1. 26. Let us make Man whence we conclude a Plurality in the Godhead But this cannot be a Plurality of Essences or Natures for then there would be a Plurality of Gods which is contrary to Scripture for this declares there is but one but a Plurality of Subsistences which we call Persons united in the same Nature This Plurality other Scriptures particularly Psal 33. 6. do determine to three viz. the Lord the Word and the Spirit and 1 John 1. 7. the Father the Word and the Holy Ghost and this we call a Trinity as the Church ever did from the Apostles time But to this he saith God doth here speak of himself after the manner of Princes p. 21. and therefore is but one Person though he saith Us Ans 1. He could not speak this after the manner of Princes for then there was no Prince nor any Man in the World nor can he prove any such Custom in the Mosaic Age. Therefore this is an expounding the first Writings in the World after the Custom of later Ages which we cannot allow 2. In time Princes spoke of but not to themselves plurally which yet God doth do if this Gloss be true Therefore this Exposition which he pretends is after the manner of Princes is indeed without all Example 3. God himself expounds this Text our way Psal 33. 6. By the word of the Lord were the Heavens made and all the Host of them by the breath of his Mouth that is by the Lord viz. the Father by the Word or Son and by the Spirit Now St. John c. 1. 1 3. teaches that by the Word viz. that Word which was God that Word which v. 14. was made Flesh were all things made Which directs us to understand that Word in this Psalm not of the Command but of the Eternal or Substantial Word or Son of God to whom together with that Spirit who Gen. 1. 1. moved upon the Waters preparing that indigested Matter for its several forms the Father said Let us make Man This was the Sense of all Antiquity Just Mart. Dial. Iren. l. 4. c. 37. he spoke to the Son and the Holy Ghost per quos in quibus omnia fecit by and in whom he made all things Tertul. de Resur carn c. 6. and adv Prax. v. 7. Orig. cont Cels 1. 6. and the Constitutions l. 5. c. 6. which pretend to give us nothing but what is Apostolical He proceeds to 2 Cor. 10. 2. Some who think of us which he saith S. Paul spoke of himself only Ans It is not probable that S. Paul spoke of himself after the manner of Princes when it is evident he lessened himself in almost every thing but Sin and Sufferings 2. When a Prince speaks plurally we know he must speak of himself because he is but one but the Apostles were many and under the same Censures therefore when S. Paul speaks plurally Us we have no necessity of understanding it of himself only buâ— have reason to believe he spoke of himself and them together 3. Suppose that S. Paul spoke plurally of himself as Princes have done for many Ages yet what Argument is there in either of these to prove that the Father is to be understood thus in Gen. 1 especially when the Scriptures so frequently ascribe the Creation to the Son and Holy Ghost as well as to the Father There is therefore nothing manly or cogent in this Quotation By this time I think his singular Pronouns have done him as little service as his Scriptures Consid 5. and 22. Had the Son or Holy Ghost been God this would not have been omitted in the Apostles Creed which they say p. 23. was purposely drawn up to represent all the necessary Articles of Religion but that the Divinity of each is omitted there he would sain perswade the World This very Argument had almost perverted two of my Acquaintance the one a very ingenious Merchant in this City I shall therefore according to their desire give the fuller Answer to it and shall prove 1. That this Creed under the Apostles name was never composed by the Apostles and 2. Though it doth not expresly assert the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost yet it sufficiently teaches both 1. This Creed was never composed by the Apostles Some with more Presumption than Judgment think Irenaeus and Tertullian against us But if you consult those famous Places Iren. l. 1. c. 2 19. Tertul. de Virg. Veland c. 1. de Praes Haer. c. 2. and adv Prax. c. 2. you will find these Fathers differ so much from one another and each from himself both as to the Order and Points of Faith they deliver that they evidently seem to intend not any setled Form but the Substance of Faith contain'd in the Scriptures whence themselves might draw the Articles they deliver Irenaeus saith indeed that his Rule of Truth i. e. the Articles there writ came from the Apostles which some have thought sufficient to prove it of Apostolical Composure But 1. It s coming from the Apostles is no Argument for them for that might be from their Writings in the N. Test as well as from this Creed had they composed it 2. His calling it the Rule of Truth is against them for it was not customary so neither is it so proper to call a Creed the Rule of Faith as the Scriptures from whence all Creeds are taken and by which they must be proved And 3. There is not so much agreement between the Articles in Iren. and this Creed called the Apostles as between those Articles and some of those Creeds which are well known to be the different Creeds of different Churches Therefore there is nothing in this Father that can prove the Socinian Assertion but something that may incline to the contrary As for Tertullian the Case is more clear for he saith de Praes Haer. c. 13. that his Rule of Faith meaning the Articles there mentioned were taught by Christ but Christ composed no Symbol and adv Prax. c. 2. his Rule taught the Mission of the Holy Ghost but this Creed teaches no such thing Therefore from both he must intend the Scriptures not a Creed or if any yet however not this Arius in Epiphanius adv Haer. l. 2. to 2. Haer. 69. would fain have justified his Heresie against the Divinity of the Son from the Creed of Alexandria which differs to much from this under the Apostles name that none can pretend they are the same But it must be granted he would much rather have appealed to this had it then been or believed to be theirs and also thought not to teach the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost because a Creed composed by the Apostles themselves would have been of much more force and Authority than one composed by any particular Church whatever Therefore his Appeal to that but not to this is to me a Demonstration that this Creed was then not known or else not believed either
to be theirs or to import any such Doctrine It could not come from the Apostles at least as we now have it which ought very much to take down Mens Presumptions of its Antiquity and must totally ruine that of Heylen aud Ashwel in his Fâ—des Apostolica who will have it to be unalterable and therefore to come from them in all Points as it now is For 1. Though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is brought from the Psalms into the Acts of the Apostles and in each place is rendered Hell and tho Irenaeus and Tertullian both speak of Christs going where the Souls of the dead are yet the strict Phrase He descended into Hell is not in any of the antient Creeds or Fathers nor yet in the Articles mentioned by Irenaeus and Tertullian from whom they pretend to take this Creed it self The first time we find it is in the Interpolatâ—r and Tral but this appeared not till the fourth Century nor could it be wrote till the Arian Heresie For ad Magnes Vas edit p. 147. he saith Christ is the Word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not spoken but substantial For though the Notion is agreeable both to Scripture and the most antient Fathers yet the distinction in these very Words was not known till Arian Evasions made it necessary for the securing the sense both of Scripture and Antiquity 2. The Word Catholick which this Creed uses was not in use among Ecclesiastical Writers in the first Ages For Ignat Epist ad Ephes expresses the thing by a Circumlocution as the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the ends of the Earth And Iren. l. 1. â— 2. the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 all the World over We find the Word it self first in Clâ— Alex. Strâ—m â— 7. but it is not in any of the Eastern Creeds till that of Jerusalem S. Gyprian likewise hath the Word but it is in none of the Latin Creeds till the fourth Age. The Epistles of James Peter John and Jude must therefore be intituled Catholick not by the Pen-men but by some later hand The first time I observe them cited under this Title is by Cyrd of Jerusalem who Carech 6 wrote seventy years after Manes who broach'd his Heresie under Probus the Emperor about the year 277. How then to bring Haylen out of the Wood who places the Apostles with every one an Article of this Creed in his mouth as a Frontispiece to his Book upon this Subject ascribing the Descent into Hell to S. Thomas and the Catholick Church to S. James I know not Or whence S. Austin should have that Story of the Apostles bringing every one his Article to the composing it when the four Ages before him knew nothing of the matter or why any should quote that Tract under his name as his own which all learned Men unless some Romish Writers do now reject as spurious I can as little imagine To conclude this Argument Had the Apostles composed this Creed it would have been found first in the Hebrew or Greek Tongues in which they wrote it would have been part of the Sacred Scriptures or at least have been mentioned in the History of the Acts and have been known to all the Churches founded by the Apostles it being pretended to be wrote before their Dispersion from Jerusalem But on the contrary we find it not till the fourth Century and then known only to the Latin Church which did obtrude it on the World under the Name of the Apostles witness Preuotius Feu ardentius Baronius the Paris Doctors in their Censures of Erasmus and others who take up the Cudgels from their old Pope Leo in the fifth Age as he did from Ruffinus and Ruffinus from the spurious Clemens in his Epistle to S. James which was ever rejected by all considering Men because it appeared not in the Apostolick Ages and also mentions the death of St. Peter who out lived this James to whom it is directed From Rome the Reformed Churches received this Doctrine and that Rubrick of ours which calls it the Apostles Creed is taken out of the Roman Breviary which our Reformers not fore-seeing the advantages the Socinians make of it thought of no such moment as to call for an Alteration But when our Church composed the Articles of our Religion she expresses her self thus Article 8. that which is commonly called the Apostles Creed which doth not only not affirm that it is theirs but suggests that it is not Du Pin who is more judicious and impartial than his Predecessors grants that it is the Apostles as to the Doctrine it contains but denies it to be of their composure for he faith they â— ' avoient poynt comopsè de formule de foy comprise en un certain nombrè de mots have not composed a Formula of Faith comprised in a certain number of Words he adds Irenaeus and Tertullian did not intend la formule de foy mais la foy meme a Creed or form of Faith but the Faith it self This is the Judgment of Vossius Erasmus our Perkins and others however some Men who make a great noise about Antiquity are pleased to take up an Error from others instead of understanding the Authors they quote Had it not been for these Socinian Impudences discovered in this Letter and in the fifth to the Publisher as well as in other of their Writings both at home and abroad I had rested in that of Calvin Instit l. 2. c. 16. Ser. 18. Apostolicum nuncupo de Authore interim minimè solicitus I call it the Apostles but in the mean time trouble not my head about the Author But after all this What ground hath this Letter for his Confidence It saith pag. 23. this Creed is recited by S. Cyril S. Cyprian and Socrates in his Hist lib. 1. c. 26. Quotations that are true Socinian for they are false but if true are yet insufficient for their end For did these Authors recite this Creed yet how doth this prove the Apostolical Composure of it But Cyril of Jerusalem explains a Creed peculiar to that Church which differs nothing material from that of Nice and Constantinople except the Consubstantiality The English Reader may find it at the end of the Life of this Father written by Dr. Cave S. Cyprian hath it not unless he means a Piece bound up with him in the Oxford Edition which is ascribed by some to S. Jerom by others to Ruffinus Which if so must betray either his Ignorance or Sophistry Socrates indeed hath a Creed in the place quoted but he there tells us it was composed by Arius and Euzoius and begins thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We believe in one God the Father Almighty and in the Lord Jesus Christ his Son who was made of him before all Ages God the Word by whom all things were made This he faith is the Apostles Creed which he so earnestly
did ever maintain this Doctrine Athanas To. 1. cont Ari. Ora. 5. declares that the Government of the World is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by but One God Greg. Nâ—z who triumphed over Eunomius Ora. 35. observes that there are Three Opinions about God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Anarchy which with Epicaras denies the Divine Government Pelyarchy which with the rest of the Gentiles asserts its Government by many Gods and Monarchy which is by but One God The two first he saith introduce Confusion while the last only can keep the World in Order And Euseb de Eccles Theol. l. 1. c. 11. observes that tho the Church teaches that Form meaning in the Nicene Creed God of God yet she designs hereby not Two Gods but Two persons in the God head Now had these Sveinians first destroyed this Notion by proving that a Trinity must import not Three persons in the God head but Three Gods and then valued themselves upon these Names of Monarchians and Vnitarians they had acted like Men But their insisting upon these terms without disproving our Doctrine speaks them as wretched as their Cause the one Barren the other Blind since both are forced to call in exploded Cavils to support them Hence he proceeds to Glory in some Men of Name among them as Theodotion and Symmachus both of whom Translated the Old Testament into Greek and by Eusebius are called Ebionites or Nazarens Ans Eusebius speaks them Ebionites but not a word there of a Nazaren under which name he vainly strives to sweeten himself and Party that they might seem to appear with some little face of honest Christianity We acknowledg their Translation of the Old Testament but being branded for Ebionites we must presume they denied great part of the New As for Symmachus he is expresly said to reject the Gospel of St. Matthew Therefore since our Socinians so passionately desire to pass for Ebionites that I may gratify 'em what I can I grant 'em there is one good reason why it should be so and that is as the Ebionites reject some parts of Scripture and corrupt others so do the Socinians too and now at length scoff at the Divine Authority of the Whole The matter is too plain to be denied I have sometimes heard it my self and know of persons that complain of some under their charge that are debauched in their Principles and Manners by such Doctrines But whether these are the strict fort of Socinians or Socinians at large viz. Atheists and Deists that now heard among them I think they ought to acquaint us But let old Theodotion and Symmachus be what they will what is the Glory of having these two on their side when the whole Church was against them It must be a miserable Crap where such gleanings are their Vintage But they have a third it seems Paulus of Samasatum p. 27 a Man both Learned and Eloquent Ans He did indeed deny the Divinity of the Son which is the only thing it seems that makes him great and good For Eusebius H. l. 7. c. 27. and the Synodical Letter c. 30. say He had neither Wealth nor Learning but made himself vastly rich by Sacriledg and Oppression His Pride was unmeasurable be walked the Streets with Guards He abolished the Psalms Sung in Honour of our Saviour and had others Sung in praise of himself He incouraged and protected the Wicked gaining to his side the worst of men Prateolus among other things saith He was proud and simple He taught that Christ was more for the Jewish than the Christian Religion whence he taught Circumcision Of a Beggar he became Rich by Sacriledg Oppression and Knavery These are the Characters of an Heretie which neither himself nor Friends could ever Answer and whom the vilest object would blush to own unless a Socinian who would fain Adorn themselves with this mans Glories like the wild Savages who dressed up themselves with the guts of Beasts His next man i Photinus of Siâ—mium who being deposed by the Council his City would not part from him till the Emperor sent an Army to Expel him Ans 1. Praleonus Haev l. 14. 25 saith Photinus held that Christ was a mere Man Ex utroque sexu natum born of both Sexes but this the Socinians deny for they hold he was Born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin therefore this letter is false in reckning Photinus one of them 2. But however an Heretick he was and therefore a Party with the Socinians and it seems so dear to his City that the Emperor was obiiged to Expel him by an Army Suppose it yet had this man considered how often Constantius imposed his Arian Creatures by Force and sometimes Established 'em by Blood he must have expected to lose more than he thought to have gained by this Plea 3. This is an Appeal from the Government both Civil and Ecclesiastical to the Mob an Argument that his Heresie had left him but few if any Friends of Sense and Judgment He proceeds to Eusebius H. l. 5. c. 2 and Theodoret. Haer. Fab. c. 2. de Artem. And pretends they say that these Nazarens constantly affirmed that they derived their Doctrine from the Apostles And that it was the genenal Doctrine of the Church till the Popes Victor and Zepherine set themselves to root it up Ans Neither of these in the places quoted mention a Nazaren But the Heresie of Arlemon renewed by Paulus Samofatensis who taught that Christ is no more than Man Eusebius saith indeed there were some who affirmed that all the Antients and the Apostles themselves taught this Doctrine and that it continued till Victor and Zepherine But he calls this an impiouse Lye and proceeds Perhaps this might seem credible did not the sacred Scriptures and the Writings of certain Brethren more Antient than Victor contradict them I mean Justin Miltiades Tatian Clemens and many others in all whose Books the Divinity of Christ is taught For who knows not the Writings of Irenaeus Melito c in which Christ is set forth as both God and Man The Psalms and Canticles of the Brethren written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the beginning ascribe a Divinity to him Seeing then this was so long since the Doctrine of the Church how can it be that all men to the time of Victor could teach that Doctrine which these men hold Theodoret in the place cited saith that Artemon pretended the Apostles taught that Christ was a mere Man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Perverting the sense of the Sacred Scriptures This exactly agrees with that of Eusebius Therefore this Letter wisely refers us to those very places of Antiquity which declare that Doctrine to be Heresie and condemn the Maintainers of it of Falshood and Impudence which yet it self would support He told us the Socinians are Learned and Reasonable Men but I hope this is not one of his Proofs of it However the Letter proceeds Victor