  as  have  not  been  thought  of  sufficient 
weight  by  any  of  the  best  critics,  against  the  express  testimonies 
of  Raffinus  and  Gregory  Nyssen,  confirmed,  in  some  measure, 
by  Nazianzen®. 

Besides  what  Gregory  has  in  his  creed,  he  has  some  consider- 
able things  to  the  same  purpose  in  another  work,  written  about 
the  year  239,  and  which  is  of  unquestioned  authority.  The  titles 
and  epithets  he  therein  gives  to  the  Son  are,  Creator  and  Gover- 
nor of  all  things^,  really,  or  naturally,  united  to  the  Fathers,  the 
most  perfect  limng  Word^* ;  the  last  expressions  very  like  to 
0ome  in  his  creed,  and  a  probable  argument  of  their  having  the 
same  author. 

270.  Antiochian  Fathers. 

The  synodical  epistle  of  these  Fathers  gives  to  Grod  the  Son 
such  titles  as  belong  to  the  one  true  God,  But  as  they  have 
nothing  express  upon  our  present  question  on  either  side,  it  may 
be  sufficient  to  have  mentioned  them,  and  to  refer  ^  to  what  has 
been  said  of  them. 

290.  Methodius  is  express  against  the  Son  s  being  a  creature^ 
and  for  eternal  generation  and  immutable  existence^:   tenets 

*  See  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  '  Uavrnv  dij/uovpyy  kol  Kv^pvrjTri. 
460.    Sermons,  vol.  ii.  p.  149.  s  Hpits  avrhv  mxv^t  rjvatfifvos. 

"  Sermons,  vol.  ii.  p.  184.    Second  ^  TcXcM^raroy  koi  Cuvto^  koi  ainrov 

Defence,  ?oL  ii.  p.  469.  tov  irp&rov  vov  AAyov  tfiylrvxov.   Bull. 

c  Vol.  iL  p.  419,  634.  D.  F.  p.  154. 

*  OCrf  oSif  Krirrhv,  $  fkuvXop  tv  rfj  *  Reply,  p.   1 8,  20,  64,  148^  445. 

rpMh  &c.    Tpt^ts  rcXcti^,  ^6(jf,  Koiai'  Bull.  D.F.  p.  158,  1^9,  263.   My  Se- 

Ik6fn/rh  n»  /3d(rtXcig  /tfi  iJL€piCofi€vri,  cond  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  491. 

^ifdff  ^wMiarpuManf,  Fabric.ed. p. 224.  ^  First  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.  357, 511. 

«  NaBOiB.  Ormt.  nxvii.  p.  609.  Answer    to    Dr.  Whitby,    vol.    ii. 

Ont  xL  p.  668.  p.  223,  224.    Bull.  D.  F.  p.  164,  200. 


utterly  repugnant  to  such  a  natural  inferiority  as  is  pretended. 
What  the  Reply  ^  had  to  object  is  answered  in  another  pIaoe°'. 

300.  Theognostus  is  also  express  against  the  Son's  being  a 
creature,  and  for  his  consubstantiality^.  What  the  Reply  °  has  to 
object  had  been  abundantly  before  answered  by  Bishop  Bull. 

303.  As  to  Arnobius^  little  has  been  pleaded  on  either  side 
from  him.  He  has  some  strong  expressions  which  seem  to  carry 
the  supremacy  very  high :  and  he  has  other  expressions  very  full 
for  the  trus  and  essential  divinity  of  God  the  Son.  Bishop  BullP 
and  Le  Nourry^  may  be  consulted  in  respect  of  both  the  parts, 
and  how  to  make  them  consistent, 

318.  Lactantius  has  been  largely  considered  both  in  the 
Reply  ^  and  in  my  S^ond  Defence.  He  makes  Father  and  Son 
one  God^,  He  makes  both  one  substance^.  He  describes  him 
under  the  characters  of  the  one  true  God".  He  supposes  both 
to  be  on^  object  of  worship*.  He  joins  the  Son  with  the  Father 
in  the  same  dominion,  and  exempts  the  Son  from  the  necessity  of 
obeyingy.  These  tenets  are  perfectly  repugnant  to  naiwral 
superiority  of  dominion  in  the  Father  only.  Nevertheless,  he 
has  some  crude  expressions,  scarce  excusable  in  a  catechumen 
of  his  abilities. 

322.  Alexander  of  Alexandria. 

This  venerable  Patriarch,  defender  of  the  Catholic  faith 
against  his  Presbyter  Arius,  shews  in  his  two  letters  the 
Churches  doctrine  in  his  time.  He  could  not  be  a  friend  to  any 
natural  subjection  of  God  the  Son.     For, 

1.  He  asserts  his  coetemity,  and  inseparability  with  the 

2.  He  maintains  his  necessary  existence. 

3.  His  natural  divinity,  or  Godhead,  of  and  from  the  Father. 

4.  His  high  or  supreme  Godhead.  Proofs  of  these  particulars 
may  be  seen  in  my  Second  Defence' ;  where  also  objections  are 
answered,  such  as  had  been  offered  in  the  Reply*.     Hitherto  we 

'  Reply,  p.  290,  334.  "  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  47o,&c. 

™  Secona  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  600.  ^  Ibid.  p.  470,  471. 

Bull.  D.F.  p.  166.  n  Ibid.  p.  493. 

"  See  Bull.  D.  F.  p.  135.  «  Ibid.  p.  678. 

"  Reply,  p.  333.  y  Ibid.  p.  474. 

p  Bull.  D.  F.  p.  169.  '  Ibid.  p.  431.    Sermons,  vol.  ii. 

Q  Nourrii  Apparat.  vol.  ii.  p.  350.  p.  149.    First  Defence,  vol.  L  p.  358. 

r  Reply,  p.  49,  55,  63, 86,  &c.  1 19,  *  Reply,  p.  57,  73,  291,  355,  451, 

388.  498. 


have  not  found  one  man  fiill  and  express  for  the  natural  govern- 
ment, or  natural  subjection  among  the  Persons  of  the  sacred 
Trinity.  Several  have  been  here  cited  who  were  exprmbf 
against  it:  and  the  rest  implicitly  condemn  it;  while  none, 
either  directly  or  so  much  as  consequentially,  maintain  it  But 
DOW  I  take  leave  to  name  a  man  who  did  maintain  it,  and  in 
pretty  plain  and  broad  terms. 

323.  Arius. 

Anns,  with  his  confederates^  in  a  letter  to  Alexander,  delivers 
it  for  doctrine^  that  God  the  Father  rules  over  Crod  the  Son,  as 
being  his  God,  and  having  existed  be/ore  him.  Here  may  Dr. 
Clarke  and  his  followers  see  the  first  lines  of  their  doctrine; 
which  was  afterwards  fiUed  up  and  completed  by  Aetius  and 

These  were  the  authors  and  founders  of  that  natural  suprenuicy 
of  dominion  over  Grod  the  Son,  that  natural  subjection  and  servi^ 
tude  of  two  of  the  divine  Persons,  which  these  gentlemen  are  so 
eagerly  contending  for;  and  which,  with  sjs  groundless  and  shame- 
less a  confidence  as  I  ever  knew^  they  presume  to  father  upon 
the  sacred  Scriptures,  upon  the  ancient  creeds,  and  upon  the 
venerable  Doctors  of  the  Church ;  against  plain  fact,  against 
the  fullest  and  clearest  evidence  to  the  contrary.  I  shall  proceed^ 
a  little  lower,  to  shew  what  reception  this  Arian  conceit  met 

I  shall  say  nothing  of  Eusebius  of  Csesarea,  of  this  time, 
a  doubtful  man,  and  of  whom  it  is  difficult  to  determine  in  the 

340.  Athanasius. 

Athanasius,  about  this  time,  began  to  write  in  the  cause 
against  Arius.  His  Exposition  of  Faith  is  of  uncertain  date : 
and  so  I  may  place  it  any  where  from  the  time  he  entered  the 
list  against  the  Arians.  His  doctrine  is  well  known  from  his 
many  works.  I  shall  cite  but  one  short  sentence  of  his^  speak- 
ing of  Gh)d  the  Son.     He  is  ''  Ruler  supreme^  of  Ruler  supreme : 

^"Apx^i  yitp  oifTov,  in  Otbs  avrov,        Subjectum  Patri  Filium,  non  Patiis 

«u  wpo  atmv  iv.  Ap.  Aikam,  de  Sptod.  et  Filii  Domine,  ut  Sancta  et  Catholica 

vol.  ii.  p.  'n/o.  dicit  Eccleeia,  sed  creaturae  conditione, 

Phceniama  well  expresses  the  Arian  profitemini.    Pkabad.  J3.  P.  P,  torn, 

doctrine  of  natural  subjection,  at  the  v.  p.  303. 

same  time  distinguishing  it  [horn  the        ^  See  my  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii. 

Catbdic  doctrine  of^liarministration.  p.  494  to  504. 


''  for  whateoever  things  the  Father  bears  rale  and  dominion 
"  over,  over  the  same  does  the  Son  also  rule  and  govern  ^." 

348.  Ctbil  of  Jerusalem. 

The  elder  Cyril  was  always  looked  upon  as  a  very  moderate 
man,  and  not  so  vehement  against  the  Arians  as  many  others. 
Yet  let  us  hear  how  expressly  and  fully  he  condemns  the  doc- 
trine of  natural  subjection  in  the  Trinity y  ^  owning  none  other 
but  voluntary  and  chosen, 

"  ^AIl  things,"  says  he,  "  are  servants  of  his,"  (of  the  Father;) 
'*  but  his  only  Son  and  his  own  Holy  Spirit  are  exempt  from 
''  the  all  things :  and  all  these  servants  do,  by  the  one  Son,  in 
"  the  Holy  Ghost,  serve  the  Master/'  gin  another  place  the 
same  Cyril  says,  "  The  Father  has  not  one  glor)',  and  the  Son 
''  another,  but  one  and  the  same.*"  So  little  countenance  had 
the  dUme  supremacy  of  dominion,  or  natural  subjection  of  two 
divine  Persons,  at  that  time. 

358.  Hilary. 

Hilary's  doctrine  on  this  head  is,  that  the  sitbjection  of  the  Son 
is  voluntary,  and  not  by  constraint^;  that  is  to  say,  it  is  economi- 
cal, not  natural.  ^  In  another  place  he  directly  denies  that 
either  the  Son  is  servant  to  the  Father,  or  the  Father  Lord  over 
him,  save  only  in  respect  of  the  incarnation  of  God  the  Son  : 
where  he  expressly  again  denies  any  natural  subjection  of  Grod 
the  Son  as  such. 

360.  Zeno  Veronensis's  doctrine,  to  the  same  purpose,  may  be 
seen  in  my  First  Defence^. 

d  napTOKparopa  €k  iratfTOKparopot'  firmitas.     HUar.  de  Synod,  p.  1 195. 

vcarra>vyhpi>v&pxti6'fraTripKa\KpaT«i,  ^  Servus  enim  non  erat,  cum  esset 

fyx*^  ^^^  Kparct  Koi  6  vl6s.     Athan,  secundum  Spiritum  Deus  Dei  Filius. 

Expos,  Fid,  vol.  i.  p.  99.  Et  secundum  commune  judicium,  ubi 

«  Ovfc  dvayKotniiv  vjraKOfjv  €x^^>  ^^*  ^^^  ^^  serrms,  neque  Vominus  est. 

airroirpoaiprrov  cvTTf /^cioy*  ov  yap  bov-  Deus    quidem    et    Pater    nativitatis 

\6s  cWc,  (Mt  opayKfj  vrrorayj'  aXXA  vl6s  est  unigeniti  Dei :  sed  ad  id,  quod 

toTiv,  iva  npoaip€a'«t  koI  ^iKotrropyuf,  servus  est,  non  poesumus  non  nisi 

fr€ia-$j,   CyriU,  Cat,  xv.  n.  30.  p.  340.  tunc  ei  Dominum  deputare  cum  servus 

'  Ta  trvfinairra  luv  hovKa  airrov'  €is  est :  quia  si  cum  ante  per  naturam  non 

dc  avTov  iL&ma  v2^r,  Koi  h  t6  dytov  ov-  erat  servus,  et  postea  secundum  natu- 

Tov  TTVfVfjLa  tterbi  rovrtav  vavrmv,  Kai  ram  esse  quod  non  erat  coepit ;  non 

TO  frvymayra  hovKa,  diA  rov  Ms  vlov  alia  dominatus  causa  intelligenda  est, 

cV  ^uf  nvtvftari  dovXcvc i  rf  dc(nr<$T77.  quam  qua?  exstitit  servituiis  ;    tunc 

Una,  kat,  viii.  p.  133.  babens  et  natursp  dispensatione  Doim- 

V  Ov  yi^>  SXXr/v  d6^  irar^p,  koi  num,  cum  pnebuit  ex  hominis  assump- 

aXXfiv  vlos  tfxn,  dkkii  fuav  koi  rrfp  ai-  tione  se  servum.    Hilar,  de  Trm,  lib. 

rriy,     Caiech,  vi.  p.  87.  xi.  p.  1090. 

^  Subjectio  Filii  naturae  pietas,  sub-  ^  Vol.  i.  p.  443.    Bull.  D.   F.  p. 

jectio  autem  ceeterorum  creationis  in-  366. 


370.  Basil's  also,  no  less  full  and  express  against  the  pretended 

^matwral  dominion  on  one  band,  and  subjection  on  the  other,  is 

^liewn  in  my  Second  Defence^. 

375.  Gregory  Nazianzen's  testimony  I  shall  throw  into  the 

m3Qargin°^ :  the  same  will  be  a  confirmation  of  the  Greed  of  Thau- 


380.  Gregory  Nyssen's  doctrine  may  be  seen  in  my  Defences  >>, 

-very  full  to  the  purpose. 

382.  I  conclude  with  Ambrose^,  having  thus  brought  the  doc- 

t^iine  low  enough  down.  No  doubt  can  be  made  of  the  Catholics 
All  the  way  following  to  this  very  time. 

These,  after  Scripture^  are  my  authors  for  that  very  doctrine 
which  the  Observator  every  where,  without  the  least  scruple, 
eharges  upon  me  as  my  fiction  and  invention.  Such  is  his  great 
regard  to  truths  to  decency,  and  to  common  justice:  such  his 
respect  to  the  English  readers,  in  imposing  upon  them  any  the 
grossest  and  most  palpable  aJmses,  Let  him,  when  he  is  dis- 
posed, or  when  he  is  able,  produce  his  vouchers  from  Catholic 
antiquity,  for  the  natural  subjection  of  God  the  Son,  or  the 
natural  superiority  of  the  Father's  dominion  over  him.  He  may 
give  proof  of  a  superiority  of  order  (which  I  dispute  not)  or  of 
office,  which  I  readily  admit :  but  as  to  there  being  any  natural 
rule,  or  natural  subjection  among  the  dimne  Persons,  or  within 
the  Trinity  itself,  none  of  the  ancients  affirm  it ;  all,  either  di- 
rectly or  indirectly,  reclaim  against  it.  He  may  run  up  his  doc- 
trine to  Eunomius,  and  so  on  to  Arius,  where  it  began.  He,  I 
believe,  is  the  first  man  upon  record  that  ever  allowed  the 
preexistence  and  personality  of  the  Logos,  and  yet  made  God  the 
Son,  as  such,  naturally  subject  to  the  dominion  of  the  Father ; 
appointing  him  a  Gfovemor,  another  God  above  him :  which  was 
really  Arius's  sense,  and  is  the  plain  sense  likewise  of  his  succes- 
sors at  this  day. 

'  VoLii.  p.  401,  646,  751.  arhv,ov^artla'€ueToy,rlKov<raTnva'o<f>nv 

™  Bt6tf  TOP  Trartpa,  Gc^f  t6¥  vl6v,  rivor  Xcyovror.     OrcU,  xl.  p.  666. 

0€6p  t6  nvtvfia  t6  Sytov,  rpiis  IbiSrrj'  ^  Vol.  i.  p.  443.  Vol.  ii.  p.  401. 

nis  BtoTrjra  fdw,  difyi  Koi  nfirj  Koi  o  Non  sunt  enim  duo  Domini,  ubi 

owri^  Kol  fiaaikiuf,  firj  iJL€pi(ofitvriv,  &t  Dominatus  unus  est ;  quia  Pater  in  Fi- 

ns  rmf  fwcp^  irpiaBtv  6€o^pwv  ((fn-  Uo,  et  Filius  in  Patre,  et  ideo  Dominus 

XoaotPrfcrtv,     Orat.  zxxvii.  p.  609.  unus,    Ambros.  de  Sp.  S.  1.  iii.  c.  15. 

Ov^p  TfJ£  rpuidor  liovkov,  oudf  iCTi-  p.  686. 


1  HAVE  nothing  now  to  do  but  to  take  my  leave  of  these 
gentlemen  for  this  time.  If  they  are  disposed  to  proceed  in 
the  way  they  have  now  taken,  it  will  be  no  great  trouble  to  me 
(while  Ood  grants  me  life  and  health)  to  do  myself  justice,  as 
often  as  I  see  needful ;  and  to  support^  with  God's  assistance^ 
the  cause  I  have  undertaken,  as  well  against  calumniee  now,  as 
against  arguments  before.  But  I  think,  since  the  argument  is  in 
a  manner  brought  to  an  end,  it  is  time  for  these  gentlemen  to 
put  an  end  to  the  debtxte  too ;  lest^  after  exposing  the  weakness  of 
their  cause^  they  may  meet  with  a  more  sensible  mortification,  by 
going  on  to  the  utmost  to  expose  their  own. 

They  have  done  enough  for  Arianism ;  and  more  a  great  deal 
than  the  best  cause  in  the  world  (though  theirs  is  a  very  bad 
one)  could  ever  require.  They  have  omitted  nothing  likely  to 
convince^  nothing  that  could  be  any  way  serviceable  to  deceive 
their  readers.  They  have  ransacked  the  Socinian  stores  for  the 
eluding  and  frustrating  the  Catholic  interpretation  of  Scripture 
texts.  They  have  gone  on  to  Fathers :  and  whatever  they  could 
do  there^  by  wresting  and  straining,  by  mangling,  by  misinier' 
preting,  by  false  rendering,  and  the  like^  they  have  done  their 
utmost  to  make  them  all  Arians.  And,  lest  that  should  not  be 
sufficient,  they  have  attempted  the  same  thing  upon  the  ancient 
creeds,  and  even  upon  modem  confessions ;  upon  the  very  Arti- 
cles and  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  England.  To  complete  all, 
having  once  found  out  the  secret  of  fetching  in  what  and  whom 
they  pleased,  they  have  proceeded  further  to  drag  me  in  with 
the  rest*  into  the  very  doctrine  that  I  had  been  largely  con- 

They  have  spared  no  pains,  or  art,  to  disguise  and  colour  over 
their  wretched  tenets,  and  to  give  them  the  best  face  and  gloss 
that  they  could  possibly  bear.  They  will  not  call  the  Son  a 
creature ;    nay,   it    was    some    time    before    they    would    say 

»  See  Reply,  p.  1 16.     Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  537. 


plainly  that  he  is  not  necessarily  existimg^  till  the  course  of  the 
debate  and  some  pressing  straits  ahnost  forced  it  from  them ; 
and  that  not  till  after  some  of  the  plainer  and  simpler  men  of 
the  party  had  first  blabbed  it  out.  At  last^  they  would  seem  not 
so  much  to  be  writing  against  the  divinity  of  God  the  Son,  as  ybr 
the  honour  of  God  the  Father.  They  do  not  care  to  say^  they 
are  pleading  for  the  natural  subjection  and  servitude  of  the  Son, 
but  it  is  for  the  natural  dominion  of  the  Father  over  him :  and 
they  do  not  commonly  choose  so  much  as  to  say  that  in  plain 
and  broad  terms ;  but  they  hint  it,  and  mince  it,  under  the  words 
<<  alone  supremacy  of  the  Father'^s  dominion."  And  for  fear  that 
that  should  be  taken  hold  on^  and  wrested  from  them,  in  due 
eourse  of  argument,  they  clap  in  authority  with  dominion;  that 
they  may  have  something  at  least  that  looks  orthodox^  something 
that  may  bear  a  colour  upon  the  foot  of  antiquity^  as  admitting 
of  a  double  meaning.  And  they  have  this  further  view  in  con- 
founding distinct  things  together,  to  make  a  show  as  if  we  ad- 
mitted no  kind  of  authority  as  peculiar  to  the  Father  when  we 
deny  his  alone  dominion ;  or  that  if  we  assert  one,  we  must  of 
course,  and  at  the  same  time,  assert  both.  To  carry  on  the  dis- 
^i$e  still  further,  they  represent  their  adversaries  as  teaching 
that  the  Father  has  no  natural  suprenuzcy  of  authority  and  do- 
minion ai  all;  without  taking  care  to  add,  (what  they  ought  to 
add,)  over  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  to  undeceive  the  reader ;  who 
18  not  perhaps  aware  that  subjection  they  are  contriving  for  two 
of  the  divine  Persons,  while  they  put  on  a  face  of  commendable 
zeal  for  the  honour  of  the  first.  Such  is  their  excessive  care  not 
to  shock  their  young,  timorous  disciples ;  not  to  make  them  unse 
at  once,  but  by  degrees,  after  leading  them  about  in  their  ^tm- 
fUcity  for  a  time,  with  their  eyes  half  open. 

Besides  giving  a  fair  gloss  and  outside  to  their  own  scheme, 
they  have  next  studiously  endeavoured  to  eoapose  and  blacken  the 
fatilh  received.  It  is  SabeUianism^  it  is  Tritheism,  it  is  scholastic 
jargon,  it  is  metaphysical  reverie,  nonsense^  absurdity,  contradiction, 
and  what  not :  contrary  to  Scripture^  contrary  to  all  the  ancients^ 
nay,  contrary  even  to  modems  also :  and,  to  make  it  look  as  little 
and  contemptible  as  possible  in  the  eyes  of  all  men,  it  is  at  length 
nothing  more  than  Dr.  Waterland'^s  own  novel  fiction  and  in- 

Now  I  appeal  to  all  serious  and  thinking  men,  whether  any 
thing  can  be  done  that  these  men  have  not  done,  in  favour  of 


their  beloved  Arianism ;  and  whether  they  may  not  now  fairly 
be  excused,  if  they  should  desist,  and  proceed  no  further.  A 
great  deal  less  than  this,  though  in  ever  so  pood  a  cause,  might 
have  been  sufficient :  and  had  they  sung  their  Uheravi  animam 
some  twelve  months  backwards,  I  know  not  whether  any  truly 
good  and  conscientious  Arian  could  have  thought  them  deserters^ 
or  have  condenmed  them  for  it.  Let  the  catise  be  ever  so  right 
or  just,  yet  who  hath  required  it  at  their  hands  that  they  should 
pursue  it  to  such  hideous  lengths !  Their  design^  suppose,  is  to 
promote  truth  and  godliness :  let  it  then  be  in  God's  own  way, 
and  by  truths  and  truth  only.  There  can  be  no  necessity  of 
deceiving,  of  betraying,  of  beguiling  any  man  even  into  truth, 
(though  this  is  not  truth,)  by  disguises^  by  misreports,  by  making 
things  appear  what  they  are  not^  or  not  suffering  them  to  appear 
what  they  really  are.  This  is  gomg  out  of  the  way,  wide  and 
far,  and  defending  truth,  (were  it  rectUy  truth,)  by  making  fearful 
inroads  upon  simplicity  and  godly  sincerity,  upon  moral  honesty 
and  probity. 

In  conclusion,  I  must  be  so  just  to  myself  as  to  say,  that  con- 
sidering how  I  was  at  first  forced,  in  a  manner,  into  public  con- 
troversy, and  what  kind  of  a  controversy  this  is,  and  how  often 
and  how  anciently  before  decided  by  the  churches  of  Christ ;  I 
was  civil  enough  in  engaging  the  men  so  equally  as  I  did,  and 
upon  so  fair  terms.  I  expected,  I  desired  nothing,  but  that 
they  would  make  the  best  use  they  could  of  their  own  under- 
standings,  from  which  we  were  promised  great  things.  I  invited 
them  to  the  utmost  freedom,  in  discussing  every  point  within  the 
compass  of  the  question ;  only  not  to  exceed  the  rules  of  juat 
and  regular  debate^ :  that  every  branch  of  the  cause  might  have 
a  new  hearing,  and  be  reexamined  with  all  possible  strictness  and 
severity.  In  a  word,  all  I  required  was,  to  dispute  fair^  to  tb^cp 
ambiguous  terms,  or  define  them,  to  contemn  every  thing  but  truth 
in  the  search  after  truth,  and  to  keep  close  to  the  question;  at  the 
same  time  binding  myself  up  to  a  careful  and  constant  observance 
of  the  same  rules. 

When  their  Reply  appeared,  I  presently  saw  how  far  thoee 
gentlemen  were  gone  off  from  just  debate ;  and  how  little  incli- 
nation they  had  to  dispute  fairly  or  regularly.  To  prejudice 
the  readers,  they  began  with  charges  and  complaints;  all  trifling^ 
most  false;  and  some  such  as  they  themselves  could  scarce  be 
*>  Sec  my  First  Defence,  vol.  i.  p.  557,  &c. 


weak  enough  to  hdiew^.  I  need  not  say  what  followed.  When  I 
found  how  the  case  stood,  I  reminded  them  of  their  misoonducty 
sometimes  raised  my  style,  and  treated  them  with  some  sharp- 
ness, (though  with  less  than  they  had  me,  with  much  less  reason,) 
to  let  them  know  that  I  understood  what  they  were  doing,  and 
that  if  I  could  not  be  eanjuted,  I  would  not  be  contemned.  As 
tketf  had  taken  the  Uberty  of  charging  me  very  often,  and  very 
un/mrfy,  with  things  that  they  catUd  not  prove ;  I  made  the  less 
scruple  of  charging  them  with  what  I  cotM  prove.  And  this,  I 
hope,  the  impartial  reader  will  upon  examination  find,  that  all 
the  severity  on  my  side  lies  in  the  truth  of  the  things  proved  upon 
them ;  while  theirs^  on  the  other,  lies  mostly  in  invention^  and 
ahusive  words,  which,  for  want  of  evidence  to  support  them,  must 
of  course  return  upon  their  own  heads.  They  appear,  in  their 
last  pieces  especially,  to  be  no  great  friends  to  ceremony :  so  that 
I  have  reason  to  believe  they  will  expect  the  less  in  return.  I 
had  hitherto  been  so  tender  of  Mr.  Jackson,  as  never  to  name 
him ;  though  his  own  friends  had  done  it  at  full  length :  parti- 
cularly the  Author  of  the  Catalogue^  &c.  and  Dr. Whitby  twice  d, 
promising  the  world  something  very  considerable  from  ''  the  ac- 
^'  curate  pen  of  Mr.  Jackson."  Accuracy  is  a  thing  which  I  shall 
not  complain  of,  but  shall  ever  receive,  even  from  an  adversary, 
with  the  utmost  reverence  and  respect.  I  wish  this  gentleman 
had  shewn  something  of  it ;  if  not  in  his  account  of  Scripture  or 
Fathers^  (which  his  hypothesis  perhaps  would  not  permit,)  yet  in 
his  reports  and  representations,  at  least,  of  my  tcordsy  and  my  sense; 
which  might  have  been  expected  from  a  man  o{ probity.  Whether 
his  writing  without  a  name  has  been  his  principal  encouragement 
to  take  the  liberties  he  has,  T  will  not  be  positive :  but  it  is  highly 
probable ;  because  common  prudence^  generally,  is  a  sufficient  bar 
against  it,  in  men  that  have  any  character  to  lose,  any  reputation 
to  be  responsible  for  it.  The  just  and  proper  views,  or  reasons, 
for  a  writer^s  concealing  his  name  are,  to  relieve  his  modesty,  or 
to  screen  himself  from  public  censure ;  to  be  frank  and  open  in 
debate,  and  to  discuss  every  point  of  importance  (though  against 
the  received  opinions)  with  all  due  freedom  and  strictiiess,  like  a 
lover  of  truth.  Had  the  gentlemen  I  am  concerned  with  gone 
upon  these  views,  or  made  use  of  their  concealment  for  these  or 
the  like  laudable  purposes,  I  should  have  been  perfectly  well 

^  See  my  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii.  p.  396. 

*  Whitby'8  Second  Part  of  his  Reply,  p.  74, 122. 


satisfied.  But  while  they  continue  their  disguises  as  before,  and 
regard  nothing  less  thaxi  frank,  fair,  and  open  debate ;  while  the 
main  use  they  make  of  their  concealment  is  only  to  be  less  soli- 
citous about  what  they  think  or  write ;  pelting  us  from  thdr 
coverts  with  misreparts,  and  slandering  in  masquerade :  when  this 
is  the  case,  it  concerns  a  man  in  his  own  defence  to  intimate  to 
these  gentlemen,  that  they  are  not  so  entirely  under  cover  as  they 
may  imagine;  but  that  it  is  iheiv prudence  still  to  be  a  little  more 
upon  their  guard,  and  to  write  with  more  decency  hereafter,  at 
least,  for  their  own  credit  and  reputation. 

After  all,  if  any  reasonable  man  is  disposed  to  examine  this 
question,  or  any  part  of  it,  with  freedom  and  plainness,  with  sin- 
cerity and  strictness,  attending  to  the  argument^  and  representing 
every  thing  in  a/atV  and  true  light,  without  misreport  or  insult; 
such  a  person,  though  nameless,  would  have  a  just  title  to  all 
tender,  and  candid,  and  even  respectful  treatment,  from  an  ad- 
versary ;  and,  I  am  very  sure,  would  never  find  any  other  than 
such  from  me.  I  shall  ever  think  it  a  much  greater  disgrace  to 
be  outdone  in  civility y  than  in  matter  of  argument.  The  first  can- 
not happen  but  through  a  man^s  ovfn  fault :  the  other  may ;  and 
when  it  does,  there  is  no  real  discredit  in  yielding  to  the  truth 
once  made  clear.  Both  sides,  if  they  are  good  men,  are  victorious 
in  such  a  case;  because  both  attain  the  only  thin);  that  they  aimed 
at,  and  both  share  the  prize. 










An  Account  of  the  Manuscripts,  Versions,  and  Comments,  and 
such  other  particulars  as  are  of  moment  for  the  determining  the 
Age,  and  Author,  and  Value  of  it,  and  the  Time  of  its  Re- 
ception in  the  Christian  Churches. 





My  Lord, 

J.  AM  desirous  of  sending  these  papers  abroad  under 
your  Grace's  name,  in  confidence  you  will  be  a  Patron 
to  them,  as  you  have  been  to  the  Author.  I  would  make 
their  way  short  and  easy  to  the  pvhlic  esteem,  by  intro- 
ducing them  first  into  your  Grace's  acquaintance  and 
good  opinion:  which  if  they  have  once  the  honour  to 
obtain,  I  may  then  be  assured  that  they  will  be  both 
wefvl  to  the  worlds  and  acceptable  with  all  good  men; 
the  height  of  my  ambition. 

The  suhjecU  my  Lord,  is  the  Athanasian  Creed,  the 
most  accurate  system  of  the  Athanasian,  that  is,  the 
Christian  feith ;  of  which  your  Grace  is,  by  your  station 
and  character,  by  duty  and  office,  and,  what  is  more,  by 
inclination  and  principle,  and  real  services,  the  watchful 
Guardian  and  Preserver. 

The  happy  fruits  of  it  are  visible  in  the  slow  and  in- 
considerable progress  that  the  new  heresy  has  been  able 
to  make  within  your  province;  where  it  died,  in  a  manner, 
as  it  first  arose,  and  no  sooner  began  to  lift  up  its  head, 
but  sunk  down  again  in  shame  and  confusion :  as  if  the 
plenty  of  good  seed  sown  had  left  no  room  for  tares^  or 
they  could  take  no  root  in  a  soil  so  well  cultivated. 

H  2 


While  your  Grace  is  promoting  the  honour  and  inter- 
ests of  our  holy  faith,  in  the  eminent  way,  by  the  wisdom 
of  your  counsels,  the  authority  of  your  precepts^  and  the 
brightness  of  your  high  example ;  I  am  endeavouring,  in 
such  a  way  as  I  can,  to  contribute  something  to  the  same 
common  cause,  though  it  be  but  slight  and  small,  though 
it  be  only  reviewing  the  fences  and  surveying  the  out^ 
works;  which  is  the  most  I  pretend  to  in  the  history 
here  presented. 

What  advantage  others  may  reap  from  the  publication 
will  remain  in  suspense :  but  I  am  sure  of  one  to  myself, 
(and  I  lay  hold  of  it  with  a  great  deal  of  pleasure,)  the 
opportunity  I  thereby  have  of  returning  my  public  thanks 
to  your  Grace  for  your  puhlic  favours.  Though  this,  my 
Lord,  is  but  a  scanty  expression  for  them,  and  far  short, 
where  the  engaging  manner  and  circumstances,  known  but 
to  few^  and  not  to  be  understood  by  many,  make  so  con- 
siderable an  addition  in  the  whole,  and  almost  double  the 
obligation  upon, 

My  Lord, 

Your  Grace's  most  obliged, 

Most  dutiful,  and  most  obedient 

Humble  Servant, 


Cambridge,  Magd.  Coll. 
Oct.  25,  1723. 





What  I  here  present  the  Reader  with,  will  not  requhre 
much  Preface.  The  introduction  intimates  the  design,  and  use, 
and  pariitum  of  the  Work.  The  Appendix,  which  is  an  addi- 
tional enlargement  beyond  my  first  design,  gives  account  of 
itself.  I  subjoin  two  Indexes,  for  the  ease  and  convenience 
of  such  persons  as  may  be  disposed^  not  only  to  read  these 
sheets,  but  to  study  the  subject.  I  should  scarce  have  thought 
of  making  Indexes  to  so  small  a  treatise,  had  I  not  found  the 
like  in  Tentzelius,  upon  the  same  subject,  and  to  a  smaller  Tract 
than  this  is.  His  were  of  considerable  use  to  me,  as  often  as  I 
wanted  to  review  any  particular  author  or  passage^  or  to  compare 
distant  parts,  relating  to  the  same  things,  one  with  another :  the 
benefit  therefore  which  I  reaped  from  his  labours,  I  am  willing 
to  pay  back  to  the  public  by  mine. 

As  to  the  subject  of  the  following  sheets,  I  make  no  question 
of  its  well  deserving  the  thoughts  and  consideration  of  every 
gtudious  reader  ;  having  before  passed  through  the  hands  of 
many  the  most  learned  and  most  judicious  men,  and  such  as 


would  not  misemploy  their  time  and  pains  upon  a  trifle.  As  to 
the  present  management  of  it,  it  must  be  left  to  the  reader  to 
judge  of,  as  he  sees  cause. 

For  the  chronoloffy  of  the  several  parts,  I  have  consulted  the 
best  authors ;  endeavouring  to  fix  it  with  as  much  accuracy  as 
I  could.  Wherever  I  could  certainly  determine  the  age  of  any 
Tract,  printed  or  manuscript^  to  a  year,  I  set  down  that  year : 
where  I  could  not  do  it,  (as  in  manuscripts  one  seldom  can.) 
I  take  any  probable  year  within  the  compass  of  time  when  an 
Author  is  known  to  have  Jhuri^shed;  or  for  a  manuscript,  any 
probable  year  within  such  a  century,  or  such  a  kin^s  reign 
wherein  the  manuscript  is  reasonably  judged  to  have  been  writ- 
ten :  and  I  generally  choose  a  round  number,  rather  than  other- 
wise, in  such  indefinite  cases  and  instances. 

Thus  for  example,  first  in  respect  of  Authors :  there  is  a  com- 
ment of  Yenantius  Fortunatus,  upon  the  Athanasian  Greed,  which 
I  reprint  in  my  Appendix.  I  cannot  fix  the  age  of  it  to  a  year, 
no,  nor  to  twenty  years.  All  that  is  certain  is,  that  it  was  made 
between  556,  when  Fortunatus  first  went  into  the  Gallican  parts, 
and  599,  when  he  was  advanced  to  the  Bishopric  of  Poictiers. 
Within  this  wide  compass,  I  choose  the  year  570.  If  any  one 
shall  rather  choose  580,  or  590,  I  shall  not  dispute  it  with  him, 
nor  doth  any  thing  very  material  depend  upon  it :  but  if  any 
good  reason  can  be  given  for  taking  some  other  year  rather  than 
570, 1  shall  immediately  acquiesce  in  it. 

As  to  manuscripts,  it  is  well  known  there  is  no  fixing  them 
precisely  to  a  year,  merely  from  the  hand  or  c/uiracter :  and  there 
are  but  few,  in  comparison,  that  carry  their  own  certain  dates 
with  them.  The  best  judges  therefore  in  these  matters  will  think 
It  sufficient  to  point  out  the  king's  reign,  or  sometimes  the  eeniwy^ 
wherein  a  manuscript  was  written :  and  in  the  very  ancient  ones, 
above  1000  years  old,  they  will  hardly  be  positive  so  much  as  to 
the  century^  for  want  of  certain  discriminating  marks  between 
manuscripts  of  the  5th,  6th,  and  7th  centuries. 

It  may  be  asked  then,  why  1  pretend  to  fix  the  several  mami- 


scripts,  hereafter  to  be  mentioned,  to  certain  years  in  the  margin  ; 
those  that  carry  no  certain  dates,  as  well  as  the  other  tiiat  do  t 
I  do  it  for  order  and  reptUarity^  and  for  the  more  distind  per- 
ception of  things ;  which  is  much  promoted  and  assisted  by  this 
orderiy  ranging  them  according  to  ysars.  At  the  same  time  the 
intelligent  reader  will  easily  understand  where  to  take  a  thing  as 
eertain,  and  where  to  make  allowances.  It  is  something  like  the 
placing  of  cities,  towns,  rivers,  &c.  in  a  map  or  a  globe :  they  have 
all  their  certain  places  there,  in  such  or  such  precise  degrees  of 
longitude  and  latiiude;  which  perhaps  sddom  answer  to  the  strict 
troth  of  things,  or  to  a  mathematical  exactness.  But  still  it 
serves  the  purpose  very  near  as  well  as  if  every  thing  had  been 
adjusted  with  the  utmost  nicety :  and  the  imagination  and  me- 
mory are  mightily  relieved  by  it.  Thus  much  I  thought  proper 
to  hint  in  vindication  of  my  method^  and  to  prevent  any  deception 
on  one  hand,  or  misconstruction  on  the  other.  I  have,  I  think, 
upon  the  whole,  generally  gone  upon  the  fairest  and  most  pro- 
bable presumption,  and  according  to  the  most  correct  accounts 
of  knowing  and  accurate  men  :  but  if  I  have  any  where  through 
inadvertency,  or  for  want  of  better  information,  happened  to  mis- 
take in  any  material  part,  the  best  way  of  apologizing  for  it  will 
be  to  correct  it  the  first  opportunity,  after  notice  of  it. 

As  to  mere  omissioTis,  they  will  appear  more  or  fewer,  according 
to  men's  difiTerent  judgments  or  opinions  what  to  call  an  omission. 
I  might  have  enlarged,  considerably,  the  first  chapter,  which 
treats  of  the  learned  modems :  though  some  perhaps  will  think 
it  too  large  already,  and  that  it  might  better  have  been  con- 
tracted. I  have  omitted  several  moderns  mentioned  by  Tentzelius, 
whose  professed  design  was  to  take  in  all :  mine  is  only  to  take 
the  principal^  or  as  many  as  may  suffice  to  give  the  Reader  a  full 
and  distinct  idea  how  this  matter  has  stood,  with  the  learned 
modems,  for  eighty-five  years  last  past. 

In  this  second  edition  I  have  considerably  shortened  my  Ap- 
pendix, by  throwing  the  several  parts  of  it  into  the  book  itself, 
referring  them  to  their  proper  places.      Some  few  additional 

104  THE   PREFACE. 

obserrations  will  be  found,  here  and  there  interspersed,  and  some 
carre€tions,  of  slight  moment  as  to  the  main  thing,  (in  which  I 
make  no  alteration,)  but  oontributing  in  some  measure  to  the 
perfection  and  accuracy  of  the  Work. 

I  conclude  with  professing,  as  before,  that  I  shall  be  very  glad 
if  what  hath  been  here  done  may  but  prove  an  useful  introduction 
to  more  and  larger  discoveries.  If  any  thing  considerable  still 
remains,  either  in  private  hands  or  public  repositories ;  any  thing 
that  may  be  serviceable  to  clear  up  some  dark  part,  or  to  correct 
any  mistaie,  or  to  confirm  and  illustrate  any  important  truth 
relating  to  the  subject ;  I  shall  be  very  thankful  to  the  person 
that  shall  oblige  either  me  with  private  notice,  or  tiie  public  with 
new  improvements. 

Cambridge^  Magd.  CoU. 
Not.  1, 1727. 



OP    THE 




The  Design  and  Use  of  this  Treatise :  with  the  Method  and 
Partition  of  it, 

JMLY  design  is,  to  inquire  into  the  ape,  author ^  and  value  of 
that  celebrated  Confession,  whioh  goes  under  the  name  of  the 
Athanasian  Creed.  The  general  approbation  it  hath  long  met 
with  in  the  Christian  churches,  and  the  particular  regard  which 
hath  been,  early  and  late,  paid  to  it  in  our  own,  (while  it 
makes  a  part  of  our  Liturgy,  and  stands  recommended  to  us 
in  our  Articles,)  will^  I  doubt  not,  be  considerations  sufficient  to 
justify  an  undertaking  of  this  kind :  provided  only,  that  the  per- 
formance be  answerable,  and  that  it  fall  not  short  of  its  principal 
wn,  or  of  the  just  expectations  of  the  ingenuous  and  candid 
readers.  No  one  will  expect  more  of  me  than  my  present  mate- 
rials, such  as  I  could  procure,  will  furnish  me  with;  nor  any 
greater  certainty  in  an  essay  of  this  nature,  than  things  of  this 
kind  will  admit  of  If  a  reasonable  diligence  has  been  used  in 
coBeeting,  and  due  pains  in  digesting^  and  a  religious  care  in 
building  thereupon,  (more  than  which  I  pretend  not  to^)  it  may, 
I  hope,  be  sufficient  with  all  equitable  judges. 


Many  learned  and  valuable  men  have  been  before  employed 
in  the  same  design :  but  their  treatises  are  mostly  in  Latin,  and 
some  of  them  very  scarce^  and  hard  to  come  at.  I  know  not 
that  any  one  hitherto  has  attempted  a  just  treatise  upon  the 
subject  in  our  own  language,  however  useful  it  might  be  to  the 
English  readers ;  and  the  more  so  at  this  time,  when  the  contro- 
versy about  the  Trinity  is  now  spread  abroad  among  all  ranks 
and  degrees  of  men  with  us,  and  the  Athanasian  Creed  become 
the  subject  of  common  and  ordinary  conversation.  For  these 
reasons,  I  presumed,  an  English  treatise  might  be  most  proper 
and  seasonable;  though  otherwise,  to  avoid  the  unseemly  mixture 
of  English  and  Latin,  (which  will  here  be  necessary,)  and  because 
of  some  parts  which  none  but  the  learned  can  tolerably  judge  of; 
it  might  be  thought  more  proper  rather  to  have  written  a  Latin 
treatise,  and  for  the  use  only  of  scholars.  However,  there  will 
be  nothing  very  material  but  what  an  English  reader  may  com- 
petently understand :  and  I  shall  endeavour  to  lay  before  him 
all  that  has  been  hitherto  usefully  observed  upon  the  subject, 
that  he  may  want  nothing  which  may  be  conceived  of  any  mo- 
ment for  the  enabling  him  to  form  a  true  judgment.  What  I 
borrow  from  others  shall  be  fairly  acknowledged  as  I  go  along, 
and  referred  to  its  proper  author  or  authors ;  it  being  as  much 
my  design  to  give  an  historical  account  of  what  others  have 
done,  as  it  is  to  supply  what  they  have  left  undone,  so  far  as  my 
present  materials,  leisure,  and  opportunities  may  enable  me  to 
do  it.  Now  to  present  the  reader  with  a  sketch  of  my  design, 
and  to  shew  him  how  one  part  is  to  hang  upon  another,  my 
method  will  be  as  follows : 

I.  First,  in  order  to  give  the  clearer  idea  of  what  hath  been 
already  done,  and  of  what  may  be  still  wanting,  I  begin  with 
recounting  the  several  conjectures  or  discoveries  of  the  learned 

II.  Next,  to  ent^r  upon  the  matter  itself,  and  the  evidence 
proper  to  it,  I  proceed  to  lay  down  the  direct  testimonies  of  the 
ancients y  concerning  the  age,  author^  and  value  of  this  Creed. 

III.  To  these  I  subjoin  an  account  of  the  ancient  comments 
upon  the  same  Creed,  being  but  another  kind  of  ancieni  testi- 

IV.  After  these  follows  a  brief  recital  of  the  most  ancient,  or 
•otherwise  most  considerable,  manuscripts  of  this  Creed,  which  I 

have  either  seen  myself  or  have  had  notice  of  from  others. 


V.  After  the  manuscripts  of  the  Greed  itself,  I  inquire  also 
into  the  ancient  versions  of  it,  printed  or  manuscript ;  which 
wiD  be  also  very  serviceable  to  our  main  design. 

VI.  I  come  in  the  next  place  to  treat  of  the  ancient  recep- 
tion of  this  Creed  in  the  Christian  churches ;  as  being  a  point 
of  great  moment,  and  which  may  be  more  certainly  determined 
than  the  time  of  its  composition,  and  may  give  great  light  into  it. 

VII.  These  preliminaries  settled,  to  introduce  to  what  follows, 
I  then  fall  directly  to  the  darkest  part  of  all ;  namely,  to  the 
inquir}'  after  the  age  and  author  of  the  Creed :  which  I  despatch 
in  two  distinct  chapters. 

Vni.  Next,  I  lay  before  the  learned  reader  the  Creed  itself  in 
its  original  language,  with  the  most  considerable  various  lections ; 
together  with  select  passages  from  ancient  writers,  either  parallel 
to  those  of  the  Creed,  or  explanatory  of  it.  And,  lest  the 
English  reader  should  appear  to  be  neglected,  I  subjoin  the 
Greed  in  English  with  a  running  English  commentary,  serving 
much  the  same  purpose  with  what  is  intended  by  the  Latin 
quotations  going  before. 

IX.  I  conclude  all  with  a  brief  vindication  of  our  own  Church 
in  receiving,  and  still  retaining  this  excellent  formulary  of  the 
Christian  faith ;  answering  the  most  material  objections  which 
have  been  made  against  us,  on  that  account ;  and  shewing  the 
expediency,  and  even  necessity  of  retaining  this  form,  or  some- 
thing equivalent,  for  the  preservation  of  the  Christian  faith 
against  heresies.  The  Reader,  I  hope,  will  excuse  it,  if  in  com- 
pliance with  custom,  and  to  save  myself  the  trouble  of  circumlo- 
cution, I  commonly  speak  of  it  under  the  name  of  the  Athanasian 
Creed;  not  designing  thereby  to  intimate,  either  that  it  is  a 
Creed  strictly  and  properly  so  called,  or  that  it  is  of  Athanasius's 
composing :  both  which  points  will  be  discussed  in  the  sequel. 


CHAP.  I. 

The  Opinions  of  the  learned  Mt^derns  c(yiicerning  the 
Athafiosian  Creed, 

A.  D.  1642.  IN  reciting  the  opinions  of  the  learned  modems, 
I  need  go  no  higher  than  Gerard  Vossiua :  who  in  his  treatise 
De  Tribus  Symbolis^  published  in  the  year  1642,  led  the  way  to 
a  more  strict  and  critical  inquiry  concerning  this  Creed  than  had 
been  before  attempted.  The  writers  before  him,  most  of  them, 
took  it  for  granted  that  the  Creed  was  Athanasius's^  without 
troubling  themselves  with  any  very  particular  inquiry  into  it : 
and  those  few  who  doubted  of  it,  or  ascribed  it  to  another,  yet 
entered  not  closely  into  the  merits  of  the  cause,  but  went  upon 
loose  conjectures  rather  than  upon  any  just  rules  of  true  and 
solid  criticism.  It  will  be  sufficient  therefore  to  begin  our  ac- 
counts from  Vossius,  who,  since  the  time  of  his  writing,  has 
been  ever  principally  mentioned  by  writers  upon  the  subject,  as 
being  the  first  and  most  considerable  man  that  has  entered  deep 
into  it,  and  treated  of  it  like  a  critic.  He  endeavoured  to  sift 
the  matter  thoroughly,  as  far  as  he  was  well  able  to  do  from 
printed  books :  as  to  manuscripts,  he  either  wanted  leisure  or 
opportunity  to  search  for  them.  The  result  of  his  inquiries 
concluded  in  the  following  particulars,  some  of  them  dubiously, 
all  of  them  modestly  proposed  by  him.  i .  That  the  Athanasian 
Creed  is  not  Athanasius^s.  2.  That  it  was  originally  a  Latin 
composure,  and  of  a  Latin  author  or  authors.  3.  That  it  was 
made  in  the  eighth  or  ninth  century,  in  the  time  of  Pepin,  or  of 
Charles  the  Oreat;  and  probably  by  some  French  divine. 
4.  That  the  first  time  it  was  produced,  under  the  name  of 
Athanasius,  at  least,  with  any  assurance  and  confidence  of  it 
being  his,  was  in  the  year  1233,  when  Pope  Gregory  the  IXth's 
legates  pleaded  it  at  Constantinople  in  favour  of  the  procession 
against  the  Greeks.  5.  That  it  scarce  ever  obtained  in  any  of 
the  Christian  churches  before  the  year  1000.  These  were  his 
sentiments  when  he  wrote  his  treatise  De  Tribus  Symbolis. 
But  in  a  posthumous  piece  of  his,  having  then  seen  what  some 
other  learned  men  had  written  upon  the  subject,  he  was  content 

THE  LEARNED  MODERNS.        109 

to  say  that  the  Greed  could  not  be  set  higher  than  the  year  600  >. 
How  far  Yossius  was  mistaken  in  his  accounts  will  appear  in  the 
sequel.  Thus  far  must  be  allowed  him^  that  he  managed  the 
argument  with  great  learning  and  judgment,  made  a  good  use  of 
such  materials  as  he  was  possessed  of;  and  though  he  was  not 
very  happy  in  determining  the  age  of  the  Creed,  or  the  time  of 
its  recepiicn^  yet  he  produced  so  many  and  such  cogent  arguments 
against  the  Creed's  being  originally  Greek,  or  being  made  by 
Athanasius,  that  they  could  never  be  answered. 

1644.  The  learned  Petavius,  who  in  the  year  1622  (when  he 
published  Epiphanius)  had  fallen  in  with  the  common  opinion 
of  this  Creed'^s  being  Athanasius's,  did  yet  afterward  in  his 
treatise  of  the  Trinity^  published  in  the  year  1644,  speak  more 
doubtfuUy  of  it ;  in  the  mean  while  positive  that  it  was  ^iitten 
in  Latin  ^. 

1647.  "^^^  Q^^^  considerable  man,  and  who  may  be  justly 
called  9kjirsi  writer  in  this  argument,  as  well  as  Vossius,  was  our 
learned  Usher.  He  had  a  good  acquaintance  with  libraries  and 
manuscripts;  and  was  able  from  those  stores  to  produce  new 
evidences  which  Vossius  knew  not  of.  In  the  year  1647,  he 
printed  his  Latin  tract  De  Symbolis^  with  a  prefatory  epistle  to 
Vossius.  He  there  appeals  to  the  testimonies  of  Ratram  of 
Gorbey,  and  iGneas  Bishop  of  Paris,  neither  of  them  at  that 
time  made  public,  as  also  to  Hincmar's  of  Rheims,  (which  had 
been  published,  but  had  escaped  Yossius's  observation,)  to  prove 
that  this  Creed  had  been  confidently  cited  under  the  name  of 
Athanasius  almost  400  years  before  the  time  of  Pope  Gregory's 
l^ates,  the  time  set  by  Yossius.  And  further  by  two  manu- 
scripts found  in  the  Cotton  Library,  he  thought  he  might  carry 
up  the  antiquity  of  the  Creed  to  the  year  703,  or  even  to  600. 
In  short,  he  scrupled  not  to  set  the  date  of  it  above  the  year 
447 :  for  he  supposes  a  council  of  Spain,  held  in  that  year,  to 
have  been  acquainted  with  it,  and  to  have  borrowed  the  Filioqtie 
from  it^.  Thus  far  he,  without  any  more  particular  determination 
about  eitiier  the  age  or  the  author, 

*  Neque  ante  annum  fuisse  sexcen-  tion  that  the  words,  a  Patre,  Filioque 
tesimuin,  fuse  ostendhnus  in  libro  De    procedenSt   were   genuine ;   and  not 

Symbolifl.  Von.  Harm,  Evang,  lib.  ii.  foisted  into  the  Confession  of  that 

c.  '3- P*  215.  Council;  as  they  now  appear  to  have 

^  Petavius  de  Trin.  lib.  viL  c.  8.  been,  after  a  more  careful  view  of  the 

p.  393.  MSS.  of  best  note,  and  greatest  an- 

^  Usser.   de^Symbolis,   pag.  34.  tiquity. 
N.B.  Usher  went  upon  the  supposi- 


1647.  About  the  same  time  Dr.  Jeremy  Taylor  (afterwards 
Bishop  of  Down  and  Connor)  published  his  Liberty  of  Prophesy- 
ing^ wherein  he  expresses  his  doubts  whether  the  Greed  be 
justly  ascribed  to  Athanasius.  But  as  he  had  never  seen  Usher's 
treatise,  nor  indeed  Vossius^s,  nor  was  at  that  time  furnished  with 
any  proper  assistances  to  enable  him  to  make  any  accurate 
inquiries  into  this  matter,  it  may  suffice  just  to  have  mentioned 
him,  in  regard  to  the  deserved  name  he  has  since  borne  in  the 
learned  world. 

1653.  Greorge  Ash  well,  B.  D.  published  an  English  treatise 
which  was  printed  at  Oxford,  entitled,  Fides  Apostolica,  asserting 
the  received  authors  and  authority  of  the  Apostles'  Creed.  At  the 
end  of  which  treatise,  he  has  a  pretty  long  Appendix  concerning 
the  Athanasian  Greed;  which  is  well  written,  and  contains  a 
good  summary  of  what  learned  men,  before  him,  had  advanced 
upon  the  subject.  His  judgment  of  it  is,  that  it  was  written  in 
Latin,  and  by  Athanasius  himself,  about  the  year  340. 

1659.  Hamon  L'Estrange^,  in  his  Alliance  of  Divine  Offices, 
gives  his  judgment  of  the  Athanasian  Greed,  that  it  is  not 
rightly  ascribed  to  Athanasius,  but  yet  ancient,  and  extant  ann. 
600  after  Ghrist. 

1659.  Leo  Allatius,  about  this  year,  printed  his  Syntagma 
de  Symbolo  S.  Athanasii ;  which  no  doubt  must  be  a  very  use- 
ful piece,  especially  in  relation  to  the  sentiments  of  the  Greek 
churches,  and  the  reception  of  this  Greed  amongst  them :  but  I 
have  never  seen  it ;  only  I  learn  from  Tentzelius  (who  yet  oould 
never  get  a  sight  of  it)  and  Fabricius,  that  such  a  piece  was 
written  by  Allatius  in  modem  Oreek,  in  i2mo.  published  at 
Rome  1658  or  1659.  It  appears  to  be  very  scarce,  since  none 
of  the  learned  who  have  since  written  upon  this  Greed,  have 
either  referred  to  it,  or  given  extracts  out  of  it,  so  far  as  I  have 
observed  :  excepting  only  something  of  that  kind  at  Rome,  A.D. 
1667,  by  the  College  de  propaganda  Fide®. 

1663.  Cardinal  Bona,  some  years  after,  in  his  book  De  Divina 
Psalmodia,  makes  frequent  mention  of  this  Greed,  touches 
slightly  upon  the  question  about  its  age  and  author^  takes  some 
cursory  notice  of  what  Vossius  had  said,  but  nevertheless  ascribes 
it  to  Athanasius,  as  being  composed  by  him  while  in  the  western 

^  Hamon  L'Estranffe,  Annot.  in  chap.  iv.  p.  99. 
c  Vid.  Tentzel.  Juoic.  &c.  p.  147. 


parte,  iette  Baronio;  resting  his  faith  upon  Baronius  as  his 

1669.  Our  very  learned  Bishop  Pearson,  in  his  Exposition  of 
the  Creed,  occasionally  delivers  his  opinion,  that  the  Athanasian 
Creed  was  written  in  Latin,  and  by  some  member  of  the  Latin 
Churchs;  and  extant  about  the  year  600.  Though  the  last 
particular  he  builds  only  upon  an  epistle  attributed  to  Isidore  of 
Seville^  and  since  judged  to  be  spurious. 

1675.  ^^^*  hxxA..  Ruelius,  in  his  second  volume,  or  tome, 
Conciliorum  lUustratorum,  has  a  particular  dissertation^  about 
thirty  pages  in  quarto,  upon  this  Creed.  He  follows  Vossius'^s 
opinion  for  the  most  part,  repeating  the  same  arguments  h. 

1675.  0^  ^'^^^  °^^^  of  eminent  character  is  Paschasius  Quesnel, 
a  celebrated  French  divine.  In  the  year  1 675,  he  published  his 
famous  edition  of  Pope  Leo's  works,  with  several  very  valuable 
dissertations  of  his  own.  His  fourteenth  contains,  among  other 
matters,  a  particular  inquiry  about  the  author  of  this  Creed. 
He  ascribes  it  to  Vigilius  Tapsensis,  the  African';  and  so  well 
defends  his  position,  that  he  has  almost  drawn  the  learned  world 
after  him.  He  is  looked  upon  as  the  father  of  that  opinion,  be- 
cause he  has  so  learnedly  and  handsomely  supported  it :  but  he 
18  not  the  first  that  espoused  it.  For  Labbe,  about  fifteen 
years  before,  had  taken  notice  of  some  that  had  ascribed  this 
Greed  to  Vigilius,  at  the  same  time  signifying  his  dissent  from 

1676.  The  year  after  Quesnel,  Sandius,  the  famous  Arian, 
printed  a  second  edition  of  his  Nucleus,  &c.  with  an  Appendix : 
wherein  he  corrects  his  former  judgment^  of  this  Creed^  taken 
implicitly  from  Vossius ;  and  allows,  nay,  contends  and  insists 
upon  it,  that  this  Creed  was  not  only  known,  but  known  under 
the  name  of  Athanasius,  as  high  at  least  as  the  year  770^".  He 
ascribes  it,  upon  conjecture,  to  one  Athanasius,  Bishop  of  Spire 
in  Germany,  who  died  in  the  year  642. 

1678.  I  ought  not  to  pass  over  our  very  learned  Cudworth, 
though  he  has  entered  very  little  into  the  point  before  us.  Ho 
gives  his  judgment,  in  passings  of  the  CVeed  commonly  called 

f  Bona  de  Divina  Psalmod.   cap.  ^  Quesnel,  Dissert,  xiv.  p.  729,  &c. 

xvi.  sect.  18.  p.  864.  k  LAbbasi  Dissert,  de  Script.  Eccles. 

K  Pearson  on  the  Creed,  Art.  viii.  torn.  ii.  p.  477. 

p.  334.  ed.  3.  art.  v.  p.  336.  ^  Vid.  Sandii  Nucl.  Histor.  Eccles. 

^  Roelii  Concil.  lUustrat.  torn.  ii.  p.  256. 

p.  639  to  670.  in  Sandii  Append,  p.  35. 


Athanasian  ;  that  it  "  was  written  a  long  time  after  Athanasius 
"  by  some  other  hand".*" 

1680.  Henricus  Heideggerus,  in  his  second  volume  of  Select 
Dissertations,  (published  at  Zurich,)  has  one  whole  dissertation, 
which  is  the  eighteenth,  containing  near  forty  pages  in  quarto.  This 
author  takes  his  account  of  the  Creed  mostly  from  Vossius^  does 
not  allow  it  to  be  Athanasius's,  only  called  by  his  name  as  con- 
taining the  Athanasian  faith :  and  he  defends  the  doctrine  of  the 
Greed  at  large  against  the  objections  of  Dudithius  and  other 
Antitrinitarians ;  and  concludes  with  a  running  comment  upon 
the  whole. 

1681.  Wolfgang  Oundling,  a  German  writer,  the  year  after, 
published  a  small  Tract,  containing  notes  upon  a  little  piece 
relating  to  the  religion  of  the  Greek  churches^  written  by  Eustra- 
tius  Johannides  Zialowski.  What  is  chiefly  valuable  in  Gund- 
ling  is  his  account  of  the  Greek  copies  of  this  Greedy  (printed 
ones  I  mean^)  giving  us  six  of  them  together.  He  occasionally 
expresses  his  doubts  whether  the  Greed  be  Athanasius^s,  or  of 
some  later  writer  <>. 

1683.  I  may  next  mention  our  celebrated  ecclesiastical  histo- 
rian, Dr.  Gave ;  who  about  this  time  published  his  Lives  of  the 
Fathers,  and  particularly  of  Athanasius.  {lis  account  of  this 
Greed  is,  that  it  "  was  never  heard  of  in  the  world  till  above 
*'  600  years  after  Athanasius  was  dead ;  but  barely  mentioned 
'*  then,  and  not  urged  with  any  confidence  till  above  200  years 
*'  after,  when  the  legates  of  Pope  Gregory  the  Ninth  produced 
"  and  pleaded  it  at  Constantinople  P."  The  learned  Doctor^  it  is 
plain,  took  this  account  from  Vossius,  and  had  never  seen 
Usher's  Treatise ;  which  one  may  justly  wonder  at.  Five  years 
afier,  in  his  Historia  Literaria,  he  allows  that  this  Greed  had 
been  spoken  of  by  Theodulphus,  which  was  within  436  years  of 
Athanasius:  but  not  a  word  yet  of  any  elder  testimony,  or 
manuscript,  though  both  had  been  discovered,  and  publicly 
taken  notice  of,  before  this  time.  He  still  contends  that  the  Creed 
obtained  not  in  the  Christian  churches  before  1000,  nor  became 
famous  every  where  before  1233;  but  inclines  nevertheless  to 
ascribe  it  to  Yigilius  Tapsensis,  who  flourished  about  the  year 

n  Cudworth,  Intellect.  Syst.  p.  620.  p  Cave,  Life  of  Athanasias,  sect. 

^  Gundlingii  notse  in  Eustratii  Jo-  vi.  art.  10. 

hannidis  Zialowski  Delineationem  Ec-  4  Cave,  Uistor.  Litenr.  vol.  i.  p. 

clesin  Grsecee,  p.  68,  &c.  146,  371. 

THE  LEARNED  MODERNS.        113 

1684.  Dr.  Comber,  in  his  book  entitled,  A  Companion  to  the 
Temple,  closes  in  with  the  old  tradition  of  the  Creed  being  Atha- 
nasiufi'^s;  repeating  the  most  considerable  arguments  usually 
pleaded  for  that  persuasion  ^. 

1684.  To  him  I  may  subjoin  Bishop  Beveridge,  who  perhaps 
about  this  time  might  write  his  thoughts  on  the  Creed,  in  his 
Exposition  of  our  Articles,  published  after  his  death.  He  was 
so  diligent  and  knowing  a  man,  that  had  he  been  to  consider 
this  matter  in  his  later  years,  he  would  certainly  have  given  a  more 
particular  and  accurate  account  than  that  which  now  appears. 
He  ascribes  the  Creed  to  Athanasius,  but  with  some  diffidence ; 
and  thinks  it  might  have  been  originally  a  Greek  composition, 
but  that  the  old  Oreek  copies  have  been  lost,  and  that  the  only 
remaining  ones  are  vermns  from  the  Latin". 

1685.  Cabassutius,  in  his  Notitia  Ecclesiastica,  hath  a  short 
dissertation  about  the  author  of  this  Creed  ^  He  contents  him- 
self with  repeating  Quesnel's  arguments,  to  prove  that  Athanasius 
was  not  the  author  of  it,  determining  nothing  further;  save  only 
that  it  was  originally  a  Latin  composure,  known  and  cited  by 
the  Council  of  Autun  about  the  year  670. 

1687.  The  celebrated  Dupin,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History, 
sums  up  the  reasons  usually  urged  to  prove  the  Creed  is  none  of 
Athanasius's  and  assents  to  them.  He  determines  with  confi- 
dence that  it  was  originally  a  Latin  composition,  and  not  known 
till  the  fifth  century;  repeats  Father  QuesneFs  reasons  for 
ascribing  it  to  Vigilius  Tapsensis,  and  acquiesces  in  them^  as 
having  nothing  more  certain  in  this  matter ». 

1687.  About  the  same  time  Tentzelius,  a  learned  Lutheran^ 
published  a  little  treatise  upon  the  subject^;  setting  forth  the 
several  opinions  of  learned  men  concerning  this  Creed.  He  is 
Tery  full  and  accurate  in  his  collection,  omitting  nothing  of 
moment  that  had  been  said  before  him  by  any  of  the  learned 
modems^  but  bringing  in  some  further  materials^  from  his  own 
searches^  to  add  new  light  to  the  subject.  He  determines 
nothing ;  but  leaves  it  to  the  reader  to  make  a  judgment  as  he 
1  cause  from  a  full  view  of  the  pleadings. 

'  Comber,  Companion  to  the  Tem-  ^  Dupin,  Eccles.  Histor.  vol.  ii.  p. 

pic,  p.  144.  35. 

■  Beveridge  on  the  eighth  Article,  p.  »  Ernesti  Tentzelii  Judicia  Erudi- 

162.  torum   de  Sj'mb.  AthanaR.   studiose 

^  Cabafisutii  Notit.  Eccles.  Dissert,  collecta.    Gothis,  A.  D.  1687. 
xiz.  p.54. 



1 688.  I  may  place  here  the  learned  Pagi,  who  in  his  Critick 
upon  Baronius  passes  his  judgment  of  this  Creed  X:  which  being 
the  same  with  Quesnel's,  and  little  more  than  repetition  from  him, 
I  need  not  be  more  particular  about  him. 

1 693.  Joseph  Antelmi,  a  learned  Paris  divine,  first  began  <U- 
rectly  to  attack  QuesneFs  opinion ;  and  to  sap  the  reasons  on 
which  it  was  founded.  He  published  a  particular  Dissertation 
to  that  purpose  2^  consisting  of  eighty-five  pages  in  octavo.  He 
ascribes  the  Creed  to  Vincentius  Lirinensis,  who  flourished  in  the 
year  434. 

1695.  The  famous  Tillemont  wrote  after  Antelmius;  for  he 
makes  mention  of  his  Treatise,  and  examines  his  hypothesis : 
and  yet  it  could  not  be  long  after ;  for  he  died  in  the  year  1697. 
He  commends  Mr.  Antelmi's  performance  as  a  considerable 
work ;  but  inclines  still  rather  to  Quesners  opinion.  All  that 
he  pronounces  certain  is,  that  the  Creed  is  none  of  Athanaedua's, 
but  yet  as  old  as  the  sixth  centur}%  or  older^ 

1698.  In  the  year  1698,  Montfaucon  published  his  new  and 
accurate  edition  of  Athanasius^s  works.  In  the  second  tome  he 
has  an  excellent  dissertation  upon  this  Greed ;  the  best  that  is 
extant,  either  for  order  and  method,  or  for  plenty  of  useful 
matter.  The  sum  of  his  judgment  is,  that  the  Greed  is  certainly 
none  of  Athanasius's,  nor  yet  Vigilius  |Tapsensis's,  nor  suffi- 
ciently proved  to  belong  to  Vincentius  Lirinensis ;  but  probably 
enough  composed  about  the  time  of  Vincentius^  and  by  a  Oalliean 
writer  or  writers  b. 

1698.  In  the  same  year,  Ludovicus  Antonius  Muratorius,  an 
Italian  writer,  published  a  second  tome  of  Anecdota  out  of  the 
Ambrosian  Library  at  Milan.  Among  other  manuscripts  there,  he 
had  met  with  an  ancient  Comment  upon  this  Creed,  ascribed  to 
Venantius  Fortunatus,  who  was  Bishop  of  Poictiers  in  Fnmoe 
in  the  sixth  century.  He  publishes  the  Conmient,  together  with 
a  Dissertation  of  his  own,  concerning  the  author  of  the  Creed : 

y  Pagi,  Critic,  in  Baron,  an.  340.    mur Afro  itaque  VigiUo  nihil  at 

n.  6.  p.  440.  quod  symbolum  wiciiii^tie  triboatur. 

'  Josephi  Antelmii  Disquisitio  de    Non  egre  quidem 

Symbolo  Athanasiano.     Paris.  1693.  Vincentii  atate  editam  fuisse  iDaiii 

Svo.  fidei  professionem Haud  aba  n 

*  Tdlemont,  M^moires,  torn.  viii.  conjectant  viri  eruditi  in  Galliia  iSiid 

p.  667.  {8ymbolum){msae  elucubratam.Moii(f. 

^  Symbolum  Quicunque  Athanasio  DitUrib,  p.  723. 
incunctanter   abjudicandum   arbitra- 

THE  LEARNED  MODERNS.        115 

concluding,  at  length,  that  Venantius  Fortunatus,  the  certain 
author  of  the  Comment,  might  posfiibiy  be  the  author  of  the 
Greed  too.  He  entirely  rejects  the  opinion  of  those  that  would 
ascribe  it  to  Athanasius,  and  disapproves  of  QuesneFs  persuasion 
about  Vigilius  Tapsensis ;  but  speaks  favourably  of  Antelmi's, 
as  coming  nearest  to  the  truths. 

171 2.  Fabricius,  in  his  Bibliotheca  Grseca**,  (higWy  valifed  by 
all  men  of  letters,)  gives  a  summary  account  of  the  sentiments  of 
the  learned  relating  to  this  Creed.  His  conclusion  from  all  is, 
that  thus  far  may  be  depended  on  as  certmn ;  that  the  Creed 
was  not  composed  by  Athanasius,  but  long  after^  in  the  fifth 
century,  written  originally  in  Latin,  and  afterwards  translated 
into  Greek. 

1712.  In  the  same  year,  the  learned  Le  Quien  published  a 
new  edition  of  Damasoen^  with  Previous  Dissertations  to  it.  In 
the  first  of  these,  he  has  several  very  considerable  remarks,  con- 
cerning the  <ige  and  author  of  the  Athanasian  Creed.  He 
appears  inclinable  to  ascribe  it  to  Pope  Anastasius  I.  (who 
entered  upon  the  Pontificate  in  the  year  398,)  because  of  some 
ancient  testimonies,  as  well  as  manuscripts,  carrying  the  name 
of  Anastasius  in  the  title  of  the  Creed :  but  he  is  positive  that 
the  Creed  must  be  set  as  high  as  the  age  of  St.  Austin,  Vin- 
eentius,  and  Vigilius <^.  And,  as  Antelmius  before  had  made 
light  of  the  supposition  that  the  internal  characters  of  the  Creed 
shew  it  to  be  later  than  Eutyches ;  he  makes  as  light  of  the 
other  supposition  of  the  internal  characters  setting  it  later  than 

1714.  Natalis  Alexander's  new  edition  of  his  Ecclesiastical 
History  bears  date  A.  D.  17 14.  He  had  examined  into  our 
present  question  some  years  before,  (about  1676,  when  his  first 
edition  came  abroad,)  subscribing  to  the  opinion  of  Quesnel: 
and  he  does  not  appear  to  have  altered  his  mind  since.  He 
takes  notice  of  Antelmi's  opinion^  and  speaks  respectfully  of  it, 
as  also  of  the  author ;  but  prefers  the  other  hypothesis  ^ 

J 7 15.  I  ought  not  here  to  omit  the  late  learned  Mr.  Bingham, 

c  Haec  et  Bimilia  pluribus  pertrac-  p.  315. 

tsnft  emdidsainus  Anthelmius,  cujus  «  Omnino  fateri  cogor  Au^tini, 

cipiiuoiii,  quonimnam  eniditonim  suf-  Vincentii,  et  Vi^i  aetate  extitisse  ex- 

frtgia  aocesaerint,  me  penitus  fiigit :  positionem  Latinam  fidei,  quae  post- 

foteor  tamen  ad  veritatem  omnium  modum   Athanasio    Magno    attribui 

maxime  iDam  acoedere.  Murator.  tom.  menierit.    Le  Quien,  Dissert,  i.  p.  9. 

iL  p.  222,  f  Natal.  Alezand.  Eccl.  Hist.  tom. 

^  Fabridi  Biblioth.  Gneca,  vol.  v.  iv.  p.  iii. 

I  2 


to  whom  the  public  has  been  highly  indebted  for  his  Origines 
Ecclesiasticse,  collected  with  great  judgment,  and  digested  into 
a  clear  method.  He  had  a  proper  occasion  to  say  something  of 
the  Athanasian  Greed,  in  passings  and  very  briefly.  He  observes, 
that  it  was  not  composed  by  Athanasius,  but  by  a  later,  and  a 
Latin  writer;  and  particularly  Vigilius  Tapsensis;  referring  to 
such  learned  modems  as  I  have  above  mentioned  for  the  proof 
of  it ;  and  giving  no  more  than  short  hints  of  their  reasons  s. 

1 719.  Dr.  Clarke  of  St.  Jameses,  in  his  second  edition  of  his 
Scripture  Doctrine^,  gives  us  his  last  thoughts  in  relation  to 
this  Creed.  Referring  to  Dr.  Cave,  he  informs  us,  that  '^  this 
"  Creed  was  never  seen  till  about  the  year  800,  near  400  years 
'^  after  the  death  of  Athanasius,''  (they  are  his  own  words,) 
"  nor  was  received  in  the  Church  till  so  very  late  as  about  the 
"  year  1000."  Yet  Cave  does  not  say,  was  never  seen^  (for  he 
himself  ascribes  it  to  Vigilius  Tapsensis,  of  the  fifth  century,) 
but  only  that  it  was  not  quoted  before  the  year  800,  or  nearly; 
which  yet  is  a  very  great  mistake.  What  the  learned  Doctor 
intended  by  saying  "  about  the  year  800,"  and  yet  only  ''  near 
'^  400  years  after  the  death  of  Athanasius,''  or^  as  he  elsewhere^ 
expresses  it,  '*'  above  300  years  after  the  death  of  Athanasius,'* 
I  do  not  understand ;  but  must  leave  to  those  that  can  compute 
the  distance  between  373  (the  latest  year  that  Athanasius  ii 
ever  supposed  to  have  lived)  and  the  year  800.  I  am  persuaded, 
the  Doctor  was  thinking,  that  if  Athanasius  had  lived  to  the 
year  400,  then  the  distance  had  been  just  400  years ;  but  as  he 
died  27  years  before,  the  distance  must  be  so  much  the  less^  when 
it  is  quite  the  contrary, 

1722.  The  last  man  that  has  given  his  sentiments  in  relation  to 
this  Creed  is  Casimirus  Oudinus,  in  his  new  edition  of  his  Supple- 
ment (now  called  a  Commentary)  to  the  Ecclesiastical  Writers. 
I  need  say  no  more  than  that  he  does  not  seem  to  have  spent 
much  pains  in  reexamining  this  subject,  but  rests  content  with  hb 
first  thoughts ;  ascribing  the  Creed,  with  Quesnel,  to  Vigilius 

These  are  the  principal  modems  that  have  fallen  within  my 
notice  :  and  of  these,  the  most  considerable  are  Vossius,  Usher, 

«  Bingham's  Antiq.  of theChristian  ^  Clarke's  Script.  Doctr.  p.  447. 

Church,  vol.  iii.  p.  546.  &c.  Oxf.  edit,  ist  edit. 

1855.  k  vid.    Oudin.    Commentar.    de 

*>  Clarke's  Script.  Doctr.  p.  379.  Script.  Eocl.  vol.  i.  p.  345, 1248, 1323. 
and  edit. 



^1,  Tentzelius,  Antelmius^  Tillemont,  Montfaucon,  Muratorius^  and 
ien;  as  having  particularly  studied  the  subject,  and  struck  new 
ito  it,  either  furnishing  fresh  materials,  or  improving  the  old  by  new 
ations.  Some  perhaps  may  wish  to  have  the  several  opinions  of 
>dems  thrown  into  a  narrower  compass :  for  which  reason  I  have 
it  it  not  improper  to  subjoin  the  following  table,  which  will  repre- 
11  in  one  view,  for  the  ease  and  conveniency  of  every  common 




Bishop  Usher. 

Bishop  Taylor. 



Leo  Allatins. 

Card.  Bona. 

Biahop  Pearson. 


Ptechas.  Qnesnel. 


Dr.  Cndworth. 


Wolt  Onndling. 

Dr.  Care. 

Dr.  Comber. 

Bishop  Bereridge. 





Ant.  Mnratorios. 
NataL  Alexander. 
Mr.  Bingham. 
Dr.  Clarke. 

Author  of  the  Creed, 

A  Latin  Author. 

I  What  Century 


Not  Athanasius. 
Not  Athanasius. 
Athanasius  Alex. 
A  Latin  Author. 
Not  Athanasius. 
Vigilius  Tapsensis. 
Athanasius  of  Spire. 
Not  Athanasius. 
Vigilius  Tapsensis. 
Vigilius  Tapsensis. 
Athanasius  Alex. 
Athanasius  Alex. 
A  Latin  Author. 
Vigilius  Tapsensis. 
Vigilius  Tapsensis. 
Vinoentius  Lirinens. 
Not  Athanasius. 
A  Oallican  Writer. 
Venant  Fortunatus. 
A  Latin  Author. 
Anastasius  1. 
Vigilius  Tapsensis. 
Vigilius  Tapsensis. 
Vigilius  Tapsensis. 




1  Vth. 


I  After  the  IVth. 





Vlth  or  sooner. 


IVth  or  Vth. 




What  Year 

Not  bef.  600. 
Before  447. 

Before  600. 


About  600. 

Before  642. 




Before  450. 


Before  401. 


Bef.  852. 


Bef.  670. 
Bef.  770. 


Bef.  850. 
Bef.  670. 


Bef.  670. 



Ancient  Tegtimanies. 

HAVING  taken  a  view  of  the  modems,  in  relation  to  the 
Creed^  we  may  now  enter  upon  a  detail  of  the  ancients,  and 
their  testimonies ;  by  which  the  modems  must  be  tried.  My 
design  is  to  lay  before  the  reader  all  the  oriffinal  evidence  I  can 
meet  with^  to  give  any  light  either  into  the  age  or  author  of  the 
Creeds  or  its  reception  in  the  Christian  churches;  that  so  the 
reader  may  be  able  to  judge  for  himself  concerning  the  three 
particulars  now  mentioned,  which  are  what  I  constantly  bear 
in  my  eye,  producing  nothing  but  with  a  view  to  one  or  more 
of  them. 

Ancient  testimonies  have  been  pretended  from  Gregory  Nazian- 
zen,  Gaudentius  Brixiensis,  St.  Austin^  and  Isidorus  Hispalensis, 
of  the  fourth,  fifths  and  sixth  centuries.  But  they  have  been 
since  generally  and  justly  exploded  by  the  learned,  as  being  either 
spurious  OT  foreign  to  the  point;  and  therefore  I  conceive  it  v«ry 
needless  to  take  any  further  notice  of  them.  As  to  quotations 
from  our  Creed,  or  comments  upon  it,  falling  within  the  compaas 
of  the  centuries  now  mentioned ;  if  there  be  any  such,  they  shall 
be  considered  under  other  heads,  distinct  from  that  of  andeiU 
testimonies,  properly  so  called,  to  be  treated  of  in  this  chapter. 

670.  The  oldest  of  this  kind,  hitherto  discovered,  or  observed, 
is  that  of  the  Council  of  Autun  in  France,  under  Leodegarius, 
or  St.  Leger,  the  Bishop  of  the  place  in  the  seventh  century, 
There  is  some  dispute  about  the  year  when  the  Councfl  was 
held,  whether  in  663,  or  666,  or  670.  The  last  is  most  probable, 
and  most  generally  embraced  by  learned  men.  The  words  of 
this  Council  in  English  nm  thus:  ''If  any  Presb3rt6r,  Deaoon, 
"  Subdeacon,  or  Clerk,  doth  not  unreprovably  recite  the  Greed 
"  which  the  Aposties  delivered  by  inspiration  of  the  Holy 
"  Ghost,  and  also  the  Faith  of  the  holy  Prelate  Athanasius,  let 
''  him  be  censured  by  the  Bishop^."  By  the  Faith  ofAthanasius 
is  here  meant  what  we  now  call  the  Athanasian  Creed ;  as  may 
be  reasonably  pleaded  from  the  titles  which  this  Creed  bore  in 

^  Si  quis  Presliyter,  Diaconus,  Sub-  Praesulis  irreprehensibiliter  non  i 

diaconusjVclClericusSymbolumquod  suerit;    ab    Episcopo   condemnetor. 

Sancto  inspirante  Spiritu  Apostoli  tra-  Augustodun.  Synod.  Harduin,  torn.  iiL 

diderunt,  et  Fidem  Sancti  Atbanasii  p.  1016. 


the  earlier  times,  before  it  came  to  have  the  name  of  a  Creed : 
which  titles  shall  be  exhibited  both  from  manuBcripts  and  ^Titten 
evidences  in  the  sequel.  Yet  it  must  not  be  dissembled  that 
Papebrochius,  a  learned  man,  and  whom  I  find  cited  with  appro- 
bation by  Muratorius°>^  is  of  opinion,  that  the  Faiti  of  AihanaMtis^ 
here  mentioned,  means  the  Nicene  Creed^  which  Athanasius  had 
some  hand  in,  and  whereof  he  was  the  great  defender.  I  can  by 
no  means  oome  into  his  opinion,  or  allow  any  force  to  his  reason- 
ings. He  asks,  why  should  the  Nicene  Creed  be  omitted,  and 
not  mentioned  with  the  Apostles'  I  And  why  should  the  Atha- 
nasian,  not  then  used  in  the  Sacred  Offices,  be  reconmiended  so 
carefully,  without  a  word  of  the  Nicene  J  I  answer,  because  it 
does  not  appear  that  the  Nicene  Creed  was  so  much  taken 
notice  of  at  that  time  in  the  GaUican  churches,  while  the  Apo- 
stolical, or  Roman  Creed,  made  use  of  in  baptism,  in  the  western 
churches,  instead  of  the  Nicene,  (which  prevailed  in  the  east,) 
in  a  manner  superseded  it:  which  no  one  can  wonder  at  who 
considers  how  prevailing  and  universal  the  tradition  had  been  in 
the  Latin  Church,  down  from  the  fifth  century  at  least,  that  the 
Apostolical  Creed  was  composed  by  the  twelve  Apostles,  and 
therefore  as  sacred,  and  of  as  great  authority  as  the  inspired 
writings  themselves.  Besides  that  it  appears  from  Hincmar, 
who  will  be  cited  in  his  place,  that  it  was  no  strange  thing,  even 
so  low  as  his  time,  about  850,  to  recommend  the  Athanasian 
Creed  along  with  the  Apostles^  mthout  a  word  of  the  Nicene. 
And  why  should  it  be  thought  any  objection  against  the  Atha- 
luudan  Creed,  that  it  was  not  at  that  time  received  into  the 
Sacred  Offices,  (supposing  it  really  was  not,  which  may  be 
questioned,)  when  it  is  certain  that  the  Nicene  was  not  yet 
received  into  the  Sacred  Offices  in  France,  nor  till  many  years 
after,  about  the  time  of  Pepin,  or  of  Charles  the  Great  ?  There 
18  therefore  no  force  at  all  in  the  argument  of  Papebrochius :  but 
there  is  this  strong  prejudice  against  it,  that  the  title  there  given 
is  a  Ycary  common  title  for  the  Athanasian  Creed,  and  not  for  the 

"^  Atqni,  at  eruditissime  adnota\'it  Apostolico  Symbolo  commendato  Ni- 

Q.  P.  Papebrochins,  in  Respona.  ad  caraum  pnetermisissent  Augustoda- 

Ezhibitiooein  Error,  par.  3.  art.  xiii.  nensea  Patres  ?  Cur  Athanasiani  Syin- 

n.  3.  verbis  iUia  Fidem  S.  Athanasii,  boli  cujus  tunc  nullus  erat  usus  in 

mininie  Svmbolum  Athanasium  desig-  aacris,  cognitionem  exegisaent,  Nicae- 

oaiAiir,  sea  quidem  Nicaenum,  in  quo  numque  ne  uno  quidem  verbo  comme- 

datonrndo  plnrimum  insodasse  Atna-  morassent?    Murator.  Anecdot,  torn. 

nasiuni  veristmile  est.     Etenim  cur  ii.  p.  333. 


Nicene.  Nor  would  the  Fathers  of  that  Council  have  been  bo 
extravagantly  fond  of  the  name  of  Athanasius^  as  to  think  it  a 
greater  commendation  of  the  Creed  of  Nice  to  call  it  after  him, 
than  to  call  it  the  Nicene.  There  is  then  no  reasonable  doubt  to 
be  made,  but  that  the  Council  of  Autun,  in  the  Canon,  intended 
the  Athanasian  Creed ;  as  the  best  critics  and  the  generality  of 
the  learned  have  hitherto  believed. 

But  there  are  other  objections  of  real  weight  against  the  evi- 
dence built  upon  this  Canon,  i .  Oudin  makes  it  a  question  whether 
there  was  ever  any  council  held  under  Leodegarius,  a  suffitigan 
Bishop  under  the  Archbishop  of  Lyons,  having  no  metropoliHcal 
authority  n.  But  it  may  suffice,  if  the  Council  was  held  at  Autun, 
while  he  was  Bishop  of  the  place,  a  good  reason  why  he  should 
be  particularly  mentioned ;  especially  considering  the  worth  and 
fame  of  the  man :  to  say  nothing  of  the  dignity  of  his  see,  which 
from  the  time  of  Gregory  the  Great  had  been  the  second,  or  next 
in  dignity  to  the  metropolitical  see  of  Lyons.  Nor  do  I  perceive 
any  force  in  Oudin*s  objection  against  St.  Leger'*s  holding  a  rft- 
ocemn  synod,  (for  a  provincial  synod  is  not  pretended,)  though 
he  was  no  metropolitan.  2.  A  stronger  objection  is,  that  the 
Canon  we  are  concerned  with  cannot  be  proved  to  belong  to  the 
Council  held  under  Leodegarius.  It  is  not  found  among  the 
Canons  of  that  Council  published  by  Sirmondus  from  the  manu- 
scripts of  the  library  of  the  church  of  Angers,  but  it  is  from 
another  collection,  out  of  the  library  of  the  monastery  of  St. 
Benignus  of  Dijon,  with  this  title  only;  Canones  Augustodu- 
nenses :  so  that  one  cannot  be  certain  whether  it  belongs  to  the 
Synod  under  St.  Leger,  or  to  some  other  Synod  of  Autun  much 
later.  It  must  be  owned  that  the  evidence  can  amount  to  no 
more  than  probable  presumption,  or  conjecture.  Wherefore 
Dupin^,  TentzeliusP,  Muratorius^,  and  Oudin',  do  not  scruple 
to  throw  it  aside  as  of  too  suspected  credit  to  build  any  thing 
certain  upon :  and  even  Quesnel"  expresses  some  dissatisfaction 
about  it ;  only  in  respect  to  some  great  names,  such  as  Sirmon- 
dus, Peter  le  Lande,  Godfr.  Hermantius,  &c.  he  is  willing  to 
acquiesce  in  it.     To  whom  we  may  add,  Labbe^  Le  Coinf*^ 

^  Oudin.  Comment,  de  Script.  £c-  '  Casim.  Oudin.  vol.  i.  p.  348. 

des.  torn.  i.  p.  348.  >  Quesnel,  Diseert.  xiv.  p.  731. 

^  Dupin,  Ecd.  Hist.  vol.  ii.  p.  35.  ^  Labb.  Dissert,  de  Sci^.  Eccl«. 

P  Tentzel.  Judic.  Erud.  p.  61,  &c.  tom.  ii.  p.  478. 

<i  Murator.  Anecdot.  Ambros.  tom.  °  Le  Coint,  Annal.  Franc,  ad  aim. 

ii.  p.  333.  663.  n.  33. 


Caba88utiu8%  Pagiy?  Tillemont^,  Montfauoon",  Fabriciusb, 
HarduinCy  and  our  learned  antiquary  Mr.  Bingham <l :  who  all 
accept  it  as  genuine,  but  upon  probable  persuasion,  rather  than 
certain  conviotion.  Neither  do  I  pretend  to  propose  it  as  clear 
and  undoubted  evidence,  but  probable  only,  and  such  as  will  be 
much  confirmed  by  other  evidences  to  be  mentioned  hereafter. 

760.  Regino,  abbot  of  Prom  in  Germany,  an  author  of  the 
ninth  and  tenth  century,  has,  among  other  collections,  some 
Articles  of  Inquiry,  supposed  by  Baluzius  the  editor  to  be  as 
dd,  or  very  nearly,  as  the  age  of  Boniface,  Bishop  of  Mentz, 
who  died  in  the  year  754.  In  those  Articles  there  is  one  to 
this  purpose :  ^^  Whether  the  clergy  have  by  heart  Athanasius's 
"  Tract  upon  the  Faith  of  the  Trinity,  beginning  with  Whosoever 
**  toiU  he  saved^y  &o"  This  testimony  I  may  venture  to  place 
about  760,  a  little  after  the  death  of  Boniface. 

794.  The  Council  of  Frankfort,  in  Oermany,  in  their  thirty- 
third  Canon  give  orders,  that  "  the  Catholic  Faith  of  the  holy 
"  Trinity,  and  Lord's  Prayer,  and  Creed,  be  set  forth  and 
"  delivered  to  aXV." 

VossiusS  understands  the  Canon  of  the  two  Creeds,  Nicene 
and  Apostolical.  But  I  know  not  why  the  Apostolical,  or 
Roman  Creed,  should  be  emphatically  called  Symbolum  Fidei^ 
2%e  Creed,  in  opposition  to  the  Nicene ;  nor  why  the  Nicene 
should  not  be  called  a  Creed^  as  well  as  the  other,  after  the  usual 
way.  Besides,  that  Fides  Catholica,  &c.  has  been  more  peculiarly 
the  title  of  the  Athanasian  Creed :  and  it  was  no  uncommon 
thing,  either  before  or  after  this  time,  to  recommend  it  in  this 
manner  together  with  the  Lord's  Prayer  and  Apostles'  Creed, 
just  as  we  find  here.  And  nothing  could  be  at  that  time  of 
greater  service  against  the  heresy  of  Felix  and  Elipandus,  (which 
occasioned  the  calling  of  the  Council,)  than  the  Athanasian 
Greed.    For  which  reasons,  till  I  see  better  reasons  to  the  con- 

^  Cabassnt.  Notit.  Eccl.  Dissert.  ®  Si  Sermonem  Athanasii  Episcopi 

xix.  p.  54.  de  Fide  Sanctse  Trinitatis,  cujus  im- 

T  Pagi  Crit.  in  Baron,  ann.  340.  tium  est,  Quicunque  vult  salvus  esse, 

D.  6.  memoriter  teneat.    Regin.  de  DiscipL 

*  TUlemont,  M^oires,    vol.  viii.  Eccles,  1. 1. 

p.  668.  f  Ut  Fides  Catholica  Sanctae  Tri- 

*  Mont&uc.  Diatrib.  p.  730.  nitatis,  et  Oratio  Dominica,  atque 
^  Fabric.  Bibl.  Graec.  vol.  v.  p.  316.  Symbolum  Fidei  omnibus  prssdicetur, 
^  Haidoin.  Concil.  tom.  iii.  p.  1016.  et  tradatur.  ConciL  Francf.  Can.  33. 
'  Binfffasro,  Origin.  Eccl.  vol.  iii.  «  Vossius  de  tribus  Symb.  Dissert. 

p.  548,  Oxf.  edit.  1855.  iii.  c.  52.  p.  528. 


trary,  I  must  be  of  opinion  that  the  Council  of  Frankfort  in 
their  thirty- third  Canon  intended  the  Athanasian  Creed,  which 
Charles  the  Great  had  a  particular  respect  for,  and  had  pre- 
sented in  form  to  Pope  Adrian  I.  above  twenty  years  before ;  as 
we  shall  see  in  another  chapter. 

809.  Theodulphus,  Bishop  of  Orleans  in  France,  has  a  Treatise 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  with  a  preface  to  Charles  the  Great,  written 
at  a  time  when  the  dispute  about  the  procession  began  to  make 
disturbance.  He  brings  several  testimonies  in  favour  of  the 
procession /roiw  tlie  Son,  out  of  Athanasius ;  and,  among  others, 
a  pretty  large  part  of  the  Athanasian  Creed,  from  the  words, 
"  The  Father  is  made  of  none,  &c.''  to  "  He  therefore  that  will 
"  be  saved  must  thus  think  of  the  Trinity*','^  inclusive. 

809.  An  anonymous  writer  of  the  same  time,  and  in  the  same 
cause,  and  directing  himself  to  the  same  Prince,  makes  the  like 
use  of  the  Athanasian  Creed,  in  the  following  words;  **  St. 
•*  Athanasius,  in  the  Exposition  of  the  Catholic  Faith,  which 
"  that  great  master  wrote  himself,  and  which  the  universal 
"  Church  professes,  declares  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
"  from  the  Father  and  Son,  thus  saying ;  The  Father  is  made  of 
"  n(me'\  &c."  This  I  cite  upon  the  credit  of  Sirmondus  in  his 
notes  to  Theodulphus. 

809.  It  was  in  the  same  year  that  the  Latin  monks  of  Mount 
Olivet  wrote  their  Apologetical  Letter  to  Pope  Leo  III.  justify- 
ing their  doctrine  of  the  procession  from  the  Son,  against  one 
John  of  Jerusalem,  a  monk  too,  of  another  monastery,  and  of 
an  opposite  persuasion.  Among  other  authorities,  they  appeal 
to  the  Faith  of  Athanasius,  that  is,  to  the  Creed,  as  we  now 
call  it.  This  I  have  from  Le  Quien,  the  learned  editor  of 
Damascen,  who  had  the  copy  of  that  letter  from  Baluzius,  as  he 
there  signifies^. 

820.  Not  long  after,  Hatto,  otherwise  called  Hetto  and  Ahyto, 

^  Item  idem Pater  a  nullo  est  Op.  tom.  ii.  p.  978.  Conf.  p.  967. 

factusy  &c.  usque  ad  Out  vuU  ergo        ^  In  Regula  Sancti  Benedicti  quam 

salvus  esse,  &c.      Theodulph.    ajmd  nobis   dedit  Filius  vester  Dominas 

Sirtnondum  Oper,  tom.  ii.  p.  978.  Karolus,  ()U8ehabet  fidem  scriptam  de 

i  Incertus  autor  <|uem  diximus,  hoc  sancta  et  inseparabiliTiinitate;  Credo 

ipso  utens  testimonio,  Beatus,  inquit,  Spiritum  Sanctum  Deum   vermm  er 

Athanasius,  in  fixpositione  Catholicse  Patre  procedentem  et  FUio :  et  in  Di&* 

Fidei,  quam  ipse  egregius  Doctor  con-  logo  quem  nobis  vestra  sanditas  dare 

scripsit,  et  quam  universalis  confitetur  dignata  est  similiter  dicit.   Et  in  Fide 

Ecclesia,  processionem  Spiritus  Sancti  S.  Athanasii  eodem  mode  dicit.    3fo- 

a  Patre  et  FUio  dedarat,  ita  dicens :  nachi  de  Monte  OJw.  eqmd  Le  Qmem, 

Pater  a  nullo  est  f actus,  &c.  Sirmond,  Dissert,  Damasc,  p.  7. 


Bishop  of  Basil  in  France,  composed  his  Capitular,  or  Book  of 
Constitutions,  for  the  regulation  of  the  clergy  of  his  diocese. 
Amongst  other  good  rules,  this  makes  the  fourth  ;  '^  That  they 
"  should  have  the  Faith  of  Athanasius  by  heart,  and  recite  it  at 
"  the  prime  (that  is,  at  seem  o'clock  in  the  morning)  every  Lord^s 

820.  Agobardus  of  the  same  time,  Archbishop  of  Lyons,  wrote 
against  Felix  Orgelitanus ;  where  he  occasionally  cites  part  of 
the  Athanasian  Creed.  His  words  are :  ''  St.  Athanasius  says, 
*'  that  except  a  man  doth  keep  the  Catholic  faith  whole  and  un- 
^'  defiled^  tcithotU  doubt  he  shall  perish  everlastingly  °^," 

852.  In  the  same  age  flourished  the  famous  Hincmar,  Arch- 
bishop of  Rheims ;  who  so  often  cites  or  refers  to  the  Creed  we 
are  speaking  of,  as  a  standing  rule  of  faith,  that  it  may  be  need- 
less to  produce  the  particular  passages.  I  shall  content  myself 
with  one  only,  more  considerable  than  the  rest  for  the  use  that 
is  to  be  made  of  it  hereafter.  He  directs  his  presbyters  "  to 
*'  learn  Athanasius'^s  Treatise  of  Faith,  (beginning  with  Whoso- 
**  ever  toill  be  saved,)  to  commit  it  to  memory,  to  understand  its 
*'  meaning,  and  to  be  able  to  give  it  in  common  words";"  that 
is,  I  suppose,  in  the  vulgar  tongue.  He  at  the  same  time  recom- 
mends the  Lord's  Prayer  and  (Apostles')  Creed<>,  as  I  take  it, 
without  mentioning  the  Nicene  :  which  I  particularly  remark, 
for  a  reason  to  be  seen  above.  It  is  further  observable,  that 
though  Hincmar  here  gives  the  Athanasian  formulary  the  name 
of  a  Treatise  of  Faith;  yet  he  elsewhere P  scruples  not  to  call 
it  (Symbolum)  a  Creed :  and  he  is,  probably,  as  Sirmondus  ob- 
serves'i,  the  first  writer  who  gave  it  the  name  it  bears  at  this 
day.     Which,  I  suppose,  may  have  led  Oudin  into  his  mistake, 

1  IVto.  Ut  Fides  Sancti  Athanasii  tiones  regulariter,  et  ex  corde,  cum 

a  sacerdotibos  discatur,  et  ex  corde,  canticis  consuetudiDariis  pronuntiare 

die  DomiDico  ad  primam  recitetur.  sciat.     Necnon  et  Sermonem  Atha- 

BasU.  Capitvl,  apud  Hardidn.  torn.  iv.  nasii  de  Fide,  cujus  initium  est,  Qut- 

p.  1 24 1 .  cunque  vult  salvus  esse,  memoriae  quis- 

^  Beatus  Athanasius  ait ;    Fidem  (]ue  commendet,  sensum  ilUus  intel- 

Catfaolicam  nisi  quis  integram,  invio-  ligat,  et  verbis  communibus  enuntiare 

latamque  servaverit,  absque  dubio  in  queat.  Hincm,  Capit.  i.  tom.  i.  p.  710. 

cternom  peribit.  Agobara,  adv.  Felic.  ed.  Sirmond. 

cap.  ^.  ed.  Baluz.  ^  Vid.  Hincm.  Opusc.  ad  Hincmar. 

»  Unuaqmsque  presbyteronim  Ex-  Laudunensem,  tom.  ii.  p.  473. 

positionem  Symboli  at^ue  Orationis  p  Athanasius  in  Symboio  dicens 

Dominican,  joxta  traditionem  ortho-  &c.  de  Piaedestin.  tom.  i.  p.  309. 

doxonim  patrum  plenius  discat *i  Sirmond.  Not.  in  Theodulph.  p. 

Psalmonun  etiam  verba,  et  distinc-  978. 


that  no  writer  before  ffinemar  ever  made  mention  of  this  Creed  ^ ; 
a  mistake,  which,  though  taken  notice  of  by  Tentzelius*  in  the 
year  1687,  he  has  nevertheless  again  and  again  repeated  in  his 
last  edition. 

865.  In  the  same  age  lived  Anscharius,  monk  also  of  Gorbey^ 
and  afterwards  Archbishop  of  Hamburgh  and  Bremen  in  Germany. 
Among  his  dying  instructions  to  his  clergy,  he  left  this  for  one ; 
that  they  should  be  careful  to  recite  the  Catholic  Faith  com- 
posed by  Athanasius^.  This  is  reported  by  Bembertus,  the 
writer  of  his  Life,  and  successor  to  him  in  the  same  see ;  who 
had  been  likewise  monk  of  Corbey :  so  that  we  have  here  two 
considerable  testimonies  in  one. 

868.  Contemporary  with  these  was  iEneas,  Bishop  of  Paris, 
who,  in  his  treatise  against  the  Greeks,  quotes  the  Athanasian 
Creed  under  the  name  of  Fides  Catholica",  Catholic  Faith,  pro- 
ducing the  same  paragraph  of  it  which  Theodulphus  had  done 
sixty  years  before. 

868.  About  the  same  time,  and  in  the  same  cause,  Batram,  or 
Bertram,  monk  of  Corbey  in  France,  made  the  like  use  of  this 
Creed,  calling  it,  a  Treatise  of  the  Faith*. 

871.  Adalbertus  of  this  time,  upon  his  nomination  to  a  bishop- 
ric in  the  province  of  Bheims,  was  obliged  to  give  in  a  profession 
of  his  faith  to  Archbishop  Hincmar.  Among  other  things,  he 
professes  his  great  regard  to  the  Athanasian  Creed^  (Sermo 
Athanasii,)  as  a  Creed  received  with  great  veneration  by  the  Caiho- 
Ue  Churchy  or  being  of  customary  and  venerable  vae  in  it7.  This 
testimony  is  considerable  in  regard  to  the  reception  of  this  Creed ; 
and  not  before  taken  notice  of^  so  far  as  I  know,  by  those  that 
have  treated  of  this  argument. 

^  Oudin,  Commentar.  vol .  i.  p.  345»  Episcopus,  in  libello  de  Fide  quem  edi- 

1322.  dit,  et  omnibus  Catholicis  proposoit 

B  Tentzel.  Judic.  Eruditor.  p.  144.  tenendum,  inter  caetera  sic  ait ;  Pater 

*  Cum  instaret  obitus,  pnecepit  ut  a  nuUo  est  foetus,  nee  creatta,  nee  ^ 

fratres  canerent  Fidem  Catholicam  a  nitus,  &c.     Ratr,  contra  GrtBCor.  op* 

beato  Atbanasio  compositam.  Anschar.  pos,  lib.  ii.  cap.  3. 

Vit,  apud  Petr.  Lamhec.  in  Append,  r    In    Sermone    Beati   Athanaan, 

lib.  i.  Rerum  Hamburg,  p.  237.  quem  Ecclesia  Catholica  venerando 

^  Sanctus  Athanasius,  sedis  Alex-  usu  frequentare  consuevit,  qui  ita  in- 

andrinse    Episcopus,   &c. Item,  cipit ;  Quicunque  vuit  sakms  esse,  ante 

idem  in  Rde  Catnolica,  quod  Spiritus  omnia  opus  est  ut  teneat  CatkoMeam 

Sanctus  a  Patre  procedat  et  Filio,  Jidem.     Profesdo  Adalbert!  Epiacopi 

Pater  a  nuUo  est  f actus,  &c.    yEneas  Morinensis  futuri.    Hardmn.  Coned. 

Paris,  adv.  Grac.  cap.  19.  tom.  v.  p.  1445. 

'  Beatus  Athanasius,  Alexandrinus 


889.  This  Creed  is  again  mentioned  in  the  same  ago  by  Ricul- 
pbus  Bishop  of  Soissons  in  France^  in  his  pastoral  charge  to  the 
clergy  of  his  diocese.  He  calls  it  a  Treatise  (or  Discourse)  of 
Catholic  Faith*.  This  I  take  from  Father  Harduin's  Councils, 
as  also  the  foimer,  with  the  dates  of  both. 

960.  Ratherius,  Bishop  of  Verona,  in  Italy  in  the  year  928,  and 
afterwards  of  Liege  in  Germany  in  the  year  953,  and  restored 
to  his  see  of  Verona  in  the  year  955,  did  after  this  time  write 
instructions  to  his  clergy  of  Verona ;  in  which  he  makes  men- 
tion of  all  the  three  Creeds,  Apostolical,  Nicene,  and  Athanasian ; 
obliging  his  clergy  to  have  them  all  by  heart :  which  shews  that 
they  were  all  of  standing  use  in  his  time,  in  his  diocese  at 

997.  Near  the  close  of  this  century  lived  Abbo,  or  Albo, 
Abbot  of  Fleury,  or  St.  Benedict  upon  the  Loire  in  France. 
Upon  some  difference  he  had  with  Amulphus  Bishop  of  Orleans, 
he  wrote  an  Apology,  which  he  addressed  to  the  two  kings  of 
France,  Hugh  and  Robert.  In  that  Apology  he  has  a  passage 
relating  to  our  purpose,  running  thus :  ^^  I  thought  proper,  in 
"  the  first  place,  to  speak  concerning  the  Faith  :  which  I  have 
**  beard  variously  sung  in  alternate  choirs,  both  in  France  and 
"  in  the  Church  of  England.  For  some,  I  think,  say,  in  the 
'*  Athanasian  form,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  of  the  Father  and  of  the 
**  8on^  neither  made^  nor  created,  Imt  proceeding :  who  while  they 
*'  leave  out,  nor  begotten^  are  persuaded  that  they  are  the  more 
"  conformable  to  6regory''s  Synodical  Epistle,  wherein  it  is 
*'  written,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  neither  unbegotten,  nor  begotten^ 
**  but  proceeding^,''    I  have  taken  the  Hberty  of  throwing  in  a 

'  Item  monemus,  ut  unusquisque  scopi  de  Fide  Trinitatis,  cujus  initium 
Testrum  Psalmos,  et  Sermonem  Fidei  est,  Quicunque  vult,  memoriter  teneat. 
Catholicae,  cujus  initium,  Quicunque  Ratherii  Synod,  Epist.  Harduin.  Con. 
vuU  sahms  esse,  et  Canonem  MisssB,  tom.  vi.  p.  787. 
et  cantum,  vel  compotum,  memoriter,  ^  Primitus  de  Fide  dicendum  Gre- 
et Tcraciter  et  correcte  tenere  studeat.  didi ;  quam  altemantibus  choris  et  in 
Riculf.  Const.  5.  Harduin.  ConciL  Francia,  et  apud  Anglorum  Ecclesiam 
torn.  vi.  p.  415.  variari  audivi.    Alii  enim  dicunt,  ut 

*  Ipsam  Fidem,  id  est  Credulitatem,  arbitror,  secundum  Athanasium,  Spi- 

Da,  trifarie  parare  memoriter  festi-  ritus  Sanctw  a  Patre  et  FUio  nonfac- 

netis :   hoc  est,  secundum  Symbolum  tus,  non  creatus,  sed  procedens :   qui 

id  est  CoUaUonem  Apostolorum,  sicut  dum  id  quod  est  non  genitus  subtra- 

in  Psalteriis  oorrectis  invenitur ;  et  hunt,  Synodicum  Domini  Gregorii  se 

iUam  que  ad  Missam  canitur;  et  il-  sequi  credunt,  ubi  ita  est  scnptum; 

lam  Sancti  Athanasii  quae  ita  incipit ;  Spiritus  Sanctus  nee  ingenitus  est,  nee 

Qmetmque  vult  sahus  esse Sermo-  genitus,  sed  procedens.    Abbo  Ftoria- 

ut  raperioB  dixi,  Athanasii  Epi-  cens.  Apol.  ad  Francor.  Reges. 


word  or  two  to  make  the  sentence  run  the  clearer.  What  the 
author  intends  is,  that  some  scrupulous  persons^  both  in  France 
and  England,  recited  the  Athanasian  Greed  with  some  alteration, 
leaving  out  two  words,  to  make  it  agree  the  better,  as  they  ima- 
gined, with  Gregory's  Synodical  instructions.  As  to  their  scruple 
herein,  and  the  ground  of  it,  I  shall  say  more  of  it  in  a  proper 
place.  All  I  am  to  observe  at  present  is,  that  this  testimony  is 
iiill  for  the  custom  of  alternate  singing  the  Athanasian  Creed, 
at  this  time^  in  the  French  and  English  Churches.  And  indeed  we 
shall  meet  with  other  as  full,  and  withal  earlier  evidence  of  the 
same  custom,  when  we  come  to  treat  of  manuscripts  in  the  fol- 
lowing chapters.     To  proceed  with  our  ancient  testimonies. 

1047.  1°  ^'^  ^®^^  century,  we  meet  with  Gualdo,  a  monk  of 
Gorbey ;  who  likewise  wrote  the  life  of  Anscharius,  but  in  verse^ 
as  Bembei*tus  had  before  done  in  prose.  He  also  takes  some 
notice  of  our  Creed,  ascribing  it  to  Athanasius^. 

1130.  In  the  century  following,  Honorius,  a  scholastic  divine 
of  the  Church  of  Autun,  in  his  book  entitled,  The  Pearl  of  the 
Soul,  (which  treats  of  the  Sacred  or  Liturgic  Offices,)  reckons 
up  the  several  Creeds  of  the  Church,  making  in  all /our ;  namely, 
the  Apostolical,  the  Nicene,  the  Constantinopolitan,  and  the 
Athanasian.  Of  the  last,  he  observes,  that  it  was  daily  repeated 
at  ihQ  prime^.  He  ascribes  it  to  Athanasius  of  Alexandria  in 
the  time  of  Theodosius :  where  he  is  undoubtedly  mistaken  in 
his  chronology.  For,  if  he  means  the  first  Athanasius  of  Alex- 
andria, he  is  too  early  for  either  of  the  Theodosius's ;  and  if  he 
means  it  of  the  second,  he  is  as  much  too  late.  But  a  slip  in 
chronology  might  be  pardonable  in  that  age :  nor  does  it  at  all 
affect  the  truth  of  what  he  attests  of  his  own  times. 

1 146.  Otho,  Bishop  of  Frisinghen  in  Bavaria,  may  here  be 
taken  notice  of,  as  being  the  first  we  have  met  with  who  pretends 
to  name  the  place  where  Athanasius  is  supposed  to  have  made 
this  Creed  ;  Triers,  or  Treves,  in  Germany ®.  It  is  no  improba- 
ble conjecture  of  M.  Antelmi,  that  the  copy  of  the  Creed  found 
at  Treves,  being  very  ancient,  or  the  most  ancient  of  any,  and 

^  Catholicamaue  Fidem  quam  com-  Honor,  Augustod,  Gemm.  Animm,  lib.ii. 

posuisse  beatus  cap.  5.  Bibl.  PP.  torn.  xz.  p.  1086. 

Fertur  Athanasius Gnal-  «  Ibidem  manens  in  Ecdema  Tre- 

don,  Vit,  Ansch.  apud  Lambec,  p.  322.  virorum  sub  Mazimino  ejusdem  £c» 

^  Quarto,   Fidem  Qtdcunque  vult,  clesise  Episcopo,  Quicifiij^  trntt,  &c. 

quotidie  Sidprimam  iterat,  quam  Atha-  a  (juibusdam  dicitur  edidiwe.    Oik, 

nasius  Alexandrinus  Episcopus,  ro-  Frtsing,  Chronic,  lib.  iv.  cap.  7.  p.  44. 

gatu  Theodosii    Imperatoris,  edidit.  al.  p.  75. 


from  which  many  others  were  taken,  might  first  occasion  the 
story  of  the  Creed's  being  made  at  Treves^  and  by  Athanasius 
himself^  who  by  his  exile  thither  might  render  that  place  famous 
for  his  name  to  all  after-ages. 

1171.  Amoldus,  in  his  Chronicle^  informs  us  of  an  abbot  of 
Brunswick,  who  attending  the  Duke  of  Brunswick,  at  this  time, 
in  his  journey  into  the  east,  had  some  disputes  with  the  Greeks 
at  Constantinople,  upon  the  article  oi procession^  and  pleaded  the 
usual  passage  out  of  this  Creed ;  whose  words  are  to  be  seen  in 
the  margin  ^  What  is  most  to  be  noted  is  the  title  of  Symbolum 
Fidei,  which  now  began  to  be  common  to  this  form,  as  to  the 
other  Creeds. 

1 178.  Bobertus  Paululus,  Presbyter  of  Amiens,  in  the  diocese 
of  lUieims,  speaking  of  the  Offices  recited  at  the  prime,  observes 
that  the  piety  of  good  Christians  had  thereunto  added  the 
*^  Qmcunque  vuU^  that  the  articles  necessary  to  salvation  might 
"  never  be  forgotten  any  hour  of  the  day  P." 

1 190.  Beleth,  a  celebrated  Paris  divine,  is  the  oldest  writer 
that  takes  notice  of  this  Creed's  being  commonly  ascribed  to 
Anastasius;  though  he  himself  ascribes  it  to  Athanasius^. 
Tentzeliusi  marks  some  differences  between  the  prints  and  the 
manuscripts  of  this  author,  and  betwixt  one  manuscript  and 
another.  But  as  the  difference,  though  in  wards  considerable,  is 
yet  very  little  in  the  sensey  it  is  not  material  to  our  present  pur- 
pose to  be  more  particular  about  it. 

I200.  I  must  not  omit  Nicolaus  Hydruntinus,  a  native  of 
Otranto  in  Italy,  who  sided  with  the  Greeks,  and  wrote  in  Greek 
against  the  Latins.  He  understood  both  languages,  and  was 
often  interpreter  between  the  Greeks  and  Latins,  in  their  disputes 
at  Constantinople,  Athens^  and  Thessalonica^.    He  wrote  several 

'  Unde  Athanasius  in  Symbolo  Fi-  bola ;  minimum  quod  a  cunctis  com- 

dei :  Spiritus  Sanctus  a  Patre  et  Filio  muniter  in  quotidiana  oratione  dici- 

non  fiictUB,  nee  oreatus,  nee  genitus,  tur,  quod  Apostoli  simul  composue- 

sed  procedens.    Ecce  Spiritum  Sane-  runt.     Secundum  est  quod  in  prima 

torn  a  P^itre  didt  proceaere  et  a  Filio.  recitatur,  Qtaicunque  tmU  salvus  esse  : 

Hemic,  Abb,  apud   Arnold,    Chron,  quod  ab  Athanasio  Patriarcha  Alex- 

Slavcr,  lib.  iii.  cap.  5.  p.  248.  andrino    contra    Arrianos    haereticos 

ff  His  addiditfideliumdevotio.  Out-  compositum  est,  licet  plerique  eum 

ewi^iitf  nc^  «alrttf  eMe,  ut  Articulonun  Anastasium  fuisse  falso  arbitrentur. 

Kdd  qui  sunt  necessarii  ad  salutem,  Beleth,  de  Divin,  Ofic.  cap.  xl.  p.  334. 

nulla  diei  hora  obliviscamur.    Rob,  ed.  Venet. 

Pmbd.  inter  Oper,  Hugon,  de  S,  Vic-        *  Tentzel.  Judicia  Erudit.  p.  91. 
tor.  de  Ofic.  Eccl,  lib.  ii.  cap.  i.  p.        ^  Vid.  Fabric.  Bibl.  Gr«c.  vol.  x. 

^5'  P-  393- 
^  Notandum  est  quatuor  esse  Sym- 


tracts,  out  of  which  Leo  Allatius  has  published  some  fragments. 
There  is  one  relating  to  the  Athanasian  Greedy  which  must  here 
be  taken  notice  of ;  being  of  use  for  the  certifying  us  that  this 
Creed  was  extant  in  Greek  at  and  before  his  time.  It  is  this : 
"  They  (the  Greeks)  do  not  know  who  made  the  addition  to  the 
"  Faith  of  Athanasius,  styled  Catholic ;  since  the  words,  and  of 
"  the  Son^  are  not  in  the  Greek  {form,)  nor  in  the  Creed^  (of 

From  this  passage  we  may  learn^  that  there  was  a  Greek  copy 
of  the  Athanasian  Creed  at  this  time ;  that  it  wanted  the  words, 
of  the  Son;  that  it  was  looked  upon  as  Athanasius's ;  and  that 
the  title  was.  The  Catholic  Faith  of  St.  Athanasius :  which  is 
its  most  usual  title  in  the  Latin  copies.  I  may  just  hint  to  the 
reader,  that  though  both  ttI/ttis  in  the  Greek,  and  Jides  in  the 
Latin,  might  justly  be  rendered  creed  in  English,  rather  than 
faith,  whenever  it  stands  for  a  formulary  or  confession  of  faith, 
as  it  does  here ;  yet  because  I  should  otherwise  want  another 
English  word  for  (rvfiPoKov  in  the  Greek,  and  symbolum  in  the 
Latin,  I  therefore  reserve  the  word  creeds  in  this  case,  for  dis- 
tinction sake,  to  be  the  rendering  of  symbolum^  or  avfiPoXov,  and 
nothing  else.     But  to  proceed. 

1  !Z30.  Alexander  of  Hales,  in  Gloucestershire,  may  here  deserve 
to  be  mentioned,  as  shewing  what  Creeds  were  then  received  In 
England.  He  reckons  up  three  only,  not  four,  (as  those  that 
make  the  Nicene  and  Constantinopolitan  to  be  two ;)  namely, 
the  Apostles',  the  Nicene  or  Constantinopolitan,  and  the  Atha- 
nasian™ :  where  we  may  observe,  that  the  Athanasian  has  the 
name  of  a  Creed,  which  yet  was  not  its  most  usual  or  conmion 
title  in  those  times  :  only  the  Schoolmen,  for  order  and  method 
sake,  chose  to  throw  it  under  the  head  of  Creeds. 

1233.  I  am  next  to  take  notice  of  the  famed  legates  of  Pope 
Gregory  the  IXth,  (Haymo,  Radolphus,  Petrus,  and  Hugo^) 
who  produced  this  Creed  in  their  conferences  with  the  G^reeks  at 
Constantinople.  They  asserted  it  to  be  Athanasius's,  and  made 
by  him  while  an  exile  in  the  western  parts,  and  penned  in  the 

1  "On  Koi  avToi  ayvoovtri,  t\s  6  npotr-  Occident. &c.  lib. iii.  cap.  I .  n.  5.  j). 887. 

Orjaas  (V  rfi  mora  rov  ayiov  *A6ava'  ™  Tria    sunt    Symbola:    primum 

a-lov,  Tj  KaBoXiKTJ  XtyofUvif,  a>s  (V  r^  Apostolorum,  secundum  patrum  Ni- 

fWrfuiKa  ovxi  rovro,  ontp  itrri  koi  (k  caenonim,  quod  canitur  in  Missa,  ter- 

Tov  viov,  ir(pi€x€Taif  oCt€  iv  r^  trvp.-  tium  Athanasii.    Alexand,  Alems,  pur. 

/3oX^.    Leo  AUat.  de  Consens.  EccL  iii.  q.  69.  membr.  5. 


Latin  tongae".  They  had  not  assurance  enough  to  pretend  that 
it  was  a  Greek  composition  :  there  were  too  many  and  too  plain 
reasons  to  the  contrary. 

1 240.  In  this  age,  Walter  de  Cantilupe,  Bishop  of  Worcester, 
in  his  Synodical  Constitutions,  exhorts  his  clergy  to  make  them- 
selves competent  masters  of  the  Psalm  called  Quictmque  vult^ 
and  of  the  greater  and  smaller  Creed,  (that  is,  Nioene  and  Apo- 
stolical,) that  they  might  be  able  to  instruct  their  people  «>. 
From  whence  we  may  observe^  that  at  this  time  the  Athanasian 
formulary  was  distinguished,  here  amongst  us,  from  the  Creeds 
property  so  called;  being  named  a  Psalm,  and  sometimes  a 
Hymn,  (as  we  shall  see  from  other  evidences  to  be  produced 
hereafter,)  suitably  to  the  place  it  held  in  the  Psalters  among 
the  other  Hymns,  Psalms,  and  Canticles  of  the  Church,  being 
also  sung  aUemaiely  in  churches,  like  the  other. 

1 250.  We  may  here  also  take  notice  of  a  just  remark  made 
by  Thomas  Aquinas  of  this  century ;  that  Athanasius,  whom  he 
supposes  the  author  of  this  formulary,  did  not  draw  it  up  in  the 
way  of  a  Creed,  but  in  a  doctrinal  form ;  which  however  was 
admitted  by  the  authority  of  the  Roman  see,  as  containing  a 
complete  system  of  Christian  faith  P. 

*255-  Walter  de  Kirkham,  Bishop  of  Durham,  in  his  Con- 
stitutions, about  this  time,  makes  much  the  same  order  that 
Walter  Cantilupe  had  before  done,  styling  the  Creed  a  Psalm 
also  as  usual^. 

1 286.  Johannes  Januensis,  sometimes  styled  Johannes  Balbus, 
makes  mention  of  this  Creed  in  his  Dictionary,  or  Catholicon, 
under  the  word  symbolum.     He  reckons  up  three  Creeds,  and  in 

■  *0  &ytot  ^ABawdiriot  oray  tV  roir  feitationem  fidei  per  modum  Symboli, 

§Mptai  Toit  ^vTiKoit  ffopuTTos  ^v,  ffV  T^  86(1  magis  per  modum  cujusdam  doc- 

itSiiT€i  r$f  nitrrtiav,  ^v  rois  AarivucoU  trinse :  8ed  quia  integram  6dei  verita- 

' '       '4  Ufaafilnia-€y,  ovras  tffn)'  'O  ira-  tem  ejus  doctrina  breviter  continebat. 

n^  or  ovdcyof  cort,  &c.  Definit.  Apo-  auctoritate  summi  Pontificis  est  re 

erif .  Greg,  IX,  Hardwn,  tom.  vii.  p.  cepta,  ut  quasi  fidei  regula  habeatur. 

157.  Thorn,  Aqu.  Secund,  Secundm  qu.  i. 

^  Habeat  etiam  saltern  quilibet  eo-  art.  lo.  n.  3. 
mm  timpUcem  intellectum,  secundum        4  Habeat  quoque  unusquisque  eo- 

oood  continetor  in  Psalmo  qui  dicitur,  rum  simplicem  intellectum  fidei,  sicut 

Wietm^iie  vuU,  et  tarn  in  majori  quam  in  Svmbolo  tam  majori  quam  minori ; 

' ' — '  SffmMo,  ut  in  his  plebem  quod  est  in  psalmo,  Quicunque  vuU, 

nbi  oommistam  noverint  informare.  et  etiam  Creido  in  Deum,  expressius 

WaUer  Wigom,   Const,  apud  Spebn.  continentnr.    Spelm,  Cone,  vol.  ii.  p. 

Comeil,  vol.  ii.  p.  346.  394. 
9  Athanaotis  non  compoeuit  manu 




this  order,  Apostles',  Nicene^  and  Athanasian.  The  name  he 
gives  to  the  last  is  Symbolum  Athanasii,  thrice  repeated'. 

1287.  In  a  Synod  of  Exeter,  in  this  century  also,  we  have 
mention  again  made  of  the  Athanasian  Greed,  under  the  name 
of  a  Psalm^  and  as  such  distinguished  from  the  two  Creeds"  pro- 
perly so  called :  though  the  name  of  Psalm  was  also  sometimes 
given  to  the  Creeds  and  to  the  Lord's  Prayer^  likewise,  since 
those  also  were  sung  in  the  Church. 

1286.  William  Durante,  or  Durandus,  the  elder,  Bishop  of 
Menda  in  France,  recounting  the  Creeds^  makes  their  number 
three;  mentioning  the  Athanasian  in  the  second  place,  between 
the  Apostles^  and  Nicene.  He  follows  the  same  tradition  which 
Otho  Frisingensis  did  before,  that  this  Creed  was  made  at 
Triers,  or  Treves".  It  is  scarce  worth  noting  that  some  copies 
here  read  Anastasius,  since  the  circumstances  plainly  shew  that 
Athanasius  is  the  man  intended,  and  that  Anastasius  can  be 
nothing  else  but  a  corrupt  reading. 

1330.  Ludolphus  Saxo,  the  Carthusian,  numbers  three  Creeds, 
with  very  brief,  but  good  hinto  of  their  uses  respectively :  the 
Apostles^  useful  for  a  short  compendious  inetruetian  in  thefiuth ; 
the  Nicene,  for  fuller  explication ;  and  the  Athanasian,  for  guard 
or  defence^  against  heresies. 

'  Tria  sunt  Symbola;  scilicet  Apo- 
stolorum,  quod  dicitur  in  matutinis,  in 
prima,  et  in  completorio  :  item  Nicse- 
num,  quod  dicitur  in  diebus  Domi- 
nids  post  Evangelium:  item  Atha- 
nasii, quod  dicitar  in  prima  in  Domi- 

nibis  diebus  alta  voce. Symbolum 

autem  Athanasii  quod  contra  bsereti- 
cos  editum  est,  \n  prima  dicitur,  quasi 

jam  pulsis  haereticorum  tenebris. 

Ad  id  editum  est  Symbolum  Atha- 
nasii quod  specialiter  contra  haereticos 
86  oppOKuit.  Johan.  Januens,  in  voce 

*  Articulorum  Fidei  Christianorum 
saltem  simplicem  habeant  intellectum, 
prout  in  Psalmo,  Quicunque  tnUt,  et  in 
utroque  Symbolo  continentur.  Synod. 
Exon.  SpeUn,  Cone.  vol.  ii.  p.  370. 

«  In  a  MS.  of  Trinity  College, 
(called  Rythmus  AngKcus,)  written 
about  1 180,  ia  a  copy  of  the  Apostles' 
Creed,  and  another  of  the  Lord*s 
Prayer,  with  these  titles:  The  Salm 
the  Me  Clepeth  Crede :  The  Salm  that 

is  cleped  pr  nr.  This  manner  of  speak- 
ing seems  to  have  been  borrowed  from 
the  Germans :  for  Otfridus,  at  is  ob- 
served by  Lambecius,  gives  the  name 
of  a  Psalm  to  the  Apostles'  Creed. 
Lambec.  Catal.  vol.  ii.  p.  760. 

u  Nota,  quod  triplex  est  Symbolum. 
Primum  est  Symbolum  Apostolonmi, 
quod  vocatur  Symbolum  minue 
Secundum  Syml>olum  est,  Qmammte 
vuU  salvus  esse,  &c.  ab  Athanasio,  n- 
triarcha  Alexandrino,  in  dvitate  TVe- 

viri  compositum ^Tertium  est  Ni- 

csenum  quod ^vocatur   Symbobm 

majus.  ChiL  Dvrant,  Rational.  Dkm. 
Ofic.  lib.  iv.  cap.  25. 

*■  Tria  sunt  Symbola:  primun 
Apostolorum ;  secundum,  Nicwni 
Concilii;  tertiam,  Athanaaii.  Pri- 
mum, factum  est  ad  fidei  inetnetith 
nem.  Secundum,  ad  fidei  eKj^tmm' 
tionem.  Tertium,  ad  fidei  dmtuio^ 
nem.  Ludolph.  Sax.  de  Vit.  Ckridi, 
cap.  Ixxxiii.  p.  733. 


'337*  William  of  Baldensal,  or  Boldesale,  a  German  knight, 
ought  here  to  be  mentioned ;  as  being  the  first  writer  extant 
that  ascribes  the  Creed  to  Eusebius  (of  Veroeil  in  Piedmont) 
along  with  Athanasius.  The  reason,  I  presume^  was,  the  better 
to  account  for  the  Creed's  being  originally  Latin.  BaldensaFs 
treatise,  being  the  History  of  Piedmont^  wherein  he  makes  the 
remark,  is  not  yet  published,  I  suppose:  but  Cardinal  Bona 
informs  us  that  the  manuscript  was,  in  his  time,  in  the  library  of 
the  Duke  of  Savoy  at  Turin  x. 

X360.  Manuel  Caleca,  a  Latinizing  Greek,  wrote  a  treatise 
upon  the  Principles  of  the  Catholic  Faith,  published  by  Combefis, 
in  his  new  Auctarium  to  the  Bibliotheca  Patrum,  tome  the 
second,  where  we  find  some  passages  to  our  present  purpose ; 
particularly  this,  that  Caleca  ascribes  the  Creed  to  Athanasius, 
and  supposes  it  to  have  been  presented  by  him  to  Pope  Julius^. 
I  know  not  whether  he  be  not  the  first  writer  that  mentions 
that  circumstance,  nor  whether  he  reports  it  from  others,  or 
from  his  own  invention. 

1360.  About  the  same  time  Johannes  Cyparissiota,  surnamed 
ike  Wi$g,  wrote  his  Decads,  which  are  published  in  Latin,  in  the 
Bibliotheques,  of  Turrianus^s  version.  What  we  are  to  observe 
from  him  is,  that  he  cites  this  Creed  in  the  name  of  Athanasius, 
and  as  if  it  were  made  at  the  Council  of  Nice^.  It  seems,  after 
it  once  passed  current  that  Athanasius  was  the  author,  there 
was  great  variety  of  conjectures  about  the  place  where,  and  the 
tame  when^  he  composed  or  presented  this  Creed. 

1439.  I  shall  mention  but  one  more,  as  late  as  the  Council  of 
Florence,  or  a  little  later;  and  that  is  Johannes  (afterwards 
Josephus)  Plusiadenus,  a  Latinizing  Greek,  who  wrote  a  Dialogue 
in  Defence  of  the  Latins.  What  is  observable  in  him  is,  that 
he  makes  the  Creed  to  have  been  presented  by  Athanasius  to 
Pope  Liberius,  instead  of  Julius^. 

f  Id  hoc  antem  Symbolo,  sive  com-  ^ABavdatos  rV  rfj  npos  *lov\iov  ircmav 

ponendo,  sive  e  Grseco  in  Latinum  *Pa>firis  r^r  irlarems  6fi6\oyia  npo<r€Brj- 

tradocendo,  adjutorem  fuisse  Athana-  mv.    Manuel  Cake,  de  Fid,   c.  10. 

■10  Euaebiuiii,  Vercellensem  Episco-  Confer   eund.    contr.   Grsec.  lib.  ii. 

niiiny  refert  GuUelmus  Baldesanus  in  c.  20. 

hartona    Pedemontana,    quae  manu-  *  Magnus  Athanasius  in  Expositione 

■cripCa  Taurini  asservatur  in  biblio-  Fidei,  in  prima  synodo,  ait,  &c.  Joan. 

Checa  DwAb  Sabaudiae,  ex  tabulario  Cypariss,  Decad.  ix.  c.  3.  Bibl.  PP. 

VerodleDtis  Ecdesiae.  Bona  de  Divin,  torn.  xxi. 

Ptahm.  cap.  xvi.  sect.  18.  p.  864.  ^  'O  Beht  r^  Svri  kqi  Upbt  ^ABapd- 

*  TavrffP  yckp  tap  uiq  rir  irurrSts  ttc-  trios,  iv  rg  6fio\oyiq  rns  tavrov  YrioTca>r, 

^Tfwg/y,  awBtivat  ov  owaraif  its  6  fityas  fjv  i^tBtro  irp6s  Ai/Scpioy  Iltmav,  Jjv  ^ 


I  have  now  come  low  enough  with  the  ancient  testunonies, 
if  I  may  be  allowed  so  to  call  those  of  the  later  times.  A  few 
of  the  first  and  earliest  might  have  sufficed,  had  I  no  other  point 
in  view  but  the  mere  antiquity  of  the  Creed :  but,  as  my  design 
is  to  treat  of  its  reception  also,  in  various  places,  and  at  various 
times,  and  to  lay  together  several  kind  of  evidences  which  will 
require  others,  both  early  and  late,  to  clear  up  and  explain  them ; 
it  was,  in  a  manner,  necessary  for  me  to  bring  my  accounts  as 
low  as  1  have  here  done.  Besides  that  several  inferior,  incidental 
questions  will  fall  in  our  way,  for  the  resolving  of  which,  most  of 
the  testimonies  I  have  here  cited  will  be  serviceable  in  their  turn ; 
as  will  appear  more  fully  in  the  sequel.  I  have  omitted  several 
testimonies  of  the  later  centuries,  such  as  I  thought  might  con- 
veniently be  spared,  either  as  containing  nothing  but  what  we 
had  before  from  others  more  ancient,  or  as  being  of  no  use  for 
the  clearing  up  any  that  we  have,  or  for  the  settling  any  point 
which  will  come  to  be  discussed  in  the  following  sheets.  The 
rule  I  have  set  myself  in  making  the  collection,  and  which  I 
have  been  most  careful  to  observe,  was  to  take  in  all  those,  and 
none  but  those,  which  are  either  valuable  for  their  antiquity^  or 
have  something  new  and  particular  upon  the  subject,  or  may 
strike  some  light  into  any  doubtful  question  thereunto  relating. 

I  shall  shut  up  this  chapter,  as  1  did  the  former,  with  a  table, 
representing  in  one  view  the  sum  and  substance  of  what  has 
been  done  in  it.  The  several  columns  will  contain  the  year  of 
our  Lord,  the  authors  here  recited,  the  country  where  they  livedo 
and  the  title  or  titles  by  them  given  to  the  Creed.  The  titles 
ought  to  appear  in  their  original  language  wherein  they  were 
written ;  which  my  English  reader  may  the  more  easily  excuse, 
since  they  have  most  of  them  been  given  in  English  above, 
where  it  was  more  proper  to  do  it.  The  use  of  such  a  table  will 
be  seen  as  often  as  a  reader  has  a  mind  to  look  back  to  this 
chapter,  or  to  compare  several  evidences  of  different  kinds, 
proving  the  same  thing,  one  with  another. 

apxrit  oaris  Ay /SovXiptu  awBrjvai  t6 ytvcv-     tov  vlov,  &c.  Jodfi.  Plusiad,  apud  Com" 
fjLa  t6  Sytov  <piii<r)p,  airo  tov  narpos  xal    b^fis.  not.  in  Calec,  p.  297. 


































Council  of  Autnn 
Aitides  InqiL  Regino 
Coimc  Frankfort 
Monks  of  M.  OliTet 
Hstto,  or  Hetto 



£ness  Pteris. 




Abbo,  or  Albo 




Duke  of  Brunswick 

Robertus  Pkululns 

.  Nic  Hydnmtinus 

Alexander  Aiens. 
!  P.  Gregory**  Legates 

Walter  Cantelupe 

Thorn.  Aquinas 

Walter  Kirkham 

John  Januensis 


Exon.  Synod 




Joan.  Cyparissiota 

Joan.  Plusiadenus 











I  France 
i  France 
I  France 
'  France 
'  Italy 
I  France 
I  France 
,  Franco 
'    Bavaria 

j    France 















TUk  of  the  Creed. 

Fides  Sancti  Athanasii  Prsesulis. 
Sermo  Athanasii  Episcopi  de  Fide. 
Fides  Catholica  Sancte  Trinitatis. 

Expositio  Catholics  Fidci  Athanasii. 
Fides  Sancti  Athanasii. 
Kdes  Sancti  Athanasii 

Sermo  Athanasii  de  Fide. 

Athanasii  Symbolum. 

Athanasii  Fides  Catholica. 

Libellus  Athanasii  de  Fide. 

Athanasii  Fides  Catholica. 

Sermo  Beati  Athanasii. 

Sermo  Fidei  Catholicae 

Sermo  Athanasii  Ep.  de  Fide  Trinitatiji. 

Fides  secundum  Athanasium. 

Fides  Catholica  Athanasio  adscripts. 

Fides  Quicunque  vult. 

Quicunque  vult  &c. 

Athanasii  Symbolum  Fidei. 

Quicunque  vult  &c. 

Athanasii  Symbolum. 

Tov  aylou  *A.9a»affiov  wlans  ri  KoBoXm'fi. 

Athanasii  Symbolum. 

*'Ejc0f<Tif  T^f  wi<rr€tfs. 

Psalmus  Quicunque  &c. 

Athanasii  Manifestatio  Fidei. 

Psalmus  Quicunque  &c. 

Symbolum  Athanasii. 

Athanasii  Symbolum. 

Psalmus  Quicunque. 

Athanasii  Symbolum. 

Athanasii  Symbolum. 

'H  T^f  »l<rrf«f  dfwXoyia  tow  *A&ay€uriov. 

Atlianasii  Expositio  Fidei. 

'H  T^f  wi<mwt  6fioKoyfa  rov  *A9at^elov. 



Ancient  Comfnentators  and  Paraphrasts  upon  the 
Athanasian  Creed, 

ANCIENT  comments,  or  paraphrases,  may  be  properly  men- 
tioned after  ancient  testimonies,  being  near  akin  to  them,  and 
almost  the  same  thing  with  them.  I  call  none  ancient  but  sudi 
as  were  made  before  the  year  I5cx>;  and  therefore  shall  carry  my 
accounts  no  lower,  nor  quite  so  low,  as  that  time. 

A.  D.  570.  The  first  comment  to  be  met  with  on  this  Creed  is 
one  of  the  sixth  century^  composed  by  Venantius  Fortunatus,  an 
Italian  by  birth,  but  one  that  travelled  into  France  and  Ger- 
many, became  acquainted  with  the  most  eminent  scholars  and 
prelates  all  over  the  west,  and  was  at  length  made  Bishop  of 
Poictiers  in  France.  His  comment  on  this  Creed  has  been 
published  from  a  manuscript  about  600  years  old  >,  out  of  the 
Ambrosian  Ubrary  at  Milan,  by  Muratorius,  in  his  second  tome 
of  Anecdota,  in  the  year  1698.  There  can  be  no  reasonable 
doubt  but  that  the  comment  really  belongs  to  the  man  whose 
name  it  bears.  1.  Because  in  the  same  book  there  is  also  a 
comment  upon  the  Apostles*  Creed  y  ascribed  to  Fortunatus, 
and  which  is  known  to  belong  to  Venantius  Fortunatus,  and  has 
been  before  printed  among  his  other  works.  2.  Because  it 
appears  highly  probable  from  what  Venantius  Fortunatus  has 
occasionally  dropped  in  his  other  undoubted  works'^  that  he 
was  really  acquainted  with  the  Athanasian  Creed,  and  borrowed 

>  Est  porro  nobis  in  Ambrosiuia  Murator.  Anecdot,  torn.  ii.  p.  aaS. 

bibliotheca  membranaceus  codex  an-  y   Expositionem   quoque   contiiwl 

nos  abhinc  ferme  sexcentos  manu  de-  (cod.  Ambrosianos)  Apoirtolici  Sjm- 

scriptus;  ut  ex  characterum  forma,  boli,  cum  hac  inscri^ione:    IwofH 

aliisque   conjecturis    affirmari    posse  expositio  a  Fortunato  Tresbytero  < 

mihi  videtur.  Heic,  prseter  alia  opus-  scripta.  Eadem  vero  est  ac  edita  inter 

cula  multa,  tres  Symboli  expositiones  Fortunati  opera.   Tum  sequuntur  g»- 

habentur.  (juarum  imam  tantum  nunc  minse  eiusdem  Symboli  explicatkniei. 

publici  juris  facio.  Tres   (Jrationis    Dominicse,  et   doa 

Prima  ita  inscribitur,  Expositio  Fi-  Athanasiani  Symboli  expodtionet  in- 

dei  CatholicsB.    Alien  nullus  titulus  certis  auctoribus  scripUe.    Tandeo, 

prsefixus  est.    Postrema  vero   hunc  utidiximus,  Expositio  FideiCatholicv 

pr»  se  fert ;  Expositio  Fidei  Catho^  Fortunati  legitur.    Quocirco  qoin  ad 

lica  Fortunati. Fortunatus  autem,  Venantium  (|uoque  Fortunatum  opus- 

beic  memoratus,  alius  a  Venantio  For-  culum  hoc  sit  referendum^  nullus  do- 

tunato  non  est,  quern  Insulse  Pictavi-  bito.  Murator,  ibid.  p.  331. 
ensis  Ecclesia;,  quern  Christianae  poe-        '  Praeclarum  in  primordio  ponitiir 

tices  omamenta  setemitate  donarunt.  csplestis  testunonii  fundamenUmif  quit 


exproHioiis  from  k.  3.  fWriimf  jb  ife  fsfomskai^  cf  iht  Afo- 
stlfiB^  and  AthmnaMB  <>eed&,  t^ert  k  greaz  sndBaide  cf  arlfi, 
thoughtB,  and  esprenoM ;  viikh  abe«%  ibax  iKfiii  uv  xrf^  liir 
Kune  hand,  and  indeed,  ife  oK^ter  aromnssuioBs  eansBderEML 
abimdaotly  proreB  it.  It  vcnid  iflzrdoi  nr  aufpn  xci:>  miKii, 
oUierwiae  it  were  easjr  to  p^e  ai  leait  haX  a  donn  |)iiiB  ipoa- 
mens,  where  etdier  Uie  expnmiotm  or  tarn  cf  dioQgte.  or  bodi. 
are  exactly  panJH,  Sodi  a«  tlmik  it  of  mameni  to  esanme, 
may  easily  be  aatiified  by  compamg  tlie  cunmenx  on  %ht  Afo- 
sties'  Creed,  in  tbe  teotli  tome  oT  tlie  lart  Bifafiotbe^pe.  villi  1^ 
ecmiment  on  the  Athanaoan,  in  Muruorins.  4. 1  niaj  ^d.  that 
the  tenor  of  the  whole  eomment.  and  the  wmfJimr  of  the  enie 
and  thoughts,  are  venr  ani  table  to  that  sge.  and  m&n  bo  than  to 
the  oentoriefl  f<Jlowing.  Thesse  naaons  cooTinee  me  that  this 
comment  belongs  to  Venantius  Fortanataift.  compoaed  by  him 
after  his  going  into  France,  and  before  he  mas  Bishop  of  Pose- 
tiers  :  and  so  we  may  probaUy  fix  the  date  uf  it  aboot  the  year 
570,  or  perhaps  higher.  There  is  an  older  niannsrript  oopy  of 
this  comment  (as  I  find  by  comparing;  in  the  Moseom  at  Oxford, 
among  Junius^s  manuscripts,  number  25  ^.  1  am  obliged  to  the 
▼ery  worthy  and  learned  Dr.  Haywood,  for  sending  me  a  ^an- 
script  of  it,  with  a  specimen  of  the  ckaracUr.  It  is  reasonably 
judged  to  be  about  800  years  old.  It  wanu,  in  the  beginning, 
about  ten  or  a  dozen  lines :  in  the  other  parts  it  agrees  with 
Muratorius*s  copy,  saring  only  some  sli^t  insertioDs.  and  such 
variaui  leetiams  as  are  to  be  expeeted  in  different  manuscripts 
not  copied  one  from  the  other.  From  the  /ro  eopieg  compared 
may  be  drawn  out  a  much  more  correct  oommemi  than  that  which 
Muratorius  has  given  us  from  ome ;  as  will  be  shewn  at  the  end 
of  this  work. 

I  intimated  abore,  that  Muratorius  supposes  this  Venantius 
Fortunatus  to  be  the  author,  not  of  the  wwunent  only,  but  Creed 

9ahm$  eue  mom  poierit,  qui  recte  de  Norn  sua  comfmmdems,  sibi  noetra  sed 

sihiCe  noQ  crediderit.    FortmuU.  £9-  omnia  nectens. 

pos.  Sfmb.Apo9t.  Bibl.  PP.  tom.x.  

Nam  Dau  m  earuem  vertui,  Deus  ac-  De  Pahre  natos  habens  dirma,  ibtt- 

dpit  artos :  wumaque  nuUrii, 

Nod  te  permutaDS,  sed  sibi  membra  De  Patre   sublimiB,  de   genetnee 

lerans.  humilis. 

Unas  in  ambabus  naturis,  verus  in  Venant.  Fortun.  lib.  viii. 

ipsis  cann^.  Bibl.  P.  torn.  x. 

jBqwoMi  wMiri  hinc,  par  DeUate  *  The  title,  Expositio  in  Fide  Ca- 

Ptttri.  tholica. 


also.  But  lus  reasons^  which  plead  strongly  for  the  former^  are 
of  no  force  at  all  in  respect  of  the  latter :  which  he  is  so  sensible 
of  himself^  that  while  he  speaks  with  great  assurance  of  the  one, 
he  is  very  diffident  of  the  other  ^.  And  indeed,  not  to  mention 
several  other  considerations  standing  in  the  way  of  his  conjec- 
ture, who  can  imagine  Venantius  Fortunatus  to  have  been  so  oain, 
as,  after  conunenting  on  the  Lord^s  Prayer  and  Apostles^  Creed, 
to  fall  to  commenting  upon  a  composition  of  his  oumf 

This  comment  of  Fortunatus  is  a  great  confirmation  of  what 
hath  been  above  cited  from  the  Council  of  Autun :  for  if  the  Creed 
was  noted  enough  to  deserve  a  comment  upon  it  so  early  as  the 
year  570,  no  wonder  if  we  find  it  strongly  recommended  by  that 
Council  in  the  year  670,  a  hundred  years  after.  And  it  is  ob- 
servable that,  as  that  Council  recommends  the  Apostolical  and 
Athanasian  Creeds^  without  saying  a  word  of  the  Nicene ;  so 
Fortunatus,  before  them,  comments  upon  those  two  only,  taking 
no  notice  of  the  third. 

I  cannot  take  leave  of  this  comment,  without  observing  to  the 
reader,  that  in  Pareus's  notes  on  this  Creed,  I  have  met  with  a 
passage  which  I  am  not  well  able  to  account  for.  He  cites  a 
comment  upon  this  Creed,  under  the  name  of  Euphronius  Pres- 
byter c,  does  not  say  whether  from  a  print  or  a  manmcry^t: 
but  the  words  he  produces  are  in  this  very  comment  of  Fortu- 
natus. Who  this  Euphronius  is^  I  can  no  where  find ;  nor  whe- 
ther an  ancient  or  modem  writer.  There  was  an  Euphronius 
Presbyter,  (mentioned  by  Gregory  of  Tours,)  who  lived  in  the 
fifth  century,  and  was  at  length  Bishop  of  Autun :  but  I  never 
heard  of  any  writings  of  his,  more  than  an  epistle  ascribed  to 
him  and  Lupus  of  Troyes.  There  was  another  Euphronius,  who 
was  bishop  of  Tours,  with  whom  Fortunatus  had  some  intimacy. 
Whether  his  name,  appearing  in  any  manuscript  copy  of  Fortu- 
natus's  tracts,  might  occasion  the  mistake,  I  know  not.  Bruno^s 
comment  has  the  very  same  passage  which  Parous  cites,  only  in 
a  different  order  of  the  words :  but  neither  will  this  help  us  to 
account  for  its  being  quoted  under  the  name  of  Euphronius 

^  Hujus  l^mboU  auctor  esse  potuit  ^  Euphronius  Presbyter  in  ezpo- 

Venantius  Fortunatus :    saltern   fuit  sitione  nujus  Symboli  Athanasii,  Fl- 

hujus  ExposUUmis  auctor.    Murator.  des,  inquit,  Catholica,  seu  universalis, 

p.  217.  dicitur :  Hoc  est,  recta,  quam  Eccle- 

Non  ita  meis  conjecturis  plaudo,  ut  sia   universa  tenere   debet.    DatruL 

facilius  non  arbitrer  Expositionem  po-  Parei  not.  ad  Symb.  Athan,  p.  1 18. 

tius  Quam  Symbolum  huic  auctori  tri-  edit.  an.  1635.    llie  words  are  not  in 

buenaum.  Murator.  p.  331.  the  edition  of  1637. 


*  Presbyter^  whioh  has  no  similitude  with  the  name  of  Bruno, 
Bishop  of  Wurtzburgh.  I  would  not  however  omit  the  mention- 
ing this  note  of  Pareus,  because  a  hint  may  sometimes  lead 
to  useful  discoveries;  and  others  may  be  able  to  resolve  the 
doubt,  though  I  am  not. 

852.  Our  next  Commentator^  or  rather  Paraphrast,  is  Hinc- 
mar  of  Bheims :  not  upon  the  whole  Creed,  but  upon  such  parts 
only  as  he  had  occasion  to  cite.  For  his  way  is  to  throw  in 
several  words  of  his  own,  as  explanatory  notes,  so  far  as  he  quotes 
the  Creed  <l:  and  he  sometimes  does  it  more  than  he  ought  to 
have  done,  to  serve  a  cause  against  Gothescalcus :  which  I  may 
hint)  in  passing ;  to  say  more  of  it  would  be  foreign  to  our  pre- 
sent purpose. 

1 033.  S.  Bruno,  Bishop  of  Wurtzburgh  in  Germany,  has  a 
formal  comment^  and  much  larger  than  Fortunatus^s,  upon  the 
Athanasian  Creed.    It  is  at  the  end  of  his  Psalter^  and  has  been 
several  times  printed  with  it.     Father  Le  Long  reckons  up  six 
editions^,  in   this   order:    i.  At  Nuremberg,   in    foUo  A.  D. 
1494.     2.  By  Antonius  Koberger,  in  quarto,  A.  D.  1497.     3.  By 
Cochleus,  at  Wurtzburgh,  in  quarto^  A.  D.  1531.     4.  At  Leipsic, 
in   quarto,  1533.     In  the  Cologne   Bibliotheque^   A.  D.  1618. 
tom.  xi.     6.    In  the  Lyons  Bibl.  PP.  A.  D.  1677.  tom.  xviii. 
The  old  editions  are  scarce,  and  not  easy  to  be  met  with.     I 
have  seen  two  of  them  in  our  public  library   of  Cambridge, 
those  of  1494  and  1533.     There  is  an  elegant  one  of  the  former 
(as  I  conceive  by  the  description  sent  me  by  a  learned  gentle- 
man) in  the  Bodleian  at  Oxford :  it  is  in  vellum,  in  a  black  and 
red  letter,  reserved  among  the  manuscripts,  and  marked  Laud, 
E.  81.    The  title,  at  the  beginning,  Fides  Anastasii ;  at  the  end. 
Fides  Athanasii.     The  two  editions  of  1497  and  1531  I  never 
saw.     I  have  seen  one  by  Antonius  Koberger,  in  quarto,  bearing 
date  A.  D.  1494^  in  the  Bodleian,  marked  F.  40.   Bishop  Usher 
makes  mention  of  an  edition  in  153 1  s,  and  seems  to  have  known 

^  Vid.  Hincmari  Oper.  tom.  i.  p.  '  Per    Antonium    Koberger    im- 

452,  464,  469,  5^2,  553.  pressum  anno  incarnationis  Deitatis 

*  Commentani  in  totmn  Psalterium  inillesimo  quadrinffentesimo,  nonage- 

et  in  Cantica  Vet.  et  Nov.  Testamen-  simo  quarto,  finit  feliciter. 

ti,  in  fol.  Norembergse,  1494.  In  4to.  8  Psalterii   editio  vulgata  Latina, 

per  Antonium  Koburger  I497-,  Idem  obelia  etasteriscis  distincta,  cum  Bru- 

a  Joan.  Cochleo  reatitutum  in  4to.  nonis  Herbipolensis  Episcopi  com- 

Herbipoli  1531.    lipsiae  1533.  Bibl.  mentariia,    anno    1531.    a   Johanne 

pp.  UobniensiB  et  Lu£[dunenBi8.    Le  Cochlseo  in  lucem  est  emissa.  Usser.  de 

Long,  Bibl,  Bibl,  tom.  li.  p.  654.  ediiione  LXX  Interpr,  p.  104. 


of  none  older.  I  should  have  suspected  1531  to  be  a  false  print ' 
foi*  ^5339 1^  Qot  Le  Long  confirmed  it^  that  there  is  such  an 
edition  as  153 1 ,  and  named  the  place  where  it  was  printed :  though 
I  cannot  but  observe  that  he  makes  a  folio  of  it  in  his  first  tome^^ 
and  a  quarto  in  the  second ;  which  is  to  me  an  argument  that 
he  had  never  seen  it^  but  perhaps  took  the  hint  from  Usher. 
But  leaving  the  printed  editions  of  this  comment  of  Bruno's,  let 
us  next  say  something  of  the  manuscripts  of  it,  and  their  dif- 
ferences from  the  prints,  or  from  each  other.  There  are  many 
manuscript  copies,  which  I  shall  mention  in  order. 

1.  The  first  and  most  valuable  manuscript  is  in  the  Ubrary  of 
Wurtzburgh^  as  old  as  the  author,  left  by  him  as  a  legacy  to 
that  church.  The  first  printed  edition  (if  I  mistake  not)  was 
taken  from  that  very  original  manuscript^ ;  which  at  the  lowest 
computation  must  be  680  years  old.  The  title  of  the  Greed, 
Fides  Catholica  S.  Athanasii  Episcopi. 

2.  There  is  a  second^  which  I  have  seen  in  Trinity  College  in 
Cambridge,  annexed  to  a  Psalter  described  at  large  by  the 
learned  Mr.  Wanley,  in  his  Catalogue*^,  and  judged  by  him  to 
have  been  written  about  the  time  of  King  Stephen.  So  that 
this  is  about  a  hundred  years  later  than  the  former^  or  about 
580  years  old ;  no  title  to  the  Creed. 

3.  There  is  a  third,  of  much  the  same  age  with  the  former, 
of  some  years  older,  in  the  Bodleian  at  Oxford,  marked  Laud. 
H.  61.  the  title  of  the  Creed,  Fides  Catholica  Sancti  Athanasii 

4.  In  the  Bodleian  also  is  another,  (Laud.  E.  71.  Catal.  N. 
994.)  Athanasii  Symbolum  cum  Glossa.  This,  as  I  am  certified 
by  a  learned  gentleman,  is  Bruno's  comment.  The  title  of  the 
Creed,  Fides  Sancti  Athanasii  Episcopi. 

5.  In  Merton  College  is  another,  an  ancient  copy  of  Bruno's 
comment.  Catal.  N.  675-208. 

^  Psalterium  vetus  obelis  et  aate-        Preciosum  istam  thesaunim  poste- 

riscis  distinctum,  cum  commeDtariis  ritati  post  se  reliquit,  et  quidem  insigni 

S.  Brunonis,  studio  Joannis  Ck)ch1aei  scriptura  sumptuose  descriptum 

editum,  in  fol.   Herbipoli,  1531.  in  extat  donum  illud  memorabile  et  oon- 

4 to.  lipsise  1533.    Le  Lonfff  torn.  L  spicuum    in    locuplete    antiquonim 

p.  274.  voluminum  bibliotheca  Herbipolensis 

*   rosteris   61iis    suis  (S.  Bruno)  Ecclesiae :  auod  sane  reliffiosa  pietate, 

memorabilem  et  sanctum  Paalmormn  velat  hsereaitas  qiuedam  nujus  Sancti 

\\hnim,  ex  quo  iUeimffresnu  est,  sumfh  Patris  custoditur.    Joan,  Voch.  pro- 

tuose  scriptum,  quasi  hapreditatis  spin*  lo^.  ad  edit.  an.  1533. 
tualisnonrainimamportionemreliquit.        ^  Wanleii  Catalog.  MSS.  Septentr. 

Prolog,  ad  editionem  anni  1494.  p.  168. 


6.  In  St.  John  Baptist's  College.  Oxon.  (Catal.  N.  1874.  G. 
42.  Commentarius  in  Symbolum  Athanasii.  By  the  beginning 
and  concluding  words,  (a  transcript  of  which  has  been  sent  me 
by  a  worthy  member  of  that  society,)  I  am  well  assured  that  it 
is  Bruno's  comment. 

7.  There  is  another  in  Balliol  College,  (Catal.  N.  2 jo.  marked 
B.  I.)  Athanasii  Symbolum  cum  Commentario. 

8.  Another  I  have  seen  in  the  Cathedral  library  at  York, 
which  may  be  500  years  old.     No  title. 

9.  There  is  another,  in  the  library  of  St.  German  de  Prez, 
about  500  years  old.  Montfaucon,  having  met  with  it,  published 
it  ^  as  an  anecdoUm;  not  knowing  that  it  was  Bruno's  comment. 
It  is  not  indeed  quite  so  full,  nor  any  thing  near  so  correct  as  the 
printed  copies:  but  still  it  is  plainly  Bruno's  comment.  The 
title,  Tractatus  de  Fide  Catholica. 

10.  There  is  also,  in  my  Lord  Oxford's  library,  a  modem 
manuscript  of  this  conmient,  written  at  Augsburg  in  the  year 
1547,  copied  from  Bruno's  original  manuscript,  (by  order  of 
Charles  Peutenger,  son  to  the  famous  Conrad,)  where  the  title 
is,  Udes  Catholica  Sancti  Anastasii  Episcopi.  The  mistake  of 
Anastasii  for  Athanasii,  we  find,  had  crept  into  the  German 
copies  some  centuries  before :  wherefore  this  is  not  to  be  won- 
dered at.  All  the  older  copies,  as  well  as  the  original  manu- 
script, have  Athanasii  in  the  tiUe,  where  there  is  a  title,  and 
Athanasius  in  the  beginning  of  the  comment, 

The  manuscripts  which  I  have  here  recited,  all  but  the  first, 
seem  now  to  be  of  no  great  use ;  if  it  be  true,  as  I  suppose,  that 
the  first  prints  were  taken  from  the  very  original  at  Wurtz- 
bm^h.  It  is  certain  that  they  are  very  imperfect  and  incorrect, 
(I  have  collated  three  of  them,)  in  comparison  of  the  printed 
copies:  I  could  not  observe  above  two  or  three  places,  and 
those  not  very  material,  where  the  printed  copies  seem  to  have 
followed  a  false  reading,  or  may  be  corrected  by  those  manu- 
scripts. One  thing  I  a  little  wondered  at,  that  the  three  manu- 
scripts of  St.  German's,  Trinity  College,  and  York,  should  all 
leave  out  some  paragraphs,  which  appear  in  the  printed  copies, 
and  the  same  paragraphs :  but  I  have  since  found,  that  those 
very  paragraphs  were  taken  out  of  Fortunatus'^s  comment,  and 
belong  not  properly  to  Bruno^s.     This,  I  presume,  the  first 

^  Mont£eiucoD,  Athanas.  Oper.  torn.  ii.  p.  735. 


copiers  understood^  and  therefore  omitted  them.  Probably 
Bruno's  own  copy  might  at  first  want  them^  (though  they  must 
have  been  added  soon  after,)  or  if  Bruno  himself  inserted  them, 
yet  he  had  left  some  mark  of  distinction,  which  was  understood 
at  that  time ;  though  not  by  the  editors  of  this  conunent  so  many 
years  after.     But  to  proceed. 

1 1 20.  In  the  next  age,  the  famous  Peter  Abelard  wrote  com- 
ments upon  this  Creed:  which  are  printed  amongst  his  other 
works.  The  title  in  the  prints  is,  Petri  Aba^rdi  Expositio 
Fidei,  in  Symbolum  Athanasii.  I  suspect  that  the  editor  has 
added  the  latter  part^  in  Symbolum  Athanasii,  as  a  hint  to  the 
reader.  The  comment  is  a  very  short  one,  scarce  three  pages  in 
quarto,  and,  for  the  age  it  was  wrote  in,  a  pretty  good  one; 
though^  as  I  conceive  from  some  flaws  in  it,  printed  from  a  copy 
not  very  correct, 

1170.  Of  the  same  century  is  Hildegarde,  the  celebrated 
Abbess  of  St.  Rupert's  Mount,  near  Binghen,  on  the  Rhine.  She 
wrote  explications  of  St.  Benedict's  Rule,  and  of  the  Athanaaian 
Creed:  which  may  be  seen^  Bibl.  PP.  tom.  xxiii.  p. 596. 

1 210.  Simon  Tornacensis,  Priest  of  Toumay,  in  the  beginning 
of  the  thirteenth  century,  taught  divinity  at  Paris,  with  great 
reputation.  His  manuscript  works  are  in  many  libraries :  and, 
among  his  other  writings^  there  is  an  Exposition  of  the  Athar 
nasian  Creed™.  Oudin  reckons  up  four  manuscript  copies  of  it, 
in  as  many  distinct  libraries,  and  acquaints  us  where  they  are  to 
be  found,  and  of  what  age  they  probably  are. 

1215.  Contemporary  with  the  former  is  Alexander  Neokham, 
an  Englishman,  Abbot  of  Cirencester,  or  Circeter,  in  Gloucester- 
shire. He  wrote  a  comment  on  the  Athanasian  Creed,  which  ia 
extant  in  manuscript  in  the  Bodleian  at  Oxford,  (marked  E.  7. 
8.  Catal.  N.  2339.)  coeval  probably  with  the  author. 

There  is  another  copy  of  the  same  comment,  in  the  Bodleian 
also,  E.  6.  II.  n.  2330.  The  title,  Expositio  Fidei  Catholicse  a 
Magistro  Alexandro  edicta.  This  copy  is  about  fifty  years 
later  than  the  former.  It  may  be  of  use  to  note  down  the  first 
words  of  the  comment>^.     It  is  drawn  up  in  the  scholastic  way, 

>n  Expositio  Symboli,  per  Simonem  rationem.     Otidtn.  tom.  iii.  p.  ^. 

Tornacensis  Ecclesise  Canonicuro,  et  "  H«*c  est  enim  victoria  quae  vin- 

Parisiensem  Doctorem,  quae  sic  inci-  cit  mundum,  fides  nostra.    Signanter 

pit:  Apud  Aristotelem  argumentum  dicit  ou/f,  et  non'dicit,  QuicimTiiefa/. 

est  ratio  faciens  fidem,  sed  apud  Chris-  vus  erit, 
turn  argumentum  est  fides   faciens 


and  18  pretty  large^  making  ten  folio  leaves  with  double  columns, 
in  E.  7,  8.  and  four  folio  leaves  with  three  colunms,  and  a  very 
small  hand,  in  E.  6. 1 1. 

1230.  Not  long  after,  Alexander  Hales,  before  mentioned, 
wrote  comments  upon  the  same  Creed,  which  are  published  in 
his  Summa,  part  the  thirds  under  Qusest.  69.  His  method  of 
commenting  is^  to  raise  doubts  and  scruples  all  the  way  he  goes, 
and  to  answer  them  in  the  scholastic  form :  referring  sometimes 
to  the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  and  particularly  to  St.  Austin :  to 
whom  he  ascribes  Gtennadius's  treatise  De  Ecclesiasticis  Dog- 
matibus,  according  to  the  common  error  of  that  time.  But  I 

1340.  There  is  another  commentary  upon  this  Creed,  written, 
as  is  said,  by  Bichardus  Hampolus,  Richard  Rolle  of  Hampole, 
a  native  of  Yorkshire,  and  a  monk  of  the  order  of  St.  Austin. 
It  contains,  in  a  manner,  Bruno's  comment  entire,  with  several 
additions  and  insertions  either  of  the  author^s  own,  or  such  as  he 
had  borrowed  elsewhere.  It  has  been  twice  printed^  first  at 
Cologne  in  the  year  1536^  and  afterwards  in  the  Bibliotheca 
Patrum,  Lugdun.  tom.  xxvi.  p.  624. 

I  am  in  doubt  concerning  the  author  of  that  comment,  having 
reason  to  believe  that  the  three  copies  mentioned  by  Tentzeliuso, 
preserved  in  the  Gotha,  Basil,  and  Leipsic  libraries,  are  so  many 
copies  of  this  very  comment  which  passes  under  the  name  of 
Hampole :  and  yet  one  of  them  is  judged  to  be  above  500  years 
olderP  than  1686,  which  is  1 50  years  before  Hampole's  days. 
It  is  possible  that  Joachim  Fellerus,  the  compiler  of  the  catalogue 
c(  the  Leipsic  library,  might  mistake  in  judging  of  the  age  of 
the  manuscript :  but  it  appears  much  more  probable  that  the 
editors  of  that  comment  were  mistaken  in  ascribing  it  to  Ham- 
pole.   However  that  be,  I  would  here  observe,  that  there  is  in 

o  TentieL  Jud.  Eruditor.  Prapfat.  Rubricam  autero   Symboli  nostri  ita 

et  p.  334.  Be  habere ;  Fides  Anastasii  Papm,  In 

P  Tentzelias  writes  thus :  desotro  primse  pawnee  haec  legi  verba : 

Opportune  ad  manus  meas  pervenit  H<bc  ratio  Ftdet  Catholica  traditur 

Responsio  Amp\,  Felleri,  qua  ratio-  in  veteriims  codicibus,  et  reliqua,  que 

Dem  codkas  Latini  lipsiensis  in  prse-  antea  ex  MS.  bibliothec»  ducalis  at- 

fiitione  a  me  citati  prolixius  exposuit.  tuli.  Unde  patet,  easdem  plane  glossas 

Ait  enim,  membranaceum  istum  codi-  in  utroque  codice  reperin ;  prtesertim 

cem  ante  CCCCC  annos  et  ultra,  ele-  quum  in  sinistro  alterius  margine,  haec 

ganter  scriptom  videri ;  additas  etiam  etiam  verba  legi  referat  Fellerus :  Hie 

ۥ06  non  interlinearea  tantum  notas,  beatus  Anastasius  libemm  arbitrium 

•edet  marginales  ntrinque;  in  dextro  posuit^  &c.      Tentzel,  p.  225. 
videUcet  et  simgtro  peginarum  latere : 


Magdalen  College,  in  Oxford,  a  comment  entitled,  Expositio  in 
Symbolum  Athanasianum  per  Januensem,  (N.  Catal.  2256 — 115.) 
which  is  no  other  than  this  very  comment  that  passes  in  the 
prints  under  the  name  of  Richard  Hampole.  The  Catalogue's 
ascribing  it  to  Januensis  was  owing,  I  suppose,  to  an  occasional 
passage  in  that  manuscript,  relating  to  the  Athanasian  Creed, 
cited  from  Johannes  Januensis^s  Catholicon,  or  Dictionary,  under 
the  word  symbolum.  The  comment  however,  I  say,  is  the  same 
with  that  which  passes  for  Hampole's,  as  may  plainly  appear 
from  the  beginning  of  it,  which  I  have  transcribed  into  the 
margins ;  only  filling  up  an  omission  in  it,  occasioned,  as  is  very 
common,  by  the  repetition  of  the  same  word.  There  may  be  a 
good  use  made  of  that  manuscript  in  Magdalen  College,  for 
correcting  the  printed  copy,  which  is  very  faulty,  both  in  words 
and  OTiler.  The  comment  ought  to  begin  as  it  begins  in  that 
manuscript ;  and  not  with  the  words,  Hie  beatus  AthanasiuSy  as 
in  the  prints.  The  editors  did  not  understand,  or  did  not 
consider,  the  nature  and  composition  of  that  comment.  The 
author,  whoever  he  was,  had  made  two  columns,  one  on  each 
hand,  with  the  Athanasian  Creed  in  the  middle.  On  the  le/l 
handj  which  is  the  first  place,  he  set  Biiino^s;  comment,  and  on 
the  right  hand^  in  the  other  column,  he  carried  down  another 
conmient  either  of  his  own  or  borrowed.  The  first  note  on  the 
right  hand  was  plainly  designed  for  an  introduction  to  the  rest, 
and  therefore  ought  to  be  set  first ;  though  the  editor^s  consider- 
ing only  the  position  of  the  notes,  began  from  the  lefi  hand,  with 
the  first  words  of  Bruno's  comment.  The  Oxford  copy  observes 
the  true  natural  order,  and  may  very  probably  be  of  good  use 
all  the  way  through,  for  the  better  digesting  and  methodizing 
that  comment,  or  comments,  being  in  reality  two  comments 
mixed  and  blended  together. 

I  should  observe  of  the  Oxford  copy,  that  after  the  comment 
there  is,  in  the  same  hand,  this  note ;  ff^ec  conscripta  sunt  a  quo- 
dam  antiquo  libro.  Possibly  this  may  be  of  some  use  for  the  deter- 
mining whether  that  comment  be  really  Hampole's  or  no.   For  if 

4  Hiec  ratio  Fidei  Catholicse  traditur  hoc  est,  Diabolus,  excitavit  per  Ar- 

etiani  in  veteribus  codicibus  a  beato  rium ;  quam  tempestatem]  qui  fugere 

Athanaaio    Alexandrino    conscripta.  desiderat,  hanc  fidei  unitatem  (al.  oe- 

Et  puto,  quod  iddrco  tarn  piano  et  rUatem)    integram    et    inviolabilem 

brevi  sermone  tradita  sit,  ut  omnibus  teneat.    Ita  enim  incipit  ipsum  opus- 

Catholicis,  et  minus  eruditis,  tutamen  culum,  dicens,  QwUmnque  vuU  saifmSf 

defensionis  pnestaret  advereus  illam  &c.    Hie  beatus  Athanasius  liberum 

tempestatem  [quam  contrarius  ventus,  aibitrium  posuit,  &c. 


the  manuseript  be  not  much  later  than  14 15,  (it  must  be  so  late, 

0ince  it  fixes  that  very  date  to  Dr.  Ullerston's  Exposition  of  the 

Six  Psalms,)  it  may  be  probably  argued  that  any  thing  of  Ham- 

pole*s,  who  flourished  but  about  eighty  years  before,  would  not 

have  been  called  aniiquus  Uber,  an  ancient  book.   But  this  I  leave 

to  further  inquiries^  not  insisting  upon  it,  since  the  argument  is 

but  probable  at  the  best ;  and  I  do  not  know  but  the  manuscript 

may  be  several  years  later  than  1415,  though  hardly  later  than 

the  middle  of  that  century.    Ullerston  is  undoubtedly  the  latest 

author  in  that  collection.     Petrus  Florissiensis,  or  Floreffiensis, 

(otherwise  called  Petrus  de  Harentals^)  wrote  in  1374^:  Janu- 

ensis  Gorrham^  Lyr&>  &Dd  Hampole  are  all  older  than  he :   the 

last  therefore  is  Ullerston,  who  was  probably  still  living  when 

that  manuscript  was  written.     But  enough  of  this. 

1380.  To  the  Latin  comments  here  mentioned  I  may  add  an 
English  one,  which  I  may  suppose  to  be  Wickliflfs.  If  it  be  not 
his,  yet  certainly  it  is  of  his  time,  and  not  far  from  the  middle 
of  the  fourteenth  century.  I  will  first  give  some  account  of 
this  English  comment,  and  then  shew  both  why  I  ascribe  it  to 
WicMiff,  and  why  I  do  it  not  with  full  assurance,  but  with  some 
degree  of  diffidence.  I  first  met  with  it  in  a  manuscript  volume 
(in  i2mo)  belonging  to  the  library  of  St.  John's  College  in 
Cambridge.  The  volume  contains  an  English  version  of  the 
Psalms  and  Hymns  of  the  Church,  with  the  Athanasian  Creed 
produced  paragraph  by  paragraph  in  Latin,  interspersed  with  an 
English  version  of  each  paragraph,  and  commented  upon  quite 
through,  part  by  part.  After  the  comment,  follow  Proverbs, 
Eoclesiastes,  Song  of  Songs,  Wisdom,  and  Ecclesiasticus,  all  in 
old  English,  without  gloss  or  comment.  Now  the  reasons  why 
I  incline  to  ascribe  the  comment  to  Wickliff  are  these  : 

1.  Dr.  Langbaine,  of  Queen's  College  in  Oxford,  in  a  letter  to 
Bishop  Usher,  bearing  date  A.D.  1647,  testifies  that  he  had 
seen  such  a  comment,  and  that  he  found  it  to  be  WicklifTs,  by 
comparing  the  beginning  of  it  with  Bale".  This,  very  probably, 
is  the  same  comment;  though  there  is  no  such  manuscript 
now  in  Magdalen  College,  Oxon,  as  was  in  Dr.  Langbaine's  time. 

'  See  Oudin,  torn.  in.  p.  iai8.  nasius's  Creed;  which  I  presently  con- 

■  While  I  was  there,  (m  Magdalen  jectured  (though  there  he  no  name  to 

College  Ldbrarv,)  tumbling  amongst  itjtoheWickliiTs.  Andcomparinffthe 

their  books,    I   light  upon   an   old  beginning  with  Bale,  found  that  I  had 

English  comment  upon  the  Psalms,  not  erred  in  the  conjecture.     Lang' 

the  Hymns  of  the  Church,  and  Atha-  baine,  among  Usher's  Letters,  p.  513* 


2.  All  those  parts  of  Scripture  which  go  before  and  after  this 
comment,  in  the  same  volume,  are  of  the  same  version  with  that 
of  WickliflPs  Bible  in  the  library  of  Emanuel  College,  without 
any  difference,  (except  that  St.  John's  copy,  being  older,  retains 
the  more  ancient  spelling,)  as  I  am  well  assured  by  comparing 
them  together:  so  that  if  those  parts  be  WicklifTs,  it  may 
appear  very  probable  that  the  comment  is  his  too.  Indeed,  our 
very  learned  Wharton  was  of  opinion^  that  the  version  commonly 
ascribed  to  Wickliff^  was  really  John  Trevisa's ;  who  flourished 
in  the  time  of  Richard  the  Second,  was  a  Cornish  man  by  birth, 
and  Vicar  of  Berkely  in  Gloucestershire,  about  the  year  1387 'i : 
in  which  year  he  finished  his  translation  of  the  Polychronicon. 
But  Mr.  Wharton's  reasonings  in  this  matter  have  appeared  to 
others  not  satisfactory  x,  and  have  in  part  been  confuted  x.  I 
shall  not  enter  far  into  that  dispute,  being  almost  foreign  to  my 
purpose :  and  it  is  not  very  material  whether  Wickliff  or  Trevisa 
(if  either)  be  judged  the  author  of  the  comment.  This  only  I 
may  observe,  by  the  way,  that  Mr.  Wharton's  argument  drawn 
from  the  Norfolk  manuscript  of  the  GTospels,  (Cod.  254,)  which 
he  is  positive  belongs  to  Wickliff,  appears  to  be  of  some  weight, 
so  far  as  concerns  the  New  Testament ;  and  the  inference  may 
reach  to  several  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  also.  Either  Mr. 
Wharton  must  have  been  mistaken  in  ascribing  the  Norfolk 
copy  to  Wickliff,  or  else,  for  any  thing  I  see,  his  argument  wifl 
stand  good.  The  characteristic  which  he  lays  down  whereby  to 
distinguish  Wickliff's  version  (namely,  the  frequent  insertion  of 
synonymous  words)  will  by  no  means  agree  with  the  common  ver- 
sion :  and  then  the  specimen  he  gives  of  the  two  different  render- 
ings of  Luke  ii.  7*  is  directly  contrary  2.  But  a  fuller  discussion 
of  that  point  may  be  left  with  those  who  have  more  leisure,  wiA 

^  Wharton  Auctarium  Histor.  Dog-  *'  tide  him  in  a  cratche;  for  place  was 

mat.  p.  435, 426.  "  not  to  him  in  the  comyn  stable." 

^  In  that  year  he  finished  his  ver-        Alter interpres  sic:  "And  leide  him 

sion  of  Higden*8  Polychronicon,  as  the  "  in  a  cratche ;  for  there  was  no  place 

manuscripts  testify ;  and  as  is  plain  "  to  him  in  no  chaumbre."  Wkarttm, 

from  its  oeing  finished  in  the  thirty-  p.  436. 

fifth  year  of  Thomas  Lord  Berkley,        I  have  a  manuscript  of  the  New 

the  fourth  of  that  name,  which  agrees  Testament,  belonging  to  our  col^ge 

exactly  with  that  year,  and  with  no  library,  which  reads  Luke  ii.  7.  ac- 

other.  cording  to  the  first  reading,  and  which 

*■  Oudin.  Comment,  de  Scriptor.  has  many  instances  of  jyiumyiiioM  in- 

Eccles.  vol.  iii.  p.  1044.  sertions  every  where :  it  is  a  different 

y  Vid.  Le  Long,  Bibl.  Bibl.  vol.  i.  version  from  that  which  is  commonly 

p.  436.  ascribed  to  Wickliff. 

^  Wicklefus  sic  reddit :  "  And  put- 


have  more  particularly  studied  it.  I  am  content  to  suppose  that 
the  common  version  ascribed  to  Wickliff  is  really  his :  perhaps 
he  might  give  two  editions  of  it^ ;  or  else  Trevisa^s  may  be  little 
more  than  WickliflTs  version,  corrected  and  polished  with  great 
liberty,  both  as  to  sense  and  expression,  where  it  appeared 
needful.  That  Trevisa  really  did  translate  the  whole  Bible  into 
English  is  poatively  asserted  by  Gaxton,  in  his  preface  to  Tre- 
rMa  Translation  of  Higden'^s  Polychronicon^ ;  and  by  Bale<^, 
who  gives  us  the  first  words  of  the  preface  to  it.     To  proceed. 

3.  A  third  reason  I  have  for  the  ascribing  the  comment  to 
Wickliff  is,  that  some  parts  of  it  seem  to  suit  exactly  with  his 
humour,  and  manner,  and  way  of  thinking;  particularly  the  gird 
upon  popes  and  cardinals  in  the  close^. 

Nevertheless,  I  am  far  from  being  positive  in  this  matter: 
much  may  be  offered  to  take  off  the  force  of  these  reasons^  or  to 
counterbalance  them.  i.  This  very  comment  is  annexed  to  a 
manuscript  eammeniary  upon  the  Psalms  and  Hymns  of  the 
Church,  now  in  Trinity  College  library  in  Cambridge:  which 
commentary  appears  not  to  be  Wickliff^s,  though  supposed  to 
be  his  by  Mr.  Wharton^.  The  English  version  of  the  Psalms 
going  along  with  that  commentary  is  not  the  same  with  that  of 
Wickliff^s  Bible :  I  have  compared  them.  The  commentary^  and 
wnian  too,  are  reasonably  judged  to  be  Hampole*s.    I  find  by 

*  Fatet,aut  antiquiorem  fuisse  quan-  himself  continued  the  history  for  103 

dam  S.  Scripturse  translationem  An-  years  further,  to  1460. 

I^licam,  aut  duplicem  fuisse  transla-  <^  And  alffif  this  Crede  accorde  unto 

liotiis  Wideviance  editionem.    IVhitr'  Prestis,  netheles  the  higher  Prelatis, 

foft.  Auctor.  Hist,  Dofftn.p,  436.  as  Popis  and  Cardynals,  and  Bisshops 

^  Ranulph  monke  of  Chestre  first  shulden  more   specially  kunne  this 

auctour  of  this  book,  and  afterward  Crede,  and  teche  it  to  men  undir 

Englisbed  by  one  Trevisa  Vicarye  of  hem.   Comm,  on  the  Athan,  Creed. 

Borkley ;  which  atte  request  of  one  Sr.  Compare  some  words  of  Wicklififs 

Thomas  Lord  Barkley  translated  this  Bileve.                             * 

•ayd  book,  the  Byble,  and  Bartylmew  I  suppose,  over  this,  that  the  Pope 

de  Proprietatibus  Rerum  out  of  Latyn  be  most  oblishid  to  the  keping  of  the 

into  Englysh.     Caxton,  Prohemye  to  Gospel  among  all  men  that  Uven  here; 

hi8  edit.  1483.  for  the  Pope  is  highest  Vicar  that 

c  In  Anglicura  idioma,  ad  petitio-  Christ  has  here  in  eith.  Collier,  Eccl. 

praraUcti  sui  Domini  de  Barkdey,  Hist,  vol.  i.  p.  738. 

transtulit   totum    bibUorum    opus  :  «  Commentarius  in  Psalmos,  alios- 

ntnimque  Dei  Testamentum  lib.  ii.  que  Sacrs  Scripturse    ac    Liturffise 

(His  preface  beginning)  "Ego  Jo-  Ecclesiasticse  Hymnos.  MS.  in  Col- 

**  bannes  Trevisa  Sacerdos."     BaL  legio  S.  Trinitatis  Cantab.  F.  Com- 

oent.  vii.  c.  18.  p.  518.  mentarius  in  priores  89  Psalmos  ha- 

N.  B.  Bale  seems  to  be  mistaken  beturMS.inBibliothecaLambethana. 

in  aaying  that  Trevisa  continued  the  Wharton,  sub   Wicklef.  Append,  ad 

PoWcbr.  to  1397.    For  Trevisa  ended  Car.  H.  L.  p.  54. 
with  1357.  And  Caxton  declares  that 



a  nolo  left  in  a  blank  page  at  the  beginning,  (signed  J.  Kusael,) 
that  there  is  a  copy  of  this  commentary  in  the  Royal  library, 
(B.  15.  12.)  but  imperfect;  the prolopue  the  very  same,  and  ex- 
pressly ascribed  to  Richard  of  Hampole:  from  whence  it  may  be 
justly  suspected,  that  the  comment  upon  the  Athanasian  Greed 
at  the  end,  appearing  in  part^  (for  two  leaves  are  cut  out,)  is 
Hampole's^  as  well  as  the  rest.  There  is  in  Bennet  library,  in 
Cambridge,  another  manuscript  copy  of  the  same  commentary, 
(marked  1 — i.  Catal.  p.  69,)  with  the  comment  upon  the  Creed 
entire.  The  prologue  I  found  to  be  the  same  as  in  the  other,  as 
also  the  comment  on  the  first  Psalm  \  by  which  I  judge  of  the 
rest^.  The  comment  on  the  Canticles  at  the  end  is  likewise  the 
same ;  only  the  Canticles  are  not  all  placed  in  the  same  order. 
At  the  bottom  of  the  second  leaf  of  the  commentary,  there  is 
left  this  note,  by  an  unknown  hand :  Author  hujus  Uhri^  Michardus^ 
Ileremita  de  Hampole,  Now,  if  this  commentary  really  be 
Hampole's,  of  which  I  can  scarce  make  any  question,  it  will 
appear  highly  probable  that  the  comment  on  the  Greed  is  his  too. 
2.  What  favours  the  suspicion  is,  that  here  the  comment  ib 
annexed  to  other  comments  in  like  form  with  itself,  and  not  to 
mere  versions^  as  in  the  manuscript  of  St.  John'^s  library.  Nay, 
further,  this  conmient  on  the  Creed,  as  it  appears  in  St.  John's 
copy,  has  the  several  parts  of  the  Greed  in  Latin,  and  in  red 
letter,  prefixed  to  the  respective  version  and  comment ;  just  as 
we  find,  in  Hampole,  the  several  parts  of  each  Psalm  exhibited 
first  in  Latin,  and  in  red  letter :  which  circumstance  is  of  some 
weight.  3.  Add  to  this,  that  there  are  some  expressions  in  the 
comment  on  the  Creed  very  like  to  those  which  are  familiar  with 
the  author  of  that  commentary  on  the  Psalms :  such  as  those ; 
'*  It  is  seid  comunly,  that  ther  ben  &c.  clerkis  sein"  thus  and 
thus;  so'  that  from  similitude  of  style  an  argument  may  be 
drawn  in  favour  of  Hampole,  as  well  as  for  Wickliff.  Thene 
considerations  suffer  ma  not  to  be  positive  on  the  other  side. 
The  comment  may  be  Hampole's;  or  it  may  be  Wickliff's; 
which  latter  opinion  I  the  rather  incline  to  for  the  reasons  before 
given,  appearing  to  me  something  more  forcible  than  the  other. 
And  I  may  further  observe,  that  there  is  in  Sidney  College  in 
(^^ambridgo,  a  very  old  copy  of  Hampole's  commentary,  which 

^  Q.  Wliether  there  be  not  one  or    scripts,  in  the  General  Catalogue^  N. 
two  more  copies  of  the  same  in  the     243^.3085. 
Bodleian.     See  the  Bodleian  Manu- 


ruu«  throngh  the  Psalms,  and  all  the  ordinary  Hymns  and 
Canticles,  but  has  no  comment  upon  the  Athanasian  Greed 
annexed,  though  the  manuscript  appears  very  whole  and  entire. 
This  makes  me  less  inclinable  to  suspect  the  comment  upon  the 
Creed  being  Hampole'^s  ;  it  is  more  probably  WicklifT's,  as  I  be- 
fore said.  However  it  be,  the  comment  may  be  useful :  and  if 
it  should  prove  Hampole's,  it  must  be  set  forty  years  higher 
thxm  I  have  here  placed  it.  The  distance  of  thirty  or  forty  years 
makes  no  great  alteration  in  any  language :  so  that  merely  from 
the  lanffuape^  especially  in  so  small  a  tract,  we  can  draw  no 
oonsequence  to  the  atU/ior ;  excepting  such  peculiarities  as  may 
have  been  rather  proper  to  this  or  that  man^  than  to  this  or 
that  time. 

1478.  To  the  comments  before  mentioned  I  may  add  one  more, 
ft  Latin  one,  printed,  as  I  suppose,  about  the  year  T478,  though  it 
carries  not  its  date  with  it.  The  author  is  Peter  d*Osma,  called 
in  Latin  Petrus  de  Osomas,  or  Petnis  Oxomensis^  or  Uxomensis. 
The  comment  makes  about  seventy  pages  in  quarto,  and  is  drawn 
up  in  the  scholastic  way,  with  good  judgment  and  accuracy, 
eonsidering  the  age  it  was  written  in.  The  book  was  lent  me 
by  Mr.  Pownall  of  Lincoln,  a  gentleman  of  known  abilities,  and 
particularly  curious  in  searching  out  and  preserving  any  rare 
and  uncommon  pieces,  printed  or  manuscript.  I  do  not  find 
that  this  comment  has  been  at  all  taken  notice  of  in  any  of  our 
Bibliotheques,  or  in  any  of  the  catalogues  of  the  books  printed 
before  1500.  Even  those  that  give  account  of  the  author,  yet 
seem  to  have  known  nothing  of  the  printing  of  this  piece. 
Probably  there  were  but  very  few  copies,  and  most  of  them  soon 
destroyed  upon  the  author's  falling  under  censure  in  the  year 
1479.  The  author,  if  I  judge  right,  was  the  same  Peter  Osma 
who  was  Professor  of  Divinity  in  Salamanca,  and  adorned  the 
chair  with  great  reputation  for  many  years.  He  began  to  be 
famous  about  the  year  1444,  and  at  length  fell  under  the  censure 
of  a  provincial  synod,  held  under  Alpbonsus  Carrillus,  Archbishop 
of  Toledo,  in  the  year  1479^.  H®  ^"*  condemned  for  some 
portions  advanced  in  a  book  which  he  had  written  upon  the 
wbject  of  Confession,     The  positions,  nine  in  number,  are  such 

<  Commentaria  Magistri  Petri  de  coffnomcnto  Gering. 

^Homa  in  Symbolum  Quicunque  tmlt,  "  Nicol.  Antonii  Bibliotheca  His- 

^.  fimunt    fdiciter.      Impressaque  pana  Vetus,  torn.  ii.  p.  203. 
WMia  per  Magistruin  Udulricum, 



as  every  Protestant  professes  at  this  day^  being  levelled  only  at 
the  corruptions  of  Popery  in  doctrine  and  discipline :  but  the 
good  man  was  forced  to  submit  and  abjure,  and  to  profess  an 
implicit  belief  in  whatsoever  was  held  for  faith  by  the  then  Pope 
Sixtus  IV.  Such,  in  short,  is  the  account  of  our  author,  one  of 
the  most  learned  and  valuable  men  of  his  time^  by  confession 
even  of  his  enemies.  At  what  particular  time  he  composed  his 
comment  on  the  Athanasian  Greed,  I  cannot  say ;  only  that  it 
was  between  1444  and  1479.  -^  ^^^®  placed  it  according  to  the 
time  it  was  printed,  as  nearly  as  I  am  able  to  judge  of  it. 

These  are  all  the  ancient  comments  upon  the  Athanasian 
Creed  that  I  have  hitherto  met  with  or  heard  of;  excepting  only 
such  as  have  no  certain  author,  or  none  mentioned. 

Muratorius  informs  us  of  two  comments  without  names,  which 
are  in  manuscript,  in  the  Ambrosian  library,  near  six  hundred 
years  old.  One  of  them  bears  for  its  title,  Expositio  Fidei 
Gatholicse ;  the  other  has  no  title.  By  the  age  of  the  manu- 
scripts (if  Muratorius  judges  rightly  thereof)  one  maybe  assured 
that  they  are  distinct  and  different  from  any  of  the  comments 
below  Abelard :  and  that  they  are  neither  of  them  the  same  with 
Bruno's  or  Fortunatus^s  may  reasonably  be  concluded,  because 
Muratorius  was  well  acquainted  with  both,  and  would  easily 
have  discovered  it.  Whether  either  of  them  may  prove  to  be 
Abelard^s,  which  has  for  its  title  Expositio  Fider,  and  may  suit 
well  with  the  age  of  the  manuscripts,  I  know  not.  Muratorius, 
while  he  nuikes  mention  of  Bruno  and  Hildegardis,  whose  com- 
ments he  had  seen,  says  nothing  of  Abelard^s :  so  that  possibly 
one  of  his  manuscript  comments  may  prove  the  same  with  that. 
But  if  neither  of  them  be  the  same  with  Abelard's,  nor  with  each 
other,  they  must  be  allowed  to  pass  for  two  distinct  comments, 
whose  authors  are  not  yet  known. 

Nothing  now  remains,  but  to  close  this  chapter  with  a  table, 
as  I  have  the  former,  representing  in  one  view  a  summary  of 
what  is  contained  in  it. 

^  See  the  positions  and  censure  in  Carranza.  Summ.  ConciL  p.  880,  &c. 





TUle  of  Creed. 


Venant.  Fortmiatas 


Fides  Catholica. 




Symbolum  Atbanasii. 




Fides  Catholica  S.  Atban.  Epi 


aI9«  AII^^yQiy^^^.^^ 


Fides  Catholica. 


MS.  alter  Ambroa. 





Symbolnm  AthanasiL 





Smon  TomaGensia 



Alex.  Neckham. 


Fides  Catholica. 


Alexander  Hales 


Athanaaii  Symbolum. 


Rich.  Hampolvs 


Athanaaii  Symbolum. 


John  Wickliff 


Crede,  or  Sahn,  of  Attanasie. 


Petr.  de  Osoma 


Athanasii  Symbolum. 


CHAP.   IV. 
Latin  Manuscripts  oftl/ie  Athanasian  Creed. 

1  CONFINE  myself  in  this  chapter  to  the  Latm  manuscripts, 
since  the  Creed  was  undoubtedly  written  originally  in  Latin; 
and  therefore  the  manuscripts  in  any  other  languages  will  be 
more  properly  treated  of  in  another  chapter,  among  the  versions. 
None  of  the  learned  at  this  day  make  any  question  but  that  the 
Creed  was  originally  a  Latin  composure.  This  they  pretend  to 
be  certain  of,  and  unanimously  agree  in;  however  doubtfully 
they  may  speak  of  other  things,  or  however  they  may  differ  in 
their  opinions  about  the  age  or  author.  Even  those,  many  of 
them,  who  have  ascribed  the  Creed  to  Athanasius,  have  yet 
been  obliged  by  plain  and  irresistible  evidence  to  acknowledge, 
with  the  legates  of  Pope  Gregory  IXth,  that  it  was  originally 
Latin.  The  stt^le  and  phraseology  of  the  Creed ;  its  early  recep- 
tion among  the  Latins,  while  unknown  to  the  Greeks ;  the  anti- 
quity and  number  of  the  Latin  manuscripts,  and  their  agreement 
(for  the  most  part)  with  each  other,  compared  with  the  lateness, 
scarceness^  and  disagreement  of  the  Greek  copies,  all  concur  to 
demonstrate  that  this  Creed  was  originally  a  Latin  composure, 
rather  than  a  Greek  one :  and  as  to  any  other  language  besides 
these  two,  none  is  pretended. 

I  proceed  then  to  recount  the  Latin  manuscripts  as  high  as 
we  can  find  any  extant,  or  as  have  been  known  to  have  been 
extant ;  and  as  low  as  may  be  necessary  or  useful  to  our  main 

A.  D.  600.  The  oldest  wo  have  heard  of  is  one  mentioned 
by  Bishop  Usher,  which  he  had  seen  in  the  Cotton  library,  and 
which  he  judged  to  come  up  to  the  age  of  Gregory  the  Greati. 
This  manuscript  has  often  been  appealed  to  since  Usher's  time^ 

3  Latino-Gallicum  illud  Psalterium  recentius,  turn  ex   antique    pictune 

in   Bibliotheca  Cottoniana  vidimus:  genere  colligitur,  turn  ex  literarum 

sicut  et  alia  Latina  duo,  lonpre  majoris  forma    grandiuscula,    Atbanasianum 

antiquitatis ;  in  quibus,  prseter  tiym-    quidem,  Fidei  Catholicse, altenim 

num  hunc  (sc.  Te  Deum)  sine  ullo  au-  vero   Symboli  Apostolorum  pnefert 

toris  nomine,  Hymni  ad  Matutinas,  titulum.    In  posteriore,  quod  Regis 

titulo  inscriptum,  et  Athanasianum  iEthelstani  aliquando  fuit,  Apostoli- 

habebatur  Symbolum,  et  Apostolicum  cum,  vice  versa,  Symbolum  simpli- 

totidem  omnino  quot  hodiemum  no-  citer,   alterum   autem    Fides    Sancti 

strum  continens  Capitula.    In  priore,  Atbanasii    Alexandrini    nuncupstur. 

quod  Gregorii  I.  tempore  non  fuisse  Usser.  de  Symb,  prsef.  p.  2, 3. 


and  upon  the  credit  of  Usher,  by  the  learned  on  this  subject : 
as  particularly  by  Comber,  L'Estrange,  Tentzelius,  Tillemont, 
Le  Quien,  Muratorius,  Natalis  Alexander,  and  perhaps  several 
more.  Montfaucon  takes  notice  of  Usher's  manuscript ;  but 
observes  that  Usher  himself  allowed  the  character  to  be  much 
later  than  the  time  of  Gregory^.  Which  would  have  been  a 
strange  inconsistency  in  Usher^  who  forms  his  argument  for  the 
antiquity  of  the  manuscript  from  the  character  itself,  and  from 
the  ancient  kind  o{ picture.  But  Montfaucon  is  plainly  mistaken, 
confounding  what  Usher  had  said  of  another  manuscript,  in 
Bennet  library  at  Cambridge^,  with  what  he  had  said  of  the 
Cotton  manuscript  at  Westminster.  The  two  manuscripts  are 
very  distinct,  and  different  as  possible;  nor  has  the  Bennet 
manuscript  any  Athanasian  Creed  in  it:  only  its  being  called 
6regory''s  Psalter  occasioned,  I  suppose,  the  mistake  of  making 
it  the  same  with  the  other.  Tentzelius">  seems  first  to  have  con> 
founded  them  together :  and  probably  Montfaucon  followed  him 
implicitly,  not  having  Usher  at  hand  to  consult ;  which  would 
immediately  have  discovered  the  fallacy.  Were  there  no  other 
objection  against  Usher's  manuscript  beside  what  hath  been 
mentioned,  all  would  be  well.  But  it  is  of  greater  weight  to 
observe,  that  there  is  not,  at  this  day,  in  the  Cotton  library  any 
such  manuscript  copy  of  the  Athanasian  Creed ;  nor  indeed  any 
Latin  Psalter  that  can  come  up  to  the  age  of  Gregory,  or  near 
it.  There  is  an  ancient  Psalter  (marked  Vespasian  A)  written 
in  capiiabj  and  illuminated;  and  which  might  perhaps  by  the 
ckaracter  be  as  old  as  the  time  of  Gregory  the  Great ;  were  it 
not  reasonable  to  think,  from  a  charter  of  King  Ethelbald, 
written  in  the  same  hand,  and  at  the  same  time,  and  formerly 
belonging  to  it**,  that  it  cannot  be  set  higher  than  the  date  of 
that  charter,   A.  D.  736.      But  I  should   here   observe,   that 

^  Codicum  omnium  qui  hactenus  Usser.  de  Symb.  p.  9. 

visi  meraoratiqiie  sunt,  antiquissimus  ^  Tentzelii  Judic.  Eruditor.  p.  49. 

ille  est  qui  ab  Ueserio  laudatur,  asvo  £t  Exercit.  Select,  p.  29. 

Gregorii  Magni  conecriptus ;  si  tamen  "  Constat  vero  ex  Historia  et  Sy- 

ea  vere  sit  ejus  MS.  setas :  nam  addit  nopsi  Biblioth.  Cottonianee,  quam  in 

IJmenuBt^cnpiursmcfvoGregoriilonge  in^ens  reipublicae  literarise  beneficium 

€M9e  nosteriorem.  Montf.  Diatr. ^,^21,  edidit,  aroplificandis  bonis  Uteris  na- 

*  In  Psalterio  Graeco  Papae   Gre-  tus,    doctissimus    Thomas    Smith  us 

gorii,  ut  pnefert    titulus    (scriptura  noster,  et  indiculo  Psalterii  Latini  in 

enim  sevo  Gref^orii  longe  est  posterior)  majusculis  scripti  cum  versione  Sax- 

Fnkerio  viddicet  Graeco  et  Romano,  onica  interlineari,  quod  notatur  Ves- 

Latinis  utroqne  literis  descripto,  quod  pasian.  A.  I.  Chartam  banc  (^thel- 

in  BenedicUni,  apud  Cantabrigienses,  baldi  R.  Australium  Saxonum)  ex  isto 

coDegii  bibUotbeca   est  reconditum.  MS.  exscissam  esse.     Quod  etitim  il- 


that  charter  is  not  in  the  larger  capitals,  as  the  Psalter  itself  is, 
but  in  the  smaller  capitals,  the  same  hand  that  the  several 
pieces  in  that  manuscript,  previous  to  the  Psalter,  are  written 
in :  and  how  far  this  may  affect  our  present  argument,  I  cannot 
say.  Possibly  the  Psalter  itself  being  in  a  different  hand  may 
be  older  than  those  previous  pieces ;  as  it  is  certainly  much 
older  than  the  additional  pieces  at  the  end,  which  are  not  in 
cajntah  great  or  small. 

This  Psalter  has  the  Te  Deum  annexed  to  it,  with  the  title  of 
Ilymnus  ad  Matutinum,  as  Usher^s  had ;  and  also  the  Atha- 
nasian  Creed,  with  the  title  of  Fides  Catholica ;  but  both  in  a 
very  different  and  much  later  hand  than  that  of  the  Psalter 
itself;  later  by  several  centuries,  as  the  very  learned  Mr.  Wan- 
leyo  judges,  who  sets  the  age  of  the  Psalter  about  looo  years, 
but  of  the  Athanasian  Creed,  &c.  at  the  time  of  the  Norman 
Conquest.  A  suspicion,  however,  may  from  hence  arise,  that  this 
very  Psalter,  with  what  belongs  to  it.  might  be  the  Psalter.  &c. 
which  Usher  spake  of ;  especially  since  there  is  none  other  in 
the  Cotton  library  at  all  like  it.  But,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  to 
be  considered,  that  this  manuscript  has  no  Apostolical  Creed  at 
all  in  it,  which  Usher  affirms  his  to  have  had :  nor  has  it  the 
Hymnus  Matutinus,  beginning  with  Gloria  in  excelm  Deo^  which 
Usher^s  also  had? :  nor  is  the  Creed  in  capitals,  as  one  would 
imagine  Usher's  to  have  been  by  what  he  says  of  it.  Neither 
is  it  at  all  probable,  that,  if  Usher  had  intended  the  Psalter 
now  extant  in  the  Cotton,  he  should  give  no  hint  of  the  Saxon 
version  going  along  with  it ;  especially  considering  that  it  might 
be  made  an  objection  to  it«  antiquity.  Nor  do  I  think  that 
so  inquisitive  a  man  as  Usher  could  either  have  been  ignorant 
of  the  age  of  Ethelbald,  or  of  his  charter  having  been  once 
a  part  of  that  manuscript.  In  his  Historia  Dogmatical,  he 
takes  notice  of  this  very  Psalter,  (now  marked  Vespasian  A,) 

lius  quum  mensura  quae  cum  foliis  (sc.  Gloria  &c.)  habetur  a^jectus.    In 

illius  AlS.  quadrat,  turn  etiam  manus  antiquissimo  Cottoniano  a»tniypatf>oi 

in  utroque  prorsus  eadem,  turn  deni-  eat ;  in  iEthelstaniano  proximo,  Hym- 

que  locvs  MSS.  unde  scissa  est,  inter  nus  in  die  Dominico  ad  Matutinas, 

folia  X  et  xi.  codicem  vertentibus  inscribilur.  Usser.  de  Synibol.  p.  ^^, 
ostendit.    Hirkes,  Dissert.  EpisU  in        <i  In  Hibliotheca  D.  Roberti  Cotton 

lAngu.  Septenir.  Thesaur.  p.  67.  extat  Psalterium  Romanum  vetustis- 

o  Vid.  Wanleii  Catal.  MSS.  Sep-  simum,  cum  versione  interlineari  Sax- 

tentrion.  p.  222.  onica  :    character  idem  cum  charti 

P  Ad  hnem  veterum  Psalteriorum  iEthilbaldi   Anglorum    Regis,    anno 

Latinorum,  cum  Apostolico  et  Atha-  736  data.     Usser.  Histo,  Dogmat,  p. 

naeiano  Symbolo,  etiam  Hymnus  iste  104. 


and  of  the  Saxon  venion  in  it,  and  likewise  of  its  being  in  the 
iome  hand  with  Ethelbald's  charter :  and  there  be  sets  the  age  of 
it  no  higher  than  the  year  736,  (that  is,  above  130  years  later 
than  Gregory  I^)  without  the  least  hint  that  he  had  ever  mistaken 
the  age  of  it  before,  or  had  thought  otherwise  of  it  than  he  did 
at  the  time  of  his  writing  this  later  treatise.  These  consider- 
ations persuade  me  that  Bishop  Usher  had  seen  some  other 
manuscript,  which  has  since  that  time,  like  many  more^",  been 
lost,  or  stolen  from  the  Cotton  library.  He  that  was  so  accu- 
rate in  every  tittle  of  what  he  says  of  King  Athelstan^s  Psalter, 
(mentioned  at  the  same  time,)  could  never  have  been  so  negligent, 
or  rather  plainly  careless,  in  respect  of  the  other.  I  conclude 
therefore,  that  there  really  was  such  a  Psalter  as  Usher  de- 
scribes, with  the  Athanasian  Creed  in  it ;  such  as  he  judged  to 
be  of  the  age  of  Gregory  I.  from  more  marks  than  one :  and  how 
good  a  judge  he  was  in  those  matters  is  well  known  to  as  many 
as  know  any  thing  of  that  great  man.  But  how  far  his  judgment 
ought  to  sway,  now  the  manuscript  itself  is  lost,  I  must  leave 
with  the  reader. 

660.  Next  to  this  of  Bishop  Usher  we  may  place  the  famous 
manuscript  of  Treves,  from  which  the  Colbert  manuscript  (to  be 
mentioned  hereafter  in  its  place)  was  copied.  Mr.  Antelmi  sets 
it  as  high  as  the  year  450,  upon  a  presumption  that  the  Colbert 
manuscript  is  as  old  as  the  year  600,  and  that  150  years  may 
reasonably  be  allowed  between  the  Colbertine  copy  and  that 
from  which  it  was  copied.  Tillemont,  supposing,  or  admitting 
the  Colbertine  to  be  near  the  age  that  Antelmi  mentions,  yet 
thinks  fifty  years'  difference  might  be  sufficient ;  and  that  there- 
fore the  age  of  the  Treves  manuscript  might  be  fixed  at  550,  or 
thereabout".  But  since  the  Colbert  manuscript  cannot  reason- 
ably be  set  much  higher  than  760,  as  we  shall  see  in  its  proper 
place ;  I  shall  not  pretend  to  set  the  Treves  manuscript  above 
660 ;  and  that  only  under  the  favourable  allowance  of  a  proba- 
ble conjecture.  The  authority  of  this  manuscript  of  Treves 
stands  upon  the  credit  of  a  passage  prefixed  to  the  Colbertine 
copyS  which  declares  that  the  latter  was  copied  from  a  manu- 
script found  at  Treves.    It  was  not  a  copy  of  the  entire  Creed, 

^  Vid.  Tho.   Smith!  Pracfationem  ecriptum,    sic    incipiente,    "Domini 

ad  Catalog.  MSS.  Bibl.  Ck>tton.  **  nostri  Jesu  Christ  iet  relioua.     Do- 

s  Tillemont,  M^moires,  tom.  viii.  **  mini  nostri  Jesu  Christi  fiaeliter  cre- 

p.670.  "dat."  Apud  Montf,  Diairib,  p, 'jiS, 

*  Haec  inveni  Treviris  in  uno  libro 


but  began  at  the  second  part  which  relates  to  the  iticarmiian. 
For  after  the  words,  "believe  rightly  the  incarnation  of  our 
"  Lord  Jesus  Christ,"  (being  only  part  of  the  foregoing  sen- 
tence,) follows ;  "  For,  the  right  faith  is,  that  we  believe/'  and 
so  on  to  the  end  of  the  Creed.  This  remaining  part  of  the 
Creed  is  very  different  from  the  common  copies,  and  seems  to 
have  been  so  contrived  with  design,  as  I  shall  have  occasion  to 
observe  more  at  large  in  the  sequel.  And  it  is  to  me  an  argu- 
ment that  the  manuscript  was  written  while  the  Eutychian  con- 
troversy was  at  the  height,  about  the  end  of  the  fifth  centurj',  or 
beginning  of  the  sixth ;  though  I  here  set  it  a  great  deal  lower^ 
because  this  is  not  the  place  to  explain  that  matter  fully,  nor 
would  I  too  far  indulge  a  bare  conjecture.  It  is  sufficient  to  sup- 
pose it  written  in  the  seventh  century,  as  it  was  undoubtedly 
copied  from,  as  early,  if  not  earlier,  than  the  eighth. 

7CX).  After  the  manuscript  of  Treves,  may  justly  follow  the 
Ambrosian  manuscript,  which  is  in  the  Ambrosian  library  at 
Milan ;  a  copy  of  which  has  been  published  by  Muratorius,  in 
his  second  tome  of  Anecdota.  It  was  brought  thither  from  the 
famous  monastery  of  Bobbio,  (of  High  Lombardy,  in  the  Mila- 
nese,) founded  by  Columbanus,  A.  D.  613.  The  character  of  the 
manuscript  is  Langobardic;  and  it  is  judged  by  Muratorius 
(who  has  more  particularly  examined  it)  to  be  above  1000  years 
old*^.  By  his  account  then,  who  wrote  in  the  year  1698,  we 
ought  to  set  the  age  of  this  manuscript  higher  than  698.  Yet 
because  Montfaucon,  who  in  his  travels  through  Italy  had  also 
seen  it,  puts  it  no  higher  than  the  eighth  century^,  we  shall  be 
content  to  place  it  between  the  seventh  and  eighth,  or  in  the  year 
700,  to  make  it  a  round  number.  There  are  in  this  manuscript 
some  readings  different  from  the  common  copies ;  which  shall  be 
carefully  noted  hereafter.     It  is  without  any  title. 

703.  We  may  next  set  down  K.  Athelstan's  Psalter,  of  which 
Bishop  Usher  had  taken  notice,  making  it  next  in  age  to  the 

u  In  alio  etiam  vetustiHsiino  Am-  Celebris  monasterii  Bobiensis,  et  ex 

brosianse  biblothecse  codice  ante  mille  illo    in    Ambrobianam    translatus    a 

«//7/tfre«anno«scripto,Symbolumidem  magno  Card.   Frederico  Borromaeo, 

sum  nactus.    Murator.  torn.  i.  p.  16.  &c.    Murator.  torn.  ii.  p. 8.  item  p.  22.|. 

Cacterum  opusculum  hoc  (Bachi-  *  Codex  VIII.  Sa?culi,  cbaractere 

arii  Fides)  mini  depromptum  est  ex  Langobardico,  in  quo  Gennadii  liber 

antiquissimo  Ambrosiana^  bibilothecae  de  Ecclesiasticis  Dogmatibus,  Bachi- 

oodice,  quern  anteannos  minimum  mille  arii  Fides,  Synibolum  Athanasii,  om- 

conscriptum,  characterum  forma  non  nia  eadem  manu.    Montfauc,  Diati. 

dubitanter  testatur.    Fuit  autem  olim  lt<d.  p.  18. 


other  most  ancient  one  of  the  age  of  Gregory  I.  He  and  Dr. 
Orabe  both  fix  the  date  of  it  to  the  year  703,  from  the  rtde  of 
the  calendar  found  in  it^.  Dr.  Smith,  in  his  Catalogue  of  the 
Cotton  manuscripts,  inclines  to  think  that  the  manuscript  is 
later  than  that  time,  but  taken  from  one  that  was  really  as 
early  as  the  year  703  ;  the  later  copyist  transcribing  (as  some- 
times has  been)  the  book  and  the  rule  word  for  word,  as  he  found 
them  2.  Allowing  this  to  have  been  the  case  here,  (though  it  be 
only  conjecture,)  it  may  still  be  true  that  there  was  a  manuscript 
of  the  age  of  703,  with  this  Creed  in  it ;  from  whence  the  later 
one,  now  extant^  was  copied  :  which  serves  our  purpose  as  well, 
and  the  rest  is  not  material.  But  it  should  not  be  concealed, 
that  the  Psalter  (in  this  manuscript)  is  in  small  Italian,  and  the 
above  mentioned  rvie  in  a  small  Saxon  hand;  which  may  in 
some  measure  weaken  the  argument  drawn  from  the  age  of  one 
to  the  age  of  the  other :  so  that  at  length  our  evidence  from  this 
manuscript  will  be  short  of  certainty^  and  will  rise  no  higher  than 
a  fair,  probable  presumption.  I  have  nothing  further  to  observe, 
but  that  the  Psalter^  wherein  this  Creed  is,  is  the  Gallican 
Psalter,  not  the  Roman ;  and  the  title  is,  Fides  Sancti  Athanasii 
Alexandrini,  The  Faith  of  St.  Athanasius  of  Alexandria. 

760.  We  may  now  take  in  the  Colbertine  copy,  of  which 
I  have  before  spoken,  referring  the  date  of  it  to  the  year  760, 
or  thereabout.  Montfaucon  sets  it  above  the  age  of  Charles  the 
Great*,  allowing  it  to  have  been  written  about  the  time  of  Pepin, 

y  Psalterium  illud  anno  terte  nos-  citer,  ante  tempora  iEthelstani  de- 

trse  Christianse  703,  longe  ante  i£thel-  scriptus,  vix    pro  certo  prsestarem ; 

ttani  regnantis  tempora,  ex  Regulis  ad  posteriorem  sententiaro  faventiori 

Kalendario  in  Hbri  initio  subjunctis  animo    inclinaturus.     Smith.     BibL 

scriptuni  foisae  deprehendi.     Usser.  Cotton.  Histor.  p.  44. 

de  Symb,  p.  6.  ^  Nongentos  superat  annos  Colber- 

Quod  regis  iEthelstani  fuisse  dici-  tinus  codex  784.  Saxonicis  descrip- 
tor, atone  anno  703  scriptum  est.  tus  literis,  et,  mea  quidem  sententia, 

QrabU  ProUgom,  in  Psalt,  Alexandr,    ante  aetatem  Caroli  Magni  editus 

cap.  ^.  Sunt  qui  codicem  ilium  1 100  annorum 

*  Hie  vero  venerandae  antiquitatis  esse  aafirmarunt :  verum  periti  quique 

liber  fere  ante  mille  annos  descriptus ;  sevo  circiter  Pipini  exaratum  arbitran- 

ut   quibusdam  ex   Calendario,  quod  tur.    Montf,  Diatr.  p. 'j  21. 

anDum  Christi  703,  certo  designat,  Nee  taroen  codicis  Colbertini  aucto- 

iUic  praefixo  videtur.    Sed  cum  Ubra-  ritate  nititur  bspc  opinio,  quern  arbi- 

no8  eandem  temporis  adnotationem,  tratur    Antelmius     iioo    annorum. 

qiise  ad  vetustissimos  codices  proprie  Etenim  (quod  pace  viri  eruditissimiy 

ct  peculiariter  spectat,  suis  exemplar-  mibique   amicissimi    dicatur)    multo 

ibiui  apposuisse  esepissime  observa-  minoris  aetatis  codex  esse  coropro- 

i  mX  ille  ipse  codex  auto-  batur ;  nemo  enim  i)eritu8  cui  librum 

gnpbns  qui  tantam  prae  se  ferat  aeta-    exhibuerim,  octavo  eum  saeculo  anti- 
tem,  vel  annon  potius  saeculo,  aut  cir-    quiorem  aestimavit.  Montf,  ib.  p.  724. 



who  began  to  reign  in  the  year  752.  So  that  I  cannot  be  much 
out  of  time  in  placing  it  as  I  have  done.  It  is  written  in  Saxon 
character,  and  is  imperfect ;  wanting  the  first  part,  above  one 
half  of  the  Creed,  just  as  the  manuscript  of  Treves  from  which  it 
was  copied. 

760.  The  manuscript  of  St.  Germans,  at  Paris,  is  entire,  and  of 
the  same  age  with  the  former^.  It  is  marked  num.  257,  and 
written  in  a  Saxon  letter^  as  well  as  the  other.  A  specimen  of 
the  hand,  with  the  three  first  paragraphs  of  the  Creed,  may  be 
seen  in  Mabillon^.  The  title,  Fides  Sancti  Athanasii  Episcopi 
Alexandrise.  It  differs  in  some  places  from  the  common  copies^ 
(as  shall  be  noted  hereafter,)  though  not  near  so  much  as  the 
Colbert  manuscript  before  mentioned. 

772.  Next  to  these  is  the  famous  manuscript  of  Charles  the 
Great,  at  the  end  of  a  Gallican  Psalter,  written  in  letters  of  gold, 
and  presented  by  Charlemagne,  while  only  King  of  France,  to 
Pope  Adrian  I.  at  his  first  entrance  upon  the  pontificate,  in  the 
year  772.  Lambecius  in  his  Catalogue  of  the  Emperors  library 
at  Vienna,  where  this  manuscript  is,  gives  a  large  account  of  it^. 
The  title  is,  Fides  Sancti  Athanasii  Episcopi  Alexandrini. 

8cx>.  There  is  another  manuscript  in  the  Royal  library  at 
Paris  marked  4908,  which  Montfaucon  judges  to  be  near  900 
years  old^  He  wrote  in  the  year  1698.  So  if  we  place  it  in 
the  year  800,  we  shall  want  a  little  of  900  years  from  that  time. 
He  supposes  it  of  very  near  the  same  age  with  the  Vienna  manu- 
script. It  bears  no  title^  nor  any  name  or  note  of  the  author. 
It  contains  no  more  than  the  first  part  of  the  Creed,  as  fiur  as 
the  words,  et  tamen  non  tres  cetemi  ;  wd  unu» —  the  rest  is  torn 
off  and  lost. 

850.  I  may  here  place  a  manuscript  of  Bennet  College  libcaiy 
in  Cambridge,  whose  age  I  cannot  certainly  fix  to  a  year ;  but 
by  all  circumstances  it  cannot  well  be  supposed  later  than  this 
time.     It  is  at  the  end  of  a  Psalter,  which  by  comparing  I  find 

b  Paris  saltern  antiquitatis  est  San-  Pontifid  Hadriano  I.  dono  mirisse;  et 

germanensis  noster,  num.  257.  Saxo-  quidem,  ut  m>  arbitror,  iUo  ipso  anno 

nicis  pariter  Uteris  exaratus,  qui  titu-  773.  cujus  (ue  decimo  Febmarii  jam 

lum   nabet,  Fides   Sancti   Athanasii  memoratus   Hadrianns  in  summani 

Episcopi  Alexandria.   Komtf,  p.  721.  Pontificem  electus  est.  hawbec.  ibid. 
^  Mabill.  de  Re  Diplom.  p.^51.  e  Regius  Codex,  nnm.  4908.  an- 

^  Lambecii  Catal.  Bibliotn.  Vindo-  norum   pene   nongentonun^  nnlhini 

bonens.  lib.  ii.  cap.  5.  p.  261,  2^6,  habet  f iKi/um,  nullumque  aaefortt  no- 

&c.  Carolus  Magnus  proprio  cannine  men.  iEqualisipsiest^qiumeiiiofatiir 

suo  testatur  se  iUum  codicem  summo  a  Lambecio  &c.  Montf.  wbid.  p.  721. 


to  be  a  €hdlican  Psalter.  Bishop  Parker  left  a  remark  in  it 
about  its  being  in  the  possession  first  of  one  of  the  Archbishops 
of  Canterbury,  and  at  length  conveyed  down  to  the  hands  of 
Becket^,  who  was  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  in  the  year  1162. 
The  great  antiquity  of  the  manuscript  appears  from  the  martyrs^ 
con/essorSyand  virgins  addressed  to  in  it ;  all  of  the  early  timess. 
There  are  some  few  variations  in  this  copy,  such  as  are  also 
found  in  the  most  ancient  manuscripts  of  this  Creed ;  particularly 
the  word  et^  frequently  inserted  before  Spiritus  SanctuSy  which 
has  been  since  erased  by  some  officious  hand.  The  title  is 
observable;  Fides  Sancti  Anasthasii  Episcopi:  Aiiasthasii  for 
Athanasii,  by  a  transposition  of  syllables. 

860.  Montfaucon  informs  us  of  a  manuscript  in  the  Colbert 
library,  num.  1339,  which  once  belonged  to  Charles  the  Bald^  who 
died  in  the  year  877 ;  began  to  reign  840.  It  cannot  therefore 
be  much  amiss  to  fix  upon  860  for  the  date  of  it.  The  title  it 
bears  is,  Fides  Athanasii. 

883.  There  is  a  second  manuscript  copy  of  the  Athanasian 
Creed,  in  the  library  of  Bennet  (or  Corpus  Christi)  College, 
marked  N.  O.  Y.  It  is  at  the  end  of  a  Gallican  Psalter,  in 
the  same  hand,  and  carrying  its  certain  date  with  it.  It  was 
written  in  France  by  order  of  Count  Amadeus,  or  Achadeus^ ; 
and  in  the  year  883,  as  appears  from  the  Litany^.  The  title  is. 
Fides  Catholica. 

930.  Mr.  Wanley  gives  us  an  account  of  a  Roman  Psalter  in 
the  Royal  library,  (formerly  of  St.  Jameses,)  with  an  interlinear 
Saxon  version  to  it,  written  about  the  time  of  King  Athelstan^ 

'  Hoc  Psalterium  [N.  X.]  laminis  Karoli  Calvi  imperatoris,  inscribitur ; 

argenteis  deauratum,  et  gemmis  oma-  Fides  Athanasii.    Montfauc,  Diatrib. 

tmn,  quondam  fuit  N.  Cantuar.  Ap-  p.  721. 

cbiep.  tandem  venit  in  manus  Thomse  ^  Ad  finem  Psalterii,  ''  Achadeus, 

Becket  quond^n  Cant.  Archiep.  quod  "  misericordia  Dei  comes  hunc  Psal- 

teitatom  est  in  veteri  scripto.  Matth.  "  terium  scribere  jussit."   Vid,  Catal. 

CoiU.     Vid.  Catal.  MSS.  C.  C.  C.  C.  Af55.  p.46. 

p.  43.  k  Oratiir,  *'  ut  marinum  apostolicum 

>  In   litaniis,   Orate    pro    nobis,  "  in  sancta  religione  conservare  dig- 

Sancte  Contestor,  Sancte  Herasme,  '*  neris,  ut  Karlomannum  Regem  per- 

Sancte  Oswolde,  &c.  martyres.  Sancte  "  petua  prosperitate  conservare  dig- 

Cuthberte,  Sancte  Germane,  Sancte  "  neris :  ut  reginam  conservare  dig- 

^'•ddc,  Sancte  Columbane,  Sancte  "  neris :  ut  fulconem  episcopum  cum 

Oaiirentine,  &c.  confessores.     Sancta  *'  omni  grege  sibi  commisso  in  tuo 

^ngida,  Sancta  Eugenia,  Sancta  Eu-  "  apto  servitio  conser^^are  digneris." 

Wia,  Sancta  Pctronella,  &c.  virgines.  Vid,  Catalog.  MSS,  C,  C.  C.  C.  p.  47. 

^Qonsantbiscerecentiores.    Catal.  »  Wanleii  Catal.  MS.  Septentr.  p. 

ms.  Bi6l.  C.  C.  C.  C.  p.  43.  182. 

^  Colbeitinus  N.  1339.     Qui  fuit 


Among  the  Canticles  at  the  end,  there  is  also  this  Creed,  under 
the  title  of  Hymnus  Athanasii  de  Fide  Trinitatis,  quern  tu  conce- 
lebrans  discuiienter  intdlige :  this  is  in  red  ink.  The  title  seems 
to  have  been  then  customary  in  England,  as  may  be  probably 
argued  from  a  Saxon  version  (to  be  hereafter  mentioned)  of  the 
same  age,  or  very  near,  and  bearing  the  same  title™. 

957.  In  the  Archbishop^s  library,  at  Lambeth,  there  is  a 
Gallican  Psalter,  \vritten,  according  to  Mr.  Wanley",  in  the 
time  of  King  Edgar,  or  a  little  before.  At  the  end,  there  is  the 
Athanasian  Creed  in  the  same  ancient  hand,  with  an  interlinear 
Saxon  version.  The  title.  Fides  Catholica  Sancti  Athanasii 

970.  There  is  another  manuscript  copy  of  this  Creed,  much 
of  the  same  age  with  the  former,  in  my  Lord  Oxford's  elegant 
library,  richly  furnished  with  all  kinds  of  curious  and  valuable 
manuscripts.  This  Creed  is  at  the  end  of  a  GaJlican  Psalter, 
and  has  an  interlinear  Saxon  version  to  it.  Mr.  Wanley,  who 
was  so  kind  as  to  acquaint  me  with  it,  and  to  favour  me  with  a 
sight  of  it,  refers  it  to  the  time  of  King  Edgar  ;  who  began  his 
reign  in  959,  and  died  in  975.  The  title  is.  Fides  Catholica 
Athanasii  Alexandrini  Episcopi. 

1031.  In  the  Cotton  library  there  is  a  Gallican  Psalter,  with 
Saxon  interlined,  (marked  Vitellius,  E.  18.)  which  Mr.  Wanley 
refers  to  the  year  103 1  ^.  The  Athanasian  Creed  at  the  end,  as 
usual,  among  the  other  Canticles,  bears  the  title  of  Fides  Ca- 
tholica Athanasii  Episcopi  Alexandrini. 

1050.  In  the  Norfolk  library,  now  belonging  to  the  Royal 
Society  at  London,  there  is  also  a  Gallican  Psalter,  whose  age  is 
fixed  by  Mr.  Wanley  P  to  the  time  of  Edward  the  Confessor. 
The  Creed  is  in  it,  and  has  an  interlinear  Saxon  version  running 
along  with  it.     The  title,  Fides  Catholica  Athanasii  Alex. 

1064.  In  Bennet  College  library  is  a  manuscript  copy  of  this 
Creed  without  any  title.  The  Psalter  wherein  it  is,  is  called 
Portiforium  Oswaldi,  and  is  marked  K.  10.  An  account  of  the 
book  may  be  seen  in  Mr.  Wanley,  and  in  the  Catalogue. 

^  Hymnus  Athanasii  de  Fide  Tri-  matics?,  p.  374.  Alfredo  parum  recen- 

nitatis.  Vid,  IVottoni  Conspectum  Bre-  tior  videtur. 
rem  Operis  Hickesiani,  p.  77.  "  Wanleii  Catal.p.323,a24.Smith. 

n  Wanleii  Catal.  p.  269.     Eadgari  Catal.  Cotton,  p.  101. 
regis  Anglosaxonum  tem})oribus,  aut        p  Wanleii  Catal.  MSS.     Seplentr. 

paulo  ante,  ut  videtur,  exaratus.  ]>.  291. 

Wharton.  Auctarium  Historice  Dog- 


1066.  I  may  here  place  the  Cotton  manuscript  before  men- 
tioned, bound  up  with  the  Ancient  Roman  Psalter,  marked 
Vespasian,  A  ;  though  of  a  very  difiTerent  and  much  later  hand. 
The  Creed  has  an  interlinear  Saxon  version,  as  usual;  and  its 
title  is.  Fides  Catholica.  Mr.  Wanley  judges  it  to  be  as  old  as 
the  coming  in  of  the  Normans  *>. 

1066.  Of  the  same  age  is  the  Roman  Psalter  in  our  public 
library  *^  at  Cambridge,  with  the  Latin  text  in  black  letter,  a 
Saxon  version  in  red,  and  the  titles  in  green.  The  Creed  is  inter- 
lined with  Saxon,  as  well  as  the  Psalter,  but  has  no  title :  for, 
from  this  time,  I  conceive,  the  title  began  to  bo  left  out  in  some 
copies,  for  brevity  sake,  or  because  it  was  thought  superfluous. 

It  will  be  needless  to  take  notice  of  any  manuscripts  below 
this  time,  excepting  only  such  as  contain  Romethmg  particular, 

1087.  Quesnel',  and  after  him  PagiS  speaks  of  a  manuscript 
copy  of  this  Creed  in  a  Breviary  and  Psalter  for  the  use  of  the 
monks  of  mount  Cassin,  judged  to  be  about  600  years  old.  This 
is  the  same  Breviary  that  Quesnel  has  made  observations  upon 
in  another  work^.  And  there  he  fixes  the  age  a  little  below 
J  086;  paulopost  annum  1086.  The  title  of  the  Creed  is.  Fides 
Catholica  edita  ab  Athanasio  Alexandrinse  sedis  Episcopo. 
There  is  the  like  title  to  the  Creed  in  the  Triple  Psalter  of  St. 
John's  CoUege  Cambridge,  about  the  same  age,  or  older,  (marked 
B.  18.)  Jncipit  Fides  Catholica  edita  ab  Athanasio  Archiepi- 
ficopo  Alexandrinse  civitatis.  And  there  is  such  another  title  in 
a  Psalter  of  the  Norfolk  library,  (N.  155,)  Fides  Catholica  edita 
a  Sanoto  Athanasio  Episcopo.     But  the  hand  is  modern. 

1 J  20.  In  my  Lord  Oxford's  library  I  had  a  sight  of  a  manu- 
script written  in  Germany  about  600  years  ago,  for  the  use  of  the 
Church  of  Augsburg ;  which  bears  for  its  title.  Fides  Anastasii 

1 150.  In  the  Norfolk  library  is  a  Psalter  (marked  N.  230.) 
with  an  interlinear  version  Normanno-Gallican :  the  Psalter  is 
Galilean,  and  the  title  of  the  Creed  at  the  end.  Fides  Catholica. 
1 240.  Usher  takes  notice  of  a  copy  of  this  Creed  then  in  the 
Royal  library  at  St.  James's,  (formerly  belonging  to  Lewis  the 
Ninth,)  the  tide.  Fides  Catholica. 

q  Wanleii  Catal.  p.  222.      Smith.  *  Pagi,   Critic,    in   Baron,   vol.   i. 

Bibl.  Cotton.  Uistor.  p.  35.  p.  44 1 . 

^  Wanleii  Catal.  p.  152.  "  Quesnel,  Ohservat.  ad  Breviarium 

•  QucBnel  Dissert,  xiv.  ad  Leon.  &c.  in  Theodor.  Pcenitentiale,  p.  327. 

Opcr.  p.  732. 


1300.  Montfaucon  informs  us  of  a  Latin  and  a  French  copy 
of  this  Creed  found  in  a  manuscript  about  400  years  old ;  placed 
in  opposite  columns.  What  is  remarkable  is,  that  the  Latin  has 
for  its  title  Canticum  Bonifacii,  and  the  French  over  against  the 
other,  Ce  chant  St.  Anaistaise  qui  Apostoilles  de  Bome^. 

1400.  In  the  Bodleian  at  Oxford  there  is  a  manuscript  copy 
of  this  Creed,  (Num.  1204.)  which  has  for  its  title,  Anastasii 
Expositio  Symboli  Apostolorum.  It  is  about  300  years  old,  and 
belonged  once  to  the  Carthusian  monks  at  Mentz.  The  Car- 
thusians are  particularly  noted  for  their  more  than  common  ve- 
neration for  this  Creed,  reciting  it  every  day  at  the  primfi,  as 
Cardinal  Bona  testifies  both  of  them  and  the  AmbrosiansX; 
which  I  remark  by  the  way.  I  observe  that  the  German  copies 
of  this  Creed,  for  five  or  six  hundred  years  upwards,  have  most 
commonly  Anastasius  instead  of  Athanasius.  I  make  no  ques- 
tion but  that  this  first  arose  from  a  mistake  of  the  copyists,  and 
not  out  of  any  design.  One  may  perceive  that  Anastasius  is 
sometimes  written  where  Athanasius  of  Alexandria  must  have 
been  intended.  I  suppose,  at  first,  some  copies  had  accidentally 
Anasthasius  for  Athanasius,  (as  one  in  Bennet  College  library 
mentioned  above,)  by  a  transposition  of  letters  or  syllables ;  as 
easily  happens  in  writing  or  speaking:  thus  Phrunutus  for 
Phumutus,  Marivadus  for  Varimadus,  and  the  like.  Now  when 
the  copyists  had  thus  introduced  Anasthasius,  {Anas-tha  for 
Atha-nas)  those  that  came  after  left  out  the  A,  to  make  it  Ana- 
stasius, that  being  a  common  name,  which  the  other  was  not. 
This  I  thought  proper  to  hint,  that  it  may  appear  how  little 
reason  there  is  for  ascribing  this  Creed  to  Anastasius,  whether 
of  Biome,  or  of  Antioch,  or  any  other. 

I  have  now  run  through  the  manuscripts  of  greatest  note,  or 
use,  either  for  antiquity ,  or  for  any  thing  particular ^  to  give 
light  to  our  further  inquiries.  Two  only  I  have  omitted,  which 
have  been  thought  considerable ;  not  so  much  in  themselves,  as 
upon  account  of  the  other  tracts  they  were  found  to  be  joined 
with.  The  one  is  the  manuscript  found  in  the  library  of  Thuanus 
(Codex  Thuaneus)  annexed  to  some  tracts  which  were  once  sup- 
posed to  belong  to  Vigilius  Tapsensis,  though  now  certainly 
known  to  be  none  of  his.  Quesnel  was  much  pleased  with  the 
discovery  of  this  manuscript,  as  favouring  his  hypothesis  about 

X  Montfaucon,  Diathb.  p.  732,  '  Bona  de  Divin.  Psalmod.  cap. 
737.  xviii.  p.  897,  900. 


Vigiliuis  Tapsensis^.  And  Antelmius  has  taken  some  pains  in 
confuting  him ;  shewing  that  the  supposed  works  of  Vigilius  are 
none  of  his^  and  that  if  they  were,  yet  no  certain  argument 
could  be  drawn  from  thence  to  make  Vigilius  author  of  the 
Greed ;  since  it  is  a  common  thing  for  tracts  of  several  authors, 
especially  if  they  relate  to  the  same  subject,  to  be  tacked  to  each 

The  second  manuscript  is  one  that  was  found  annexed  to  the 
Fragments  of  Hilary  of  Poictiers^;  which  circumstance  was 
thought  a  reason  for  ascribing  this  Creed  to  Hilary.  Vossius 
first,  and  after  him  many  others,  throw  it  off  as  a  very  sUght 
argument,  since  the  manuscript  pretended  is  very  modem y  nor  is 
the  Creed  ascribed  to  Hilary  in  that  manuscript,  but  only  bound 
up  with  his  Fragments,  as  any  other  work  might  be,  however 
little  akin  to  them.  Montfaucon  takes  notice  of  this  matter  in 
few  words<^,  Tentzelius  more  at  large  <^.  It  is  sufficient  for  me 
just  to  have  hinted  it. 

Having  now  given  as  particular  account  as  was  needful  of  the 
more  ancient  Latin  manuscripts  of  this  Creed,  I  may  just  ob- 
serve that  as  to  tnodem  ones,  they  are  innumerable,  there  being 
scarce  any  manuscript  Latin  Psalter  of  modem  date  but  what 
has  the  Creed  in  it,  and  generally  without  a  title.  I  may  next 
subjoin  a  table  of  the  manuscripts  here  recited,  representing  in 
one  view  the  age^  the  tiile^  the  country  where  written,  and  the 
kind  of  Psalter  wherein  found  :  all  which  circumstances  will  be 
of  use  to  us  in  our  following  inquiries.     Particularly,  as  to  the 

'  Absoluta  dissertationum  nostra-  ^  Vid.  Montfauc.  Athan.  Op.  torn, 

rum  editione,  inveni  Codicem  lliua-  ii.  p.  603,  724. 

neum,  in  quo  Dialogue  Vigilii  Tap-  ^  InveDitur  id  similiter  in   Frag- 

adversus  Arianos,  Sabellianos,  mentis  Hilarii  historicis  in  cod.  veteri 

et  Photinianos  legitur,  sub  hoc  titulo :  part.  2.  sub  finem.    Felckman.  Var, 

Incipit  Altercatio  Athanani  cum  Ha-  Lect.  Oper.  Athan,  p.  83. 
ftnbus.  Post  hunc  tractatum  habetur        ^  Hilario  nonnuUi  adscriptum  vo- 

Symbolum  Nicaenum,  et  formula  fidei  luerunt,  quia  nimirum  in  codice  quo- 

Ariminensis  Concilii,  quam  proxime  dam  exstat  post  Hilarii  Fragmenta. 

sequitur    Symbolum    Athanasianum  Quasi  vero  id  non  vulgo  et  in  plerisque 

com  hac  epigraphe :  Fides  dicta  a  codicibus  observetur,  ut  multa  diver- 

Sancto  Athanasio  Episcopo.    Porro,  sorum  onera  consequenter  in  manu- 

coDJectursB  nostrae  de  auctore  hujus  scriptis  aescribentur.    Cum  autem  in 

mfmboli  non  parum  suffragatur,  quod  ejusmodi  codice  post  Hilariana  opera, 

in  antiqiduimo  codice  illigatum  repe-  nullo  pra?mis80  auctoris  nomine  com- 

riatur  opusculo  cui  nomen  Athanasii  pareat ;  hinc,  uti  jam  supra  diximus, 

pariter  prsefixum  legitur,   sed  quod  inferendum,  tum  exaratum  fuisse  cum 

Vigilii  Tapsensis    esse   indubitatum  pro  Athanasiano  nondum  vulgo  ha- 

habetur  &c.      Quemel    in    Addend,  bcretur.  3/o;i//'.  Dia/riA.  p.  733. 
p.  913.  <^  Tentzel.  Judic.  Enid.  p.  2,  3,  &c. 



Psalters,  it  will  be  of  moment  to  observe  whether  they  be  Roman 
or  Gallican ;  because  from  thence  we  may  be  able  to  discover  in 
what  places  or  countries  this  Creed  was  first  received,  according 
to  their  use  of  this  or  that  Psalter.  But  because,  perhaps,  some 
readers  may  be  at  a  loss  to  know  what  we  mean  by  those 
different  names  of  Roman  and  Gallican  Psalters ;  it  may  not  be 
improper  here  to  throw  in  a  few  previous  instructions  relating 
to  the  different  kinds  of  Latin  Psalters,  and  the  names  they  have 
gone  under. 

There  are  four  kinds^  or  sorts,  of  Latin  Psalters ;  which  have 
passed  under  the  names  of  Italic,  Roman,  Gallican,  and  Hebraic. 
One  of  them  was  before  Jerome's  time :  the  three  last  are  all 
Jerome's ;  as  he  had  a  hand,  more  or  less,  in  every  one  of  them. 
I  shall  treat  of  them  distinctly,  in  their  order,  as  follows  : 

I.  The  Italic  Latin  Psalter  is  of  the  old  translation,  or  version, 
such  as  it  was  before  Jerome's  time.  I  shall  not  enter  into  the 
dispute  whether  it  were  one  version  or  many.  The  common 
opinion  is,  that  there  were  several  Latin  versions  before  Jerome^, 
but  one  more  eminent  than  the  rest  called  Italic^,  as  being  re- 
ceived into  common  use  in  ItalyK.  However  that  be,  it  is  become 
customary,  with  such  as  treat  of  this  subject,  to  speak  of  all  that 
was  extant  before  Jerome,  as  of  one  version^  under  the  name  of 
Vetus  Vulgata,  or  Versio  Italica.  There  are  entire  Psalters  of 
this  old  version,  printed  and  manmcript^ ;  though  now  no  where 
in  use  in  divine  Offices,  except  such  parcels  of  it  as,  having  been 
anciently  taken  into  the  Roman  Missals,  or  other  old  Liturgies, 
remain  there  still,  the  people  being  accustomed  to  them,  and 
there  being  no  great  necessity  for  changing  them :  but  all  the 
entire  Psalters  in  use  are  of  another  kind.  Martianay,  in  his 
edition  of  Jerome's  works,  once  intended  to  give  us  an  entire 
and  correct  Psalter  (with  some  other  of  the  sacred  books)  of  the 
old  Italic  version.     But  the  various  lections  were  so  many,  and 

c  Qui  enim  scripturas  ex  Hebraca  verborura  tenacior  cum  perspicuitate 

lingua  in  linguam  Grsecam  verterunt  sentential.   August,  ibid.  p.  27. 
numerari  possunt,  Latini  autem  in-        cr  Ecclesia  Latina  a  principio,  vel 

terpretes  nullo  modo :  ut  enim  cuique  ferme  a  principio,  usa  est  versione 

primis   fidei    temporibus    in  manus  Latina  Teslamenti  Vet.  ex  Graeca  rS>v 

venit  codex,  et  aliquantulum  facultatis  6  translatione  facta,  c^use  Itala  vulgo 

sibi  utriusque  linguae  habere  videba-  dicebatur,  quoniam   m   Italia    prius 

tur,  ausus  est  interpretari.  August,  de  usitata  in  alias  inde  Latinorum  Eccle- 

Doctr.  Christian,  lib.  ii.  cap.  1 1 .  p.  sias  recipiebatur.    Humphr.  Hodius, 

25.  torn.  iii.  De  Biblior.  Text.  Origin,  p.  342. 

'  In  ipsis  autem  interpretationibus        ^  Le  Long,  Biblioth.  Bibl.  vol.  i. 

Itala  caeteris  praeferatur:     nam  est  p.  243. 


so  different,  that  the  work  appeared  too  laborious  and  difficult, 
for  which  reason  he  then  laid  it  aside  i.  This  version^  or  versions, 
is  what  all  the  Latins  used  before  Jerome ;  and  many  also  after 
him,  the  Africans  especially^  down  to  the  sixth  century  at  least, 
or  beginning  of  the  seventh. 

a.  The  Roman  Psalter  is  not  very  different  from  the  old 
Italic.  It  is  nothing  else  but  that  old  version  cursorily,  and  in 
part,  corrected  by  Jerome,  in  the  time  of  Pope  Damasus,  A.  D. 
383.  It  has  had  the  name  of  Roman,  because  the  use  of  it 
began  the  soonest,  and  continued  the  longest  in  the  Roman 
Offices.  It  obtained  in  Gaul  near  as  soon  as  at  Rome,  but  was 
laid  aside  in  the  sixth  century,  when  Gregory  of  Tours^  intro- 
duced the  other  Psalter,  since  called  Gallican.  The  Roman 
Psalter  however  stiU  obtained  at  Rome  till  the  time  of  Pope 
Pius^  the  Fifth:  and  it  is  still  used  in  the  Vatican  church,  and 
some  few  churches  besides. 

3.  The  Gallican  Psalter  is  Jerome's  more  correct  Latin  trans- 
lation made  from  Origen's  Hexapla"^,  or  most  correct  edition  of 
the  Greek  Septuagint,  filled  up,  where  the  Greek  was  supposed 
faulty,  from  the  Hebrew;  distinguished  with  obelisks  and  asterisksy 
denoting  the  common  Greek  version  in  those  places  to  be  either 
redmidant  or  deficient.  Many  of  the  old  manuscripts"  still  retain 
those  marks :  but  more  have  left  them  out,  I  suppose,  to  save  trouble. 
This  more  correct  Psalter  was  drawn  up  by  Jerome  in  the  year 

*  Appendicem    sacrorum     aliquot  partibus  Romania  mutuatam,  in  Gal- 

Tolaimnum,  juxta  Veterem  Vulgatam  liarum  dicitur  Ecclesias  transtulisse. 

ami  receptam  ante  Hieronymum,  hoc  Walafrid.  Strab,  de  Reb.  Eccles,  cap. 

loco  edendam  statueramus  :  sed  quum  xxv.  p.  690. 

open  manus  jainjam  accederet,  tan-  1  Vid.  Card.  Bona  Renim  Liturgic. 

tun  inter  MSS.  Codicea  hujus  wr-  lib.  ii.  cap.  3.     Humphr.  Hod.  p.  383. 

tiomis  LatUuB  deprehendimus  disso-  Mabillon.  de  Curs.  Gallican.  p.  398. 

naDtiam,  ut  impossibile  esset  vel  solas  °^  Vid.  Hieron.  Epist.  ad  Sunn,  et 

vttiiantes  Lomm  codicum    lectiones  Fretel.  p.  627.  sd.  Bened.  torn.  2. 

adnotasse  nisi  maximo  temporis  in-  "  The  Cotton  manuscript  of  703, 

tenrallo.     Quare    ne    in    sequentem  and  the  Benet  of  883,  Lambeth  of 

annum  differretur  editio  hujus  Divinae  957,  Lord  Oxford's  of  970,  and  Bru- 

Kbliothecse,  appendicem  praedictam  no  sown  manuscript  of  1033:  besides 

latiori  open,  ac  m^ori  otio  reservavi-  many  more  in  France,  England,  and 

nras.     Martian.  Not,  ad  Hieronym.  other  countries.     Quanta  porro  fuerit 

Tol.  i.  p.  14 19.  diligentia  nostratium  in  describendo 

k  Psahnos  autem  cum  secundum  hocce  Psalterio,  cum  asteriscis  et  obe- 

LXX  Interpretea  Romani  adhuc  ha-  lis,  non  aliunde    testatum  volumus 

beuit;  Galli  et  Germanorum  aliqui  quam  ex  infinita  copia  Codicum  MSS. 

•econdum  emendationem  quam  Hiero-  qui  cum  talibus  distinctionibus  super- 

nymus  Pater  de  LXX  editione  com-  sunt  in  Gallicanis  Bibliothecis.   Mar- 

pomit,^  P«altcrium   cantant:    quam  tin,  Hieronym.  Op.  vol.  i.  Prolegom. 

Gr^goriuB,  Turonensis  episcopus,  a  ii.  c.  5. 

M  2 


389,  and  obtained  first  in  Gaul  about  the  year  580 ;  or  however 
not  later  than  595 :  from  which  circumstance  it  came  to  have 
the  name  of  Gallican,  in  contradistinction  to  the  Roman.  From 
Gaul,  or  France,  it  passed  over  into  England  before  the  year 
597,  and  into  Germany,  and  Spain,  and  other  countries.  The 
popes  of  Rome,  though  they  themselves  used  the  other  Psalter, 
yet  patiently  connived  at  the  use  of  this  in  the  western  churches, 
and  even  in  Italy ;  and  sometimes  privately  authorized  the  use 
of  it  in  churches  and  monasteries" ;  till  at  length  it  was  pub- 
licly authorized  in  the  Council  of  Trent,  and  introduced  a 
while  after  into  Rome  itself  by  Pius  the  Fifth.  It  was  admitted 
in  Britain  and  Ireland  before  the  coming  of  Augustine  the 
monk,  and  prevailed  after,  except  in  the  church  of  Canterbury?, 
which  was  more  immediately  under  the  Archbishop's  eye,  and 
more  conformable  to  the  Roman  OflBces,  than  other  parts  of  the 
kingdom.  It  has  been  said,  ^that  this  very  Gallican  Psalter  is 
what  wo  still  retain  in  our  Liturgy ;  called  the  reading  Psalms, 
in  contradistinction  to  the  other  Psalms  in  our  Bibles,  of  the 
new  translation.  But  this  is  not  strictly  true :  for  the  old  trans- 
lation, though  it  be  taken  in  a  great  measure  from  the  Gallican, 
has  yet  many  corrections  from  the  Hebrew,  (where  they  were 
thought  wanting,)  first,  by  Coverdale  in  1535,  and  by  Coverdale 
again,  1539,  and  last  of  all  by  Tonstall  and  Heath,  in  1541  : 
according  to  which  edition  is  the  Psalter  now  used  in  our 
Liturgy,  as  I  have  learned  by  comparing:  and  it  had  been 
before  taken  notice  of  by  Durell'.     But  this  in  passing. 

4.  The  Hebraic  Latin  Psalter  means  Jerome's  own  translation, 
immediately  from  the  Hebrew,  made  in  the  year  391.  This, 
though  otherwise  of  great  esteem,  was  never  used  in  the  public 
Church  Offices^.     There  are  but  few  copies  of  it,  in  comparison, 

^  Anno  1369.  Urbani  V.  autoritate  Sed  loco  illius  invaluit  tandem,  per 

sancitum,    ut  Cassinenses  Psalterio  omnes  ecclesias  Anglicas,  usue  Galli- 

Gallicano  uterentur.  Montfauc.  Diatr.  cani.      Hodius,  de  Text,  Bibl,  Oriffm, 

Ital,  p.  331.     P.  Adrian,  long  before,  p.  384. 

had  recommended  the  Gallican  Psal-  4  Hodiernum  in  liturgia  Ecdem 

ter  to  the  Church  of  Bremen.     See  Anglicanae  retinetur  editio  Gallicana: 

below  in  ch.  vi.  and  C.  Bona,  p.  506.  at  versio  ilia  quae  habetur  in  Biblic>- 

P  Ante  adventum   Augustini  mo-  rum  voluminibus,  ouseque  pro  authen* 

nachi,  primi  Archiepiscopi   Cantua-  tica  agnoscitur,  ex  Hebrseo  est.    Hod, 

rien&is,  in  Angliam,  i.  e.  ante  annum  ibid,  p.  384. 

5^7,  Ecclesiae  Britannicae  et  Hiber-  '  Durell.  Eccles.  Anglican.  Vmdic. 

nicae  Psalterium  Gallicanum  recepe-  p.  306. 

rant.    Augustinus  hue  a  Gregorio  M.  "  Tertium  est  de  Hebrseo  in  Lati- 

missus  Romanum  secum  advexit,  et  num  quod  leronymus  tranttulit  dio 

Ecclesise  suae  Cantuariensi   tradidit.  Hebraeo  in  Latinum.    Sed  non  est  in 


because  this  Psalter,  as  before  hinteii,  having  never  been  in  com- 
mon use,  like  the  Roman  and  Gallican,  has  been  confined  to  a 
few  hands.  We  are  not  to  expect  an  Athanasian  Creed  in  this 
Psalter,  as  not  being  intended  for  the  use  of  the  choir:  neither 
are  we  to  expect  to  meet  with  it  in  the  Italic  Psalters,  which 
are  few,  and  which  were  grown,  or  growing,  out  of  use  before 
the  Athanasian  Creed  was  brought  into  the  public  Offices.  But 
in  the  Roman  and  Gallican  Psalters  we  may  find  it :  and  it 
will  be  of  moment  to  observe  in  which  of  them  it  is  found. 
Indeed,  some  manuscript  Psalters  there  are,  which  have  the 
Roman  and  Gallican  together  in  opposite  colunms^  the  Gallican 
always  set  first  ^.  Others  have  the  Hebraic  and  G^lican  set 
colunm-wise  as  the  former :  and  some  have  all  the  three  versions 
of  Jerome  placed  in  the  like  order.  Dr.  Hody  informs  us  of 
two  such  manuscripts,  to  which  may  be  added  a  third  now  in 
Trinity  College  in  Cambridge,  which  has  the  Athanasian  Creed 
with  Bruno's  comment  in  it ;  as  intimated  above.  Another  such 
triple  Psalter  there  is  in  St.  John^s  College  of  the  same  Univer- 
sity, as  before  hinted ;  and  in  my  Lord  Oxford's  Ubrary  is  a  fine 
old  Latin  Bible,  where  the  Psalms  appear  under  all  the  three 
versions.  Nay,  some  manuscripts  have  the  Greek  also  with  the 
other,  making  &  fourth  colunm :  an  account  of  this  last  sort  may 
be  seen  both  in  Dr.  Hody  and  Le  Long  ".  These  double,  triple, 
or  quadruple  Psalters  came  not  in,  I  presume,  before  the  end  of 
the  tenth  century,  or  beginning  of  the  eleventh.  For  Bemo  Au- 
giensis  of  that  time  acquaints  us  with  the  occasion  and  use  of 
them,  and  how  they  came  to  be  so  contrived  ».  When  the  Ro- 
man way  of  sinffing^  first  adapted  to  the  Roman  Psalter,  had 

Qsu  Ecdesue,  sed  viri  studii  literati  et  num  Psalterium  appellavit,  RomaDis 

sapientes  eo  utuntur.    Roger,  Bacon,  adhuc  ex  corrupta  vulgata  editione 

apmIHodiwndeText.OripinaLp,^S4,  Psalterium  canentibus;  ex  qua  Ro- 

Hsec  autem  (versio  ex  Hebrseo)  ideo  mani  cantum  coraposuerunt,  nobisque 

recepta  non  fuit,  quia  duae  priores,  usum  cantandi  contradidenint.  Unde 

quotidiano  usu  in  ecclesiis  frequen-  accidit  quod  verba,  quae  in  diumis  vel 

tatae,  sine  magna  divini  officii  pertur-  noctumis  officiis  canendi  more  modu- 

batione  non  poterant  abrogari.  Bona,  lantur,    interraisceantur,   et    confuse 

Rermm  Liturg.  lib.  ii.  cap.  3.  p.  506.  nostris  Psalmis  inserantur;  ut  a  mi- 

Vid.  etiam  Uodlmn,  p.  395.  nus  peritis  baud  facile  possit  discerni 

*  Hody  de  Text.  Bibl.  Original,  quid  nostrtB,  vel  RwnancB  conveniat 

p.  385.  editioni.     Quod  pius  pater  ac  peritus 

Long,  Biblioth.  Bibl.  vol.  i.  magister  intuens,  tres  editiones  m  uno 

p.  344.  volumine  composuit :  et  Gallicanum 

'  Inter  csetera,  ex  emendata  LXX  Psalterium,  quod  nos  canimus,  ordi- 

Interpretum    translatione    Psal.    ex  navit  in  una  columna ;  in  altera  Ro- 

Gtspco  in  Latinum  vertit  (Hierony-  manum,  in  tertia  Hebrseum.    Bemo 

mut)  illudque  cantandum  omnibus  Augiens,  Epist.  inedit.  apud  Mabill. 

Gallue,  ac  ^oibusdam  Germanise  ec-  de  cursu  Gallicano,  p.  396.     Hodius 

dews  tradidit.     Et  ob  hoc  Gallica-  de  Text.  Original,  p.  382. 



been  introduced  into  France  and  Germany,  (which  was  first 
done  in  the  eighth  century,)  in  process  of  time  it  bred  some 
confusion  in  the  two  Psalters,  mixing  and  blending  them  one 
with  the  other ;  that  it  was  difficult  to  distinguish  which  words 
belonged  to  this,  and  which  to  that.  To  remedy  this  inconveni- 
ence, a  way  was  found  out  to  have  both  the  Psalters  distinctly 
represented  to  the  eye  together,  in  two  several  columns :  and 
thus  came  in  the  kind  of  Psalters  before  mentioned.  We  easily 
see  why  the  Gallican  used  to  be  set  in  the/r«^  column ;  namely^ 
because  those  Psalters  were  contrived  by  the  French  and  Ger- 
mans, who  made  use  of  the  Qallican,  and  so  gave  the  preference 
to  their  own.  If  I  have  detained  my  reader  a  little  too  long  in 
this  digression  about  the  Psalters ;  I  hope  the  usefulness  of  the 
subject  may  make  him  some  amends,  and  be  a  just  apology  for  it. 
I  now  return  to  our  Creed,  and  what  more  immediately  bdongs 
to  it ;  closing  this  chapter,  as  I  promised,  with  a  table  representing 
a  summary,  or  short  sketch  of  what  hath  been  done  in  it. 




Titles  of  the  Creed, 


Bp.  Usher's 

Fides  Catholica. 






Cotton  1 


Fides  Sancti  Athanasu  Alezandrini. 


Colbert  1 


St.  Gorman's 

Fides  Sancti  Athanasii  Episcopi. 




Fides  Sancti  Athanasii  Episc.  Aleiandr. 


Rcgins,  Paris 


Benct  Coll.  Cant.  1 


Fides  Sancti  Anasthasii  Episoopi. 


Colbert  2 

Fides  Athanasii. 


Benet  C.  2 


Fides  Catholica. 


St.  James's  1 


H3ntnnus  AthanasiL 





Harleian  1 


Fides  Catholica  Athanasu  Alexand.  BpiK. 


Cotton  2 


Fides  Catholica  Athanasii  Alexand.  Episc 


Norfolk  1 


Fides  Catholica  Athanasii  AlexandrinL 


Benet  C.  3 


Cotton  3 

Fides  Catholica. 






Fides  Catholica  edita  ab  AthaoMio  &e. 


Harleian  2 

Fides  Anastasii  EpiscopL 


Norfolk  2 


Fides  Catholica. 


St.  James's  2 

Fides  Catholica. 


Friars  Minors 


Canticum  BonefieuaL 

Ce  Chant  fiut  St.  AnautuBe  qui  Apo- 
stoUlos  de  Rome. 




CHAP.  V. 

Ancient  VersianSy  printed  or  manuscript, 

SOME  account  of  the  ancient  versions  of  the  Athanasian 
Creed  may  be  of  use  to  shew  when  and  tchere  it  has  been  re- 
ceived^ and  what  value  hath  been  set  upon  it,  at  several  times, 
and  in  several  countries.  I  shall  note  the  time  in  the  margin, 
when  the  Jirst  version  into  any  language  appears  to  have  been 
made :  and  I  shall  rank  the  versions  of  the  several  countries 
according  to  the  chronological  order  of  those  ^rst  versions  re- 

French  Versions. 

850.  Under  the  name  of  French  versions,  I  comprehend  all 
versions  made  at  any  time  into  the  vulgar  language  then  cur- 
rent in  France,  whatever  other  name  some  may  please  to  give 
them.  I  beg  leave  also  to  comprehend  under  the  same  name  all 
oral  versions  delivered  by  word  of  mouth,  as  well  as  tvriften 
ones :  otherwise  I  am  sensible  that  I  ought  not  to  have  begun 
with  French  versions,  I  do  not  know  that  the  Gauls  or  French 
had  any  written  standing  version  of  this  Creed  so  early  as  850, 
or  for  several  centuries  after.  Their  oldest  versions  of  the 
Psalter  are  scarce  earlier  than  the  eleventh  century  y,  and  of 
the  entire  Scripture  scarce  so  early  as  the  twelfth  x :  and  we  are 
not  to  expect  a  written  version  of  the  Athanasian  Creed  more 
ancient  than  of  their  Psalter.  But  what  I  mean  by  setting  the 
French  versions  so  high  as  I  here  do,  is  that  the  Athanasian 
Creed  was,  as  early  as  is  here  said,  interpreted  out  of  Latin 
into  the  vulgar  tongue  for  the  use  of  the  people,  by  the  clergy 
of  France,  in  their  verbal  instructions.  This  is  the  same  thing, 
in  effect,  with  a  written  standing  version,  as  supplying  the  place 
of  it ;  and  is  as  full  a  proof  of  the  general  reception  of  the  Creed, 
at  that  time,  as  the  other  would  be.  Now,  that  the  Athanasian 
Creed  was  thus  interpreted  into  the  vulgar  tongue  in  France  as 
early  as  the  year  850,  or  earlier,  I  prove  from  the  words  of 
Hincmar,  above  cited  2,  giving  orders  to  the  clergy  of  his  pro- 
Tince  to  be  able  to  express  this  Creed  cainmunihus  verbis,  that 
is,  in  their  vuigar^  or  mother  tongue.  What  that  mixed  kind  of 
language  which  they  then  used  should  be  called,  is  of  no  great 

y  See  Le  Long,  Bibliotb.  Bibl.  vol.  i.  p.  313,  &c.  ^  See  above,  p.  133. 


moment  to  our  present  purpose  to  inquire.  Some  perhaps,  with 
Vitus  Amerbachius  and  Bishop  Usher*,  will  call  it  Teutonic,  or 
German,  because  Franks  and  Germans,  being  originally  the  same, 
spake  the  same  language.  But  I  see  no  consequence  that  because 
Franks  and  Germans  used  the  same  language,  therefore  Franks 
and  Gauls  mixed  together  must  still  keep  the  same ;  any  more 
than  that  a  mixed  nation  of  Normans  and  Saxons  must  all  agree 
either  in  Norman  or  Saxon.  One  would  rather  expect  in  such  a 
mixed  people,  a  mixed  language  too,  as  usually  happens  in  such 
cases.  As  to  France  in  particular,  at  that  time,  Mr.  Wharton 
has  plainly  shewn  that  the  language  there  spoken  was  very  widely 
different  from  the  Teutonic,  or  German. 

The  Concordate  between  the  two  brothers  Lewis  and  Charles, 
at  Strasburg,  puts  the  matter  out  of  dispute :  where  one  ex- 
pressed himself  in  the  Teutonic,  the  other  in  the  language  then 
current  in  France,  called  Bomanensis,  or  Bustica  Bomana,  cor- 
rupt Boman,  or  Latin  ^;  nearer  to  the  Latin  than  to  the  German, 
but  a  confused  mixture  of  both.  Such  was  the  language  then 
vulgarly  spoken  in  France,  as  appears  from  the  specimen  of  it 
given  by  Wharton  from  Nithardus.  And  this  I  presume  is  the 
language  into  which  our  Creed  was  interpreted  in  Hincmar^s 
time ;  for  which  reason  I  have  set  the  French  versions  first.  If 
any  one  shall  contend  that  the  Teutonic  prevailed  then  in  the 
diocese  of  Bheims,  though  not  in  the  other  parts  of  Gaul  more 
remote  from  Germany,  I  shall  not  think  it  of  moment  to  dispute 
the  point,  since  it  is  not  material  to  our  present  purpose. 

As  to  the  French  versions,  properly  so  called,  written  standing 
versions,  I  have  said  that  none  of  them  reach  higher  than  the 
eleventh  century.  Montfaucon  gives  us  one,  though  imperfect, 
600  years  old  ^ ;  that  is,  of  the  eleventh  century,  and  very  near 
the  end  of  it,  about  1098,  six  hundred  years  before  the  time  of 
his  writing :  and  this  is  the  oldest  that  I  have  any  where  found 
mentioned.  Next  to  which,  perhaps  we  may  reckon  that  in 
Trinity  College  in  Cambridge;  I  mean  the  interlinear  version 
which  Mr.  Wanley  ^  calls  Normanno-GfJlican,  about  j8o  years 
old.  And  next  to  that,  the  Norfolk  manuscript  (N.  230.)  before 
mentioned,  about  the  same  age  with  the  other :  and  Mr.  Wanley 

»   Usser.    Histor.    Dogmat.    pag.        «  Montfaucon,  Diatrib.  p.  721,  727, 

I"-  733- 

^  Vid.  Wharton.  Auctap.  Histor.  ^  Wanleii  Catal.  MSS.  Septentr.  p. 
Dogmat.  p.  344.  168. 


infonned  me  of  two  more  in  my  Lord  Oxford's  library.  There 
is  one  in  the  Cotton  library  (Nero,  C.  4.)  above  5CX)  years  old, 
according  to  Mr.  Wharton  e.  Montfaucon  give  us  another  above 
400  years  old^  But  it  is  needless,  and  foreign  to  my  purpose, 
to  number  up  all  the  versions :  the^r«^  in  its  kind  is  what  will 
be  chiefly  serviceable  to  our  following  inquiries. 

German  Versions. 
870.  As  to  written  and  standing  versions,  the  Grerman,  so  far 
as  wo  find  any  records,  ought  to  have  the  first  place.  There  is 
in  the  Emperor's  library  at  Vienna  f,  a  German,  or  Teutonic 
version  of  this  Creed  made  by  Otfridus,  monk  of  Weissenberg, 
in  the  ninth  century :  the  manuscript,  as  Lambecius  assures  us^ 
is  coeval  with  the  author.  There  have  been  several  later  Grerman 
Torsions,  a  brief  account  of  which  may  be  seen  in  Lambecius^, 
TentzeliusS  and  Le  Longk ;  but  more  particularly  in  Tentzelius. 
It  is  sufficient  to  my  purpose  to  have  taken  notice  of  the^r^^, 
and  most  considerable  in  its  kind. 

Anglo-Saxon  Versions. 
930.  There  have  been  Anglo-Saxon  versions  of  this  Creed 
as  early  as  the  time  of  K.  Athelstan ;  as  appears  from  the 
manuscript  of  the  Royal  library  with  an  interlinear  version, 
noted  above ;  and  which  I  place  in  930.  The  Lambeth  manu- 
script of  957  has  also  an  interlinear  Saxon  version :  both  which 
manuscripts  confirm  the  account  given  of  an  Anglo-Saxon  copy 
of  this  Creed  printed  from  a  Latin  manuscript^  interlined  with 
Saxon,  out  of  the  Church  of  Salisbury.  The  version  itself  seems 
to  have  been  made  about  the  middle  of  the  tenth  century,  or 
about  950 ;  which  suits  very  well  with  the  age  of  the  manuscripts 
before  mentioned.  Only,  this  we  may  expect,  that  the  Saxon 
copies  of  those  manuscripts  will  be  found  much  more  correct 
than  the  Sarum  copy,  (and  so  I  find  that  of  Lambeth  is,  having 
a  copy  of  it  by  me,  which  I  owe  to  the  civility  of  the  very  learned 
Br.Wilkins,)  being  written  at  a  time  when  the  Saxon  language 
^as  less  corrupted,  and  retained  more  of  its  primitive  purity ; 

•  WbfftoD.  Auctar.  Histor.  Dog-        *»  Lambec.  Catal.  lib.  ii.  p.  763. 

at  p.  390.  «  Tentzel.  Judic.  Erudit.  Pnef.  et 

*  Hontf.  Diatr.  p.  733.  p.  226. 

«  Lambec.  Catal.  Biblioth.  Vindo-        ^  Le  Long.  Biblioth.  Biblic.  vol.  i. 
W  Wj.ii.  p.  460, 760.  p.  376. 


whereas  the  Sarum  copy  was  written  i,  as  is  conjectured,  ailer 
both  Danes  and  Normans  had  much  altered  the  language.  I 
before  observed,  that  the  title  in  Dr.Wotton^s  copy  is  Hymnus 
Athanasii,  as  in  St.  James's  copy :  and  there  is  something  further 
worth  the  noting,  which  is  the  rubrick  following  the  title,directing 
the  Creed  to  be  sung  alternately^  ;  which  confirms  the  account 
given  by  Abbo  Floriacensis  of  the  custom  of  the  Grallican  and 
English  churches  in  that  age.  But  to  proceed ;  from  the  time 
we  have  had  any  version  of  this  Creed  into  our  country  language, 
we  may  reasonably  conclude  that  such  versions  have  varied,  by 
little  and  little,  in  every  age^  in  proportion  to  the  gradual  alter- 
ation in  our  language ;  till  at  length  the  version  became  such  as 
it  stands  at  this  day.  Such  as  are  desirous  of  having  a  specimen 
of  the  Creed  in  very  old  English  verse^  may  find  one  in  Dr. 
Hickes's  Thesaurus".  And  they  may  see  a  good  part  of  a  prase 
version  in  old  English,  (though  considerably  later  than  the  other,) 
in  Wickliff 's  comment,  before  mentioned :  or  an  entire  version 
into  the  English  of  that  time^  in  a  manuscript  of  Pepys's  library 
now  belonging  to  our  College,  N.  2498.  p.  368.  I  may  here  note, 
that  all  our  Saxon  and  English  versions  down  to  the  time  of  the 
Reformation,  or  to  the  year  1548,  were  from  the  Latin  only, 
and  not  from  any  Greek  copy :  and  after  that  time,  upon  the 
return  of  Popery,  the  old  version  from  the  Latin  came  again 
into  use  for  a  while,  as  appears  by  the  Primmer  set  forth  by 
Cardinal  Pole  in  Queen  Mary's  days,  A.  D.  1555.  But  these 
and  the  like  observations  are  out  of  the  compass  of  my  design, 
and  so  I  pass  on. 

Greek  Versions. 
I  have  before  intimated  that  this  Creed  was  originally  Latin, 
and  therefore  the  Greek  copies  can  be  no  more  than  versums: 
and  they  appear  to  be  very  late  also,  in  comparison  to  the  former, 

1  Versionem  istam  circiter  medium  Conspect,  Opens  Hickesiam,jp.  75. 

decimi  8<Bculi  esse  factam  ipsius  ser-  ^  Hymnus  Athanasii,  de  ^de  Tri- 

monis  cum  puritate  (ubi  non  halluci-  nitatis. 

natur  interpres)  conjuncta  proprietas  *  Quern  tu  conceUhrans,  discutien- 

ostendit.     Recentius  vero  descriptam  ter  intellige.     Incipit  de  Fide. 

fuisse,  sub  Nortmannorum  in  Angliam  On  which  Dr.  Wotton  makes  this 

adventum,  non  tantum  librarii  linguse  note. 

Saxonicse  baud  gnari  recentior  manus  *  Ita  MS.  hoc  est,  quern  tu  osft- 

in  qua  exaratur,  sed  pravum  illud  phonatim,    vel    aUerRotim    pealknSy 

Anglo  Danicum,  vel   forsan  jVnslo  animo  percipe,  p.  77. 

Nortmannicum,  scribendi  genus  de-  "  Hickes.  Thesaur.  lingmur.  Sep- 

monstrat.    Wotton,  Not.  ad  Brevem  tentr.  p.  332. 


However^  since  the  Greek  is  one  of  the  learned  languages,  since 
the  Creed  has  been  ascribed  to  a  Greek  author,  and  has  been 
also  supposed  by  many  to  have  been  written  in  Greek ;  it  will 
therefore  be  proper  to  give  as  particular  and  as  distinct  account 
as  is  possible  of  the  Greek  version,  or  versions.  Our  inquiries 
here  will  lie  within  a  little  compass :  for  the  Greek  copies  are 
neither  many  nor  ancient.  Montfaucon,  a  very  diligent  searcher 
into  these  matters,  frankly  professes  that  he  had  never  seen  any 
Greek  copy  of  this  Creed  so  old  as  300  years ;  nor  ever  heard 
of  any  that  was  ancient"^.  He  scruples  not  to  say  further^  that 
there  had  not  been  yet  seen  any  Greek  record,  of  certain  and 
undoubted  credit,  whereby  to  prove  that  this  Creed  had  been 
known  to  the  Greek  Church  for  more  than  500  years  upwardsP. 
He  speaks  only  of  Greek  records :  as  to  Latin  ones,  they  afford 
Bujfficient  proof  that  this  Creed  was  pleaded  against  the  Greeks 
in  the  dispute  about  ihe  jprocession,  in  the  eighth  or  ninth  century 
at  latest^  and  therefore  must  have  been  in  some  measure  known 
to  them.  The  Greeks  and  Latins  had  some  dispute  on  that 
head  in  the  Synod  of  Gentilly,  not  far  from  Paris,  in  the  year 
767,  under  King  Pepin.  But  perhaps  this  Creed  was  not  pleaded 
at  that  time :  at  least  it  does  not  appear  that  it  was. 

It  cannot  be  doubted  but  that  the  Greeks  had  heard  some- 
thing of  this  Creed  from  the  Latins,  as  early  as  the  days  of 
Katram  and  ^neas  Parisiensis ;  that  is,  above  850  years  ago, 
when  the  dispute  about  the  processUm  between  the  Greeks  and 
Latins  was  on  foot:  this  the  testimonies  above  cited  plainly 
shew.  But  this  is  not  enough  to  prove  that  the  Greek  Church 
had  yet  any  value  for  this  Creed^  or  that  there  was  then  extant 
any  Greek  copy  of  it. 

1200.  Nicolaus  Hydruntinus,  cited  above,  who  flourished  under 
Alexius  IV.  emperor  of  the  east,  and  Pope  Innocent  the  Third, 
that  is,  in  round  numbers  about  1200,  he  gives  us  the  first  notice 

o  Sane  nullum  vidimuB  Gnecum  hu-  bari.  Montf.  ibid,  p.  72 1  • 

jua  Symboli  codicem  qui  trecentorum  To  the  same  purpose  speaks  Com- 

flit  annorum ;  nee  antiquum  alium  a  befis  of  this  Creed. 

ouopiam  visum  fuisse  novimus.  Mont-  Vix  enim  extat  prseterquam  in  re- 

/Saucon,  Diatrib.  P-?^?.  centiorumcoUectaneiSjlibrisqueeorum 

P  Adjicere  non  pigeat  non  visum  polemicis,  quibus  ipsum  vel  impug- 

hactenus  fuisse  Grsecorum  quodpiam  nant,  vel  etiam  defendunt ;  idque  vo- 

monumentum  (certum  scilicet  ac  in-  lunt  illi  qui  aiunt  non  haberi  in  Gra^ 

dubitatum)  quo  ab  annis  plus  quin-  corum  Ixbris;  non  enim  sic  stupidi 

gentia  notum  Ecclesiie  Grsecae  fuisse  videntur  ut   negent  Grseoe   haberi. 

bymboliim,  QfKKunque^  poesit  compro-  Combtf,  Not,  ad  Man.  Cake.  p.  397 . 


of  this  Creed  being  extant  in  Greek  in  his  time.  He  observes, 
that  the  article  of  the  procession  from  the  Son  was  not  in  the  Greek 
copy  of  this  Creed,  as  neither  in  the  Nicene,  blaming  the  Latins, 
as  I  apprehend,  for  interpolating  both.  The  censure  was  just 
with  respect  to  the  Nicene  Creed,  but  not  with  respect  to  the 
Athanasian,  which  certainly  never  wanted  that  article;  as  is 
plain  from  the  agreement  of  the  Latin  copies,  and  the  earliest  of 
them,  those  of  a  thousand  years'  date :  which  I  remark  by  the 
way.  As  to  our  present  purpose,  this  is  certain,  that  some  time 
before  Nicolaus  of  Otranto  wrote,  the  Creed  had  been  translated 
into  Greek,  by  a  Greek,  or  at  least  by  one  that  took  part  with 
the  Greeks  in  the  question  about  the  procession.  It  can  hardly 
be  imagined  that  Nicolaus  had  translated  it  himself,  and  that 
he  appealed  to  his  oton  version.  There  must  have  been  a  ver- 
sion before  undoubtedly :  and  one  can  scarce  suppose  less  than 
50  or  ICO  years  before,  since  both  the  time  and  author  of  it 
were  forgotten,  and  this  Greek  version  passed  with  Nicolaus  for 
Athanasius's  original.  Manuel  Caleca*i,  who  wrote  about  the 
year  1360,  intimates  that  there  had  been  Greek  copies  long 
before  his  time,  and  that  the  most  ancient  of  all  had  the  article 
of  the  procession  from  the  Son  ;  and  that  the  older  Greeks  who 
wrote  against  the  Latins  did  not  pretend  to  strike  out  that 
article,  as  those  did  that  came  after.  Could  we  depend  upon 
this  report,  we  might  then  be  certain  that  the  Greek  copies  of 
the  time  of  Nicolaus  Hydruntinus  were  late  in  comparison,  and 
that  there  had  been  other  Greek  copies  much  more  ancient. 
But  this  I  leave  to  the  consideration  of  the  learned.  However 
this  fact  be,  one  thing  is  certain,  that  the  oldest  Greek  copy 
could  be  only  a  versi^m,  whether  sooner  or  later. 

As  to  Greek  copies  now  extant  in  manuscript,  they  are  but 
few,  and  modem :  I  may  here  give  a  short  account  of  them,  of 
as  many  as  I  have  hitherto  found  mentioned  in  books,  or  cata- 
logues of  manuscripts. 

I.  There  is  one  in  the  Emperor's  library  at  Vienna,  said  to  be 
in  paper,  ancient,  and  of  good  value'.     These  words  are  too 

<i  Testanturautem  banc  ipsam  Fidei  ad  contradicendum  facti,  omnino  au- 

Confeseionem  sancti  viri  (Athanasii)  ferre  voluerunt :  etsi  modo  nihilomi- 

esse,  atque  id  dictum  ita  se  habere,  nus  curiose  inquirentibus  raro,  licet  in 

qui  contra  Latinos  multo  ante  scripse-  vetustissimis  codicibus,  ita  habere  in- 

runt;  quam  sibi  ut  adversam  frustra  venitur.  Man.  Calec,  contr,  Gr«c.  lib. 

labefactare  nituntur.    Atque,  ut  in-  ii.  B.  PP.  torn,  xxvi.p.  414. 

telligi  datur,  tunc  quidem  adhuc  ser-  '  CCXIV.  codex  MS.  theologicus 

vabatur;/M>#/iiio(^«mveropertinaciore8  Graecus  est  chariacens,  antiquus,  et 


general  to  fix  any  certain  date  upon :  one  may  guess  from  the 
faper  that  the  manuscript  is  not  very  ancient;  since /Mip^  came 
not  into  frequent  or  conmion  use  before  the  thirteenth  century. 
But  not  to  insist  upon  a  disputable  argument,  (since  cotton  paper, 
though  not  common,  was  however  sometimes  used  as  early  as 
the  tenth  century,)  one  may  judge  more  certainly  from  what  is 
written  in  the  same  volume,  and,  I  suppose,  in  the  same  hand, 
(for  Nesselius  makes  no  distinction,)  that  the  copy  of  the  Greed 
is  not  eaiiier  than  the  middle  of  the  fourteenth  century. 
Maximus  Planudes  makes  a  part  of  the  manuscript :  he  flou- 
rished about  the  year  1340. 

2.  There  is  another  Greek  manuscript  of  this  Creed  in  the 
same  library,  a  faper  one  too,  and  said  to  be  pretty  ancient,  by 
Nesselius,  who  gives  account  of  it 9.  From  the  mention  therein 
made  of  the  Creed's  being  presented  to  Pope  Julius,  I  should  be 
apt  to  conclude  that  the  manuscript  is  not  earlier,  nor  copied 
from  any  earlier  than  Manuel  Caleca's  time,  or  the  fourteenth 
century  :  but  there  are  other  marks,  particularly  some  pieces  of 
Julianus  Cardinalis,  which  demonstrate  that  the  manuscript 
cannot  be  much  older  than  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century. 

3.  Felckman  had  a  manuscript  copy  of  this  Creed  in  Greek, 
without  any  title  to  it,  or  any  author  named^.  I  can  say  nothing 
to  the  age  of  it,  for  want  of  further  particulars. 

4.  Felckman  had  another  manuscript  out  of  the  Palatine 
library,  (which  library  is  since  transferred  partly  to  the  Vatican, 
the  rest  to  Munich,  &;c.)  with  a  title  to  it,  <tv\i^o\ov  tov  ayiov 
'AOavaaCov,  St.  Athanasius*s  Creed".     The  title  alone  is  a  suffi- 

boiuB  note,  in  4to.  constatque  foliis  scopi  Alexandrini,  Confessio  Catholica 

341.  Fidei,  ad  S.  Julium  Pontificem  Roma- 

Ccmtinentar  eo  haec.  num ;  cujus  et  titulus  et  principium, 

Imo,  &c.  Tov  cV  ayiois  7raTp6s  rjfi&v  ^hBavavlov 

ado  et  quidem  a  fol.  77.  ad  fol.  79.  rov  yityaKov  *Ofio\oyia  Trjs  KaOdkiicrjt 

S.  Athanasii  Archiepiscopi    Alexan-  marfoos  fjv  cdcoKc  irp6s  *lovkiov  Ilairay 

drini  Symbolum  Fidei,  cujus  titulus  'Pco/xi;;.      T^    diXovri.    auBrjvai    &c. 

et  principium,  Tov  ayiov  ABavcurlov  Nessel.  Catal.  vol.  i,  p,2Si, 

TOV  fuyaXov,    "Oaris  d*  6sf  /SovXi/rai        ^  Extat  hoc  Symbolum  in  nostra 

amfffpnUf  wp6  vamrtav  xprj  Kpardv  tti-  codice  2  anonymo,  sed  absque  titulo 

tmw,  &c.  NesseL  Catat.  vol.  i.  p.  344.  et  nomine  auctoris ;  unde  et  sic  edi- 

•  CXCmns  codex  MS. est  char-  tura.  Felckman.  ed.  Athanas,  Comme- 

iaeeui,  mediocriter  antiquus,  et  borne  tin.  p.  83. 

mot^B,  in  4to.  constatque  nunc  foliis        Incipit;  Ei  ris  BtXoi  amOrjpai,  irp6 

333,  et  ad  Johannem  Sambucum  olim  navrtov  xph  o^^  "f^v  KaOoKuaiv  Kparr)- 

pertinuit.    Continentur  eo  luec.    I.  o-ai  rntmv,  &c.  ' 
pnmo,  &c.  "  Invenimus  id  ipsum  etiam  post 

180  £t  quidem  a  fol.  303.  ad  fol.  in  codice  quodam  Palatinse  bibliothe- 

304.    S.  Athanasii  magm,  Archiepi-  cse,  expresse   Athanasio   inscriptum 


cient  argument  of  its  being  modem,  to  any  that  consider  what 
were  the  more  usual  and  ancient  titles,  represented  above.  It 
is  to  be  noted  that  those  two  manuscript  copies  are  so  nearly 
the  same,  that  they  make  but  one  copy  in  print,  which  has  been 
inserted  in  all  the  editions  of  Athanasius's  works  after  Felckman's, 
as  well  as  in  his,  and  makes  the  fifth  in  Gundlingius^,  who  gives 
us  six  Greek  copies  of  this  Creed.  It  is  observable,  that  this 
copy  owns  not  the  procession  from  the  Son :  from  whence  wo 
may  infer  that  it  was  not  made  by  the  Latins,  or  however  not 
by  any  who  were  not  friends  to  the  Greeks. 

5.  Lazarus  Baifius^s  copyy,  which  he  had  from  Venice,  in  the 
time  of  Francis  I.  in  the  year  1533,  was  published  by  Genebrard, 
anno  1569.  This  copy  probably  was  contrived  by  a  Latin, 
(having  the  procession  from  the  Son  in  it,)  or  at  least  by  some 
hottest  Greek,  who  would  not  vary  from  the  criginaL  I  conclude 
this  Greek  copy  to  be  ntodem^  from  the  title  ;  for  a  reason  before 

6.  There  was  another  manuscript  copy'  of  this  Creed,  which 
Nicolaus  Bryling  first  printed  at  Basil,  and  afterwards  H.  Ste- 
phens in  France,  in  the  year  1565.  This  also  must,  in  all 
probability,  be  very  modem,  because  of  av^ifioXov  in  the  title. 
It  acknowledges  the  procession /rom  the  Son,  conformable  to  the 

7.  In  the  Royal  library  at  Paris,  (Numb.  2502,)  there  is  an- 
other manuscript  Greek  copy  of  this  Creed  a,  written  in  the 
year  1562,  published  by  Genebrard  1569,  and  said  by  him  to 

(licet  id  recentiores  Graeci  nolint,  ut  ^  De  Grsecis  autem  codicibus  pauca 

videre  est  ex  epistola  Meletii  CoDstan-  suppetunt  dicenda,  cum  unum  tantiim 

tinopolitani  Patriarchs^  ad  Douzam)  notiis    inspicere    licuerit,  scil.   Reg. 

ex  quo  etiam  discrepantias  quasdam  2502.    In  quo  extat  Symbolum  su])e- 

notabimus.  riore  sscculo  exaratum.    Montf,  Dia- 

Incipit;  £t  ns  BiXti  a-ctBrjvai,  vph  trib.  p.  722. 

fravrwv  XP*^  coTcy  Iva  r^v  Ka$dkiKriv  Secunda,  quam    edimus  formula, 

KpaTTioTf  niariVf  &c.    Felckman,  ibid,  jam  olim  publici  juris  facta  per  Gene- 

^  Gundlingii  not.  ad  Eustrat.  et  p.  brardum  anno  1569,  quam  ait  ille  esse 

76.  Ecclesiffi  Constantinopolitana;,  extat  in 

y  Titulus;  "Eicdfo-iff  SfxoKoyias  rrfs  regie  codice  num.  2502.  olim  ex  biblio- 

KadokiKTJs  nioTfas  tov  fuyoKov  * A^okz-  theca  Johannis  Huralti  Boistallerii  a 

ciov    iroTpidpxov  * Akt^apdpfias  irp6s  Carolo  IX.     Venetias  legati,  in  qua 

*lov\iov  Ilairav.  codice  bsec  leguntur,  ante  Dialogum 

Incipit ;  "Oims  av  fiovkrfTai  o-oyBrjvai,    S.  Athanasii  cum  Ario "  transcrip- 

np6  irdvTtav  xp4  Kpartiv  Trpf  KaBokiKriv  "  tus  et  recognitus  liber  hie  est,  ex 

marip,  "  vetustissimo  excmplari  cretico ;  Ve- 

'    Titulus;    2vpfio\op    rod    aylov  "  netiis  anno  1562,  impensa  facta  au- 

*A0€Ufcuriov.  "  reorum  X.  Zacharias  Sacerdos  tran- 

Incipit ;  ''Oorcr  /SovXcrcu  a-aOfjwah  "  scripsit  et  habuit."  Montf,  Diatrib, 

&c.  p.  727. 


belong  to  the  Church  of  Constantinople.  This  was  taken  from 
an  older  manuscript,  but  how  much  older  cannot  certainly  be 
known ^.  One  may  imagine  from  the  tith^  and  heginniihg  of  it, 
that  the  form  is  the  same  with  one  of  those  in  the  Emperor's 
library,  and  that  they  were  copied  one  from  the  other,  or  both 
from  a  third  copy.  This  manuscript  acknowledges  the  pro- 
cession from  the  Son.  I  had  understood,  from  Montfaueon'^s 
general  way  of  expression,  that  Genebrard  had  published  his 
copy  from  this  very  manuscript  of  the  Royal  Ubrary,  Num.  25q2. 
But  observing  that  Genebrard's  wants  some  words  {itdios  6  Trar^p, 
itbios  6  1/109,  itbiov  to  Trv€VfjLa  to  iyiov)  which  Montfaueon's  copy 
has,  I  conclude  that  he  meant  only  the  same  form^  as  to  matter 
and  words,  for  the  most  part,  not  the  same  manuscript. 

8.  There  is  another  manuscript  Greek  version,  or  rather 
paraphrase  of  this  Creed,  having  several  interpolations,  pub- 
lished by  Bishop  Usher  anno  1647,  from  a  copy  sent  him  by 
Patrick  Young.  It  has  been  often  since  printed ;  in  the  Coun- 
cils, in  Gundling,  and  in  Montfaucon. 

It  leaves  out  the  article  of  procession  from  the  Son ;  from 
whence  we  may  judge  that  it  was  composed  by  a  Greek,  or 
Grecizing  Latin.  The  title  insinuates  that  the  Creed  was  drawn 
up  in  the  Nicene  Council^^ :  an  opinion  entertained  by  Johan. 
Cyparissiota,  about  the  year  1360,  as  observed  above.  When 
this  story  or  fiction  first  came  in,  I  cannot  pretend  to  determine. 
Kshop  Usher  speaks  of  a  very  ancient  manuscript,  partly  in 
Irish  and  partly  in  Latin,  which  hints  at  the  same  thing :  but 
he  fixes  no  date  to  the  manuscript;  the  words,  very  ancunt, 
are  too  general  to  give  satisfaction  in  it.  The  Creed  is  there 
said  to  have  been  composed  in  the  Nicene  Council,  by  Eusebius 
and  Dionysius,  and  a  third  left  nameless  c,  as  not  being  known. 
The  author  of  that  book  of  Hymns  must  have  been  very  ignorant, 
not  to  know  Athanasius,  who  was  undoubtedly  the  third  man, 

*>  Incertum  autem  utrum  ex  illo  ^  'E«c  rijs  ayias  koi  olKovfi€viKrjs  rrj? 

craod  moDOrat  vetustissimo  exemplari  €v  Niicaia,  irepl  iriartois  Kara  (rvvrojiiav, 

Symbolum  etiam  sit  mutnatus ;  codex  kqI  ir&s  del  niaT€V€iv  t6v  aXrjdfj  Xpi- 

quippe  ampls  roolis  multa  et  varia  ariavov.    Usser,  de  Symb.  p.  26. 

complectitur,  qute  dubitare  licet  ex  «    In    hymnorum^  partim    Latino 

onone  codice  exscripta  fuerint,  an  ex  partim  Hibernico  sermone  scriptorum, 

comphiribus.    Montf,  ibid,  codice  vetuatissimo notaturn  re- 

«  Titulus ;    ToO  cV  ayiois  UaTp6s  peri,  trium  Episcoporum  opera,  in  ea- 

iliAw  ^ABaimtriov  roi)  luyaKov  SfidKoyia  dem  Nicaena  Synodo  illud  fuisse  com- 

T^  KttOokuaji  irioTc«£  fjv  €da>«ec  7rp6s  positum,  Eusebii,  et  Dionysii,  e^  women 

'lovXioF  noiray 'Pw^f^r.  tertii  {sic  enim  ibi  legitur)  nescimus, 

Incipit;  T^  ^fXovri  ctt^Kit,  &c.  Usser.  de  Symb,  prtsf. 


and  for  whose  sake  (to  account  for  the  Creed's  being  written  in 
Latin)  the  whole  story  seems  to  have  been  contrived.  By 
Eusebius  must  have  been  intended  Eusebius  of  Verceil  in  Pied- 
mont, a  Latin,  and  a  great  friend  and  intimate  of  Athanasius : 
by  Dionysius  undoubtedly  is  meant  Dionysius  Bishop  of  Milan, 
of  the  same  time  and  of  the  same  principles,  and  well  acquainted 
with  Eusebius  f.  Had  the  contrivers  of  the  fable  laid  their  scene 
at  Alexandria,  where  Athanasius  and  this  Eusebius,  with  several 
other  Latins,  met  together  in  the  year  362,  they  had  made  it 
the  more  plausible.  But  let  us  return  to  our  Greek  copies,  from 
which  we  have  a  little  digressed. 

This  is  observable  of  the  Greek  copies  in  general,  that  they 
differ  very  widely  from  each  other,  and  therefore  cannot  be 
copies  of  one  and  the  same  version.  Possibly,  three  or  four  of 
them  may  be  thrown  into  one,  admitting  however  many  various 
lections :  but  still  there  will  be  as  many  remaining,  which  cannot 
be  so  dealt  with,  but  must  be  looked  upon  as  distinct  and  differ- 
ent versions.  Such  as  desire  to  see  all  the  copies  together  may 
find  them  in  Gundling  and  Montfaucon ;  four  at  large,  the  rest 
exhibited  only  by  various  lections,  I  do  not  know  whether  the 
manuscripts  of  the  Vienna  library  have  been  collated  for  any  of 
the  printed  editions :  perhaps  not ;  I  do  not  remember  that  I 
have  met  with  any  mention  of  them  in  any  of  the  editors  of  the 
printed  copies. 

It  may  be  of  use  to  set  the  printed  editions,  after  our  account 
of  the  manuscripts,  in  chronological  order,  as  distinctly  as  may 
be,  since  we  cannot  fix  the  dates  of  the  manuscript  copies. 

1540.  1.  The  first  printed  edition  was  by  Nicolaus  BrylingS, 
a  printer  of  Basil.  My  authors  have  been  deficient  in  not 
setting  down  the  date  of  it.  I  have  endeavoured  to  fix  the  year, 
but  have  not  yet  been  so  happy  as  to  come  to  a  certainty  in  it. 
Wherefore,  I  hope,  my  reader  will  excuse  it,  if,  rather  than  set 
no  year  at  all,  I  choose  one  which  I  know  cannot  be  very  much 

'  It  seems  highly  probable,  that  the  lavit."     Ambros.  ad  Vercellens,  £p. 

whole  fable  about  Eusebius  and  Dio-  Ixiii.  p.  1039. 

nysius  was  first  raised  out  of  a  pas-  s  Quod  olim  evulgavit  BasilesB  Ni- 

sage  of  St.  Ambrose,  which  might  be  colaus  Bryling ;  deinde  in  Gallia  anno 

thought  to  hint  some    such  thing.  1565,  Henricus  Stephanus.      Gene- 

The  words  are  :  brard,  in  Symb.  Athanas,  p.  8. 

*'  Ita(}ue  ut  Eusebius  Sanctus  prior  Quam   post  Nic.  Biylingium,  et 

"  levavit    vexillum    confessionis,  ita  Mich.  Neandrum,  H.  Stephanus  in 

"  beatus  Dionysius    in    exilii    locis,  lucem  edidit.      Fabric,  BibL  Gr€K, 

"  priori  martynbus  titulo  vitam  exha-  vol.  v.  p.  315* 


over  or  under^  because  of  other  pieces  printed  by  the  sanie  Bry- 
ling  about  that  tim^.  Fabricius  mentions  Miciiael  Neander  as 
editor  of  the  same  copy  after  Bryling^  and  before  Stephens :  but 
what  year  is  not  said.  Sebastian  Lepusculus^s^  edition  of  the 
same  was  in  1559^ ;  and  Stephens's  in  1565. 

1569.  2.  The  second  printed  copy  was  taken  from  the  manu- 
script of  Lazarus  Baiffius,  which  he  received  from  Dionysius^,  a 
Greek,  in  the  year  1533,  ^  before  hinted.  This  was  first  printed 
by  Qenebrard  in  the  year  1569,  again  in  1  jSj,  and  oftentimes 
since.  This  copy  is  sometimes  called  the  Dionysian  copy :  and 
it  is  observed  by  Gundling  to  differ  from  the  first  copy  but  in 
seven  places;  and  therefore  these  two  have  been  commonly 
thrown  into  one,  by  the  editors  of  both. 

1569.  3.  The  third  copy  was  also  first  printed  by  Genebrard, 
at  the  same  time  with  the  other.  It  has  gone  under  the  name 
of  the  Constantinopolitan  copy,  because  Genebrard  supposed  it 
to  have  been  in  use  at  Constantinople  ^  It  differs  considerably 
from  both  the  other,  and  is  never  thrown  into  one  with  them, 
but  kept  distinct  by  itself. 

1 600.  4.  The  fourth  is  the  Commeline,  or  Felckman's  copy, 
from  the  Palatine  manuscripts,  often  reprinted  with  Athana- 
sius'^s  works.   This  also  stands  by  itself  as  a  distinct  version. 

1647.  5-  The^ifA  was  first  published  by  Usher,  in  the  year 
1647.  This  differs  extremely  from  all  the  rest,  having,  besides 
many  tariations  and  slight  insertions,  one  very  large  interpola- 
turn.     It  hath  been  often  reprinted  since  Usher's  time. 

1 67 1.  6.  The  sixth  and  last  was  first  published  by  Labbe  and 
Cossart  in  the  second  tome  of  Councils.  This  copy  comes  the 
nearest  to  the  two  first,  and  therefore  is  sometimes  thrown  into 

^  Sebastian.  Lepusculi  compendium  lit  Dionysius  Gnecus,  Episcopus  Zie- 

Josephi  Gorionidis,  cum  Collectaneis  nensis  et  Firmiensis  anno  1533.    Ge- 

qaibuiidam,  p.  49.  BasU,  1559.  nebr,  Comm.  in  Symb,  Athanas,  p.  8. 

^  Nic.  Serarius,  who  wrote  in  the  In  man  us  meas  pervenit  liber  qui- 

year  1590,  speaking  of  that  first  copy  dam  GrsBcus,  de  processione  Spintus 

pnntedDy  Bryling  and  Stephens,  says  Sancti,  oblatus  Lazaro  Baiffio  claro 

M  foUowa  :  regis  nostri  Francisci  I.  apud  Venetos 

"  Qoarum  prima  mfZgra/a  did  potest,  oratori,  anno  Christi  1533.     Quem 

**  eo  quod  bactenus  ea  sola  hie  apud  manu  sua  elegantissime  pinxerat  Ni- 

"  DOS,  Germania  et  Gallia,  typis  evul-  colaus  Sophianus  Patrum  nostrorum 

**  gita  fueiit.*'  Nicol.  Serar,  de  Symb,  sevo  vir  valde  doctus.     Genebr.  ibid, 

Jiikanas,  Qpitt c.  Tkeolog,  tom.  ii.  p.  9.  p.  2. 

k  Hoc  Symbolum  reperi  in  libro  ^  Superius    Symbolum,  Athanasii 

Grsoo  MS.  de  processione  Spiritus  verbis  aliquantulum  iromutatis,  Con- 

Sancti,  quem  Lazaro  Baiffio  oratori  stantinopolitani  sic  Grsece  legunt,  et 

ngii  Francisci  I.  apud  Venetos,  obtu-  recitant.    Oenebr,  ibid,  p.  14. 




one  with  them :  but  it  differs  from  both  in  about  fariy  plaoes, 
according  to  Oundling's  computation. 

These  are  all  the  printed  copies ;  which  are  sometimes  called 
four,  and  sometimes  six:  four^  because  the  first,  second^  and 
sixth  may  be  tolerably  thrown  into  one ;  six^  because  they  may 
also  be  kept  distinct,  and  may  be  reckoned  as  so  many  copies 
at  least,  if  not  so  many  several  versions.  So  much  for  the  Greek 
versions  of  our  Creed. 

To  the  versions  already  mentioned  may  be  added  the  Sclavo- 
nian,  of  several  dialects,  and^  as  I  conceive,  pretty  ancient :  but 
we  have  little  or  no  account  of  them ;  only,  as  I  shall  shew  in 
the  sequel,  we  may  be  certain  that  there  have  been  such.  There 
are  Italian,  Spanish,  Irish,  and  Welsh  versions ;  but  whether  any 
that  can  justly  be  called  ancient,  I  know  not.  Future  searches 
into  libraries  may  perhaps  produce  further  discoveries.  Fabri- 
cius  makes  mention  of  an  Hebrew  version  of  late  date,  and  of  an 
Arabic  one  still  later'":  bpt  these  or  the  like  modem  versions  will 
be  of  no  use  to  us  in  our  present  inquiries. 


0/tfie  reception  of  the  Athanasian  Creed  in  the 
Christian  Churcfies. 

FROM  the  materials  here  laid  down,  we  may  now  be  able 
to  determine  something  about  the  reception  of  the  Creed,  espe- 
cially in  the  western  Churches ;  among  which  the  Churches  of 
France,  or  Gaul,  ought  undoubtedly  to  be  named  first. 

France,  or  Gaul. 
A.  D.  550.  This  Creed  obtained  in  France  in  the  time  of 
Hincmar,  or  about  850,  without  all  dispute.  We  may  advance 
higher  up  to  772 :  for  it  was  then  in  Charles  the  Great^s  Psal- 
ter, among  the  Hymns  of  the  Church.  The  Cotton  manuscript 
Psalter,  with  this  Creed  in  it,  will  carry  us  up  to  703 :  and  the 

n»  Hebraice  versum  a  Julio  Mar- 
cello  Rom&no  MS.  in  bibliotheca  Va- 
ticana  memorat  Imbonatus  in  bibl. 
Latino  Hebraica,  p.  149.  Sed  omitto 
recentiores  versiones,  ut  Arabicam  a 
Nisselio  editam  Lugd.  Bat.  1656.  4to, 
una  cum  Cantico  Canticor.  Fabric, 
Bibl,  Grac,  v.  5.  p.  315. 

Georgius  Nisselius  Symbolmn  Atha- 
nasii  Arabico  idiomate  cum  Cantico 
Canticorum  iEtbiopice  et  An^bioe 
edito  Luf(d.  Bat.  anno  1656,  conjunzit 

id  tamen  non  bausit  ez  oodioe 

MS.  sed  ipse  in  Arabicam 
transtulit.    Tentgel,  p.  135. 


Canon  of  the  Council  of  Autun  to  670 ;  at  which  time  the  Galli- 
can  clergy,  at  least  of  the  diocese  of  Autun,  in  the  province  of 
Lyons,  were  obliged  to  recite  this  Creed  together  with  the 
Apostles',  under  pain  of  episcopal  censure.  Which  shews  of  how 
great  value  and  esteem  the  Creed  was  at  that  time,  and  affords 
a  strong  presumption  (as  Quesnel  and  Pagi'»  well  argue  in  the 
case)  that  it  had  been  in  use  there  long  before.  There  will  be 
some  doubt,  as  I  intimated  above,  about  the  supposed  Canon  of 
the  Council  of  Autun;  which  will  in  some  measure  abate  the 
force  of  our  evidence,  and  of  the  argument  built  upon  it.  But 
as  it  is  certain  from  other  evidence,  that  this  Creed  was  received 
in  the  Grallican  churches  as  high  as  772  or  703 ;  so  it  must  be 
owned  that  this  very  much  confirms  the  supposition  of  the 
Council  of  Autun :  and  the  concurring  circumstances  give  very 
great  light  and  strength  to  each  other.  But  what  most  of  all 
confirms  the  foregoing  evidence,  and  the  reasoning  upon  it,  is, 
that  Venantius  Fortunatus,  a  fiill  hundred  years  before  the 
Council  of  Autun,  had  met  with  this  Creed  in  the  Gallican  parts, 
and  found  it  then  to  be  in  such  esteem  as  to  deserve  to  be  com- 
merited  upon,  like  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  Apostles'  Creed:  ac- 
cordingly he  wrote  comments  upon  it,  as  well  as  upon  the  other. 
This  wonderfully  confirms  the  reasoning  of  Quesnel  and  Pagi, 
that  this  Creed  must  have  been  in  use  there  near  a  hundred 
years  before  the  Council  of  Autun,  that  is,  as  high  as  570, 
about  which  time  Fortunatus  flourished  and  wrote.  And  con- 
sidering that  this  Creed  must  have  been  for  some  time  growing 
into  repute,  before  it  could  be  thought  worthy  to  have  such  honour 
paid  it,  along  with  the  Lord's  Prayer  and  Apostles'  Creed ;  I  may 
perhaps  be  allowed  to  set  the  time  of  its  reception,  in  the  Grallican 
churches,  some  years  higher :  reception  of  it,  I  mean,  as  an  ex- 
cellent formulary,  or  an  acknowledged  rule  o{  faith,  though  not 
perhaps  admitted  into  their  sacred  Offices.  Upon  the  whole,  and 
upon  the  strength  of  the  foregoing  evidences,  we  may  reasonably 

»  Dubium  non  est  quin  multis  ante  et  illam  e  rej^one  cum  Symbolo  Apo- 

SynodumiUamAuprustodunensemaD-  stolico  ponerent,  nisi  jam  hngo  usu 

ni8  compositum  asset,  et  jam  olim  per  recepta,  approbata,  et  inter  germanas 

totam   Ecdesiam   celebre   evasisset :  Magni  Atnanasii  lucubrationes  nume- 

nunquam  enim  sapientissimi  praesules  rata  fuisset ;  quod  nisi  post  plurium 

id  commisissent,  ut  istam  fidei  formu-  annorum  seriem  fieri  vix  potuit.  Qtte«- 

lam  omnium  ordinum  clericis  amplec-  nel,  Dis.  xiv.  p.  731. 
tendam,et  irrepr€heTi8ibiliter,uiai\intt        Quare  jam  ante  centum  fere  annis 

recensendam,  Synodali  edicto  sub  con-  opus  illud  Atbanasio  attributum  fuerat. 

denmatumis  pana  prsecioerent ;   imo  Pagi,  Critic,  in  Baron,  vol.  i.  p.  441. 

N  2 


conclude,  that  the  reception  of  this  Creed,  in  the  Ghillican 
churches,  was  at  least  as  early  as  670;  understanding  it  of 
its  reception  into  the  public  Offices:  but  understanding  it  of 
its  reception  as  a  rule  o{  faiths  or  an  orthodox  and  excellent 
formulary  and  system  of  belief,  it  may  be  justly  set  as  high  as 
550^  which  is  but  twenty  years,  or  thereabout,  before  Fortunar 
tus  conmiented  upon  it.  Le  Quien  scruples  not  to  set  it  as  high 
as  500°. 


630.  Next  to  France,  we  may  mention  her  near  neighbour 
Spain,  which  seems  to  have  received  this  Creed  very  early,  and 
within  less  than  a  hundred  years  after  the  time  before  fixed  for 
its  reception  in  France.  As  to  the  truth  of  the  fact,  it  may  be 
argued  two  several  ways,  i .  From  the  near  affinity  and  relation 
between  the  Spanish  and  Gallican  Offices,  before  either  France 
or  Spain  had  received  the  Roman.  2.  From  the  fourth  Council 
of  Toledo,  their  quoting  passages  from  this  very  Creed. 

I.  As  to  the  first  argument,  though  a  general  one,  it  must 
appear  of  groat  weight.  If  the  Sacred  Offices  in  France  and 
Spain  were  in  those  times  the  same,  or  very  nearly  so ;  thon  the 
reception  of  this  Creed  in  France  will  afford  a  very  considerable 
argument  of  its  reception  in  Spain  also. 

Cardinal  Bona  is  very  large  and  diffuse  in  setting  forth  the 
argreement  and  harmony  of  the  old  Gkdlican  Offices  with  the 
Spanish^  in  sundry  particulars  P.  And  he  supposes  this  uni- 
formity of  the  two  Churches  to  have  been  as  early^  at  least,  as 
the  days  of  Gregory  Bishop  of  Tours,  who  died  in  the  year  595. 
Mabillon,  after  him,  frequently  asserts  the  same  things  and 
with  greater  assurance  than  Bona  had  done ;  having  met  with 
new  and  fuller  evidences  to  prove  it :  only,  he  dates  the  agree- 
ment of  the  Spanish  Mosarabick  Offices  with  the  Qallioan,  from 
the  third  and  fourth  Councils  of  Toledo',  the  latter  of  which  was 
in  the  year  633.  Mr.  Dodwell,  speaking  of  the  same  matter, 
says,  ''  Nor  does  Mabillon  himself  judge  it  probable  that  the 
''  innovations  attempted  by  Pope  Vigilius  in  Spain  held  long,  of 
"  what  kind  soever  they  were.  All  Spain  was  soon  after  united 
"  in  one  form,  and  that  different  from  the  Romans,  and  agreeing 

^  Non  nisi  ex  eodem  Symbolo,  auod  I3.  p.  373. 

jam  ante  receptum  esset,  Avitus  Vien-  4  Maoillon,  de   lituiig.  GaDican. 

nensia alicubi  scribebat  &c.    Le  pnef.  et  lib.  i.  cap.  3.  p.  ao^  33. 

Qift«ii,  Dissert.  Damascen,  p.  98.  ^  Mabillon,  lib.  i.  c.  4.  p.  3a. 

P  Bona,  Rerum  Liturg.  lib.  i.  cap. 


"  with  the  Gallican^.**  It  is  therefore  a  plain  case,  that  the 
Gallican  and  Spanish  Offices  were  very  much  the  same  in  the 
beginning  of  the  seventh  century,  and  so  continued  for  some 
time.  If  therefore  the  Gallican  churches  received  the  Athana- 
sian  Creed  into  their  public  Offices  before  the  year  670,  it  will 
appear  extremely  probable  that  the  Spanish  received  it  also, 
and  about  the  same  time.  I  here  make  a  distinction,  as  I  did 
before,  between  receiving  the  Creed  as  a  ride  of  faithj  and 
receiving  it  into  the  solemn  Offices,  to  be  recited  or  sung  in 
churches.  The  reception  of  it,  in  the  first  sense,  I  conceive 
to  have  been  somewhat  earlier  in  Spain,  as  well  bs  in  France, 
than  its  reception  in  the  latter  sense.  But  as  different  churches 
in  France  had  anciently  different  customs,  so  also  was  it  in 
Spain :  and  therefore  it  is  probable  that  the  reception  of  this 
Creed  into  the  public  Offices  was  in  some  churches  sooner,  and 
in  others  later,  according  to  the  various  rites,  customs,  and  cir- 
cumstances of  the  several  churches. 

But  I  proceed  to  the  second  article,  whereby  we  are  to  prove 
the  reception  of  this  Creed  in  Spain. 

2.  The  fourth  Council  of  Toledo  cites  a  considerable  part  of 
this  Creed,  adopting  it  into  their  own  Confession^,  We  may  be 
confident  that  the  Creed  did  not  borrow  the  expressions  from 
them,  but  they  from  the  Creed ;  since  we  are  certain  that  this 
Creed  was  made  long  before  the  year  633.  The  reference  to 
this  very  Creed  appears  so  plain  in  the  words  of  that  Council, 
that  most  of  the  learned  have  concluded  from  thence,  that  the 
Spanish  Fathers  had  both  seen  and  approved  this  Creed.  Ba- 
ronius  is  positive  that  the  Council  took  their  expressions  from 
if*.  Calvisius  dates  the  jmblication  of  the  Creed  from  that  Council* : 

B  Dodwell  of  Incense,  p.  190.  rolBBime  custodierit,  perpetuam  salu- 

*  Nee  personas  confundimus,  nee  tem  habebit.     Concit,  ToUt,  IV,  Ca- 

Kubstantiam  separamus.      Patrem  a  pitul.  i. 

nuUo  factum,  vel  genitum  diciinuB :  »  Ex  eodem  Athanasii  Symbolo  ea 

Filium  a  Patre  non  factum,  sed  geni-  verba  primi  Capituli  Toletani  quart! 

turn,  aseerimus :  Spiritum  vero  San-  Concilii  deducta  noscuntur,  quibus 

ctum  nee  creatum,  nee  genitum,  sed  dicitur,  Patrem  a  nulla  factum^  Sec. 

procedentem  a  Patre  et  nlio  profite-  Banm,  Annal.  torn.  iii.  p.  4^6. 

mur,  ipsum  autem  Dominum  Jesum  '  Repositiun  fuit  in  archivis,  nee 

Chiistum ex    substantia    Patris  pubUcatum,  nisi,  quantum  ex  biatoriia 

ante     sspcula     genitum sequalis  conjicere    licet,  post   trecentos    fere 

Patri   secundum  divinitatem,  minor  annos,  ubi  in  Concilio  Toletano  quar- 

Patre  secundum  bumanitatem. to  qusedam  ex  eo  translata  verba  re- 

Usec  est  Ecclesiae  Catholicse  Fides:  censentur.     Seth,  Calms,  Op,  Chro- 

banc  confessionem  conservamus,  at-  nolog,  p.  396. 
que  tenemus.      Quam  quisquis  fir- 


8o  also  Alfltediusy.  Gavantus^  in  his  comments  upon  the 
Roman  Breviary,  concludes  from  thence  that  this  Creed  had 
been  read  in  the  Churchy  as  high  as  that  time  2.  Helvicus*  fallfl 
in  with  the  opinion  of  Calvisius  and  Alstedius,  grounded  upon 
the  expressions  of  this  Council  being  parallel  to  those  of  the 
Creed.  These  authors  have  perhaps  carried  the  point  too  far, 
in  supposing  this  a  sufficient  proof  of  any  public  reception  of  the 
Creed  in  Spain,  at  that  time,  or  of  its  being  recul  in  their 
churches :  but  it  is  clear  enough,  tliat  the  Spanish  Fathers  had 
both  seen  and  approved  it ;  otherwise  they  could  not,  or  would 
not,  have  borrowed  so  plainly  from  it.  Thus  much  is  allowed  by 
most  of  the  learned  moderns,  as  Quesnel^,  Natalis  Alexander^, 
Montfaucon*^,  Tillemonte,  Muratorius,  Oudin^  and  others,  that 
the  expressions  of  that  Council  and  this  Creed  are  parallel,  and 
one  borrowed  from  the  other,  and  the  words  of  the  Council  fi-om 
the  words  of  the  Creed :  only,  Muratorius  hints  as  if  a  doubt 
might  be  made  whether  the  Council  took  from  the  Creed,  or  the 
Creed  from  the  Councils;  which  may  seem  strange  in  him,  who 
supposes  the  Creed  to  have  been  made  by  Fortunatus,  many 
years  before  that  Council  was  held.  But,  I  suppose,  he  is  there 
speaking  of  the  argument  drawn  from  the  words  of  that  Council 
alone,  abstracting  from  the  other  circumstance,  and  previous  to 
the  consideration  of  Fortunatus's  comment :  otherwise  he  is 
guilty  of  a  very  great  oversight.     It  appears  then,  that   this 

y   Symbolum    Athanasii    ab    illo  in  ea  Confessione  Fldei,  qu»  edita  est 

8criptum  est  in  Romse  itidem  contra  a  Concilio  Toletano  4.   habeturqoe 

Arium.     Publicatum  est  post  300  fere  Capit.  i.  ejusdem.      QtieffieX,  Distert. 

annos  in  Concilio  Toletano,  et  inde  xiv.  p.  731. 

usque  ad  nostra  tempora  in  Ecclesia  ^  Nat^.  Alexand.  torn.  iv.  p.  109. 

usurpatum.    Alsted.  Thesaur.  p.  178.  ^  Montfauc.  Diatrib.  p.  720. 

'    Athanasius    dum  esset  Romse,  ®  llllemont,  M^moires,   torn.  viiL 

scripsit  Latine  Symbolum et  reci-  p.  670. 

tavit  coram  Pontifice  et  ei  assidentibus,  '  Oudin.    Comment    de    Script 

anno  340,  ut  scribit  Baronius ;  et  est  Eccl.  p.  348. 

illud  idem,  non  mutatum,  ^^t^ue  «o/t-  ff  Verum  ne  majoris  quidem  mo- 

tum  in  Ecclesia,  ante  annos  nongentos  menti  sunt  verba  ilia,  ^uae  in  Concilii 

sezaffinta.      Vitie  Annales  ad  Annum  Toletani  quarti  professione  leguntiur : 

pneaictum.    BarthoL   Gavant.   Com-  ouamvis  enim  phrases  nonnullse  ibi- 

mentar.  in  Rubric.  Breviarii  Romani,  dem  inveniantur  Symbol!  pbrasibns 

p.  106.  oppido  similes,  attamen  ejuamodi  non 

^  Athanasius  Symbolum  scribit  Ro-  sunt  ut  iis  patribus  Symbolum  jam 

mse,  et  Concilio  offert;    non  tamen  innotuisse  demonstrent     Quinexeo- 

publicatur,  nisi  post  300  ferme  annos  dem  Concilio  has  formulas  quia  deli- 

in  Concilio  Toletano.   Helvic.  Theatr.  basse  videri  potest,  ut  inde  Symbdnm 

Histor.  ad  an,  330.  istud  conflaret.    MuratarU  Anecdot. 

^  Imoet  jam  ab  anno  Oi^aliouaex  Ambros,  tom.  ii.  p.  323. 
isto  Syrobolo  deecripta  mini  videntur 


Creed  was  known  and  approved  in  Spain  as  early  as  633  :  and  it 
is  observable  how  exactly  this  falls  in  with  the  time,  when  the 
Spanish  churches  are  supposed  to  have  received  the  Gallican 
Offices,  according  to  Mabillon'^s  account.  Wherefore  it  is  ex- 
tremely probable,  that  about  this  time  they  received  this  Creed 
from  the  Gallican  churches ;  received  it  as  an  orthodox  formu- 
lary, and  an  approved  rule  ot  faith.  As  to  their  taking  it  into 
their  public  Service  and  Psalmody,  I  pretend  not  to  set  it  so 
high,  having  no  proof  that  they  did  receive  it,  in  that  sense,  so 
early:  but  as  soon. as  the  Gallican  churches  made  it  a  part  of 
their  Psalmody,  we  may  reasonably  think  that  the  Spanish  did  so 
too ;  or  within  a  very  short  time  after. 

787.  Next  to  France  and  Spain,  we  may  mention  Gennany ; 
not  only  because  of  their  nearness  of  situation  to  France,  but 
also  because  of  their  mutual  intercourse  and  affinity  with  each 
other.  This  Creed,  very  probably,  was  received  in  some  parts 
of  Germany,  soon  after  it  obtained  in  the  Gallican  Church. 
The  mutual  intercourse  of  the  German  and  Gallican  Churches 
makes  it  probable:  and  the  ancient  manuscript  of  the  Creed 
found  at  Treves,  or  Triers,  in  Germany,  may  persuade  the  same 
thing.  Our  positive  evidence  is  however  clear  and  certain  for 
the  reception  of  the  Creed,  as  early  as  870,  being  then  translated 
by  Otfridus  into  the  German  or  Teutonic  language.  Anscha- 
rius*s  Instructions  to  his  Clergy  (above  mentioned)  will  afford 
an  argument  for  the  reception  of  this  Creed  in  Germany,  from 
the  time  of  his  holding  the  see  of  Hamburg,  or  from  830  :  and 
it  was  received  at  Basil,  as  we  learn  from  Hatto,  Bishop  of  the 
place,  before  820.  Indeed,  I  have  above  referred  Basil  to 
France,  considering  how  it  stood  in  Hatto's  time,  and  that  it 
was  part  of  ancient  (Jaul :  but  then  it  was  upon  the  confines  of 
Germany,  and  has  in  later  times  been  reckoned  to  it ;  and  we 
have  good  reason  to  think  that  the  customs  of  the  German 
charchea  in  the  ninth  century  were  nearly  the  same  with  those 
of  the  Church  of  Basil  in  820.  What  passed  in  the  council  of 
Frankfort  (if  I  mistake  not  in  my  construction  of  it)  may 
warrant  the  carrying  it  up  as  high  as  794.  iVnd  it  was  seven 
years  before  that,  namely  in  the  year  787^,  that  Pope  Adrian 
sent  to  St.  Willehad,  Bishop  of  Breme,  the  famous  Psalter 

^  Mabill.  Act.  Sanct.  ssec.iii.  part.  3.  p.  409. 


of  Charles  the  Great^,  with  this  Greed  in  it,  the  same  that  I 
have  spoken  of  above.  No  wonder  therefore  that  Anscharias 
and  Bembertus,  afterwards  Archbishops  of  Hamburg  and  Breme, 
so  very  highly  valued  this  Creed.  The  particular  regard  paid 
to  this  Creed  by  Charles  the  Great,  in  the  year  772,  may  plead 
perhaps  in  favour  of  a  more  early  date :  at  least,  no  doubt  can 
be  made  but  as  soon  as  he  came  to  be  emperor,  if  not  a  great 
deal  sooner,  the  German  churches  (as  well  as  the  Gallican  bcdfore) 
admitted  this  Creed,  even  into  their  public  Offices.  It  is  of  this 
time  that  an  anonyTnous  author  cited  above,  in  a  tract  directed 
to  Charlemagne,  then  Emperor,  says,  that  this  Creed  was 
"  professed  by  the  universal  Church/*  We  cannot  however 
be  mistaken  in  setting  the  reception  of  it  in  Germany,  as 
high  as  the  year  787.  So  high  may  pass  for  certain  fact :  and 
there  is  great  probability  for  the  running  it  up  many  years 


800.  As  to  our  own  country^  we  have  clear  and  positive 
proof  of  the  Creed's  being  sung  alternately  in  our  churches  in 
the  tenth  century,  when  Abbo  of  Fleury,  an  ear-witness  of  it^ 
was  here ;  and  when  the  Saxon  versions,  still  extant,  were  of 
standing  use  for  the  instruction  and  benefit  both  of  Clergy  and 
people.  These  evidences  alone  will  prove  the  reception  of  this 
Creed  in  England  to  have  been  as  early  as  950  or  930,  or  die 
time  of  Athelstan,  whose  Latin  Psalter,  with  the  Creed  in  it, 
remains  to  this  day.  The  age  of  the  manuscript  vernons  will 
warrant  us  thus  far:  but,  possibly,  if  those  versions  were 
thoroughly  examined  by  a  critic  in  the  Saxon^  it  might  appear 
that  the  version  or  versions  were  some  years  older  than  the 
manuscripts.  But  it  may  be  worth  the  observing  further,  that 
among  several  other  ancient  professions  of  faith  drawn  up  by 
our  bishops  of  the  Saxon  times  there  is  one  of  Denebert  Bishop 
of  Worcester,  presented  to  Archbishop  Athelard  in  the  year 
799,  which  contains  in  it  a  considerable  part  of  the  Athanasian 

*  Codex  iste in  bibliotheca  quein  ipse  in  principio  pontificatus  mi 

cubiciilari    summi    pnntificis   Hadri-  tanquam  munus  gratmatorium  a  Gft- 

ani   I.   permansit  usque  ad  annum  rolo  Maffno  acceperat,  eadem  ratioiie 

DCCLXXXVIII.  quo  S.  WiUehadus  donavit  S.  Willebado,  ut  iUe,  in  novo 

ab  eodem,  cum  consensu  Caroli  M.  Episcopatu  suo,  frueretur  usu  sacri 

primus  Episcopus  Bremensis  decla-  istius  muneris.    Lambee,  CaitU,  ]Kbl, 

ratus  est.  Tunc  videlicet  P.  P.  Hadri-  Vindob,  lib.  ii.  cap.  $.  p.  297. 
anus  eundem  ilium  codicem  Psalterii, 


Creed^^.  FrcHD  whence  mav  be  concluded,  that  this  fonnulaiT 
was  weD  known  here  and  well  approved,  among  the  learned  at 
least,  in  those  times.  Wherefore,  upon  the  whole^  and  all 
circumstances  considered,  I  may  presume  to  name  the  year  8oo» 
or  thereabout,  for  the  reception  oi  this  Greed  in  England. 
Further  inquiries  may  perhaps  cany  it  up  higher :  but  it  cannot 
reasonably  be  brought  lower,  and  so  there  1  leave  it. 

880.  We  learn  from  Batherius^  above  cited,  that  this  Creed 
was  in  common  use  in  some  parts  of  Italy,  particularly  in  the 
diocese  of  Verona  in  Low  Lombardy,  in  his  time ;  that  is,  about 
960.  He  then  speaks  of  it  as  a  man  would  do  of  a  formulary 
that  had  been  customary  amongst  them,  and  of  long  standing. 
He  exhorts  his  clergy  to  make  themselves  masters  of  the  three 
Greeds,  Apostles\  Nicene,  and  Aihanasian;  without  the  least 
intimation  of  the  lost  of  them  being  newly  introduced.  I  incline 
to  think  that  from  the  time  that  Lombardy  became  a  province 
of  the  French  under  Charles  the  Great,  (about  the  year  774,) 
this  Greed  obtained  there  by  means  of  that  prince^  who  had  so 
great  a  value  for  it,  and  whose  custom  it  was  to  disperse  it 
abroad  wherever  he  had  any  power  or  influence.  Ho  presented 
it  to  the  pope  himself  in  772 :  be  delivered  it,  about  the  same 
time,  or  before,  to  the  monks  of  Mount  Olivet  in  Jerusalem,  of 
his  foundation.  And  it  appears  to  have  been  with  his  consent, 
or  perhaps  at  his  request,  that  pope  Adrian  conveyed  it  to 
Willehad,  the  first  Bishop  of  Breme,  in  787.  These  circum- 
stances make  it  highly  probable,  that  the  same  Gliarles  the 
Great  introduced  this  Greed  into  Lombardy  soon  after  his 
conquest  of  it.  And  indeed  nothing  could  bo  more  serviceable 
at  that  time,  in  a  country  which  had  so  long  before  been  cor- 
rupted with  Arianism.  Add  to  this,  that  it  appears  highly 
probable  that  the  Gallican  Psalter  was  introduco<l  into  the 
churches  of  Italy  soon  after  Lombardy  became  a  province  under 
the  kings  of  France :  and  if  their  Psalter  came  in,  no  doubt 
but  their  Creed,  then  a  part  of  their  Psalter,  came  in  with  it. 
Cardinal  Bona  observes,  and  seems  to  wonder  at  it,  that  the 
Gallican  Psalter  obtained  in  most  parts  of  Italy  in  the  eleventh 

^  Oitbodoxam,  Catholicam  Apo-  Quicunque  tmlt  moIvum  t$Me—itc,  PrO' 
fltolicam  Fidem,  sicut  didid,  paucis  fets,  Demeberti  Ep.  Wigom,  i^pud 
ezponam  verbis,  quia  scriptum  est.     Text.  Boff,  p.  353. 


century  I  He  might  very  probably  have  set  the  date  higher, 
as  liigh  perhaps,  or  very  near,  as  the  conquest  of  Lombardy  by 
Charlemagne.  Thus  far  at  least  we  may  reasonably  judge,  that 
those  parts  which  were  more  immediately  subject  to  the  kings 
of  France,  Verona  especially,  one  of  the  first  cities  taken,  re- 
ceived the  Grallican  Psalter  sooner  than  the  rest.  However, 
since  I  here  go  only  upon  probabilities,  and  have  no  positive 
proof  of  the  precise  time  when  either  the  Creed  or  the  Psalter 
came  in,  and  it  might  take  up  some  years  to  introduce  them, 
and  settle  them  there,  (new  customs  generally  meeting  with 
difficulties  and  opposition  at  the  first,)  these  things  considered, 
I  am  content  to  suppose  the  year  880  for  the  reception  of  this 
Creed  in  Italy ;  which  is  but  eighty  years  higher  than  Batherius, 
and  is  above  one  hundred  years  from  the  entire  conquest  of 
Lombardy  by  Charles  the  Great.  There  may  be  some  reason  to 
suspect  that  this  Creed  had  been  known  in  Italy^  and  received^  at 
least  in  some  of  the  monasteries  there,  near  two  hundred  years 
before.  The  manuscript  of  Bobio,  in  Langobardick  character, 
and  written  about  the  year  700,  or  sooner,  will  afford  a  very 
strong  presumption  of  it.  And  if  we  consider  how  from  the 
year  637,  in  the  time  of  Botharis,  one  of  the  Lombard  kings  of 
Italy,  there  had  been  a  constant  struggle  between  the  Catholics 
and  Arians,  and  a  succession  of  bishops  on  both  sides  kept  up, 
in  almost  every  city  of  his  dominions,  for  many  years  together; 
I  say,  from  these  considerations,  one  might  reasonably  presume 
that  the  Catholics  had  about  that  time  procured  this  Creed, 
together  with  Bachiarii  Fides,  and  Gennadius's  tract,  out  of  the 
Gallican  parts,  to  arm  themselves  the  better  against  the  spread- 
ing heresy.  But  as  this  does  not  amount  to  a  pubUc  reception 
of  it,  nor  is  the  fact  so  clear  as  not  to  be  liable  to  dispute,  I 
pretend  not  to  insist  upon  it. 

930.  Bome  is  of  distinct  consideration  from  the  other  parts  of 
Italy,  and  was  always  more  desirous  of  imposing  her  own  OfBoes 
upon  other  churches,  than  of  receiving  any  from  them.  The 
Filioque,  in  the  Constantinopolitan  Creed,  had  been  long  admitted 
into  all  the  other  western  churches  before  Bome  would  accept  it; 
which  was  not  (at  least  it  does  not  appear  that  it  was)  till  the 
middle  of  the  eleventh  century,  or  about  1050.  The  custom  of 
^  Bona,  Rerum  Liturg.  lib.  ii.  c.  3.  p.  506. 


reciting  the  Nicene,  or  Constantinopolitan  Creed,  in  the  Com- 
munion Service^  had  prevailed  in  Spain,  France,  and  Germany, 
for  several  centuries ;  and  was  at  length  but  hardly  admitted  at 
Bome  in  the  year  1014.  It  was  thought  civil  enough  of  the 
Popes  of  Bome  to  allow  the  other  western  churches  to  vary  from 
the  Roman  customs  in  any  thing:  and  those  other  churches 
oould  not  enjoy  that  liberty  and  privilege  in  quiet,  without  com- 
plying with  the  Roman  Offices  in  most  things  besides.  The  use 
of  the  Athanasian  Creed  was  one  of  those  things  wherein  they 
were  beforehand  with  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  in  which  they 
were  indulged;  as  was  also  the  use  of  the  Callican  Psalter, 
which  the  western  churches  in  general  were  allowed  °^  to  have, 
while  the  Romans  were  tenacious  of  their  own.  But  though  the 
Romans  retained  their  own  Psalter  all  the  way  down  to  the 
middle  of  the  sixteenth  century  ;  yet  they  had  long  before  bor- 
rowed this  Creed  from  the  Callican,  and  received  it  into  their 
Offices.  This  is  certain  fact ;  but  as  to  the  precise  time  when  it 
was  first  done,  it  nmy  not  be  easy  to  determine.  It  was,  without 
aU  question,  before  Thomas  Aquinas's  day;  who  tells  us,  (as 
above  cited,)  that  this  Creed  was  "  received  by  the  authority  of 
*'  the  Pope :"  1  n-ish  he  had  told  us  what  Pope.  That  it  was 
not  received  into  the  Roman  Offices  so  soon  as  the  year  809 
may  be  probably  argued  from  a  case  that  then  happened,  which 
haa  been  hinted  above.  The  Latin  monks  of  Mount  Olivet, 
(founded  by  Charles  the  Great,)  in  their  Apologetical  Letter  to 
Pope  Leo  III,  made  the  best  defence  they  were  able  of  their 
own  practice  in  their  public  professing  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
proceeds  from  the  San.  They  pleaded  the  open  acknowledgment 
of  the  same  doctrine  in  Charles  the  Creates  own  chapel ;  and 
that  the  same  doctrine  had  been  taught  them,  in  St.  Gregory's 
Homilies,  and  in  the  Rule  of  St.  Benedict,  and  in  the  Athanasian 
Creed,  and  in  a  Dialogue  given  them  by  Pope  Leo  himself". 

^  Alexander  IV.  in  sua  Constitu-  Officium  secundum  ordinem  sancta  Ro- 

tkme  quae  est  sexta  in  Bullario  ordinis  tnan<B  EcclesuB,  excepto  Psalterio.  Hod. 

Eremitanim  Sancti  Augustini,  mandat  de  Text.  Bibl.  p.  383.    Vid.  etiam  ru- 

Priori  Generali  et  reliquis  fratribus  in  pra  p.  134. 

TVuda,  at  recitent  Omcium  juxta  mo-  ^  Benignissime  pater,  dum  essem 

rem  Romans  Ecclesiae,  excepto  Psal-  ego  Leo,  servus  vester,  ad  sancta  ves- 

toio.  Boma,  Rer.  lAtwrg.  lib.  ii.  c.  3.  tigia  vestra,  et  ad  pia  vestigia  Domni 

p.  506.  Karoli,  piissimi  Imperatoris,  filiioue 

Sic  quoque  S.  Fnndscus,  ut  tea-  vestri,  audivimus  in  capella  ejus  did 

tatnr  FraMeniua  (Disqa.  Bibl.  c.  vi.  s.  in  Symbolo  Fidei,  ^i  ex  Poire  FiHo- 

s.)  iHiiu  ordinis  firater,  in  regula  suo-  que  procedit.    Et  m  Homilia  S.  Gre- 

rmn  pi»d{nt :  Ckneifacimt  dwnmm  goni,  quam  nobis  filius  vester  Dom. 


Now,  had  the  Athanasian  Creed  been  at  that  time  recited  in 
the  public  Offices  at  Borne,  those  monks  who  were  so  particular 
in  every  little  circumstance  pleadable  in  their  favour,  could  not 
have  failed  (especially  upon  their  mentioning  the  Athanasian 
Creed)  to  have  pleaded  a  thing  so  notorious,  and  which  would 
have  given  the  greatest  countenance  and  authority  possible  to 
them  and  their  doctrine ;  and  must  have  been  of  the  greatest 
weight  and  force  with  Pope  Leo,  to  whom  they  were  writing, 
and  whose  protection  they  were  then  seeking,  and  humbly  im- 
ploring. From  hence  then  one  may  reasonably  infer^  that  this 
Creed  was  not  received  into  the  Roman  Offices  so  early  as  the 
year  809.  Let  us  now  inquire  whether  we  can  fix  upon  any 
later  time  for  its  coming  in. 

Genebrard  testifies,  that  in  the  oldest  Roman  Breviaries  he 
could  meet  with  or  hear  of,  this  Creed  always  made  a  part  of 
the  Service^.  But  this  is  too  general,  nor  can  we  be  certain 
how  ancient  those  oldest  Breviaries  were,  nor  whether  they 
belonged  to  the  Roman  Church,  strictly  so  called,  or  to  other 
western  churches.  And  indeed  I  know  not  how  we  can  come  to 
any  certainty  in  this  matter,  unless  it  be  by  examining  into  the 
Roman  Psalters  which  have  this  Creed  in  them.  Whenever 
the  Creed  came  into  the  Roman  Psalters,  we  may  justly  con- 
dude,  that  at  the  same  time  it  came  into  the  Roman  Offices. 
We  have  in  our  public  library  at  Cambridge  a  Roman  Psalter, 
written  for  the  use  of  the  Church  of  Canterbury,  (as  our  judicious 
Mr.  Wanley  reasonably  conjectures P,)  and  about  the  time  of 
the  Conquest,  or  a  little  before,  suppose  1060.  The  church  of 
Canterbury  more  especially  used  the  Roman  Psalter,  as  hath 
been  observed  above,  and  was  in  all  things  conformable,  of  old 
time,  to  the  Roman  Offices.  Now  if  this  Creed,  which  had 
long  before  been  introduced  into  the  GuUican  Psalters,  did  at 

nu8  Karolus  Imperator  dedit,  in  para-  a>po\oyioi£  (haec  nunc  vocamus  Brevi- 

bola  Octavarum  Paschae,  ubi  dixit:  aria)  sub  Athanasii  nomine  gus  ad 

Sed  ejus  missio  ipsa  processio  est,  qui  primam  recitatio  usu  recepta  est.   Ge- 

de  Patre  procedit  et  Filio.     Et  in  nebr,  in  Symb,  Athanas.u.  3. 
Regula  S.  Benedicti»  quam  nobis  dedit        p  Notandum  vero  in  Ldtania  eztar^ 

filius  vester  Domnus  Karolus, et  haec  verba :    Ut  archiepiscopnm  nos^ 

in  Dialogo  quern  nobis  vestra  sane-  trum,  et  omnem  congre^atwrnem  UMd 

titas  dare  dignata  est,  similiter  dicit.  commissam,in  sancta  rehgiomec 

Et  in  Fide  8.  Athanasii  eodem  modo  vare  digneris,  te  rogamus :  qnibus  pen^ 

dicit.    Epist.  Monach.  Montis  Olivet,  inducor  ut  credam  huDc  cod.  oiiiB 

(^pud  he  Omen,  Damasc.  Dissert. Prrnv.  pertinuisse  ad  eccledam  Chriati  Sal- 

p.  7.  vatoris  Cantuarise.      Wtmliu  Catsl' 

o  In  vetustissimis  Romanse  Ecdesis  p.  15a. 



thifi  time  obtain  in  the  Roman  also ;   it  is  obvious  to  conclude, 
that  it  at  the  same  time  made  a  part  of  the  Roman  Offices,  even 
at  Rome  itself,  as  well  as  Canterbury,  since  one  was  conformable 
to  the  other.    This  argument  may  carry  us  up   some  years 
higher:   for  there  is  another,  an  older  Roman  Psalter,  taken 
notice  of  above,  which  has  this  Creed  in  it ;    written  about  the 
year  930,  in  the  time  of  King  Athelstan.     It  is  said  to  have 
belonged  formerly  to  Archbishop  Cranmer.     Perhaps  this  also 
might  have  been  written  for  the  use  of  the  Church  of  Canterbury : 
I  know  of  no  Church,  amongst  us,  which  at  that  time  used  the 
Roman  Psalter,  but  the  Church  of  Canterbury.     However,  it  is 
highly  improbable  that  any  church  which  complied  so  far  with 
Rome,  as  to  use  the  Roman  Psalter,  should  take  this  Creed  into 
that  Psalter  before  such  time  as  Rome  itself  had  done  the  same 
thing.     Upon  the  strength  of  this  argument,  though  it  be  not 
demonstrative,  but  probable  only,  (such  as  the  case  will  admit 
of,  and  such  as  may  very  well  pass  till  we  can  fix  upon  something 
more  certain,)  I  say  upon  the  strength  of  this,  I  incline  to  date 
the  reception  of  this  Creed  at  Rome  from  the  tenth  century,  and 
the  beginning  of  it,  about  the  year  930.     From  this  time  for- 
wards, I  presume,  the  Athanasian  Creed  has  been  honoured  with 
a  puhlic  recital,  among  the  other  sacred  Hymns  and  Church 
Offices,  all  over  the  west.     The  way  has  been  to  recite  it  at  the 
frimsy  or  first  hour,  {one  o^clock  in  the  Latin  account,  with  us 
eeven  in  the  morning,)  every  Lord's  day^;  and  in  some  places 
0very  day*^.     But  as  the  custom  of  making  it  only  a  part  of  the 
Sunday  Service  is  the  most  ancient^  so  has  it  likewise  been  the 
most  general  and  prevailing;  and  is  at  this  day  the  conmfion  and 
constant  usage  of  the  churches  within  the  Roman  communion. 
And  let  this  suffice  so  far  as  concerns  the  western  churches. 

0/the  Greek  and  Oriental  ChurcheIs. 

AS  to  the  Greek,  or  Oriental  Churches,  I  reserved  this  place  for 
them,  that  I  might  not  entirely  omit  them.  It  has  been  ques- 
tioned, whether  any  of  them  ever  received  this  Creed  at  all. 

4  Die  Dominico  ad  primam  recite-  ad  primam  iterat.  Honor,  August.  Ad 

lor.  Hait,  BasU,  A.  D.  Sao.  primam  dicunt   quotidie  Symbolum 

Pte  omnes  ocddentis  ecdesias  Do-  Athanasii.   Bona  de  Carthusianis,  p. 

ipfwirM  temper  diebus  psaUitur in  897.  Psalmod. 

eoDCtis  ecdeeiis  publice  cani  prsecepta.        Ad  primam (juotidie   subditur 

Mmmel,  Cake,  BUfl  PP.  tom.xxvi.  Symbolum  Athanasii.   Bona  de  Am- 

p.  414.  brotianis,  p.  900.  Diein,  Psalmod. 

r  ^dem,  Qncim^ii^  vult,  quotidie 


Vossiuss  seems  to  have  thought  that  they  never  have ;  and  so 
also  Conibefisius^  And  Dr.  Smith,  in  his  account  of  the  Greek 
Church,  is  positive  that  "as  to  the  Creed  of  Athanasius,  the 
"  Greeks  are  wholly  strangers  to  it^.^ 

Nevertheless,  I  find  some  very  considerable  men  of  a  contrary 
persuasion,  and  not  Romanists  only,  as  Baronius,  Spondanus^ 
Muratorius7,  Renaudot^,  and  others,  but  Protestants  also ;  as 
particularly  Gundling,  whose  words  I  have  put  into  the  margin**. 
We  may  observe  however,  that  thus  far  is  agreed  on  all  hands, 
that  this  Creed  is  not  received  in  aJl  the  Greek  churches  ;  and 
if  it  is  in  any,  yet  it  is  there  differently  read  in  the  article  of 
procession.  It  is  not  pretended  that  any  of  the  African  churches, 
Alexandrian,  Nubian,  or  Ethiopian,  (which  are,  most  of  them, 
of  the  Jacobite  or  Eutychian  sect,)  have  received  it.  So  far 
from  it,  that  they  have  not  (at  least  the  Ethiopian  or  Abassine 
churches  have  not)  so  much  as  the  Apostles'  Creed  amongst 
them,  if  we  may  believe  Ludolphus^ :  so  little  are  they  ac- 
quainted with  the  Latin  forms  or  confessions.  Nor  is  it  pre- 
tended that  the  more  eastern  Christians,  belonging  to  the 
Patriarchates  of  Antioch  and  Jerusalem,  have  any  acquaintance 
with  the  Athanasian  Creed :  no  not  the  Maronites,  though  they 

*  Nee  qui  nostra  state  Patiiarcha  rit,  qua  Spiritum  Sanctum  a  Patre  Fi- 

Alezandrinus,  et  Prseses  Constantino-  lioque  procedere  expressum  habetur. 

poleos  fuit,  pro  ^ermano  illud  Symbo-  f  Re  vera,  non   Ecclesia  tantum 

lum  habuit.    Sic  enim  Meletius  litte-  Constantinopolitana,    sed    Serviana, 

ria  suis  Constantinopoli,  anno  1597,  Bulp^rica,  Russica,  Moscovitica,  aliae- 

ad  Johannem  Douzam,  Nordovicem  que  ritui  Grseco  addicts,  etsi  Athana- 

datia,  et  a  filio  Geor((io  Douza  editis.  siano  Symbolo  in  sacns  Liturgiis  utan- 

"  Athanasio  falso  adscriptum  Symbo-  tur,  banc  tamen  particulam,  et  Filio, 

''lum, cum appendice ilia Romanonim  inde  exclusere.    Murator,  tom.  ii.  p. 

**  Pontificum  adulteratum,  luce  luci-  227. 

'*  dius  contestamur."     Voss,  de  Trib^  '  Quod  dicitur  Domini  Filius  as- 

Symb.  Dissert,  ii.  c.  20.  p.  521.  sumpsisse  hominem  &c.  rectum  est, 

t  Combef.  n^t.  ad  Calec.  p.  297.  Symoolo  quod  Atbanasii  dicitur,  et  a 

«t  notatione  48  m  vitam  Basilii  Pseu-  Cfracis    Latinisque    rectpi/ur,    con- 

do-Amphiloch. Symbolum    Atha-  forme.  Renaud,  Orient.  Ltturg.  vol.  ii. 

iMMtt  ChrtBci  ut  ejus  non  recipiunt.  p.  643. 

^  Smith,  Account  &c.  p.  196.  »  Mirari  auis  possit  cur  Grseci  pro- 

^  Spondanus  epitomizing  the  words  cessionem  opiritus  Sancti  a  Filio  ne- 

of  Baronius,  as   I   find   quoted    by  gent,  additionem  ad  Symbolum  Nicas- 

Tentzelius,  p.  152.  num  tam  aegre  ferant,   cum  tamen 

Cum  autem  e  Romanse  Ecclesise  an-  Symbolum  Athanasii  recipiant.  Gund- 

tiquls  monumentis,  veluti  eruderatum  Una.  Not.  ad  Eustrat.  &c.  p.  68. 

emersit  in  lucem,  tum  a  Latinis  om-  °  Ludolph.    Histor.   iEthiop,  lib. 

nibus,  tum  a  Grsecis  aeque  susceptum  iii.  c.  5.     Symbolo  Fidei   Catholicfe 

est :  non  ab  Ecclesia  Constantinopo-    Nicaeno  communiter  utuntur illo 

litana  tantum,  sed  Serviana,  Bulga-  quo  nos  utimur,  uti  caeteri  orientales, 

rica,  Russica,  Moscovitica,   et  aids;  carent:   haud  levi  indicio  Apostolos 

licet  ab  eis  dempta  inde  pars  ilia  fue-  illiua  autores  non  esse. 


formerly  submitted  to  the  see  of  Rome,  and  are  still  supposed  to 
hold  communion  therewith,  and  to  acknowledge  the  Pope  for 
their  head.  All  that  is  pretended^  with  respect  to  this  Greed, 
is,  that  the  churches  of  Constantinople^  Servia,  Bulgaria^  Russia, 
and  Muscovy,  acknowledge  it  as  Athanasius's,  or  make  use  of  it 
in  their  common  and  sacred  Offices.  And  for  proof  of  this,  it 
has  been  usual  to  appeal  to  a  passage  of  Cazanovius,  a  Polish 
knight,  in  a  letter  of  his  to  Calvin :  which  letter  I  have  not 
seen,  but  find  quoted  both  by  Genebrard  ^  and  Vossius  ^,  men 
of  opposite  principles,  and  therefore  the  more  safely  to  be  relied 
on  where  they  agree.  But  what  does  Cazanovius  confess  ?  That 
the  Greek,  Servian,  Russian,  and  Muscovite  churches  acknow- 
ledge the  Athanasian  Creed  as  Athanasius's  ;  only  curtailed  (or, 
as  they  would  say,  corrected)  as  to  the  point  of  the  procession. 
A  confession  from  a  Socinian  adversary,  in  this  case,  is  of  some 
weight ;  and  especially  if  it  can  be  enforced  by  any  corroborating 
evidence.  Let  us  see  then  what  may  be  further  learned  concern- 
ing the  several  churches  here  named,  and  the  reception  of  this 
Creed  in  them.     I  may  take  them  one  by  one. 

I .  To  begin  with  Muscovy,  where  the  matter  of  fact  seems  to 
be  most  fully  attested  of  any.  In  the  account  given  of  the  Lord 
Carlisle's  embassy  from  King  Charles  IL  to  the  great  Duke  of 
Muscovy,  in  the  year  1663  ^,  I  meet  with  this  passage,  relating 
to  the  Muscovites,  and  their  dityine  Service :  *'  The  whole  Service 
"  is  performed  by  reading  of  pertain  Psalms,  or  chapters  in  the 
**  Bible :  sometimes  the  Priest  adds  Athanasius's  Creed,  or  sings 
"  certain  hymns,  and  St.  Chrysostom's  Homily."  In  another 
treatise  entitled,  Of  the  Ancient  and  Modern  Religion  of  the 
Moscovites,  written  in  French,  and  printed  at  Cologne  1698, 
and  since  translated  into  English,  there  is  this  account  of  the 
Muscovites :  that  "  they  receive  the  Creed  of  the  Apostles,  and 
"  that  of  Nice  and  Athanasius  ^"  These  two  testimonies  are 
nndoubtedly  sufficient,  so  far  as  concerns  Muscovy.     Now  the 

®  Si  Athanaaii  est,  cligusnam  illud  non  in  Latioa  solum  Ecclesia,  sed 

flritquuodnancGrsecorum,  Servionim,  etiam  in  Constantinopolitana,  Servi- 

Rnssoram,  et  Moscorum  ecclesiae  sub  ana,  Bulgarica,  Moscovitica.  Voss,  de 

qnadem  Athanaaii  titulo  retinent,  ac  Symb.  Diss,  ii.  c.  i.  p.  516. 

pro  gennino  agnoacunt  ?  Casanov.  ad  *  Harris's  Complete  Collection,  &c. 

CmhiM,Epist.tqpmdC}enebr.deSynUfoL  vol.  ii.  p.  i8i.    See  also  the  Duke  of 

Aikamas,  p.  7.  Holstein's  Travels,  ibid.  p.  36. 

^  Caxanoviua  aarmata etsi  mul-  '  Harris's  Collection  of  Travels, 

«  hoc  Symbolum  displiceat,  ag-    vol.  ii.  p.  238.      See   also    p.  240, 
notcit  tamen  Atbanatianum  vocari,    241. 



Muscovites  received  their  religion  and  their  orders  from  the 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  about  the  tenth  century,  or  begin- 
ning of  the  eleventh :  and  their  receiving  of  this  Creed  will  be  a 
presumptive  argument  in  favour  of  its  reception  at  Constantinople 
also,  if  there  be  no  evident  reason  against  it.  That  the  Mus- 
covites did  not  receive  the  Creed  from  the  Latins^  but  from  the 
Greeks^  is  very  plain,  because  their  copies  of  the  Creed  are  with- 
out the  article  of  the  procession /row  the  Sanf^.  For  they  pretend 
that  the  Latins  have  interpolated  the  Creed,  appealing  to  their 
own  uncorrupted  copies ;  and  they  blame  the  Latins,  further, 
for  inserting  the  Filioque  into  the  Nicene  ^.  From  what  hath 
been  said,  it  appears  to  be  certain  fact,  that  the  Muscovites  re- 
ceive the  Athanasian  Creed :  how  long  they  have  had  it,  or  how 
far  short  of  seven  hundred  years,  (reckoning  from  the  time  that 
Christianity  was  received,  or  restored  amongst  them,)  I  cannot 
say.  I  should  observe,  that  the  Muscovites  always  perform  their 
Service  in  their  own  vulgar  tongue,  as  is  allowed  on  all  hands  > : 
since  then  the  Athanasian  Creed  is  a  part  of  their  Service,  they 
must  have  had  a  version  of  it  in  the  Muscovite  language,  which 
is  a  dialect  of  the  Sclavonian.  Wherefore  this  also,  after  our 
proof  of  the  thing,  may  now  be  added  to  the  other  versions  above 

2.  Russia,  as  distinguished  from  Muscovy,  must  mean  Russia 
Minor,  or  the  Black  Russia,  a  province  of  Poland.  As  many  as 
there  follow  the  Greek  rites  are  pf  the  same  account  with  the 
Muscovites  before  spoken  of:  and  therefore  what  has  been  said 
of  the  former,  with  respect  to  the  use  of  the  Athanasian  Creed, 
will  be  applicable  to  these  also ;  and  so  I  need  not  be  more 
particular  about  them.  The  Patriarch  of  Muscovy  ordains  thmr 
Archbishop,  who  is  therefore  subject  to  him,  and  follows  the  same 
rites  and  customs :  and  their  language  is  also  a  dialect  of  the 
Scbivonian,  like  the  other. 

8^  Vid.Tentzel.  Judic.  Erudit.p.  151. 

^  See  Harris,  ibid.  p.  240. 

^  In  caeteris  autem  r^onibus,  vide- 
licet in  Servia,  Mysia,  Bosnia,  Bulga- 
ria, Russia  Minori  regi  Poloniae  sub- 
dita,  in  Volhinia,  Podolia,  et  parte 
quadam  lituanifle,  aliisque  finitimis 
provinciis,  ritu  Greco  divinum  pera- 
gitur  officium,  translatis  Grseconim 
^icis  in  Sdavonicam  linffuam.  Eos- 
oem  Gnecos  ritus,  eadem  lin^rua,  ser- 
vant Moscovitae,  quorum  regio  Russia 

Major,  seu  Roxolania  nuncupotur  &c. 
Bona  de  Divin.  Psalmod,  cap.  zviii. 
sect.  17.  p.  911.  Vid.  etiam  Uner. 
Histor.  Dogmat.  p.  246. 

Armeni  suo  quoque  nativo  aennoiie 
dudum  sacra  cdebrant,  turn  qui  artkh 
doxam  fidem  retinuemnt,  tmn  Jaeo- 
bitse,  nt  MoscovitK  sea  Rotheni.  Gon- 
stantinopolitansB  sedi  8abiecti«  Rat* 
sico ;  et  alii  quidam  de  qoilras  ptnea 
sdmus.  Raunukt,  iMmf.  Orimi. 
vol.  i.  Disaertat.  6.  p.  43. 


3.  Servia,  now  a  large  province  of  the  Turkish  empire,  part  of 
Northern  Turkey  in  Europe,  first  received  Christianity  about 
the  year  860,  by  the  means  of  Cyrill  and  Methodius,  who  are 
said  to  have  invented  the  Sclavonian  letters,  and  to  have  trans- 
lated the  Scriptures  into  the  Sclavonian  tongue.  Cyrill  was  a 
Greek,  and  came  from  Constantinople :  and  Methodius  was  a 
Greek  too,  both  sent  by  the  Greek  emperor  to  convert  the 
country ;  which  therefore  became  instructed  in  the  Greek  rites 
and  religion.  It  is  not  improbable  that  they  should  have  the  Atha- 
nasian  Creed,  as  well  as  the  Muscovites  and  Russians ;  or  perhaps 
before  them,  being  converted  sooner :  and  they  also  must  have 
received  it  from  the  Greeks,  and  not  from  the  Latins,  because  of 
their  varying,  in  the  article  of  the  procession,  from  the  western 

4.  Bulgaria  is  likewise  part  of  Turkey  in  Europe,  and  has 
been  so  from  the  year  1396.  Christianity  was  planted  there  in 
the  year  845.  There  were  of  old  great  disputes  between  the 
two  Bishops  of  Rome  and  Constantinople,  upon  the  question  to 
whose  Patriarchate  the  Bulgarians  did  of  right  belong.  In  con- 
clusion, about  the  year  870,  the  Greek  Patriarch  prevailed  over 
the  Roman,  by  the  interest  of  the  then  Emperor  of  Constanti- 
nople. The  Bulgarians  of  consequence  fell  to  the  share  of  the 
Greek  Church,  and  so  have  been  educated  in  their  rites  and 
customs.  Their  language  is  a  dialect  of  the  Sclavonian,  in  which 
they  perform  their  sacred  Offices :  and  therefore,  if  they  make 
use  of  the  Athanasian  Creed,  they  must  be  supposed  to  have 
it  in  their  own  vulgar  tongue.  I  have  no  particular  evidence  of 
their  using  it,  beyond  what  has  been  mentioned  from  Cazanovius 
and  the  Romish  Mrriters ;  which  yet  seems  to  be  sufficient,  since 
it  has  been  fully  proved  that  it  is  used  in  Muscovy,  and  in 
Russia,  to  whom  the  Bulgarians  are  neighbours,  and  with  whom 
they  conform  in  their  other  religious  rites  derived  from  the  same 
fountain,  namely,  the  Constantinopolitan  Greeks. 

5.  It  remains  then  that  we  consider  the  fact  in  respect  of 
Constantinople  itself,  and  the  Greek  church  there :  for  this  also, 
as  we  have  seen,  has  been  named  with  others,  as  receiving  the 
Athanasian  Creed.  Genebrard  is  positive  in  it,  and  gives  us  the 
very  Creed  itself,  which  the  Constantinopolitans,  as  he  says,  use 
and  recite^.    He  wrote  in  the  year  1569.      The  truth  of  his 

^  Supeiius  Symbolura,  Athanasii  8tantinopolitam8icGraBceleffunt,etre- 
TerbiB  aliquantulum  immutatis,  Con-     ciXxai.GenebrardAnSymhMhttn.^A^. 



report  is  very  much  doubted,  because  the  form^  which  he  ex- 
hibits, acknowledges  the  procession  from  the  Son,  which  the  Con- 
stantinopolitans  admit  not :  and  even  those  who,  as  before  seen, 
assert  or  allow  that  they  receive  this  Creed,  yet  at  the  same  time 
intimate  that  it  is  not  the  entire  Creed,  but  curtailed  in  tliat  ar- 
ticle. However,  Genebrard  might  be  in  the  right,  as  to  the  main 
thing,  that  the  Constantinopolitans  do  receive  the  Creed,  though 
mistaken  in  the  particular  form :  or  possibly  some  Latinizing 
Greeks  at  Constantinople  might  have  one  form^  and  the  rest  an- 
other, and  thus  all  will  be  well.  But  let  us  inquire  what  further 
evidence  there  is  of  this  Creed's  having  been  ever  received  at 
Constantinople,  and  by  the  Greeks  properly  so  called.  An  ar- 
gument thereof  may  be  drawn  from  the  Greek  copies  that  vary 
from  the  Latin,  in  the  article  of  procession.  For  who  should 
draw  up  and  curtail  the  Greek  copies  but  the  Greeks  ?  And  why 
should  they  be  at  the  trouble  of  correcting  (as  they  will  call  it)  the 
Creed,  if  they  did  not  receive  it  ?  A  second  argument  may  be 
drawn  from  the  Creed's  being  found  in  the  Horologia  belonging 
to  the  Greeks ;  that  is,  in  their  Breviaries,  (as  we  should  call 
them,)  their  books  of  Service  for  the  canonical  hours.  How 
should  the  Creed  come  in  there,  unless  the  Greeks  received  it 
into  their  sacred  Offices  ?  As  to  the  fact.  Bishop  Usher's  copy 
found  in  such  a  Breviary  is  a  sufficient  evidence :  and  it  is  plain 
from  the  copy  itself,  that  it  was  no  Latinizing  Greek  that  made 
it,  or  used  it ;  since  the  procession  from  the  Son  is  struck  out. 
Further,  this  Horologion  belonged  to  a  monk  of  Constantinople ' ; 
which  argues  the  reception  of  the  Creed  in  that  very  city :  and, 
as  a  token  of  their  esteem  of  it  and  value  for  it,  it  is  ascribed 
to  the  Nicene  Council  itself,  which  all  the  Greeks  receive  and 
respect  with  the  greatest  veneration.  From  hence  then  it  is 
plain,  that  the  Constantinopolitan  Greeks  (some  of  them  at 
least)  receive,  or  have  received  this  Creed,  but  with  some  altera- 
tions proper  to  their  peculiar  tenets  in  opposition  to  the  Latins. 
This  fact  of  the  Constantinopolitans  their  receiving  this  Creed 
might  be  further  proved  from  the  Confession  of  Metrophanes 
Critopulus,  (in  the  year  1620,  published  in  1667"™,)  who  admits 

1  In  Tbecarae,  Constantinopolitani  Symb.  p.  i. 
inonachi,  Graecorum  Uymnorum  Ho-  *"  Metrophanis  Critopuli,  Proto- 
rologio  (a  Ravio  nostro  ex  oriente  syngeli  Constantinopolitani  oyLoKoyia 
hue  advecto)  Symbolum  hoc,  eo  quo  t^s  avarokiKrii  (KKkrjarias  edit.  Helm- 
post  finem  hujiis  diatribje  cernitur  in-  slad.  in  4to  a  Joann.  Horneio :  vid. 
terpolatum  inodo,  Nicienae  Synodoad-  cap.  i.  p.  18.  apud  Tentzel.  p.  150. 
scnptum reperi   &c.       Usser.  de 


the  Creed,  and  looks  upon  it  as  owing  to  a  very  particular  pro- 
vidence, that  the  Greek  copies  (as  he  supposes)  have  been  pre- 
served pure  and  entire,  while  the  Latin  ones  have  been  corrupted 
or  interpolated.  We  find  by  Nicolaus  Hydruntinus,  above 
cited,  that  such  had  been  the  general  persuasion  of  the  Greeks^ 
five  hundred  years  upwards,  in  relation  to  this  Creed ;  not  re- 
jecting the  Creed^  but  the  Latin  interpolation  only,  as  they  take 
it  to  be. 

Which  when  I  consider,  reflecting  withal  how  the  Muscovites, 
Russians,  &;c.  (who  derived  their  religion  from  the  Greeks  since 
the  ninth  century,)  have  all  come  into  this  Creed,  and  that  no 
good  account  has  been  given  of  such  agreement,  except  it  be 
that  they  all  received  the  same  form  when  they  first  received 
their  religion  ;  I  say,  when  I  consider  and  compare  these  things 
together,  it  cannot  but  give  me  a  suspicion,  that  this  Creed  had 
been  received  by  the  Greeks  soon  after  their  first  disputes  with 
the  Latins  about  the  procession ;  only  they  took  care  to  strike 
out  a  part  of  it,  hoping  to  solve  all  by  charging  the  Latins  with 
interpolation.  Or  possibly,  the  Latin  Patriarchs  of  Constanti- 
nople, between  the  years  1205  and  1260,  might  first  introduce 
the  Creed  there.  They  made  use  of  it,  as  it  seems^  then  and 
there  in  their  Offices  for  the  instruction  of  catechumens ;  as  I 
learn  from  a  Pontifical  of  the  church  of  Constantinople,  about 
five  hundred  years  old,  published  in  part  by  Martene,  who  gives 
an  account  of  it",  and  also  an  extract  of  the  Ofiice  relating  to 
catechumens,  which  I  have  transcribed  °  into  the  bottom  of  the 
page.  It  is  not  improbable  that  the  use  of  the  Creed  at  Con- 
stantinople might  first  come  in  such  a  way :  and  when  it  had 
prevailed  there  for  forty  or  fifty  years,  the  returning  Greeks 
might  think  it  not  improper  to  continue  its  use,  only  taking  out 
the  article  which  concerns  ihe  procession. 

However  this  be,  one  thing  is  certain,  and,  I  think,  hath  been 

n    Constantinopolitanae     Ecclesise    cerdos Fides  autem  est,  ut  unum 

Pontifieale  vetus,  ad  Latinos  ritus  ac-  Deum  in  Trinitate,  et  Trinitatem  in 

commodatum ,  cujus  character  ad  annos  Unitate  venereris,  neoue  confundendo 

500  accedit ;  scriptum  proinde  eo  tern-  Personas,  neque    suDstantiam  seim- 

pore  quo  urbc  a  Gallis  occupata.  La-  rando.    Alia  est  cnim  Persona  Patris, 

tinis  ntibus  serviebat.   Ex  bibliotheca  alia  Filii,  alia  Spiritus  Sancti :  sed  ho- 

R.  R.  P.  P.  prsedicatorum  majoris  con-  rum  trium  una  est,  et  non  nisi  una 

ventus  Parisiensis.    Martene  Syttab.  Divinitas.    Exeat  ergo  de  te  spiritus 

Ritual,  malignus  &c.  Martene  de  Antiq,  Eccl. 

o  Interrogatio.  Fides  quid  tibi  prae-  Rittbus,  p.  44, 45. 
Stat  ?   R.  Vitam  sternam.    Ait  ei  sa- 

o  2 


proved  abundantly,  that  the  professed  Greeks,  even  under  the 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  have  in  fonner  times  received  and 
still  do  receive  this  Creed,  with  such  alterations  or  corrections 
as  are  proper  to  their  principles:  and  so  1  understand  Dr. 
CovelP,  where  he  says,  speaking  of  what  is  done  amongst  the 
Greeks,  that  "  Athanasius's  Creed  is  owned  as  corrupted  f  that 
is,  with  such  corruptions  as  the  Greeks  have  made  to  it.  Upon 
the  whole,  therefore,  I  cannot  but  close  in  with  those  many 
learned  Romanists  who  have  affirmed,  and  still  do  affirm,  that 
this  Creed  is  received  both  by  Greeks  and  Latins.  If  the 
expression  be  thought  too  general^  since  it  is  certain  that  the 
Creed  is  rejected  by  innumerable  Greeks,  or  more  properly 
Orientalists,  in  Asia  and  Africa;  as  the  Cophtcs,  and  Nubians, 
and  Abassines,  and  Maronites,  Armenians,  Nestorians,  &c.,  I 
say,  if  this  be  objected,  it  is  to  be  considered,  that  the  Roman- 
ists, under  the  name  of  Greeks,  mean  generally  the  orthodox 
Greeks  only,  the  Melchite  Greeks,  or  as  many  as  hold  commu- 
nion with  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople ;  making  no  account 
of  the  rest,  as  being  by  their  heresies  cut  off  from  the  Church, 
and  therefore  of  little  or  no  consideration^.  Now,  in  this  sense, 
it  is  excusable  enough  to  say,  that  the  Creed  is  received  both  by 
Greeks  and  Latins. 

To  sum  up  what  hath  been  said  of  the  reception  of  this  Creed : 
from  the  foregoing  account  it  appears  that  its  reception  has  been 
both  general  and  ancie^U.  It  hath  been  received  by  Greeks  and 
Latins  all  over  Europe :  and  if  it  hath  been  little  known  among 
the  African  and  Asian  churches,  the  like  may  be  said  of  the 
Apostles'  Creed,  which  hath  not  been  admitted,  scarce  known, 
in  Africa,  and  but  little  in  Asia^,  except  among  the  Armenians, 

P  Covel,  Account  of  the  Greek  enim  illius  religionis  homines,  tan- 
Church,  praef.  p.  o.  to  which  I  may  quam  a  se  disjunctos,  atque  improbis- 
add  a  remark  of  the  learned  Dr.  simos,  arcent,  et  detestantur.  Leo 
Hickes,  that  '*  this  Creed,  though  of  Allat,  de  perpet.  Consens,  Eccl.  Occid. 
"  an  uncertain  author,  was,  for  its  et  Orient,  p.  9. 
"  excellent  composure,  received  into  '  Illo  quo  noe  utimur,  uti  cajteri 
"  the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches."  orientales,  carent  (Habessini)  hand 
Hickes^s  Serm.  vol.  ii.  p.  235.  levi  indicio,  Apostolos  illius  autores 

4  Attamen  hoc  spvi  sub  Orientalis  non  esse,  quamvis  doctrinse  ratione 

Ecclesise  nomine  diversarum   natio-  ApostoUcum  recte  vocetur.    Ludolph, 

num  orientalium    ecclesise    veniunt;  li%$t,  jEthiop.  lib.  iii.  c.  5.  n.  19. 

qua^  licet  a  Gra;ca  euam  cognoscant  'Hfuls  oOrt  txofAtv  oCn  tifiofuv  avfifitt- 

orig^nem,   propter    tamen    variarum  \op  t&p  * Arroar^civ,    Marc.  Ephesius 

haeresium   colluvicm    et    alia  pweter  tii  Condi,  Florent,  ann.  1439.  %^*'- 

mores  ("hristianos  pessima  introducta  Stfurop,  Hist.  sect.  v\,  c,  6,  p.  150. 

a  Gra?ca  longissime  absunt.     Greci  Symbolura  nee  ab  A|)08toli8,  nee  a 


who  are  said  to  receive  it*.  So  that,  for  generality  of  reception, 
the  Athanasian  Creed  may  vie  with  any,  except  the  Nicene^  or 
Constantinopolitan,  the  only  general  Creed  common  to  all  the 
churches.  As  to  the  antiquity  of  its  reception  into  the  sacred 
Offices,  this  Creed  has  been  received  in  several  countries,  France, 
Germany,  England,  Italy,  and  Rome  itself,  as  soon,  or  sooner 
than  the  Nicene ;  which  is  a  high  commendation  of  it,  as  gaining 
ground  by  its  own  intrinsic  worth,  and  without  the  authority  of 
any  general  council  to  enforce  it.  And  there  is  this  thing  further 
to  be  said  for  it,  that  while  the  Nicene  and  Apostles*  Creeds 
have  been  growing  up  to  their  present  perfection  in  a  course  of 
years^  or  centuries  of  years,  and  not  completed  till  about  the 
year  600,  this  Creed  was  made  and  perfected  at  once,  and  is 
more  ancient,  if  considered  as  an  entire  form^  than  either  of  the 
other  ;  having  received  its  full  perfection,  while  the  others 
wanted  theirs.  No  considerable  additions  or  defalcations  have 
been  made  to  it  (it  has  needed  none)  since  its  first  compiling, 
till  of  late  years,  and  in  the  Greek  Church  only  ;  which  yet  are 
so  far  from  correcting  or  amending  the  form,  that  they  have 
rendered  it  so  much  the  less  perfect :  and  the  only  way  of  re- 
storing it  to  its  perfection  is  to  restore  it  to  what  it  was  at  the 
first.    But  I  pass  on. 


0/tke  Time  when^  and  Place  where y  (he  Creed  was  composed. 

HAVING  observed  when  and  where  this  Creed  hath  been 
received,  we  may  now  ascend  higher,  and  consider  when  and 
where  it  was  made.  Our  inquiries  here  will  be  in  some  measure 
dark  and  conjectural;  strong  probabilities  will  perhaps  be  as 
much  as  we  can  reach  to :  which  made  it  the  more  necessary 
for  me  to  begin,  as  I  have,  at  the  lower  end,  where  things  are 
more  plain  and  clear,  in  hopes  to  borrow  some  light  to  conduct 
our  searches  into  what  remains  still  dark  and  obscure.  What- 
ever wc  have  to  advance  in  this  chapter  must  rest  upon  two 
things.  I.  Upon  external  testimony  from  ancient  citations, 
manuscripts,  comments,  versions,  and  the  like,  such  as  have  been 
previously  laid  down.  2.  Upon  the  internal  characters  of  the 

Svnodo  uUa  generali  factum  est :  sia  Romana.  Suicer.  Thesaur.  p.  1093. 
aahstc,  nee  in  Graec.  nee  in  Orient.  ^  Sir  Paul  Ricaut,  Present  State  of 
ullis  Ecclesiis  obtinuit,  sed  in  Ecde-    the  Greek  Church,  p.  409. 


I .  To  begin  with  the  external  evidence ;  our  ancient  testinwnies, 
above  recited,  cany  up  the  antiquity  of  the  Creed  as  high  as 
the  year  670,  if  the  first  of  them  be  admitted  for  genuine ;  as  it 
reasonably  may,  notwithstanding  some  objections.  Our  manu- 
scripts^ now  extant,  will  bring  us  no  higher  than  700  ;  but  such 
as  have  been  known  to  be  extant  may  reach  up  to  660,  or  even 
600.  This  must  be  thought  very  considerable  to  as  many  as 
know  how  great  a  rarity  a  manuscript  of  eleven  hundred,  or  of  a 
thousand  years  date  is ;  and  how  few  books  or  tracts  there  are 
that  can  boast  of  manuscripts  of  such  antiquity.  The  injuries 
of  time,  of  dust,  and  of  moths,  and  above  all,  the  ravages  of  icar 
and  destructions  di  jire^  have  robbed  us  of  the  ancient  monu- 
ments, and  left  us  but  very  thin  remains ;  that  a  manuscript  of 
the  fourth  century  is  a  very  great  rarity,  of  the  fifth  there  are 
very  few,  and  even  of  the  sixth  not  many.  So  that  our  want  of 
manuscripts  beyond  the  sixth  or  seventh  century  is  no  argument 
against  the  antiquity  of  the  Creed,  however  certain  an  argument 
may  be  drawn  from  those  we  have,  so  far  as  they  reach.  But, 
beyond  all  this,  we  have  a  comment  of  the  sixth  century,  of  the 
year  570,  or  thereabout;  and  this  certain,  and  unquestionable: 
which  may  supersede  all  our  disputes  about  the  ancietit  testi- 
vumies  or  manuscripts  of  more  doubtful  authority.  Here  then  we 
stand  upon  the  foot  of  external  evidence :  the  Creed  was,  about 
the  year  570,  considerable  enough  to  be  commented  upon,  like 
the  Lord's  Prayer  and  Apostles'  Creed,  and  together  with  them. 
Here  is  certain  evidence  for  the  time  specified ;  and  presump- 
tive for  much  greater  antiquity.  For  who  can  imagine  that  this 
Creed,  or  indeed  any  Creed,  should  grow  into  such  repute  of  a 
sudden,  and  not  rather  in  a  course  of  years,  and  a  long  tract 
of  time  ?  Should  we  allow  one  hundred  or  one  hundred  and 
fifty  years  for  it,  though  it  would  be  conjecture  only,  yet  it 
would  not  be  unreasonable  or  improbable  conjecture.  But  we 
will  let  this  matter  rest  here,  and  proceed  to  our  other  marks  of 

/  2,  The  internal  characters  of  the  Creed.  The  Creed  contains 
two  principal  doctrines ;  one  of  the  Trinity,  and  the  other  of  the 
incarnation.  Possibly  from  the  manner  wherein  these  doctrines 
are  there  laid  down,  or  from  the  words  whereby  they  are  ex- 
pressed, we  may  be  able  to  fix  the  true  date  of  the  Creed,  or 
very  nearly  at  least ;  certain  however  thus  far,  that  it  must  be 
somewhere  above  570. 


From  the  doctrine  of  the  incarnation^  as  expressed  in  this 
Creed,  we  may  be  confident  that  it  is  not  earlier  than  the  rise  of 
the  ApoUinarian  heresy,  which  appeared  first  about  the  year  360, 
and  grew  to  a  head  about  370,  or  a  little  later.  This  Creed  is 
so  minute  and  particular  against  those  heretics,  (without  naming 
them,  as  it  is  not  the  way  of  the  Creed  to  name  any,)  obviating 
every  cavil,  and  precludmg  every  evasion  or  subterfuge,  that 
one  cannot  suppose  it  to  have  been  written  before  the  depths 
of  that  heresy  were  perfectly  seen  into,  and  the  whole  secrets  of 
the  party  disclosed :  which  we  have  no  reason  to  think  could  be 
before  the  year  370,  if  so  soon.  This  consideration  alone  is  to 
me  a  sufficient  confutation  of  those  who  pretend  tliat  Athanasius 
made  this  Creed  either  during  his  banishment  at  Treves,  which 
ended  in  the  year  338,  or  during  his  stay  at  Borne  in  the  year 
343  ;  or  that  he  presented  it  to  Pope  Julius,  or  Pope  Liberius, 
who  were  both  dead  before  the  year  367. 

I  must  add,  that  Epiphanius^  marks  the  very  time  when  the 
Creeds  first  began  to  be  enlarged  in  opposition  to  the  ApoUinarian 
heresy ;  namely,  the  tenth  year  of  Valentinian  and  Valens,  and 
the  sixth  of  Gratian,  (it  should  be  seventh,)  which  falls  in  with 
A.  D.  373,  the  very  last  year  of  Athanasius's  life,  according  to 
those  that  place  his  death  the  latest ;  some  say  he  died  a  year 
or  two  sooner.  If  therefore  he  made  this  Creed  at  aU,  it  must 
be  about  that  time.  And,  indeed,  were  there  no  stronger  ob- 
jections against  the  antiquity  of  the  Creed,  or  against  its' being 
made  by  Athanasius,  than  the  common  objection  about  the  sup- 
posed condemnation  of  the  Nestorian  and  Eutychian  heresies ;  I 
should  scarce  think  it  at  all  improbable  that  Athanasius  should 
be  the  author,  admitting  that  he  lived  to  the  year  373.  For 
Epiphanius's  larger  Creed,  made  about  that  time,  appears  to  me 
as  full  and  express  against  both  those  heresies,  as  the  Athanasian 
can  be  supposed  to  be,  and  in  some  respects  more  so :  and  yet 
neither  of  those  heresies  were  then  in  being,  nor  for  many  years 
after.  But  there  are  many  other  reasons  which  convince  me 
that  the  Athanasian  Creed  must  be  placed  lower  than  this  time. 
I  take  Epiphanius's  larger  Creed  to  have  been  the  first  that  en- 
larged the  article  of  the  incarnation,  in  opposition  chiefly  to  the 
ApoUinarians :  and  that  Creed  being  drawn  up,  as  Epiphanius 
expressly  testifies,  by  the  joint  advice  of  all  the  orthodox  bishops, 
and  the  whole  Cat/iolic  Churchy  became  a  kind  of  rule,  or  model, 

*  Epiphan.  Ancorat.  c.  lai.  p.  123. 


for  most  of  the  Creeds  that  came  after ;  among  which  I  reckon 
the  Athanasian. 

For,  from  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  particularly  and 
minutely  drawn  out  in  that  Creed,  it  is  to  me  very  plain,  that  it 
must  be  some  years  later  than  the  Creed  of  Epiphanius :  which 
will  evidently  appear  to  any  man  who  will  but  be  at  the  pains  to 
compare  the  two  Creeds  together. 

One  very  observable  particular  is  the  manner  of  expressing 
the  Unity  by  a  singular  adjective ;  untis  €Btemu8,  unus  imitiensus, 
&c.  one  eternal^  one  incomprehensible,  &c.  and  the  condenming  the 
expression  of  tres  cetemi^  tree  itnmensi,  &c.  The  Greeks  never 
laid  down  any  such  rule  of  expression,  never  observed  or  followed 
it,  but  have  sometimes  run  counter  to  it" ;  meaning  indeed  the 
very  same  thing,  but  not  so  expressing  it.  As  to  the  Latins, 
we  shall  find  none  of  them  (at  least  I  have  not  observed  any) 
coming  into  that  way  of  expression  before  Ambrose'^  and  Faus- 
tinusy,  (in  the  years  381  and  384,)  who  are  the  first  that  use  it, 
and  that  but  once,  or  very  sparingly ;  not  repeating  and  incul- 
cating it,  like  the  Athanasian  Creed,  nor  leaving  it  destitute  of 
explication.  But  St.  Austin,  afterwards,  in  liis  books  of  the 
Trinity,  in  the  fifth  especially,  enlarges  in  justification  of  this 
rule  of  expression,  and  is  full  and  copious  upon  it.  His  proofs, 
illustrations,  example,  and  authority  gave  new  strength  and 
credit  to  this  rule,  which  might  then  pass  current,  and  become 
fit  to  appear,  without  further  explication,  in  a  Creed.  For  this 
reason,  principally,  I  incline  to  think  that  this  Creed  was  not 
made  before  St.  Austin's  books  of  the  Trinity  were  public,  (which 
was  not  till  416,)  or  not  before  420,  or  thereabout,  to  allow 
some  time  for  his  works  to  be  read,  considered,  approved,  and  to 
gain  a  general  esteem.  If  it  be  said,  that  St.  Austin  might  as 
well  copy  from  this  Creed  as  the  Creed  from  him ;  I  say,  no : 
for  the  reason  is  different.  Creeds  and  other  the  like  formularies, 
which  are  to  be  put  into  every  one'^e  hands,  and  spread  round 

"  Tpi&y  mrtipciv  nntipov  cvfifjiviap,  praecavendum  est :  licet  enim  et  Pater 

Nazians.  in  Bapt.  Orat,  xl.  p.  668.  sit  omnipotens,  et  Filius,  tamen  unwf 

'  Ergo  sanctus  Pater,  sanctus  Kilius,  est  omnipotens,  sicut  et  unus  est  Deus : 

sanctus  et  Spiritus  Sanctus  :  sed  non  auia  Patris  et  Filii  eadem  oinni]>oteii- 

tres  Sancti,  quia  unus  est  Deus  sane-  tia  est,  sicut  et  eadem  deitas  &c. 

tus,  unus  est  Dominus.     Una  est  et-  Osteuditur  Unitas  divinitatis  in  Patre 

enim  vera  sanctitas,  sicut  una  est  vera  et  Filio,  sicut  et  omnijwtentuB,  et  quic- 

divinltas,  una  ilia  vera  sanctitas  natu-  quid  omnino  divina  substantia  est ; 

ralis.   Amhros.  de  Sp,  S.  lib.  iii.  c.  16.  hoc  solo  differens  a  Patre  Filius,  quod 

p.  688.  ille  Pater  est,  et  hie  Filius.   Faiistin, 

y  Sed  ne  duos  omnipotentesinicUigaB,  de  Trinit.  c.  3.  p.  123, 124. 


about,  ought  not  to  contain  any  thing  till  it  has  been  uiaturely 
weighed,  long  considered,  and  fully  explained,  as  well  as  proved, 
and  generally  acknowledged  by  the  churches  of  Christ.  It  is 
therefore  much  more  reasonable  to  believe  that  St.  Austin's 
^Titings  should  go  first,  and  a  general  approbation  of  them  in 
that  particular ;  and  then  the  Creed  might  conveniently  follow, 
the  way  being  now  opened  for  it^. 

I  may  observe  the  like  of  another  article  of  the  Athanasiau 
Creed ;  namely,  the  procession  from  the  Son :  a  doctrine  enter- 
tained indeed  both  by  Greeks  and  Latins,  (as  may  appear  by 
the  testimonies  commonly  cited  for  that  purpose,)  and  expressed 
frequently  in  sense^  though  rarely  in  terms ;  but  such  as  came 
not  to  be  much  inculcated  or  insisted  upon,  till  St.  Austin  under- 
took to  assert  and  clear  it,  and  to  render  it  less  liable  to  any 
dispute  hereafter.  For  which  reason  the  modern  Greeks  have 
looked  upon  him,  in  a  manner,  as  the  Father  of  that  doctrine, 
being  at  least  the  principal  man  that  brought  it  into  vogue; 
however  weakly  they  may  pretend  that  he  invented  it.  Thus 
far  is  certain,  that  his  elaborate  arguments,  and  solid  proofs 
from  Scripture^  of  the  truth  and  of  the  importance  of  the  doc- 
trine, made  it  pass  the  more  readily ;  and  gave  it  credit  and 
authority  enough  to  have  a  place  in  a  standing  Creed  or  Con- 
fession :  which  is  to  me  another  argument  of  the  Creed's  being 
made  after  St.  Austin's  writings  were  well  known  in  the  world ; 
in  that  place,  at  least,  where  the  Creed  was  made.  From  the 
premises  then  I  presume  to  infer,  that  the  Athanasian  Creed  is 
not  earlier  than  the  year  420. 

I  will  next  endeavour  to  shew,  that  it  cannot  reasonably  be 
set  lower  than  the  Eutyehian  times,  nor  later  than  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon,  or  than  the  year  45 1 :  and  this  also  I  shall  attempt 
from  the  internal  characters  of  the  Creed,  in  like  manner  as 

I .  There  is  not  a  word  in  the  Creed  directly  and  plainly  ex- 
pressing tico  natures  in  Christ,  or  excluding  one  nature:  which 

*  Combefis,  speakinff  to  this  point,  "  gust,  in  libris  de  Trinitate  et  alibi, 

seemed  inclinable  to  8up|)ose  that  St.  "  quos  non  aliunde  desumpsinHe  vi- 

Austin  had  borrowed  from  the  CVeetl ;  **  cleatur  quam   ex   eo  Symbolo— 

but  correcting  himself  afterwards,  he  "  Quanrpiam  nihil  vetat  nicerc  i|MUin 

suppo»>e8  rather  that  the  Creed  bor-  "  potius  Symboli  auctorem  ex  AugUR- 

rowed  from  him.  His  words  are  these:  '*  tino,  aliisque   P.P.  ftiia  consarci- 

"  Ejus  Syml>oli,  seu  Formula*  Fidei,  "  nasse."     Uomfjefis.   not.    in    Man, 

**  antiquitatem  produnt  ilii  ejus  versi-  Calec,  Auctctr,  torn.  ii.  p.  396. 
**  culi  quos  totidem  verbis  habet  Au- 


criiical  terms,  against  the  error  of  Eutyehes,  are  very  rai'ely  or 
never  omitted  in  the  Creeds  drawn  up  in  the  Eutychian  times, 
or  the  times  immediately  following.  It  is  true,  there  is,  in  the 
Athanasian  Creed,  what  may  be  sufficient  to  obviate  or  pre- 
clude the  Eutychian  heresy ;  as  there  is  also  in  the  larger  Creed 
of  Epiphanius,  A.  D.  373,  and  in  the  works  of  Nazianzen  and 
Ambrose,  about  the  year  380;  and  in  Pelagius^s  Creed,  A.  D. 
417;  and  in  the  writings  of  Austin,  and  Vincentius  of  Lirins, 
both  before  the  year  435,  many  years  before  Eutyehes.  The 
strongest  expression  of  the  Creed  against  the  Eutychians,  and 
which  has  been  most  frequently  urged  in  this  case,  is,  Unus 
omnino^  nan  confasione  suSstantide,  sed  unitate  Persona* :  One  al- 
together^ not  hy  confusum  of  substance,  but  by  unity  of  Person  : 
which  yet  is  used  by  Vincentius*,  and  by  Austin^  too  almost  in 
terms.  And  if  this  be  no  reason  for  making  either  of  those 
authors,  or  the  tracts  ascribed  to  them,  later  than  Eutyehes ; 
why  shall  the  like  expression  be  of  any  force  in  respect  to  the 
Athanasian  Creed  ?  There  is  nothing  in  the  Creed  but  what  was 
common  and  ordinary  in  Catholic  writers  before  the  Eutychian 
times :  but  there  are  wanting  those  critical,  distinguishing  terms 
of  two  natures,  or  one  nature,  necessary  to  be  inserted  in  the 
Creeds  after  these  times^  and  never,  or  very  rarely,  omitted ; 
which  is  one  reason,  and  a  very  considerable  one,  for  setting  the 
date  of  the  Creed  higher  than  451. 

2.  Another  argument  of  the  same  thing,  near  akin  to  the 
former,  is,  that  this  Creed  makes  no  mention  of  Christ  being 
cansubstantial  with  us  in  one  nature,  as  he  is  consubstantial  with 
the  Father  in  another :  a  tenet  expressly  held  by  some  of  the 
ecclesiastical  writers  before  Eutyches's  time:  but  seldom  or 
never  omitted  in  the  Creeds  or  Confessions  about  that  time,  or 
after.  To  be  convinced  of  the  truth  both  of  this  and  of  the 
preceding  article,  one  need  but  look  into  the  Creeds  and  Fonuu- 
laries  of  those  times :  namely,  into  that  of  Turribius  of  Spain  in 
447,  of  Flavian  of  Constantinople,  as  also  of  Pope  Leo  in  449, 
of  the  Chalcedon  Council  in  451,  of  Pope  Felix  III.  in  485,  and 
Anastasius  II.  in  496,  and  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria  in  the 
same  year:  as  also  into  those  of  Pope  Hormisdas,  and  the 

*  Unus  autem,  non divinitatis  *>  Idem  Deus  qui  homo ;  non  con- 

et  humanitatis    confusione,  sed fusione  naturae,  sed  unitate  Persona, 

unitate  Personse.    Vincent.  Lirin,  c.  August,  tom.  v.  p.  885. 
19.  F-  58. 


churches  of  Syria,  and  Fulgentius,  and  the  Emperor  Justinian, 
and  Pope  John  II.  and  Pope  Pelagius  I.  within  the  sixth  cen- 
tury. In  all  which  we  shall  find  either  express  denial  of  one 
nature^  or  express  affirming  of  ttoo  natures,  or  the  doctrine  of 
Christ^s  comubstantiality  with  us,  or  all  three  together,  though 
they  are  all  omitted  in  the  Athanasian  Creed.  This  is  to  me 
a  second  reason  for  setting  our  Creed  higher  than  the  Eutvchian 

3. 1  may  argue  this  point  further  from  a  passage  of  the  Atha- 
nasian Creed,  running  thus:  "One,  not  by  conversion  of  the 
"  Grodhead  into  flesh,  but  by  taking  of  the  manhood  into  God." 
This  would  not,  I  conceive,  have  run  in  these  words,  or  in  this 
manner,  in  the  Eutychian  times.  For  though  the  Eutychians 
were  sometimes  (as  well  as  the  ApoUinarians  often)  charged  with 
the  doctrine  of  a  conversion  of  the  Godhead  into  flesh ;  yet  nothing 
more  certain  than  that  the  generality  of  them  absolutely  dis- 
owned and  detested  any  such  tenet,  teaching  rather  a  conversion 
of  the  manliood  into  God^  just  the  reverse.  And,  by  the  way,  I 
would  here  offer  it  to  the  learned  reader  to  consider,  whether  we 
may  not  from  hence  give  a  probable  account  of  a  very  noted 
variation  observable  in  many  of  the  most  ancient  copies  of  this 
Creed,  which  run  thus ;  Unus  arUem^  non  conversi&ne  divinitatis 
in  came,  sed  assumptione  humanitatis  in  Deo:  where  there  is 
came  for  camenhy  and  Deo  for  Dewm.  A  slight  alteration  in  the 
words,  but  a  very  great  one  in  the  sense.  A  change  of  the 
Godhead  in  the  flesh  the  Eutychians  admitted,  by  making  the 
two  natures  become  one ;  though  they  allowed  not  a  change  into 
flesh :  so  that  by  this  little  alteration  of  came  for  camem,  the 
Creed  would  strike  more  directly  at  the  Eutychian  principles. 
Then  again  as  to  Deum,  if  that  reading  was  to  stand,  the  Creed, 
instead  of  confuting  the  Eutychians,  would  seem  rather  to  favour 
them ;  for  they  taught  that  the  manhood  was  assumed  into  Gody 
and  that  in  so  literal  and  strict  a  sense  as  really  to  become 
Gorf,  or  to  bo  absorbed  and  lost  in  the  divine  nature,  both  na- 
tures becoming  one  divine  nature.  Such  a  construction  might 
the  words  of  the  Creed  be  liable  to.  But  put  Deo  for  Deum, 
and  it  is  entirely  defeated :  for  then  the  sense  is  not  that  the 
manhood  is  assumed  into  Gody  but  that  God  assumed  the  human 
nature ;  which  is  true,  and  not  liable  to  any  such  misconstruc- 
tion as  the  other.  However  this  be,  as  to  the  variation  of 
the  copies,  and  the  reason  hero  assigned  for  it,  (which  I  offer 


only  as  a  probable  conjecture  to  be  further  inquired  into,)  yet 
this  is  certain,  that  these  words  of  the  Creed,  according  to  the 
common  copies,  are  not  so  cautiously  or  accurately  chosen  as 
they  might  or  would  have  been,  had  the  Creed  been  drawn  up 
after  the  Eutychian  times. 

4.  A  fourth  argument  may  be  drawn  from  the  similitude  in 
the  Creed,  running  thus :  "  As  the  reasonable  soul  and  flesh  is 
"  one  man ;  so  God  and  man  is  one  Christ.'^  This  familiar  and 
easy  comparison  was  much  made  use  of  by  the  Catholics,  down 
from  the  ApoUinarian  times  to  the  time  of  Eutyches :  by  Nazi- 
anzen,  Austin,  Vincentius,  Claudianus  Mamertus,  and  others. 
But  no  sooner  did  the  Eutychians  wTest  the  comparison  to  their 
own  sense,  pleading  for  one  nature  in  Christ,  like  as  soul  and  body 
make  one  nature  in  man,  but  the  Catholics  grew  strangely  averse 
to  the  similitude,  and  rarely  made  use  of  it :  or  when  they  did, 
it  was  either  to  dispute  against  it,  and  condemn  it,  or  else 
to  guard  and  qualify  it  with  proper  cautions  and  restrictions. 
Wherefore  it  is  by  no  means  probable  that  this  similitude  would 
have  been  inserted,  at  such  a  time,  in  a  Catholic  Creed,  and 
there  left  without  guard  or  caution,  for  the  Eutychians  to  make 
an  ill  use  of.  This  fourth  argument  I  take  from  the  learned  and 
acute  Le  Quien,  whose  words  may  be  seen  in  the  margin  c.  And 
may  we  not  from  hence  give  a  probable  guess  at  the  reason  why 
the  ancient  manuscript  of  Treves,  and  the  Colbertine  copied  from 
it,  have  entirely  omitted  this  stmilitude^  throwing  in  a  few  words, 
both  before  and  after,  to  salve  the  breach  in  some  measure,  and 
to  preserve  a  connection:  which  shews  that  it  was  no  casual 
omission,  but  made  with  design.     But  I  pass  on. 

These  reasons  convince  me  that  the  Creed  was  not  made  so 
late  as  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  but  before  the  year  45 1 .  It 
cannot  therefore  be  ascribed  to  Vigilius  Tapsensis  in  the  year 
484 :  not  to  mention  that  the  phraseohgi/  of  it  agrees  not  with 
that  writer  s  usual  manner  of  expression,  as    Le  Quien   hath 

c  Quod  quidlem  simile,  quo  theolo-  ex  Deitate  et  humanitate  compositain 

yus  etiam,  aliique  patres  Apollinaristas  evincerent.     Quinimo  omnes  ingenii 

confutarunt,  tanti  posthac  non  fece-  vires  explicare  coacti  sunt,  ut  varias 

runt  insequentis  seu  quinti  s£pculi  de-  discrepantias  reperirent  inter  unionem 

sinentis  Doctores,  ut  illud  in  Expo-  Deitatis  cum  humanitate  in  Christo, 

sitione  Fidei  insererent;  cum  Mono-  et  unionem  aninue  cum  corpore  in 

physitse,  Severo  praesertim  duce,  eo  homine.  Le  Quien,  Dissert.  Damasc. 

venementius  contra  Catholicos/if/^iui-  p.  10.    Confer.  Petav.  Dogm.  Theol. 

rent,  ut  unam  in  Christo  naturam  esse  torn.  v.  lib.  iii.  cap.  9, 10,  &c. 


observed  ^,  Besides  that  the  principal  reasons,  on  which  Quesnel 
rested  his  opinion  in  regard  to  that  author,  are  now  found  to 
have  been  grounded  on  a  false  presumption  of  certain  works 
being  Vigilius^s  which  are  none  of  his  •.  And  I  may  add,  that 
to  me  there  does  not  appear  in  Vigilius^s  pieces  any  thing  of  that 
strength,  closeness,  and  acuteness,  which  we  find  in  the  Athana- 
sian  Creed. 

But  I  proceed  to  shew  that  this  Creed  is  earlier  than  even  the 
times  of  Nestorius,  or  the  Ephesine  Council  of  the  year  43 1 .  It 
is  certain  that  this  Creed  does  not  condemn  the  Nestorian 
heresy  in  such  full,  direct,  critical  terms,  as  the  Catholics  found 
to  be  necessary  against  the  wiles  and  subtilties  of  those  men. 
There  is  not  a  word  of  the  mother  of  God,  or  of  one  Son  only,  in 
opposition  to  two  Sons,  or  of  God'^s  being  bom,  sufferinri,  dying : 
which  kind  of  expressions  the  Creeds  are  full  of  after  Nesto- 
rius's  times,  and  after  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  to  guard  the 
more  certainly  against  equivocations,  and  to  express  the  Catholic 
doctrine  in  strong  terms,  such  as  could  not  be  eluded.  As  to 
what  the  Athanasian  Creed  really  does  express,  and  is  conceived 
to  strike  directly  at  the  Nestorian  heresy;  it  is  demonstration 
that  the  words  are  not  more  full,  or  expressive,  than  may  be 
fouud  in  elder  Creeds,  and  in  the  Fathers  that  wrote  against 
the  ApoUinarians  and  others,  before  ever  Nestorius  was  heard 
of  ^  I  know  not  how  to  give  my  reader  a  clear  and  just  idea 
of  this  whole  matter,  but  by  setting  down  in  chronological  order 
the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation,  as  expressed  in  Catholic  writings 
from  the  Apollinarian  times  down  to  the  Nestorian,  from  the 
year  373  to  the  year  431.  One  thing  only  I  would  remark  be- 
forehand, to  make  the  following  account  the  clearer,  that  the 

^  Sunt  qui  suspicentur  expositio-  titur.  Le  Quien,  Dissert,  Damasc,  p.  9. 

nem  istam  fidei  fuisse  concinnatam  a  «  Vid.  Montf.  Diatrib.  p.  724.  An- 

Vigilio  Tapsensi,  qui  scripsisse  existi-  thelm.  Discjuis.  p.  35, 34. 

matur  libros  tres  contra  Varimadum  '  Le  Quien  is  beforehand  with  nnie 

Arianum :    sed  ab  illorum  opinione  in  the  obsen^ation,  whose  words  I 

me  deterruit  versus  iste,  Unus  ommnOj  may  here  cite : 

non  confusione  substantup,  sed  unitate  **  Nee  cuiquam  negotium  faccssat. 

Persona,      Nam    Viprilius    in    libris  "  quod  Nestorii  et  Eutychis  hsereses 

quinque  contra  Eutychem  nusquam  "  ea  (Formula)  prius  pessundatap  ee- 

unitatem  Persona  dicit,  sed  passim,  et  "  sent,  quam  ipsarum  autores  emer- 

frequentissime  ttnionem  Persona "  gerent:  alibi  siquidem  ostensum  fuit 

Cumque  variae  supersint  hodie  Viflrilii  "  SS.  Patres,  qui  contra  Apollinarium 

I'apsensis  Confessiones  Fidei  de  Tri-  "  calamum  strinxerant,  disertissimis 

nitate  et  incarnationc.  nulla  earum  si-  "  etiam  verbis  amborum  impietates 

militudo  et  convenientia  cum  Symbolo  "  proscripsisse."     Le  Qttien,  Dissert. 

Athana8iano,quoad  stylum  animad ver-  Damasc.  p.  9 . 


Apollinarians  really  held  a  doctrine  very  near  akin  to  that  which 
aflbenvards  was  called  Eutychian ;  and  they  maliciously  charged 
the  Catholics  with  that  very  doctrine  which  was  afterwards  called 
Nestorian :  so  that  the  Catholics,  in  their  charge  upon  the  Apol- 
linarians, condemned  the  Eutychian  doctrine  long  before  Eu- 
tyches ;  and,  in  their  defence  of  themselves,  they  also  condemned 
the  Nestorian  tenets  before  Nestorius.  I  shall  first  justify  the 
truth  of  this  remark  in  both  its  parts,  and  then  shall  proceed 
further  to  what  I  intend. 

As  to  the  first  part,  that  the  Apollinarians  held  a  doctrine 
very  near  akin  to  that  which  was  afterwards  called  Eutychian,  it 
is  a  thing  so  well  known,  that  I  need  not  cite  many  testimonies 
for  it.  It  was  one  of  the  commonest  charges  against  the  Euty- 
ohians,  that  they  had  revived  the  heresy  of  the  Apollinarians  s  in 
some  considerable  branches  of  it :  Petavius  briefly  shews  what 
those  branches  were  K 

As  to  the  other  part  of  my  remark,  that  the  Apollinarians 
oharged  the  Catholics  with  the  opposite  extreme,  afterward 
called  Nestorian,  that  has  not  been  so  much  observed,  but  is 
no  less  true  than  the  other;  as  may  abundantly  appear  from 
the  testimonies  in  the  margin  ^ ;  besides  others  that  will  occur 
as  we  pass  along.  This  also  is  observed  by  Le  Quien  in  his  Notes 
to  Damascen  ^,  whereupon  he  rightly  infers,  that  it  will  be  a  false 

K  Eutyches per  iropios  veterum  hteresis  calumniatur,  sed  eundem,  et 

h8ereticorumvolutatu8errore8,tertiuin  ante  ssecula,  et  post  ssecula,  et  ante 

Apollinaris  dogma  delegit ;  ut  negata  mundum  et  post  Mariam ;  imo,  ex 

humanse  carnis  atque  animse  veritate,  Maria  magnum   Deum   appellamus. 

totum    Dominum    nostrum    Jesum  Hm*onym.  tn  7\Y.  cap.  3.  p.  431. 

Christum  unius  asserat  esse  natures,  Qui  ApoUinarii  dogmata  defendunt, 

tanquam  verhi  Deltas  ipsa  se  in  car-  per  querimoniam  quam  adversus  nos 

nem  animamque  converterit.    Leon,  faciunt  sua  confirmare  conantur,  car- 

Epist,  xcvii.   p.  633.     Quesnel.  ed.  nale  Verbum  et  Dominum  saeculo- 

confer  Ep.  134.  p.  699.  rum,  hominis  Filium  immortalem  Fi- 

h  Sane  cum  et  multiplex,  et  ab  lii  Deitatem  construentes.    Proferunt 

autore  suo  interpolata  sspius  Apolli-  enim  quod  aliqui  quaiii  Ecclesiae  Ca- 

naris  hteresis  fuerit,  ut  capite  sexto  tholicse  existentes,  duos  colunt  Filios 

docuimuH ;  ea  parte  cum  isto  consen-  in  dogmate ;  imum  quidem  secundum 

sit  Eutyches,  qua  carnem  Cbristi  non  naturam,  alterum    autem  secundum 

ex  utero  sumptam  B.  Virginis  sed  e  adoptionem  postea  acquisitam ;  ncscio 

cfelo  delapsam  Apollinaris  credidit :  a  quo  talia  audientes — nondum  cnim 

tum  quatenus  uterque  unicam  naturam  novi  eum  qui  ha^c  subloquitur.    Grc- 

asseveravit,  et  utriusque  permistam  gor,  Nyssen,  cit.  Concil.  V.  Collat.  vi. 

ac    confusam    substantiam.      Petav.  ]).  106.  Harduin.  Vid.  etiam  Ambros. 

Dogmat,  TheoL  tom.  v.  lib.  i.  c.  16.  de   Incam.   c.  7.   p.  721.     Athanas. 

p.  37.  Epist.  ad  Epictet.  ji.  907. 

^  Aeque  vcro  alium  Jesum  Chris-  ^   Le   Quien,  >ot.  in  Damascen. 

tum,  alium  Verbum  dicimus,  ut  nova  vol.  i.  p*95< 


conclusion  to  argue  that  such  or  such  writings  must  belong  to 
the  Nestorian  times^  only  because  of  their  treating  of  an  unity  of 
Person  in  Christ. 

These  things  premised^  I  now  proceed  to  lay  down  the  doctrine 
of  the  incarnation^  as  expressed  in  Catholic  writers  from  the  year 
373  down  to  the  year  431,  inclusive. 

I  begin  with  the  larger  Creed  of  Epiphanius^  which  sets  forth 
the  incarnation  in  the  following  terms : 

373.  "  The  Word  was  made  flesh,  not  by  undergoing  any 
''  change,  nor  by  converting  his  Godhead  into  manhood,  but  by 
"  co-uniting  it  into  his  one  holy  perfection  and  Godhead.  For 
"  there  is  one  Lord  Jesus  Christy  and  not  tioo ;  the  same  he  is 
"  God,  the  same  he  Lord,  the  same  he  Kingi." 

Here  we  may  observe  that  the  Creed  guards,  just  as  the 
Athanasian  does,  against  the  two  extremes ;  against  the  Apol- 
linarian  notion  of  the  Godhead  being  converted  into  flesh,  and 
against  the  ApoUinarian  calumny  that  the  Catholics  made  two 
Christs  instead  of  one. 

380.  Gregory  Nazianzen,  not  long  after,  expresses  himself  in 
terms  to  the  like  effect :  "  We  divide  not  the  man  from  the 
"  Godhead,  but  we  make  them  one  and  the  same  (Person)^^ 
"  If  any  one  imagines  Mary  not  to  be  the  mother  of  God,  he  has 

"  no  part  with  God. If  any  man  introduces  two  Sons,  one  of 

"  God  and  the  Father,  and  a  second  of  the  Virgin-mother,  and 
"  not  one  and  the  same  him,  let  him  forfeit  the  adoption  of  sons 
"  promised  to  true  believers.  For  God  and  man  are  indeed  two 
"  natures,  like  as  soul  and  body:  but  they  are  not  two  Sons,  nor 
"  (two)  Gods  ^/' 

Here  again  we  find  the  Nestorian  tenets  very  fully  obviated, 
while  Nazianzen  is  answering  the  ApoUinarian  calumny  against 
the  Catholics:  and  at  the  same  time,  the  Eutychian  heresy 
(afterwards  so  called)  is  as  plainly  precluded,  while  Nazianzen 

^  *0  yap  \6yos  cap^  iyivtro,  ov  rpo^  Tr\v  Mapiap  vnoKtiyfidvti^   vwptr   eori 

in}v  vnotrras,  ovSi  fi€Ta(iak<ov  lifv  lav-  T^y  6(6rriros* €t   Tiff   tiadyti  dvo 

Tov  OtorrjTa  its  dvBpamorrjTa'   (Is  fiiav  viovs  tva  fiiv  t6v  (K  0(ov  koi  JJarphs, 

frvvtv^aavra  .  iavrov   ayiav  rcXetoTiyra  devrtpov  di  tov  <#c  r^ff   prjrpos,  aXX* 

Tf  Koi  BfOTTjra'   €ls  yap  iariv  Kvpios  ovx}  €va  Koi  rhv  avrov,  kqX  lys  vioBf- 

'irjtTOvs  XpioTof  Kal  ov  dvo,  6   avros  o-las   cVircVot    Trjs    iirTjyyt^fifvrjs    toU 

e«off,  6  avTos  Kvptoff,  6  aMs  BacrcXcvr.  op^oiff  manvovai.      *v<rfiy    fiiv    yap 

Epipk.  Ancor.  p.  124.  Petav,  dvo  eeor  icai  av$pcmos,  cTrci  icai  ^x4 

™  Ov8c  yap  TOV  uvOpionov  x^p'^-Cop^v  Ka\  aS>pa,  viol  bf  ov  bvo,  ovde  BtoL 

TJjff  BfOTTjTos,  dX\*  €ua  Kat  TOV  aiiTov  Gregor,  Naziam,  ad  Cledon,  Ep,  i.  p. 

bcypaTiipptv. €1   Tiff  ov    6(ot6kov  738,  739. 


is  laying  down  the  Church's  faith  in  tico  natures  against  the  Ai>oI- 
linarians,  who  made  but  one. 

382.  Ambrose,  in  like  manner,  confutes  the  Apollinarians  with- 
out naming  them.  "  We  ought  also  to  condemn  those  who,  in 
''  another  extreme,  teach  not  one  and  the  same  Son  of  God,  but 
*'  that  he  who  is  begotten  of  God  the  Father  is  one,  and  he  that 
"  is  generated  of  the  Virgin  another:  when  the  Evangelist  saith, 
**  that  the  Word  was  made  fleshy  to  instruct  us  that  there  is  but 
"  one  Lord  Jesiis^  not  two. — There  are  others  risen  up  who  pre- 
**  tend  that  our  Lord's  flesh  and  Godhead  are  both  of  one  n-aiure. 

** And  when  they  say  that  the  Wohd  was  converted  into 

"  flesh,  hairs,  blood,  and  bones,  and  changed  from  its  own  nature; 
**  after  such  a  pretended  change  of  the  divine  nature,  they  may 
"  take  the  handle  to  wrest  any  thing  to  the  weakness  of  the  God- 
**  head,  which  belongs  to  the  infinnity  of  the  flesh  "."" 

Ambrose  seems  here  to  intimate  as  if  there  were  really  some 
at  that  time  who  had  nm  into  that  very  error  which  the  Apol- 
linarians charged  upon  the  Catholics,  and  which  was  afterwards 
called  Nestorian.  However  that  be,  he  condemns  it  in  the  name 
of  the  Catholics ;  as  he  condemns  also  the  ApoUinarian  extreme, 
which  afterwards  became  Eutychian.  There  is  another  passage 
of  Ambrose  cited  by  Theodoret,  seemingly  so  full  and  express 
against  the  Nestorian  and  Eutychian  heresies,  that  one  can  hardly 
be  persuaded  to  think  it  really  Ambroes's.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  it  appears  to  be  so  well  attested,  that  the  late  learned 
editor  of  Ambrose  could  not  but  yield  to  place  it  among  his 
genuine  works.  Tom.  ii.  p.  729. 

417.  There  is  a  Creed  of  Pelagius  (as  learned  men  now  agree) 
inserted  among  the  works  both  of  Jerome^  and  Austin  P.  It 
was  made  several  years  before  the  Nestorian  controversy.  Our 
learned  Dr.  Wall  has  translated  it  into  English  q,  subjoining 
some  excellent  notes  of  his  own  to  it :  I  shall  transcribe  as  much 

^  Et  illos  condemnare  debemus  qui  ossa  conversum  est,  et  a  natura  propria 

adversa  erroris  linea,  non  unum  eun-  mutatum  est,  datur  illis  locus  ut  in- 

demque  Filium  Dei  dicunt,  sed  alium  firmitatem  camis  ad  infirmitatem  Di- 

esse  qui    ex    Deo  Patre    natus   sit,  vinitatis,  quadam  facta   divinsp   na- 

alium  qui  sit  generatus  ex  nrgine ;  turae  mutatione,  detorqueant.  Ainbros. 

cum  Evangelista  dicat  quia  Verhum  de  Incam,  c.  6. 

cflro  factum  est,  ut  unum  Dominura  ®  Hieronym.  Oper.  torn.  v.  p.  123. 

Jesum  won  duos  crederes emer-  Bened.  ed. 

gunt  alii  qui  camem  Domini  dicant  P  Augustin.  Oper.  torn.  v.  Ap])cnd. 

«t  diAinitatem  unius  esse  fia/tir<p p.  388. 

Deinde,  cum  isti  dicant  quia  Verbum  4  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism, 

in   carnem,  capillos,   sanguinem,    et  p.  200. 


as  is  to  our  purpose.  **  We  do  in  such  manner  hold  that  there 
"  is  in  Christ  one  Person  of  the  Son,  as  that  we  say  there  are 
**  in  him  two  perfect  and  entire  substances,  [or  fKUures,"]  viz.  of 
''  the  Godhead  and  of  the  manhood,  which  consists  of  body  and 

"  soul. We  do  abhor the  blasphemy  of  those  who  go 

"  about  by  a  new  interpretation  to  maintain  that  since  the  time 
''  of  his  taking  flesh,  all  things  pertaining  to  the  divine  nature 
^*  did  pass  into  the  man,  [or  manhood^']  and  so  also  that  all  things 
^^  belonging  to  the  human  nature  were  transferred  into  Ood, 
"  [or  the  divine  natureJ]  From  whence  would  follow,  (a  thing 
"  no  heresy  ever  offered  to  affirm,)  that  both  substances,  [or 
**  natures,']  viz.  of  the  divinity  and  humanity,  would  by  this  con- 
**  fusion  seem  to  be  extinguished,  and  to  lose  their  proper  state^ 
"  and  be  changed  into  another  thing :  so  that  they  who  own  in 
"  the  Son  an  imperfect  God  and  imperfect  man,  are  to  be  ac^ 
"  counted  not  to  hold  truly  either  God  or  man."** 

Dr.  Wall  hereupon  judiciously  remarks,  that  "  there  wanted 
'^  only  the  accuracy  of  speaking,  which  Pelagius  had  here  used, 
^'  to  clear  and  settle  the  dispute  between  the  Nestorians  and 
"  Eutychians.*"  I  would  remark  further,  that  if  Pelagius'^s  Creed, 
in  the  year  417,  had  so  plainly  obviated  both  the  Nestorian  and 
Eutychian  heresy,  before  Nestorius  or  Eutyches  was  known ;  it 
may  easily  be  conceived  that  the  Athanasian  Creed  might  do 
the  same  thing,  at  or  about  the  same  time. 

422.  I  might  next  shew  how  St.  Austin  likewise  has  expressed 
himself  in  as  strong  terms  against  both  those  heresies,  as  the 
Athanasian  Creed  has  done :  but,  because  I  shall  have  another 
occasion  to  cite  the  passages,  where  I  draw  out  a  select  number 
of  expressions  parallel  to  those  of  the  Creed ;  I  may  spare  my- 
self the  trouble  of  doing  it  here. 

426.  I  might  go  on  to  observe  what  passed  in  the  case  of 
Leporius,  a  man  of  the  same  principles,  in  the  main,  with  Nes- 
torius, but  some  years  before  him.  His  recantation  treatise, 
(Libellus  Satisfactionis,)  supposed  to  be  drawn  up  by  St.  Austin 
in  the  year  426,  would  furnish  me  with  many  full  and  strong 
expressions  against  the  Nestorian  principles,  beyond  any  to  be 
met  with  in  the  Athanasian  Creed;  so  that  there  is  no  just 
argument  to  be  drawn  from  any  expressions  in  that  Creed,  for 
setting  it  so  low  as  the  Nestorian  times. 

43 1 .  I  shall  conclude  this  account  with  the  recital  of  a  Creed 
made  about  the  same  time,  or  in  the  same  year  that  the  Council 



of  Ephesus  was  held  against  Nestorius.  It  is  the  Creed  of  Joliii, 
Patriarch  of  Antioch,  approved  by  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and 
thought  sufficient  to  wipe  off  all  suspicion  of  Nestorianism  from 
the  author  of  it.  It  runs  thus :  "  We  confess  then  that  Josus 
"  Christ  our  Lord,  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God,  is  perfect  God 
"  and  perfect  man,  of  a  reasonable  soul  and  body ;  bor7i  of  the 
"  Father  before  tfie  worlds,  as  touching  his  Godhead ;  the  same 
"  also  in  the  end  of  days,  for  us  and  for  our  salvation,  (iorw)  of 
**  the  Virgin  Mary,  as  touching  his  tnanhood^  consubstantial  with 
"  us  according  to  his  manhood.  But  there  was  an  union  made 
"  of  two  natures,  on  which  account  we  profess  one  Christ,  one 
"  Lord,  one  Son.  Conformable  to  this  sense  of  an  union  without 
"  confusion,  we  acknowledge  the  holy  Virgin  as  mother  of  God, 
**  because  that  God  the  Word  was  incarnate  and  made  man, 
•*  and  from  the  very  conception  united  to  himself  a  temple  which 
**  he  had  taken  of  her^'*^ 

Here  we  may  observe  several  expressions  nearly  resembling 
those  of  the  Athanasian  Creed ;  but  withal  several  others  more 
particular  and  explicit  against  the  Nestorian  principles  than  that 
Creed  is :  one  Son^  and  him  consubstantial  with  us,  in  respect  of 
his  manhood ;  the  Virgin,  mother  of  God,  and  the  like.  Such  is 
the  constant  strain  and  tenor  of  the  Creeds,  and  Confessions, 
and  CathoKc  writings,  treating  of  the  incarnation,  at  this  time 
and  after :  as  might  be  shewn  at  large  from  Cassian  about  431, 
and  Vincentius  in  the  year  434,  and  from  Flavian,  and  Pope 
Leo  L  and  others  before  the  Council  of  Chaloedon.  We  have 
therefore  very  great  reason  to  believe,  that  the  Athanasian  Creed 
was  drawn  up  either  before  the  Nestorian  controversy  had  made 
much  noise  in  the  world,  or  at  least  before  the  compiler  had 
notice  of  it.  The  sum  then  of  my  argument  is  this ;  there  is 
nothing  in  the  Athanasian  Creed  but  what  might  have  been  said, 
and  had  been  said  by  Catholic  writers  before  the  time  of  Nes- 
torius :  but  the  Creed  wants  ma,ny  o{  those  particular  and  critical 

'  Confitemur  i^tur  Dominum  nos-  unitio  facta  est ;   propter  quam  unum 

tnim  Jesum  Christum,   Filium   Dei  Christum,  unum  Dominum,  unum  Fi- 

iinigenitum,  Deum  perfectum  et  Aomt-  Uwn   confitemur.     Secundum     hunc 

nem  perfectum,  eic  anima  rationali  et  inconfusas  unionis  intellectum,  confi- 

corpore ;  ante  ssecula  quidem  ex  Patre  temur  sanctam  Virginem  Dei  genitri- 

natum  secundum  Deitatem:   in  fine  cem,  propter  quod  Deus  Verbum  in- 

vero  dierum  eundem  propter  nos  et  camatus  est  et  inhumanatus,  et  ex 

propter  nostram  salutem  de   Maria  ipsa  concentione  subimet  univit  tem- 

Virgine  seamdum  humanitatem,  con-  plum  ouoa  ex  ipsa  suscepit.   Johan. 

substantialem  nolfis  secundum  huma-  Antiocn,  Hardum.  torn.  i.  p.  1^558. 
nitatem.     Duarwn    vero    naturarum 


expressions,  which  came  into  use  after  that  time:  therefore, 
since  the  internal  characters  of  the  Creed  suit  exactly  with  the 
Apollinarian  times,  and  not  with  the  Nestorian,  it  ought  to  be 
placed  somewhere  between  Apollinarius  and  Nestorius^  not  lower 
than  430,  or  431  at  the  utmost.  And  it  is  some  confirmation 
of  what  hath  been  said,  that  Venantius  Fortunatus,  who  lived  in 
the  Eutyehian  times,  and  commented  upon  this  Creed  about  the 
year  570,  as  before  observed,  yet  in  his  comment  takes  not  the 
least  notice  of  any  part  of  this  Creed  being  opposed  to  the  errors 
of  Nestorius  or  Eutyches,  but  only  to  those  elder  heresies  of 
Sabellius,  Arius,  and  Apollinarius;  whom  he  specially  makes 
mention  of.  I  persuade  myself  therefore,  that  this  Creed  ought 
not  to  be  placed  lower  than  430,  or  thereabout;  and  I  have 
before  shewn  why  it  should  not  be  set  higher  than  420 ;  so  that 
now  we  have  brought  it  within  the  compass  of  ten  years ;  where 
we  may  let  it  rest  a  while,  till  we  consider  further  what  place^  or 
country^  the  Creed  was  most  probably  composed  in ;  which  may 
help  us  to  settle  the  time  of  its  date  within  somewhat  stricter 
and  narrower  limits  than  before. 

There  is  great  reason  to  believe  that  this  Creed  was  made  in 
Gaul.  The  considerations  which  persuade  us  thereto  are  these 
following.  I.  Its  early  reception  in  the  Galilean  Church,  so  far 
as  appears,  before  all  other  churches.  2.  The  great  esteem  and 
regard  anciently  paid  to  it  by  the  Gallican  Councils  and  Bishops'. 
3.  The  Creed's  being  first  admitted  into  the  Gallican  Psalter, 
and  first  received  in  those  countries  where  that  Psalter  was 
received,  as  in  Spain,  Germany,  and  England.  As  the  Gallican 
churches  delivered  their  Psalter  to  other  churches,  so  is  it 
reasonable  to  believe  that  the  Creed  was  received  from  them 
likewise.  4.  The  oldest  version  we  hear  of  is  Gallican,  in  the 
time  of  Hincmar.  5.  The  oldest  authors  that  make  mention  of 
it  are  likewise  Gallican :  for  proof  of  which  I  refer  to  the  ancient 
testifnonies  above.  6.  The  first  that  cite  the  words  of  it  (as  it 
seems)  are  likewise  Gallican.  I  will  here  mention  two ;  Avitus 
of  Vienne  in  Gaul*,  and  Csesarius  of  Aries «:    I  have  set  their 

>  Tanti  namque  apud  Gallos  83rm-  *  The  words  of  Avitus  Viennensis, 

bolum  hoc  fuit  ut  una  cum  Symbolo  who  was  Bishop  in  490,  died  in  523. 

Apostolorum    memoris   comraendari  De  divinitate  Spiritus  Sancti,  quern 

Preshyteris  praedpiat  Uincmarus  idem  nee  factum  legimus,  nee  creatum,  neo 

in  capitiilis,  clenci^  omnibus  Sy nodus    genitum Nos  vero  Spiritum   dis- 

Augustodunensis.  Sirmond.  Oper,  vol,     cimus  ex  Patre  et  Filio  procedere 

ii.  p.  978.  Conf.  Anthehn.  p.  30.  Sicut  est  proprium  Spudtui  Sancto  a 

P  2 



words  in  the  margin.  7.  The  oldest  commentator  upon  it, 
though  an  Italian  by  birth  and  education,  had  yet  travelled  into 
France,  and  was  at  length  Bishop  of  Poictiers.  8.  The  number 
and  antiquity  of  the  manuscripts  of  this  Creed  found  in  France 
confirm  the  same  thing :  which  has  made  several  very  learned 
men  subscribe  to  this  opinion v,  that  the  Athanasian  Creed  came 
first  from  Gaul.  And  it  is  certain,  that  no  other  country  or 
church  in  the  world  has  so  fair,  I  may  now  say,  so  clear  a  pre- 
tence to  it :  many  circumstances  concur  to  make  good  their  title, 
as  we  have  already  seen ;  and  more  will  appear  in  my  next 
chapter,  when  I  come  to  inquire  who  was  the  author. 

Let  it  be  allowed  then,  for  the  present,  that  our  Creed  was 
originally  Gallican,  and  made  between  420  and  430 :  we  may 
next  consider,  whether  we  cannot  come  a  little  nearer  towards 
fixing  the  time  of  its  composition.  We  must  point  out  some 
season  when  St.  Austin's  works  were  known,  and  studied,  and 
well  esteemed  of  in  Gaul ;  and  when  the  circumstances  of  the 
place  might  the  most  probably  give  occasion  for  the  compiling 
such  a  Creed.  Now  it  is  observable  that  about  the  year  426 
St.  Austin  held  a  very  close  and  intimate  correspondence  with 

Patre  Filioque  procedere,  istud  Fides 
Catholica  etiamsi  renuentibus  non  per- 
suaserit,  in  suae  tamen  Disciplinse 
Reffula  non  excedit.  Sirmond.  Op. 
Via.  he  Qtiien,  Panopl.  contr.  Schism, 
Qrac,  p.  241. 

Non  nisi  ex  eodem  Symbolo,  auod 
jam  ante  receptum  esset,  Avitus  Vien- 
nensis  alicubi  scribebat  De  Divinitate 
Sp.  S.  &c.  Le  Quien,  Dissert,  Da- 
mascen,  p.  98. 

^  The  words  of  Csesahus,  who  was ' 
Bishop  in  503,  died  in  543. 

Rogo  et  admoneo  vos,  fratres  caris- 
simi,  ut  Quicunque  vult  scUvus  esse, 
Fidem  rectam  et  Catholicam  discat, 
firmiter  teneat,  inviolatamque  conser- 
vet,-—^Deus  Pater,  Deus  FiUus,  Deus 
et  Spiritus  Sanctus:  sed  tamen  non 
tresDiij  sed  unus  Deus,  Quatis  Pater, 
talis  FiUus,  talis  et  Spiritus  Sanctus, 
Attamen  credat  unusquisque  fidelis 
QUod  Filius  €Bqualis  est  Patn  secundum 
aimnitatem,  et  minor  est  Patre  secun- 
dum humanitatem  camis,  quam  de 
nostro  assumpsit.  Casar,  ArekU.  apud 
August,  Op.  torn.  v.  App.  p.  399. 

N.  B.  The  editors  of  St.  Austin 
adjudge  this  to  Csesarius ;  as  does  also 

Oudinus.  Comment,  de  Script.  Eccl. 
vol.i.  p.  1348. 

^  Cseterum  cum  ex  allatis  supra 
testimoniis  rideatur  in  Galliis  primum 
celebrari  coepisse  hoc  Symbolum, 
baud  abs  re  conjectant  eruaiti  viri,  in 
Galliis  illud  fuisse  elucubratum.  Quod 
idem  forte  suadeat  antiquissimus  ille 
in  Galliis  et  in  Anglia  mos  Symboli 
altematim  concinendi ;  itemque  MSS. 
Gallicanorum  copia  et  antiquitas. 
Montfauc,  Diatrib,  p.  726. 

£  Gallis  primum  prodiisse  Sym- 
bolum Athanasianum  animadverti- 
mus,  tum  quod  a  Gallis  scriptoribus 
ante  omnes  celebratum,  a  synodis  epi- 
scopisqueGalliarum  receptum,  et  com- 
mendatum  antiquitus  fuerit,tum  etiam 

auod  Treviris  in  Galliarum  metropoli 
lud  lucubratum  fuisse  opinio  incre- 
buerit.  Quapropter  Pithoeus,  ac  Vos- 
sius,  aliique  eruditissimi  viri  Galium 
hominem  Symboli  parentem  opinati 
sunt;  Antelmius  vero,  hac  potissimum 
ratione  ductus,  non  Vigilium  in  Africa 
Episcopum,  sed  Vincentium  Lirinen- 
sem  opusculi  hujus  auctorem  affirma- 
vit.  Lud.  Murator,  tom.  ii.  p.  229. 

WHEN   AND   WHERE   MADE.  218 

the  Gkillican  churches.  Leporius  had  for  some  time  spread 
false  doctrine  in  Gaul,  chiefly  relating  to  the  incarnation.  His 
heresy  was  much  the  same  with  what  Nestorius's  was  afterwards. 
The  Gallican  bishops  censured  him ;  and  he  was  forced  to  quit 
his  country,  having  given  general  offence  to  all  there.  He  took  his 
leave  of  Gaul,  and  passed  over  into  Africa,  with  several  others 
of  the  same  party  and  principles :  where  lighting  upon  Aurelius, 
Bishop  of  Carthage,  and  St.  Austin,  he  was  by  them  brought  to 
a  sense  of  his  error,  and  induced  to  sign  a  full  recantation^ 
called  Libellus  Satisfactionis ;  whereupon  St.  Austin,  and  Au- 
relius, and  other  African  bishops  became  intercessors  with  the 
bishops  of  Gaul,  in  favour  of  Leporius,  that  he  might  be  again 
received  and  restored  by  them.  One  can  scarce  imagine  any 
more  likely  time,  or  more  proper  occasion,  for  the  compiling 
such  a  Creed  as  the  Athanasian  is.  All  the  lines  and  charac- 
ters of  it  suit  extremely  well  with  the  place,  the  time^  the 
occamoHf  and  other  circumstances ;  which  concur  to  persuade  us 
that  the  Creed  was,  in  all  probability,  composed  in  Gaul,  some 
time  between  the  year  426  and  the  year  430;  so  that  now 
we  are  confined  to  the  narrow  compass  of  four  or  five  years, 
upon  the  most  probable  conjecture,  and  upon  such  evidences 
as  a  case  of  this  nature  can  admit  of,  where  more  cannot  be 


0/the  Author  of  the  Creed. 

IF  we  have  hitherto  gone  upon  sure  grounds  about  the  time 
and  place^  we  cannot  long  be  at  a  loss  for  the  avathor  of  this 
Creed.  Who  were  the  most  considerable  men,  and  best  quali- 
fied for  such  a  work,  at  that  time  in  GauH  Antelmius  will 
point  out  Vincentius  Lirinensis.  But  I  have  several  reasons  to 
persuade  nie  that  it  was  not,  or  could  not  be  Vincentius.  No 
contemporary  of  his,  nor  any  ancient  writer,  ever  gives  the  least 
hint  of  his  composing  such  a  work.  Antelmius  supposes  it  to 
be  after  his  Commonitory,  that  is,  after  434 ;  which  if  it  had 
been,  we  should  undoubtedly  have  found  the  Creed  more 
particular  and  explicit  against  the  Nestorian  heresy :  we  should 
have  read  in  it  Mother  of  God,  one  Son  only,  and  something  of 
God's  being  born^  suffering,  dying,  or  the  like ;  it  cannot  there- 
fore be  justly  ascribed  to  Vincentius.     Not  to  mention,  that 


such  a  work  appears  to  have  been  much  fitter  for  a  bishop  of  a 
churchy  than  for  a  private  presbyter ;  inasmuch  as  bishops  gene- 
rally were  obliged  to  give  an  account  of  their  faith,  upon  their 
first  entrance  upon  the  episcopate :  and  they  had  the  privilege 
likewise  of  making  Greeds,  and  Forms  of  Prayer,  for  their 
respective  dioceses:  for  which  reasons,  cceteris  paribiM,  this 
Greed  ought  rather  to  be  ascribed  to  some  bishop  of  that 
time  than  to  an  inferior  presbyter.  And  who  more  likely 
to  compose  such  a  Greed  than  Hilary,  Bishop  of  Aries,  a 
celebrated  man  of  that  time,  and  of  chief  repute  in  the  Gallican 
Ghurch!  His  title  to  it  will  stand  upon  the  following  circum- 

1.  He  was  made  Bishop  in  Gaul  within  the  time  mentioned , 
about  the  year  429.  2.  He  is  allowed  to  have  been  a  man  of 
great  parts  and  capacity,  of  a  neat  wit,  and  elegant  style  for  the 
age  he  lived  in ;  insomuch  that  Livius,  a  poet,  and  a  celebrated 
writer  of  that  time,  did  not  scruple  to  say,  that  if  Austin  had 
come  after  Hilary,  he  would  have  been  judged  his  inferior^.  3. 
Gennadius'^s  character  of  Hilary'^s  writings,  that  they  were  small 
tradsy^  but  txiremdyfine^  suits  well  with  our  present  supposition  : 
but  what  most  of  all  confirms  and  strengthens  it^  is  what  Hono- 
ratus  of  Marseilles,  the  writer  of  his  life,  tells  us ;  that  Hilary 
composed  an  admirable  exposition  [Symboli  Expositio  ambienda] 
of  the  Creed  2.  He  calls  it  an  Exposition  of  the  Greed,  (not  a 
Greed,)  which  is  the  proper  iitU  for  it^  and  more  proper  than 
that  of  Symbolum,  or  Greed,  which  it  now  bears.  And  so  we 
find  that  it  was  but  very  rarely  called  Symbolum  by  the  ancients; 
once,  I  think,  by  Hincmar,and  never  after  for  several  centuries: 

*  Quid  plura  dicam  ?  Nisi  dicendi  >  Gratia  ejus  ex  his  operibus,  qu» 

pausa  desuper  eidem  advenisset,  ser-  eodem  dicendi  impetu  concepit,  ge- 

monem    iinire    non    [lotuerat,   tanta'  nuit,  oniavit,  protulit,  possit  absque 

gratia  exundante,  et  miractilo  et  stu-  htesitatione    dignosd :    Vita    scilicet 

pore  crescente,  ut  pentissimis  despe-  antittitiB  Honorati,  Homilis  in  Totius 

zationem  tunc  autoribus  saBCuU  e|U8  Anni  Festivitatibus  expeditse,  Symboli 

inferret  oratio :  in  tantum  ut  Livius  Expositio  ambienda,  epistolarum  vero 

temporis  illius  poeta,  et  autor  insigpis,  tantus  numerus,  &c.    Honorat,  Vit, 

pubiice  proclimiaret;   Si  Auftutinui  Hiiar,  P*  740. 

post  te  fidsset,  judicaretur  titferior,  N.  B.  There  is  some  doubt  whether 

Honoratus^  in  Vita  S,  HUarU,  p.  740.  Ravennius  of  Aries,  successor  to  Hi- 

edlt.  Quesnel.  lary,  or  Honoratus  of  Marseilles  be 

7  Ingenio  vero  immortali,  aliqua  et  the  author  of  this  life :  but  there  is 

parva  edidit,  qusB  emdita  anima,  et  good  reason  to  ascribe  it  to  the  latter. 

JideUs  Umgua  indicio  sunt ;  in  quibus  See   Quesnel,  vol.  ii.  p.  730.   and 

prscipue   &c.    Genmad.   de   Hilario  Antalmius,  de  veris  Operibus  Leon. 

ArskU.  09.  box.  p.  3a.  M.  p.  367. 


and  when  it  was,  yet  it  was  observed,  by  Thomas  Aquinas,  that 
that  was  not  so  proper  a  name  for  it,  not  being  composed  per 
fnoduni  Symbolic  in  the  way  of  a  Creed ;  as  indeed  it  is  not. 
What  the  more  ancient  and  usual  titles  were  may  appear  in  one 
view  in  the  tables  above.  Among  others,  we  sometimes  find 
the  title  of  Expositio  Catholicse  Fidei,  or  yet  nearer^  Expositio 
Symboli  Apostolorum^  An  Exposition  of  the  Apostles^  Creed, 
which  is  as  proper  a  title  as  any,  and  not  unlike  to  this  of 
Honoratus.  4.  I  may  further  observe,  that  this  Hilary  of  Aries 
was  a  great  admirer  and  follower  of  St.  Austin  ^  and  had 
studied  his  writings  ;  which  may  account  for  his  often  following 
St.  Austin^s  thoughts  in  the  compiling  of  the  Creed^  and  some- 
times his  very  expressions;  and  indeed  forming  the  whole 
composition,  in  a  manner,  upon  St.  Austin's  plan,  both  with 
respect  to  the  Trinity  and  Incarnation,  He  did  not  indeed  come 
heartily  in  to  St.  Austin's  doctrine  about  Grace,  Predestination, 
Free-will,  &c.  any  more  than  the  other  Galliean  bishops :  but 
for  other  points,  as  Prosper  observes,  Hilary  was  entirely  in 
Austin'*s  sentiments.  5.  Hence  likewise  we  may  account  for 
the  similitude  of  thoughts  and  expressions  between  Vincentius 
Lirinensis,  and  the  author  of  the  Creed;  which  Antelmius 
insists  much  upon  to  justify  his  ascribing  it  to  Vincentius. 
Hilary  and  Vincentius  were  contemporaries  and  countrymen, 
both  of  the  same  monastery  in  the  isle  of  Lerin,  much  about 
the  same  time  :  so  that  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that  they  should 
fall  into  the  like  expressions,  while  treating  on  the  same  things  ; 
or  that  Vincentius  might  aifect  to  copy  from  so  great  a  man  as 
Hilary,  (first  Abbot  of  Lerin^  and  then  Archbishop  of  Aries,) 
when  writing  on  the  same  subject.  6.  As  to  the  style  of  Hilary, 
though  we  have  but  little  of  his  left  to  compare  the  Creed  with, 
yet  what  there  is  answers  very  well  to  the  idea  one  should  have 
of  a  man  that  might  be  able  to  draw  up  such  a  piece.  His  life 
of  the  elder  Honoratus,  who  was  his  predecessor  in  the  see  of 
Aries,  is  an  excellent  performance,  and  comes  nothing  short  of 
the  character  he  had  raised  for  wit  and  eloquence.  The  style  is 
rlear  and  strong,  short  and  sententious,  abounding  with  anti- 

^  Unum  eorum  praecipuse  auctori-  tuse  etise  doctrinse :  et  de  hoc  quod  in 

tatitt,  et  spiritualium  studiorum  virum,  querelam   trahit,  jam    pridem   apud 

Sanctum  Uilarium,  Arelatensero  £pi-  sanctitatem  tuam  neniium  suum  per  li- 

soopum,  sciat  beatitudo  tua  adiMra-  teras  velle  conferre.  Fromtr  ad  AuguS' 

torem,  sectatoremque  in  aliis  omnUnts  tin.  Ep.  cczzv.  p.  825.  Bened.  ed. 

216  OF  THE   AUTHOR  OF 

theses,  elegant  turns,  and  manly  strokes  of  wit.  He  does  but 
touch  a  little,  in  that  piece,  upon  the  subject  of  the  Trinity  :  so 
that  one  cannot  from  thence  discover  how  he  would  have 
expressed  himself  upon  that  head.  Only,  that  little  there  is 
there,  is  very  like  to  a  paragraph  in  the  Athanasian  Creed,  both 
for  turn  and  expression.  Speaking  of  Honoratus,  or  rather 
to  him,  in  the  way  of  a  rhetorical  apostrophe,  he  observes  ^  how 
clear  and  expressive  he  had  been  in  his  discourses  concerning 
the  Trinity  in  the  Godhec^ ;  making  the  Persons  distinct,  but 
co-uniting  them  in  Glory,  Eternity,  and  Majesty.  Which  may 
remind  us  of  the  words  of  the  Athanasian  Creed,  "  there  is  one 
"  Person  of  the  Father,  &c.  but  the  Godhead  of  the  Father,  and 
*'  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ohost  is  all  one,  the  Glory  equal, 
"  the  Majesty  coetenicd.'*  However  that  be,  this  we  may  learn 
from  it,  how  great  a  commendation  it  was,  in  Hilary's  account, 
to  be  able  to  speak  clearly  and  accurately  upon  the  subject  of 
the  Trinity,  and  how  ambitious  he  might  be  of  so  doing  himself : 
and  we  know,  from  his  dying  instructions  <^  to  his  friends  about 
him,  how  much  he  had  the  subject  at  heart.  These,  I  confess, 
are  but  little  circumstances  :  yet  they  are  of  some  weight  along 
with  others  more  considerable,  and  therefore  ought  not  to  be 
entirely  omitted.  What  weighs  most  with  me  is,  that  he  was, 
in  his  time,  a  man  of  the  greatest  authority  in  the  Gallican 
Church**,  without  whose  advice,  or  privity  at  least,  such  a  Creed 
would  hardly  have  passed ;  and  that  he  actually  was  the  author 
of  such  a  work  as  this  is,  and  which  must  either  be  this,  or  else 
is  lost.  This  Creed  has  been  sometimes  ascribed  to  the  elder 
Hilary  of  Poictiers,  though  neither  the  diction,  nor  the  matter. 

^  Quotidianus  siquidem  in  sincer-  sacerdote,  multimoda  virtute  pretioso : 

issimis  tractatibus  confessioniB  Patris,  erat  enim  Fidei  igneus  torrens,  cse- 

ac  Filii,ac  Spiritus  Sancti  testis  fuisti:  lestis  eloquii,  et  praeceptionis  divinse 

nee  facile  tam  exerte,  tam  lucide  (juis-  operarius    indefessus.      Quemel,    p. 

quam  de  Divinitatis  Trinitate  disse-  543. 

mit,  cum  earn  Personis  distingueres.  To  which  may  be  added  one  line  of 

et  gloriae  {gloria)  seternitate,  ac  miges-  his  epitaph : 

tate  sociares.     Hilar,  Vit.  Honorat,  Gemma  Sacerdotum,  plebisque,  or- 

p.  770.  Quesnel.  ed.  bisque  Magister.     Quesnel,  ibid. 

c  Among  which  this  is  one,  and  the  Tanta  fuit  ejus  in  dicendo  vis,  ut 

first.  Silvius  Eusebius,  Domnulus,  auctores 

Fidem  Trinitatis  inunobiliter  reti-  coaevi,  admiratione  succensi  in  haec 

nete.     Vit,  Hilar,  p.  747.  verba  proruperint :    Non  doctrirutm, 

^  Quesnel  quotes  tlus  eulogium  of  non  ehquenttam,  sed  nescio  quid  super 

him,  from  Constantius  Presbyter  of  homines  consecutum.    Natal.  Alexand, 

the  same  time.  sec.  v.  cap.  4.  art  19.  ex  Honorati 

Illustrabatur    hoc   civitas   Hilario  Vit.  Hilar,  cap.  11. 


nor  the  manner  of  it  look  any  thing  like  his ;  only,  it  seems,  this 
Creed  in  one  manuscript  was  found  taoked  to  some  pieces  of 
that  Hilary.  I  pretend  not  to  draw  any  argument  from  henoe 
in  favour  of  our  Hilary:  though  had  the  manuscript  been  a  very 
ancient  one,  or  copied  from  one  that  was,  (neither  of  which 
appears,)  I  should  have  thought  it  of  some  moment;  since  the 
similitude  of  names  might  possibly  have  occasioned  it. 

Having  considered  such  reasons  as  seem  to  favour  the  conjec- 
ture about  Hilary  of  Aries ;  it  will  next  be  proper  to  consider 
also  what  may  be  objected  against  it. 

1.  It  may  be  objected,  that  this  Hilary  lived  to  the  year  449, 
saw  the  rise,  progress,  and  condemnation  of  the  Nestorian 
heresy,  and  the  beginning  at  least  of  the  Eutychian.  May  it  not 
therefore  be  reasonably  presumed  that,  had  he  been  to  compile  a 
Confession  of  Faith,  he  would  have  made  it  more  full  and  /hit- 
ticular  against  both  those  heresies  than  I  have  supposed  the 
Creed  to  be  ?  To  this  I  answer,  that  the  objection  would  be  of 
weight,  if  I  supposed  this  Creed  to  have  been  made  by  him  in 
the  last  years  of  his  life :  but  as  I  take  it  to  have  been  made 
a  little  after  his  entrance  upon  his  episcopate,  (to  be  a  rule  to 
his  clergy  all  his  time,  as  well  as  to  satisfy  his  colleagues  of 
his  own  orthodoxy,)  the  objection  affects  not  me.  Admit  the 
Creed  to  have  been  drawn  up  by  him  about  the  year  429  or  430; 
and  then  it  is  just  what  it  should  be,  exactly  suited  to  the  cir- 
cumstances of  time  and  place  :  and  as  to  his  enlarging  or  altera 
ing  it  afterwards,  upon  the  rise  of  the  two  heresies,  it  might  not 
be  in  his  power  when  once  gone  out  of  his  hands :  nor  would  it 
be  necessary,  since  both  these  heresies  are  sufficiently  obviated  in 
this  Creed,  though  not  so  explicitly  condemned  as  in  many  that 
came  later. 

2.  It  may  be  asked,  how  the  author's  name  came  to  be  so 
studiously  concealed  even  by  those  that  received  and  admired  the 
Creed ;  and  how  it  came  to  take  at  length  the  name  of  Athana- 
sius,  rather  than  of  Hilary  I  I  answer :  this  objection  will  equally 
lie  against  any  other  author  assignable  whatever,  except  Atha- 
nasius  himself,  whom  we  cannot,  with  any  colour  of  reason, 
ascribe  it  to.  It  will  be  as  easy  to  account  for  the  studious  con- 
cealment of  the  author^s  name,  supposing  it  Hilary,  as  for  any 
other,  or  perhaps  easier.  This  Hilary  had  stoutly  defended  the 
rights  of  his  see  against  Pope  Leo's  encroachments,  in  the  matter 
o{  appeals  and  other  branches  of  jurisdiction.     This  brought  the 


good  man  under  disfavour  and  disrepute ;  as  must  happen  to  the 
best  of  men  when  they  have  persons  of  greater  figure  and  author- 
ity than  themselves  to  contend  with,  however  righteous  and  clear 
their  cause  may  be.  Besides  this,  Hilary  had  entertained  a  dis- 
like to  some  of  St.  Austin's  prevailing  doctrines  about  gracsy 
growing  much  in  vogue  ;  so  that  St.  Austin's  more  zealous  disci- 
ples had  a  pique  against  him  on  that  account,  and  had  the  less 
value  for  his  name.  The  way  then  to  have  this  Creed  pass  cur- 
rent^ and  make  it  generally  received,  was  to  stifle  as  much  as 
possible  the  name  of  the  author,  and  to  leave  it  to  stand  by  its 
own  intrinsic  worth  and  weight.  As  to  the  name  of  Athanasius, 
I  take  it  to  have  come  thus.  Upon  the  revival  of  the  Arian 
controversy  in  Graul,  under  the  influence  of  the  Burgundian 
kings,  it  was  obvious  to  call  one  side  Athanasians.  and  the  other 
side  Arians ;  and  so  also  to  name  the  orthodox  faith  the  Atha- 
nasian  Faith,  as  the  other  Arian.  This  Creed  therefore,  being 
a  summary  of  the  orthodox  and  Catholic  Faith,  might  in  process 
of  time  acquire  the  name  of  the  Athanasian  Faith,  or  Fides 
Athanasii,  in  opposition  to  the  contrary  scheme,  which  might  as 
justly  be  called  Fides  Arii,  or  the  Arian  Faith.  The  equivocal- 
ness  of  the  tUU  gave  a  handle  to  those  that  came  after  to  under- 
stand it  of  a  form  of  faith,  composed  by  Athanasius ;  just  as  the 
equivocal  title  of  Apostolical  given  to  the  Roman  Creed  occa^ 
sioned  the  mistake  about  its  being  made  by  the  Apostles.  This 
appears  to  me  the  most  probable  account  of  the  whole  matter : 
and  it  is  very  much  confirmed  by  what  we  see  of  several  tracts, 
wrote  in  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries  dialogue-wise,  where  Atha- 
nasius is  made  the  mouth  of  the  Catholic  side,  and  Arius  of  his 
party,  and  Photinus  of  his :  not  meaning  that  Athanasius,  Arius, 
and  Photinus  were  really  the  speakers  in  those  conferences,  but 
the  readers  were  to  understand  the  Athanasian,  Arian,  and 
Photinian  principles,  as  being  there  fairly  represented  under 
those  leading  names. 

3.  If  it  be  asked  further,  why  this  Creed  was  not  cited  during 
the  Nestorian  and  Eutychian  controversy,  when  there  was  so 
frequent  occasion  for  it;  I  answer,  partly  because  the  Creed 
was  not  partiealar  and  explicit  enough  to  have  done  much  sen- 
vice  ;  but  chiefly,  because  the  author  had  been  eclipsed,  and  his 
reputation  obscured  by  greater  namet  than  his,  so  that  his  au- 
thority had  weighed  little;  and  to  produce  it. without  a  name 
would  have  signified  less.     This  objection  therefore,  though  it 


might  be  of  great  force  in  the  question  about  Atbanasius,  is  of  no 
weight  at  all  against  our  present  supposition  about  Hilary  of  Aries* 

These  are  all  the  objections  which  to  me  occur :  and  they 
seem  to  be  so  far  from  weakening  the  grounds  upon  which  I  pro- 
ceed, that  they  rather  tend  to  strengthen  and  confirm  them. 
And  though  I  do  not  pretend  to  strict  certainty  about  the 
author  of  the  Creed ;  yet  I  persuade  myself  that  none  that  have 
been  hitherto  named  have  any  fairer,  or  so  fair  a  claim  to  it  as 
the  man  I  have  mentioned.  Not  Athanasius,  nor  Hilary  of 
Poic tiers,  not  Eusebius  of  Verceil,  not  Pope  Anastasius  I,  nor 
any  of  that  name ;  not  Vincentius  Lirinensis^  nor  Vigilius  Tap- 
sensis,  nor  Athanasius  of  Spire,  nor  Fortunatus,  nor  Bonifaoius, 
nor  any  other  that  has  been  thought  on.  From  the  many  con- 
jectures heretofore  advanced  by  learned  men,  one  may  perceive 
that  it  has  been  judged  to  be  a  thing  worth  the  inquiring  after : 
and  as  others  have  taken  the  liberty  of  naming  such  author  or 
authors  as  to  them  appeared  most  likely  to  have  made  the 
Creed,  so  have  I,  in  uiy  turn,  not  scrupling  to  add  one  more  to 
the  number. 

The  sum  then  of  what  I  have  presumed  to  advance  upon 
probable  conjecture,  in  a  case  which  will  not  admit  of  full  and 
perfect  evidence,  is  this:  that  Hilary,  once  Abbot  of  Lerinsj 
and  next  Bishop  of  Aries,  about  the  year  430  composed  the 
Exposition  of  Faith  which  now  bears  the  name  of  the  Athana- 
sian  Creed.  It  was  drawn  up  for  the  use  of  the  Oallican  clergy, 
and  especially  for  the  diocese  or  province  of  Aries.  It  was  es- 
teemed, by  as  many  as  were  acquainted  with  it,  as  a  valuable 
summary  of  the  Christian  Faith.  It  seems  to  have  been  in  the 
hands  of  Vincentius,  monk  of  Lerins,  before  434,  by  what  he 
has  borrowed  from  it;  and  to  have  been  cited  in  part  by  Avitus 
of  Vienne,  about  the  year  500,  and  by  Csesarius  of  Aries  before 
the  year  543.  About  the  year  570,  it  became  famous  enough 
to  be  commented  upon  like  the  Lord's  Prayer  and  Apostles' 
Creed,  and  together  with  them.  All  this  while,  and  perhaps  for 
several  years  lower,  it  had  not  yet  acquired  the  name  of  the 
Athanasian  Faith,  but  was  simply  styled  the  Catholic  Faith. 
But  before  670,  Athanasius's  admired  name  came  in  to  recom- 
mend and  adorn  it ;  being  in  itself  also  an  excellent  system  of 
the  Athanasian  principles  of  the  Trinity^  and  incarnation^  in 

«  Romans  ego  Ecdesise  ^uasi  Svin-  Athanasii  [.dictum  et  palatum  quod 
bolum,  incerto  autore,  existimero,  hinc    dilucide  Catholicam,  ipaamque  Atha- 


opposition  chiefly  to  Arians,  Macedonians,  and  Apollinarians. 
The  name  of  the  Faith  of  Athanasius,  in  a  while,  occasioned  the 
mistake  of  ascribing  it  to  him,  as  his  composition.  This  gave  it 
authority  enough  to  be  cited  and  appealed  to  as  standard,  in  the 
disputes  of  the  middle  ages,  between  Greeks  and  Latins  about 
the  procession :  and  the  same  admired  name,  together  with  the 
intrinsic  worth  and  value  of  the  form  itself,  gave  it  credit  enough 
to  be  received  into  the  pMic  Service  in  the  western  churches ; 
first  in  France,  next  in  Spain,  soon  after  in  Germany,  England, 
Italy,  and  at  length  in  Rome  itself;  while  many  other  excellent 
Creeds  drawn  up  in  Councils,  or  recommended  by  Emperors,  yet 
never  arrived  to  any  such  honour  and  esteem  as  this  hath  done. 
The  truly  good  and  great  author,  (as  I  now  suppose  him,)  though 
ill  used  by  the  then  Pope  of  Rome,  and  not  kindly  treated,  with 
respect  to  his  memory,  in  after-ages,  has  nevertheless  been  the 
mouth  of  all  the  western  churches,  and  some  eastern  too,  for  a 
long  tract  of  centuries,  in  celebrating  the  glories  of  the  coeternal 
Trinity.  And  so  may  he  ever  continue,  till  the  Christian 
churches  can  find  out  (which  they  will  not  easily  do)  a  juster,  or 
sounder,  or  more  accurate  form  of  faith  than  this  is. 


The  Creed  itself  in  the  Original  Language  with  Parallel  Passages 
from  the  Fathers. 

MY  design  in  this  chapter  is, 

1.  To  exhibit  the  Creed  in  its  native  language,  that  is,  in 
Latin,  according  to  the  most  ancient  and  most  correct  copies. 
The  various  lections  will  be  placed  at  the  bottom,  under  the 
Creed:  the  manuscripts  therein  referred  to  shall  be  denoted 
by  such  names  or  marks  as  appear  above  in  the  table  of  manu- 

2.  Opposite  to  the  Creed,  in  another  column,  I  place  parallel 
passages,  selected  from  authors  that  lived  and  wrote  before 
430,  principally  from  St.  Austin  :  and  this  with  design  to  enforce 
and  illustrate  my  main  argument  before  insisted  on ;   namely, 

nasii  Fldem  (de   Trinitate,  maxime)  Nicense  et  Catholicse  Fidei  ejuratio ; 

complecteretur ;    cuius  inter  Catho-  uti  se  res  habuit  in  Liherio  Romano 

licos  sic  spectata  fides,  ut  ejus  com-  antistite  &c.     Combefis,  not.  in  Calec. 

munio  velut  tessera  Catholici  esset ;  Nov.  Auctar.  Pair.  tom.  ii.  p.  396. 
censereturque  ejus  condemnatio  ipsa 



that  the  Creed  contains  nothing  but  what  had  been  asserted,  in 
as  full  and  express  words  as  any  words  of  the  Greed  are,  by 
Church  writers  before  the  time  specified. 

3.  I  subjoin  under  these,  at  the  bottom  of  the  page,  some 
further  select  passages  from  Church  writers  before  or  after  the 
time  mentioned ;  partly  to  servo  as  comments  upon  some  places 
of  the  Creed,  and  partly  to  shew  how  some  writers  of  the  fifth 
century,  Vincentius  especially,  expressed  themselves  on  the  same 
heads,  that  the  reader  may  from  thence  judge  whether  they 
appear  prior  to  the  Creed,  or  the  Creed  prior  to  them. 

I  ought  to  ask  my  English  reader's  pardon  for  this  part;  which 
he  may  please  to  pass  over,  and  to  go  on  to  the  next  chapter,  in- 
tended chiefly  for  his  satisfaction,  and  to  make  him  some  amends 
for  the  present  interruption:  for  my  design  in  subjoining  an 
English  commentary  is  to  serve  much  the  same  purposes  with 
what  is  here  intended  by  the  Latin ;  though  not  all  of  them,  but 
as  many  as  the  nature  of  the  thing  will  allow. 

Loca  parallsla  ezcerpta  ex  Va- 

FiDBS  Catholica. 

1 .  Quicumque  vult  salvus  esse, 
ante  omnia  opus  est  ut  teneat 
Catholicam  Fidem. 

2.  Quam  nisi  quisque  inte- 
gram  inviolatamque  servaverit, 
absque  dubio  in  ssternum  per- 

Variantes  Lectiones, 

1.  (salvus  esse)  esse  salvus.  Cod. 
Ambros.  et  Fortunat.  in  MS.  Am- 

2.  (quisque)  quis.  Cod.  Ambros. 
(inmolaiamque)  inviolabilemque.  Cod. 
San-germ,  (absque  dubio)  deest  in 
Cod.  Reg.  Paris,  (in  atemum  peribit) 
peribit  in  setemum.    San-germ. 

rtts ;  ante  an.  430. 

1.  CatholiccB  disctplince  ma^ 
je«tate  institutum  est,  ut  acceden- 

tibus  ad  Religionem  Fides  per- 
suadeatur  ante  omnia.  August, 
tom.  viii.  p.  64. 

HcBC  est  Fides  nostra,  quoniam 
hcBC  est  Fides  recta  ^  qucB  etiam 
Catholica  nuncupatur,  Tom.  viii. 

2.  Hceretici Simplici  Fide 

Catholica  contenti  esse  nolunt; 
qucB  una  parvulis  salus  est,  Au- 
gust, tom.  iv.  p.  60. 

Excerpta  ex  Patribus, 

I.  Credamus  ergo  fratres :  hoc  est 
primum  praeceptum,  hoc  est  uitVtiifii  re- 
ligionis  et  vitse  nostrse,  fizum  habere 
cor  mfide,  August,  tom.  v.  p.  195. 

3.  Catholicorum  hoc  fere  propriom, 
deposita  sanctorum  Patrum  et  com- 
missa  servare,  damnare  profanas  novi- 
tates:  et  sicut  dixit,  et  iterum  dixit 
Apostolus :  si  quis  annunciaverit,prm' 
terquam  quod  acceptum  est,  anathe- 
mare.  Vincent,  cap.  xxxiv.  p.  iii. 



3.  Fides  autem  Gatholica  hsec 
est,  ut  unum  Deiim  in  Trinitate, 
et  Trinitatem  in  Unitate  vene- 
remur : 

4.  Neque  confundentes  Per- 
sonas,  neque  Substantiam  se- 

5.  Alia  est  enim  Persona 
Patris,  alia  Filii,  alia  Spiritus 

6.  Sed  Patris,  et  Filii,  et 
Spiritus  Saiicti,  una  est  Divi- 
nitas,  sequalis  Gloria,  coaeterna 

7.  Qualis  Pater,  talis  Fiiius, 
talis  et  Spiritus  Sanctus. 

5.  {alia  FUu)9\m  Persona  Filii.  Cod. 
Ambros.  item  Fortunat.(a/ta  Spiritus) 
alia  Persona  Sp.  Sanct.  Cod.  Ambros. 

6.  (co€Btema)Codd.  nonnulli  habent 
et  coaetema.  Deest  et  in  Cod .  Ambros. 
et  in  Fortunat.  et  Brunon.  aliisque 

7.  {talis  et  Spiritus  Sanctus.)  Ita 
Codd.  AmbroB.  Reg.  Paris.  C.C.C.C. 
I.Cotton.  I.Jacob,  i. Fortunat.  item 
Cstarius  Arelat.  antiquissimus.  MSS. 
recentiores,  et  editi  omittunt  et. 

3.  Nvi/  bk  bCbaaKC  to(tovtov 
elbivai  ix6vov'  fxoviba  iv  rpidbi, 
Kol  Tpiiba  €v  ixovibi  irpoaKWOv- 
fxerryi;,  tiapiiboiov  i\av(Tav  Koi  T7}v 
biaCpecTLV  Ka\  rrjv  ivitiaiv.  Greg* 
Nazianz,  Orat.  xxiii.  p.  422. 

4.  Et  hcec  omnia  nee  confuse 
unum  su7it,  nee  disjunete  (ria 
sunt.  Augustin.  torn.  ii.  p.  6z(). 

5.  Impielatem  Sahellii  decli- 
nantes,  tres  Fersonas  expressas 
sub  proprietate  distinguimus — 
Aliam  Patris^  aliam  Filii,  aliam 
Spiritus  Sancti  —  Personam . 
Pelagii  Symbol,  p.  274.  apud 
Lambee.  Catal.  Bibl.  Vindob. 

6.  Gonfatantes  Arium,  unam 
eandemque  dicimus  Tiinitatis 
esse  substantiam,  Pelag.  Syrab. 

Fatris,  et  Filii  et  Spiritus 
Sancti  unam  Virtutem^  unam 
Substantiam^  unam  Deitatem, 
unam  Majestatem^  unam  Glo- 
riam.  August,  tom.  viii.  p.  744. 

7.  Qualis  est  Pater  secundum 
Substantiam,  talem  genuit  Fi- 

3.  Catholica  Ecclesia  unum  Deum 
in  IVinitatis  plenitudine,  et  item 
Trinitatis  sequalitatem  in  una  Divi- 
nitate  veneratur.  Vincent,  cap.  xxii. 
et  c.  xviii. 

4.  Ut  neque  singularitas  substan- 
ti»  Personarum  confundat  proprieta- 
tem,  neque  item  Trinitatis  distinctio 
unitatem  separet  Deitatis.  Vincent. 
cap.  33. 

5.  Quia  scilicet  alia  est  Persona 
Patris,  alia  Filii,  alia  Spiritus  Sancti. 
Vincent,  cap.  19. 

6.  Sed  tamen  Patris  et  Filii,  et 
Spiritus  Sancti  non  alia  et  alia,  sed 
una  eademque  natura.  Vincent,  cap. 

7.  Qualis  immensus  est  Pater,  talis 
est  et  IWus,  talis  est  Spiritus  Sanc- 
tus. Et  Philastr.  Har.  li.  p.  106. 
Conf.  p.  178. 



8.  Increatus  Pater,  increatus 
Filius,  increatus  et  Spiritus 

9.  Immensus  Pater,  immen- 
sua  Filius,  immensus  et  Spiritus 

10.  jEtemus  Pater,  seternus 
Filius,  seternus  et  Spiritus 

11.  Et  tamen  non  tres  aeter- 
ni,  Red  unus  seternus. 

12.  Sicut  non  tres  increati, 
nee  tres  immensi,  sed  unus  in- 
creatus, et  unus  immensus. 

13.  Similiter,     Omnipotens 

8.  {et  Spiritus  Sanctus,)  Deest  vo- 
cula  et  in  recentioribus  codicibus: 
retinent  plerique  antiquiores  hoc  in 
loco,  et  similiter  in  subsequentibus, 
ante  Spiritus  Sanctus,  Quse  lectio, 
opinor,  vera  est,  ab  autore  Symboli 
profecta;  scilicet,  ad  majorem  em- 
phasim,  propter  hseresim  Macedo- 
nianam  nonaum  penitus  exstinctam, 
nostrum  autem  est  Symbolum  exhi- 
bere  quale  se  primitus  habuit. 

13.  (unus  increatus,  et  unus  immen- 
sus,) Unus  immensus  et  unus  in- 
creatus.  Cod.  Ambros. 

Hum:  et  Spiritus  Sanctm — es 
ejusdem  et  ipse  Substantia  eum 
Patre  et  Filio.  Faustini  Fid. 

8.  Quicquid  ad  seipsum  did- 
tur  DeuSy  et  de  singulis  personis 
singulariter  dicitur,  et  simul  de 
ipsa  Trinitate.  August,  torn.  viii. 
p.  838. 

9.  Magnus  Pater,  magnus 
Filius,  magnus  Spiritus  Sanc- 
tus, August,  tom.  viii.  p.  837. 

10.  Hoc  et  de  bonitate,  et  de 
seternitate,  et  de  omnipotentia 
Dei  dictum  sit,  August,  ibid, 
p.  839. 

^^temus  Paier^  cocetemus 
Filius,  cocetemus  Spiritus  Sanc- 
tus. August,  tom.  V.  p.  543. 

1 2.  Non  tamen  tres  magni^ 
sed  unus  magnus.  Aug.  tom.  viii. 

P-  837. 

13.  Itaque  Omnipotens  Pater , 

8.  lUud  prsecipue  teneamus,  quic- 
quid ad  se  dicitur  prscstantissima  ilia 
et  divina  sublimitas,  substantialiter 
dici ;  quod  autem  ad  aliquid  non 
substantialiter,  sed  relative :  tantam- 
que  vim  esse  ejusd^m  substantias  in 
Patre  et  Filio  et  Sj)iritu  Sancto,  ut 
quicquid  de  singulis  ad  seipsos  dicitur, 
non  pluralUer  in  summa,  sed  singu- 
lariter accipiatur.  Augustin,  tom.  viii. 


13.  Nec  magnos  tres  dicimus,  sed 
magnum  unum,  quia  non  participa- 
tione  magnitudinis  Deus  magnus  est, 
sed  seipso  magno  magnus  est,  quia 
ipse  sua  est  magnitudo.  August,  de 
IWn.  lib.  v.  cap.  10. 

13.  ^^ed  ne  duos  Omnipotentes  in- 
telligas  prsecavendum  est :  licet  enim 
et  Pater  sit  Omnipotens,  et  Filius,  ta- 
men unus  est  Omnipotens,  sicut  et 
unus  est  Deus,  quia  Patris  et  Filii 
eadem  Omnipotentw  est,  sicut  et  ea- 
dem  Deitas.   FausHn,  p.  133. 



Pater,  Omnipotens  Filius,  Om- 
nipotens  et  Spiritus  Sanctus. 

14.  Et  taraen  non  tres  Omni- 
potentes,  sed  unus  Omnipotens. 

15.  Ita  Deus  Pater,  Deus  Fi- 
lius,  Deus  et  Spiritus  Sanctus. 

16.  Et  tamen  non  tres  Dii, 
sed  unus  est  Deus. 

17.  Ita  Dominus  Pater, 
Dominus  Filius,  Dominus  et 
Spiritus  Sanctus. 

18.  Et  tamen  non  tres  Do- 
mini, sed  unus  est  Dominus. 

19.  Quia  sicut  singillatim 
unamquamque     Personam     et 

Omnipotens  Filius^  Omnipotens 
Spiritus  Sanctus.  Aug.  de  Trin. 
Kb.  V.  cap.  8. 

14.  Nee  tamen  tres  Omnipo- 
tentes^  sed  unus  Omnipotens, 
August,  ibid. 

15.  Deus  Pater y  Deus  Filius, 
Deus  Spiritus  Sanctus,  August. 
Trin.  lib.  viii.  c.  1.  et  Serm.  105. 
p.  542.  tom.  V. 

16.  Nee  tamen  tres  Dii — sed 
unus  Deus,  Aug.  ibid. 

J  7.  Sic  et  Dominum  si  quc^ras, 
singulum  qu^mqtte  respondeo 
August,  tom.  viii.  p.  729. 

18.  Sed  simul  omnes  non  tres 
Dominos  Deos^  sed  unum  Domi- 
num Deum  dico,  August,  ibid. 

19.  Cum  de  singulis  quceritury 
unusquisque  eorum  et  Deus,  et 

14.  {Et  tamen)  deest  tamen  in  Cod. 

16.  {est  Deus)  deest  est  in  MS. 

18.  (est  Dominus)  deest  est.  Cod. 

ip.  {et  Deum  et  Dominum)  Ita  MS. 
Amoros.  et  MS.  Oxon.  Fortunat. 
rectissime.  Cod.  Fortunat.  Ambros. 
aliiqne,  tmn  MSS.  turn  impressi,  ha- 
bent  Deum  et  Dominum,  Brunonis 
Cod.  et  Coll.  Job.  MS.  Deum  ae  Do- 
San-gennanensis,  Dominum 

14.  Sicut  simul  illi  tres  unus  Deus, 
sic  simul  illi  tres  unus  omnipotens  est, 
et  inffisibilis  unus,  Deus  Pater  et  Filius 
et  Spiritus  Sanctus  est.  Augustin, 
tom.  viii.  p.  654.  Vid.  p.  865. 

16.  Unus  Deus  propter  insepara- 
bilem  Divinitatem;  sicut  unus  Om- 
nipotens propter  inseparabilem  Omni- 
potentiam.  August,  de  Civit.  Dei,  p. 

In  ilia  summa  Trinitate,  quae  in- 
comparabiliter  rebus  omnibus  ante- 
cellit,  tanta  est  inseparabilitas,  ut  cum 
Trinitas  hominum  non  possit  dici 
unus  Homo,  ilia  unus  Deus  et  dicatur 
et  sit.    August,  de  Trin,  lib.  xv.  cap. 


t8.  Non  sunt  enim  duo  Domini 
ubi  Dominatus  unus  est;  quia  Pater 
in  Filio,  et  Filius  in  Patre,  et  ideo 
Dominus  unus,  Ambros.  de  Sp.  S, 
lib.  iii.  cap.  15.  p.  686, 


Deum  et  Dominum  confiteri 
Christiana  veritate  compelli- 
mur ;  ita  ires  Deos,  aut  Domi- 
nos,  dicere  Catholica  religione 

20.  Pater  a  nuUo  est  factus, 
nee  ereatus,  nee  genitus. 

21.  Filius  a  Patre  solo  est, 
non  faetus,  nee  ereatus,  sed 

22.  Spiritus  Sanctus  a  Patre 
et  Filio,  non  faetus,  nee  creatus, 
nee  genitus  est,  sed  procedens. 

23.  Unus  ergo  Pater,  non 
tres  Patres;  unus  Filius^  non 

Omnipatens  esse  respondeatur ; 
cum  vero  de  omnibus  simidj  non 
tres  Diiy  vel  tres  Omnipotentes, 
sed  untis  Deus  Omnipotens,  Au- 
gust, de  Givit.  Dei^  lib.  xi.  e.  24. 
p.  290. 

20.  Dicimus  Patrem  Deum 
de  nuUo.  August,  torn.  v.  p. 

Non  enim  habet  de  quo  sity  aut 
ex  quo  procedat.  Aug.  torn.  viii. 

21.  Filius  Patris  solius  — 
Aunc  quippe  de  sua  substantia 
genuit,  non  ex  nihilo  fecit,  Aug. 
Ep.  170.  alias  66. 

22.  De  Filio  Spiritus  Sanctus 
proeedere  repetitur.  August,  de 
Trin.  lib.  xv.  c.  17. 

Neque  natus  est  sicut  unigeni- 
tuSy  neque  faetus,  &e.  Id.  lib.  v. 
0.15.  p.  841. 

23.  Unus  est  Pater ^  non  duo 
vel  tres;  et  unus  Filius,  non  duo 

et  Deum,  Plerique  editi,  Deum  aut 
Dominum,  Quse  lectio,  xne  judice, 
omnium  pessima  est.  (aut  Dominos) 
Ita  plerique  MSS.  et  editi :  sed  non- 
nuUi,  ac  Dominos.  (prohibemur)  MS. 
Ambr.  legit  prohUninus :  male. 

33.  (smI  procedens)  Cod.  Ambros. 
adjecta  habet  ista ;  Patri  et  FUio  co^ 
atemus  est,  Glossa,  uti  videtur,  ex 
margine  in  textum  immissa :  nisi 
forte  librarius  verba  ilia  ex  Bachiarii 
Fide,  ouam  simul  descripserat,  hue 
transtulerit;  sive  oscitanter,  sive 
majoris  elucidationis  gratia.  Vid, 
Bachiar,  Fid.  apud  Murator,  tom.  ii. 
p.  16, 18. 


33.  Spiritus  quoque  Sanctus  non, 
sicut  creatura,  ex  nihilo  est  faetus; 
sed  sic  a  Patre  Filioque  procedit,  ut 
nee  a  Filio,  nee  a  Patre  sit  faetus. 
August,  ep.  170. 

TA  Sytop  nvtvfUL oft-c  ytmnfrhv 

oCrt  KTiar6v aXX'  €k  irarpbs  itatO" 

pfvSiifvov,  Epiphan,  p.  743. 

33.  Oft-c  oZv  rp€»f  frarcpc p,  odrt  rptis 
vloi,  oCrt  Tp€is  frapa#cXjTOi*  oXX'  tU 
irarfjp,  Koi  €is  vlos,  teal  c(£  napoKkriTOg. 
Pseud,  lanat,  ad  PhiUpp,  c.  ii.  p.  118. 
Cotel.  ed.  Vid.  Epiphan.  H.  69.  p. 




ires  FOii ;  onus  Spiritus  Sanc- 
tum, non  tres  SpirituB  Sancti. 

24.  Et  in  hac  Trinitate  nihil 
priu8  aut  posterius,  nihil  majus 
aut  minus^  sed  totse  tres  Per- 
8onae  cosetemse  sibi  sunt,  et 

2j.  Ita  ut  per  omnia,  sicut 
jam  supra  dictum  est,  et  Unitas 
in  Trinitate,  et  Trinitas  in  Uni- 
tate  veneranda  sit. 

26.  Qui  Tult  ergo  salvus  esse, 
ita  de  Trinitate  sentiat. 

27.  Sed  necessarium  est  ad 
setemam  salutem,  ut  Incama- 
tionem  quoque  Domini  nostri 
Jesu  Christi  fideliter  credat. 

tel  tres;  et  unus  amborum  Spi- 
ritus, nan  duo  vel  tres.  August, 
oontr.  Maxim,  p.  729. 

24.  In  hac  Trinitate^  non  est 
aliud  alio  majus,  aut  minus, 
August,  tom.  y.  p.  948. 

Nee  enim  prorsus  aliquis  in 
Trinitate  grcuius :  nihil  quod 
in/eriuSy  superiusve  did  possit, 
Pelagii  Symb. 

25.  Vid,  supra,  in  articulo  3. 

26.  Vid.  supra^  artic.  2. 

27.  Dominus  autem  manens 
cum  discipulis  per  quadraginta 
dies,  significare  dignatus  est  quia 
per  istud  tempus  necessaria  est 
omnibus    Fides    Incarnationis 

94.  {Et  in  hac)  deest  et  in  Cod. 

34.  Increata  et  insestimabilis  Tri- 
nitas, quae  unius  est  seternitatis  et 
glorise,  nee  tempus  nee  gradum  vel 
posterioris  recipit  vel  prions.  Am- 
oros,  de  Fid,  lib.  iv.  c.  11.  p.  547. 

35.  Ita  iota  Deitas  sui  perfectione 
sequalis  est,  ut  exceptis  vocabulis 
quae  proprietatem  indicant  Persona- 
rum,  quicquid  de  una  Persona  dici- 
tur,  de  tribus  dignissime  possit  intel- 
ligi.   Pelag,  SvtSf, 

26,  Si  quis  banc  Fidem  non  babet, 
Catholicus  dici  non  potest,  quia  Ca- 
tholicam  non  tenet  Fidem;  et  ideo 
alienus  est  ac  profanus,  et  adversus 
veritatem  rebellis  Fides.  S,  Ambros, 
tmud  Lamhec,  Catalog,  BibL  Vindob, 
111),  ii.  p.  368. 

37.  Ideo  conversatio  ipsius  in  came 
post  resurrectionem  per  quadraginta 
dies  erat  necessaria,  ut  demonstraret 
tamdiu  esse  necessariam  Fidem  In- 
carnationis Christi  ouamdiu  in  ista 
vita  docetur  area  in  diluvio  fluctuare. 
August,  tom.  v.  p.  1078. 



28.  Est  ergo  Fides  recta,  ut 
credamus  et  confiteamur^  quia 
Dominus  noster  Jesus  Christus^ 
Dei  Filius,  Deus  pariter  et 
Homo  est. 

29.  Deus  est  ex  substantia 
Patris  ante  ssecula  genitus: 
Homo  ex  substantia  Matris  in 
sseculo  natus. 

30.  Perfectus  Deus,  perfectus 
Homo  ex  anima  rationali  et 
humana  carne  subsistens. 

31.  JBqualis  Patri  secundum 
Divinitatem :  minor  Patre  se- 
cundum Humanitatem. 

Cbristi ;  quce  infirmis  est  neeei- 
saria.  Augusts  Serm.  264,  torn. 
V.  p.  1077. 

28.  Praindsj  Christus  Jesus ^ 
Dei  Filius^  est  et  Deus  et  Homo, 
August.  Ench.  tom.  vi.  p.  210. 

29.  DetLS  ante  omnia  scecula  : 
Homo  in  nostro  seeculo  —  unus 
Dei  Filius,  idemque  Hominis 
Filius.   August,  ibid. 

30.  Conjitemur  in  Christo 
unam  esse  Filii  personam^  ut 
dicamus  duas  esse  perfectas  at- 
que  integras  substantias^  id  est, 
Deitatis,  et  Humanitatis  qucs 
ex  anima  continetur  et  corpore, 
Pelag.  Symb. 

3 1 .  JEqualem  Patri  secundum 
Divinitatem^  minorem  autem 
Patre  secundum  camem,  hoc  est^ 

38.  (conJUeamur,  quia)  Cod.  Am- 
bros.  atoue  editi  nonnulli  legunt 
quod,  Plures  habent  ^tita.  (Deus 
pariter  et  Homo  est)  Ita  Codd. 
Bened.  i.  Colbertin.  Jacob,  i.  et 
Fortunat.  Ambros.  et  San-fferm.  le- 
gtiDt,  et  Deus  pariter  et  Homo  est, 
Editi>  Deus  et  homo  est, 

29.  (ex  substantia)  Colbertin.  de 
substantia:  et  infra,  de  substantia 
Matris,  {Homo)  Ambros.  Cod.  legit  et 
Homo  est,  Fortunat.  et  Homo,  Post 
Matris,  San-germ.  Cod.  habet,  in  ste- 
eulo  genitus  perfectus  Homo, 

30.  (rationali)  rationabili,  Codd. 
Ambros.  Colbert,  et  San-germ. 


I.   {minor   Patre)    minor    Patri, 

39.  Idem  ex  Patre  ante  saecula  ge- 
nitus,  idem  in  sseculo  ex  matre  gene- 
ratus.    Vincent,  c.  19. 

30.  Adversus  Arium,  veram  et  per- 
fectam  Verbi  Divinitatem;  adversus 
Anollinarem,  perfectam  Hominis  in 
Cnristo  defendmiusveritatem.  August. 
Op,  tom.  V.  Append,  p.  391. 

Perfectus  Deus,  perfectus  Homo : 
in  Deo  summa  Divmitas,  in  Homine 
plena  humanitas:  quippe  qu»  ani- 
mam  simul  babeat  et  camem.  Vtn- 
cent,  c,  19. 




3  2.  Qui  licet  Deus  sit  et 
Homo,  Don  duo  tameu,  sed 
unus  est  Ghristus. 

33.  Unus  autem,  non  conver- 
sione  Divinitatis  in  carnem,  sed 
adsumptione  Humanitatis  in 

34.  Unus  omnino,  non  con- 
fusione  Substantise,  sed  unitate 

35.  Nam  sicut  anima  ratio- 
nalis  et  caro  unus  est  Homo; 
ita  Deus  et  Homo  unus  est 

36.  Qui  passus  est  pro  salute 

33.  Deest  et  Colb. 

33.  (in  camem)  in  came.  MSS. 
Ambros.  Colbert.  San-cerm.  aliique 
plurimi,  et  vetuBti.  Uabent  etiam 
in  Deo,  pro  in  Deum,  At  multi 
etiam  Codices,  cum  Fortunati  Cod. 
Ambrosiano,  receptam  lectionem  pr»- 
ferunt ;  quae  utique  prseferenda  vide* 
tur.  Cod.  San-germ,  pro  conversione 
habet  conversatione.  Cod.  Colbert, 
totam  banc  pericopen  sic  exhibet : 
Units  autem,  non  ex  eo  quod  sit  in  came 
conversa  Divinitas,  sea  quia  est  in  Deo 
adsumpta  dignanter  humanitas. 

34.  (Unus  omnino)  unus  Christus 
etf.  Colbert. 

35.  (Nam  sicut  &c.)  Totum  omittit 
Cod.  Colbertinus.  Scilicet,  uti  credo, 
ne  simile  illud  in  erroris  sui  patrocn- 
nium  arriperent  Monophysitte.  (ro/io- 
naKs)  rattonabilis.  Ambros. 

30.  (Out  passus  est  pro  salute  no- 

secundum  Hominem,  Aug.  Epist. 
137.  p.  406. 

32.  Agno8camu8  geminam  stdh- 
stantiam  Christi  ;  divinam  scili- 
cet qua  (Bqualis  est  Patri,  huma- 
nam  qua  major  est  Pater: 
utrumque  autem  simul  non  duo, 
sed  unus  est  Christus.  Aug. 
Tract,  in  Joh.  p.  699. 

33.  Verbum  caro  /actum  est, 
a  Divinitate  came  suscepta,  non 
in  carnetn  Divinitate  mutata. 
August.  Enchirid.  c.  35. 

34.  Idem  Deus  qui  Hotno,  et 
qui  Deus  idem  Homo :  non  con- 
/usione  naturce,  sed  unitate  Per- 
sonee.  Aug.  torn.  v.  p.  885. 

35.  Sicut  enim  unus  est  Homo 
anima  rationalis  et  caro ;  sic 
unus  est  Christus  Deus  et  Homo, 
Aug.  Tract,  in  Joh.  p.  699. 

36.  Descendit  ad  infema,  ter- 

33.  Caro  Christus,  et  anima  Chris- 
tus, et  Verbum  Christus :  nee  tamen 
tria  hsec  tres  Christi,  sed  unus  Chris- 
tus. August,  in  Johan.  p.  613. 

33.  Nemo  ergo  credat  Dei  Filium 
conver^tim  et  commutatum  esse  in 
Hominis  Filium;  sed  potius  creda- 
mus,  et  non  consumpta  divina,  et 
perfecte  assumpta  humana  substan- 
tia^ roanentem  Dei  Filium  factum 
Hominis  Filium.  August,  tom.  v. 
p.  887. 

Deus  ergo  Hominem  assumsit.  Ho- 
mo in  Deum  transivit :  non  naturse 
versibilitate,  sicut  ApoUinaristae  di- 
cunt,  sed  Dei  dignatione.  (xennad. 
EccL  Dogm,  c.  3. 

54.  Unus  autem,  non Divini- 
tatis et  humanitatis  confusione,  sed 
unitate  Personse.  Vincent.  LAr.  c.  xix. 
p.  58. 

36.  Quis  ergo,  nisi  infidelis,  ne- 



nostra,   descendit   ad    inferos, 
tertia  die  resurrexit  a  mortuis. 

37.  Adscendit  ad  coelos,  sedet 
ad  dexteram  Patris ;  inde  ven- 
turus  judieare  vivos  et  mortuos. 

38.  Ad  cujus  adventum  om- 
nes  homines  resurgere  habent 
cum  corporibus  snis,  et  reddi- 
turi  sunt  de  factis  propriis  ra- 

39.  Et  qui  bona  egerunt, 
ibunt  in  vitam  setemam,  qui 
vero  mala,  in  ignem  aetemum. 

tia    die    resurrexit   a    mortuis. 
Symb.  Aquileise,  apud  Buffin. 

37.  Ascendit  ad  eoelos,  sedet 
ad  dexteram  Patris;  inde  venr 
turus  Judieare  vivos  et  mortuos. 
Symb.  Roman.  Vet. 

38.  liesurrectionem  etiam  car- 
nis  confitemur  et  credimus,  ut  di- 
camus  nos  in  eadem  qua  nunc 
sumus  veritate  membrorum  esse 
reparandos.  Pelag.  Symb. 

39.  Et  procedent  qui  honafe- 
eerunt  in  resurrectionem  mtce^  qui 
vero  mala  egerunt  in  resurrectio- 
nem judicii.  Job.  V.  28. 

Ibunt  hi  in  supplidum  ceter- 
num,  justi  autem  in  vitam  teter- 
nam.  Matt.  xxv.  46. 

stra)  Qui  secundum  fidem  nostram 
passus  et  mortuus.  Colbert. 

(ad  inferos)  ad  infernos.  Cod.  San- 
germ,  ad  infema,  Fortunat.  MS. 
OxoD.  ad  infema  descendens.  Cod. 

(tertia  die,)  deest  in  Cod.  Ambros. 
San-germ.  Cotton,  i.  Jacob,  i.  (r«- 
surrexit)  surrexit.  Cod.  Ambros. 

37.  (sedet)  sedit.  Cod.  Ambr.  (dex- 
teram Patris)  Ita  Codd.  Ambros.  et 
Fortunat.  et  S)rmb.  Roman.  Vet.  dex- 
teram Patris  Omninotentis.  Cod.  San- 

ferm.  dextram  Omnipotentis.  Cod. 
Irunonis.  dexteram  Dei  Patris  sedet, 
sicut  vobis  in  Symbolo  traditum  est. 
Cod.  Colbert,  dexteram  Dei  Patris 
Omnipotentis.  Codd.  recentiores,  cum 

38.  (resurgere  habent  cum  corpO' 
ribus  suis,  et)  desunt  in  Cod.  Ambros. 
Colbertinus  legit :  ad  cujus  adventum 
erunt  omnes  homines  sine  dubio  in  suis 
corporibus  resurrecturi.  Sed  nihil 

39.  (egerunt)  egerint.  Cod.  Ambros. 
Totiun  hunc  articulum  sic  legit  Col- 
bertinus: Ut  qui  bona  egerunt,  eant 
in  vitam  tetemam  ;  qui  mala,  in  ignem 

(qui  vero)  Cod.  Ambros.  et  Cot- 

gaverit  fuisse  apud  inferos  Chris- 

Quamobrera  teneamus  firmissime 
quod  fides  habet  fiindatissima  aucto- 

ntate  firmatum et  caetera  quae  de 

illo  testatissima  veritate  conscripta 
sunt ;  in  quibus  etiam  hoc  est,  auod 
apud  inferos  fuit.  August,  ep.  dxiv. 
p.  574. 578. 

^8.  Si  id  resurgere  didtur  quod 
cadit,  caro  ergo  nostra  in  veritate 
resurget,  sicut  in  veritate  cadit.  Et 
non  secundum  Origenem,  immutatio 
corporum  erit  &c.  Crennad.  Eccl. 
DognuU.  c.  5. 

39.  Post  resurrectionem  et  judi- 
cium, non  credamus  restitutionem 
futuram,  sicut  Origenes  delirat,  ut 
daemones  vel  impii  homines  post  tor- 
menta  quasi  suppliciis  expurgati,  vel 
t//t  in  angeUcam  qua  creati  sunt  re- 



40.  Haec  est  Fides  Catholi- 
ca,  quam  nisi  quisque  fideliter, 
firmiterque  crediderit,  salvus 
esse  non  poterit. 

ton.  I.  omittunt  oero.    Codices  non- 
nuUi  legunt,  et  qui  vero :  aUi,  et  qui 

40.  (quisque)  Cod.  Ambros.  tmf»- 
quisaue.  Colbertinus  pergit:  H^bc 
est  Fides  sancta  et  caiholtca,  quam 
omnis  homo,  out  ad  vitam  tttemam 
pervenire  desiaerat,  scire  integre  de- 
bet, etfideliter  custodire. 

40. Cavete,  dilectissimi,  ne  quis 
fm  ab  Ecolesiae  Catholicse  Fi€h 
ac  unitate  seducat.  Qui  enim  vo- 
lis  aliter  et>angelizaverit  prceter- 
quam  quod  accepistis,  anathema 
sit,  Aug.  torn.  V.  p.  592. 

deant  dignitatem,  vel    isti  jnstorum 
societate    donentur.     Gennad,   ibid. 

40.  O  Tovra  irurrwvaug  a>s  l^^rt,  w£ 
y€y€vrjTai,  fuucdpios'  6  ravra  fir^  irt- 
OTCvcDv  €vayfis  ovv  ^jttov  t&v  t6v  kvmov 
vravpwr63nmf.  Pseud*  Ignat.  ad  Phi- 
Upp.  p.  118. 

CHAP.  X. 

A  Commentary  an  the  Athanasian  Creed  ^. 

1 .  WHOSOEVER  will  he  saved,  before  all  things  it  is  necessary 
that  he  hold  the  Catholic  Faith. 

By  the  words,  before  all  things^  is  meant  in  the  first  place. 
Faith  goes  hetoTQ  practice ;  and  is  therefore  ^r^  in  order,  though 
practice  may  be,  comparatively,  more  considerable,  and  first  in 
value,  as  the  end  is  above  the  means. 

2.  Which  Faith,  except  every  one  do  keep  ichole^  and  undefiled, 
withoxU  doubt  he  shall  perish  everlastingly. 

Which  faith,  that  is,  the  Catholic  Faith  before  spoken  of,  which 
is  another  name  for  the  true  and  right  faith  as  taught  in  Scrip- 

•  In  the  Primmer  of  1539,  and 
another  of  1555,  where  the  version  is 
made  from  the  Latin,  and  joined  with 
the  Popish  Service  of  that  time,  the 
English  title  of  the  Creed  was.  The 
Symbole  or  Crede  of  the  great  Doc- 
tour  Athanasius,  dayly  red  in  the 

In  King  Edward's  Prayer  Book, 
A.  D.  1549,  it  is  barely  entitled.  This 
Confession  of  our  Christian  Faith: 
and  it  was  ordered  to  be  song,  or  sayed, 
upon  six  feasts  in  the  year.  At  the 
revisal  of  the  Common  Prayer,  in 
1553,  it  was  appointed  to  be  used  on 
several  feasts  m  the  year,  the  whole 
number  thirteen.  But  the  title  still 
continued  the  same,  till  the  last  review 

under  Charles  the  Second ;  when  were 
added  thereto,  commonly  called  the 
Creed  of  St.  Athanasius :  from  which 
time  the  running  title  has  been  S. 
Athanasiu8*s  Creed,  as  before  Out- 
ctm^ue  tmU,  in  our  Prayer  Books. 

*  In  King  Edward's  Prayer  Books, 
and  so  down  to  the  year  1627,  holy 
was  read  for  what  is  now  whole. 
Which  I  suppose  was  intended  for 
whoUy :  as  one  may  reasonably  ima- 
gine from  Queen  Elizabeth's  of  156 1, 
where  it  is  wholy :  and  from  the  me- 
trical version,  which  plainly  meant 
whoUy,  by  holy,  answering  to  unde- 
filedly :  and  it  is  certain  that  holy  was 
the  ancient  spelling  for  what  we  now 
write  wholly. 


ture ;  oalled  Caiholic^  or  universal,  as  being  held  by  the  universal 
Church  of  Christ,  against  which  the  gates  of  hell  shall  ue\er  pre- 
vail. The  meaning  then  is,  that  every  one  is  obliged^  under 
pain  of  damnation^  to  preserve,  as  far  as  in  him  lies,  the  true  and 
right  faith,  in  opposition  to  those  that  endeavour  to  corrupt  it 
either  by  taking  from  it^  or  adding  to  it.  That  men  shall  perish 
eternally  for  uThbelief,  for  rejecting  the  faith  in  the  lump,  cannot 
be  doubted;  when  it  is  expressly  said,  (Mark  xvi.  i6.)  "He 
*'  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned :"  and  as  to  rejecting  any 
particular  branch,  or  article  of  it,  it  must  of  consequence  b« 
a  sin  against  the  whole ;  against  truth  and  peace,  and  therefore 
damnable  in  its  own  nature,  as  all  wilful  sins  are  without  repent- 
ance. As  to  the  allowances  to  be  made  for  invincible  ignorance, 
prejudice,  or  other  unavoidable  infirmities;  as  they  will  be 
pleadable  in  the  case  of  any  other  sin,  so  may  they,  and  will 
they  also  be  pleadable  in  this :  but  it  was  foreign  to  the  purpose 
of  the  Creed  to  take  notice  of  it  in  this  case  particularly,  when 
it  is  common  to  all  cases  of  like  nature,  and  is  always  supposed 
and  understood,  though  not  specially  mentioned. 

3.  And  the  Catholic  Faith  is  this ;  That  we  worship  one  God  in 
in  Trinity,  and  Trinity  in  Unity, 

One  of  the  principal  branches  of  the  Catholic  Faith,  and 
which  is  of  nearest  concernment,  (since  our  worship  depends 
upon  it,  and  the  main  body  of  the  Christian  religion  is  bound  up 
in  it,)  is  the  doctrine  of  a  Trinity  in  Unity,  of  three  Persons  and 
one  God^  recommended  in  our  baptism  as  the  object  of  our/aiVA, 
hope^  and  worship.  He  that  takes  upon  him  to  corrupt  or  deprave 
this  most  fundamental  part  of  a  Christianas  faith  cannot  be  inno- 
cent ;  it  being  his  bounden  duty  to  maintain  and  preserve  it,  as 
he  will  answer  it  another  day. 

4.  Neither  confounding  the  Persone^  nor  dividing  the  Substance. 
Here  would  be  no  need  of  these  particular  cautions,  or  critical 

terms,  in  relation  to  this  point,  had  men  been  content  with  the 
plain  primitive  faith  in  its  native  simplicity.  But  as^  there  have 
been  a  set  of  men,  called  Sabellians,  who  have  erroneously 
taught,  that  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Obost  are  all  one  Person, 
who  was  incarnate,  and  suffered,  and  rose  again;  making  the 
Father  (and  Holy  Ghost)  to  have  suffered^  as  well  as  the  Son^ 
(from  thence  called  Patripassians,)  hence  it  becomes  necessary 
to  caution  every  pious  Christian  against  confounding  the  Per- 
sons, as  those  men  have  done.     And  as  there  have  been  others. 


paitieakrlT  the  AraiM,  vfao  have  pretoided  way  fiJady,  thai 
the  three  PenooB  are  firm  stAdamee^  and  ci  dijfereai  kinds, 
divided  from  eadi  other,  one  beio^  hefgn  the  other,  existiiig 
wfaeo  the  other  two  weie  not,  as  aim  beio^  firemmi  where  the 
other  two  are  not  pieeent;  theee  fidse  and  dangeroiis  tenets 
hariog  been  spiead  abroad,  it  is  beeome  neeeasarr  to  giro  a 
eaotion  against  ditidimg  tie  mbttamee,  as  these  hare  done,  very 
mnch  to  the  detriment  of  aobrietj  and  truth. 

5.  For  there  is  erne  Perwm  of  tie  Father^  am/sAer  of  the  Son,  and 
Mather  of  the  Holy  Gkod. 

The  Sabdlians  therefore  were  extrem^  to  blame  in  eomfcmnd- 
img  the  Peraons,  and  running  them  into  one,  taking  away  the 
didinelion  of  Persons  plainly  taught  in  Scripture. 

6.  But  the  Godhead  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  is  all  one,  the  Glory  equal,  the  Majeety  coetemal. 

The  Arians  therefore  were  eqnafly  to  blame  for  dividing  the 
wbetanee  and  Godhead,  in  the  manner  before  hinted.  To  be  a 
little  more  particular  on  this  head,  we  may  go  on  to  open  and 
explain  this  Unity  of  Grodhead,  equality  of  Glory ^  and  coetemity 
of  Majesty. 

7.  Such  a$  the  Father  i$^  such  is  the  Son,  and  such  is  the  Holy 

That  is,  as  to  their  substance  and  Chdhead,  there  is  no  differ- 
ence or  inequality  amongst  them ;  though  there  is  a  difference 
in  respect  of  some  personal  acts  and  properties,  as  shall  be  ob- 
served in  its  place.  In  real  dignity  and  perfection  they  are  equal 
and  undivided^  as  in  the  instances  here  following : 

8.  T/ie  Father  tmcreate,  the  Son  uncreate,  and  the  Holy  Ghost 

These  three  Persons  were  never  brought  into  being  by  the 
will  of  another ;  they  are  no  creatures,  nor  changeable,  as  creatures 
are ;  they  are  all  infinitely  removed  from  dependence  or  precarious 
existence,  one  as  much  as  another,  and  every  one  as  much  as 
any  one :  they  exist  in  the  highest  and  most  emphatical  sense  of 
existing,  which  is  called  necessary  existence^  opposed  to  contingent 
or  precarious  existence.  In  a  word;  every  Person  roust,  and 
cannot  but  exist ;  and  all  must  exist  together,  having  the  same 
unchangeable  perfections. 

9.  The  Father  incomprehensible^  the  Son  incomprehensible,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  incomprehensible. 

These  words  are  not  a  just  translation  of  the  Latin  original, 


though  containing  as  true  and  just  a  proposition  as  the  Latin 
words  do.  Immensus  signifies  omnipresent,  rather  than  incompre- 
hensible  in  the  modem  sense  of  incomprehensible.  But  if  by  in- 
comprehensible be  understood,  not  to  be  comprehended  within 
any  bounds,  it  will  then  answer  to  the  Latin  pretty  nearly.  The 
translator  here  followed  the  Greek  copyc,  taking  perhaps  the 
Greek  to  be  the  original  language  wherein  the  Creed  was  written. 
However,  some  Latins  have  understood  by  immensus,  incompre- 
hensible^, in  such  a  sense  as  has  been  hinted. 

10.  The  Father  eternal,  the  Son  eternal,  and  the  Holy  Ghost 

None  of  the  Persons  ever  began  to  be,  nor  shall  ever  cease  to 
be ;  they  always  were,  they  always  will  be,  and  must  be ;  the 
same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  for  ever. 

11.  And  yet  they  are  not  three  eternals,  but  one  eternal. 

Some  account  ought  to  be  given  of  this  manner  of  speaking, 
because  it  often  occurs  in  the  Creed,  and  may  be  thought  most 
apt  to  offend  the  malicious,  or  to  mislead  the  unwary.  The 
way  of  speaking  came  in  a  little  after  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century,  and  then  only  into  the  Latin  Church ;  for  the  Greeks 
never  used  it,  but  taught  the  same  things  under  a  different  form 
of  expression.  What  Greeks  and  Latins  both  intended  was, 
that  as  the  three  Persons  are  oTie  substance  and  one  God,  so 
every  divine  perfection,  and  every  substantial  attribute,  belonging 
to  any  one  Person,  is  common  to  all ;  and  there  is  noihmg peculiar 
to  any  one  but  the  divine  relations :  to  the  Father,  paternity, 
and  whatever  it  implies  or  carries  with  it;  to  the  &on,  filiation ; 
to  the  Holy  Ghost,  procession.  In  this  account,  eternity,  immens- 
ity, omnipotence,  and  the  like,  being  substantial  attributes,  are 
common  to  all  the  three  Persons ;  who  have  therefore  one  eter- 
nity, one  immensity,  one  omnipotence,  and  so  on,  as  one  substance 
and  one  Godhead:   thus  far  Greeks  and  Latins  agreed  both  in 

c  There    are  two    printed    Greek  versions    exactly    follow    the    Latin 

copies      which     read     a/caraXf/n-ror,  original.     As  does  also  the  Primmer 

Stephens's,  first  printed  by  Bryling,  of  1539)  set  forth  by  John  Bishop  of 

and  Baifius*8,  first  printed  by  Gene-  Rochester ;  and  the  other  later  one  of 

brard :   which  two  copies  are  in  the  1555,  by  C.  Pole.    The  first  has  im- 

main  one.     Our  translators,  in  1548,  measurable,  (where  we  have  incom- 

could  have  seen  none  but  Bryling's,  prehensible,)  the    other  has  without 

that  is,  Stephens's  copy.     The  Con-  measure, 

stantinopolitan    copy    pubhshed    by  ^  Immensus  Pater:  non  mole,  sed 

Genebrard  reads  antipos;  the  Palatine  potestate    omnia    concludente.     Vel 

copy,   by   Felckman,    nftcrpor.    The  immensus,  id  est,  incomprehensibilis, 

Saxon,    French,    and    old    English  Abalard.  in  Symb.  Atkanas.  p.  368. 


doctrine  and  expression.  But  the  Latins,  building  hereupon, 
thought  it  very  allowable  to  go  a  little  further,  (which  the 
Greeks  did  not,)  and  to  express  the  same  thing  by  saying,  of  the 
three  Persons,  that  they  are  one  eternal,  one  immense,  one  omni- 
potent, one  Ao/y,  one  uncreated,  &c.  And  this  was  the  current 
language  at  the  makings  and  before  the  making  of  this  Greed. 
The  Arians  were  the  sole  occasion  of  introducing  both  kinds  of 
expression,  which  must  therefore  be  interpreted  accordingly. 
Ttoo  things  were  designed  by  them :  one,  to  obviate  the  Arian 
tenet,  that  the  three  Persons  were  differing  in  kind,  and  in  de- 
gree,  as  being  of  unequal  perfections  ;  the  other,  to  obviate  the 
Arian  charge,  or  calumny,  upon  the  Church,  as  making  three 
Gods.  In  regard  to  the  former,  when  the  Catholics  speak  of 
ime  Divinity,  they  intend  squeal  Divinity,  not  Divinities  differing 
in  kind  or  degree :  and  in  regard  to  the  latter,  they  further  mean 
undivided  and  inseparable  Divinity,  not  many  Divinities.  The 
true  meaning  then,  and  the  full  meaning  of  the  expressions  of 
the  Creed  will  be  very  clear  and  obvious.  The  three  Persons 
are  equal  in  duration,  and  undivided  too;  one  eternity  (one, 
because  undivided,  and  inseparable)  is  common  to  all,  and  there- 
fore they  are  not  three  eternals^  but  one  eternal. 

The  oldest  writers  who  have  used  this  way  of  expression  are, 
so  far  as  I  have  obsei*ved,  Ambrose,  Faustinus,  and  Austin; 
and  their  meaning  in  it  is  very  plain  and  certain  from  the 
places  themselves  where  they  make  use  of  it.  Fulgentius,  who 
came  not  long  after  them,  sometimes  falls  into  the  same  manner 
of  expressions^ ;  but  sparingly,  as  if  he  either  did  not  fully  attend 
to  it,  or  had  some  scruple  about  it :  for  his  general  way  is  to  say, 
"  not  three  eternal  Gods,  but  one  eternal  God^"  instead  of  the 

•  Relativa  nomina  Trinitatem  fa-  '  iEternus  est   sine  initio   Pater, 

ciunt,  essentialia  vero  nullo  modo  tri-  asternus  est  sine  initio  Filius,  aetemus 

plicantur.     Deus  Pater,  Deus  Fllios,  est  sine  initio  Spiritus  Sanctus :   nee 

Deus  Spiritus  Sanctus.    Bonus  Pater,  tamen  tres  Dii  setemi  sed  udus  ceter- 

bonus  Filius,  bonus  Spiritus  Sanctus.  nus  Deus.  Fulgent,  ad  Ferrand.  p.  234. 

Pius  Pater,  pius  Filius,  pius  Spiritus  Immensus  est  Pater,  sed  immensus 

Sanctus.    Justus  Pater,  Justus  Filius,  est  Filius,  et  immensus  est  et  Spiritus 

Justus  et  Spiritus  Sanctus.    Omnipo-  Sanctus:  nee  tamen  tres  IKtimmensi, 

tens  Pater,  omnipotens  Filius,  omni-  sed  unus  Deus  immensus.    Fulgent. 

potens  et  Spiritus  Sanctus.   £t  tamen  ibid.  p.  232. 

non  dicimus  nee  tres  Deos,  nee  tres  Omnipotens  est  Pater;   sed  omni- 

601105,  nee  trespios,  nee  tresjustos,  nee  potens  est  Filius,  omnipotens  est  Spi- 

tres  omnipotentes,  sed  unum  Deum,  ritus  Sanctus:   nee  tamen  tres  Dii 

bonum,  pium,  justum,  omnipotentem,  omnipotentes,  sed  unus  Deus  omni- 

Patrem  et  FiUum  et  Spiritum  Sane-  potens  est  Pater,  et  Filius,  et  Spiritus 

turn.  Fulgent,  de  Trin.  c.  ii.  p.  330.  Sanctus.  Fkdgent,  ibid. 


other  in  the  Creed ;  and  so  in  the  like  cases.  Which  indeed  is 
a  very  insipid  and  dull  way  of  expressing  it,  and  if  applied  to 
every  article  in  the  Athanasian  Creed,  would  make  it  a  very  flat 
composition  in  comparison  to  what  it  is.  It  is  true,  that  all  at 
length  resolves  into  this,  that  the  three  Persons  are  not  three 
Gods,  but  one  God:  this  is  the  ground  and  foundation,  and  the 
other  is  the  superstructure.  But  then  it  is  a  fine  and  elegant, 
as  well  as  a  solid  superstructure ;  improving  the  thought,  and 
carrying  on  a  train  of  new  and  distinct  propositions,  and  not 
merely  a  jejune  and  sapless  repetition  of  the  same  thing. 

12.  ^5  ako  there  are  not  three  incomprehensihles,  nor  three  un- 
created ;  btU  one  uncreated,  and  one  incomprehensible^. 

Not  three  incomprehensibles,  &;c.  as  not  differing  either  in  kind 
or  deffree  of  incomprehensibility,  nor  yet  divided  in  those  per- 
fections :  but  one  incomprehensible,  and  one  uncreated,  one  as 
to  the  kind  and  degree  of  those  attributes,  or  perfections ;  and 
one  in  number  too,  as  much  as  union  and  inseparability,  infinitely 
close  and  perfect,  can  be  conceived  to  make,  or  do  really  make 

13.  So  likewise  the  Father  is  Almighty,  the  Son  Almighty,  and 
the  Holy  Ghost  Almighty. 

Equally  Almighty  every  one,  without  any  difference  or  in- 
equality in  kind  or  degree. 

14.  And  yet  they  are  not  three  Almighties^  but  one  Almighty. 
One  omnipotence,  or  almightiness,  is  common  to  all  three; 

one  in  kind  as  being  of  equal  extent,  and  equally  reaching  over 
all ;  and  one  also  in  number,  because  of  the  inseparable  uni(m 
among  the  three,  in  the  inward  perfection,  and  outward  exercise, 
or  operation. 

15.  So  the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  is  God,  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  God. 

The  whole  three  persons  equally  divine,  and  enjoying  every 
perfection  belonging  to  the  Godhead. 

16.  And  yet  they  are  not  three  Gods,  but  one  God. 

Because  the   Godhead,  or  Divinity,   which  belongs  to   one, 

t  Here  again,   one   may   perceive  prehensibles,  but  one  uncreated,   &c. 

what  copy  our  translators  followed.  Only  the  Ambrosian  Latin  copy  reads, 

namely,  Bryling's  Greek  copy.     All  not  three  uncreated,  nor  three  incom- 

the   other  copies,  Greek  and  Latin,  prehensibles^  (immense,)  but  one  incom- 

place  the  words  in  a  different  order :  prehensible    {immense)  and    one   un- 

not  three  uncreated^  nor  three  incom-  created. 


belongs  to  all :  the  same  in  kind  beoause  of  the  equality,  and 
the  same  in  number  beoause  inseparably  one. 

ij.  So  likewise  the  Father  is  Lord,  the  Son  Lord,  and  the  Holy 
Ohost  Lord. 

Having  the  same  right  of  dominion,  and  of  equal  dominion ; 
and  equally  exercising  it,  when  and  where  they  please. 

1 8.  And  yet  not  three  Lords,  hut  one  Lord. 

Because  one  dominion  is  common  to  all  three,  jointly  possess- 
ing, and  jointly  exercising  every  branch  of  it ;  undividedly  and 
inseparably  bearing  supreme  rule  over  all. 

19.  For  like  as  we  are  compelled  by  the  Christian  verity  to  ac- 
knowledge every  Person  by  himself  to  be  God  and  Lord;  so  are  we 
forbidden  by  the  Catholic  religion  to  say.  There  be  three  Gods  or 
three  Lords. 

That  is  to  say,  the  whole  foundation  of  what  hath  been  before 
taught  rests  upon  this,  that  the  same  Christian  verity,  or  truth, 
laid  down  in  Scripture,  obliges  us  to  acknowledge  every  Person 
distinctly  considered  to  be  God  and  Lord;  and  at  the  same 
time  to  reject  the  notion  of  three  Gods  or  three  Lords:  which 
being  so,  all  that  has  been  here  taught  must  of  course  be 
admitted  as  true,  right,  and  just.  And  now,  having  considered 
the  equality  and  union  of  the  three  sacred  Persons,  it  may  next 
be  proper  to  consider  their  distinction,  as  it  is  set  forth  to  us  in 
Scripture  by  the  several  personal  characters  belonging  to  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost 

ao.  The  Father  is  made  of  none,  neither  created,  nor  begotten. 

Were  I  at  liberty  to  make  conjectural  emendations,  I  would 
here  read.  Pater  a  ntUlo  est:  neque  foetus,  nee  &c.  The  Father 
is  of  none:  neither  made  nor  created,  &c.  And  thus  the  next 
article  ( I7ie  Son  is  of  the  Father  alone)  would  better  answer, 
and  the  whole  would  be  more  elegant.  But  having  met  with  no 
copy*^  to  countenance  such  a  correction,  I  must  not  pretend  to 
it,  lest  it  should  appear  like  correcting  the  author.  However, 
the  sense  is  very  plain  and  obvious.    All  the  three  negatives  here 

^  Lazarus  Baifius's  copy,  in  Gene-  Indeed,  the  first  Greek  copy  in  Labbe's 

brard,  reads  6  narffp  an  ovh€v6s  ian.  Councils,  and  third  in  Montfaucon, 

But   then  it  entirely  omits  iroitirht,  run  in  such  a  way  as  I  suppose :   but 

whicb,  as  is  plain  from  what  follows  then  I  take  them  to  have  been  patched 

in  the  Creed,  ought  not  to  be  omitted,  up  from  several  distinct  copies,  at  the 

Had  the  copy  run  thus,  air'  ovhtv6s  pleasure  of  the  editor  or  editors  :  and 

coTi,  oCfrc  ix^v  iroiTjT6s,  oiht  KTi(rr6s  &c.  none  of  the  Latin  copies  will  warrant 

it  would  have  answered  my  meaning,  such  a  reading. 


predicated  of  the  Father  amount  to  this  one,  that  he  is  abso- 
lutely of  none :  this  is  his  peculiar  property,  his  distinguishing 
character,  to  be  frst  in  or€lery  and  the  head  of  every  thing ;  to 
whom  even  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  are  referred,  but  diversly 
and  in  different  manner. 

21.  The  Son  is  of  the  Father  alone  ;  not  made^  nor  created^  but 

The  Son  is  here  said  to  be  of  the  Father  alone,  in  contra- 
distinction to  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  be  named  after,  who  is  not  of 
the  Father  alone,  but  of  both.  The  Greeks  that  struck  out  the 
words,  and  of  the  Son^  below,  and  left  the  word  alone  here,  were 
not  aware  of  it.  This  conduct  of  theirs  betrayed  a  shortness  of 
thought,  and  at  the  same  time  served  to  shew  that  the  Latins 
had  not  been  interpolators  of  the  Creed,  but  that  the  Greeks  had 
been  curtailers.  It  must  however  be  owned,  that  the  Greeks 
who  drew  up  that  form  which  Bishop  Usher  printed  from  Junius 
were  wise  enough  to  observe  how  this  matter  stood  ;  and  there- 
fore struck  out  the  word  alone  here,  as  well  as  and  of  the  Son, 

22.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son ;  neither 
made,  nor  created,  nor  begotten^  but  proceeding. 

The  peculiar  and  distinguishing  character  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
is  to  proceed,  and  to  proceed  both  hovOi  Father  and  Son.  Indeed, 
the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  are  both  of  the  Father,  but  in  a  different 
manner,  to  us  inexplicable ;  one  by  the  way  of  generation,  the 
other  by  procession^  though  the  word  procession,  in  a  lax  sense, 
has  been  sometimes  applied  to  either.  However,  to  proceed 
from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  or,  as  the  Greeks  will  needlessly 
csLvil,  from  the  Fathet*  by  the  Son;  that  is  peculiar  to  the  Holy 
Ghost.  The  Greeks  and  Latins  have  had  many  and  tedious  dis- 
putes about  the  procession.  One  thing  is  observable,  that  though 
the  ancients,  appealed  to  by  both  parties,  have  often  said  that 
the  Holy  Ghost  proceeds  from  the  Father^  without  mentioning 
the  Son,  yet  they  never  said  that  he  proceeded  from  the  Father 
alone ;  so  that  the  modem  Greeks  have  certainly  innovated  in 
that  article,  in  expression  at  least,  if  not  in  real  sense  and 
meaning.  As  to  the  Latins,  they  have  this  to  plead,  that  non® 
of  the  ancients  ever  condemned  their  doctrine ;  that  many  of 
them  have  expressly  asserted  it;  that  the  Oriental  churches 
themselves  rather  condemn  their  taking  upon  them  to  add  any 
thing  to  a  Creed  formed  in  a  general  council,  than  the  doctrine 


itself;  that  those  Greek  churches  that  charge  their  doctrine  as 
heresy,  yet  are  forced  to  admit  much  the  same  thing,  only  in 
different  words ;  and  that  Scripture  itself  is  plain  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  proceeds  at  least  by  the  Son,  if  not  from  him ;  which  yet 
amounts  to  the  same  thing. 

I  should  here  observe,  that  some  time  before  the  compiling  of 
this  Creed,  the  usual  Catholic  way  of  speaking  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  to  say,  that  he  was  nee  geniius^  nee  ingenitus^  neither 
begotten  nor  unbcgotten^  while  this  Creed,  by  barely  denying  him 
to  be  begotten^  seems  to  leave  room  to  think  that  he  is  unbegotten. 
This  raised  a  scruple  in  the  minds  of  some,  here  in  England, 
concerning  that  part  of  the  Creed,  above  seven  hundred  years 
ago ;  as  we  learn  from  Abbo  Floriacensis  of  that  time.  For 
Gregory's  Synodicon  admitted  here,  as  well  as  this  Creed,  had 
the  very  expression  concerning  the  Holy  Ghost,  nee  ingenitus^ 
nee  genitus.  It  might  have  been  easy  to  end  the  dispute,  only 
by  distinguishing  upon  the  equivocal  meaning  of  the  word 
ingenitus.  It  had  been  taken  from  the  Greek  iyivrjTos,  which 
signifies  not  barely  unbegotten^  but  absolutely  underived:  in 
this  sense  the  Holy  Ghost  could  not  be  said  to  be  ingenitus. 
But  if  it  barely  means  not  begotten^  it  may  be  applied  to  him,  as 
it  is  in  the  Creed.  The  whole  difficulty  then  arose  only  from 
the  scantiness  of  the  Latin  tongue,  in  not  affording  a  single 
word  which  should  fully  express  the  Greek,  ayivryro^^  unoriginate. 
Ingenitus  might  tolerably  do  it ;  but  the  word  was  more  com- 
monly taken  in  a  narrower  construction.  Peter  Abelard  has 
hit  off  the  whole  difficulty  very  clearly ;  whose  words  therefore 
I  have  thrown  into  the  margin*. 

23.  80  there  is  one  Father^  not  three  Fathers  ;  one  Son^  not  three 
Sons ;  one  Holy  Ghost^  not  three  Holy  Ghosts. 

Whether  this  paragraph  be  borrowed  from  St.  Austin,  or 
from  an  elder  writer  under  the  name  of  Ignatius.  I  know  not. 
The  foundation  of  it  was  laid  in  1  Cor.  viii.  6.  "  One  God  the 
"  Father,"  and  "  one   Lord   Jesus   Christ ;""  to   which   it   was 

^  Solum  itaque  Patretn  ingenUum  tamen  ideo  est  ingenitus,  cum  ipse  ab 

dicimus,  hoc  est,  a  seipso  non  ab  alio :  alio  sit,  tam  a  Patre  scilicet  quam  a 

unde  AufjTustinus  adversus  Felicianum  Filio  procedens.     Sights  itaque  Pater 

Arianum;  Patrem  ingenitvm  dico,  quia  ingenitus  dicitur,   sicut   solus   Filius 

non  processit  ab  aUero—AXiud  ita-  genitus :    Spiritus  vero  Sanctus  nee 

que  dicere  est  Patrem  ingenitum,  aliud  genitus   est,  nee   ingenitus,   sed,   ut 

nongenitum Spiritus  vero  Sanctus  dictum  est,  non  genitus.      Abalard. 

ipse  quoque    est    non  genitus — Nee  Introd.  ad  Theolog,  lib.  i.  p.  983. 


usual  to  add,  after  reciting  it,  and  one  Holy  Ghost^  to  complete 
the  whole  number  of  the  divine  Persons.  The  intent  and  pur- 
port of  the  words^  in  this  Creed,  is  to  set  forth  the  distinction  of 
the  three  Persons,  and  their  several  offices  and  characters :  that 
there  is  one  Father^  and  that  he  alone  is  unoriginate,  is  first 
Person,  is  Head,  &c.  and  neither  the  Son  nor  Holy  Ghost  have 
any  share  in  these  titles  or  characters,  to  make  three  Unori" 
ginates^  three  Heads,  &c.  That  there  is  one  Son,  and  he  alone 
begotten,  and  afterwards  incarnate,  &c.  which  characters  and 
offices  belong  not  to  the  other  two,  but  are  distinct,  and  appro- 
priate to  one.  And  there  is  one  Holy  Ghost,  whose  character  is 
to  proceed,  and  whose  office  is  to  sanctify,  which  character  and 
office  are  not  to  be  ascribed,  in  the  same  sense,  to  the  other 
two :  for  that  would  be  confounding  the  personal  characters  and 
offices,  and  making  three  Holy  Ghosts,  instead  of  one. 

24.  And  in  this  Trinity,  none  is  afore  or  after  other ;  none  is 
greater  or  less  than  another  /  but  the  whole  three  Persons  are  co- 
eternal  together,  and  coequal. 

The  compiler  of  the  Creed  now  returns  to  the  equality  and 
unity  of  the  Persons ;  that  he  may  at  length  sum  up  and  throw 
into  a  short  compass  what  he  had  said  upon  the  Trinity,  before 
he  should  pass  on  to  the  other  great  article,  the  Incarnation. 
When  it  is  said,  none  is  afore  or  after  other,  we  are  not  to  under- 
stand it  of  order ;  for  the  Father  ia  first,  the  Son  second,  and  the 
Holy  Ghost  third  in  order.  Neither  are  we  to  understand  it  of 
office;  for  the  Father  is  supreme  in  office,  while  the  Son  and 
Holy  Ghost  condescend  to  inferior  offices.  But  we  are  to 
understand  it,  as  the  Creed  itself  explains  it,  of  duration 
and  of  dignify  ;  in  which  respect,  none  is  afore  or  after, 
none  greater  or  less,  but  the  whole  three  Persons  coeternal  and 

25.  So  that  in  all  things,  as  is  aforesaid,  the  Unity  in  Trinity 
and  the  Trinity  in  Unity  is  to  be  worshipped. 

In  all  things,  (per  omnia,)  as  is  aforesaid.  One  of  the  Greek 
copies  tacks  these  words  to  the  former  article,  making  them 
run  thus;  coequal  in  all  things,  as  aforesaid.  Another  Greek 
copy  reads  them  thus,  coequal  in  all  things :  so  that  in  all  things, 
as  is  now  said,  &c.  Both  interpret  the  all  things  of  the  coequal- 
ity  in  all  things.  And  indeed  Venantius  Fortunatus,  in  his 
comment,  long  before,  seems  to  have  understood  per  omnia  in 
the  same  way,  to  signify  that  the  Son  is  what  the  Father  is,  in 


all  essential  or  eubstantial  perfections.  And  it  is  favoured  both 
by  what  goes  before  and  after:  for  from  speaking  of  the 
eoeternity  and  caequcUity,  the  author  proceeds  to  say,  So  that  in 
all  things,  as  aforesaid,  the  Unity  in  Trinity  and  the  Trinity  in 
Unity  is  to  be  worshipped ;  namely,  on  account  of  their  perfect 
coeternity  and  coequality :  to  which  he  subjoins,  He  tlierefore  that 
will  be  saved^  &c.  Wherefore  I  incline  to  the  moderate  opinion 
of  those  who  tliink  that  the  author  here  does  not  lay  the  stress 
upon  every  little  nicety  of  explication  ^^  before  given,  but  upon 
the  main  doctrine,  of  a  coequal  and  coetemal  Trinity.  Which  is 
the  very  construction  given  by  Hincmar,  nine  hundred  years 
ago,  or  nearly  ^  And  Wickliff's  comment  upon  the  same  pas- 
sage, when  put  into  a  modern  dress,  may  appear  not  contempti- 
ble. "  And  so  we  conclude  here,  as  is  before  said,  that  there  is 
"  both  an  Unity  of  Godhead,  and  a  Trinity  of  Persons ;  and 
"  tliat  the  Trinity  in  this  Unity  is  to  be  worshipped  above  all 
"  things ;  and  whosoever  will  be  saved  must  thus  think  of  the 
"  Trinity,  if  not  thus  explicitly,  (or  in  every  particular,)  yet 
"  thus  in  the  general,  or  implicitly."" 

26.  He  therefore  that  will  be  saved  must  thus  think  of  the 

Thus,  as  consisting  of  three  Persons,  coeternal  and  coequal^  and 
all  one  God ;  distinct  enough  to  be  three^  united  enough  to  be 
one  ;  distinct  without  division,  united  without  confusion. 

27.  Furthermore^  it  is  necessary  to  everlasting  salvation^  that  he 
also  believe  rightly^  the  Incarnation  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

Much  depends  upon  our  having  true  and  just  sentiments  of 
the  Incarnation^  in  which  the  whole  economy  of  our  salvation  is 
nearly  concerned.     To  corrupt  and  deprave  this  doctrine  is  to 

^  Le  Quien's  ingenuous  and  hand-  ^  Et  in  hac  Trinitate  nihil  est  prius, 

some  reflection,  upon  the  conduct  of  nihil '  posteriusj     nihil  ^  majus,    aut 

Pope  Gregory  the   IXth's   Legates,  minus;  sed  totse  tres  Personae  coae- 

may  deserve  a  recital  here.  temae  sibi  sunt  et  coaequales  :  ita  ut 

Quamquam  non  possum  quin  in-  per   omnia^    et    Unitas    Deitatis    in 

genue  fatear  nuncios  apostolicos  con-  Trinitate     Personarum,    et    Trinitas 

suUius  facturos  fuisse,  si  ab  ejusmodi  Personarum  in  Unitate  Deitatis  vene- 

sententia  pronuntianda  sibi  temperas-  randa  est.    Hincm,  de  non  TWn.  Deit. 

sent ;    Qui  credit  Spiritum  Sanctum  torn.  i.  p.  540. 

non  procedere   ex  Filio,  in  via  per-  ™  *Op6S>s  marevfTjj,     So  Bryling's 

ditionis  est :    tunc  quippe  temporis  Greek  copy.    ITie  Latin  copies  have 

Ecclesia  Catholica  in   nulla  synodo  fideliter  credat.     Some  Greek  copies 

generali  hoc  de  capite  judicium  de-  read  irurrcos,  or  fif^aias,  though  two, 

finitorium    tulerat.      Panopl,    contr,  besides  Bryling's,  have  also  6p3S>s. 
Schism,  Greecor.  p.  360. 


defeat  and  frustrate,  in  a  great  measure,  the  gospel  of  Christ, 
which  bringeth  salvation ;  wherefore  it  is  of  great  moment,  of 
everlasting  ooncemment  to  us,  not  to  be  guilty  of  doing  it  our- 
selves, nor  to  take  part  with  those  that  do. 

28.  For  the  fight  Faith  U,  that  toe  believe  and  con/esSy  that  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  Ood^  is  God  and  Man. 

There  have  been  heretics  who  would  not  allow  that  our 
Saviour  Christ  was  man,  but  in  such  a  sense  as  a  shadow,  or  a 
picture  of  a  man,  may  be  called  a  man :  and  there  have  been 
others  who  would  not  allow  that  Christ  is  God^  but  in  such  a 
sense  as  any  creature  whatever  might  be  called  or  may  be  made 
a  God.  But  all  good  Christians  have  ever  abhorred  those  vile 
tenets,  and  conformably  to  Scripture,  rightly  and  justly  inter- 
preted, have  believed  and  confessed  that  Christ  is  both  really 
God  and  reaUy  man,  one  Grod-man. 

29.  Oody  of  the  Substance  of  the  Father^  begotten  before  the 
worlds;  and  MaUy  of  t/ie  Substance  of  his  Mother,  bom  in  the 

We  are  forced  to  be  thus  particular  and  expressive,  in  the 
wording  of  this  article,  because  of  the  many  wiles,  equivocations, 
and  disguises  of  those  who  endeavour  to  corrupt  the  faith. 
The  Arians  make  of  Christ  a  created  God,  and  call  him  God  on 
account  only  of  his  officCy  and  not  of  his  nature  or  unchangeable 
substance.  For  this  reason,  we  are  obliged  to  be  particular  in 
expressing  his  substancSy  as  being  not  frail,  mutablsy  perishing,  as 
the  substance  of  creatures  is,  but  eternal  and  unchangeable,  and 
all  one  with  the  Father^s.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Apollinarians 
and  other  heretics  have  pretended,  either  that  Christ  had  no 
human  body  at  all,  or  that  he  brought  it  with  him  from  heaven, 
and  took  it  not  of  the  Virgin-Mother :  we  are  therefore  forced 
to  be  particular  in  this  profession,  that  he  was  man  of  the  «f^ 
stance  of  his  mother :  which,  though  it  be  not  taught  in  eoopress 
words,  yet  is  very  plainly  the  sense  and  meaning  of  holy  Scrip- 
ture on  this  article ;  and  was  never  questioned,  till  conceited 
men  came  to  pervert  the  true  doctrine  of  sacred  Writ  by  false 
glosses  and  comments  of  their  own. 

30.  Perfect  Gody  and  perfect  Man  of  a  reasonable  soul  and 
human  fesh  subsisting. 

Here  again,  the  perverseness  of  heretics  has  made  it  necessary 
to  guard  the  faith  by  strong  and  expressive  words  that  cannot 
easily  be  eluded.     Christ  ia  perfect  God,  not  such  a  nominal  im- 



perfect  God  as  Arians  and  Photinians  pretend.  He  is  moreover 
perfect  man^  which  it  is  necessary  to  insist  upon  against  the 
Apollinarians,  who  pretended  that  he  had  a  h,wfnan  body  only 
without  any  rational  soul ;  imagining  the  Loffos  to  have  supplied 
the  place  of  the  rational  or  reasonable  soul :  whereas  in  reality 
he  had  both  eotil  and  bodf,  as  all  men  have,  and  was  therefore 
perfect  man. 

31.  Equal  to  the  Father,  as  touching  his  Godhead :  and  inferior 
to  the  Father^  as  touching  his  Manhood. 

Which  needs  no  comment. 

32.  Who  although  he  be  God  and  Man^  yet  he  is  not  two,  but  one 

This  is  said,  to  guard  against  calumny  and  misconstruction. 
For  because  the  Church  asserted  tu:o  natures  in  Christ,  whereby 
he  is  both  perfect  God  and  perfect  man,  the  Apollinarians,  having 
an  hypothesis  of  their  own  to  serve^  pretended  that  this  was 
making  tvs)  Christs,  a  divine  Christ  as  to  one  nature^  and  a 
human  Christ  in  the  other:  which  was  a  vain  thought,  since 
both  the  natures  joined  in  the  one  God-man  make  still  but  one 
Christy  both  God  and  man. 

33.  One,  not  by  conversion  of  the  Godhead  into  fleshy  but  by  taking 
of  the  Manhood  into  God. 

The  Apollinarian  way  of  making  one  Christ  by  confounding 
the  two  natures  in  one,  and  by  subjecting  the  Godhead  to  change, 
is  here  condemned.  There  is  no  need  of  running  these  injudi- 
cious and  absurd  lengths  for  solving  the  difficulty  how  the  two 
natures  make  one  Christ:  he  did  not  change  his  divine  nature, 
or  convert  it  into  Jlesh,  though  he  be  said  to  have  been  made 
flesh ;  he  took  flesh  upon  him,  he  assumed  human  nature,  took 
man  into  an  union  with  God,  and  thus  was  he  one  Christ. 

34.  One  altogether,  not  by  confusion  of  Substance,  but  by  unity  of 

We  are  thus  forced  to  distinguish,  with  the  utmost  nicety 
and  accuracy,  to  obviate  the  cavils  and  pretences  of  heretics. 
Christ  then  is  one  altogether,  entirely  one,  though  his  two  natures 
remain  distinct.  He  is  not  one  by  confounding  or  mingling  two 
natures  or  substances  into  one  nature  or  substance,  (as  the 
Apollinarians  pretended,)  but  by  uniting  them  both  in  one  Person ; 
one  I,  one  He,  one  Christ,  as  Scripture  every  where  represents. 

35.  For  as  the  reasonable  soul  cmd flesh  is  one  man;  so  God  and 
Man  is  one  Christ. 


That  is  to  say,  there  are  two  Yeiy  distinct  and  different  sab* 
stances  in  man,  a  bodjf  and  a  mml;  one  material,  the  other 
immaterial,  one  mortal,  the  other  immortal;  and  both  theae 
substances,  nevertheless,  make  up  bot  one  mam.  Not  by  com- 
fnmding  or  nUngUng  those  two  different  substances,  (for  they 
are  entirely  dittinci,  and  diffsrenlt  and  will  ever  remain  so,)  but 
by  uniting  them  in  om  Person.  Even  so  may  the  two  distinct 
natures,  divine  and  human,  in  Christ,  make  one  Person  ;  and  this 
is  really  and  truly  the  case  in  fact. 

^6.  Who  suffered  for  our  salvatiouy  descended  into  hell,  ros^e 
again  the  third  day  from  the  dead. 

The  author  having  finished  his  explication  of  the  great  article 
of  God  incarnate,  now  goes  on  to  other  parts  of  the  Creed,  such 
as  were  commonly  inserted  in  the  Creeds  before.  The  article  of 
the  descent  into  heU  had  not  indeed,  at  this  time,  come  into  the 
Roman,  otherwise  called  the  Apostles'  Creed ;  but  it  had  been 
inserted  in  the  Creed  of  Aquileia,  and  had  been  all  along  the 
standing  doctrine  of  the  Church.  I  shall  leave  it,  as  our  Church 
has  left  it,  without  any  particular  interpretation ;  referring  the 
reader  to  those  who  have  commented  on  the  Apostles'*  Creed, 
and  particularly  to  the  much  admired  author  of  the  history  of  it, 
who  hath  exhausted  the  subject. 

37.  He  ascended  into  heaven,  he  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  the 
Father,  God  Almighty,  from  whence  he  shall  come  to  judge  the 
quick  and  the  dead. 

These  are  all  so  many  articles  of  the  Roman  Creed,  and  pro- 
bably taken  from  it:  excepting  only,  that  the  words  God  Al- 
mighty appear  not  in  the  most  ancient  manuscripts ;  and,  very 
probably,  were  not  originally  in  this  Creed,  any  more  than  in 
the  ancient  Roman. 

38.  At  whose  coming  all  men  shall  rise  again  with  their  bodies, 
and  shall  give  account  for  their  own  toorks. 

Here  are  two  very  expressive  phrases,  all  men^  all  that  have 
died,  or  shall  die,  to  obviate  the  false  opinion  of  a  partial  resur- 
rection ;  and  toith  their  bodies,  to  obviate  the  notion  of  those,  who 
either  thought  that  the  soul  only  should  continue  for  ever,  while 
the  body  should  be  left  to  perish,  or  that  the  resurrection-body 
should  be  quite  of  another  matter,  form,  or  kind,  than  what  our 
bodies  are  here.  I  have  hinted  in  my  Latin  notes  above,  that 
some  words  are  wanting  in  the  Ambrosian  manuscript ;  and  I 
may  here  observe  further,  that  in  the  words  of  the  Creed,  as 


they  commonly  run,  there  is  not  all  the  accuracy  that  might 
have  been :  for  aU  men  shall  not  rise,  but  only  all  that  die. 
However,  it  seems  that  about  that  time  there  was  some  variety 
of  sentiments  in  respect  of  that  article,  as  we  may  learn  from 
GFennadius" ;  which  was  owing  to  the  different  reading  of  i  Cor. 
XV.  5 1 .  from  whence  probably  arose  some  variation  in  the  copies 
of  this  Creed.     See  Pearson  on  the  Apostles'  Creed,  Artie.  7. 

39.  And  they  that  have  done  good  shall  go  into  life  everlaeting, 
avd  they  that  have  done  evil  into  everlasting  fire. 

This  is  the  express  doctrine  of  Scripture,  and  appears  almost 
in  the  same  words,  John  v.  28.  Matt.  xxv.  46.  to  say  nothing  of 
many  other  texts  to  the  same  effect.  Yet  this  article,  or  rather 
these  two  articles,  had  not  gained  admittance  into  the  Apostles' 
Creed  so  early  as  the  fourth  century,  the  latter  of  them  not  at 
all.  But,  I  suppose,  the  opinion  said  to  have  been  started  by 
Origen,  that  wicked  men,  and  even  devils,  after  a  certain  revo- 
lution, should  have  their  release  and  restoration,  might  make  it 
the  more  necessary,  or  convenient  at  least,  to  insert  these  articles 
in  the  Creeds,  and  to  express  the  punishment  of  the  damned  by 
the  words  eternal  fire :  for  the  Origenists,  at  that  time,  denied 
both  the  eternity  of  the/r^,  and  also  its  reaUty^  as  appears  from 
Orosius  in  St.  Austin^. 

40.  Thie  is  the  Catholic  Faith^  which  except  a  man  believe  faith- 
fully P,  he  cannot  be  saved. 

This  is  to  be  understood,  like  all  other  such  general  propo- 
sitions, with  proper  reserves  and  qualifying  constructions.     As 

^  Omnium  hominum   erit   resur-  clesise    lege,    carnis    resarrectionem 

rectio;   si  omnium  erit,  erao  omnes  credere  futuram  de  morte.     Crennad. 

moriuntur,  ut  more  ab  A(£un  ducta  Eccles.  Dogm.  c.  7. 

omnibus  filiis  cgus  dominetur,  et  ma-  ^  Ignem  sane  aetemum,  qno  pecca- 

neat  illnd  privilegium  in  Domino,  auod  tores  puniantur,  neque  esse  ignem  ve- 

de  eo  specialiter  dicttur:  Non  aabis  rum,  neque  atemum  predicaverunt, 

sanctum    tuum   videre    corruptionem,  dicentes  dictum  esse  ignem  proprise 

Hanc  rationem,  maxima  patnim  conscientie  punitionem,  tBtemum  au- 

turba  tradente,  suscepimus.    Verum  tern,  juxta  etjrmologiam  Grsecam,  non 

quia  sunt  et  alii,  seque  Catholici  et  este  jperpetuum,  &c.     Epist.   Orosii 

eraditi  viri,  qui  credunt,  aniraa  in  ad  August,  inter  Aug.  C^.  tom.  viii. 

corpore  manente,  mutandos  ad  incor-  p.  607. 

ruptionem  et  immortalitatem  eos  qui  p  UiarSis  frurrrvcn/.  So  Bryling's 
in  adventu  Domini  vivi  inveniendi  copy,  which  our  translators  followed, 
sunt,  et  hoc  eis  reputari  pro  resurreC'  The  Latin  copies  hsyefideliter,Jir- 
tione  ex  mortals,  quod  mortalitatem  nUterque  crediderit.  And  the  other 
immutatione  denonant,  non  morte;  Greek  copies,  iriar&s  rt  koX  jSf/Sdca^r 
quolibet  ^uis  aaquiescat  modo,  non  frurr€vaTj.  Or,  cV  martms  ^€palvs  fre- 
est hapreticus,  nisi  ex  contentione  artvarf, 
hsereticus  fiat.     Sufficit  enun  in  £c- 


for  iDfltance,  if  after  laying  down  a  system  of  Christian  morality, 
it  be  said.  This  is  the  Chrittian  pradiee,  which  except  a  man  faith- 
fMy  observe  and  follow^  he  cannot  be  saved;  it  would  be  no  more 
than  right  and  just  thus  to  say :  but  no  one  could  be  supposed 
hereby  to  exclude  any  such  merciful  abatements,  or  aUowances, 
as  shtdl  be  made  for  men^s  particular  circumstances,  weaknesses, 
frailties,  ignorance,  inability,  or  the  like  ;  or  for  their  sincere  ii>- 
tentions,  and  honest  desires  of  knowing,  and  doing  the  whole  will 
of  God ;  accompanied  with  a  general  repentance  of  their  sins^ 
mid  a  firm  reliance  upon  God's  mercy,  through  the  sole  merits  of 
Christ  Jesus.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  however,  but  that  men 
are  accountable  for  their /at^A,  as  well  as  for  ihexv  practice :  and 
especially  if  they  take  upon  them  to  instruct  and  direct  others, 
trusting  to  their  own  strength  and  parts,  against  the  united 
judgment  and  verdict  of  whole  churches  ancient  and  modem. 


T%e  Church  of  England  vindicated^  both  as  to  the  receiving  and 
retaining  the  Athanasian  Creed. 

THERE  would  be  no  occasion  for  this  chapter,  had  not  a 
tate  author^  of  name  and  character,  out  of  his  abundant  zeal  to 
promote  Arianism,  taken  upon  him  to  disparage  this  excellent 
form  of  faith ;  nay,  and  to  apply,  with  some  earnestness,  to  the 
governors  of  our  Churchy  to  get  it  laid  aside.  He  thinks  ''  it 
''  may  well  deserve  the  most  serious  and  deliberate  consideration 
**  of  the  governors  of  the  Church,  whether  it  would  not  be  more 
^  advantageous  to  the  true  interest  of  the  Christian  religion,  to 
**  retain  only  those  more  indisputable  forms9  f^  that  is,  to  have 
this  wholly  taken  away,  or  at  least  not  imposed  in  our  Articles 
or  Liturgy.  Then  he  subjoins  his  reasons :  which  because  they 
may  be  presumed  to  be  the  closest  and  strongest  that  can  b^ 
offered  on  that  side,  and  because  they  have  hitherto  stood  with- 
out any  particular  confutation  on  one  hand,  or  retractation  on 
the  other,  I  shall  here  take  upon  me  to  answer  them,  as  briefly 
as  may  be. 

Objection  L 

The  first  is,  that  ''  this  Creed  is  confessed  not  to  be  Athana- 

^  Clarke's  Script.  Doctr.  edit,  ist,  p.  446,  447. 


**  sius'By  but  the  composition  of  an  uncertain  obscure  author, 
*^  written  in  one  of  the  darkest  and  most  ignorant  ages  of  the 
*'  Church ;  having  never  appeared  till  about  the  year  800,  nor 
"  been  received  in  the  Church  till  so  very  late  as  about  the  year 
"  1000." 

Answ.  As  to  the  fabe  facts  contained  in  this  article,  I  need 
only  refer  to  the  preceding  sheets.  As  to  the  Creed  being  none 
of  Athanasius's,  which  is  certainly  true^  it  is  to  be  considered, 
that  our  Church  receives  it  not  upon  the  atUhoriiy  of  its  com- 
piler, nor  determines  any  thing  about  its  (iffe  or  author:  but  we 
receive  it  because  the  truth  of  the  doctrines  contained  in  it 
"  may  be  proved  by  most  certain  warrants  of  holy  Scripture," 
as  is  expressly  said  in  our  eighth  article.  I  may  add,  that  the 
0arly  and  general  reception  of  this  Creed  by  Greeks  and  Latins, 
by  all  the  western  churches,  not  only  before,  but  since  the  Be» 
formation^  must  needs  give  it  a  much  greater  authority  and 
foeight  than  the  single  name  of  Athanasius  could  do,  were  it  ever 
so  justly  to  be  set  to  it.  Athanasius  has  left  some  Creeds  and 
Confessions,  undoubtedly  his,  which  yet  never  have  obtained  the 
esteem  and  reputation  that  this  hath  done:  because  none  of 
them  are  really  of  the  same  intrinsic  value,  nor  capable  of  doing 
the  like  service  in  the  Christian  churches.  The  use  of  it  is,  to 
be  a  standing  fenc6  and  preservative  against  the  wiles  and  equi- 
vocations of  most  kinds  of  heretics.  This  was  well  understood 
by  Luther,  when  he  called  it,  a  bulwark  to  the  Apostles'  Creed^ ; 
much  to  the  same  purpose  with  what  has  been  above  cited  from 
Ludolphus  Saxo".  And  it  was  this  and  the  like  considerations 
that  have  all  along  made  it  to  be  of  such  high  esteem  among  all 
the  reformed  churches^  from  the  days  of  their  great  leader. 

Object.  II. 
The  second  reason  assigned  for  laying  this  form  aside  is, 
*'  that  it  is  so  worded,  as  that  many  of  the  common  people  cannot 

'  Athanasii  scilicet  Symbolum  est  Causa  miiltiplicationis  Svmbolomm 

paulo  prolixius,  et  ad   confutandos  fuit  triplex :  tnstntctio  fidei,  veritoHs 

Arianos  hsereticos,  aliquanto  uberius    explanation  erroris  exclusio. Erro- 

dedarat  et  illustrat  articulum  alterum  ris  exclusio,  propter  haereses  multi- 

de  divinitate  Christi  Jesu estque  plices  pullulantes,  causa  fuit  Symbuli 

hoc  velut  propugnaculum  priroi  illnis  Atbanasii,  quod  cantatur  in  prima. 

Apostolici  S3rmlK»li.   Luther,  de  Trib.  Alewand,  Alms.  part.  iii.  Q.  69.  Membr. 

Symbol,  Qper.  torn.  vii.  p.  138.  ii.  P*  541.     Jonan.  Januensis  in  his 

■  Thus  also  Alexanoer  of  Hales,  CathoUcon,  (an.  1286.)  under  tymho* 

100  years  before  liudcdpbus.  Iwn,  says  the  same  thing. 


^  bat  be  too  apt  to  nndenUnd  it  in  a  sense  &Toiiring  eitlMr 
^  SabelKamsm  or  DrUtum." 

Akbw.  This  objeetioQ  is  not  pertieiilmrly  lefdled  agminst  this 
Creed,  but  against  aD  Creeds  eontaining  the  doctrine  of  a  eotUmml 
Triniiy  in  Uniif:  it  is  therefore  an  objeetioa  rather  against  the 
faith  of  the  CkurdL,  (whieh  those  gentlemen  endeavour  con* 
stantly  to  run  down,  nnd^*  the  notion  of  SeAMimmtm  or  7W* 
ikeitmy)  than  against  this  particular  form  of  expressing  it 

I  may  farther  add,  that  the  coMsioaj^tfopb  will  be  in  no  danger 
of  rnnning  either  into  SahelUanism  <Nr  Triikri$m^  if  they  attend 
to  the  Creed  iUdf^  (which  fully  obviates  and  confutes  both  those 
heresies,)  instead  of  listening  to  those  who  first  industriously 
labour  to  deceive  them  into  a  false  construction  of  the  Greed,  and 
then  complain  of  the  common  people's  being  too  apt  to  minunder- 
stand  it.  This  is  not  ingenuous  nor  upright  dealing  with  the 
common  people, 

OsjEcrr.  III. 

A  third  reason  is,  that  '^  there  are  in  this  Creed  many  phraseti 

"  which may  seem  to  give  unbelievers  a  needless  advantage 

'*  of  objecting  against  religion  ;  and  among  believers  thomfiolvofi, 
^'  eannot  but  to  the  vulgar  have  too  much  the  appearance  of 
^^  contradictions  :  and  sometimes  (especially  the  <laniiiaioi*y 
*^  clauses)  have  given  oiTence  to  the  piousest  and  moMt  loarnod 
**  men,  insomuch  as  to  have  been  the  prinoipal  nmNon  of  Mft 
"  Chillingworth's  refusing  to  subscribe  the  XXXIX  Artlultt**.'' 

Answ.  As  to  unbelievers  and  their  objections^  the  Ohuroh  has 
been  always  able  and  willing  to  answer  thcni ;  Morry  at  the  Maine 
time  to  find  that  any,  who  call  thcmMclveM  (Jhi'iMtiauM,  Mlunild 
join  with  the  unbelievers  in  the  same  triflhig  ohjeutlons,  thereby 
giving  the  unbelievers  a  very  needless  advantape,  and  tlie  most 
pernicious  encouragement.  As  to  vulgar  bellevem,  they  mi«|)eot 
no  contradictions,  till  some,  who  think  themwelves  above  the 
vulgar^  labour  to  create  such  a  suspicion  hi  them.  Leavct  the 
vulgar  to  their  better  guides,  and  their  true  orthodox!  pastors, 
without  endeavouring  to  corrupt  or  uduce  them  ;  and  then  all 
will  be  safe  and  easy. 

As  to  Mr.  Chillingworth,  he  had  for  a  while,  it  Is  owned,  some 
scruples  upon  him,  about  the  Fourth  Oomrnandmerd  as  apper^ 
iaining  to  Christians,  and  about  the  damnatory  clauses  in  the 
Athanasian  Creed ;  and  therefore  refused  to  subscribe  for  a  time. 
This  was  in  the  year  1635.     But  within  three  years  after,  upon 


more  mature  consideration,  he  happily  got  over  his  difficulties, 
and  subscribed^  July  the  20th,  in  the  year  1638 ;  as  stands  upon 
record  in  the  Office  of  Sarum,  where  he  was  instituted  Chan- 
cellor of  the  Church  ^ 

Object.  IV. 

A  fourth  reason  offered,  not  for  laying  aside  this  Creed,  I 
suppose,  but  for  the  governors'  taking  it  into  consideration,  is, 
that  "  the  preface  to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  declares  that 
^*  particular  forms  of  divine  worship,  and  rites  and  ceremonies 
''  appointed  to  be  used  therein,  being  things  in  their  own  nature 
"  indifferent  and  alterable,  may,  upon  the  various  exigency  of 
"  times  and  occasions,  be  changed  or  altered!^ 

Answ.  No  doubt  but  the  Church  may,  if  it  be  thought  proper 
or  expedient,  throw  out  all  the  Creeds  out  of  her  daily  Service, 
or  Articles^  and  retain  one  only,  in  the  Ojffice  of  Baptism,  as  for- 
merly. But,  I  suppose,  the  authors  of  the  preface  to  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer  had  no  thought  of  excluding  any  of  the  three 
Creeds  amongst  their  alterable  forms  of  worship,  or  rites  and 
ceremonies:  nor  will  the  revival  of  Arianism  be  ever  looked  upon 
OS  one  of  those  exigencies  of  times  that  shall  make  it  expedient 
to  part  with  our  Creeds ;  but  a  reason  rather  for  retaining  them 
the  more  firmly,  or  even  for  taking  them  in  again,  had  any  of 
them  ever  been  unhappily  thrown  out. 

Object.  V. 

A  further  reason  pleaded  is,  that  "Scripture  alone  is  suffi- 
**  cient ;  that  the  primitive  Church  was  very  cautious  about 
"  multiplying  Creeds ;  that  the  Council  of  Ephesus  forbad,  under 
"  the  penalty  of  an  anathema,  any  other  Creed  after  that  of  Nice 
*^  to  be  proposed  or  received  in  the  Church.'' 

Answ.  The  whole  design  and  end  of  Creeds  is  to  preserve 
the  rule  of  faith,  as  contained  in  the  holy  Scriptures,  and  not  in 
the  false  glosses  and  corrupt  inventions  of  men".  And  when 
endeavours  are  used  to  poison  those  fountains  of  truth  by  ill  com- 

^    Ego    Gulielmus    Chillingworth,  contentis  volens  et  ex  animo  subscribo, 

Clericus,  in  Artibus  Maipster,  ad  Can-  et  consensum  meum  eisdem  prsebeo, 

cellariatum  Ecclesise  Cathedralis  Bea-  vicesimo  die  Julii,  1638.     Gulielmus 

t»  Mariie  Sarum.  una  cum  Pnebenda  ChiUingworth, 

de  Brinworth,  alias  Brickleswortb,  in  ^  Oh  yhp  its  tto^tv  dvdpamois  crvpc- 

oomitatu  Northampton  Petriburgensis  tc^  ri  r^r  Trtorcois'  JXX*  c»c  ttoot;?  y/)a- 

dioeceseoB  in  eadem  ecclesia  fundata,  <hijs  ra  Koipiorrara  avWfx^^'^^  M*'<i^ 

et  eidem  Cancellariatui  annexa,  ad-  avarrXripo'iTriifTrjsiriaTfas  btdaaKoXiav, 

mittendus  et  instituendus,  omnibus  Cyrill,  Catech.  V,  c.  12.  p.  78. 
hisce  Articulis,  et  singulis  in  eisdem 


ments  and  forced  oonstruotioiis,  preservatives  must  be  thought 
on  to  keep  the  fountain /miv,  and  the  faith  sound  and  whole. 

Aa  to  the  primitive  churohes,  their  constant  way  was  to  en- 
large their  Greeds  in  proportion  to  the  growth  of  heresies ;  that 
so  fivery  eorrupiion  arising  to  the  faith  of  Christ  might  have  an 
immediate  remedjf :  without  which  prudent  and  wise  caution,  the 
faith  would  have  been  lost,  in  a  little  time,  through  the  wiles 
and  artifices  of  subtle,  intriguing  men. 

The  Council  of  Ephesus  made  no  order  against  new  Creeds^ 
that  is.  Creeds  still  more  and  more  enlarged,  if  there  should  be 
occasion,  but  against  a  newfaith^  (iripav  mlmvi)  a  faith  different 
from  and  r^^ugnant  to  that  of  Nice,  such  as  was  offered  by  the 
Nestorians  in  that  Council.  This  is  the  literal  construction,  and 
real  intended  meaning  of  that  decree  of  the  Ephesine  Council^  : 
though,  had  they  intended  it  against  the  receiving  any  other  form 
but  the  Nicene,  all  that  follows  from  it  is,  that  they  thought  no 
more  necessary  at  that  time ;  or  that  definitions  in  councils,  (as 
in  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  afterwards,)  or  condemnation  of 
heretical  tenets,  might  suffice,  leaving  the  baptismal  Creed  (all 
Creeds  were  such  at  that  time)  just  as  was  before.  However, 
the  practice  of  the  Church  afterwards,  in  mvltiplying  Creeds  as 
need  required,  at  the  same  time  that  they  acknowledged  the 
Ephesine  Council,  shews  fully  how  they  understood  it.  Nay,  the 
constant  reception  of  the  Constantinopolitan  Creed  (which  is  the 
Nicene  interpolated^  and  yet  was  never  understood  to  be  ex- 
cluded by  the  Ephesine  Canon)  shews  plainly  the  sense  of  the 
Synod  in  that  matter.  It  is  to  be  noted,  that  the  Ephesine 
Council,  by  Nicene  Creed,  meant  the  Nicene  strictly  so  calledJ, 
and  which  had  already  been  interpolated  by  the  Constantino- 
politan Council. 

Object.  VI. 

'Another  plea  offered  is,  that  in  the  year  1689  many  wise 

»  Vid.  Stephan.  de  Altimura  (i.  e.  "  Upon  these  Feasts,  Christmas- 

Le  Quien)  Panopliam  contra  Schism.  "  Day,  Easter-Day,  Ascension-Day, 

Graec.  p.  230,  158.  et  Dissertat.  Da-  "  Whit-Sunday,  Trinity-Sunday,  and 

mascen.  p.  14,  &c.  "  upon  All-Saints,  shall  be  said  at 

y  Vid.  Le  Quieti,  ibid.  p.  230.  et  "  Morning  Prayer,  by  the  minister 

Dissert.  Damascen.  p.  18.  **  and  people  standing,  instead  of  the 

«  Since  writing  the  above,  I  have  "  Creed,  commonly  called  the  Apo- 

received  a  copy  of  that  verv  Kubrick,  **  sties'  Creed,  this  confession  of  our 

which  I  shall  here  add,  tor  the  in-  **  Christian  faith,  commonly  called  the 

formation  of  the  reader,  and  to  put  an  "  Creed  of  St.  Athanasius  :  the  arti- 

end  to  all  further  dispute  ui)on  that  *'  cles  of  which  ouffht  to  be  received 

head.  **  and  believed  as  being  agreeable  to 


and  good  prelates  of  our  own  (commiEuiioned  to  rcfnew  and 
eorred  our  Liturgy)  ''  unanimously  agreed,  that  the  use  of  the 
*'  Athanasian  Greed  should  no  longer  be  imposed/' 

Aksw.  There  may  be  reason  to  question  the  truth  of  this 
report.  There  are  two  acoounts  which  I  have  seen  of  this 
matter ;  one  of  Dr.  Nichols,  the  other  of  Dr.  Calamy,  which  he 
received  of  a  friend.  Dr.  Nichols's  account  runs  thus :  ^'  Atha- 
*^  nasius^s  Greed  being  disliked  by  many,  because  of  the  damna- 
*^  tarf  clauses,  it  was  left  to  the  minuter^ s  choice,  either  to  use  it, 
**  or  to  change  it  for  the  Apostles^  Greed*.''  Dr.  Calamy's 
account  is  thus :  **  About  the  Athanasian  Greed  they  came  at 
'*  last  to  this  conclusion  :  that  lest  the  wholly  rejecting  it  should 
'^  by  unreasonable  persons  be  imputed  to  them  as  Soeinianism^ 
*'  a  Rubrick  shall  be  made,  setting  forth  or  declaring  the  curses 
'*  denounced  therein  not  to  be  restrained  to  every  particular 
''  article,  but  intended  against  those  that  deny  the  substance  of 
*'  the  Christian  religion  in  general^."  Now,  from  these  two 
accounts  compared,  it  may  be  reasonable  to  believe  that  those 
wise  and  good  prelates  had  once  drawn  up  a  scheme  to  be 
debated  and  canvassed,  in  which  scheme  it  was  proposed  to  leave 
every  minister  at  liberty  with  respect  to  the  Athanasian  Greed : 
but,  upon  more  mature  consideration,  they  came  at  last  to  this 
eanelnsian:  to  impose  the  Creed  as  before,  and  to  qualify  the 
seeming  harshness  of  the  damnatory  clauses  by  a  softening 
Rubrick.  They  were  therefore,  at  length,  unanimously  agreed 
still  to  retain  and  impose  this  Creed;  quite  contrary  to  the 
Objector's  report.  And  indeed  it  must  have  appeared  very 
astonishing  in  the  eyes  of  all  the  reformed  churches,  Lutheran 
and  Calvinist,  (who  have  the  greatest  veneration  for  this  Creed,) 
to  have  seen  it  wholly  rejected  by  the  English  Clergy,  when 
there  had  been  no  precedent  before  of  any  one  Church  in  Chris- 
tendom that  had  done  the  like.  All  that  ever  received  it  have 
constantly  retained  it,  and  still  retain  it.  It  is  further  to  be 
considered,  that  what  those  very  worthy  prelates  at  that  time 

**  the  holy  Scriptures.    And  the  con-  aa  it  stands  in  the  orioinal  book  now 

"  deroning  clauses  are  to  be  under-  in  the  hands  of  my  Lord  Bishop  of 

'*  stood  as  relating  only  to  those  who  London.    Novemb,  7, 1727. 
"  obstinately  deny  the  substance  of        *  Nicholsii  Apparat.   ad    Defens. 

"  the  Christian  fiuth."  Eocl.  Angl.  p.  05. 

This,  word  for  word,  is  the  Rubrick        ^  Calamy  s  I^e  of  Baxter,  vol.  i. 

as  it  was  settled  and  finally  agreed  p.  455. 
on  by  the  commissioners  in  1689,  and 


intended,  eprung  from  a  just  and  beooming  tendemeM  towards 
the  Disaenters,  because  of  their  long  scmples  against  the  dam" 
notary  clauses :  but  there  is  not  the  same  reason  at  this  day. 
The  wiser  and  more  moderate  part  of  the  dimenting  ministen^ 
seem  very  well  reconciled  to  the  damnatory  clauses,  modetdy 
eeqxmnded;  as  Dr.  Wallis  particularly  has  expounded  them, 
futily  and  truly,  as  well  as  modestly.  And  I  am  confident  the 
soberer  Dissenters  would  not,  at  this  time,  wish  to  see  so  excel- 
lent  and  so  useful  a  form  of  fiiith  laid  aside,  only  to  serve  the 
interests  of  our  new  Arians.  However,  since  the  damnatory 
clauses  were  the  main  difficulty,  a  better  way  might  have  been 
contrived  than  was  th^i  thought  on ;  namely,  to  have  preserved 
the  whole  Greed,  except  those  clauses  which  are  separable  from 
it  But  the  best  of  all,  as  I  humbly  conceive,  is  what  has 
prevailed,  and  still  obtains,  to  let  it  stand  as  before ;  since  the 
€lamnatory  clauses  have  been  often  and  sufficiently  vindicated 
by  the  Reformed  Churches  abroad^^,  as  well  as  by  our  own 

Objrcjt.  VII. 
It  is  pleaded  further,  mostly  in  the  words  of  Bishop  Taylor^ 
that  the  ''  Apostles'  Greed  is  the  rule  of  faith,''  that  this  only  is 
^'  necessar}'  to  baptism,"  that  what  was  once  ''  sufficient  to 
''  bring  men  to  heaven  must  be  so''  now ;  that  there  is  no  occa- 
sion for  being  so  mintUe  axkd  particular  in  the  matter  of  Greeds ; 
with  more  to  the  like  purpose. 

c  This    Creed,    by    whomsoever  "  Creed,  the  best  explication  of  it  I 

framed,  hath  been  long  received  in  the  "  ever  read."  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity 

Church,  and  looked  on  as  agreeable  to  stated,  &c.  by  some  London  Mhnsten, 

the  Scriptures,  and  an  excellent  expli-  p.  62, 63. 

cation  of  the  Christian  faith.     Con-        ^  Tentzelius,  a  Lutheran,  is  very 

stantinople,  Rome,  and  the  Reformed  smart  upon  this  head  against  the  Ar- 

Churches  have  owned  it our  pious  minians,  for  their  objecting  to  the 

and    excellent    Mr.  Baxter,    in    his  damnatory  sentences. 
Method  of  Theol.  p.  133.  speaks  thus        Verum  injuste,  atqne  impudenter 

of  it :  "  In  a  word,  the  damnatory  sen-  accusant  initium  Symboli,  quod  pri- 

"  tences  excepted,  or  modestly  ex-  dem  nndioarunt  nostrates  theologi. 

''  pounded,"  (such  a  modest  expKca-  Dannhawerus  in  Stylo  vindiee,  p.  aoo. 

tion  of  the  damnatory  clauses  see  in  Hulsemannus  de  Auxiliis  Gratise,  p. 

Dr.  Wallis,  &c.)    "  I  embrace  the  218.  Kromayerus  in  Theolo^pa  posi- 

"  Creed    commonly   called    Athana-  tivo  polemica,  p.  98,  99.  et  in  Scm- 

"  sius's,  as  the  best  explication  of  the  tinio  Religionum,  p.  305.  aliique  pas- 

*•  Trinity."     And  in  vol.  ii.  of  his  sim.  Tentzel.  p.  no.  To  these  which 

Works,  p.  133.  says  he,  **  I  unfeign-  Tentzelius  has  mentioned,  I  may  add 

"  edly  account  the  doctrine  of  the  David  Parens,  (a  Calvinist,)  in  his 

'*  Trinity,  the  sum  and  kernel  of  the  comment  upon  this  Creed,  published 

"  Christian  religion,  as  exprmsed  in  at  the  end  of  Ursinus's  CSatecbiBm, 

"  our    Baptism,    and    Athanasius's  A.  D.  1634,  by  Philip  P&reus. 


Aksw.  I.  Dr.  Taylor  goes  upon  a  false  supposition  that  the 
Creed  called  the  Apostles^  was  compiled  by  the  Apostles. 

2.  He  has  ekuother  fodse  presumption,  appearing  all  the  way 
in  his  reasonings  on  this  head,  that  the  Apostles'  Creed  has 
been  always  the  same  that  it  is  now  :  whereas  learned  men  know 
that  it  was  not  brought  to  its  present  entire  form  till  after  the 
year  600^;  is  nothing  else  but  the  baptismal  Creed  of  one 
particular  churchy  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  designedly  short  for 
the  ease  of  those  who  were  to  repeat  it  at  baptism.  Now  when 
we  are  told  of  the  Apostles^  Creed  containing  all  that  is  necessary 
to  salvation,  and  no  more  than  is  necessary ;  we  would  gladly  know 
whether  it  be  meant  of  the  old  short  Boman  Creed  ^^  or  of  the 
present  one^  considerably  larger:  and  if  they  intend  the  old  one^ 
why  application  is  not  made  to  our  governors  to  lay  the  new  one 
aside,  or  to  curtail  and  reduce  it  to  its  primitive  size ;  by  leaving 
out  the  Belief,  or  profession  of  Ood's  being  Creator  {/heaven  and 
earth,  and  of  Christ^s  being  dead^  and  of  his  descent  into  heU,  and 
of  the  Church  being  Catholic^  and  of  the  communion  of  saints^ 
and  life  everlasting,  as  unnecessary  articles  of  faith.  For  why 
may  not  that  suffice  now,  which  was  once  sufficient  i  Or  how  can 
any  thing  be  necessary  at  this  day,  that  was  not  so  from  the 
beginning  ? 

3.  To  set  this  whole  matter  rights  it  ought  to  be  considered, 
that  Creeds  were  never  intended  to  contain,  as  it  were,  a  certain 
quantity  0/ faith,  as  necessary  to  bring  men  to  heaven,  and  no 
more  than  is  necessary.  Were  this  the  case,  all  Creeds  ought 
precisely  to  have  consisted  of  an  equal  number  of  articles,  and 
the  same  individual  articles :  whereas  there  are  no  two  Creeds 
any  where  to  be  found  which  answer  to  such  exactness.  A  plain 
argument  that  the  Church,  in  forming  of  Creeds,  early  and  late. 

e  I  know  not  whether  the  words,  "  Almighty :  and  in  Jesus  Christ  his 

Maker  qf  heaven  and  earth,  can   be  "  only  Son  our  Lord ;  who  was  bom 

g roved,  by  any  certain  authority,  to  "  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  Virgin 

ave  come  into  that  Creed  before  the  "  Mary ;     crucified    under    Pontius 

eighth  century :    for  after  the  best  "  Pilate,  and  buried,  rose  again   the 

searches  I  have  been  hitherto  able  to  "  third  day  from  the  dead,  ascended 

make,  I  can  find  no  copy  (to  be  de-  "  into  heaven,   sitteth  at   the   right 

pended  upon)  higher  than  that  time,  "  hand  of  the  Father,  from  whence 

which  has  that  ckuse.  '<  he  shall  come  to  judge  the  ouick 

'  The  old  Roman  (or  Apostles')  "  and  dead.   And  in  the  Holy  Ghost, 

Creed  was  no  more  than  this,  as  may  "  the  holy  Church,  the  remission  of 

be  seen  in  Bishop  Usher,  de  Sjrmbol.  ''  sins,  the  resurrection  of  the  body, 

p.  6  and  9.  "  Anun,** 
"  I    believe   in    God    the   Father 


went  upon  no  such  view,  but  upon  quite  another  principle.  The 
design  of  all  was,  to  keep  up  as  strictly  as  possible  the  whole 
ompa^,  or/aim  of  the  Christian  faith  as  it  stands  in  Scriptures: 
and  if  aioy  part  came  to  be  attacked,  they  were  then  to  bend  all 
their  cares  to  succour  and  relieve  that  part,  in  order  still  to 
secure  the  whole.  Some  few  of  the  main  stamina,  or  chief  lines, 
were  taken  care  of  from  the  first,  and  made  up  the  first  Creeds ; 
particularly  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  briefly  hinted,  and  scarce 
any  thing  more,  because  the  form  of  baptism  led  to  it.  As  to 
other  Articles^  or  larger  explications  of  this,  they  came  in  oc- 
casionally, according  as  this  or  that  part  of  the  Christian  faith 
seemed  most  to  be  endangered,  and  to  require  present  relief. 
And  as  this  varied  in  several  countries  or  churches,  (some  being 
more  disturbed  than  others,  and  some  with  one  kind  of  heresy, 
others  with  another,)  so  the  Creeds  likewise  varied ;  some  in- 
sisting particularly  upon  this  article,  others  upon  that,  as  need 
required,  and  all  still  endeavouring  to  keep  up  and  maintain  one 
whole  and  entire  system  of  the  Christian  faith,  according  to  the 
true  and  full  meaning  of  sacred  Writ.  There  is  nothing  more 
in  it  than  the  very  nature  and  circumstance  of  the  thing  neces- 
sarily leads  to.  I  may  illustrate  the  case  a  little  further  by  an 
easy  parallel  between  matters  of  faith  and  matters  ot  practice. 
The  sum  of  Christian  practice  is  contained  in  two  brief  rules ;  to 
hve  Gody  and  to  love  on^s  neighbour;  which  comprehend  all. 
No  one  needs  more  than  this;  nor  indeed  can  there  be  any 
thing  more.  But  then  a  perverse  man  may  possibly  understand 
by  Gody  not  the  true  God,  the  God  of  Jews  and  Christians,  but 
some  other  of  his  own  devising,  or  such  as  has  been  received  by 
Pagans  or  heretics :  and  he  may  understand  by  neighbour  one  of 
his  own  country  only,  or  tribe^  or  sect,  or  family.  Well  then,  to 
obviate  any  such  method  of  undermining  Christian  practice^  it 
will  be  necessary  to  be  a  little  more  particular  than  barely  to 
lay  down  in  brief  to  love  God  and  one*s  neighbour:  we  must  add, 
the  true  God^  the  God  of  Jews  and  Christians,  that  very  €k>d 
and  none  else :  and  as  to  neighbour,  we  must  insist  upon  it,  that 
it  means,  not  this  or  that  sect,  tribe,  party,  &c.  but  all  mankind. 
And  now  our  rule  of  practice  begins  to  extend  and  enlarge  itself 

S  'ETTfid^  yap  ov  navrts  iinfoprai  ras  cf  dftoBiag  AirokiirBcu,  €v  6\iyoit  roit 

ypa<f>a£   dvayiPiacKdv,  dWa   row  fxcv  trrixois  rh  irav  d6yfjM  Tijs  iricrrcwf  irc- 

iiiwr€ia,  rov£  dc  dtrxoXia  rcr  r/xTrodi^ci  pikofi^dvofiiv,    Cyrill,   Catech,  V,   n* 

irp6£  rrip  yvwnv'  imtp  tov  fjiff  t^k  i^vxov  1 3.  p.  'jS. 


beyond  Ob  primitive  simplicity;  but  not  without  reason.  To 
proceed  a  little  further :  mistakes  and  perverse  sentiments  may 
arise  in  the  interpreting  the  word  love,  so  as  thereby  to  evacuate 
and  frustrate  the  primary  and  fundamental  rule :  to  correct  and 
remove  which,  it  may  be  necessary  still  further  to  enlarge  the 
rule  of  practice,  and  to  branch  it  out  into  many  other  particulars ; 
which  to  mention  would  be  needless.  Now  if  such  a  method  as 
this  will  of  course  be  necessary  to  preserve  the  essentials  of 
practice;  let  it  not  be  thought  strange  if  the  like  has  been  made 
use  of  to  preserve  the  essentials  of  faith.  There  is  the  same 
reason  and  the  like  occasion  for  both  :  and  if  due  care  be  taken 
in  both,  to  make  all  the  branches  hang  naturally  upon  the 
primary  and  fundamental  rules,  and  to  adopt  no  foreign  ones,  as 
belonging  thereunto  when  they  really  do  not ;  then  there  is 
nothing  in  this  whole  affiur  but  a  just  and  prudent  care  about 
what  most  of  all  deserves  it,  and  such  as  will  be  indispensably 
required  in  every  faithful  minister,  or  steward  of  the  mysteries 
of  God.  To  return  to  our  point  in  hand :  as  more  and  more  of 
the  sacred  truths,  in  pi*ocess  of  time^  came  to  be  opposed,  or 
brought  in  question ;  so  Greeds  have  been  enlarged  in  propor- 
tion ;  and  an  explicit  profession  of  more  and  more  articles  re- 
quired of  every  candidate  for  baptism.  And  because  this  was 
not  security  sufficient^  since  many  might  forget^  or  not  know,  or 
not  attend  to  what  they  had  professed  in  their  baptism,  (by 
themselves  or  by  their  sureties,)  it  was  found  highly  expedient 
and  necessary  to  insert  one  or  more  Creeds  in  the  standing  and 
daily  Offices  of  the  Church,  to  remind  people  of  that  faith  which 
they  had  solemnly  engaged  to  maintain,  and  to  guard  the  un- 
wary against  the  wily  attempts  of  heretics  to  pervert  them. 
This  is  the  plain  and  true  account  of  Greeds,  and  of  their  use  in 
the  Christian  churches.  And  therefore,  if  any  man  would  talk 
sense  against  the  use  of  this  or  that  Creed  in  any  Church,  he 
ought  to  shew  either  that  it  contains  such  truths  as  no  man  ever 
did,  or  in  all  probability  ever  will  oppose,  (which  will  be  a  good 
argument  to  prove  the  Greed  superfluous^)  or  that  it  contains 
articles  which  are  not  trusy  or  are  at  best  doubtful;  which  will 
be  a  good  argument  to  prove  such  a  Greed  hurtful.  Now,  as  to 
the  Athanasian  form,  it  will  hardly  be  thought  superfluous,  so 
long  as  there  are  any  Arians,  Photinians,  Sabellians,  Macedo- 
nians, ApoUinarians,  Nestorians,  or  Eutychians  in  this  part  of 
the  world :  and  as  to  its  being  hurtful^  that  may  then  be  proved 


when  it  can  be  shewn  that  any  of  those  forementioned  heresies 
were  no  heresies,  or  have  not  been  justly  condemned. 

If  it  be  pleaded  that  the  vulgar^  knowing  little  of  any  of  those 
heresies,  will  therefore  know  as  little  of  what  the  Creed  means  ; 
and  so  to  them  it  may  be  at  least  dry  and  insipid,  if  not  wholly 
useless :  to  this  I  answer ;  that  there  are  no  kinds  of  heretics  but 
hope  to  make  the  vulgar  understand  their  tenets  respectively,  and 
to  draw  them  aside  from  the  received  faith  of  the  Church :  and 
therefore  it  behoves  the  pastors  of  the  Church  to  have  a  standing 
form,  to  guard  the  people  against  any  such  attempts.  The  mtl- 
gar  will  understand,  in  the  general,  and  as  far  as  is  ordinarily  to 
them  necessary,  the  main  doctrines  of  a  Trinity  in  Unity ^  and 
of  God  incarnate :  and  as  to  particular  explications,  whenever 
they  have  occasion  to  look  further,  they  will  find  the  true  ones 
laid  dovvn  in  this  Creed ;  which  will  be  useful  to  prevent  their 
being  imposed  upon  at  any  time  with  false  ones.  If  they  never 
have  occasion  to  go  further  than  generals^  there  is  no  hurt  done 
to  them  by  abundant  caution :  if  they  have^  here  is  a  direction 
ready  for  them  to  prevent  mistakes.  It  is  not  pretended  that 
all  are  capable  of  seeing  through  every  nicety,  or  of  perceiving 
the  full  intent  and  aim  of  every  part  of  this  form,  and  what  it 
alludes  to.  But  as  many  as  are  capable  of  being  set  wrong  in 
any  one  branch,  (by  the  subtilty  of  seducers,)  are  as  capable  of 
being  kept  right  by  this  rule  given  them :  and  they  will  as  easily 
understand  one  side  of  the  question,  as  they  will  the  other.  The 
Christian  churches  throughout  the  world,  ever  since  the  multi- 
plication of  heresies,  have  thought  it  necessary  to  guard  their 
people  by  some  such  forms  as  these  in  standing  use  amongst 
them.  The  Oriental  churches,  which  receive  not  this  Creed  into 
their  constant  Offices,  yet  more  than  supply  the  want  of  it, 
either  by  other  the  like  Creeds^,  or  by  their  solemn  stated 
Prayers  in  their  Liturgies,  wherein  they  express  their  faith  as 
fiiUy  and  particularly  (or  more  so*)  as  this  Creed  does :  and  they 
are  not  so  much  afraid  of  puzzling  and  perplexing  the  vulgar  by 
doing  it,  as  they  are  of  betraying  and  exposing  them  to  the 
attempts  of  seducers,  should  they  not  do  it.  For  which  reason 
also  they  frequently  direct  their  prayers  to  God  the  Son^  as  well 

^  See  the  Creed  of  the  Armenians  lib.  iii.  c.  5.  and  Renaudot's  Orient, 
in  Sir  P.  Ricaut,  p.  41 1,  &c.  Liturg.  passim. 

*  See  Ludolphus  Histor.  iEtbiop. 


as  to  God  the  Father;  being  in  that  case  more  solicitous  than  the 
Latin  churches  have  been,  because  they  have  been  oftener  dis- 
turbed by  Arians,  and  other  impugners  of  Chrisfs  divinity ^^. 

Upon  the  whole,  I  look  upon  it  as  exceeding  useful^  and  even 
necessary^  for  every  church  to  have  some  such  form  as  this,  or 
something  equivalent,  open  and  common  to  all  its  members; 
that  none  may  be  led  astray  for  want  of  proper  caution,  and 
previous  instruction  in  what  so  nearly  concerns  the  whole 
structure  and  fabric  of  the  Christian  faithl  As  to  this  par- 
ticular form,  it  has  so  long  prevailed,  and  has  so  well  answered 
the  use  intended,  that,  all  things  considered,  there  can  be  no 
sufficient  reason  for  changing  any  part  of  it,  much  less  for  laying 
the  whole  a^side.  There  are  several  other  Creeds,  very  good 
ones,  (though  somewhat  larger,)  which,  had  they  been  made 
choice  of  for  common  use,  might  possibly  have  done  as  well. 
The  Creeds  I  mean  (of  which  there  is  a  great  number)  drawn  up 
after  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  and  purposely  contrived  to  obviate 
all  the  heresies  that  ever  had  infested  the  Christian  Church.  But 
those  that  dislike  this  Oeed  would  much  more  dislike  the  other; 
as  being  still  more  particular  and  explicit  in  regard  to  the  Nes- 
torian,  Eutychian,  and  Monothelite  heresies  an<l  equally  full 
and  clear  for  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

To  conclude ;  as  long  as  there  shall  be  any  men  left  to  oppose 
the  doctrines  which  this  Creed  contains,  so  long  will  it  be  expe- 
dient, and  even  necessary  to  continue  the  ikse  of  it,  in  order  to 
preserve  the  rest :  and,  I  suppose,  when  we  have  none  remain- 
ing to  find  fault  with  the  doctrines^  there  will  be  none  to  object 
against  the  use  of  the  Creed,  or  so  much  as  to  wish  to  have  it 
laid  aside. 

k  Nam  cum  omnes  orationes  Latini  rundam  publicorum  usus  fuit,  quibus 

Canonis,  ex  vetustisaima  tnditione,  doctrinse  divinitus  revelaUe  de  certis 

ad  Deum  Patrem  dirigantur ;  in  On-  capitibus  suroma  comprehenderetur, 

ente  plures  ad  Filiwn:  nempe,  quia  et  contra  hsnvticos,  aliosijue  adver- 

magis  conflictata  eat  Arianorum,  et  sarioa    defenderetur.     Talia   scripta, 

aliorum  qui  ejus  divinitatem  impu^-  licet   perbrevia.  sunt    Symbola    ilia 

Dabant,     contentionibus     Orientaha,  totiua  Ecclesise,  omnium    hominum 

quam    Occidentalia    Ecdesia.     Ae-  conaenau  recepta,  Apostolicum,  Ni- 

uaudot,  de  Orient.  LUurg.  vol.  i.  p.  csnum,  Athanasianum.  Joan,  Papp, 

963.  Comm.  in  Confess,  August,  fol.  2, 

1  To  thia  purpose  speaks  Johannes  I  take  this  upon  the  credit  of  Nic. 

Pappus,  in  the  name  of  the  Lutheran  Serarius,  who  quotes  the  passage  from 

churches,  commenting  on  the  Augs-  Pappus.    Serar,  in  Sytnb,  Athanas, 

burg  Confession.  p.  9.  tom.  2. 

^mper  in  Ecdesia  scriptonim  quo- 



570.  I  INTIMATED  above,  p.  136.  that  Fortunatus^s  com- 
ment upon  the  Athanasian  Creed,  though  before  published, 
might  deserve  a  second  publication,  and  be  made  much 
more  correct  than  it  appears  in  Muratorius's  second  tome  of 

I  have  made  frequent  use  of  it  in  the  preceding  sheets :  and 
now  my  design  in  reprinting  it  is,  to  let  the  reader  see  what  the 
comment  is  which  I  so  frequently  refer  to;  that  so  he  may 
judge  for  himself  whether  it  really  be  what  I  suppose,  and  I 
think  with  good  reason^  a  comment  of  the  sixth  centur}*,  and 
justly  ascribed  to  Fortunatus.  I  have  endeavoured  to  make  it 
as  correct  as  possible,  by  such  helps  as  I  could  any  where 
procure ;  which  are  as  follow : 

1.  The  printed  copy  of  it,  published  by  Muratorius  from  a 
manuscript  of  the  Ambrosian  library^  about  600  years  old. 

2.  A  manuscript  copy  from  Oxford^  found  among  Franciscus 
Junius's  manuscripts,  which  appears,  by  the  character^  to  be 
about  800  years  old.  As  it  is  older  than  Muratorius's,  so  is  it 
ako  more  faithful;  and  though  it  has  a  great  many  faults  both 
in  the  orthography  and  syntax^  owing  either  to  the  ignorance  of 
the  age  or  of  the  copyist^  yet  it  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
interpolated  like  the  other,  or  to  have  been  industriously  altered 
in  any  part. 

3.  Besides  those  two  copies  of  the  entire  comment,  I  have  had 
some  assistance  from  such  parcels  of  it  as  are  to  be  met  with  in 
writers  that  have  borrowed  from  it.  Bruno's  comment  furnishes 
us  with  some  parts  which  he  had  taken  into  his  own.  But  there 
is,  among  the  supposititious  works  ascribed  to  St.  Austin,  a 
treatise  entitled  Sermo  de  Symbolo"*,  which  has  several  scattered 
fragments  of  this  very  comment  in  it.  The  whole  treatise  is  a 
farrago^  or  collection  from  several  other  writers;  as  Ruffinus, 
Csesarius,  Pope  Gregory  I,  and  Ivo  Camotensis.  By  the  last 
mentioned,  one  may  be  assured  that  the  collection  is  not  older 
than  the  close  of  the  eleventh  century;   it  may  be  later.     It 

™  Augustin.  Oper.  torn.  vi.  in  Appendice,  p.  378.  ed.  Bened. 



will  be  serviceable  however,  so  far  as  it  goes,  for  restoring  the 
true  readings  where  our  copies  are  corrupt ;  which  is  the  use  I 
make  of  it. 

Nothing  now  remains  but  to  lay  before  the  learned  reader 
Fortunatus's  comment  in  its  native  language,  and  therewith  to 
close  up  our  inquiries  concerning  the  Athanasian  Creed. 

The  variims  lections,  all  that  are  properly  such,  are  carefully 
noted  at  the  bottom  of  the  page ;  that  so  the  reader  may  judge 
whether  the  text  be  what  it  should  be,  or  correct  it,  if  it  appears 
otherwise.  But  I  should  hint,  that  there  are  several  Kttle  varia- 
tions in  the  Oxford  manuscript,  which  I  take  no  notice  of,  as 
not  being  properly  variovs  lections. 

1.  Such  as  are  merely  orthographical:  as  a  permutation  of 
letters  ;  using  d  for  t,  in  captui  and  reliquid^  for  caput  and 
reliquit ;  e  for  f ,  in  trea  for  tria ;  and  i  for  ey  in  calit  for  calet, 
and  the  like :  otov  u  in  serwUs^  p  for  b  in  optenit  for  ohtinet;  v 
consonant  for  b,  in  enarravit  for  enarrabit ;  though  such  as  this 
last  is  might  be  noted  among  t>arious  lections,  in  cases  more 

To  this  head  may  be  referred  some  antique,  and  now  obsolete 
spellings :  inmmsus  for  immmsus,  inmortalis  tor  immortalis,  inlesus 
for  itlcBSuSj  eonhcavit  for  colloeamt,  dinoscitur  for  dignoscitur^  and 
the  like. 

2.  Active  terminations  of  verbs,  for  passim:  as  finire  for 
Jmiri,  cogitare  for  cogUari ;  though  these  may  be  referred  to 
the  former  head,  being  only  changing  the  letter  t  for  the  letter 
e,  Domini  for  dominatur  I  take  notice  of  among  the  various 

3.  Faults  in  the  formation  of  verbs :  as  abstuleret  for  toUeret^ 
vivendos  for  viventes  ;  to  which  may  be  added  morsit  for  momordit, 
having  been  long  out  of  use. 

4.  Manifest  faults  in  concord :  as  humani  camis,  for  humanos ; 
eodem  captivitate,  for  eddem.  But  where  there  can  be  any  doubt 
of  the  construction,  I  mark  such  among  the  various  lections, 
leaving  the  reader  to  judge  of  them. 

These  and  other  the  like  niceties  are  generally  neglected  in 
editions  of  authors;  it  being  both  needless  and  endless  to  note 
them.  But  I  was  willing  to  hint  something  of  them  in  this  place, 
because  they  may  be  of  use  to  scholars  for  the  making  a  judg- 
ment of  the  value  of  a  manuscript ;  and  sometimes  of  the  time  or 
place  ;  as  abo  of  the  mamier  how  a  copy  was  taken,  whether  by 


the  ear  or  by  the  eye^  from  word  of  mouthy  or  merely  from  a 
writing  laid  before  the  copyist.  Besides  that  if  we  can  distinguish 
in  the  present  case,  as  perhaps  a  good  critic  may,  the  partictdari- 
ties  of  the  author  from  those  of  his  transcribers;  they  may 
possibly  afford  some  additional  argun^ent  for  the  ascertaining 
the  author  of  the  comment. 


no  drciter 

(JUICUNQUE  vuU  sahus  esse^^  ante  omnia  opus  est  ut  teneat 
Catholicam  Fidem :  quam  nisi  quisque  inteffram,  tnviolatamque  ser- 
vaverit,  absque  dubio  in  cetemum  peribit^. 

Fides  dicitur  credulitas,  sive  credential.  [Primo  ergo  omnium 
Jides  necessaria  est^  sicut  Apostolica  docet  auctoritas  dicens ;  sine 
fide  impossibile  est  placere  Deo.  Constat  enim  neminem  ad  veram 
pervenire  posse  beatitudinem,  nisi  Deo  placeat ;  et  Deo  neminem 
placere  posse,  nisi  per  fidem.  Fides  namque  est  bonorum  omnium 
Jundamentum,  fides  humanae  salutis  initium.  Sine  hoe  nemo  ad 
FiHorum  Dei  potest  consortium  pervenire ;  quia  sine  ipsa  nee  in 
hoc  seculo  quisquam  justificationis  consequitur  gratiam,  nee  in/uturo 
vUam  possidebit  ceternam,  Et  si  quis  heic  non  ambulaverit  per 
fidem^  non  perveniet  adspeciem  beatam  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi^,] 
Catholica  universalis  dicitur,  id  est,  recta,  quam  Ecclesia  uni- 
versal tenere  debet.     Ecclesias  dicitur  congregatio  Ghristiano- 

*  Ita  se  habet  titulus  in  Codice  Trin.  lib.  i.  cap.  a.  p.  707.)  Alcuintu 

Muratorii.     Aliter  in  Oxoniensi,  viz.  vero  maximam  partem  mutuatus  est 

Exwmtio  in  Fide  CathoUca:  pro  in  a  Fulgentio.     (De  Fid.  ad  Petrum 

Fidem   CathoUcam,  ex   comipta  lo-  Prolog,  p.  500.  ed.  Paris.)    Sed  varia 

quendi  ratione  apud  Scriptores  setatis  exemplaria  varie  sententiam  claudunt. 

mediae.  Fulg^tius  le^t,  non  perveniet  ad  spe^ 

^  Esse  salmis.  Cod.  Murat.  ciem :  nee  qmcquam  ultra.  Alcuinus, 

c  Posterior  hsec  Symboli  clausula,  non  perveniet  aaspeciembeatmvisionis 

incipiens  a  quam  nisi,  non  habetur  in  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi,  Ab  utris- 

Cod.  Oxoniensi.  que  abit  lectio  Muratorii. 

d  Ita  Cod.  Oxon.  prima  haec  peri-  '  Universa  Ecclesia.  Cod.  Mur.  et 

cope  deest  in  Murator.     Conf.  Brun.  Brunonis. 

in  Symb.  fs  Cod.    Muratorii    habet    quippe, 

®  Quae  uncinulis  includuntur,  non  post  Ecclesia :  quam  voculam,  utpote 

comparent  in  MS.  Oxoniensi.    Nee  meptam,  saltern  otiosam^  expunximus, 

enim  Fortunati   videntur    esse,   sed  fide  Cod.  Oxoniensis.  Conf.  Brunon. 

Alcuini  potius ;   apud  quem  eadem  in  hoc  loco. 

fere    verbatim    leguntur.     (De    Fid. 



rum,  sive  conventus  populorum.  [Non  entm,  sicut  canventicttla 
hcerelicarum^  in  aiiquihus  regionum  partibvs  coarctatur,  sed  per 
totum  terrarum  orlem  dikUata  diffunditur^!] 

Ut  unum  Dmm  in  Trinitate,  et  Trinitatem  in  Unitate  veneremur: 
et  credamus,  et  colamus,  et  confiteamur  [Trinitatem  in  Personis, 
tmitatem  in  substantia.  Hanc  quoque  Trinitatem  Personarum, 
atque  unitatem  natures  propheta  Esaias  revelatam  sibi  nan  tacuit, 
eum  se  dicit  seraphim  vidisse  clamantia,  Sanctus,  Sanctus,  Sanctus, 
Dominus  Deus  Sabaoth.  Ubi  prorsus  in  eo  quod  dicitur  iertio 
SanctuB,  Personarum  Trinitatem ;  in  eo  vera  quod  semel  didmus 
Dominus  Deus  Sabaoth,  divince  natures  cognosdmus  unitatemK] 

Neque  con/undentes  Personam:  ut  Sabellius  errat,  qui  ipsum 
dicit  esse  Patrem  in  Persona  quem  et  Filium,  ipsum  et  Spiritum 
Sanctum.  Non  ergo  confundentes  Personas,  quia  tres  omnino 
Personse  sunt^.  Est  enim  gignens,  genitus,  et^  procedens. 
Gignens  est  Pater,  qui  genuit  Filium ;  Filius  est  genituSy  quem 
genuit  Pater ;  Spiritus  Sanctus  est  procedens,  quia  a  Patre  et 
Pilio  procedit.  Pater  et  Filius  cosetemi  sibi  sunt  et  cosequales ; 
et  cooperatores,  sicut  scriptum  est ;  Verba  Domini  caeli  firmati^ 
sunt,  id  est,  a  Filio  Dei  ereati,  Spiritu^  oris  ejus^  omnis  virtus 
eorum,  Ubi  sub  singulari  numero,  Spiritus^  ejus  dicitP,  [unitatem 
Bubstantise  Deitatis  ostendit;  ubi  sub  plurali  numero,  omnis 
virtus  eorum  dicit  <l,]  Trinitatem  Personarum  aperte  demonstrat, 
quia  tres  unum  sunt,  et  unum  tres. 

Neqm  substantiam  separantes :  ut  Arius  garrit^  qui  sicut  tres 

^  Uncis  hie  inclusa  non  habentur  aliquaUs  conservandae  gratia, 

in  Codice  Oxoniensi.     Verba  nimi-  ^  Tres  PersoruB  omnino  sunt,  Mumt, 

rum  sunt,  non  Fortunati,  sed  Isidori  ^  Deest  et  in  Cod.  Oxoik 

Hispal.     Orig.  lib.  viii.  cap.  i.  ™  Formati,  Cod.  Oxon.  Vid.  Symb. 

i  Quae  uncis  comprehensa  hie  le-  Damasi    dictum    (apud    Hieronym. 

Sire  est,  non  eomparent  in  Codice  tom.  v.   p.  122.)  unde  hsee  nosier, 

xoniensi.     Verba  sunt  Alcuini  (de  mutatis  mutandis,  desumpsisse  vide- 

Trin.  lib.  i.  cap.  ^.  p.  709.)  in  quo  tur. 

eadem  plane,  similique  ordine  inve-  ^  Spiritus.  Cod.  Oxon. 

nias.     Sunt  porro  eadem,  uno  voca-  <>  Leg.  Spiritu,  uterque  vero  Codex 

bulo  dempto,  apud  Fulgentium  (de  habet  Spintus. 

Fid.  ad  Petrum,  p.  50^.)  ordine  etiam  p  Dicitur.  Cod.  Murat. 

tantum  non  eodem.  Verba  autem  ilia  4  Lacunam    in    Muratorio    mani- 

introductoria;     (viz.    Trinitatem    in  festam  (quippe  eum  desint  ea  verba 

Personis,  unitatem  in  substantia)  non  uncis  inclusa)  ex  Codice  Oxoniensi 

leffuntur  in  Fulgentio,  nee  quidem  in  supple vimus.   Scilicet,  vox  dicit  prox- 

Aleuino.    InterpK>lator  ipse,  uti  vide-  ime  recurrens  librarii  oculos  (uti  fit) 

tur,  ex  proprio  ilia  penu  deprompta  fefellit. 
pnemisit  osHeris.    Connexionis  forte 


PersoDas  esse  dioit,  sic  et  tres  substantias  esse  mentitur^.  Fi- 
liuin  dicit  minorom  quam  Patrem,  et  creaturam  esse ;  Spiritum 
Sanctum  adhuo  minorem  quam  Filium,  et  Patri  et  Filio  eum 
esse  administratorem^  adserit.  Non  ergo  substantiam  separantes, 
quia  totse  tres  Personse  in  substantia  Deitatis^  unum  sunt. 

Alia  est  enim  Persona  Patris:  quia  Pater  ingenitus  est,  eo 
quod  a  nullo  est  genitus.  Alia  Persona  Filiij  quia  Filius  a  Patre 
solo  esf*  genitus.  Alia  Spiritus  Sancti,  quia  a  Patre  et  Filio 
Spiritus  Sanctus*  proeedens  est. 

8ed  Patris  et  Filii  et  Spiritus  Sancti  una  est  Dimnitas :  id  est, 
Deitas.  ^qualis  Gloria :  id  est,  claritas.  Cocetema  Majestas  : 
Majestas  gloria  est,  claritas,  sive  potestasx. 

Qualis  Pater,  talis  Filius^  talis  et  Spiritus  Sanctus.  Id  est,  in 
Deitate,  et  Omnipotentia. 

Increatus  Pater,  increatus  Filius,  increatus  et  Spiritus  Sanctus. 
Id  est,  a  nullo  creatus'. 

Immensus  Pater^  immenstts  Filius,  immensus  et  Spiritus  Sanctus. 
Non  est  mensurabilis  in  sua  natura,  quia  inlocalis  est,^  incircum- 
scriptus,  ubique  totus,  ubique  prsesens,  ubique  potens. 

JEtemus  Pater,  €stemus  Filius,  cetemus  et  Spiritus  Sanctus. 
Id  est,  non  tres  setemi,  sed  in  tribus  Personis  unus  Deus  seter- 
nus,  qui  sine  initio,  et  sine  fine  setemus  pernmnet. 

Similiter  Omnipotens  Pater,  Omnipotens  Filius,  Omnipotens  et 
Spiritus  Sanctus,  Omnipotens  dicitur,  eo  quod  omnia  potest,  et 
omnium  obtinet  potestatem^.  Ergo,  si  omnia  potest,  quid  est 
quod  non  potest  ?  Hoc  non  potest,  quod  Omnipotenti  non  com- 
petit  posse <^.     Falli  non  potest,  [quia  Veritas  est;  infirmari  non 

'  Ita  clare  Cod.  Oxon.    Aliter  Mu-  ^  Muratorii  exemplar  insertum  ha- 

ratorius  ex  vitioso  Codice ;  quia  tres  bet  et,  quod  delenaum  esse  censui, 

Personas  esse  dicit,  si  et  tres  substan-  cum  absit  a  Codice  Oxon.  et  otiusum 

tias  esse  mentitur.    Sensus  impeditus,  videatur. 

ant  nullus.  ^    Fortunatus,    in    sua    Exjposit. 

•  Et  Patris  et  Ftlii  eum  administra-  Symb.  Apostolici,  haec  habet ;  Omni- 
torem  esse  adserit.  Cod.  Murat.  Conf.  potens  vero  dicitur,  eo  quod  omnia 
Brunon.  possit,  et  omnium  obtinet  potent atum. 

*  Divinitatis.  Cod.  Oxon.  ed.  Basil,  obtineat  potestatem,  ed. 
"  A  Patre  est  solo.  Cod.  Oxon.  Lugd.  Prseluserat  Ruffinus,  in  Sym- 
^  Desunt  Spiritus  Sanctus  in  Cod.  bolum. 

Murat.  quse  tamen  retinuimus,  turn  ^  S.  Bruno,  hunc    opinor  locum 

fide  Cod.  Oxoniensis,  tum  ouia  in  prse  oculis  habens,  his  verbis  utitur : 

antecedentibus   Pater,  et   Filtus  bis  Ergo,  si  omnia  potest,  quid  est  quod 

ponuntur,  sicut  et  hie  Sp,  Sanctus,  non  potest?  Hoc  non  potest,  auoanon 

y  Cod.  Oxoniensis  legit  claritatis,  convenit  omnipotenti  posse,    Brun.  in 

sive  potestas.  Symb.  Athanas. 

'  Cod.  Oxoniensis  legit  creati. 


potest,]  quia  sanitas  est^ ;  mori  non  potest,  quia  immortalis  vita 
est ;  finiri  non  potest,  quia  infinitus  et  perennis  est. 

/to,  Dem  Pater,  Deus  Filiusy  Deus  et  Spiritus  8(mctus, 
[Deus  nomon  est  potestatis,  non  proprietatis®].  Proprium  no- 
men  est  Patris  Pater ;  et  proprium  nomen  est^  Filii  Filttts;  et 
proprium  nomen  est  Spiritus  Sancti  Spiritus  Sanctm, 

Ita,  Dominus  Pater,  Dominus  Filiu8,  Dominm  et  Spiritus  Sane- 
tus.  Dominus  dioitur,  eo  quod  omnia  dominat,  et  omnium  est 
Dominus  dominator?. 

Quia  sicut  singiUatim  (id  est,  siout  distinctim^)  unamquamque 
Personam  et'^  Deum  et  Dominum  confteri  Christiana  veritate  corn- 
pellimur.  Quia  si  me  interrogaveris  quid  sit^  Pater,  epfo  re- 
spondebo;  Deus,  et  Dominus.  Similiter,  si  me  interrogaveris^ 
quid  sit"  Filius,  ego  dicam;  Deus,  et  Dominus.  Et  si  dicis^, 
quid  est  Spiritus  Sanctus?  Ego  dico<>;  Deus,  et  Dominus.  Et 
in  his  tribus  Personis,  non  tres  Deos,  neo  tres  Dominos,  sed  inP 
his  tribus,  sicut  jam  supra  dictum  est,  4  unum  Deum,  et  unum 
Dominum  eonfiteor. 

Unus  ergo  Pater,  non  tres  Patres:  id  est,  quia>^  Pater  semper 
Pater,  nee  aliquando  Filius.  Unus  FiUus^  non  tres  Filii :  id  est, 
quia  Filius  semper  Filius,  neo  aliquando  Pater.     Unus  Spiritus 

^  Muratorius  sententiam  mancam,  cuncta,  vel  quod  creatura  omnis  domi- 

vitiatamque  exhibet :  Falli  non  potest,  natui  ejus  deserviat, 

auia  Sanctus  est;  omissis  intermediis.  ^  Dtstinctum.  Oxon.  distincte,  Mu- 

Scilicet,  vocabulum  proximo  repeti-  rat. 

turn  describentis  oculum  delusit :  et  ^  Deest  et.  Cod.  Murator. 

ne  nullus  inde  eliceretur  sensus,  pro  ^  Quid  est,  Murator.  Eandem  sen- 

sanitas  substitutum  est  sanctus,  Hs&c  tentiam  expressit  S.  Bruno,  his  ver- 

porro   sibimet    adoptavit    S.  Bruno,  bis :  Qaia  si  me  interrogaveris  quid 

pauculis  mutatis,  vel  inteijectis,  ad  est  Pater,  ego  respondeo;  Deus,  et 

nunc  modum :  Falli  non  potest,  quia  Dominus, 

Veritas  et  sapientia  est :  agrotari  aut  ^  Et  si  me  rogaveris.    Cod.  Oxon. 

infirmari  non  potest,  quia  sanitas  est ;  ^  Est,  Murator.  Locum  sic  exhibet 

mori  non  potest,  quia  immortalis  est ;  S.  Bruno :  Similiter,  si  interrogaveris 

finiri  non  potest,  quia  infinitus  et  per-  quid  est  Filius,  ego  dico,  Deus  et  Do' 

ennis  est,  minus, 

®  Deest  haec  clausula  in  Codice  ^  Dicas,  Murator. 

Murator.  sed  confer  Symbolum  Da-  °  Dicam,  Murator.  Apud  Bmnonem 

masi  dictum,  auod  Gregorii  Boetici  sic  legitur :  Et  si  dicis,  quid  est  Spi^ 

creditur,  apud  August,  tom.  v.  p.  387.  ritus  Sanctus  ?  Ego  respondeo :  Deus, 

Append,  item  apud  Hieronym.  tom.  v.  et  Dominus. 

p.  122.  P  Deest  tit.  Oxon. 

'  Deest  est,  Murator.    Conf.  Bnin.  Q  Supra  diwi.  Cod.  Oxon.  Sed  Bru- 

f  Dominat,  pro  dominatur,  et  cum  nonis  lectio  Muratorii  lectionem  con- 

accusativo,  ex  vitiata  inferioris  aevi  firmat. 

Latinitate,  vel  ex  scribae  imperitia.  '  Codex  Oxon.  pro  quia  habet  ^tit, 

Aliter  Codex   Muratorii,  ex   Isidori  in  hoc  loco,  et  in  auobus  proxime  se- 

Origin.    (lib.  vii.  cap.  i.)    Dominus  auentibus.     Utrumlibet  elegeris,  eo- 

dicitur,  eo  quod  dominetur  creatures  aem  fere  res  redit. 


8ancifMy  non  ires  Spiriius  Saneti :  id  est^  quia  Spiritus  Sanotus 
semper  est "  Spiritus  Sanotus,  neo  aliquando  Filius,  aut  Pater. 
Haec  est  proprietas  Personarum. 

£!t  in  hac  Trinitate  nihil  prim,  out  pasterius.  Quia  siout  nun- 
quam  Filius  sine  Patre,  sic  nunquam  fuit  Pater  sine  Filia,  sic 
et  nunquam  fuit  Pater  et  Filius  sine  Spiritu  Sancto*.  Cosetema 
ergo  Trinitas,  et  inseparabilis  Unitas,  sine  initio  et  sine  fine". 

Nihil  tnaJuSy  aut  minus,  ^qualitatem  Personarum  dicit, 
quia  ^Trinitas  sequalis  est,  et  unax  Deitas,  Apostolo  dooente', 
et  dioente :  Per  ea,  qu€B  facta  suni^  inteUecta  conspiciuntur ;  et 
per  oreaturam  Creator  intelligitur,  secundum  has  oomparationes, 
et  alias  quamplures.  Sol,  candor,  et  calor,  et  tria  sunt  vocabula, 
et  tria  unum^.  Quod  candet^  hoc  calet,  et  quod  calet,  hoc  can- 
det:  tria  hsec  vocabula  res  una  esse  dignoscitur^.  Ita^  Pater 
et  Filius  et  Spiritus  Sanctus^  tres  Personse  in  Deitate,  substan- 
tia^ unum  sunt ;  et  individua  unitas  recte  oreditur.  Item  de  ter- 
renis^  vena,  fons^  fluvius,  tria  sunt^  vocabula^  et  tria  unum^  in 
sua  natura.  Ita  trium  Personarum^  Patris  et  Filii  et  Spiritus 
Sancti,  substantia  et  Deitas  unum  ests^. 

Est  ergo  Fides  recta,  ut  credamus  et  amfiteamur,  quia  Dominus 
nosier  Jesus  ChristtssK  Jesus  Hebraice,  Latine  Salvator  dicitur. 
[Christus  Grfece,  Latine  unctus  vocatur.  Jesus  ergo  dicitur^] 
eo  quod  salvat  populum :  Christus,  eo  quod  Spiritu  Sancto  divi- 

«  In  Cod.  Oxon.  deest  est,  hsc  vocabula  res  una  cognoscitur. 

*  Paulo  aliter  huncce  locum  expres-        ^  Et  post  ita,  Oxon. 
sit  auctor  Sennonis,  inter  Augustini        ^  Comces  habent  substantia,  (quod 

opera,    (Append,    torn.  vi.    p.  281.)  tamen  in  Appendice  {irsedictaomittitur 

Quia  sicut  mmguam  Pater  sine  Filio,  prorsus)  et  comma  interponunt  post 

nee  Filius  sine  Patre ;  sic  et  nunquam  Persona,     Prava  interpunctio   corri- 

fuU  Pater  et  Filius  sine  Spiritu  Sane-  senda  est,  et  levicula  mutatione  legen- 

to,  Sed  nihil  mutandum  contra  fidem  dum  substantid:  quod  et  vidit  et  mo- 

exemplarium.  nuit  vir  (^uidam  amicissimus  simul  et 

^  In  Appendice  prsedicta,  sic  legi-  perspicacissimus. 
tur :  Coatema  ergo  est  Sancta  Trinitas        ^  Appendix  legit  hac,   non  sunt, 

&c.  Oxon.  tria  itemque  sunt, 

^  Sancta  Trinitas,  Append.  '  Oxoniensis,    res  una.    Append. 

y  Una  est  Deitas,  Append,  una  Dei'  cum  Muratorio,  unum, 
tatis.  Oxon.  male.  e  Ita  Murat.  et  Append.  Oxonien- 

'   In   Cod.  Oxoniensi  desunt  ilia  sis  legit,  substantia,  Deitas  una  est, 
docente  et.     Sed  Append,  lectionem        ^  Oxoniensis  adiicit,  Dei  Filius  et 

Muratorii  tuetur,  alio  tamen  verborum  Jiomo  est,     Inepte  hoc  loco,  quod  ex 

ordine ;  dicente,  atque  docente,  sequentibus  patebit. 

^  Ita  Muratorius  cum  Appendice        ^  Muratorii  Codex  omittit  verba  ilia 

prsedict.    Aliter  MS.  Oxon.  viz.  tria  intermedia,   uncis   inclusa.     Scilicet, 

sunt  nomina,  et  res  una.    Quae  eodem  illud  dicitur  proxime  repetitum  ama- 

recidunt.  nuensi  hie  iterum  fraudi  fuit. 

^  In  Appendice  sic  se  habent ;  tria 


nitus  sit^  delibutus,  siout  in  ipsius  Ghristi^  Persona  Esaias  ait; 
Spirittis  Domini  super  me,  propter  quod  unxit  me.  Sec.  Ita  et 
Psalmista  de  Ghristo  Domino  dicit,"^  unxit  te  Deus,  Deus  tuus, 
oho  IcEtiticB  prtB  contortUms  tuts. 

Dei  FUius,  Deus  pariter  et  homo  est.  Filius  a  felicitate  pa- 
rentum  dicitur :  homo  ab  humo  dicitur;  id  est,  de  humo^  factus 

Deus  est  ^  ex  substantia  Patris  ante  sacula  genitus.  Id  est,  Deus 
de  Deo,  lumen  de  lumine,  splendor  de  splendore,  fortis  de  forti, 
virtus  de  virtute,  vita  de  vita,  setemitas  de  setemitate :  per  om- 
nia, idemP  quod  Pater  in  divina  substantia  hoc  est  et<i  Filius, 
Deus  enim'  Pater  Deum  Filium  genuit,  non  voluntate,  neque 
necessitate,  sed  natura.  Nee  quseratur  quomodo  genuit  Filium  s, 
quod  et  angeli  nesciunt,  prophetis  est  incognitum :  unde  ^eximius 
propheta  Esaias  dicit ;  Generationem  efus  quis  enarrabit  f  Ac  si 
diceret",  angelorum  nullus,  prophetarum  nemo^.  Nee  inenarra- 
bilis,  et  insestimabilis  DeusJ  a  servulis  suis  discutiendus  est,  sed 
fideliter  credendus',  et  pariter  diligendus. 

Et  homo^  ex  substantia  matrisj  in  sceeuh  natus.  Dei  Filius, 
Verbum  Patris,^  oaro  factum.  ^  Non  quod  Divinitas  mutasset 
Deitatem,  sed  adsumpsit  humanitatem.  Hoc  est,  Verbum  caro 
factum  est,  ex  utero  Virginis  veram  humanam  camem  traxit. 
Et  de  utero  virginali  verus  homo,  sicut  et  verus  Deus,  est  in 
8»culo  natus,  salva  virginitatis  gratia ;  ^  quia  mater,  quae  genuit, 
virgo  ante  partum,  et  virgo  post  partum  permansit®. 

k  Divimtua  sit  desunt  in  Cod.  Ozon.  in  Symb.  Apostol. 

1  Deest  Christi.  Murator.  «  Unde  et  Mem.  Cod.  Murat.  Conf. 

™ Oxonienris  breviter, Itemin  Pstd-  Fortunat.  in  Symb.  Apostolicum. 

mo,  unxit  &c.  Notandom  porro,  quod  ^  Muratorius  habet  dixisset. 

qusedam  habet  Fortunatus  noster,  in  >   AMelorum   nemo,  prophetarum 

commentario  suo  in  Symbol.  Apostol.  nulhts.  Cod.  Oxon. 

hiflce  jam  proxime  descriptis  perquam  7  Deest  Deus.  Oxon. 

similia.  Confer  etiam  Ruffin.  in  sym-  *  Confer  Fortunat.  in  Symb.  Apo- 

bol.  inter  Oper.  Hieronym.  (tom.  v.  stol.  et  Append,  apud  August,  p.  279. 

p.  131.)  et  Ruffin.  Symb. 

A  De  humo  terrm.  Murator.  *  Homo  est.  Cod.  Oxon. 

^  Non  habetur  est  in  Murat  ^  Dei  FiUuSy  Verbum  caro.  Murat. 

P  Pro  idem,  id  est.  Murator.  Dei  Filius  Verbo  Patris  caro.    Cod. 

4  Deest  et  Cod.  Oxon.  His  quoque  Oxon.    Ex  utrisque  veram,  opinor, 

ffemina  fere  babes  in  Exposit.  in  Sym-  lectionem  restituimus. 

Dol.  Apostolicum.  ^  Etnon.  Cod.  Murator.  Expunxi- 

'  Deest  enim  Cod.  Oxon.    Confer  mus  illud  et,  fide  Codicis  Oxon. 

S3rmb.  Damasi  dictum.  ^  Saha  tnrginitatis  gratia  desunt  in 

•  Quomodo  genitus  sit,  quod  angeli  Cod.  Oxoniensi. 

Oxon.  AtMuratoriilectioniasti-  «  Ita  Cod.  Oxon.  Muratorius,  quia 

pulatur  Appendix  ad  Austin,  (tom.  mater  genuit,  et  virgo  mansit  ante  par^ 

vi.  p.  279.)  et  Fortunatus  ipse.  Expos,  turn,  et  post  partum. 


In  stBcuh.  Id  est,  in  isto  sexto  miliario,  in  quo  nunc  sumus^ 
[tecula  enim  generatitmibus  constant,  et  inde  secular  quod  sequantur; 
abeu$Uiiu8  enim  dliis^  alia  succedunt  ^].  ''  Deus  et  homo  ChrLstus 
"  Jesus,  unus  Dei  Filius  et  ipse  Virginis  Filius.  Quia  dum  Deltas 
**  in  utero  Virginis  humanitatem  adsumpsit,  et  cum  ea  per  por- 
"  tarn  Virginis  integram,  et  illsesam,  nascendo  mundum  ingressus 
"  est  Virginis  Filius ;  et  hominem  (leg.  homo)  quern  adsumsit, 
"  id  (leg.  idem)  est  Dei  Filium  (leg.  Filius)  sicut  jam  supra  dixi- 
"  mus ;  et  Deltas  et  humanitas  in  Ghristo ;  et  Dei  Patris  pariter 
"  et  Virginis  Matris  Filius." 

Peffectus  DeuSy  perfectue  homo.  Id  est,  verus  Deus,  et  verus 
homo,  s  Ex  anima  rattanaU :  et  non  ut  Apollinaris  ^  hsereticus 
dixit  priraum,  quasi  Deltas  pro  anima  fuisset  in  came  Christi ; 
postea,  cum  per  evangelicam  auctoritatem  fuisset  ^  convictus, 
dixit:  Hahuit  quidem  animam  qws  vitificavit  corptis,  sed  non 
rationalem.  ^  E  contrario,  dicit  qui  Gatholice  scntit ;  ex  anima 
ratianali  et  humana  came  suhsietens  ^ :  id  est,  plenus  homo,  atque 

JEqualis  Pairi  secundum  Divinitatem;  minar  Patre  secundum 
humanitatem.  Id  est,  secundum  formam  servi  quam  adsumero 
dignatus  est. 

Qui  licet^  Deus  sit  et  JiomOy  non  duo  tamen,  sed  unus  est  Christus. 
Id  est,  duse  substantise  in  Ghristo,  Deitas  et  humanitas,  non  duse 
Personse,  sed  una  est  Persona". 

Unus  autem,  non  conversione  Divinitatis  in  carnmn^y  sed  adsump- 

'  Non  comparent  in  Codice  Oxoni-  a  quo  solenne  est  nostra  ((juippe  (|ui 

ensi.     Verba  sunt  Isidor.    Orig.  lib.  et  ipse  Aquileise  olim  doctnna  Chns- 

V.  cap.  38.     Quse  sequuntur  proxime,  tiana  initiatus  fuerat)  turn  verba,  turn 

Deus  et  homo  &c.  usque  ad  matris  sentcntias  mutuari. 

FUius,  desunt  omnia  in  codice  Mura-  ^  Deest  hsec  clausula  in  Cod.  Oxon. 

torii :    ex  Oxoniensi   solo  descripta  ob  vocabulum  repetitum. 

dedimus.    Videntur   mihi  Fortunati  ^  Paulinaris,   Cod.  Oxon.  Lectio 

re  vera  esse,  sed  librarii  culpa  (ut  alia  nata  ex  sermone  simplici  et  plebeio. 

multa)  minim  in  modum  vitiata ;  quae  ^  i'W.  Cod.  Oxon. 

quidem  ex  conjectura  aliquatenus  cor-  ^  Et  e  contrario  iste  dicit.    Murat. 

ngere  volui,  ut  Syntaxis  saltern  sibi    Delevimus  iUa  et,  atauew^e mise 

constet,  donee  certiora,  et  meliora  ex  sententiam  turbant,  nde  Codicis  Ox- 

Codicibus  (si  forte  supersint  aliqui)  oniensis. 

eruantur.     Cajterum,   ut    Fortunato  *  Subsistit,  Cod.  Oxon. 

nostro   haec   ascribara,  illud   suadet  ™  Certe,  loco  tov  licet.  Cod.  Oxon. 

maxime,  quod  in  expositione  sua  in  "  ^*^P^«ona  desunt  in  Cod.  Oxon. 

Symbolum  Apostolicum  gemina  fere  °  Cod.  Oxoniensis  habet  came,  et 

habet  de  porta  Virginis,  eisderaque  ibi  Deo :    errore,  uti   credo,  pervetusto, 

nonnullis  phrasibus  utitur  quibus  hie  multisque  et  antiquissimis  exemplari- 

usus  est.    Confer  Symbolum  Ruffini,  bus  communi.     Quod  si  verbis  in 


Hone  humamiatis  in  Dewn^.  Id  est:  non  quod  Divinitas,  quae 
immutabiliB  est,  sit  oonyersa  in  carnem  P;  sed  idoo  unus^  eo  quod 
humanitatem  adsumsit,  ooepit^  esse  quod  non>^  erat,  et  non  amisit 
quod  erat ;  ooefnt  esse  homo "  quod  antea  non  fuerat,  non  amisit 
Dmtatem  qu»  incommutabilis  in  seternnm  permanet^. 

UnH8  Offmino,  non  eon/iuione  9ub$tantue^  sed  uniiate  Persance. 
Id  est;  Divinitas  incommutabilis  ^  oum  homine^  quem  adsumere 
dignata'  est,  sicut  scriptum  est;  Verbum  tuuniy  Domine,  in  cBter- 
num  permanet.  Id  est,  Divinitas  cum  humanitate ;  ut  diximus 
duas  substantias  unam  FersonamJ  esse  in  Ghristo :  ut  sicut  ante 
adsumptionem  [oarnis,  sterna  fuit  Trinitas,  ita  post  adsumptio- 
nem']  humanse  naturae^  vera  maneat  Trinitas ;  ne  propter  ad- 
sumptionem humanse  oarnis  dicatur  esse  quatemitas,  quod  absit 
a  Fidelium  cordibus,  yel  sensibus,  dici,  aut  cogitari^  oum,  ita  ^ 
ut  supradiotum  est,  et  Unitas  in  Trinitate^  et  Trinitas  in  Unitate 
veneranda  sit. 

Nam  tieut  anima  raiitmalis  ei  earo  unus  est  homo;  ita  Deus  et 
homo  unus  est  Ohristus.  Etsi  Deus  ^^  Dei  Filius,  nostram  luteam 
et  mortalem  carnem,  nostrse  redemptionis  conditionem  cadsumj)- 
serit,  se  tamen  nullatenus  ^  inquinavit,  neque  naturam  Deitatis 
mutavit.  Quia  si  sol,  aut  ignis  aliquid  immundum  tetigerit, 
quod  tangit  purgat,  et  se  nullatenus  coinquinat :  ita  Deitas  sar- 
cinam  quoque  ^nostrse  humanitatis  adsumpsit,  se  nequaquam 

oommentario  immediate  sequentibos  curia,  ob  yocem  iteratam. 

iez    Muratorii   lectione)    steterimus,  *  Pro  cum  ita,  habet  Cod.  Oxen, 

^ortonatus  ipse  nobis  auctor  erit,  ut  nisi  ita. 

et  Demn,  et  camem,  pro  genuina  lee-  ^  Murator.  Cod.  omittit  Deui, 

tione  habeamus.  c  Cod.  Ozoniensis,  nostri  redemp- 

P  Qfut  immutabiUi  et  imeomftrtibiUs  iumis  conditumis  adnumpeit,    Nescio 

est,  caro:  sed  &c.  Cod.  Oxon.  an  melius  Muratorius ;   nostram  lu- 

4  Inc^,  Cod.  Oxon.  team,  et  mortalem  carnem  nostra  con- 

'  Deest  non.  Cod.  Mnrat.  male.  ditumis  adsumserit,    Sed  levi  muta- 

'  Deest  homo  in  Cod.  Oxon.  perpe-  tione,  recte  incedunt  omnia.  Conditio, 

ram,  item,  inc^  pro  ccepit.  apud  Scriptores  quinti  et  sexti  saeculi, 

*  Muratorius  k^t,  qnia  tnoommtf-  est  senile  onus,  opusve. 

tabiUs  in  atermm  permanet :  Cod.  ^  Cod.  Oxon.  legit  se  nullatenus. 

Oxoniensis,  qum  immutabilis  in  ester-  Murator.    Sed  tamen  se  nullatenus. 

num  pemunuit.    £z  utrisque  tertiam  Noster  yero  in  Exposit.  in  Symb. 

lectionem  confecimus;  quse,  opinor,  Apostol.  in  simili  causa,  hac  utitur 

ceteris  et  yenustior  est,  et  aptior.  phrasi,  se  tamen  non  inquinat. 

n  Inmutabilis.  Cod.  Oxon.  •  Oxoniensis  habet,  Deitas  sard- 

'  Dignatus.  Cod.  Oxon.  namque  nostra  humanitatis  adsumpsit, 

J  Personam  perperam  omittit  Cod.  se  nequaquam  &c.    Muratorius  hoc 

Oxoniensis.  modo,  Deitas  sarcinam,  quam  ex  nos- 

*•  Desunt  in  Codice  Oxoniensi :  jine-  tra  humanitate  adswnpsit,  nequaquam 

termissa  scilicet  festinantis  librani  in-  eoinqm$uwit.    Lectio  frigida  prorsus. 


ooinquinavit,  sed  nostram  naturam  carnis/  quam  adfiumpsit, 
purgavit,  et  a  maculis,  et  sordibus  peccatorum,  ac  vitionim 
expiavH:  sicut  Esaias  ait;  Ipse  infirmitates  nostras  iuscepii^ 
et  cegrotationes  poriamt.  Ad  hoc  secundum  humanitatem  natus 
est,  ut  infirmitates  nostras  aociperet,  et  segrotationes  portaret : 
non  quod  ipse  infirmitates,  vel  segrotationes  in  se  haberet,  quia 
salus  mundi  est;  sed  ut  eas  a  nobis  toUeret^  dum  suae  sacrse 
passionis  gratia,  et  sacramentos,  chirographo  adempto^  redemp- 
tionem  pariter  et  salutem  animarum  nobis  condonaret. 

Quijpasms  est  pro  salwte  nostra.  Id  est^  secundum  id  quod  pati 
potuit :  quod  est,  secundum  humanam  naturam ;  nam  secundum 
Divinitatem,  Dei  Filius  impassibilis  est. 

Descendit  ad  inferos^,  Ut'  protoplastum  Adam*^,  et  patri- 
archas,  et  prophetas,  et  omnes  justos,  qui  pro  originali  peccato 
ibidem  detinebantur,  liberaret;  et  de^  vinculis  ipsius^i  peccati 
absolutes,  de  eadem  captivitate,  et^  infemali^  loco,  suo  sanguine 
redemptos,  ad  supemam  patriam,  et  ad  perpetuse  vitse  gaudia 
revocaret.  Reliqui,P  qui  supra  originale  peccatumq  principalia 
crimina''  commiserunt,  ut  adserit  Scriptura,  in  poenali  Tartaro 
remanserunt :  sicut  in  Persona  Christi  dictum  est  per  prophetam  ; 
Era  mors  tua^  o  Mors;  id  est,  morte  sua  Christus  humani  generis 
inimicam  Mortem  interfecit,  et  vitam  dedit.  Era  morsus  tuus, 
in/erne.  Partim*  momordit  infemum,  pro  parte  eorum  quos 
liberavit :  partem  reliquit,  pro  parte  eorum  qui  pro  principalibus 
criminibus  in  tormentis  remanserunt. 

Surrexit  a  mortuis  primogenitus  mortuorum :  et  alibi  Aposto- 

et  inepta.    Juvat  hue  conferre  quae  ^  Qui,  loco  tov  ut.  Cod.  Oxon.    At 

Fortunatus  noster  ad  Symb.  Apost.  in  Sermo  de  Sjrmbolo,  in  Append,  ad 

eandem  sententiam  breviter  dictayit.  Au|;[U8t.  (torn.  vi.  p.  a8i.)  legit,  cum 

"  Quod  vero  Deus  Majestatis  de  Muratorio,  ut, 

**  Maria  in  carne  natus  est,  non  est  ^  Adam  orotoplastum.  Append. 

''  sordidatus  nascendo  de  Virgine,  qui  ^  Et  ut  de.  Append. 

"  non  fuit  pollutus  hominem  condens  ™  fysius  deest.  Append. 

"  de  pulvere.    Denique  sol,  aut  ignis,  ^  Deest  et  Cod.  Oxon. 

"  si  lutum  inspiciat,  quod   tetigerit  o  Infemi.  Append. 

"  purgat,  et  se  tamen  non  inquinat"  p  Muratoriusnabet  vero  post  rWigui, 

Conf.  Ruffin.  Symb.  p.  T33.  Oxon.  non  agnoscit.  nee  Append. 

'  Nostra  natures  camem.  Murat.  ^  Ita  legitur  in  Appendice.  Oxoni- 

s  Muratorius  legit,  dum  sua  sacra  ensis,  supra  originale  peccato.    Mura- 

passionis    gratiam,    et    sacramenta :  tonus,  supra  originali  peccato. 

nullo  sensu.  Oxoniensis,  dum  sua  sa-  '  Principalem  culpam.  Append. 

era  passionis  gratia  (pro  gratid)  ac  "    Muratorius,  et   Oxoniensis,    in 

Sacramento.  utroque  loco,  Partem.    Appendix,  in 

hi4rfiii/mia.  Cod.  Oxon.  Q.annon  utrocjue,  PaWim.     Media  mihi  lectio 

vetustissima  haec  fuerit  lectio  in  Syra-  maxime  arridet. 
bolo  Athanasiano,  ficut  in  Apostolico? 



las  dicit;  Ipse  primogenituB  ex  multis  fratribus.  Id  est,  primus 
a  mortuis  resurrexit.  Et  muUa  corpora^  sanctorum  darmientium 
cum  eo  surreaserwUy  sicut  evangelica  auctoritas^  dioit :  Sed  ipse^ 
qui  caput  est,  prius,  deinde  qui^  membra  sunt  cantinuo, 

Postea  ascendit  ad  coelos:  sicut  Psalmista  ait ;  Ascenditv  in 
aUum,  captiwm  duxit  captivitatem :  id  est,  humanam  naturam, 
quse  prius  sub  peooato  venundata  fuit,  et  captivata;  eamque 
redemptam  oaptivam'  duxit  in  coelestem  altitudinem ;  et  ad 
ooelestis  Patrise^^  regnum  sempiternum,  ubi  antea  non  fuerat, 
eam^  coUocavit^  in  gloriam  sempiternam. 

Sedet  ad  dexteram  Patris:  id  est^  prosperitatem  paternam^  et 
in^  eo  honore,  quod^  Deus  est. 

Inde  venturus^judicare  vivos  et  mortuos.  Vivos  dicit  eos  quos 
tunc  adventus  Dominicus  in  corpore  viventes  invenerit ;  [et  mor- 
tuos, jam  ante  sepultos.  Et  alitor  dicit  ^,]  yvrosjustos,  et  mor- 
tuos j>«<;ca^ortf«i?. 

Ad  cujus  adventum  omnss  homines  resurgere  haient  cum  corporis 
bus  suis ;  et  reddiiuri  sunt  de  factis  propriis  rationem :  et  qui  bona 
egerunt,  ibtmt  in  mtam  tBtemam;  qui  vero^  mala,  in  ignem  (Btemum, 
HcBC  est  Fides  CathoUca,  quam  nisi  quisque  fideUter^Jirmiterque 
crediderit,  sahus  esse  non  poterit. 

*  Deest  corpora  in  Cod.  Ozon. 

^  In   evangeUca   auioritate.    Cod. 


'  QiuB  membra.  Cod.  Oxon. 

7  Ascendent.  Murator. 

s  Conf.  tractatum  anoii3nni  apud 
Hieronpd.  torn.  v.  p.  i^.  et  apud 
Auffustin.  torn.  viii.  p.  09.  Append, 
et  Isid.  Hisp.  p.  560.  ed.  Paris. 

*  CiBtestem  Fatriam.  Cod.  Oxon. 
^  Et  pro  earn,  Murator. 

^  In  aeest.  Cod.  Oxon. 

^  Mallem  9110,  si  per  oodicea  liceret; 
sed  et  ^uod,  adverbialiter  hie  positum 
pro  qma,  sensum  non  inconunodum 
prse  se  ferre  videtur. 

«  Ventwusest.  Murator. 
•    '  Quantum  hie  unds  includitur, 
omittit  Codex  Oxoniensis.    Delusus 
est  fortean  librarius  per  binas  litemlas 

it  bis  positas:  vel,  simili  errore  de- 
ceptus,  integram  Uneam  prseterierit, 
dum  in  proxime  sequentem  occulos 

f  Operee  pretium  est  pauca  hie  sub- 
jicere,  qpx  nosier  habet  in  expositione 
sua  in  Symb.  Apostolicum,  "judica- 
"  turns  vhos  et  mortuos,  Aliqui  di- 
*'  cunt  vivos,  justos ;  mortuos  vero 
"  injustos :  aut  certe,  vivos,  quos  in 
''  corpore  invenerit  adventus  Domini- 
"  cuSy  et  mortuos,  jam  sepultos. 
"  Nos  tamen  intelligamus  vivos  et 
"  mortuos,  hoc  est  animas  et  corpora 
"  pariter  judicanda."  Confer  Ruffin. 
Symb.  p.  140.  et  Method,  apud  Phot. 
Cod.  334.  p.  033.  Isid.  Pelus.  epist. 
aaa.  lib.  i.  p.  04.  Pseud.  Ambros.  de 
Trin.  p.331. 



ABBO,  or   Albo   (Floria- 
oensis)    125,    170,    184, 

Abelard    140,    148,    ^33, 

AdalbertoB  124. 
Adrian  I.  (Pope)  156, 183, 

Mneas     Parisiensis     109, 

Agobardufl  113. 
Alcuiniia  259,  260. 
Alexander  (of  Hales)  128, 

Alexander   (Natalia)    115, 

151, 182,  216. 
AUatiua  (Leo)    no,    ia8, 

Alstedius  182. 
Ambrose  (St.)    176,    200, 

206, 208,  224,  225, 226. 
Amerbachios  168. 
Anastasius  I.  (Pope)  115, 

Anastasius  II.  (Pope)  202. 
Anastasius  (Antioch.)  160. 
Anscharins  124, 183,  184. 
Antelmius  114,   126,   153, 

161,  213,  214. 
Antonins  (Nicol.)  147. 
Aquinas  129,  187,  215. 
Anioldns  127. 
Ashwell  (Geor^)  1 10. 
Athanasios  (Alex.)  199. 
Athanasius  (of  Spire)  111. 
Angustinos  (S.)  118,  162, 

200^  201,  202,  204,  208, 

209,  212,  215,  221,  222, 

229>  *S7- 
Avitus     Viennensis      180, 

Autun  (Council  of)    118, 

136.  179- 
Bacon  (Roger)  165. 
Baifius  (Li^anis)  174,  177. 
Baldensal  (William)  131. 
Bale  145. 
Balnzios  121. 
Baronios    iii^    114,    181, 

Beleth  127. 

Bemo  (Augiensis)  165. 
Beveridge  1 13. 
Bingham  115,  121. 
Bona  (Cardinal)  no,  131, 

160,  163,  180,  185,  186, 

189,  192. 
Bruno   (Bp.    of  Wurtzb.) 

136, 137- 
Brunswick  (Abbot)  227. 
Bryling  (NicoL)  174, 176. 
Cabassutius  113,  121. 
Ceesarius  (of  Aries)   211, 

Calamy  (Dr.)  250. 
Caleca  (Manuel)  131,  172, 

Calvisius  182. 
Cantilupe  (Walter)  129. 
Carranza  148. 
Cassian  (John)  212. 
Cave  (Dr.)  112,  116. 
Caxton  145. 
Cazanovius  191. 
Chalcedon     (Council     of) 

Charles  the  Great  122, 155, 

Chillingworth  247,  248. 
Clarke  (Dr.)  116,  245. 
Claudianus  Mamertus  204. 
Cochleus  (Joh.)  137,  138. 

Le  Coint  120. 

Combefis    131,   132,    190, 

20iy  219,  220. 
Comber  113, 151. 
Covel  196. 
Cudworth  iii. 
Cyparissiota     (Johannes) 

Cyril  (of  Jems.)  248,  253. 
Danhawerus  251. 
Denebertus  (Bp.)  184. 
Dionysius  (Milan)  1 76. 
Dodwell  180. 
Dupin  113,  120. 
Durants  (William)  130. 
Durell  164. 
Ephesine      Council,     248, 

Epiphanius,  199,  207. 
Euphronius  IVesbyter  136. 
Eusebius     (Verceil)    131, 

Exeter  (Council  of)  130. 
Fabridus    no,    115,   121, 

127,  176,  178. 
Faustinus  200,  223. 
Felckman  161, 173, 177. 
Felix  III.  (Pope)  202. 
Fellerus  (Joachim)  141. 
Flavian     (Constantinop.) 

202,  210. 
Fortunatus  (Venant.)  114, 

«34»>79»2ii,  257. 
Frankfort  (Council  of)  121, 

Fulgentius  203,  234,  259, 

Gavantus  (Bartholm.)  182. 
Gaudentius  (Brix.)  118. 
Genebrard  174,  177,  188, 




Gennadius  MassU.  141,214, 

a 28, 229,  230. 
OentUly  (Couudl  of)  171. 
Gorrhain  143. 
GMbe(Dr.)  155. 
Gregory  I.  (Pope)  150, 238, 

(Pope)  108, 

Gregory  IX. 

128,  150. 
Gregory    (Nazianz.) 

aoo,  204,  207,  222. 
Gregory  Nyssen  206. 
Gr^ory  of  Tours,  136, 163. 
GuiJdo  Ckirbeiena.  126. 
Gnndling    (Wolfg.)     112, 

174,  i75f  176,  190. 
Hampole  (Rich.)  141,  142, 

Harduin  118,121,124,129, 

206,  210. 
Harris  (Dr.)  191, 192. 
Hatto  (BasU)  1 22, 183, 189. 
Heideggerus  112. 
Helvicus  182. 
Hennantiiis  (Gk>dfr.)  12a 
Hicke8(Dr.)  151,15^  i7o> 

Hilary  Tof  Aries)  214*  215. 
Hilary  (Poictiers)  161, 116. 
Hildegatde  140. 
Hincmar    109,    119,   123, 

137,  167, 140. 
Hody  (Dr.)  162^  163,  164^ 

165.  187. 
Honoratos  (of  Aries)  315. 
Honoratos  (of  Ifaneiltos) 

Honorius  (Antun)  J26. 
Hormisdas  (Pope)  202. 
Hulsemaniiiis  251. 
Hydnmtinus    (Nic.)    127, 

I7»»  »9S- 
JanuenaB    (Johan.)    129, 

142,  246. 
Jerome  (St)  163, 206,  208. 
Ignatius  230. 
John  (of  Antioch)  210. 
John  II.  (Pope)  203. 
Isidorus  (Hisp.)  1 18,  260, 

262,  205. 
Isidorus  (Pelus.)  268. 
JuUanus  ((Hardin.)  173. 
Ito  Camotensis  257. 
Justinian  (Emp.)  203. 
Kirkham  (Walter)  129. 
Kromayerns  251. 
Labbe(PhiL)iii,  120. 

Lambecius  156,  169,  184, 

Le  Lande  (Peter)  120. 
Langbaine  (Dr.)  143. 
Leo  I.  (Pope)  202,  206, 

Leo  III.  (Pope)  122,  187. 
Leodegarius  118,  120. 
Leporius  209,  213. 
Lepusculus      ( Sebastian  ) 

Livius  (Poet)  214. 
Le   Long   138,   144,   162, 

165,  169. 
Ludolphus  (Idk)  190,  196, 

Ludolphus  Saxo  130. 
impus  (Tioyes)  136. 
Luther  246. 
Lyra  143. 
Mabillon  156, 180. 
Marcus  Ephesius  196. 
Martene  195. 
Martianay  162,  163. 
Methodius  268. 
Metrophanes     Critopulus 

Mont&ucon  114,  i  a  i,  139, 

i5it  154. 155,  156,  157. 

160,  161,  171. 
Muratorius  114,  120,  135, 

151*  182. 
Neander  (Mich.)  177. 
Neckham  (Alex.)  140. 
Nesselius  173. 
Nichols  250. 
Nisselius  178. 
Nithardns  168. 
Olivet  Mount  (Monks  of) 

Orosius  244. 
Otfridus  130, 183. 
Otho  (Prising.)  126,  130. 
Oudin  (CSasim.)  116^  12Q, 

Pagi  114, 121, 159,179. 
Papebrochius  119. 
Pappus  (Johan.)  256. 
Pftreus  (David)  136,  251. 
Paululus  (Rob.)  127. 
PeBnon(J3p^  iii,  144. 
Pelagius  1.  (Pope)  203. 
Pelagius  (Monk)  308,  209. 
Petavius  109,  206. 
Petrus  de  Harentals  143. 
Petms  de  Osoma  147. 
PlanudM  (Max.)  173. 

Plusiadenus  131. 

Prosper  215. 

Quesnel    (Paschal.)    iii, 

Le  Quien  115,  122,  151, 

204,  206. 
Ratherius  (Verona)    125, 

Ratram  (Corb.)  109,  124. 
Regino  121. 
Rembertus  124. 
Renaudot  190,  255. 
Ricaut  (Sir  Paul)  197,  255. 
Riculphus  (Bp.  Soiss)  125. 
Ruelius  (Johan.  Lud.)  1 1 1. 
Ruffinus  257,  261,  264,  &c. 
Sandins  iii. 
Serarius  (Nic.)  256. 
Simon  (of  Toumay)  140. 
Sirmondus  122,  123,  21 1. 
Smith  (Dr.)  155,  190. 
Spondanus  190. 
Stephens  (H.)  174,  i77- 
Strabus  (Walal)  163. 
Suicer  rCasp.)  197. 
Taylor  (Bp.)  1 10,  251,  25  2. 
Tentzehus  no,  113,  120, 

Textus  Roffensis  185. 
Thecaras  (Monachus)  194. 
Theodolphus  122. 
Tillemont  114,   121,   151, 

Toledo  III.  Counca  180. 
Toledo  IV.  Council  181. 
Trevisa  (John)  144. 
Turribius  202. 
Vigilitts  Tapsensis  111,112, 

Vlncentius  lirin.  114,  204, 

ai3,  «IS- 
Ullerston  143. 
Vo8sius(Gren:ard)  108, 121, 

Usher  109,  137,  150,  152, 

168,  175,  177,  192,  194* 

Wall  (Dr.)  208. 
Wanley  138, 152, 158. 
Wharton    144,   158,   168, 

Wickliff  143,  240. 
Willehad  183, 184, 185. 
Wotton(Dr.)  158,  170. 
Zialowski    (Eustrat.    Jo- 

hannid.)  112. 



AMBR08IAN  I.  Athanasum  Creed  154, 166,  W2,  lai. 

Ambrofiiaii  II.  Anonymous  Comments  on  the  Creed  148,  149. 

Ambroflian  III.  Fortnnatus's  Comment  114, 134. 

Baifius.  Greek  Copy  of  the  Creed  174,  177. 

BallioL  Ozon.  Bruno's  Comment  138. 

BasiL  Bruno's  and  Hampole's  Comment  141. 

Benet  Camb.  (N.  X.)  Athanasian  Creed  156,  2^7. 

Benet  (N.  O.  Y.)  Athanasian  Creed  157, 163. 

Benet  (K.  10.)  Athanasian  Creed  158. 

Benet  (i-i.)  WicldifTs  Comment  146. 

Benet  (N.  15.)  Gregory's  Psalter  151. 

Bodleian.  (Junius  25.)  Fortunatus's  Comment  135,  Q57. 

Bodleian.  (Laud.  H.  61.)  Bruno's  Comment  138. 

Bodleian.  (Laud.  £.  71.)  Bruno's  Comment  138. 

Bodleian.  (G.  39.)  Athanasian  Creed  160. 

Bodleian.  (E.  7. 8.)  Neckham's  Comment  140. 

Bodleian.  (E.  6.  ir.)  Neckham's  Comfaient  141. 

Bryling.  Greek  Copy  of  the  Creed  1 74. 

C.C.C.C.  Vid.  Benet. 

Cambridge.  Athanasian  Creed  159,  188. 

Cassinensis.  Athanasian  Creed  159. 

Colbert  I.  Athanasian  Creed  153, 155,  204,  227,  &c 

Colbert  II.  Athanasian  Creed  157. 

Constantinopolitan.  Greek  Copy  of  the  Creed  175,  177. 

Cotton  I.  Athanasian  Creed  in  Athelstan's  Psalter  154,  155, 163, 178,  229. 

Cotton  II.  (Yitell.  £.  18.)  Athanasian  Creed  158. 

Cotton  III.  (Vespas.  A.)  Athanasian  Creed  i5i>  159. 

Cotton  IV.  (Nero.  C.4.)  Gallican  Version  169. 

Dionysian.  Greek  Copy.    See  Baifius. 

Emanuel  Cambr.  Wickliff's  Bible  144. 

Felckman.  Greek  Copy  of  the  Creed  1 73. 

Friars  Minors.  Latino- Gallican  Creed  160. 

Germans  (St.)  Athanasian  Creed  156,  221,  &c. 

German  de  Prez.  Bruno's  Comment  139,  140. 

Gotha.  Bruno's  with  Hampole's  Comment  141,  142. 

Harley  I.  Athanasian  Creed  158,  163. 

Harley  II.  Athanasian  Creed  159. 

Harley  III.  Bruno's  Comment  139. 

Harley.  Triple  Psalter  165. 

Hilarian.  Athanasian  Creed  161. 


James  (St.)  Hampole's  Comment  145. 

James  II.  Athanasian  Creed  157, 170. 

James  III.  Athanasian  Creed  159. 

John*s  (St)  Cambr.  Triple  Psalter  159,  165. 

John's  (St.)  Cambr.  Wickliff's  Comment  143. 

John's  (St.)  Oxon.  Bruno's  Comment  139. 

Lambeth.  Athanasian  Creed  158, 164,  169. 

Leipsick.  Bnmo*s  with  Hampole  141. 

Magd.  Cambr.  Wickliff's  N.  Testament  144,  145. 

Magd.  Cambr.  Athanasian  Creed  old  English  144. 

Magd.  Ozon.  Hampole*s  Comment  14a. 

Merton.  Oxon.  Bruno^s  Comment  138. 

Norfolk  I.  Athanasian  Creed  158. 

Norfolk  II.  Athanasian  Creed  159, 168. 

Norfolk  III.  English  Gospels  144. 

Palatine.  Greek  Copy  of  the  Creed  173, 177. 

Patrick  Yoong.  Greek  Copy  of  the  Creed  175. 

Regius  Paris  I.  Athanasian  Creed  156. 

Regius  Paris  II.  Greek  Copy  of  the  Creed  174. 

Sarum.  Saxon  Version  of  the  Creed  169. 

Sidney.  Cambr.  Hampole*s  Comment  on  the  Psalms,  English  146. 

Thuanus.  Athanasian  Creed  160. 

Treves.  Athanasian  Creed  153,  204. 

Trinity  ColL  Cambr.  Bruno*s  Comment  138, 139,  165,  168. 

Trinity  Coll.  Cambr.  Wickliff's  Comment  145. 

Trinity  Coll.  Cambr.  Rythmus  Anglicus  130. 

Trinity  Coll.  Cambr.  Hampole's  Comment  on  the  Psalms  145. 

Vienna  I.  Athanasian  Creed  156, 184. 

Vienna  II.  Greek  Creed  17a. 

Vienna  III.  Greek  Creed  173. 

Vienna  IV.  German  Version  169,  183. 

Usher  I.  Athanasian  Creed  1 50. 

Usher  IL  Book  of  Hymns  175. 

Wortzbnrgh.  Bruno*s  Comment  138, 163. 

York.  Bruno's  Comment  139. 







W^ATEBtAND,  VOL.  III.     •'  . 




QuBRT  I.  Whether  the  term  God  in  the  singular  number 
can  be  proved  to  be  used,  in  any  one  place  of  the  Scripture, 
to  denote  more  persons  than  one  ? 

A  NSW.  I.  It  is  not  necessary  for  the  defenders  of  the  received 
doctrine  of  a  coesserUial  Trinity  to  assert,  that  the  term  God,  in 
the  sinptUar  number,  can  be  proved  to  be  used  in  Scripture  to  denote 
more  Persons  than  one :  for  as  the  Arians  suppose  Father  and 
Son  to  be  two  GodSy  though  they  are  never  caUed  ttco  Oods,  or 
Gods  in  the  plural  number,  through  the  whole  Scripture  :  so  the 
Catholics  may  as  well  suppose  that  Father  and  Son  are  one  God, 
though  the  term  God  could  not  be  proved  to  be  used  to  denote 
more  Persons  than  one.  Or  if  it  be  said,  that  the  Arians  do  not 
suppose  Father  and  Son  to  be  ttoo  Gods^  whatever  pleas  they 
allege  to  clear  themselves  of  Ditheism  will  as  effectually  clear  the 
Catholics  of  Tritlieism ;  so  that  the  Catholics  will  stand  at  least 
upon  as  good  a  foot  as  the  Arians. 

2.  It  is  not  necessary  even  so  much  as  to  suppose  that  the 
term  God  is  ever  so  used.  For  admitting  that  the  term  God  in 
Scripture  is  always  used  to  denote  one  Person  only,  all  that 
follows  is,  that  one  Person  only  is  spoken  of,  whenever  the  term 
God  is  used.  Not  that  there  are  not  other  Persons  essentially 
and  coetemaUy  included  in  him  and  with  him.  It  may  be  the 
method  of  Scripture,  and  generally  is,  when  it  speaks  of  God,  to 
mean  it  of  one  Person,  yet  not  excluding,  but  only  abstracting 
from,  the  consideration  of  the  other  two  persons  included  in  the 
same  Godhead. 

T  2 


3.  They  may  reasonably  suppose  it,  after  proof  of  their  general 
doctrine,  since  the  doctrine  of  a  coessential  Trinity  of  three 
Persons  being  divine,  and  being  one  God,  is  demonstrable  from 
Scripture,  (though  too  long  a  subject  to  be  here  considered,)  we 
may  reasonably  suppose^  that  when  God  is  spoken  of,  and  neither 
the  context  nor  any  other  circumstances  do  confine  the  signifi- 
cation of  the  word,  in  that  place,  to  one  Person  only ;  I  say  we 
may  reasonably  suppose,  that  not  one  Person  only,  but  all  the 
three  Persons  are  denoted  by  it.     And, 

4.  They  have  moreover  grounds  for  it  from  some  particular 
texts.  Gen.  i.  26.  one  God  is  spoken  of,  and  yet  the  words  run. 
Let  us  (in  the  plural)  make^  and  in  our  image.  Gen.  iii.  2a.  one 
Lord  God  is  spoken  of,  and  yet  it  is  said,  "  the  man  is  become 
"  as  one  of  us."  The  like  may  be  observed  of  Gen.  xi.  7.  In 
Isaiah  vi.  3.  mention  is  made  of  the  true  God,  the  Lord  ofhosts^ 
who,  by  confession  of  all,  is  the  Father ;  and  that  the  same  Lord 
of  hosts  is  also  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,,  appears  from  John  xii. 
40,  41.  and  Acts  xxviii.  25,  26.  which  is  also  intimated  even 
by  the  Prophet  himself  introducing  the  Lord  speaking  both 
in  the  singular  and  plural.  ^'I  heard  the  voice  of  the 
"  Lord,  saying,  Whom  shall  I  send,  and  who  will  go  for  us  T 
Ver.  8. 

Query  2.  Whether  we  have  not  the  same  evidence  from  the 
Scripture,  that  God  is  one  Person,,  that  we  have,  that  either  the 
Father^  or  the  Son^  or  the  Holy  Ghosts  is  one  Person. 

A  NSW.  We  have  the  same  evidence,  that  the  word  God  is 
sometimes  used  to  denote  one  Person,  that  we  have,  that  either  the 
Father,  or  Son,  or  Holy  Ghost,  is  one  Person.  But  to  conclude 
from  thence,  that  the  word  God  always  denotes  one  divine  Person 
only,  is  just  as  if  we  should  conclude,  that  the  word  man  always 
denotes  one  human  person  only,  purely  because  it  does  so  some- 
times,  or  most  commonly.  It  is  desired  by  the  Querist,  that 
"  some  Scripture  argument  may  be  alleged  to  prove  any  one  of  the 
"  Trinity  to  be  one  distinct  Person,  which  may  not  with  equal 
"  evidence  be  applied  to  prove  that  God  is  one  distinct  Person."*" 
I  suppose  the  Querist  means,  that  the  personal  characters,  /, 
thou,  he^  if  they  prove  any  one  of  the  Trinity  to  be  one  distinct 
Person,  do  equally  prove  God  to  be  one  distinct  Person.  To 
which  it  is  answered,  that  the  personal  characters,  /,  thou,,  he, 
do  not  certainly  prove,  that  whatever  they  are  applied  to  is  on^ 
Person,  and  no  more  ;  for  they  are  often  applied  in  Scripture  to 


a  whole  ctty,  tribe,  or  family,  or  to  the  head  of  a  family  con- 
8idei*ed  with  his  whole  seed  or  race.  But  the  personal  characters 
are  a  good  proof  of  one  distinct  Person,  where  there  are  not  plain 
reasons  to  be  given  why  we  should  believe  they  are  to  be  under- 
stood of  more.  Now,  since  plain  reasons  may  be  given,  why 
God  is  more  Persons  than  one;  and  no  plain  reasons  can  be 
given  why  any  one  of  the  Trinity  is  more  Persons  than  one ; 
therefore  it  is,  that  the  Scripture  argument  to  prove  any  one  0/ 
the  Trinity  to  he  one  Person  does  not  equally  prove  that  God  is 
one  Person. 

QuBBY  3.  Whether  there  be  any  one  text  of  Scripture,  which 
treats  of  the  unity  of  God,  and  places  it  in  any  other  Person  than 
the  Father  f  It  is  humbly  desired,  that  some  text  may  be  alleged 
where  it  is  said,  the  one  God  is  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 

Answ.  It  18  written,  "  Look  unto  me,  and  be  ye  saved,  all  the 
"  ends  of  the  earth :  for  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  else.  I 
'*  have  sworn  by  myself,  the  word  is  gone  out  of  my  mouth  in 
*'  righteousness,  and  shall  not  return,  That  unto  me  every  knee 
"  shall  bow,  every  tongue  shall  swear.*"  Isaiah  xlv.  22,  23. 
Compare  the  New  Testament.  "  We  shall  all  stand  before  the 
**  judgment-seat  of  Christ ;  for  it  is  written,  As  I  Uve,  saith  the 
"  Lord,  every  knee  shall  bow  to  me,  and  every  tongue  shall 
"  confess  to  God."  Rom.  xiv.  10,  11.  "At  the  name  of  Jesus 
''  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and  things  in 
"  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth ;  and  that  every  tongue 
'*  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God 
"  the  Father."  Phil.  ii.  10,  11.  The  application  of  Isaiah  xlv. 
23.  to  Christ  is  manifest  from  these  two  passages  of  St.  Paul. 
It  is  as  manifest,  that  the  Person  spoken  of  in  Isaiah  is  the  only 
God,  ('*  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  else.")  Therefore  Scripture 
treating  of  the  unity  of  God,  places  it  in  another  Person  besides 
the  Faiher,  namely,  in  God  the  Son.  Again,  it  is  plain,  in  the 
Old  Testament,  that  the  unity  is  placed  in  the  Jehovah:  but 
Christ  is  Jehovah,  as  may  be  proved  from  numerous  passages, 
and  is  now  generally  confessed.  Therefore  the  unity  is  not 
placed  in  the  Person  of  the  Father  only,  Isaiah  vi.  i,  9.  with 
John  xii. 

The  Querist  desires  some  texts  where  it  is  said,  that  the  one 
God  is  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost. 

This  is  no  where  said  in  one  single  text,  but  it  is  in  many 


compared  together.  That  Jehovah  is  the  one  Grod,  and  that  the 
one  God  is  Jehovah^  is  often  said  in  the  Old  Testament :  but  the 
Father  is  Jehovah,  the  Son  Jehovah,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  Jehovah ; 
therefore  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  one  Jehovah.  Or 
the  one  God  is  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  Again ;  it  may 
be  proved  from  Scripture,  that  God  is  one;  and  from  the  same 
Scripture,  that  the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  is  God,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  God.  Therefore  again,  the  one  God  is  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost.  Compare  Isaiah  vi.  i ,  9,  with  John  xii.  40, 
41,  and  Acts  xxviii.  25,  26. 

N.  B.  It  is  unreasonable  to  demand  any  particular  text,  where 
it  is  said,  that  these  three  are  one  God:  unless  our  adversaries 
could  produce  a  text,  where  it  is  said,  that  any  two  of  them 
are  called  ttco  Gods,  or  Gods  in  the  plural.  They  pretend  no 
more  than  Scripture  consequences  for  their  doctrine,  not  express 
Scripture :  and  they  cannot  prove  their  consequences,  when  we 
can  oura. 

QuBBT  4.  Whether  the  same  arguments  that  prove  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  to  be  three  distinct  Persons^  will  not  with 
equal  strength  conclude  they  are  three  distinct  Beings  ? 

Answ.  No  ;  because  all  the  arguments  that  prove  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  to  be  three  distinct  Persons^  prove  only  that 
they  are  three  distinct  Persons.  Whether  intelligent  being  and 
person  are  reciprocal^  remains  a  question  as  much  as  ever :  or 
whether  three  persons  may  not  be  one  individual  being  is  still  a 
question,  and  must  be  so;  neither  can  it  be  resolved  at  all 
either  way,  merely  from  the  nature  and  reason  of  the  thing  itself, 
for  want  of  a  certain  principle  of  individuation. 

Query  5.  Whether  any  man  can  properly  be  said  to  believe 
that  God  is  three  Persons,  and  but  one  intelligent  Being,  without 
having  some  notion  of  the  difference  he  hereby  makes  between  a 
peirson  and  an  intelligent  being  ? 

Answ.  Any  person  may  have  this  notion,  that  God  is  not  three 
separate  Persons,  and  therefore  is  not  three  intelligent  Beings:  but 
that  God  is  three  united  Persons,  and  therefore  one  intelligent 
Being.  The  precise  diffiarence  between  the  idea  of  a  divine  Person, 
and  that  of  a  divine  intelligent  Being,  is,  that  a  iUvine  Person  is 
not  a  separate  Being  independent  of  all  other  things.  A  divine 
intelligent  Being  is  separate  and  independent  of  any  thing.  The 
one  is  ens  rdatiwm,  the  other  ens  aieolutum.  I  may  add  furfiier, 
that  a  man   may  believe  the  omnipresence  of  God,  without 


having  any  distinct  notion  of  the  difference  between  God's  being 
present,  in  whole  or  in  part^  with  or  without  extension ;  and  of 
the  divine  prescience^  without  having  any  clear  notion  of  the 
difference  between  what  certainly  toill  be  and  what  certainly  must 
be ;  and  of  eternity ^  without  having  a  clear  notion  of  the  differ- 
ence between  succession  and  an  eternal  now^  and  without  being 
able  to  answer  every  minute  or  captious  question  which  may  be 
raised  in  a  point  so  abstruse,  and  above  human  capacity.  It  is 
therefore  no  just  objection  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
that  we  are  not  able  perfectly  to  explain  the  modus  or  manner^ 
how  three  Persons  are  one  Being,  or  one  God.  It  is  sufficient  to 
know,  that  the  Persons  ai'e  distinct  and  real^  as  any  other  persons 
are ;  but  so  united  withal,  as  no  other  persons  are  or  can  be; 
and  therefore  they  are  not  (like  other  persons)  as  many  beings  as 
persons,  but  one  being  only. 

Query  6.  Whether  (if  no  difference  can  be  assigned  between 
an  intelligent  being  and  a  person)  it  be  not  a  contradiction  to  say, 
that  God  is  three  Persons  and  one  Being  ?  that  is,  whether  it  be 
not  all  one,  as  to  say,  he  is  three  Persons^  and  but  one  Person ; 
or  three  Beings^  and  but  one  Being  f 

Answ.  a  difference  has  been  assigned  in  the  answer  to  the 
preceding  Query.  Nothing  is  properly  called  a  being^  but  a 
separate  being.  Thus,  those  who  suppose  the  sotd,  or  the  divine 
Being  to  be  extended,  do  not  call  the  parte  of  the  soul,  or  of  God, 
beings.  This  I  mention,  only  to  shew  the  nature  and  usage  of 
language,  and  what  it  would  be  by  consent  of  mankind,  on  such 
or  such  suppositions,  be  they  true  or  false.  Now,  since  the  thr^ 
Persons  are  conceived  to  be  more  intimately  united  than  the 
parts  of  any  being  (though  they  are  not  parts)  are  or  can  be; 
it  is  very  right  and  just,  not  to  call  them  three  Beings,  but  one 
Being,  A  separate  person  is  rightly  called  an  intelligent  being^ 
because  a  separate  person  is  a  separate  being :  but  a  person  con- 
sidered as  essentially  adhering  to,  and  united  with  another 
person,  does  with  that  other  person  make  but  one  being ;  and 
therefore  cannot  properly  be  called  a  being,  unless  the  word 
being  admits  of  two  senses :  and  yet  then  the  one  is  proper^  the 
other  improper.  The  Querist  therefore  runs  into  a  double ^W- 
hcy  ;  first,  in  making  two  senses  of  being,  proper  and  improper, 
and  arguing  from  one  to  the  other:  secondly,  in  confounding 
both  together,  as  ifsthey  were  really  but  one  sense. 

Query  7.  Whether,  if  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  are  but  one 


Beinffy  it  is  possible  to  hold,  that  the  Being  of  the  Son  was  in- 
carnate, without  holding  that  the  Being  of  the  Father  and  the 
Spirit  was  incarnate? 

Answ.  The  Being  of  the  Son  is  an  improper  expression ;  be- 
cause it  supposes  the  Son  to  be  a  Being^  (properly  so  called,) 
that  is,  a  separate  Being^  which  he  is  not.  But  (me  Person^  the 
Person  of  the  Son  may  be  incarnate,  and  the  Person  of  the 
Father  or  Holy  Ghost  at  the  same  time  not  incarnate,  without 
any  contradiction,  because  one  person  is  not  another  person.  Yet 
it  may  be  said,  the  Godhead  is  incarnate ;  i.  e.  the  divine  Being, 
as  personalized  in  the  Son,  is  incarnate  in  the  Person  of  the  Son. 
These  philosophical  niceties,  in  a  point^so  sublime  and  mysterious, 
ought  to  be  neglected  and  despised.  Let  any  man  tell  us, 
whether  the  Being  of  God  is  present  in  heaven,  and  whether  the 
same  Being  of  God  is  present  on  earth ;  and  let  him  inform  us 
distinctly  what  he  means  by  it.  Let  him  say,  whether  God  will 
be  a  day  older  to-morrow  than  he  is  to-day,  and  clear  either  the 
affirmative  or  negative  of  all  appearance  of  contradiction.  Let 
him  determine  whether  God  be  extended  or  not  extended^  and 
disentangle  either  side  of  the  question  from  all  appearance  of 
repugnancy.  Let  him  unriddle  the  mysteries  of  eternity ;  ac- 
quaint us  how  eternity  can  be  past  unless  it  was  once  present^  or 
how  it  could  be  ever  present  if  it  never  began.  But  enough  of 

Query  8.  Whether  the  imposing  side  can  pretend  that  the 
consequence  they  draw  from  the  unity  of  God,  and  from  the 
Father  and  Son's  being  severally  called  God,  is  more  clear  and 
certain  than  the  consequence  which  others  draw  from  the  same 
consideration  ? 

Answ.  The  imposing  side  (as  he  calls  them)  do  not  argue 
merely  from  the  Father  and  Son's  being  severally  called  God  ;  but 
from  the  Scriptures  describing  both  one  and  the  other  to  be  Croo 
in  such  a  sense  as  to  have  a  right  to  be  adored.  Now,  in  this 
sense,  there  cannot  be  more  Gods  than  one,  consistently  with 
the  First  Commandment,  which  excludes  all  but  one  God  from 
religious  service  and  adoration.  Any  God,  after  this  one  Gody 
is  no  God,  in  any  true  and  proper  sense  :  but  the  Son  is  the  one 
true  God,  because  he  is  adorable,  and  God :  and  there  are  not 
more  true  and  more  adorable  Gods  than  one.  This  consequence  they 
take  to  be  certain  and  undeniable :  but  the  consequence  which 
others  draw,  viz.  that  Father  and  Son  cannot  be  called  God  in 


the  same  sense  of  the  word  God,  (for  so  it  should  have  been  ex- 
pressed by  the  Querist,)  has  nothing  at  all  to  support  it.  because 
the  exclusive  term  cannot  be  proved  to  have  been  intended  in 
opposition  to  God  the  Son.  Or  if  they  be,  they  must  exclude 
him  entirely  among  the  nominal,  fictitiom  deities,  which  is  absurd 
enough.  And  because  those  empAatical  appellations  of  one^  or 
only  God,  applied  to  the  Father,  are  easily  accounted  for,  by 
admitting  a  different  manner  of  existence,  or  a  priority  of  order, 
without  any  recourse  to  a  different  sense  of  the  word  God.  Be- 
sides, the  Scripture  plainly  shews  by  the  divine  titles,  attributeSf 
and  glory,  which  it  ascribes  to  God  the  Son,  that  he  is  God  in 
the  strict  and  proper  sense,  and  not  in  any  lotoer  or  different 
sense,  as  is  pretended. 

Query  9.  Whether  men  being  liable  to  mistake  in  drawing 
consequences,  modesty  should  not  teach  the  imposing  side  to  be 
as  forward  to  bear  with  their  brethren,  as  they  are  to  bear  with 
the  imposers  f 

Answ.  When  it  is  once  declared  what  is  meant  by  bearing  with 
their  brethren,  this  Query  may  have  a  determinate  answer.  As 
to  men's  being  liable  to  mistake,  it  is  no  argument  against  their 
being  certain  of  many  things ;  and  if  they  be  certain  of  such  a 
truth,  and  that  it  is  very  important,  all  Christian  and  prudent 
methods  must  be  used  to  maintain  and  preserve  it. 

Query  jo.  Whether  it  is  not  dangerous  rashness  to  censure 
men  as  to  their  everlasting  state,  for  not  believing  a  doctrine 
which  is  not  expressly  declared  in  any  one  place  in  the  Bible! 

Answ.  There  is  no  rashness  at  all  in  censuring  men,  as  to 
their  everlasting  estate,  for  disbelieving,  and  especially  for  pub- 
licly opposing  a  doctrine  o/so  vast  importance^  which  is  both  ex* 
pressly  and  by  necessary  consequence  declared  in  many  places  of 
Scripture  compared  together.  "  If  an  angel  from  heaven  preach 
"  any  other  Gospel  unto  you,  than  that  which  we  have  preached 
**  unto  you,  let  him  be  accursed.*"  Gal.  i.  8. 

Query  ii.  Whether  they  who  say,  the  Son  did  know  the  €hy 
and  hour  of  the  last  judgment,  when  he  said  expressly,  that  he  did 
not ;  whether,  I  say,  they  do  not  make  Christ  to  have  been  guilty 
of  an  equivocation  ?  And  whether  such  their  assertion  is  not  very 
dangerous,  as  tending  to  introduce,  by  his  example,  a  practice 
which  will  destroy  all  credit  among  Christians  ? 

Answ.  There  was  no  equivocation  in  saying  what  was  literally 
true,  that  the  Son,  as  Son  of  man^  did  not  know  the  day  and 


iaur  of  the  last  judgment.  The  context  itself  sufficiently  limits 
his  denial  to  his  human  nature.  The  Querist  tells  us,  that, 
**  according  to  this  way  of  equivocating,  a  man  (as  one  observes) 
'*  may  deny  that  he  saw  a  thing  which  he  actually  saw ;  mean- 
"  ing.  he  did  not  see  it  with  one  eye,  which  he  wilfully  kept 
''  shut,  while  he  beheld  it  with  the  other.''  But,  as  one  observes, 
(see  Mr.  Boyse  in  his  reply  to  that  pretence  of  Mr.  Emlyn's,)  in 
answer  to  this  idle  stuff,  there  might  be  some  colour  for  the 
pretence,  if  a  man  had  two  vmve  powers^  or  two  souls,  as  well  as 
two  eyes :  but  since  he  has  but  one  visive  power^  and  one  soul^ 
which  one  soul  sees,  whether  one  eye  only,  or  both  be  open,  it 
would  be  a  downright  falsehood  to  say,  I  saw  not  a  thing  at  all, 
because  I  saw  it  but  with  one  eye.  But  the  case  is  quite  differ- 
ent, where  there  are  two  knoming  principles,  belonging  to  two 
different  natures ;  one  of  which  may  see  or  know,  while  the  other 
doth  not  see  or  know ;  and  consequently  it  may  be  denied  of  one, 
which  may  be  affirmed  of  the  other.  It  could  not  indeed  be 
absolutely  and  indefinitely  denied  of  Christ,  that  he  hMw  the  day: 
neither  is  it  so  denied  in  Scripture,  but  in  a  certain  respect  only, 
which  the  reason  of  the  thing  and  the  very  context  determines  it 
to :  for  it  speaks  not  of  the  Son  of  God  as  such,  but  of  the  Son 
o/man^  or  of  Christ  considered  as  Son  of  man. 

Query  i  2.  Whether,  if  the  Holy  Spirit  be  the  supreme  God, 
he  must  not  have  as  much  right  to  give  the  Father^  as  the  Father 
can  have  to  give  him  ?  And  whether,  upon  this  supposition,  it 
can  be  proper  for  Christians  to  pray  to  the  Father  to  give  them 
his  Holy  Spirit? 

Answ.  As  to  the  rights  and  privileges  among  the  sacred  Three ; 
they  are  best  known  to  themselves.  And  who  are  we,  that  we 
should  pretend  to  fathom  the  depths  of  the  divine  nature,  or  the 
ineffable  economy  of  the  three  Persons !  Scripture  calls  the  Spirit, 
the  Spirit  of  the  Father,  and  not  vice  versa,  and  directs  us  to  ask 
the  Father  to  give  his  Spirit  to  us.  This  is  sufficient  for  us  to 
know,  and  is  a  direction  to  our  practice. 

Query  13.  Whether  it  be  an  intolerable  crime  in  ministers, 
and  such  as  deserves  ejectment,  for  them  to  hold,  that  Christ 
alone  is  the  King  of  his  Church!  And  that  Christians  are  to 
receive  his  words  only^  as  the  authentic  t*ule  of  their  faith,  without 
subjecting  their  faith  to  the  authoritative  interpretations  of  any 
men  upon  earth ! 

Answ.  This  Query  is  too  loose  and  general  to  admit  of  any 


close  determinate  answer.  I  shall  only  observe,  that  these 
gentlemen  know  at  other  times  how  to  interpret  the  alone  King, 
or  only  Potentate^  so  as  to  leave  room  for  subordinate  governors. 
And  I  know  not  any  one  that  contends  for  more,  or  ever  pretends 
to  equal  themselves  to  Christ.  Arians,  perhaps,  or  Socinians, 
having  brought  Christ  down  to  the  rank  of  creatures,  or  of  tnen, 
may  in  time  take  upon  them  farther :  but  the  Trinitarians  will 
never  be  wanting  in  their  honour  to  Christ,  or  the  alone  King, 
and  the  alone  Ood^  not  exclusive  of,  but  in  conjunction  with  Gk>d 
the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost ;  not  abridging  all  or  any  of  the 
three  sacred  Persons  of  the  liberty  of  appointing  subordinate 
ministers,  rulers,  or  governors,  to  act  under  them,  according  to 
such  rules,  laws,  and  measures,  as  infinite  wisdom  shall  see  good 
and  proper. 








GOD    THE    SON: 





Let  them  be  taken  in  the  crqfty  wiliness  that  they  have  imagined.     Psalni  z.  a. 





1  SHALL  lay  before  the  reader  the  plain  account  of  Scripture 
in  one  column,  and  the  true  account  of  what  the  modem  Arian 
scheme  is  in  the  other :  which  I  will  endeavour  to  make 
as  plain  as  any  thing  of  that  nature  can  be;  and  leave  the 
reader  to  judge  whether  it  be  agreeable  to  Scripture  or  no, 
and  so  choose  or  refuse  it  after  a  rational  and  faithful  examina- 


There  is  but  one  Gk)D,  one 
adorable  GodS  JehavaA\  and 
OoD  of  Israel.  Before  whom  was 
there  no  God  formed,  neither 
will  there  be  after  him<^.  This 
one  God  will  not  give  his  glory 

Our  modem  Arians  all  impH- 
citfy  or  conaequeniiailff  teach,  some 
expressly  say^,  that  there  are  more 
Gods  than  one :  two  Gods  at  least, 
both  of  them  adorable,  and  to  be 
served  with  re/t^toitf  worship.  One 
of  the  Gods  is  supposed  to  be  t^ier 

»  Ezod.  XX.  3.  Isa. 
I  Cor.  viii.  4.      ^  Deut.  vi.  4, 
xii.  39.  Isa.  xlv.  21.   xlii.  8. 
xliii.  10. 

xliv.  8.  xlv.  5. 

^  laa. 

•  The  Scriptures  and  Athanasiaas 
Compmd^  p.  4. 



to  another^;  that  is,  will  not 
allow  any  other  God  to  claim 
the  glory  of  being  adored^  either 
against  him^  or  with  him ;  being 
extremely /(^/(m^^  of  hishononr, 
the  honour  of  being  served  with 
rdigums  worship,  whioh  both 
under  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment was  due  to  God  alone  ^ 
and  by  which  his  superlative 
Majbstt  and  peerless  perfec- 
tions are  to  be  acknowledged  s 
through  the  whole  creation. 

the  other  in  duration^\  and  in  every 
perfection.  The  greater  God  has 
given  the  glory  of  religious  wor- 
ship to  the  leaser  God;  thereby, 
so  far,  resigning  up  his  peculiar 
privilege,  and  his  appropriate  ho- 
nours :  only  the  glory  of  being 
underivedy  which  he  cannot  possibly 
give  away  if  he  would,  he  vnll  not^ 
(good  reason  why)  part  with  at 
any  rate.  The  sacrifice  of  prayer 
and  praise,  however,  is  common  to 
both  the  Gods  ;  who  are  accord- 
ingly to  be  honoured  with  the  like 
outward  acts  of  worship,  to  be  made 
higher  or  lower  worship  by  the 
worshipper's  inward  intention;  and 
there  are  no  outward  acts  left 
whereby  common  Christians  may 
visibly  distinguish  the  supreme  God 
from  the  inferior  God  ;  though 
one  be  infinitely  more  excellent 
than  the  other ;  and  though  reason 
itself  teaches  that  there  ought  to 
be  as  great  a  difference  between 
the  outward  honours  paid  to  this 
God,  and  that  God,  as  there  is 
between  this  God  and  that  God. 

ScRlPTURB.  Arianism. 

Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  by  no 

Lord  Gonh,  Jehovah^,  (a  title  means    necessarily    existing"^,   but 

expressing    necessary    existence  precarious  in  existence,   and  de- 

^  lea.  xlii.  8.  xlviii.  ii.  «  Exod. 
XX.  5.  zxxiv.  14.  '  Matth.  iv.  10. 
Rev.  zix.  10.  xxii.  9.  f  2  Kings  xiz. 
15.  Isa.  xl.  9,  10,  &c.  zlv.  5,  6,  7. 
Jer.  X.  10,  II,  fro.  ^  Luke  i.  16, 17. 
John  XX.  28.  i  Com^re  Isa.  vi.  with 
John  xii.  41.  Zech.  xii.  10.  with  John 
xix.  37.  Psalm  cii.  25.  with  Heb. 
i.  10.  Zech.  xi.  12.  with  Matt,  xxvii. 
o,  10.  Isa.  xl.  3.  with  Mark  i.  3. 
Hosea  i.  7.  with  Luke  ii.  11. 

*>  Mr.  Whiston  plainly ;  the  rest 
covertly.  ^  Modest  Plea,  &c.  Con- 
tinued, p.  7.  Reply  to  Dr.  Water- 
land's  Defence,  p.  201.  ^  Modest 
Plea,  &c.  p.  17,217.  Second  letter 
to  Dr.  Mangey,  p.  27. 



and  all  perfection  \)  True  God  \ 
OrecU  God  "»,  and  Mighty  God  «, 
as  well  as  the  Father.  He  is 
moreover  A^ha  and  Omega,  the 
Beginning  and  the  Ending^  the 
IHrsi  and  the  Laet^,  which  is 
expressive  of  unlimited  eter- 
nity^ and  so  understood  when 
applied  to  God  the  Father,  or 
to  the  one  God  of  Israel  P.  He 
is  also  the  Lord^  whick  is,  and 
which  foas,  andfohieh  is  to  come, 
the  Aimighty%  than  which  no- 
thing higher  or  stronger  can  be 
said  even  of  God  the  Father. 

^  Ezod.  ill.  14.  Isa.  zfii.  8.  xlv. 
di.  Mai.  iii.  6.  ^  i  John  v.  ao. 
«  Ht.  ii.  13.  n  Isa.  ix.  6.  <>  Rev. 
i.  8,  ly.  zxii.  13.  P  Isa.  zli^4. 
6.  zlviii.  12."' 

Rev.  jnd.6^  QRev.  L8. 

pending  entirely  on  the  good  plea» 
sure  of  the  greater  God  ;  who  being 
of  coarse  infinitely  above  him,  can, 
consequently,  whenever  he  pleases, 
make  other  Gods  as  great,  or  greater 
than  he  is.  And  though  CBmisr 
be  styled  Jbbovah,  it  means  only 
that  he  ib  faithful  to  his  promises^p 
or  that  he  once  personated^  the  tme 
Jehovah;  which  any tii/ertbr  angel 
might  have  done  9.  And  though 
he  be  a  great  God,  and  a  true  God, 
and  a  mighty  God;  yet  there  is 
another  Goo»  a  greater  God,  a 
truer  ''God,  and  a  mightier  God, 
by  far,  than  he;  to  whose  good 
pleasure  ejxdfree  appointment  he 
owes  all  his  greatness  and  dimnity. 
And  though  the  title  of  First  and 
Last,  &c.  may  signify  an  unlimited 
etemity,yirhen  appliedtotheFATHEm, 
(if  the  Fathbe's  eternity  be  any 
where  revealed  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, which  is  doubtful^)  yet  it 
must  not,  it  shall  not  signify  any 
such  thing  when  applied  to  the 
Son.  And  thongh  Rev.  i.  8.  has 
been  understood  by  all  the  primi- 
tive churches  of  God  the  Son,  and 
such  application  be  favoured  by  the 
context ;  yet  it  shall  be  understood 
of  the  Fathbe  only ;  or,  at  least, 
shall  bear  a  subordinate  sense,  if 
understood  of  the  Son.  For  there 
are  several  metaphysical  reasons 
about  derived  and  underivedf  about 
generation,  causes^  acts,  willf  indi" 

«  Collection  of  Queries,  p.  19. 

'  The  Scripture  and  Athanasians 
Compared,  p.  5.  Appeal  to  a  Turk, 
&c.  p.  89.  s  Reply  to  Dr.  Water- 
land's  Daence,  p.  177.  ^  Unity  of 
God  not  Inconsistent,  &c.  p.  34. 
i  Collection  of  Queries,  p.  50. 





Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was 
OoD  before  any  dominion  com- 
menced^ before  any  creatures 
existed,  before  the  world  was^. 
He  is  over  all  God  blessed  for 
ever^:  and  to  him  is  ascribed 
glory,  praise,  and  dominion /or 
ever  and  ever^,  jointly  also  with 
the  Father^.  From  whence  it 
is  eyident,  that  as  he  was  God 
before  the  crecUion^  before  any 
creature  began,  and  conse- 
quently from  all  eternity;  so 
he  will  be  honoured  as  God  to 
all  eternity. 

'  John  i.  I,  2,  3,  ID.  C0I088.  i.  15, 
16.  ■  Rom.  ix.  5.  *  I  Pet.  iv.  11. 
a  Pet.  iii.  18.  Rev,  i.  6.  Heb.  xiii.  21. 
Heb.  i.  8.    ^  Rev.  v.  12, 13. 

vidualsy  identicals t  &c.  which  so 
require,  and  Scripture  must  yield 
to  them. 

Some  of  the  modem  Arians  say, 
that  Christ  is  God,  in  the  sense 
oi dominion:  others  make  his  ex- 
altation, after  his  rising  from  the 
dead,  to  be  the  sole  foundation  of 
his  personal  GodheadK  Others 
suppose  his  personating  the  Father 
to  have  been  all  that  his  Godhead 
meant  before  his  incarnation ^ 
All  which  accounts  must  appear 
miserably  vain  and  presumptuous, 
as  coming  vastly  short  of  what  St. 
John  has  declared  of  him  in  respect 
of  what  he  was  antecedently  to  the 
creation.  Sometimes  therefore  they 
are  pleased  to  allow  that  he  was 
God  before  the  world  was,  as  being 
partaker  of  divine  power  and  glory  ^. 
But  then  they  tell  us  not  what 
they  mean  by  it.  Whatever  it  be, 
they  suppose  him  to  have  been 
really  stripped  and  emptied  of  that 
glory,  that  is,  of  all  the  Godhead 
he  had  of  his  own ;  that  he  sunk  his 
perfections,  his  power,  and  his  trt^- 
dom  °,  when  he  became  man ;  being 
then  reallyt&ea^^r  and /oic^er  than  the 
angels  °;  so  that  he  ceased  for  a  time 
to  be  God,  and  wanted  to  be  made  a 
God  again  after  his  resurrection  P: 
which  Godhead  then  obtained,  or 

^  Collection  of  Queries,  p.  75. 
^  Clarke's  Scripture  Doctrine,  p.  73. 
edit.  2nd.  ^  Ibid.  p.  240.  ^  Emlyn^s 
Examination  of  Dr.  Bennet,  p.  15, 
16.  o  Modest  Plea,  p.  93.  Scrip- 
ture and  Athanasians  Compared,  p. 
15.  P  Collect,  of  Queries,  p.  75. 
Scripture  and  Athanasians  Comp.  p. 



regained,  is  to  last  no  longer  than 
his  mediatorial  kingdom ;  after  the 
ceasing  whereof,  it  seems,  he  is  to 
lay  down  his  Godhead,  and  never  to 
be  a  God  more  to  all  eternity  *». 


Our  blessed  Lord  is  described 
as  having  the  divine  attributes, 
the  distinguishing  marks  and 
characters  of  the  one  true  Qod 

I.  Knowledge  of  the  heart. 
He  knoweth  the  hearts  of  all 
mm^.  It  is  he  that  searcheth 
the  reins  and  the  heart^.  He  is 
a  discemer  of  the  thoughts  and 
intents  of  the  heart  J. 

2,.  Omniscience.  There  is  no 
creature  but  tohat  is  manifest  in 
his  sight:  all  things  are  noted 
and  opened  to  his  eyes^.  In  him 
are  hid  aU  the  treasures  ofuns- 
dom  and  knowledge^  He  know- 
eth all  things^. 

3.  Unchangeable  eternity. 
He  is  always  the  same^,  yes- 
terday, to-day,  and  for  ever^. 

4.  Omnipresence.  He  is 
Creator  of  all  things^  and  by 
him  all  things  consist^.  He  is 
worshipped  by  the  tohole  crea- 
tion^. He  is  in  the  midsts  of  all 
that  call  upon  him. 

5.  Onmipotence.  He  can  do 
all  that  the  Father  doth^.    He 

^  Acts  i.  24.  »  Rev.  ii.  33.  7  Heb. 
iv.  12.  2^  Heb.  iv.  13.  »  Col.  ii.  3. 
^  John  xvi.  30.  xxi.  17.  c  Heb.  i.  12. 
Rev.  i.  8.  ^  Heb.  xiii.  13.  «  Col.  i. 
17.  '  Rev.  v.  8.  e  Matt.  v.  20. 
^  John  V.  19. 


The  modem  Arians  are  pleased 
to  allow,  in  words,  that  divine  at- 
tributes belong  to  Christ;  mean- 
ing by  divine,  quite  another  thing 
than  others  mean  in  this  case. 

Christ  is  omniscient,  they  say, 
relatively^;  that  is,  while  ignorant* 
of  much  more  than  he  knows,  as 
he  must  be  if  ignorant  at  all: 
eternal  also,  provided  he  be  not 
coetemal;  that  is,  provided  the 
Father  be  but  infinitely  (as  he 
must  be,  if  at  all)  more  ancient 
than  he :  omnipresent  also,  but 
within  bounds :  omnipotent,  but  by 
the  Father's  power,  not  by  his 
own :  unchangeable,  I  think,  they 
never  directly  say,  but  the  con- 
trary^ ;  making  his  generation  and 
incarnation  arguments  of  his  being 
subject  to  change.  And,  indeed, 
upon  the  whole,  they  suppose  him 
the  most  changeable  being  in  the 
universe,  running  through  more^ 
and  more  prodigious  changes,  than 
any  other  creature  ever  did,  or 
will  do. 

q  Reply  to  Dr.  W.  by  the  Author 
of  Uni^,  &c.  p.  49.  Scripture  and 
Athanasians  Compared,  p.  16, 17,  22. 
Peirce's  Western  Inquis.  p.  148, 149. 
'  Collect,  of  Queries,  p.  48.  ■  Ibid. 
Unity  of  GOD  not  inconsistent,  &c. 
p.  8.  *  Reply  to  Dr.  Waterland'a 
Defence,  p.  271.  Scripture  and  Atha- 
nasians Compared,  p.  12, 13.  Appeal 
to  a  Turk,  &c.  p.  145. 

u  2 



and  the  Father  are  oneK 
is  Almighty^. 



Our  blessed  Lord  is  Creator. 
He  is  the  Lord  Jehovah,  who 
in  the  beginning  laid  thefoun- 
daiums  of  the  earth,  and  the 
he€wens  are  the  worts  of  his 
hands^.  All  things  were  cre- 
ated, not  only  hy  him^,  as  the 
efficient  cause,  but  dlaofor  him^, 
as  ihefnal  cause  of  all  things ; 
in  whose  glory  they  all  centre 
and  terminate.  In  him  likewise 
do  aU  things  consist  The  whole 
universe,  all  worlds  visible  and 

*  John  X.  30.    k  Rev.  i.  8.  >  Heb. 

i.  10.      ™  John  i.  3,  lOy  II.  i  Cor. 

viii.  6.  Ephes.  iii.  9.  Heb.  i.  a.  ^  Co- 
I0B8.  i.  16,  17. 

They  criticise  away  the  force  of 
the  texts  pleaded  in  favour  of  the 
divine  attributes  of  Christ,  till 
they  leave  themselves  no  Scripture 
proof  of  the  divinity  of  God  the 
Father  ;  none  but  what  may  be 
eluded  by  the  same^  or  the  like 
subtleties :  as  if  they  were  resolved 
to  give  up  every  proof  of  the  Fa- 
ther's real  divinity,  rather  than 
admit  any  which  may  happen  to 
prove  as  much  of  God  the  Son. 
The  strength  of  their  objections 
against  the  divine  attributes  of 
Christ,  consists  chiefly  in  meta- 
physical speculations;  that  gene- 
ration is  an  act,  that  every  act 
implies  free  choice,  that  free  choice 
argues  precarious  existence,  and 
that  precarious  existence  is  a 
contradiction  to  divine  attributes, 
strictly  so  called.  Thus  vain 
philosophy  is  brought  in^  to  over, 
rule  the  infallible  word  of  God. 

The  modern  Arians  pretend  that 
Christ  is  an  instrument^  only  in 
the  work  of  creation ;  though  they 
do  not  tell  us  what  they  mean  by 
it,  nor  how  it  is  possible  to  recon- 
cile their  notion  to  Heb.  i.  10. 
Some  of  them  suppose  Christ  an 
inferior  Creator,  making  two  Crea- 
tors in  like  manner  as  two  Gods  ; 
one  of  the  Creators  being  himself 
a  creature.  Others  scruple  to 
allow  Christ  to  be  a  Creator, 
saying  only  that  God  created  all 
things  hy  him,  or  through  him; 
and  they  confusedly  mutter  several 

«  Modest  Flea,  p.  93.  Unity  of 
God  not  Inconsistent,  &c.  p.  a6. 



invisible  are  upheld  and  sus- 
tained by  him.  He  is  therefore 
Creator^  Preserver,  and  Gover- 
nor of  all  worlds :  than  which 
nothing  more  august  or  grand 
can  be  said  of  the  one  God 

things  about  the  prepositions  by 
and  through  i  never  acquainting 
us  what  their  precise  notion  is^  nor 
shewing  how  it  Is  possible  ever 
to  make  it  consistent  with  those 
texts  which  so  expressly  ascribe  cre^ 
o/fve  powers  to  Christ.  Whatever 
hand  they  suppose  him  to  have 
had  in  creating,  (which  appears  to 
be  very  little,)  they  imagine  him 
afterwards  weak  enough  to  want 
the  assistance  of  his  creaiuree^, 
weak  enough  to  be  Ikeraliy  inferior 
to  the  angeUy,  weak  enough  to  be 
paseible*  and  mutable;  and  low 
enough  to  be  literally  exalted^; 
which  yet  they  would  think  Mot. 
phemy  to  say  of  one  that  is  very 

The  Scriptures  say,  that  he 
that  buik  aU  things  is  Ood^ ; 
thereby  supposing  the  work  of 
creating  to  be  a  demonstration 
of  the  real  divinity  of  the  Per- 
son who  created  aU  things.  St. 
Paul  elsewhere  intimates  that 
the  creation  of  the  world  is  a 
visible  and  sensible  proof  of  the 
eternal  power  and  Godhead  of 
its  Maker  P.  Creation  is  every 
where,  in  Scripture,  represented 
as  a  divine  work,  a  work  pecu- 
liar to  God  alone,  setting  forth 
his  supreme  excellency  and 
unbounded  perfections^.    And 

^  Heb.  iii.  4.  p  Rom.  i^  30.  4  a 
Kings  xiz.  15.  Job  xxfi.  7,  &c. 
Psalm  xcvi.  5.  xix.  1.  Ixxxix.  ii,  12, 
Isa.  xl.  13,  30.  xlii.  5.  xliii.  i.  xlv.  5, 

The  Arians  pretend  that  the 
creating  the  whole  universe  is  in 
itself  no  demonstration  of  injimte 
power,  nor  any  certain  argument 
of  the  real  and  necessary  divinity 
.  of  its  makerb.  It  seems  a  creature 
might  create  the  whole  world, 
visible  and  invisible.  Only,  it  is 
observable,  that  they  are  sometimes 
pleased  to  say,  that  the  Son  is  no 
creature.  No  creature^  yet  hroughi 
into  existence^,  as  well  as  any 
creature;  no  creature,  but  yet 
precarious  in  existence,  as  well  as 

'  Modest  Plea,  Pr93*  ^  Scripture 
and  Athanasians  Compared,  p.  15. 
Appeal  to  a  Turk,  &c.  p.  145.  Mo- 
dest Plea,  ibid.  'Collect,  of  Queries* 
p.  143.  »  Modest  Plea,  p.  97,  98. 
^  CoUiwt.  of  Queries,  p.  59.  Beply 
to  Dr.  Waterland's  Defence,  p.  149. 
Appeal  to  a  Turk,  &c.  p.  120.  «  Q^. 
lect.  of  Queries^  p.  51. 



a$  (Mk  Oat  ham  wd  made 
(k$  ieawm$  amd  He  ecaik,  lk^ 
$kaUperiA/rmmAee4srtkK  So 
tlMt  if  CHBurr  be  CSrwi^,  there 
eao  be  do  resMonaUe  doubt 
made  ^  \m  real,  eternal,  and 
cwwntial  Godhead:  or,  if  he  be 
not  Creates,  he  cannot  be  GifOj 
eannotyUpoD  the  Scriptore  foot, 
)tie  adored  <jr  tocnkipped  aa  God 
with  anjr  d^ree  cS  reUyiom$ 

snr  CTcatare;  do  cmtore,  bat  jet 
dqporifltf  aQt2ie,^T«-«i27aMd/te- 
nre  of  anotfaer,  ss  mach  ss  anj 
creatare;  no  cmtore,  bat  yet 
igmormU  of  mnch  aiore  dim  he 
knows,  as  weli  as  anj  creatare ;  no 
creatare,  but  jet  amiable  of  ckmmge 
from  stieng^  to  wfmkmen,  and 
from  weakness  to  stieng^  again, 
cipaUe  of  being  made  witer,  and 
happier,  and  better  in  e%eif  lespetrl, 
as  well  as  an j  creatare ;  no  crea- 
tare, bat  jet  baring  nothing  of 
his  ova,  nothing  bat  what  he  owes 
to  the  gratmity  and  favoar  of  his 
Lord  and  Governor,  as  much  as 
an  J  creatare.  Sach  a  creature^  and 
no  creature,  thej  sappose  all  things 
to  have  been  created  by ;  and  yet 
by  all  things,  meaning  only  all 
other  things,  (for  he  coold  not 
have  any  hand  in  creating  himself,) 
and  by  the  words  created  by,  mean- 
ing they  know  not  what.  This 
they  call  interpreting  Scripture, 
and  doing  justice  to  common 

According  to  Scripture  no 
one  ii  to  be  worahipped  who  ia 
not  God  hy  nature*,  no  creature 
but  the  Creator  only*.  From 
whence  it  ia  evident  that  there 
ia  no  middle  between  Creator 
and  creature,  Creator  and  crea- 
ture being  oppoaitea ;  ao  that 
a  creature  cannot  be  Creator, 
nor  Creator  a  creature.  Scrip- 
ture knows  nothing  of  creature- 

'  Jer.  X.  II,  la. 
^  Rom.  i.  2$, 

•  Gal.  iv.  8. 

The  modem  Arians,  after  the 
Pagans  and  Papists,  plead  for 
creature^worship ;  for  the  thing,  I 
mean,  but  they  are  frightened  at 
the  name:  and  whether  to  save 
themselves  the  trouble  of  answer- 
ing the  many  plain  and  invincible 
reasons  against  creature-worship, 
or  the  shame  of  not  being  able  to 
talk  a  word  of  sense  on  that  head, 
they  pretend^  not  to  be  pleading 

*  Author  of  Unity,  &c.   His  Reply 
to  Dr.Waterland,  p.  31. 



yx^ship;  nothing  of  inferior, 
relatiw,  or  mediate  worship  dis- 
tinct from  dUmne;  nothing  of 
two  worships  of  different  MndSy 
either  before  the  Gh>Bpel  or 
after.  The  one  fundamental 
rule  of  worship^  from  Genesis 
down  to  Bevelations,  is  to  wor- 
ship OoD  ahney  the  God  of  Is- 
rael, the  Jehmah^  the  Creator, 
SfMtainer;  Preserver  of  all 
things.  There  was  never  any 
distinction  made  of  supreme 
and  inferior  sacrifices,  vows, 
oaths,  prayers,  prostrations. 
All  religious  worship  is  Gk>D's 
peculiar^  all  of  the  same  nature, 
and  of  Hke  import  and  signifi- 


Christ  is  to  be  worshipped 
with  religious  worship  by  menJ, 
by  angeb"^,  by  every  ereaiure*; 
either  singly  and  by  himself,  or 
Jointly  vfith  the  Father  in  the 
same  aets  of  worship.  He  is 
therefore  God  by  nature,  and 
not  by  office  only,  appointment, 

^  Acts  vii.  50.  ix.  14.   John  v.  23. 
Rev.  V.  8.  ^  Heb.  i.  6.  »  Rev.  v.  13. 

for  creature-worship,  all  the  while 
they  are  doing  it  They  call  this 
kind  of  worship  v^erior  and  miM^ 
ate  worship:  a  thing  that  Scrip- 
ture knows  not  of:  and  what  was 
once  sufficient  to  nonplus  the 
devil,  they  can  elude.  Upon  their 
principles,  any  Jew,  formerly, 
might  have  eluded  all  the  laws  of 
the  Old  Testament  against  idolatry , 
might  have  sacrifieed  to  other  Gk>ds 
(if  supposed  subordinate  to  the 
one  supreme)  without  breaking  the 
First  Commandment,  and  without 
peril  of  Polytheism,  They  acquit 
the  generality  of  the  Pagans  (as 
many  as  worshipped  one  svpreme 
Gon)  of  Polytheism^,  or  of  the 
worship  of  many  Oods:  as  they 
of  consequence  must,  otherwise 
they  condemn  themselves.  The 
Fkgans  then  were  not  Polytheists, 
but  idolaters  only :  and  their  tilol- 
atry  consisted  not  in  making  Jcb/- 
Gode,  but  Idol^Mediatorst.  A 
thiDg  which  the  sacred  penmen 
were  never  aware  of ;  having  con- 
stantly laid  the  charge  wrong  upon 
the  setting  up  Idol^Gods,  and 
never  Idol-Mediators. 

The  modem  Arians  teach,  that 
Christ  is  made  a  Gon  by  voluntary 
appointment  and  designation ;  and 
are  yet  ridiculously  forced  to  say, 
that  he  is  Gon  by  nature^,  and  as 
truly  as  man  is  by  nature  truly  manK- 

•  Ibid.  p.  17,  30.  See  also  Reply 
to  Dr.  Waterland'8  Defence,  p.  309. 
f  Clarke,  Scriot.  Doctrine,  p.  344,  and 
edition.  Autnor  of  Unity,  &c.  p.  30. 
e  Scripture  and  Athanasians  Com- 
pared, p.  9.  ^  Clarke's  Replies,  p.  81. 



or  designation.  The  worship 
of  him  must  of  consequence 
stand  upon  the  same  foot 
whereon  Scripture  has  founded 
aU  religiofu  worship ;  upon  his 
real  and  essential  divinity,  his 
being  God,  Jehavahy  Almighty y 
&c.  which  he  must  be  because 
he  is  adorable;  and  which  if  he 
be,  then  the  worship  of  him 
comes  within  the  reason,  intent, 
and  even  the  letter  of  the  law 
about  worship.  And  it  is  very 
observable  how  the  Scripture 
rule  of  worship  exactly  harmo- 
nizes with  what  the  same 
Scripture  teaches  of  the  divi- 
nity of  God  the  Son.  For  as, 
on  one  hand,  his  claim  of 
warship  confirms  the  doctrine 
of  his  divinity;  so,  on  the 
other  hand,  his  divine  titles 
and  attriiutes  confirm  his  claim 
of  foarship :  and  thus  is  Scrip- 
ture uniform,  consistent,  and 
harmonious  throughout. 

God  by  nature,  and  Iruly  God, 
without  the  nature  of  the  true 
God;  God  by  nature,  but  not 
naturally,  or  necessarily  God;  God 
by  nature,  but  having  his  nature 
before  his  dominion;  that  is,  before 
his  Godhead  commenced;  and  he 
is  to  continue,  after  his  dominion, 
or  Godhead,  shall  expire  and  be 
extinct :  in  a  word,  God  by  nature, 
as  much  as  man  is  by  nature  man, 
and  yet  wanting  the  most  essential 
character  of  God,  which  makes 
God  to  be  God^ 

They  found  his  worship  on  the 
power  of  judging,  and  his  mediato- 
rial kingdom^,  committed  to  him 
in  time,  and  in  time  to  cease. 
Neither  his  being  God,  before  the 
world  was,  (John  i.  i.)  nor  his 
being  the  only -begotten,  nor  his 
being  Creator  and  Sustainer  of  all 
things,  nor  his  la3dng  the  foun- 
dation of  the  heavens  and  the 
earth;  none  of  these  considerations 
are  thought  of  sufficient  weight  to 
found  his  worship  upon :  but  a  late 
office  of  yesterday,  and  shortly  to 
be  laid  down ;  that,  and  that  only 
is  made  the  foundation  of  religious 
worship,  and  such  worship  as,  by 
all  the  Scripture  accounts,  is  to 
continue  for  ever  and  ever :  which 
they  are  pleased  to  understand  of 
the  end  of  the  world  only  ^  though 
the  same  phrase  or  phrases  which 
denote  the  continuance  of  the  Fa- 
ther's worship,  are  used  likewise 
for  the  Son's;   and  even  in  the 

*  Ibid.  p.  92.  ^  Clarke's  Scripture 
Doctrine,  Propos.  48, 60, 61.  Replies, 
p.  a^9.  1  Author  of  Unity  not  In- 
consistent   His  Reply,  p.  49. 




The  Scriptures  ever  suppos- 
ing but  one  object  of  worship, 
which  is  God  Supreme,  never 
give  us  any  rules  about  raising 
or  lowering  the  intention  of  the 
worshipper,  to  make  the  wor- 
ship supreme  or  inferior,  as 
occasion  may  require.  What- 
ever may  be  said  of  a  few  specvr- 
lative  heads^  or  refined  wits, 
the  vulgar y  it  is  to  be  feared, 
would  never  be  capable  of  pro- 
portioning their  intentions  in 
such  cases;  but  would  often 
pay  subordinate  worship  only, 
instead  oi  supreme^  which  would 
be  next  to  blaspheming,  or  sur- 
preme  instead  of  subordinate, 
which  would  be  idolatry. 

Scripture  never  makes  any 
distinction  between  offering  and 
terminating  worship ;  but  sup- 
poses all  worship  to  terminate 
where  oflTered.  God  interprets 
all  image-dDorship  and  creature- 
loorship  to  terminate  on  the 
image,  or  creature,  notwith- 
standing any  intention  of  the 
worshipper  to  terminate  the 
worship  in  him.  It  is  worship- 
ping of  the  idol,  the  image,  the 
creature^  not  the  worshipping 
of  God,  in  Scripture  style. 
And  indeed  how  can  any  act 
oi  idolatry^  any  creature-worship 

same  common  dozology,  jointly 
offered  to  both.  Verily,  if  these 
things  are  not  absurdities,  it  is  pity 
that  they  should  look  so  like  them, 


The  Arians  imagine,  that  the 
same  outward  acts  of  religious  war- 
ship  become  higher  or  lower,  ac- 
cording to  the  intention  of  the 
worshipper:  which  is  following 
their  own  inventions,  and  putting 
the  matter  of  worship  on  such  a 
foot  as  must  inevitably  run  the 
bulk  of  mankind  either  into  idolatry 
on  one  hand,  or  profaneness  on  the 
other,  as  often  as  they  mistake  in 
the  just  and  proper  elevation  of 
their  thoughts  or  intentions. 

They  are  teaching  us  also  to 
offer  worship  here,  and  terminate 
there;  which  must  likewise  run 
the  vulgar  at  least  into  inextricable 
lab3rrinths ;  as  perhaps  terminating 
the  worship  in  the  inferior  object, 
when  they  ought  not;  or  not  offer- 
ing when  they  ought.  Besides 
that,  for  want  of  knowing  precisely 
what  worship  is  inferior  and  what 
supreme,  what  mediate  and  what 
ultimate,  they  will  be  often  apt  to 
mistake  the  one  for  the  other : 
and  hence  will  arise  all  imaginable 
confusion  in  sacred  offices.  In  a 
word,  their  whole  foundation  is 
wrong,  since  no  inferior  worship 
can,  without  blasphemy,  be  sup- 
posed to  terminate  in  the  supreme, 
nor  any  supreme  worship  be  made 
to  fall  upon  the  medium,  without 
idolatry.  Their  inferior  worship 
must  be  ultimate,  and  their  supreme 
cannot  be  mediate:  so  that  their 



terminate  upon  God,  who  has 
absolutely  prohibited  it,  who 
abhors  and  detests  it  i  The  rea- 
son of  the  thing  shews  that  so 
it  must  be :  for  if  worship  be 
paid  to  an  inferior  object,  be  it 
Bovereiffn  or  inferior  worship, 
the  absurdity  is  manifest.  If 
it  be  sovereign,  then  it  is  plainly 
idolatry  to  give  any  part  of  it 
to  the  inferior  object :  if  it  be 
inferior^  it  cannot  terminate  in 
the  wpreme  object,  who  would 
be  affronted  and  dishonoured 
thereby.  It  must  therefore 
terminate  in  the  inferior  object  : 
and  thus  a  creature  is  honoured 
with  ultimate  worship,  termi- 
nating where  offered,  which  is, 
confessedly,  idolatry. 


The  Scriptures  assure  us 
that  Christ  increased  in  wis- 
dom!, which  is  to  be  literally 
understood,  as  well  as  his  in- 
creasing in  stature  is  literal. 
He  was,  at  times,  afflicted  with 
grief:  his  so%d  was  exceeding 
sorrowful^,  and  full  of  trouble^ 
crying  out  in  great  agonies^. 
These  and  the  like  weaknesses 
and  infirmities  GQSi  never  reason- 
ably be  supposed  to  suit  with 
the  divine  Logos;  who  had 
wisdom^  strength,  and  potoer  suf- 
ficient to  create^  sustain^  and 
govern  all  worlds.    From  these 

y  Luke  ii.  52.  ■  Matt.  xxvi.  38. 
Mark  xiv.  34.  ^  John  xi.  33.  xii.  27. 
xiii.  21.  <^  Luke  xxit.  44.  Matt, 
xxvii.  46.  Mark  xv.  34. 

two  devised  distinctions  necessarily 
confound  and  destroy  each  other ; 
and  they  must  either  not  worship 
Christ  at  all,  or  worship  him 
with  ultimate  worship,  even  upon 
their  own  principles. 

Our  modem  Arians  persuade 
themselves,  that  Christ  had  no 
human  soul,  but  that  the  Logos 
supplied  its  place.  Some"^  ex- 
pressly say  it ;  and  as  many  others 
mean  it,  as  bring  a  charge  against 
the  Athanasians  of  making  two 
Persons  in  one  Christ:  which 
charge  has  been  brought  against 
us  by  most^  of  our  modem  Arians. 
They  are  therefore  of  opinion,  that 
all  the  high  things  and  all  the  low 
things,  spoken  in  scripture  of 
Christ,  meet  in  the  one  Logos 
clothed  with  flesh.  He  was  once 
wise  enough  to  make,  or  however 
to  frame  and  model  the  whole  uni- 

«  Whiston,  Emlyn,  &c.  See  also 
Answer  to  Peirce's  Inquisition,  p.  34, 
35.  »  Morgan,  Jackson,  Author  of 
the  Appeal,  etc.  and  others. 



considerations,  besides  sundry 
others,  the  Christian  churches 
have  ever  firmly  believed,  that, 
besides  the  Logos^  or  divine 
nature,  there  was  also  a  human 
soulin  Christ  ;  which,  together 
with  the  Logos  and  a  human 
body^  made  up  the  whole  Per- 
son of  Christ. 

verse,  (according  to  some  of  them,) 
as  well  as  to  support  and  govern 
it  when  made.  But  upon  his 
taking  flesh,  his  wisdom  and  his 
extraordinary  abilities  departed 
from  him  <>.  He  became  a  child,  a 
child  in  understanding  as  well  as 
stature ;  falling,  as  it  were,  into  a 
profound  lethargy,  aud  Buspeusion 
of  thought.  By  slow  and  insensi* 
ble  degrees,  he  again  began  to 
recover ;  his  dormant  faculties 
revived,  and  thus  he  increased  in 
wisdom ;  growing  up,  first,  to  the 
perfection  of  a  wise  man,  but  not 
yet  arrived  to  the  pitch  of  an 
angelv.  In  process  of  time^  he 
became  wise  enough  and  of  suffi- 
cient ability  to  be  made  a  God  of 
once  more :  His  honour  and  his 
brightness  returned  unto  him,  he 
was  established  in  his  kingdom,  and 
excellent  mqjesty  was  added  unto 
him.  So  saith  the  Scripture  of 
Nebuchadnezzar,  (Dan.  iv.  36.) 
who,  if  this  account  be  true,  was 
(with  reverence  be  it  spoken)  none 
of  the  least  eminent,  or  least  con- 
siderable types  of  Christ.  But 
this  is  not  all;  'the  worst  is  to 
come.  This  mighty  God  (accord- 
ing to  those  gentlemen)  is  at  last 
to  lay  down,  or  surrender  his 
Godhead  and  mightiness,  that  is, 
his  kingdom ;  all  the  kingdom  they 
allow  him  to  haven.     His  worship. 

o  Emlyn's  Examination  of  Dr. 
Bennet,  p.  15.  See  also  Appeal  to  a 
Turk,  &c.  p.  145.  P  Modest  Plea, 
p.  93.  The  Scriptures  and  Athana- 
Bians  Compared,  p.  15.  Appeal  to  a 
Turk,  &c.  p.  145.  q  The  Scripture 
and  Athanasians,  &c.  p.  16,  17,  23. 
Reply  to  Dr.  W.  by  the  Author  of 


his  divine  honours  and  robes  of 
majesty  are  to  continue  with  him 
no  longer  than  to  the  end  of  the 
world^.  It  seems,  when  his  friends 
and  followers  are  to  receive  their 
crowns,  to  have  and  to  hold  to  all 
eternity,  he  is  to  lose  and  forfeit 
his.  They  must  increase^  but  he 
must  decrease:  they  are  to  grow 
up,  he  is  to  grow  down,  and  sink 
out  of  Godhead,  A  shocking 
thought !  to  as  many  as  have  any 
just  regard  for  sacred  Writ,  any 
love  or  veneration  for  their  blessed 
Lord;  and  have  not  lost  the 
grace  of  discernment,  and  the 
spirit  of  a  sound  mind,  by  affecting 
to  be  wiser  than  all  the  churches 
of  God. 

Unity,  &c.  p.  49.  Peirce's  Western 
Inquisition,  p.  148, 149.  '  Reply  to 
Dr.  Waterland,  by  the  Author  of  the 
Unity,  &c.  p.  49. 

Judge  for  yourselves  what  is  bight. 

PART  11. 

In  the  former  part,  I  have  taken  the  like  method  as  the 
wrUer  of  the  pamphlet  had  done.  Only  there  is  this  difference, 
that  whereas  he  has  often  charged  the  Athanasians  with  things 
which  they  neither  hold,  nor  can  by  any  certain  consequence  be 
proved  upon  them ;  I  have  took  care  to  charge  the  Arians  with 
nothing  but  what  some  or  other  of  them  expressly  maintain,  or 
else  what  may  be  fixed  upon  them  by  clear  and  evident  canseqtience. 
My  design,  in  this  Second  Part,  is  to  give  the  common  reader 
a  few  useful  hints^  such  as  may  serve  to  prevent  his  being  im- 
posed upon  by  the  writer  of  the  pamphlet,  whom  I  am  here 
answering.  I  shall  throw  what  I  have  to  say  under  two  heads : 
one  shall  contain  short  remarks  upon  his  six  preliminary  propo- 


sitians ;   the  other  shall  be  some  brief  strictures  upon  his  two 
ingenious  columns. 

I.  His  first  proposition  is  intended  to  prove,  that  there  is  but 
one  infinite  Person,  (whom  he  styles  a  Being^)  namely,  God  the 
Fathbr.  His  Old  Testament  texts  prove,  that  Jbhovah  (that 
is,  as  we  say,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost)  is  the  mly  God, 
and  knows  no  equal.  The  New  Testament  texts  prove,  that  the 
Father  is  sometimes  styled,  by  way  of  eminence,  the  one  or  only 
God  ;  which  no  man  questions. 

II.  His  second  proposition  is  to  prove,  that  God  the  Father 
has  some  titles  common  to  him  with  men;  such  as  Potentctte^ 
King^  Lord,  Saviour^  &c.  And  that  when  they  are  applied  to 
him,  they  are  to  be  understood  in  the  highest  and  most  ahsohUe 
sense.  This,  I  think,  he  has  well  proved.  And  it  may  pass  for 
a  true,  but  trifling  proposition. 

III.  His  third  is  to  prove,  that  the  name  God  is  likewise 
common  to  God  the  Father,  angelsj  and  men;  which  is  true 
also.  But  he  forgot  to  observe,  that  the  word  God  is  not 
applied  to  angels  or  men  in  a  proper  sense,  (as  the  name  of  Po- 
tentate,  King,  or  Lord  may)  but  in  a  loose,  figurative,  improper 
sense  only. 

lY.  His  fourth  is  to  shew,  that  the  Father  has  some  charac- 
teristics annexed  to  the  name  God,  which  determine  him  to  be 
the  Jirst  Cause.  He  is  the  high  God,  most  high  God,  &c.  In 
proof  hereof,  he  produces  about  fourteen  passages  of  the  Old 
Testament,  which  certainly  prove  all  that  they  prove  of  the  Je- 
hovah, or  God  of  Israel,  in  opposition  to  nominal  or  reputed 
Gk)ds  ;  not  of  the  Father  only,  in  opposition  to  the  Son,  who  is 
himself  Jehovah  as  well  as  the  Father.  He  has  also  three 
texts  out  of  the  New  Testament,  which  undoubtedly  prove 
that  the  Father  is  God  Most  High^  or  God  Supreme,  (which  is 
equally  true  of  God  the  Son,  Eom.  ix.  5.)  above  all  reputed  or 
nominal  Gods :  but  it  is  not  proved  that  he  has  any  real^  and 
true,  any  adorable  God  besides  him,  or  under  him. 

V.  His  Ji/lh  is  designed  to  reconcile  two  contradictory  propo- 
sitions, that  there  are  more  Gods  than  one^  and  not  more  Gods 
than  one;  where  he  comes  off  very  indifferently.  For  his  intent 
is  to  intimate  that  there  are  more  adorable  Gods,  more  true 
Gods  than  one ;  which  is  directly  repugnant  to  the  Scripture 
doctrine  of  one  God.     There  are  many  reputed  or  nominal  Gods  ; 


that  is  very  certain.     But  more  adorable  Gods  than  one  neither 
Law  nor  Gospel  can  bear. 

VI.  His  sixth  proposition  carries  on  the  same  design  with  the 
ffthi  to  make  Father  and  Son  two  adorable  Gods,  and  to  teach 
us  to  serve  the  creature  besides  the  Creator^  and  to  pay  our 
homage  and  acknowledgments  to  one  that  by  nature  is  no  God. 
It  will  be  hard  to  persuade  any  into  those  measures  who  have 
the  use  of  their  Bibles ;  which  will  teach  them  the  contrary, 
quite  through  from  Genesis  down  to  the  Revelations. 

Brief  Strictures  upon  his  two  Columns. 

Page  6,  he  cites  some  texts  to  prove,  that  the  Father  alone, 
exclusive  of  the  Son,  is  the  only  God,  or  only  true  God  :  which 
the  texts  neither  say  nor  mean.  For  the  same  Scriptures  assert 
that  the  Son  is  God,  True  God,  Great  God,  Jehovah,  Almighty ^ 
&c.  as  well  as  the  Father.  Therefore  the  exclusive  terms  could 
never  be  intended  in  opposition  to  God  the  Son,  but  to  idols^  or 
pretended  deities. 

Page  7,  he  makes  a  dull  harangue  about  person  and  essence ; 
instead  of  shewing  that  Father,  Son,  and  Holt  Ghost  may  not 
be  or  are  not  one  God.  This  is  a  Scriptural  doctrine,  indepen- 
dent of  the  names  of  person  or  essence^  and  such  as  was  fully 
believed  and  taught  for  a  century  and  more  before  ever  those 
terms  came  in.  Not  but  that  those  term*  are  useful,  in  opposition 
to  the  wiles  and  equivocations  of  heretics^  which  were  the  first 
occasion  of  them  :  nor  are  they  difficult  to  understand,  whenever 
considered  without  prejudice  and  with  an  honest  mind.  But  it 
is  enough  for  common  Christians  to  believe,  that  Father,  Son, 
and  Holt  Ghost  are  all  equally  divine,  that  one  is  not  another^ 
nor  all  together  three  Gods^  but  one  God  :  one  God,  into  whom 
we  have  been  baptized,  and  whom  we  are  ever  to  serve,  worship, 
and  adore,  with  all  our  hearty  mind,  and  might* 

Page  8,  he  insists  much  upon  iAiQ  personal  pronouns,  /,  thou,  he: 
which  can  never  be  proved  to  be  constantly  applied  in  Scripture 
to  none  but  single  persons.  Besides  that  the  arguments  from 
the  pronounsy  at  most,  can  prove  no  more  than  this ;  that  it  is 
the  Scripture  way  to  speak  but  of  one  Person  at  a  time,  (be  it 
Father,  or  Son,  or  Holt  Ghost,)  under  the  title  of  God,  Lord, 
Jbhovah,  &c.  tacitly  considering  the  other  two  Persons  as  united 
to,  or  comprehended  in,  that  one  Person  spoken  of:  which,  if  it 


be  the  case,  is  so  far  from  proving  that  all  the  three  are  not  one 
GoD^  that  it  is  rather  a  confirmation  of  it^  that  they  really  are. 
But  we  have  examples  where  cne  6od,  or  Lord  of  hwtSy  is 
mentioned^  and  yet  the  expressions  are  plural  as  to  the  Persons. 
'^  God  said.  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,*^  Gen.  i.  26.  '^  God 
*'  created  man  in  his  own  image,  in  the  image  of  God/'  ver.  27. 
OoD  creates,  while  more  Persons  than  one  create :  and  it  is  God^s 
image^  which  is  the  image  of  more  Persons  than  one :  therefore 
more  Persons  than  one  are  included  in  God  there  mentioned. 
The  like  may  be  shewn  of  the  one  Lord  of  hosts  mentioned  Isa. 
vi.  3.  compared  with  verse  the  8th,  and  with  John  xii.  41.  and 
Acts  xxviii.  25,  26. 

In  page  9,  he  represents  it  as  a  strange  thing,  that  the  Son 
should  be  ''that  very  God  whose  Son  he  is:  the  image,  and 
"  that  which  he  is  the  image  of  This  kind  of  banter  and 
abuse  runs  through  his  whole  performance.  It  is  observable, 
that  the  force  of  the  cavil  lies  only  in  the  expression.  Say,  that 
the  Son,  a  distinct  Person,  is  united  in  substance  and  Godhead 
with  God  the  Father  ;  and  there  is  no  appearance  of  absurdity 
in  it.  Say,  that  the  Son  is  personally  distinct  from  the  Father, 
and  yet  one  God  with  him;  and  there  is  nothing  strange  or 
shocking  in  it.  But  say,  that  he  is  that  very  God  whose  Son  he  is, 
or  that  very  thing  of  which  he  is  the  image ;  and  here  begins  to 
appear  something  harsh  and  odd.  What  is  the  reason  I  Because 
the  words  sound  as  if  the  Son  were  the  Father  himself;  were 
distinct  and  not  distinct  at  the  same  time.  The  Arian  notion,  of 
God's  being  but  one  Person,  is  first  insinuated  in  the  phrase, 
that  very  God  whose  Son  he  is;  and  next  the  Athanasian  is 
feigned  to  join  his  notion  (inconsistent  with  the  other)  thereto : 
and  thus  he  is  made  to  say  things  that  he  never  meant.  The 
sophistry  lies  wholly  in  the  artificial  blending  of  ideas.  The  Son 
is  not  that  very  Person  whose  Son  he  is,  nor  that  very  Person 
whose  image  he  is :  but  he  is  one  God  with  him ;  a  name  common 
to  more  Persons  than  one. 

Page  10,  he  takes  notice,  that  God  led  Jacob  alone,  yet  by  the 
hands  of  Moses  and  Aaron:  and  Gk>D  created  the  heavens  alone^ 
yet  by  Jesus  Christ.  He  should  have  added,  that  if  God  the 
Father  be  True  God  alone,  yet  it  is  to  be  understood,  together  with 
Jesus  Christ.  The  word  alone,  in  such  instances,  is  not  intended 
in  opposition  to  God  the  Son,  but  to  others :  and  exclusive  terms 
are  not  always  to  be  interpreted  with  the  utmost  rigour. 


Page  II,  I  a,  he  pretends  that  Christ,  before  his  incarnation, 
was  Qod's  angely  and  messenger^  and  servant  He  cannot  prove 
servant  at  all ;  nor  angel,  or  messenger,  from  any  parts  of  Scrip- 
ture but  what,  in  the  very  same  places,  declare  him  to  be  ffo 
TheoSy  GrOD  absolutely,  Jehyoah^  Lord  6od,  Almighty  Gk)D,  &c. 
From  whence  it  is  plain,  that  the  name  of  angel  concerns  only 
his  office^  not  his  naiure ;  and  is  an  argument  only  of  the  Son's 
voluntary  condescension  to  transact  matters  between  Gh)D  the 
Father  and  mankind. 

Page  I  a,  13,  he  has  some  wise  reasonings  against  the  Son's 
glory  being  eclipsed  in  the  incarnation.  He  asks,  how  it  could 
be  eclipsed  from  men,  who  "  then  beheld  his  glory  more  than 
*'  ever  V  By  his  argument,  if,  the  first  time  a  man  sees  the  sun 
at  all,  it  should  be  under  a  cloudy  or  an  eclipse,  it  is  therefore 
under  no  clotid,  nor  under  any  eclipse  to  that  man.  In  short, 
though  men  "  behold  his  glory  more  than  ever,"  yet  even  then 
his  glory  was  shrouded  under  the  veil  of  flesh,  and  did  not  shine 
out  to  the  full ;  which  if  it  had,  no  mortal  could  have  looked 
against  it. 

Page  12th  and  13th,  he  labours  to  confound  retd  and  essential^ 
with  outward  and  accidental  glory :  and  he  is  marvellously  sub- 
tile and  profound  on  that  head.  The  short  answer  is,  that  one 
kind  of  glory  can  never  be  increased  or  diminished^  either  in 
Father  or  Son  :  the  other  kind  of  glory  may  admit,  and  has 
admitted  of  increase  or  diminution,  both  in  Father  and  Son,  and 
will  so  again  hereafter. 

His  cavils  (p.  13.)  about  ttoo  Persons^  in  Christ  are  built  on 
nothing  but  his  own  mistakes  of  the  definition  and  meaning  of 
the  word  person. 

His  reasoning  about  even  and  odd  (p.  14.)  is  odd  enough ;  to 
answer  a  jest  with  a  jest. 

Pago  '5)  he  has  some  speculations  about  Christ's  being  exalted 
to  the  universal  dominion  of  all  worlds,  (a  likely  charge,  indeed, 
for  any  creature  to  sustain,)  and  becoming  a  Mighty  God  :  as  if 
he  had  not  been  as  Mighty  when  he  made  the  worlds,  and  when 
he  laid  the  foundations  of  the  heavens  and  the  earth. 

Page  16,  he  observes,  that  Scripture  says  nothing  oitwo  king- 
doms  of  Christ.  But  the  Scriptures  do  speak  of  a  iingdom 
which  is  to  cease  at  the  day  of  judgment,  (i  Cor.  xv.)  and  of  a 
kingdom  which  shall  not  cease,  nor  ever  have  an  end,  Isa.  ix.  7. 
Dan.  xii.  13.  Luke  i.  33.  Heb.  i.  8.     How  to  make  one  kingdom 


of  both  may  be  as  difficult,  perhaps,  as  to  make  the  same  namber 
even  and  odd. 

Page  17^  he  pretends,  that  the  Son  is  to  be  honoured,  only 
because  the  Father  hath  made  him  universal  Governor  of  heaven 
and  earth.  How  is  it  then  that  he  was  Gk)D,  Lord,  and  Creator^ 
before  the  world  was?  Are  not  these  things  as  considerable 
as  any  thing  that  came  after !  And  how  is  it  that  he  is  to  be 
honoured,  together  with  the  Father,  and  with  the  same  acts  of 
worship^  (Rev.  v.  13,)  to  all  eternity ;  even  after  he  shall  have 
laid  down  this  universal  kingdom  and  government^  according  to 
our  wise  author  i  Surely^  if  the  sols  foundation  of  his  hmour 
ceases,  his  honours  should  cease  with  it. 

Page  19,  he  observes,  that  the  Disciples  and  God  are  one.  I 
know  not  whether  his  understanding  here  failed  him  most,  or  his 
eyesight.  How  does  he  read  the  text !  '^  That  they  all  may  be 
"  one — that  they  also  may  be  one  in  us,"'  John  xvii.  21.  Not 
that  they  and  we  may  be  one^  not  that  they  may  be  one  with  us ; 
but  only^  one  with  each  other  in  us. 

These  few  Strictures  may  be  sufficient  to  shew,  that  the  author 
is  not  to  be  depended  on,  in  his  representations  or  reasonings. 
I  designed  hrevUy,  and  therefore  I  pass  over  his  other  fallacies 
and  misconstructions :  which  are  either  stale  things,  such  as 
have  been  abundantly  answered  over  and  over  by  better  hands  ; 
or  else  are  too  mean  and  trifling  to  have  been  either  objected  on 
one  side,  or  answered  on  the  other,  by  any  that  have  well  studied 
this  controversy. 





X  i 





About  eight  weeks  ago,  I  had  the  favour  of  a  letter  from 
you^  together  with  some  papers  relating  to  the  subject  of  the 
Trinity.  I  have  had  no  time  since,  more  than  to  give  them  a 
cursory  reading.  But  my  month  of  waiting  being  September, 
when,  probably,  the  Prince  or  young  Princesses  might  be,  as 
usual,  at  Hampton  Court;  I  thought  I  might  then  take  an 
opportunity  of  waiting  upon  you,  and  discoursing  with  you, 
before  I  enter  into  any  epistolary  correspondence.  I  am  yet 
uncertain  where  the  court  will  be  in  September.  If  you  can 
inform  yourself  where  the  king^s  chaplains  must  wait  the  next 
month,  I  shall  be  obliged  to  you  for  acquainting  me  with  it. 

My  hands,  you  must  be  sensible,  are  pretty  full  at  present,  in 
maintaining  the  Catholic  cause  (allow  me  so  to  call  it)  against 
the  Arians ;  who  seem  to  be  now  the  most  prevailing  sect  of  the 
Anti-Trinitarians,  Socinianism  being  almost  grown  obsoleto 
amongst  us.  Your  scheme  seems  to  me  to  be  Socinian  in  the 
main ;  only  taking  in  the  preexistence  of  Christ's  human  soul, 
excluding  him  from  worship,  and  interpreting  some  texts  in  the 
Sabellian  way,  and  not  after  Socinus.  I  know  not  whether  my 
leisure  will  permit  me  to  examine  all  the  grounds  upon  which 
you  go,  and  to  give  a  particular  answer  to  every  difficulty  you 
have  to  urge.  But  if,  upon  discoursing  with  you,  the  contro- 
versy, so  far  as  concerns  you,  may  be  shortened,  and  reduced  to 
two  or  three  points  which  are  most  material;  I  may  perhaps 


find  time  hereafter  to  give  you  ray  thoughts  upon  them  in 
writing.  You  will  consider,  in  the  meanwhile,  that  you  are  as 
much  concerned  to  answer,  I  mean  to  yourself,  the  reasons 
which  I  have  given  for  my  persuasion,  as  to  require  answers  to 
those  reasons,  which  seem  to  you  to  favour  your  principles.  The 
reasons,  for  instance,  which  I  have  given  against  the  Sabellian 
construction  of  the  first  chapter  of  St.  John,  are  of  equal  force 
against  yours.  And  my  arguments  to  prove  Christ  to  be 
properly  Creator,  (not  to  mention  several  others  to  prove  his 
Divinity,  drawn  from  his  titles,  and  attributes,  and  from  the  form 
of  baptism,)  directly  strike  at  your  hypothesis,  as  much  as  at  the 
Arian.  There  are  many  great  objections,  as  you  see,  lying 
against  your  principles ;  and  there  are  some,  not  contemptible, 
against  mine  also.  Weigh  both  equally,  and  balance  them  one 
against  another :  this  will  be  the  true  method  to  form  a  right 
judgment.  I  believe  you  to  be  as  sincere  and  impartial  in  your 
inquiries  as  most  men  are ;  making  allowance  for  such  prejudices 
as  are  often  apt  to  steal  upon  any  of  us,  without  our  perceiving 
it.  I  wonder  a  little  how  one  that  talks  so  well  about  suspend- 
ing assent  where  there  is  not  sufficient  evidence,  can  prevail  with 
himself  to  think  that  there  is  any  prescription  for  your  scheme 
of  5CX)  years  before  the  commencement  of  my  scheme.  The 
proof  of  this  fact  can  never  be  made  good.  The  contrary  is 
plain  and  evident.  I  am  in  hopes  that  I  have  mistook  your 
meaning:  if  I  have,  I  ask  your  pardon.  I  shall  add  nothing 
more  at  present,  but  my  thanks  to  you  for  your  very  civil  manner 
of  writing  to  me ;  assuring  you,  that  so  far  as  my  leisure,  abilities, 
or  opportimities  permit,  I  shall  be  ever  ready  to  give  you 
the  best  satisfaction  I  can  in  any  thing  relating  to  this  contro- 
versy; being. 

Your  most  humble  Servant, 


Magd.  ColL  Aug.  9, 1710. 


I  CAN  now  acquaint  you,  that  I  shall  not  be  in  waiting  at 
Kensington  before  the  16th  of  September.     I  intended  to  be 

TO  MR.  STAUNTON.  311 

there  at  the  beginning  of  the  month ;  but  my  wife  being  ill,  I 
have  wrote  to  my  brother  chaplains  to  take  care  of  the  first 
fortnight :  and  they  will  be  so  kind  as  to  do  it.  I  shall  be  very 
glad  to  see  you  at  Kensington  any  time  aft^r  the  1 6th.  There  are 
lodgings  provided  for  the  chaplains,  as  I  well  know,  having  so 
found  it  the  last  year.  The  lodgings  are  in  or  near  the  square : 
which  is  aU  that  I  remember  of  them. 

I  thank  you  for  the  favour  of  your  last,  and  again  ask  your 
pardon  for  mistaking  your  meaning.  I  shall  think  my  time  there 
very  agreeably  and  usefully  spent  in  friendly  debates  upon  so 
important  a  subject.  Not  that  I  think  either  of  us  shall  be  able 
thoroughly  to  discuss  the  main  question,  in  a  verbal  conference, 
and  without  books  at  hand.  But  we  may  settle  some  prelimi- 
naries ;  may  throw  out  several  things  as  agreed  on  between  both ; 
and  so  prepare  the  way  for  a  short  and  clear  examination  of  the 
matter  in  debate,  to  be  done  afterwards  by  way  of  letter.  In 
the  interim,  I  am,  with  very  true  and  sincere  respect, 

Your  most  humble  Servant, 


Magd.  Coll.  Aug.  30, 1720. 

LETTER  111. 


I  HAVE  had  the  favour  of  two  letters  from  you,  and  am  not 
unmindful  of  the  promise  I  made  to  enter  into  an  epistolary 
correspondence  with  you,  as  far  as  my  leisure  may  permit,  and 
provided  the  dispute  may  be  brought  into  a  nari'ow  compass.  I 
might  reasonably  decline  all  private  conference,  having  suffi- 
ciently done  my  part  in  this  controversy,  till  some  or  other  shall 
undertake,  in  the  same  public  way,  to  confute  what  I  have 
publicly  asserted.  Yet  since  you  have  been  pleased  to  apply 
yourself  to  me,  with  much  civility,  and  with  an  air  of  strict 
sincerity,  entreating  me  not  to  think  it  too  great  a  task,  though 
in  respect  of  a  single  soul,  to  take  particular  notice  of  what  you 
have  publicly  and  privately  advanced  upon  the  subject ;  I  shall 


not  scruple  to  comply  with  your  desires,  so  far  as  may  be 
sufficient  to  answer  the  end  intended. 

The  points  which,  after  our  conference  at  Kensington,  I  pro- 
mised to  go  upon^  were  these :  i .  The  interpretation  of  the  first 
of  St.  John.  2.  The  question  whether  Christ  be  Creator.  3. 
The  point  of  worship.  Under  these  three  is  contained  all  that  is 
material ;  and  upon  these  the  main  of  the  controversy  turns.  I 
must  insist  upon  it  with  you,  as  a  preliminary  article,  that  you 
confine  yourself,  for  the  present  at  least,  within  these  bounds; 
avoiding  all  wanderings  and  unnecessary  diversions,  attending  to 
one  point  only  at  a  time,  and  contentedly  suffering  it  to  be 
distinctly  and  fully  debated,  before  we  proceed  to  any  new  one. 
You  are  first  to  be  upon  the  defensive,  and  to  bear  the  part  of 
a  respondent.  You  shall  have  your  turn  to  object  afterwards 
(if  we  continue  our  correspondence)  what  you  please  to  my 
scheme;  but,  for  the  present,  you  are  only  to  defend  your 

These  things  premised,  I  shall  now  begin  with  your  interpre- 
tation of  St.  John.  You  construe  the  words  0€O5  ^j;  6  Arfyoy, 
Grod  teas  reason  or  vnsdom.    To  which  I  object  as  follows : 

1 .  The  article  6  before  Arfyoy,  and  the  want  of  the  article  6 
before  0€O9,  make  one  presumption  against  your  interpretation. 
Please  to  observe  St.  John's  manner  of  expressing  himself  else- 
where, 6  0€O5  dydTny  itrrXvy  "  Grod  is  love,"  twice,  i  John  iv.  8,  16. 
i  0€os  <^«5  icm^  "  God  is  light,"  1  John  i.  5.  Now  these  are  just 
such  propositions  as  that  of  yours,  God  was  wisdom :  wherefore 
had  St.  John  intended  it,  he  would  have  expressed  it  thus ;  6 
0€is  Aoyos  Tjv,  This  observation  is  of  weight,  not  only  because 
of  St.  John''s  manner  of  expressing  himself,  but  also  because  the 
Greek  idiom  requires  it.  See  Erasmus''s  comment  upon  the 
place,  who  was  a  good  judge  in  such  matters. 

2.  Another  objection  against  your  interpretation  is  this,  that 
the  A6yos  is  the  principal  subject,  the  theme  which  the  Apostle 
took  to  discourse  on.  He  is  there  shewing  what  the  Aoyos  was, 
not  what  God  the  Father  was.  The  Aoyos  was  in  the  beginning, 
the  Aoyos  was  with  God,  the  world  was  made  by  the  same  Aoyos, 
and  so  on.  The  whole  first  fourteen  verses  are,  in  a  manner, 
little  else  but  a  description  of  the  several  powers  and  attributes 
of  the  Adyos.  Wherefore  it  is  more  natural  and  consonant  to 
understand  that  the  Apostle  intended  to  tell  us  that  the  Aoyos 
was  God,  than  vice  versa :  since  the  Apostle  was  recounting  the 


attriboteB  of  the  Aayo^,  his  prmeipal  theme,  not  the  attributee  of 
God  the  Father. 

3.  I  moist  not  foiget  to  add,  that  all  antiquity  has  oonstnied 
the  words  as  we  do.  Now,  whether  you  consider  the  ancients  aa 
the  properest  judges  of  the  idiom  of  the  hmguage  in  or  near 
their  own  times;  or  whether  you  consider  them  as  faithfbl 
conveyers  of  the  Apostle's  meaning,  (some  having  been  his 
immediate  disciples,  as  Ignatius ;  others  having  conversed  with 
those  that  had  been,)  either  way,  the  verdict  of  the  ancients, 
especially  in  so  noted  and  so  important  a  passage  of  Scripture, 
ought  to  be  of  great  weight,  and  indeed  decisive ;  unless  there 
appeared  (as  there  does  none)  some  plain  reason  or  necessity,  in 
text  or  context,  for  another  construction.  You  seem  indeed  to 
lay  some  stress  upon  this  consideration,  that,  in  our  way,  we 
construe  the  words  baciwards.  But  this  is  slight.  Would  you 
call  it  construing  baekfoanhj  if  we  rendered  the  first  sentence, 
{iv  ipxfi  ^v  6  A(Jyo9,)  "  The  Word  was  in  the  beginning!"  It  is 
not  construing  backwards,  to  render  Tfvtvim  6  0c^,  **  God  is 
"  spirit :"  John  iv.  24.  or  to  render  yAprvs  yip  ixov  icrrlv  6  Gciy, 
''  God  is  my  witness :"  Bom.  i.  9.  Multitude  of  like  examples 
may  be  given,  where  the  diiferent  idioms  of  languages  require 
that  the  sense  should  run  under  a  diiferent  order  of  the  words. 

Your  other  observation,  borrowed  from  Bishop  Pearson,  that 
the  Evangelist  makes  ''  the  last  word  of  the  former  sentence  the 
*'  first  of  that  which  follows,'*'  appears  to  be  of  very  little  moment. 
By  this  rule,  the  second  verse  should  have  begun  with  6  A6yos 
instead  of  oJnros.  Or  if  you  answer  this  by  saying,  that  still  oSros 
refers  to  the  last  word  preceding,  then  by  the  same  rule  hi  airoO, 
in  the  third  verse,  should  refer  to  rbv  0€bv  preceding.  But 
enough  of  fancies :  let  us  rather  attend  to  dry  criticism  and 
strict  reasoning. 

I  proceed  to  your  construction  of  ^4'  avrou,  by  it,  or  according 
to  it,  as  in  or  by  an  exemplar.  It  is  sufficient  here  to  observe, 
that  this  construction  is  ungrammatioal.  The  preposition  bih 
cannot  bear  any  such  sense.  The  English  particle  by  is  indeed 
sometimes  so  used,  but  I  want  some  example  of  any  such  use  of 
the  Greek  bid.  Give  me  one,  at  least,  out  of  Scripture  :  or  I 
shall  be  content  if  you  can  produce  me  any  either  in  sacred  or 
profane  writer, 

Mr.Norris''s  speculations  upon  this  head  I  am  well  acquainted 
with.    They  may  pass  for  pretty  fancies,  and  that  is  all.    Allow- 


ing  the  thing  itself  to  be  true,  yet  it  neither  can  be  made  appear 
that  John  has  here  asserted  it,  nor  was  Mr.  Norris  himself 
sanguine  enough  to  affirm  that  he  ever  intended  it.  See  his 
preface  to  part  i.  p.  14.  Add  to  this,  that  the  ideal  world  is 
nobody  knows  what.  Strip  it  of  flight  and  figure,  and  there  is 
no  more  in  it  than  this,  that  God  knew  all  things  before  he 
made  them :  but  the  modus  of  it  infinitely  surpasses  all  created 
understanding.  If  we  come  to  plain  good  sense,  we  can  conceive 
nothing  of  God,  but  what  is  either  substance  or  attribute.  The 
ideal  world,  in  your  hypothesis,  must  either  be  the  substance  of 
God  the  Father,  that  is,  God  himself,  or  only  some  attribute  of 
him.  You  make  it  to  be  his  reason,  or  his  msdom,  and  therefore 
must  of  consequence  suppose  it  an  attribute ;  and  so  you  say  in 
your  first  letter,  though  in  the  same  place  you  observe  that  it  is 
'^  of  the  substance  of  God,"  the  meaning  of  which  I  should  bo 
glad  to  know  distinctly.  To  me  there  appears  no  medium 
between  an  attribute  of  God,  and  God  himself.  You  suppose 
unsdom  to  be  an  attribute,  not  God  himself  precisely  considered ; 
and  accordingly  you  say  by  it,  not  by  him :  so  that,  at  length, 
allowing  only  for  a  small  difference  in  words,  your  hypothesis 
falls  in  with  the  Sabellian  scheme,  and  I  have  already  confuted 
it  in  my  first  Sermon.  However,  I  shall  not  scruple  to  make  a 
little  more  particular  application  of  what  I  have  there  said  to 
your  hypothesis. 

I  argue  thus.  Either  you  must  understand  by  the  Aoyos, 
Gx)d  the  Father  himself,  or  an  attribute  of  God  the  Father: 
but  neither  of  these  suppositions  can  bo  reconciled  to  St.  John's 
Gospel,  therefore  your  scheme  falls.  If  you  understand  by  the 
Aoyo9,  God  the  Father,  try  if  you  can  make  sense  of  verse  the 
ist,  2nd,  and  T4th ;  if  you  understand  any  attribute  of  him,  as  you 
seem  to  do,  I  object  as  follows  ; 

1.  The  Loffoa  was  with  God^  irpos  rov  Sedv.  What  accurate 
writer  would  not  rather  have  said  of  an  attribute,  that  it  was  iv 
T^  0€<j),  in  God?  And  yet  irpos  rbv  S€bv  is  again  repeated. 

2.  St.  John  lays  some  stress  upon  the  Logos' 8  being  in  the 
beginning  with  God.  He  repeats,  he  inculcates  it.  What  need 
of  this,  if  the  Logos  means  only  God^s  wisdom !  Can  any  man 
doubt  whether  God  was  always  wise  ?  But  there  might  be  some 
doubt  whether  any  other  Person  was  in  the  beginning  with  God 
the  Father ;  and  therefore,  if  a  Person  be  meant,  we  see  the 
reason  of  the  Evangelist's  repeating  it,  and  laying  a  stress  upon  it. 

TO   MR.  STAUNTON.  315 

3.  The  pronoun  ovroy  (verse  the  2nd)  put  by  itself,  and  begin- 
ning a  sentence,  seems  rather  to  denote  a  Person  than  an 
attribute,  and  to  be  more  justly  rendered  he  than  it.  I  know 
not  whether  any  the  like  instance  can  be  given  of  ovto^  put 
absolutely  and  beginning  a  sentence,  and  not  denoting  a  person. 

4.  Verse  the  8th,  '^  He  (John  the  Baptist)  was  not  that  light.*" 
The  he  here,  of  whom  this  is  denied,  plainly  refers  to  soqie 
other  he^  of  whom  the  thing  is  affirmed.  How  would  it  sound 
to  say,  he  toas  not,  but  it  (an  attribute  of  God)  was  that  light  ? 

5.  Proceed  to  verse  the  nth,  and  read  it  in  your  way,  thus: 
It  came  unto  its  own,  and  its  ovm  received  it  not.  Where  is  the 
sense  or  the  propriety  ? 

6.  Go  on  to  verse  the  1 2th.  But  as  many  as  received  it^  to 
them  it  gave  power  to  become  the  sons  of  God.  Is  not  the  sense 
flat,  and  the  sentence  very  odd  and  unnatural  ? 

7.  Lastly,  consider  verse  the  14th.  Tlie  Logos  (an  attribute 
of  Crod  the  Father)  was  made  fleshy  and  it  tabernacled  amongst  us, 
and  we  beheld  its  glory ^  the  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the 
Father,  &c.  Now,  how  comes  wisdom  or  reason  to  be  the  (yrdy 
begotten  of  the  Father,  more  than  power^  or  goodness,  or  any 
other  attribute  I 

8.  St.  John  in  his  Revelations  seems  to  have  determined,  that 
6  A6yos  is  the  name  of  a  Person,  not  an  attribute,  the  Person  of 
Jesus  Christ :  Rev.  xix.  1^, 

These  are  the  principal  difficulties  against  your  scheme,  which 
at  present  occur  to  me.  Be  pleased  to  answer  them  severally 
and  distinctly,  or  give  them  up  as  unanswerable.  In  the  interim, 
I  rest, 

Your  faithful  Friend^ 

And  humble  Servant, 


Magd.  Coll.  Oct.  27,  1720. 

I  RECEIVED  a  letter  from  you,  containing  some  exceptions 
to  the  evidence  and  reasons  which  I  offered  against  your  inter- 
pretation of  the  first  chapter  of  St.  John.     Your  exceptions,  or 


pleas,  I  shall  examine  one  by  one ;  and  then  leave  you  to  judge 
of  what  weight  they  ought  to  be :  charitably  believing  that  you 
will  not  industriously  deceive  your  own  soul. 

1.  To  my  critical  reasons  your  general  answer  is,  that  you  are 
illiterate,  and  pretend  not  to  criticism. 

But  this  plea  will  be  of  no  service  in  the  case.  You  correct 
the  English  translation,  and  indeed  all  the  versions  that  ever 
were,  appealing  to  the  original  itself.  I  shew  you  from  the 
idiom  of  the  language,  from  the  Apostles'  manner  of  expressing 
himself  elsewhere,  and  from  his  principal  drift  and  design  through 
the  cluster,  that  you  misconstrue  the  original,  and  that  the 
words  cannot  bear  your  sense.  Now  either  you  are  obliged  to 
answer  these  reasons,  or  dse  to  own  frankly,  that  you  have  taken 
upon  you  to  judge  in  a  point  you  understand  not,  have  been 
confident  without  grounds,  and  pronounced  in  the  dark.  Con- 
sider well  what  St.  Peter  has  observed,  namely  that  the  un- 
learned and  unstable  wrest  the  Scriptures  to  their  own  destruc- 
tion, 2  Pet.  iii.  1 6.  How  know  you  but  this  may  be  your  own 
case,  while  against  the  idiom  of  tiie  tongue,  the  author's  manner 
of  expression,  as  well  as  against  the  wisest  and  ablest  judges 
ancient  or  modem,  you  wrest  a  passage  of  such  importance  to  a 
new  and  strange  meaning  t 

I  do  not  doubt  but  an  UKUrate  man  may  be  capable  of  under- 
standing the  Gospel :  and  I  hope  you  are  capable  of  under- 
standing the  passage  of  St.  John  in  the  vulgar  sense,  as  well  as 
in  any  new  invented  one  of  your  own. 

2.  To  my  argument  drawn  from  the  sentiments  of  antiquity, 
you  except,  that  if  the  sense  of  a  text  can  hefixedy  any  different 
sense  of  Fathers  against  it  is  of  no  weight. 

But  what  is  this  to  the  purpose!  Have  you  fixed  the  sense  of 
the  text,  that  is,  tueeriained  it !  So  far  from  it,  that  you  have 
hardly  the  shadow  of  a  reason,  from  text  or  context,  to  support 
it.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  rather  fixed  to  another  sense,  as  I 
have  shewn  you,  and  given  yon  reasons  which  you  are  not  able 
to  answer. 

3.  You  plead  that  the  five  first  verses  are  a  train  of  progressive 
propositions,  and  that  generaUy  the  predicate  of  the  former  is 
the  subject  of  the  succeeding. 

I  answer,  that  your  rule  fuls  in  the  very  two  first  pro- 
positions, for  6  Aiyos  is  the  subject  in  both.  It  fails  again  in 
verse  the  and,  where,  by  your  rule,  it  should  havei  been  6  AJyos, 

TO   MR.  STAUNTON.  317 

instead  of  ovtos^  Your  rule  is  again  broke  in  verse  the  3rd, 
where  bC  airrov  should,  by  that  rule,  refer  to  Q^ov  going  before. 
But  enough  of  fancies. 

4.  To  my  argument  drawn  from  St.  John's  making  the  Logos 
his  principal  theme,  and  his  intending  to  tell  us,  not  what  God 
the  Father  was,  but  what  the  Logos  was :  to  this  you  except, 
that  the  Apostle'^s  declaring  the  Logos  to  be  an  attribute  of  God, 
is  declaring  what  the  Logos  is,  and  is  therefore  consonant  to  the 
Apostle's  design.     I  answer, 

You  do  not  here  carefully  distinguish  between  subject  and  pre^ 
dicate.  When  we  say,  God  is  reason^  God  is  the  subject,  and 
reason  is  predicated  of  him.  But  when  we  say,  the  Logos  is  God^ 
the  Logos  is  the  subject,  and  that  he  is  God,  is  predicated  of  the 
Logos.  Now  St.  John's  scope  and  design,  which  runs  through 
the  first  fourteen  verses,  is  to  predicate  of  the  Logos,  not  to  pre- 
dicate of  God  the  Father :  wherefore  I  must  still  insist  upon  it, 
that  the  Apostle's  drift  all  along  is  against  your  construction. 

5.  You  conceive  that  you  have  some  strength  and  countenance 
from  the  5th  verse,  which  you  desire  me  to  account  for.  Please 
to  compare  John  iii.  36.  v.  40.  x.  10.  v.  35,  26.  vi.  33,  &c.  xiv. 
1 1 .  and  especially  John  viii.  1 2.  xi.  35.  Col.  iii.  3, 4.  You  will  find 
Christ  to  have  been  the  life  and  light  of  the  world,  as  being  the 
Author  and  Fountain  of  the  resurrection,  and  the  Giver  of  life 
eternal.  Not  a  word  do  you  meet  with  about  the  ideal  worlds 
which,  whether  it  be  a  truth  or  no,  has  no  foundation  in  Scrip- 
ture, but  is  borrowed  from  the  Platonic  philosophy. 

6.  You  pass  some  high  commendations  on  Mr.  Norris,  re- 
flecting not  very  kindly  (I  am  sure,  without  Mr.  Norris"*s  good 
leave)  on  the  clergy  in  general. 

I  readily  allow  all  you  can  say  in  commendation  of  that  good 
man.  But  will  you  abide  by  his  authority  in  every  thing!  If 
you  will,  our  dispute  will  be  at  an  end.  But  it  is  in  vain  to  con- 
tend by  authorities  instead  of  reasons.  How  many  authorities 
might  I  produce  against  your  sentiments,  particularly  against 
your  construction  of  St.  John  !  The  whole  Christian  world,  in  a 
manner,  from  the  beginning  downwards  to  this  day,  not  to  men- 
tion that  Mr.  Norris,  in  the  main,  is  of  my  side  of  the  question, 
and  interprets  the  Aoyos  of  a  distinct  Person,  not  of  God  the 
Father,  or  any  attribute  of  him. 

7.  You  except  to  my  notion  of  an  aitribiUe,  and  (without  un- 


derstanding  what  you  say)  call  it  Sabellian.  My  notion  of  an 
attribute  is  the  same  that  all  Divines,  whether  Sabellian  or 
others,  have  ever  had  of  it.  Power,  wisdom,  goodness,  are 
attributes  of  God,  not  his  substance  precisely  considered :  in 
like  manner,  as  reason  is  a  property  of  something  rational,  not 
the  very  thing  itself  precisely  considered.  They  are  abstract 
partial  ideas,  and  are  not  the  very  same  with  the  notion  of  the 
substance  itself.  For  if  you  say  that  power  is  the  substance, 
and  wisdom  the  substance,  and  goodness  the  substance,  precisely 
considered;  then  power  is  goodness,  and  both  together  are 
wisdom ;  and  wisdom  is  omnipresence,  &c.  and  there  is  no  differ- 
ence between  one  attribute  and  another,  nor  any  sense  in  saying 
that  the  substance  of  God  is  wise,  good,  powerful,  &c.  because  it 
will  be  only  saying,  that  the  substance  is  substance. 

8.  You  take  hold  of  Bishop  Pearson's  saying,  that  God  is  an 
attribute  of  the  Aoyos.  But  it  is  plain  that  the  Bishop  there 
used  the  word  attribute  in  an  improper  sense,  for  predicate; 
meaning  only  that  0€os  was  predicated  of  the  Aoyos,  or,  in  plain 
English,  that  it  is  there  said  of  the  Aoyosy  that  he  was  God. 

When  you  speak  of  wisdom,  power,  and  goodness  being  co- 
ess&niial  and  consuhstantial,  you  use  words  either  without  a 
meaning,  or  with  a  meaning  peculiar  to  yourself.  Things  are 
with  one  another  coessential  or  comitbstantiaiy  not  properties,  nor 
abstract  notions. 

As  to  my  rendering  John  iv.  24,  I  have  the  same  right  to 
render  -nv^vyia  Spirit,  (not  a  Spirit,)  as  our  translators  had  to 
render  irv^vyLari,  in  the  same  verse.  Spirit,  not  a  Spirit.  But 
that  by  the  way  only,  having  little  relation  to  our  present 

As  to  the  preposition  Sia,  neither  you  nor  Mr.  Norris  has 
given  any  instance  of  its  ever  being  used  in  the  exemplary  sense. 
The  rest  is  of  no  moment. 

Thus,  Sir,  I  have,  I  think,  considered  every  exception  in  your 
letter  that  appears  to  have  any  weight.  As  you  are  pleased  to 
apply  to  me  under  the  character  of  a  Ductor  Dubitantium,  so  I 
have  endeavoured  to  answer  every  the  least  scruple,  that  so  you 
may  the  more  readily  come  into  those  reasons  which  I  before 
oflered,  and  which  return  now  upon  you  in  their  full  force.  I 
beg  leave  to  assure  you,  that  I  ofler  you  nothing  but  what 
appears  to  me  plain  good  sense,  and  sound  reason,  and  such  as 

TO   MR.  STAUNTON.  319 

lias  weight  with  myself  as  much  as  I  desire  it  may  have  with  you. 
I  sincerely  wish  you  a  right  judgment  in  all  things,  and  remain, 

Your  Friend  and  Servant, 


Magd.  Coll.  Nov.  13,  1720. 



I  GAVE  you  time  to  consider  upon  what  I  had  before  offered, 
that  you  might  at  length  give  up  what  you  could  no  longer  main- 
tain. It  was  with  me  a  preliminary  article,  that  we  should  not 
run  from  point  to  point,  to  make  a  rambling  and  fruitless  dispute 
of  it ;  without  settling  and  clearing  any  thing.  I  will  not  under- 
take to  go  through  the  obscurer  parts  of  the  controversy  with 
you,  while  I  find  you  so  unwilling  to  apprehend  plain  things. 
It  would  be  endless  for  me  to  explain  my  meaning  every  time 
you  mistake  it :  for  every  explanation  will  still  want  a  further 
explanation,  and  so  on  ad  infinitum,  I  have  neither  leisure  nor 
inclination  to  proceed  in  this  way ;  nor  do  I  see  to  what  purpose 
it  is.  I  have  shewed  my  willingness,  upon  your  own  earnest  re- 
quest, to  serve  you  in  this  controversy ;  but  despair  of  any  suc- 
cess in  it.  The  ci  vilest  way  now  is,  to  break  off  a  correspondence 
which  can  serve  to  no  good  end.  You  are  well  pleased  with  your 
own  opinions,  and  I  as  well  satisfied  with  mine.  Which  of  us 
has  the  most  reason,  we  shall  both  know  another  day.     I  am. 


Your  Friend  and  Servant, 


Magd.  Coll.  Dec.  25,  1710. 














IN    A 



When  I  last  had  the  pleasure  of  your  conversation,  in 
company  with  one  or  two  more  ingenious  friends,  I  remember 
we  soon  fell  to  asking  each  other,  what  news  from  the  republic 
of  letters ;  what  fresh  pamphlets  stirring ;  what  works,  relating 
cither  to  religion  or  sdencey  had  appeared  lately,  or  were  soon 
likely  to  appear.  Hereupon  several  things  were  mentioned, 
and  passed  off  in  discourse :  but  what  we  happened  more  par- 
ticularly to  dwell  upon  was,  the  consideration  of  some  meta- 
physical pieces  concerning  the  proving  the  existence  of  a  Deity 
a  priori^  (as  the  Schools  term  it,)  that  is  to  say,  from  some 
supposed  antecedent  necessity,  considered  as  a  ground,  or  reason^ 
or  fowMiation^  or  internal  causey  or  formal  cause  of  the  Divine 
existence.  And  here,  if  I  remember,  we  were  inquisitive  to 
know  what  those  scholastic  terms  imported^  and  whether  the 
thought  contained  in  them  was  entirely  new^  a  recent  product  of 
the  eighteenth  century ;  as  also  what  weight  or  solidity  there 
was  in  it :  and,  if  there  were  none,  whether  it  portended  any 
detriment  to  religion  or  sciehce^  and  might  be  worth  the  oppos- 
ing or  confuting.  Upon  the  debating  and  canvassing  the  par- 
ticulars now  mentioned,  my  opinion  then  was,  and  I  am  since 


more  and  moro  confirmed  in  the  same,  that  those  who  have 
appeared  as  advocates  for  that  argument  a  priori  seem  to  have 
had  no  clear  notion  of  the  thing  itself,  or  of  the  terms  they 
make  use  of;  that  the  thought  however  was  not  a  new  thought^ 
though  perhaps  it  might  be  justly  called  a  new  tenet,  as  having 
been  constantly  exploded  for  many  centuries  upwards,  and  never 
once  maintained  by  metaphysicians  or  divines;  that  moreover  it 
was  absolutely  untenable,  yea  and  carried  its  own  confutation 
along  with  it,  as  soon  as  understood;  and  lastly,  that  such 
principles  might  be  prejudicial^  in  some  measure,  both  to  religion 
and  science^  if  they  should  happen  to  prevail ;  and  that  conse- 
quently it  would  be  doing  good  service  to  both,  if  duo  care  were 
taken,  in  a  proper  manner,  to  prevent  their  growth. 

With  these  sentiments  (which  seemed  also  to  be  pretty  nearly 
the  common  sentiments  of  all  then  present)  I  departed  from  you 
at  that  time.  And  no  sooner  was  I  returned  to  my  books,  and 
had  some  vacant  leisure  on  my  hands,  but  I  thought  of  throwing 
out  what  occurred  to  me  on  those  heads  into  paper,  digesting  it 
into  a  kind  of  dissertation,  which  I  here  send  you  for  your 
perusal,  and  which  I  leave  entirely  to  your  disposal.  The 
method,  which  I  have  chalked  out  for  myself,  in  the  essay  here 
following,  is ; 

I.  To  give  some  historical  account  of  what  the  most  eminent 
metaphysicians  and  divines  have  taught,  so  far  as  concerns 
the  point  in  question. 

II.  To  consider  the  argumentative  part,  in  order  to  take  off  the 
ambiguity  of  toords^  and  thereby  to  prevent  confusion  of 

III.  To  examine  into  the  tendency  of  the  new  tenets,  with 
respect  either  to  religion  or  science. 

These  three  heads  will  furnish  out  so  many  distinct  sections 
or  chapters. 


CHAP.  I. 

Containing  an  Historical  View  o/tohai  Metaphysicians  or  Divinss 
have  formerly  taught^  so  far  as  concerns  the  Argument  a  priori 
for  the  Divine  existence. 

I  SHALL  begin  with  two  ancient  Theists,  both  of  the  same 
time,  or  neariy,  and  both  declaring  against  the  possibility  of 
demonstrating  a  priori  the  existence  of  a  Deity,  or  first  Cause. 
One  of  them  was  a  Christian  Divine^  and  the  other  an  acute 
Pagan  Philosopher. 

The  Christian  Divine  was  Clemens  of  Alexandria,  who  flourished 
about  A.  D.  192.  He  expresses  himself  thus  in  Dr.  Cudworth's* 
translation : 

'^  God  is  the  most  difficult  thing  of  all  to  be  discoursed  of: 
''  because,  since  the  principle  of  every  thing  is  hard  to  find  out, 
''  the  first  and  most  ancient  principle  of  all,  which  was  the  cause 
''  to  all  other  things  of  their  being  made^  [and  0/ their  continuance 
'^  after  they  were  made^'\  must  need  be  the  hardest  of  all  to  be 
'^  declared  or  manifested. — But  neither  can  [God]  be  apprehended 
*^  by  any  demonstrative  science :  for  such  science  is  from  things 
'<  before  [in  order  of  nature]  and  more  knowable ;  whereas 
^  nothing  can  exist  before  that  which  is  altogether  unmade^  [or 
"  self-existent.]'' 

The  other  ancient  Theist  is  Alexander  Aphrodisiensis,  a 
celebrated  Peripatetic,  who  flourished  between  A.D.  199  and 
21 1  <:.  After  he  had  proposed  an  argument  for  the  existence  of 
a  first  Cause,  drawn  from  the  consideration  of  matumi  according 
to  the  Aristotelic  principles,  he  proceeds  to  observe  as  follows : 
"  This  argument  [or  proof]  is  in  the  way  of  analysis  only,  it 
*'  being  not  possible  that  there  should  be  a  [strict]  demonstration 
*'  oiiYiQ  first  principle  of  all:  wherefore  we  must  here  fetch  our 
''  beginning  from  things  that  are  after  it,  and  manifesty  and 

»  Cudworth  Intellect.  Syst.  p.  716.     'AXX*  oldiiwurniiM  Xayfi^jftrai  tj 

^   Nal  lihf  6  bwTntraxtipifrr^Tamt  dwodtiKTum '  avni  yhp  Ik  irporcptMr  nak 

irtpi  GfoC  \6yos  oMs  itrmf  iwti  yhp  yiwptfM*rffp«y  avwlararai'  ttw  dc  ifeyr- 

apx^  iravrhi    irpayiAOTOS    dvcrcvprroff,  vrfnv  oMv  frpovfrdpxf*'     Clem.  Ahm. 

wdtn-at  irov  ff  npwni  «al  irptafivrdrri  p.  606.  edit.  Oxon. 

apxh  ^wrdfucTos,  IJTis  rois  tSXkois  Saraaw  ^  See  an  account  of  him  in  Fabridus, 

oirta  Tov  yty€frBai  icai  ywofUpois  thai,  Bibl.  Grsec.  lib.  iv.  cap.  2$.  p.  62. 

326  AN   HISTORICAL   VIEW  Ch.l 

"  thence  by  way  of  analysis  ascend  to  the  proof  of  that  ^rsi 
"  nature  which  was  before  them'*."  So  Dr.  Cudworth  renders 
the  passage  :  and  the  reflection  or  comment,  which  he  makes  upon 
what  has  here  been  quoted  from  these  two  ancient  Theists  is  in 
these  words :  "  The  true  meaning  of  those  ancient  Theists, 
"  who  denied  that  there  could  be  any  demonstration  of  a  God, 
'^  was  only  this,  that  the  existence  of  a  Qod  could  not  be 
"  demonstrated  a  priori,  himself  being  the  ^rst  Cause  of  all 
"  things." 

Such  were  the  sentiments  of  metaphysicians  and  divines  at  that 
time,  founded  upon  plain  and  cogent  reason,  such  as  must 
equally  hold  at  all  times,  and  such  as  seem  to  evince,  not  that 
the  existence  of  a^Jirst  Cause  may  be  demonstrated  a  priori,  but 
rather  that  it  is  really  demonstrable  a  priori,  if  not  self-evident, 
that  no  such  proof  can  be  made,  being  indeed  contradictory  and 
impossible,  repugnant  to  the  very  nature  or  notion  of  a  first 
Cause.  But  I  shall  speak  to  the  argumentative  part  afterwards  : 
I  am  now  upon  the  historical.  It  is  certain  that  the  Fathers  of 
the  Church,  Greek  or  Latin,  never  admitted  any  such  proof  a 
priori  of  the  divine  existence,  but  either  directly  or  indirectly, 
either  expressly  or  implicitly,  condemned  it  all  along.  It  would 
be  tedious  to  enter  into  a  particular  detail  of  their  sentiments, 
in  relation  to  the  proof  of  the  existence :  I  shall  content  myself 
vnth  one  general  observation,  that  they  had  not  so  much  as  the 
terms  ov  phrases  of  necessary  existence,  or  necessity  of  existence,  but 
utterly  rejected  the  very  name  of  necessity^  as  not  applicable  to 
the  Deity  at  all,  understanding  it  constantly  in  its  ancient, 
proper,  compulsive  sensed.  Now  it  is  very  well  known,  that  the 
supposed  proof  a  priori,  lately  contended  for,  is  built  in  a  manner 
entirely  upon  the  word  necessity^  and  instantly  sinks  without  it. 
For,  put  immutable y  or  natural^  or  independent,  or  emphatical 
existence,  (according  to  the  ancient  way,)  instead  of  necessary 
existence,  or  necessity  of  existence,  and  then  it  is  certain  that  the 
very  medium  of  the  whole  argument  drops  and  vanishes,  and 
there  is  not  so  much  as  any  colour  or  appearance  of  the  proof 
left.  I  say  then,  since  it  is  undoubted  fact  that  the  Fathers  all 
along  admitted  of  no  such  terms  as  necessary,  or  necessity,  in  this 

^  *H  Sethis  Kara  dvdkvaiV   ov  yhp  (rai  t^v  tKflvov  (ftviriv*  Aphrodis,  Phy" 

ol6vTf  TTJs  npoiTTjs  dpxfjs  oTrddcifiv  €iv(u'  sic.  Schol.  lib.  i.  cap.  i. 
aXka  dfZ  dno  tS>v  variptov  rt  kol  <f>avf'        *  See  my  Second  Defence,  vol.  ii. 

p&¥  dp^apivovs,  Kara  rriv  irp6s  ravra  Qu.  viii.  p.  ^69,  &c.    Preface  to  Ser- 

avp(f><opiav  dvaXv<r€i  xpo>p€vov£  frvarrj'  mons,  vol.  ii. 

Gh.  I. 



case,  but  rejected  them  as  not  applicable  either  to  the  Divine 
existence  or  attributes;  it  is  very  plain  that  they  therewith 
rejected  any  such  pretended  argument  a  priori  as  has  been 
since  raised  from  those  terms. 

To  shew  how  late  it  was  before  necessity  gained  admittance  in 
the  Church,  and  became,  as  it  were,  christianized,  with  respect 
to  our  present  subject,  I  may  observe  that  Archbishop  Anselm' 
of  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  century,  yea  and  Alexander  Hales' 
of  the  thirteenth,  were  yet  scrupulous  of  making  use  of  the 
term,  and  were  very  tender  of  applying  it  to  the  Divine  acts  or 
attributes f  except  it  were  with  great  caution,  awe,  and  reserve ; 
at  the  same  time  owning  the  word  to  be  both  harsh  and  impro- 
per. And  as  to  applying  it  to  the  Divine  existence,  I  do  not  find 
that  they  ventured  upon  it  at  all ;  though  others  frequently  did 
it  afterwards  in  the  decline  of  the  thirteenth  century,  and  down- 
wards, when  AristoUe^s  Metaphysics,  translated  into  barbarous 
Latin,  and  the  Arabian  philosophy,  (of  Avicen,  Averroes,  and 
Algazel,)  had  paved  the  way  for  it^. 

Let  us  see  however  how  this  matter  stood  after  those  improper 

'  Deus  nihil  facit  necessitate,  quia 
nullo  modo  cogitw  aut  prokUfHur 
aliquid  facere.  Et  cam  dicimus  Deum 
aliquid  facere  quasi  necessitate  vitandee 
inhonestatis,  quam  utique  non  timet, 
potius  intelligendum  est  quod  facit 
necessitate  servandse  honestatis :  que 
scilicet  necessitas  non  est  aliud  quam 
immutabiUtas  honestatis  ejus,  quam  a 
seipso  et  non  ab  alio  habet;  et  idcirco 
improprie  dicitur  necessitas.  Anselm. 
Qpp.  tom.iii.  p.55. 

«  Ad  aliud  vero  quod  objicitur  de 
necessitate  bonitatis,  dicendum  est 
quod  nomen  necessitatis  non  congrue 
hie  dicitur  de  Deo.  Unde  Anselm. 
In  Deo  nulla  cadit  necessitas.  Neces- 
sitas enim  videtur  dicere  coactionem, 
Sed  nee  est  necessitas  utilitatis  a  parte 
sua,  sicut  habitum  est  in  prsecedente 
autoritate.  Si  vero  dicatur  necessitas 
congruitatis,  sive  idoneitatis,  sicut  tan- 
gitur  in  quadam  authoritate,  tunc 
potest  dici  quod  ex  necessitate  bonita- 
tis condidit  res.  Non  tamen  videtur 
congruere  quod  dicatur  ex  necessitate 
naturte :  licet  enim  sit  idem  bonitas 
quod  natura  ejus,  tamen  si  dioeretur 
ex  necessitate  natura,  videretur  poni 
talis  necessitas  qualis  est  in  rebus 
naturalibus.    In  rebus  enim  natura- 

libus  ignis  ex  necessitate  natura  gene- 
rat  ignem,  et  homo  hominem:  non 
sic  autem  est  cum  creaturss  fiunt  a 
Deo.    Alex.  Alens.  part.  ii.  p.  15. 

N.  B.  This  author  flourisned  about 
1230,  died  1345.  Albertus  Magnus, 
who  flourished  about  1360,  anddied 
in  1380,  made  no  scruple  of  applying 
the  word  necessary  or  necessitjf  (in  a 
sober  but  new  sense)  to  the  Divine 
essence  or  existence.-  and  it  is  very 
plain  that  he  learned  that  language 
from  Aristotle's  philosophv,  to  which 
he  refers  for  his  sense  of  tnose  terms. 
See  Albert.  Mag.  Comment,  in  lib.  i. 
Sentent.  Dist.  6.  0pp.  vol.  xiv.  p. 
131.  edit.  Ludg. 

^  Quievit  autem  et  siluit  philoso- 

phia  Aristotelis,  pro  majori  parte, 

usque  post  temporaMahometi,quando 
Avicenna  et  Averroes  et  cseteri  revoca- 
verunt  philosophiam  Aristotelis  in 
lucem  plenam  expositionis.  Et  licet 
alia  logicalia  et  qusedam  alia  translata 
fiierunt  per  Boetium  de  Grseco,  tamen 
tempore  Michaelis  Scoti,  qui  annit 
Dom.  1230.  transactis  apparuit,  defe- 
rens librorum  Aristotelis  partes  ali- 
quas,&c.  remagnificata  est  miUosophia 
Aristotelis  apud  Latinos.  Roff,  Bacon, 
p.  37.  Conf.  p.  45, 263, 430. 

328  AN  HISTORICAL   VIEW  Ch.  i. 

terms  were  brought  in,  and  softened  into  a  qualified   sense* 
whether  any  Schoolmen  or  others  (now  they  might  seem  to  have 
some  handle  for  it)  ever  attempted  to  draw  out  any  such  argu- 
ment a  priori  for  the  existence  of  a  first  Cause,  and  to  commend 
the  same  as  true  and  solid  reasoning.     I  would  here  observe  by 
the  way,  that  the  Schoolmen,  though  they  deservedly  He  under 
a  disrepute  for  their  excesses  in  many  things,  may  yet  be  justly 
looked  upon  as  carrying  great  authority  with  them  in  a  point  of 
this  nature,  where  they  had  no  bias  to  mislead  them,  (being 
inclined  to  the  side  of  Theism,)  and  where  a  question  turned 
upon  a  right  understanding  of  technical  terms  or  phrases,  and  a 
thorough   acquaintance   with   logic  and  metaphysics;   being  a 
matter  of  pure  abstract  reasoning.      They  were  undoubtedly 
great  masters  in  that  way :  for  "  where  they  argued  barely  upon 
"  the  principles  of  reason,''  as  a  very  judicious  writer  observes, 
"  they  have  often   done   exceeding  well,   and  have  improved 
"  natural  reason  to  an  uncommon  heights"     And  I  will  venture 
to  add,  that  if  the  sharpest  wits  of  these  later  days  shall  under- 
take, upon  their  own  stock,  to  furnish  out  a  new  scheme  of  school 
divinity y  or  metaphysical  theology,  it  will  be  a  long  while,  perhaps 
some  centuries,  before  they  arrive  to  such  perfection  in  some 
part  as  many  of  the  Schoolmen  arrived  to ;  unless  they  shall  be 
content  within  a  while  to  take  those  despised  Schoolmen  into 
consultation  with  them,  and  to  extract  the  best  things  from  them. 
This  I  hint  by  the  way,  in  order  to  remove  prejudices,  with 
respect  to  my  citing  (as  I  am  now  going  to  do)  Schoolmen  in 
this  cause ;  though  I  intend  not  to  cite  them  only,  but  other  the 
most  judicious  and  learned  divines  and  metaphysicians^  who  have 
come  after  them,  and  have  entirely  agreed  in  this  article  with 
them.     However,  as  I  have  already  intimated,  the  Schoolmen 
are  most  certainly  proper  judges  within  their  own  province,  and 
in  a  point  of  school  divinity :  and  this  which  we  are  now  upon  is 
very  plainly  such,  as  the  pretended  argument  a  priori  proceeds 
altogether  upon  scholastic  terms,  and  is  managed  in  a  scholastic 
way,  and  therefore  must  at  length  stand  or  fall  by  scholastic 
principles  and  scholastic  reasonings.     These  things  premised,  I 
may  now  proceed  in  the  historical  view,  according  to  order  of 
time,  beginning  from  those  days  when  necessary  extstence,  with 
other  the  like  terms  or  phrases,  had  gotten  some  footing  in  the 
Christian  theology. 

^  Reflections  upon  Learning,  p.  217,  227. 

Ch.  I.  OF  THE  QUESTION.  889 

A.  D.  1260.  Albebtus  Magnus. 
Albertus,  sumamed  the  Great,  on  account  of  his  great  learn- 
ing and  abilities,  was  one  of  the  most  considerable  among  the 
divines  or  metaphysicians  of  the  age  he  lived  in.  He  was  one  of 
the  first  (I  mean  among  Ohristian  writers)  that  took  upon  him 
to  give  God  the  metaphysical  title  of  a  necessary  Being.  Yet  he 
presumed  not  to  found  any  argument  a  priori  for  the  existence 
upon  it,  but  denied  expressly,  or  in  words  equivalent,  that  any 
argument  of  that  kind  could  be  made.  He  allows,  that  upon 
the  foot  of  mere  natural  light,  Gt>d  may  be  known  a  posteriori 
by  the  creatures^  and  no  otherwise^ :  for  he  admits  it  as  a  true 
principle,  that  a  philosopher  can  search  out  God  no  other  way 
than  by  the  creatures,  as  a  cause  is  known  from  the  ejffictK 
Which  amounts  to  the  same  with  saying,  that  philosophy  affords 
no  proof  a />rior». 

A.D.  1270.  Thobias  Aquinas. 
From  the  master  or  preceptor  I  may  next  descend  to  the 
scholar,  who  was  almost  twenty  years  younger  than  Albertus, 
but  died  some  years  before  him,  namely,  in  the  year  1274.  I 
need  say  nothing  of  the  fame  or  the  abilities  of  Aquinas,  sur- 
named  (according  to  the  fashion  of  those  times)  the  Angelical 
Doctor.  He  frequently  enough  makes  use  of  the  phrases  of 
necessary  Being,  or  necessity  of  existingy  but  yet  never  builds 
any  argument  a  priori  for  the  existence  upon  it,  but  constantly 
maintains,  that  every  proof  of  the  existence  is  a  posteriori,  from 
the  effects.  In  one  place  he  writes  thus,  '^  There  are  two  kinds 
^'  of  demonstration.  The  first  is  by  the  cause,  and  has  its  name 
^^  from  shewing  why  the  thing  is,  and  it  proceeds  upon  some- 
''  thing  simply  prior.  The  second  is  by  the  effect^  and  has  its 
"  name  from  shewing  that  the  thing  is,  and  it  proceeds  upon 
"  things  prior  with  retpect  to  us. — Now  the  existence  of  Gk)d, 
'^  as  it  is  not  knowable  in  itself,  is  demonstrable  to  us  by  the 
"  effects  to  us  known".''    That  is  to  say,  the  existence  of  Gtod 

k  Posita  creatura  tanquam  effectu  in  philosophia  Dial  per  creaiuras,  aiciit 

Dei,    necesse    est  Deum    creatorem  causam  p^  effectmn.    Ibid.  p.  55. 

poni :  et  sic  a  posteriori  ex  creatura  ™  Duplex  est  demonstratio.    Una 

potest  Deus  cognosci.    Albert.  Magn.  quae  est  per  cai»am,  et  dicitur  propter 

in  lib.  i.  Sentent.  dist.  iii.  0pp.  torn,  quid;  et  hsec  est  per  priora  Mmplict- 

xiv.  p.  66,  ter :  alia  est  per  effectum,  et  didtar 

^  Philosophus  non  investigat  eum  demonstratio  quiaj  et  li»c  est  per  ea 

330  AN  HISTORICAL  VIEW  Ch.  i. 

cannot  be  demonstrated  a  priori^  but  a  posteriori  only :  and  so 
the  title  of  that  article  explains  it°,  in  some  editions  of  his 
Sum.  In  another  work,  Aquinas  maintains  the  same  thing  in 
words  somewhat  different,  thus  ;  "  In  arguments  brought  to 
"  prove  the  existence  of  the  Deity,  it  is  not  proper  to  argue  from 
"  the  Divine  essence^  or  from  what  he  is,  but  instead  thereof  to 
"  argue  from  the  effects,  like  as  in  the  demonstrations  a  posteriori: 
"  and  from  some  such  effect  is  the  name  of  God  taken  <>/'  I  use 
a  little  liberty  in  rendering  his  words,  to  make  his  sense  appear 
the  clearer.  It  is  very  plain  from  both  the  passages  here  cited, 
that  he  utterly  rejected  all  arguments  a  priori  for  the  proving 
the  existence  of  a  Deity.  Yet  I  shall  not  conceal  from  you,  that 
he  elsewhere  argues  from  necessary  existence  to  the  eternity  of  the 
divine  Being  P ;  which  may  be  thought  to  be  arguing  a  priori  : 
I  will  not  say  that  it  is  not  arguing  a  priori :  but  then  it  is  not 
arguing  from  attribute  to  existence,  but  from  one  attribute  to 
another,  from  existence  and  one  or  more  attributes  before  proved, 
to  an  attribute  not  yet  proved ;  which  is  a  fair  and  just  way 
of  reasoning,  and  may  perhaps  not  improperly  be  called  arguing 
a  priori ;  though  some  would  scruple  the  giving  it  that  title. 
However,  as  to  this  by-point,  I  shall  have  occasion  to  say  more 
in  the  sequel,  and  so  may  dismiss  it  for  the  present,  and  proceed 
in  my  method. 

A.  D.  1276.    Roger  Bacon. 

Roger  Bacon,  of  the  order  of  Friars  Minor,  was  a  person  of 
strong  parts  and  clear  judgment,  and  had  perhaps  a  greater 
compass  of  erudition  than  any  other  of  that  age.  He  was 
styled  the  admirable  Doctor,  after  the  way  of  giving  titles  at 
that  time.  It  will  not  be  improper  to  shew  what  his  judgment 
was  upon  the  present  question,  as  he  occasionally  delivered  it. 

2 use  sunt  priora  quoad  nos. Unde  sive  quidditatem,  sed  loco  quidditatis 

)euin  esse  secundum  auod  non  est  accipitur  pro  medio  effectus,  sicut  ac- 

per  se  notum,  quoad  nos  aemonstrabile  cidit  in  demonstrationibus  quia  ;  et  ex 

est  per  effectus  nobis  notos.     Aquin,  hujusmodi  effectu  sumitur  ratio  hujus 

Summ.  q.  ii.  art.  a.  p.  14.  edit.  Lugd.  nominis  Deus,    Aquin,  Summ.  contr. 

1588.  Gentiles,  lib.  i.  cap.  12.  p.  14.   edit. 

^  Deum  esse,  quamvis  non  a  priori,  Lugd.  1587. 

a  posteriori  tamen  demonstrari  potest  p  Oportet  ponere  aliquod  primum 

ex  aliquo  ejus  notion  nobis  tffectu,  necessarium  quod  est  per  seipsum  ne- 

Aquin.  Summ,  q.  ii.  art.  2.  p.  4.  edit,  cessarium;  et  hoc  est  Deus,  cum  sit 

Paris.  16 1 5.  prima  causa  ut  dictum  est :    igitur 

^  In  rationibus  autem  in  quibus  Deus  ctemus  est  cum  onme  necessa- 

demonstratur  Deum  esse,  non  oportet  rium  per  se,  sit  setemum.     Aquin. 

assumi  pro  medio  divinam  essentiam,  contr.  Oentil.  lib.  i.  cap.  14.  p.  ai. 

Ch.  I.  OF  THE  QUESTION.  881 

'^  In  metaphysics  there  can  be  no  demonsiration  made  but  by 
"  arguing  from  the  ej^ :  because  things  qnrUwd  are  discovered 
''  by  the  sensible  effects,  and  the  Creator  by  the  creature,  as  is 
''  manifest  in  that  sciences."  From  which  words  it  is  plain  that 
he  rejects  all  pretence  to  arguing  a  priori  in  the  question  of  the 
existence^  and  allows  of  nothing  in  that  case  but  the  proofs  a 
posteriori  only. 

A.D.  1290.      RiCHABDUS  DE   MbDIA  ViLLA. 

Richard  of  Middleton  was  a  man  famous  in  his  time,  dignified 
with  the  title  of  the  solid  Doctor.  His  determination  of  the 
question  about  proving  the  existence  a  priori  is  clear  and  full ; 
as  here  follows :  **  There  is  one  kind  of  demonstration  propter 
**  quid^  [from  antecedent  reason,]  in  which  what  belongs  to  the 
"  subject  is  demonstrated  by  its  cause :  and  there  is  another  kind 
''  of  demonstration  quia,  [from  subsequent  reason,]  in  which  the 
''  cause  is  demonstrated  by  the  effect.  In  the  former  way  of 
''  demonstration,  I  say,  we  cannot  demonstrate  the  existence  of 
''  Gody  because  the  Divine  existence  has  no  cause  prior  to  found 
''  such  proof  of  the  existence  upon :  but  in  the  latter  way  of 
''  proof  from  the  effect^  I  assert  that  we  can  demonstrate  the 
"  existence  of  the  Deity  by  variety  of  arguments^"  Here  we 
may  observe,  as  likewise  in  the  three  authorities  before  cited ; 
that  it  was  not  through  haste,  oversight,  or  forgetfiilness,  that 
they  avoided  arguing  a  priori  in  that  instance,  but  through  deep 
consideration  and  judgment.  They  had  all  thought  of  the  thing, 
and  very  deliberately  rejected  it,  as  amounting  to  a  palpable 
absurdity,  making  a  cause  jE^rior  to  the  first. 

I  may  further  take  notice,  that  this  author  has  besides  a 
whole  chapter  about  the  conceivable  or  notional  order  of  the 
Divine  attributes  well  worth  the  perusal,  for  the  right  under- 
standing how,  or  in  what  sense,  one  may  be  said  to  argue  a 
priori  from  existence  to  attributes,  or  from  attribute  to  attribute. 

4  In  metaphTsicis  non  potest  fieri  tur  causa  per  effectum.    Loquendo  ds 

demonstratio  nisi  per  effectum :  quo-  prima  demonstratione,  dico,  quod  non 

niam  inveniuntur  spiritualia  per  cor-  possumns  denumstrare  Deum    esse, 

porales  effectus,  et  Creator  per  crea-  quia  esse  Dei  causam  non  habet,  per 

turam,  sicut  patet  in   ilia    scientia.  ouam  possimus  ipsum  demonstrare 

Rog,  Bacon,  Opus  majus.  p.  6a.  edit,  ae  Deo :  loquendo  de  demonstratione 

Jebb.  1733.  quae  est  per  effectum,  sic  dico  quod 

^  Est  qusedam  demonstratio prcyi/er  possumus    demonstrare  Deum    esse 

^uid,  qua  demonstrator  passio  de  sub-  multiplidter.    Rick,  de  Med,  VUl.  m 

jecto  per  causam :  et  est  qusedam  de-  IV.  lAhr.  Sentent.  lib.  i.  dist.  3.  q.  3. 

monstratio  quia,  in  qua  demonstra«  P*  4i* 


I  shall  cite  some  parts  of  that  chapter  for  a  specimen^ :  but  the 
whole  deserves  a  reader's  careful  notice,  for  the  solid  judgment 
appearing  in  it.  The  sum  is,  that  the  Divine  existence  is  con- 
sidered in  the  first  place,  and  after  that,  the  attributes  in  their 
most  natural  order  of  conception.  And  when  they  are  so  placed 
or  ranked,  we  may  argue  from  them  in  that  order ;  and  such 
arguing  may,  without  impropriety,  be  styled  arguing  a  priori^  as 
arguing  from  something  antecedent,  in  natural  order  of  conception, 
to  something  subsequent  in  conception  to  it.  I  know  not  whether 
the  judicious  author  has  marshalled  the  attributes  with  the 
utmost  exactness,  or  has  assigned  to  every  one  of  them  its  most 
proper  place :  but  he  appears  to  have  determined  very  right  in 
the  main  point,  and  to  have  digested  every  thing  with  a  kind  of 
masterly  hand.  Had  those  matters  been  considered  always  with 
the  like  care  and  judgment,  there  could  have  been  no  room  for 
arguing  a  priori  to  the  existence  at  all,  nor  for  arguing  to  any 
attribute  from  any  thing  conceived  as  antecedentj  in  order  of 
nature,  to  the  existence.  But  existence  and  some  attributes  may 
rationally  be  conceived  as  antecedent,  in  order  of  nature,  to  other 
attributes :  and  this  kind  of  arguing  a  priori ^  which  is  reasonable, 
ought  not  to  be  confounded  with  the  other,  which  is  manifestly 
i<n€pov  Trp6r€pov,  and  palpably  absurd.     But  I  pass  on. 

A.  D.  1301.     Johannes  Duns  Scotus. 
Johannes  Duns,  sumamed  Scotus,  and  dignified  with  the  title 
of  Doctor  SubtiKs,  was  considerable  enough  to  support  a  kind  of 
rivalship  against  Thomas  Aquinas,  and  to  be  founder  of  a  new 

"  Non  est  inconveniens  ponere  quod  citatis  et  uniiatis  sunt  in  divina  essen- 

inter  divina  attributa  sit  aliquis  ordo  tia  ratio  infinitatis :  et  ista  tria,  ratio 

secundum    rationem    intelligendi,    in  tmrnu^ait/tf a/M  ^  et  immutabilitas  cum 

quantum  intellectus    noster  priorem  prsedictis,  sunt  ratio  <e^«nttVa/».  Unde 

conceptionem  de  uno  facit  quam  de  mferius  per  divinse  essentise  simpUci' 

alio.  Unde  prius  in  nostra  ratione  in-  tatem  probabitur  in  divina  essentia 

telli^endi  est  divinum  eMequamaliquod  esse  infinitas,  et  per  divinam  simpHci- 

attnbutum  eius,  et  inteUigere  quam  tatem  et  infinitatem,  immutabilitas,  et 

velle,  et  attriouta  respicientia  inteUec-  per  immutabilitatem  ctemitas.    Inter 

tum  priusquam  respicientia  vohnta-  perfectionesetiam  quae  conveniunt  Deo 

tern, inter  suas  perfectione8|irfore«  in  quantum  est  mta,  priores  sunt  illee, 

sunt,  in  nostra  ratione  intelligendi,  in  nostra  ratione  intelligendi^  quae  re- 

illse  quae  respiciunt  ipsum  in  quantum  spiciunt  ipsum  inteUigere^  quam  illae 

est  essentia,  quam  illae  quae  respiciunt  quae  respiciunt  if  sum  velle ;  et  inter 

ipsum  in  quantum  est  vita :  et  inter  primas^  prior  Veritas  quam  sapientia, 

primas,  prior  est  unitas,  secunda  sim-  Inter  perfectiones  quae  respiciunt 

plicitas;  communior  est  enim  ratio  divinum  velle,  prima  est  bonitas,  se- 

unitatis  quam  simplicitatis  :    omnis  cunda  nUsericordia,  teriiBLJustitia,  Ri- 

enim  simplex  unum  est,  sed  non  con-  card,  de  Med,  Ft//,  lib.  i.  dist.  a.  qu.  4. 

vertitur,  «c. Ratio  summae  sin^li-  p.  33, 33. 

Cii.i.  OF  THE  QUESTION.  338 

sect  or  division  among  the  Schoolmen.  However,  their  difference 
in  other  points  makes  their  authority  the  greater  as  to  those 
articles  in  which  they  agree :  and  it  is  certain  that  both  Thomists 
and  Scotists  do  agree  in  condemning  and  rejecting  all  argumen- 
tation a  priari  in  proof  of  the  existence  of  a  first  Cause,  as 
manifestly  absurd.  Scotus  declares  in  express  words,  that  it  is 
not  possible  for  us  to  demonstrate  as  from  a  cause,  or  antecedent 
principle,  \j>ropter  quid']  the  existence  of  an  infinite  Being,  but 
that  we  may  demonstrate  it  a  posteriori,  [demonstratione  quia] 
from  effects,  namely  from  the  creatures^.  He  further  observes 
and  proves,  that  the  first  Cause  is  absolutely  uncaused^  having 
neither  external  nor  internal  cause ;  neither  efficient^  nor  final, 
nor  material^  hot  formal,  and  consequently  none  at  all.  His 
reasoning  is  indeed  wrapped  up  in  a  most  wretched  style,  and 
very  barbarous  Latin :  but  it  may  perhaps  be  thrown  into  in- 
telligible English,  and  will  be  found  to  contain  excellent  sense. 
It  runs  thus :  "  ^^If  the  first  Cause  is  above  any  efficient  cause. 
'^  it  must  of  consequence  be  absolutely  uncaused,  since  it  cannot 
"  have  any  other  kind  of  cause,  as  Jinal^  or  material^  or  formal, 
"  As  to  final  cause,  that  it  cannot  have  any  such,  is  proved  thus: 
"  inasmuch  as  it  has  no  efficient  cause,  it  follows  of  course  that  it 
"  can  have  no  final :  because  a  final  cause  is  no  more  than  a 
"  metaphorical  cause,  moving  the  efficient  to  act ;  nor  does  the 
"  existence  of  the  thing  so  caused  essentially  depend  upon  it,  as 
"  prior  to  it,  in  any  other  view.  Now  nothing  can  be  justly 
^^  looked  upon  as  a  cause  in  itself,  unless  the  thing  caused 
'*  essentially  depends  upon  it  as  prior  to  it ;  [which  cannot  be  said 
"  of  a  final  cause.] 

^  De  ente  infinito  non  potest  de-  est  causa  per  se,  nisi  ut  ah  ipso  tan- 

monstrari  esse  propter  quia  quantum  quam  a  priore  essentialiter  aependet 

ad  nos  (licet  ex  natura  terminorum  causatum. 

propositio  essetdemonstrabilis />rop^er  Duse  autem  aliae  consequentiae  (vi- 

quid)  sed  quantum  ad  nos  propositio  delicet,  quod  si  est  ineffectibile,  ergo 

est     demonstrabilis     demonstratione  immaterxabile  et  non  formabile)  pro- 

quia,  ex   creaturis.      Scot,  in  lAbr.  bantur  simul :    quia  cujus   non   est 

Sentent.  lib.  i.  dist.  2.  qu.  2.  p.  28.  causa  extrinseca,  ejus  non  est  causa 

u  Si  illud  primum  est  ineffectibile,  intrinseca.    Quia  causalitas  causae  ex- 

ergo  erit  incausabile:  guia  non  Jinibile,  trinseca  dicit  perfectionem  sine  im- 

nec  materiabile,  nee  formabile.     Pro-  perfectione :   causalitas  autem  causae 

batur  prima    consequentia,   videlicet  intrinseca  necessario  requirit  imper- 

nuod  si  est  ineffectibile  ergo  non  est  fectionem  annexam,  quia  causa  intrin- 

finibile,  quia  causa  finalis  non  causat,  seca  est  pars  causati.     Ergo,   ratio 

nisi  quia  metapborice  movet  ipsum  causae  extrinseca  est  naturaliter  prior 

efficiens  ad  efficiendum :  nam  non  alio  ratione  causae  intrinseca :  negato  erjro 

modo  dependet  ab  ipso  essentialiter  priore,  negatur  posterius.     Scot.  ibid. 

entitas  finiti,  ut  a  priore.  Nihil  autem  p.  30. 

S84  AN  HISTORICAL  \1EW  Ch.  i. 

**  As-  to  the  other  two  conseqaenoes  before  hinted,  (that  if  a 
'^  being  has  no  efficieiU  cause,  it  can  haye  neither  material  nor 
*^/ormaL)  thev  foUow  of  course,  and  are  proved  at  the  same 
"'  time :  because  whatever  ia  without  any  eztemal  cause,  must 
''  of  consequence  be  without  any  inienuil  one.     An   external 
"  cause  carries  with  it  a  perfeH  causality,  which  is  more  than  an 
*'  internal  cause  does ;  for  an  internal  cause  carries  imperfection 
^'  along  with  it,  as  being  only  a  part  of  the  thing  caused.  Where- 
'^  fore  if  there  be  no  room,  as  in  this  case,  for  an  external  cause, 
'^  which  naturally  is  prior  to  the  internal,  much  less  can  there  be 
*'*'  any  for  the   internal  cause,  which  presupposes   the    other." 
I  have  been  forced  to  render  the  passage  paraphrasticaUy,  to 
make  the  sense  clear,  and  to  do  justice  to  the  argument  contained 
in  it.    It  amounts  to  a  demonstration,  that  a  Jirtt  cause  must  be 
absolutely,  and  in  every  view,  uncaused.     And  I  judged  it  worth 
the  noting,  because  it  has  been  sometimes  suggested,  that  though 
absolute  necessity  cannot  be  deemed  a  cause  of  a  first  cause  by 
way  of  efficient  cause^  yet  it  may  by  way  of  formal  cause  be  the 
ground  of  that  existence^.     Duns  Scotus  has  here  eilfectually 
confuted  or  obviated  any  such  thought,  by  observing,  that  every 
formal^  every  internal  cause  is  but  Kpart,  or  sl  partial  conception 
of  the  thing  itself,  presupposing  the  thing,  and  therefore  properly 
not  prior  in  conception  to  it,  nor  the  cause  of  it. 

He  has  a  second  argument  in  the  same  place  to  enforce  the 
former,  and  it  is  to  this  effect :  that  internal  or  intrinsic  causes 
owe  their  very  nature  and  being  as  causes,  or  as  constituent 
causes,  to  some  external  efficient ;  for  they  are  not  causes  in 
themselves^  but  by  the  external  agent  which  makes  them  suchy* 
Therefore  where  there  is  no  external  efficient  cause,  there  can  be 
no  internal  cause  properly  so  called.  The  force  of  the  argument, 
as  I  understand  it,  lies  here :  that  matter  and  form  (called 
internal  causes)  are,  in  themselves  considered,  no  more  than  con- 
stituent parts  of  the  compound,  not  causes  of  it.  It  is  their 
supposed  relation  to  some  external  agency  which  alone  makes 
them  carry  an  idea  of  causality  along  with  them.  If  therefore 
we  suppose  all  external  agency  or  efficiency  to  be  away  (as  we 

X  See  Dr.  Clarke's  Answer  to  the  esse  earum,  vel  in  quantum  causant 

Sixth  Letter,  p.  33.  edit.  6th.  coinpositum,  vel  utroque  modo.  Quia 

y  Aliter  probantur  esedem  conse-  causae  intrinsecse  non  seipsis,  sine  a- 

quentiae :  quia  causae  inlrinseca  sunt  gente,  causant  compositiun,  vel  con- 

causatae  ab  extrinseca,  vel  secundum  stituunt.    Scot,  ibid.  p.  30. 

Ch.  I.  OF  THE  QUESTION.  336 

must  in  this  case,  respecting  the  divine  Being  which  has  no 
efficient  cause,)  the  very  idea  of  causcdityy  as  to  any  internal 
cause,  ceases  and  vanishes  at  once ;  it  cannot  be  considered  as  a 
cause  at  all^.  Wherefore,  any  being  that  is  above  having  any 
efficient  cause  is  much  more  above  any  other  kind  of  causCy  is 
absolutely  uncaused;  which  was  the  thing  to  be  proved. 

A.  D.  1591.  Grbgorius  de  Valentia. 

This  writer,  in  his  Commentaries  upon  Aquinas'^s  Sum,  ex- 
presses himself  fully  and  clearly  to  our  purpose.  "  The  existence 
"  of  Grod  cannot  be  evidently  shewn  a  priori:  in  this  point  aU 
"  are  agreed.  For  the  existence  of  the  Deity  admits  of  no  cauM 
'*  whereby  it  should  be  demonstrated  a  priori.  Neither  can  it 
"  be  demonstrated  from  the  Divine  essence,  considered  as  prior 
^'  in  conception,  i .  Because  the  existence  of  a  being  ought  not  to 
''  be  proved  by  the  essence  of  that  being,  since  the  question  of 
"  the  existence  [whether  any  thing  is]  must  precede  the  other 
^'  question  concerning  the  essence^  [what  it  isj  as  Aquinas 
"  rightly  observes.  2,  Besides^  the  essence  of  God  is  not  suffi- 
"  ciently  known  to  us*.*' 

Here  it  is  observable^  that  this  author  looked  upon  it  as  a 
ruled  point,  a  thing  universally  agreed  to^  that  there  neither 
was  nor  could  be  any  demonstration  a  priori  of  the  existence  of 
God.  It  may  be  observed  also  by  the  way,  that  the  phrase  of 
demonstratio  a  priori  was  now  become  a  more  familiar  phrase 
than  formerly.  The  elder  writers  which  I  have  cited  used  to 
call  it  demonstratio  propter  quid,  answering  to  the  Greek  bC  oti. 
Both  signify  a  proof  drawn  from  some  prior  cause,  or  from  some- 
thing naturally,  or  in  the  natural  order  of  conception,  antecedent 

2  The  argument  may  receive  some  edit.  Paris, 

light  from  a  passage  in  Durandus  re-  *  Deum  esse  non  potest  evidenter 

lating  to  this  head.  demonstrari  a  priori :   de  hac  inter 

Quod   compositum  ex  materia  et  omnes  convenit.    Nam  Dei  esse  nul- 

forma  causam  habeat,  patet ;    habet  lam  habet  causam  per  quam  a  priori 

enim  duas  causas  intrinsecas,  scilicet,  demonstrari  possit :    neque  etiam  id 

materiam  et  formam,  ex  quibus  com-  potest  demonstrari  per  essentiam  et 

ponitur  :  habet  etiam  causam  effiden-  quidditatem  Dei,  tancjuam  per  aliquid 

tern,  quia  unio  materiae  et  formae  fit  prius  secundum  rationem.     i.  Quia 

per  agens  quod  introducit  formam  in  esse  rei  non  debet  demonstrari  per 

materia.     Vnde  philosophus,  S,  Meta-  quidditatem  rei,  cum  qusestio  an  sit 

physica,  cum  quaereret  quare  ex  ma-  prior  sit  qusestione  ouid  sit;  ut  recte 

leria  et  forma  fit  unum,  dicit,  quod  D.  lliom.  &c.     2,  Nam  quidditas  Dei 

non  est  aliqua  causa,  nisi  unum  pi  in*  non  satis  est  nobis  nota.     Chregor.  de 

cipium  motus,  quod  est  causa  agens,  Valent,  torn.  i.  disp.  i.  qu.  2.  p.  59. 

Durand.  lib.  i.  dist.  8.  qu.  4.  fol.  3.  edit.  Lugd. 

Sa6  AX  HISTORICAL  \TEW  Ch.  i. 

to  the   thing  d«noa5trated   br  it^.     A  poetmori  is  just  the 
reverse  ^. 

A.  D.  1 6oc.  Vasquez. 
Gabrid  Vas^uez,  another  eminent  Schoohnan  of  that  time, 
declares  his  sentiments  to  the  same  puqK>se ;  that  there  can  be 
no  demonstration  a  pri^'H  of  the  existence  of  a  Deity,  but  a  pos- 
t^rion  only  ^. 

A.  D.  1614.  SUAREZ. 

Suarez.  the  famous  Schoolman  and  Jesuit,  deserves  a  more  par- 
ticubr  consideration,  because  he  really  had  a  strong  inclination 
to  make  out  something  that  should  look  like  an  argument  a 
priori,  or  however  should  (for  ostentation  sake,  I  suppose)  be 
set  forth  with  that  nanie :  for,  in  reality,  he  expressly  and  abso- 
lutely  condemned  all  reasoning  a  priori  to  the  existence  of  a 
Deity,  as  others  before  him  had  done ;  and  yet  by  a  kind  of 
artificial  turn,  by  interpreting  the  proof  of  the  unity  so  as  to 
amount  to  the  same  with  the  proof  of  a  Deity^  he  conceived  he 
had  done  the  thing^  only  by  changing  of  names.  But  let  us 
observe  how  he  managed  the  whole  affair:  we  shall  see  after- 
wards what  censures  were  passed  upon  it  by  the  judicious,  though 
it  was  mostly  a  difference  in  tcords.  He  states  the  main  ques- 
tion thus :  **  Whether  the  existence  of  God  may  in  some  sort 
*'  [or  in  some  sense]  be  demonstrated  a  priori^  :^'  and  he  deter- 
mines in  the  affirmative.  The  whole  tenor  of  his  reasoning  is  as 
here    follows:   ^'*  We  are  first   to  premise,   that,   absolutely 

^  Demonstratio  a  priori  ea  est  (^ua  quendo  non  posse  demonstrari  a  pri- 

probatur  effectus  per    causam,   sive  ori  Deum  esse;    quia  neque   Deus 

proximam  sive  remotam,  aut  probatur  habet  causam  sui  esse,  per  quam  apri- 

conclusio  per  aliauod  prius,  sive  sit  ori  demonstratiu*,  neque  si  haberet,  ita 

causa,  sive  anteceaens  tantum.    Chau'-  exacte  et  perfecte  a  nobis  coffnoscitur 

vin,  Lexic.  p.  1 70.  Deus,  ut  ex  propriis  principiis  (ut  sic 

c  Demonstratio  a /)o«/ertort  dicitur  dicam)  ilium  assequamur.  Quo  sensu 

ilia,  qua  vel  probatur  causa  per  effec-  dixit  Dionysius,  capite  septimo  de  di- 

turn,  vel  conclusio  per  aliquod  poste-  vinis  nominibus,  nos  non  posse  Deum 

rius,  sive  sit  effectus  sive  consequens.  ex  oropria  natura  cognoscere. 
Chauvin.  ibid.  Quanquam  vero  hoc  ita  sit,  nihilo- 

^  Deum  esse,  non  potest  a  priori  minus  postquam a/705/eriort  aliquid  de 

demonstrari :   a  posteriori  tamen  et  Deo  demonstratum  sit,  possumus  ex 

per  effectus  demonstrari  potest.  Vasq.  uno  attributo    demonstrare   a  priori 

q.  ii.  art.  2.  p.  60.  aliud:  ut  si  ex  immensitate,  v.  g.  con- 

e  Utnim  aliquo  modo  possit  a  pri-  cludamus     localem    immutabilitatetn. 

ori  demonstran  Deum  esse.    Suarez,  Sup{>ono  enim  ad  ratiocinandum  a 

Metaphys.  tom.  ii.  disp.  29.  sect.  3.  priori,  modo  humano,  sufficere  dis- 

p.  a8.  tinctionem  rationis  inter  attributa. 

'  Supponendum  est,  simpliciter  lo-        Resolutio  qwpstionis.  Ad  hunc  ergo 

Ch.i.  of  the  question.  337 

"  flpeakiDg,  the  exi^tenoe  of  Qod  eannoi  be  prwed  a  priori;  as 
''  well  because  God  has  no  cause  of  his  existence  whereby  it 
''  should  be  proved  a  priori^  as  also  because  if  he  had,  yet  we 
''  have  no  such  exact  and  perfect  knowledge  of  Qod  as  might 
"  enable  us  to  trace  him  up  (if  I  may  so  speak)  to  his  own 
''  proper  principles.  To  which  purpose  Dionysius  (in  his  seventh 
''  chapter  of  the  diviw  nanm)  observes,  that  toe  cannot  know  God 
"  according  to  hi$  proper  nature. 

"  But  Uiough  that  be  so  as  I  have  here  said,  yet  notwith- 
"  standing,  after  we  have  once  demonstrated  a  posteriori  some- 
*'  thing  concerning  Gh>d,  we  may  go  on  to  demonstrate  a  priori 
''  one  attribute  from  another :  as  for  instance,  when  we  infer 
''  unchangeableness  of  place  from  the  omnipresence  before  proved. 
"  I  suppose  all  the  while,  that  a  notional  distinction  of  the  Divine 
"  attributes  (after  an  human  way  of  conception)  is  foundation 
''  sufficient  for  reasoning  a  priori. 

"  Now,  for  the  resolution  of  the  queriion,  I  proceed  thus : 
''  having  demonstrated  a  posteriori,  that  Gtxi  is  a  necessary  and 
"  setf-eaistetU  Being,  we  may  be  able  to  prove  a  priori  from  this 
''  attribute,  lot  necessary  existence,']  that  there  cannot  be  another 
"  necessary  and  self^xistent  being  besides  that  one ;  from  whence 
''  it  follows,  that  that  Being  is  God. 

"  You  will  object,  that  this  is  proving  the  emstenee  of  God 
''  from  the  essence  of  God  before  known,  (for  it  is  supposed  that 
"  the  essence  of  God  is,  that  he  is  a  necessary  and  self-existeni 
*'  Being,)  which  is  plainly  repugnant ;  since  the  question  what 
*'  he  is  presupposes  the  other  question  tohether  he  easists ;  as 

modum  dicendam  est :  Demonstrato  a  aitributo  ((juod  re  ipsa  est  essentis 
posteriori  Deom  esse  ens  necetsarium  Dei,  a  nobis  autem  abstractios  con- 
eta  «e,  ex  hoc  attribute  posse  a  iiWort  cipitur  ut  modes  entis  non-cansati) 
demonstrari,  propter  illud  non  posse  colliffi  aUed  aitrilmtmm,  et  ita  con- 
esse  aUmd  ens  neeenaHum  et  a  $e,  et  dodi  illud  ens  esse  Demn.  Unde  ad 
consequenter  demonstrari  Deum  esse,  conclodendum  hoc  modo,  ease  Deum, 
Dices,  Ergo  ex  quiddUate  Dei  ooff-  sub  ratione  Dei,  supponitur  esse  pro- 
nite,  demonstratar  Deum  esse,  qma  batum,  dari  ens  quoddam  per  se  m- 
qeidditai  Dei  est  quod  sit  ens  neees*  oeseariiem,  nimiram  ex  ^0cft6t»  ejus, 
sttrium  etase:  hoc  autem  plane  re-  et  ex  ncoatione  processus  in  infinitum. 

pugnat,  quia  quttstio  Qmd  est  suppo-  Atoue  ita  quod  primum  de  hoc  ents 

nit  quaestionem  An  est;  ut  recte  ad  probatnr  est  esse:  deinde  esse  ab  in^ 

hoc  propositum  notavit  divus  Tfaonuw.  trinseco  necetforwni;  hinc  esse  mm- 

Part.  i.  q.  2,  art.  a.  ad  secund.  ewm  in  tali  ratione  ae  modo  essendi ; 

Reepondeo,  Formaliter  ac  pioprie  ideoque  esse  Deem.    Atque  in  hnnc 

loquendo,  non  demonstrari  esse  Dei  modum  prius  aliquo  modo  definitur 

per  quidditatem  Dei  ut  sic,  quod  recte  qusstio  An  est,  quam  Qmd  est.    Am- 

argumentum  probat;  sed  ex  quodam  res,  ibid,  p.  a8. 


838  AX  HISTORICAL  VIEW  Ch.  i. 

**  SLllioiiias  [Aquinas]  has  justly  obeeired  on  this  head.  Part  i. 
"  qu.  2.  art.  2. 

''  I  answer,  that  strictly  and  properij  speaking,  we  infer  not 
*'  the  eustence  of  God  from  his  e^tme;,  considered  as  such, 
*'  (which  the  objection  justly  excepts  to,)  but  from  one  certain 
*'  attriiuiSj  (which  though  really  identified  with  the  essence,  is  yet 
''  concaved  abstractedly  by  us  as  a  mode  of  the  Being  wuxntsed) 
'*  we  deduce  another  attribute;  and  so  we  at  length  prave  that 
**  that  Being  is  God.  Wherefore,  in  order  to  prove  in  this  way 
**  that  there  is  a  God,  precisely  conndered  as  God,  we  suppose  it 
*'  proved  beforehand^  that  there  is  a  certain  Being  necessary  in 
**  himself;  proved  namely  from  his  effects,  and  from  the  aimrdity 
"  of  an  infinite  progression.  So  the  first  thing  we  prove  of  this 
^  Being  is,  that  he  exists;  the  next,  that  he  is  necessarily  exist- 
"  ing;  then,  that  he  is  the  only  one  existing  in  such  a  way ;  and 
**  so  of  consequence  he  is  God.  And  thus,  after  some  s<H-t,  we 
''  do  first  determine  whether  he  exists,  and  next  the  other  ques- 
"  tion,  tchat  he  is." 

Thus  far  the  acute  and  learned  Suarez ;  of  whom  I  have  many 
things  to  observe,  before  I  go  on  to  other  writers ;  i.  That  he 
appears  to  have  been  ambitious  to  make  out  something  that 
should  be  called  an  argument  a  priori^  and  was  probably  able  to 
do  as  much  in  it  as  any  one  before  or  after  him  can  justly  be 
presumed  to  be.  2.  That  the  method  which  he  took  for  it, 
proving  first  something  a  posteriori,  and  then  proceeding  to 
argue  a  priori  for  the  rest,  is  very  like  to  that  which  others 
have  taken  since.  3.  That  he  diifers  however  from  those  later 
advocates  for  the  argument  a  priori  in  the  main  thing  of  all, 
and  determines  expressly  against  their  notion,  that  necessity  can 
be  conceived  antecedent  to  existence.  He  looked  upon  that  as 
flat  absurdity  and  self-contradiction^  utterly  repugnant  to  the 
nature  of  o»  first  Cause;  and  so  he  made  no  use  of  antecedent 
necessity,  or  internal  cause,  or  formal  reason,  ground,  or  foun- 
dation, in  proving  his  point :  he  was  too  knowing  a  logician  and 
metaphysician^  to  offer  any  thing  of  that  kind.  4.  All  that  he 
admits  is,  that  after  the  existence  and  one  or  more  attributes 
have  been  proved  a  posteriori,  we  may  then  proceed  to  argue  a 
priori  for  the  rest :  not  from  antecedent  necessity,  not  from  any 
thing  conceived  as  prior,  in  order  of  nature,  to  the  existence 
itself;  but  from  the  existence  and  one  attribute  or  more  consi- 
dered as  before  proved,  and  as  prior  in  conception  to  all  the 

Ch.i.  of  the  question.  339 

rest.  5.  One  thing  Suarez  was  very  singular  in^  and  upon  that 
the  whole  stress  of  his  cause  lies,  so  far  as  concerns  the  making 
out  an  argument  a  priori  for  the  existence  of  God:  he  would  have 
it  supposed  that  God  is  not  proved  to  be  God,  till  the  unity  is 
proved ;  and  so  he  suspends,  as  it  were,  the  proof  of  a  Deiiy 
upon  the  proof  of  the  unity.  This  was  an  ingenious  thought, 
but  too  weak  to  bear.  For  in  that  way  there  could  be  no  room 
for  the  question  whether  God  be  one,  since  the  very  name  would 
imply  it :  besides,  it  is  universally  allowed,  that  the  proof  of  the 
existence  of  a  Deity  is  both  clearer  and  stronger  than  any  proof 
of  the  unityj  and  is  sufficiently  determined  and  settled  in  the  first 
place^  before  the  consideration  of  the  unity  comes  in  at  all.  When 
we  have  proved,  for  instance,  that  there  is  an  intelligent^  eternal^ 
self-existent  Being,  (one  or  more,)  which  is  most  easily  proved 
from  our  own  existence;  we  have  then  competently  proved  that 
there  is  a  God^  though  we  have  not  yet  proved  or  considered 
every  attribute  that  belongs  to  him.  Such  has  been  the  way  of 
divines  and  metaphysicians^  first  to  prove  the  existence  of  a  Deity, 
under  that  confuse  general  conception  ;  and  next  to  proceed  to 
the  proof  of  the  unity  and  other  attribtUes  in  due  place  and  order : 
and  it  is  not  reasonable  to  suggest,  that  if  a  man  should  fail  in 
the  proof  of  the  unity,  or  of  some  other  Divine  attribute,  (for  the 
reason  is  the  same  in  all^)  that  he  has  therefore  failed  in  his 
proof  of  a  Deity.  That  would  be  going  against  rule,  and  risking 
the  whole  for  a  part ;  and,  in  short,  resting  the  proof  of  a  Deity 
(the  plainest  thing  in  the  world)  upon  very  obscure  conditions, 
very  unequal  terms.  But  we  shall  have  more  of  this  matter  in 
the  sequel,  as  we  take  in  other  later  writers,  who  have  directly  or 
indirectly  passed  their  censures  upon  Suarez  for  his  excesses  on 
this  head.  6.  Upon  the  whole,  one  may  observe,  that  this  pre- 
tended proof  of  a  Deityy  as  drawn  a  priori^  is  rather  a  fetch,  or 
a  subtilty  of  that  great  man,  than  any  thing  solid ;  a  nominal 
proof,  rather  than  a  real  one ;  or  an  affected  manner  of  miscall- 
ing things  by  wrong  names. 

A.  D.  1610.    GhRISTOPH.  GiLLIUS. 

Contemporary  with  Suarez  lived  Christopher  Gillius,  a  Spanish 
divine  and  Jesuit,  one  of  a  subtle  wit  and  penetrating  genius. 
He  has  a  pretty  large  chapter  e,  spent  entirely  upon  our  present 

K  Gillii  Commentationes  Theologicse  de  Essentia  et  Unitate  Dei,  lib.  i. 
tract.  8.  c.  4.  p.  391 — 396. 

z  2 

9i^^  AS  m?TC«3CAL  TTEW  Ck.L 

^f}ftomiosL     Bt:  Ubkei  sMfim.  'das  limrt  ^ 

^  tiflK  tJBK^  «ift>  ficundDAod  liaEt  ite  ^ 

k0c  ^tfvi^fd  'f  /rWvV^     B*  lad  Sn 

^b^Mi^  wnigDk  he  4^w§  iM  nn^  UnL  bMane,  m  Bde  after, 

bt:  ''^x^i  <k0c  retr  wrjFik  wimA  Soonc  laid  imAt  mm  tf  b  thii 

iifntfMffil.     lie  aBwUQw  a3a»  ScicQsB,  ani 

*«  iitimaf  at  tike  like  cicaxlawai  in  a 

r^miikUAxX  «air ':  alkmoff.  tint  if  God  chooM  eitrMffdiaaiily 

^  auf^efettttralr  t n/w  amie  bi^^er  deemi  cf  kaanledge,  tfaea 

iKawr  kifi4  </  prcKif  ^  /wimW  (liowFPtr  finadoM,  and 

fcjr  mefi  Ulwkhkaiism)  aiidit  be  ande  Cma  k.    See 

€iU^m  uA  in^iOUwm  aume  hanne  been  ia  aeaidiiag  far  eveiy 

i^fflf^^nmu^se  of  a  proof  a  primri,  as  aiadk  aa  oCherB  ba^e  been  in 

mMn^iiinf  (^fr  ikf  fhibm^fheft  «foaf.  or  far  Cb  wfrnrimf  of  the 

^/.vfe,  ^/r  tb*  lilwf,  and  wHb  the  Eke  aocces. 

^>ttr  pi4ynfHiM  aiftbor  fint  obaerrea.  that  aD  pretenoes  of  anj 
f//fr#ial  'i^rr^/fMitmtion  of  that  Idiid  bad  been  ntterij  exploded  ^ 
ify  iim  judUcUnm ;  particularlj  bj  Albertos  Magnoa,  and  Henri- 
ifUH  iU  (iinf^AAfo,  and  Richardiis  de  Media  VSla,  and  Seotna,  and 
tjyrtif  mA  (iim[h  Caaoliiui,  and  manr  others  referred  to  ebe- 
IT  W«y  ^ ;  mp  that  it  rni^t  be  justly  k>oked  npoo  as  a  ruled  pcMot, 
llmt  »//  \frf/\ftfr  defiioniitration  a  priori  ooold  be  made  of  the 
UUU%t$  s^nUnMs;  all  mich  attempta  at  length  reaoliing  mther  into 
mmih  ffHiiVf  pri/ndpii^  or  some  equivoeaiiom  of  terms,  or  other  the 
litMi  Miitffy^  fff  fftreApin  sabtilty. 

Il«  itr(fim9iU  to  examine  the  question  with  the  ntmost  striot- 

^  Nm  Atmufti  rtomUittrM^  qui  affir-  stretnr,  n  Deos  imftmderet  alicui  noti- 

imui  tmim  <lirffiofiiitriiliil«m  a  priare,  tiamevidentemeonindemtenmnomin, 

^Immi  rM\Hit*iu  vtttioruin,  li  non  per  rel  saltem  termini  Dei,  &c.  p.  391. 

tm  |irim<i«  wilUtm    ikmIU  eoffmiume  ^  Propositio,  Deus  est,  sub  nentra 

ifni  mHiuiniiu  \mr  dincurifurn  :    quo-  acceptatione  ex  predictis,  est  viatori- 

ft\miu  ifiqiiiunti  |)0it4|uam  ex  creaturis  bus  de  leae  formaliter  demonstrabilis 

fMrnviiMHlur  l>mim  eiM  tm  ueoessa^  a  ;ntore.  Usee  est  Alberti  in  Summa, 

rimnM  »i  u  110,  ei  unum,  necettario  con-  tract,  iii.  qu.  17.    Henrici  in  Summa, 

IftditliMr  a  prior 0  huno  esse  Deum,  &c.  art.  xxii.  qu.  4.    Richardi  in  I.  diet.  3. 

Iftid,  |).  39  f .  art*  I .  qu.  I .    Scoti  in  I.  dist.  2,  qu.  a. 

^  Alio  iiiodo  eandem  ooncluflionem  et  quodlibeto  7.     Lyrani  in  Sapient. 

imUif  HiutUxu  in  I.  diit.  2,  qu.  2,  Cum  xiii.  Gaspa  Casalii,  lib.  i.  de  Quadri- 

HfUfilMtiN  liitisrpretlbui  ibidem :  Ocba-  part,  justit.  cap.  svi.  conclus.  9.    Et 

IllUN  III  I.  dint,  3.  qu.  4.  lit.  F.  Gabriel,  eat  de  mente  aoctorum  quos  referam 

qu.  4.  roiicluM.  3.    RubioniuB,  diet.  a.  cap.  seq.  num.  7.   Qui  omnes  non  ag- 

qu.  I .  art.  a.  roncl.  4.     Nam  quamvis  noscunt  demonstrationem  Dei  nisi  ex 

iiNiiiliiiitini  d«  logo  ordinaria  non  ba-  creaturis,  —  Notitia  vero  sumpta  ex 

bttrl  M  nitliiii  deinonMtrationero  propter  creaturis  non  potest  esse  a  priore,  ut 

ifuiiit  liujuM  proi»oiitioni8  Deus  est:  patet.  OtI/tW, •^*d.p.39a.conf. p.394. 

rt«i)M0iit  muien  iVeri  posse  ut  demon-  ^  Gillius^  c.v.  p.  400. 

Ch.  I.  OF   THE  QUESTION.  341 

iiess  and  nicety^  traversing  it  through  all  its  mazes,  and  unravel- 
ling eveiy  ambiguity  and  subtle  intricacy,  whereby  some  had 
endeavoured  to  support  what  they  would  call  a  demonstration  a 
priori  in  that  case ;  and  shewing  that  none  of  them  sufficiently 
answered  the  purpose^  or  came  up  to  the  point  i".  From  whence 
we  may  remark,  that  Suarez's  attempts  that  way  were  not  ap- 
proved by  the  most  judicious  divines  of  his  own  time,  but  were 
condenmed  by  the  generality,  and  even  by  those