Fides Apostolica OR A Discourse asserting the received Authors and Authority of the APOSTLES CREED. TOGETHER WITH The Grounds and Ends of the Composing thereof by the APOSTLES, the sufficiency thereof for the Rule of Faith, the Reasons of the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Original Greek, and the Division or Parts of it. Hereunto is added a double Appendix, the First touching the ATHANASIAN, the Second touching the NICENE Creed.  
By GEO. ASHWELL B. D.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Jud. v. 3. Christianus, mihi nomen est; Catholicus vero Cognomen. Pacian. Ep. ad Symp.  
I shall believe that the Apostles Creed was made by them (such Reverence I bear to the Church's Tradition) until other Authors be certainly found out. K. Ch. 5 Paper to M. Henderson.  
OXFORD, Printed by LEON. LICHFIELD Printer to the University, for Jo. Godwin, and Ric. Davis. 1653.   

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE, and my much Honoured Lord, Thomas LORD Wenman, Baron of Kilmaynham, and Viscount Tuam.  
MY LORD,  
THE Age wherein we live, as it is unhappy in too many Particulars, so in nothing more, then that it hath almost lost the ancient Faith amongst so many Factions which pretend to it, and exclude others from it. Some we have who have maimed it, by cutting off certain Articles; and others, made a Monster of it, by heterogeneous Additions. Some have destroyed it, by corrupting the substance thereof; and others discoloured it, by counterfeiting its appearance. Some have poisoned the Body thereof, by the venom of Heresies; and others plucked it in pieces, by the violence of Schisms. But, what Remedy to cure these Corruptions, and Disorders? Sure we can use no better means, than what the Prophet adviseth us unto; To ask for the old Paths, and walk therein, and so find rest unto our Souls. jer. 6. 16. Or to take that course which our Blessed Saviour made use of in deciding the question of Divorces, namely, to reduce the matters in Controversies unto the Primitive Institution. Mat. 19 8. By which means we shall find (if we make a sober and impartial search) what was the Faith which the ancient Church received from Christ and his Apostles, that which she universally professed in the Primitive Times, and delivered unto her Children in its native Purity, and Perfection.  
Now, I shall think my pains most happily bestowed, if I may be thought to have contributed in the least, unto so good a Work, by this ensuing Discourse; the first Rudiments whereof (that I may give your Lordship an account of its Composure) I drew some years ago in pursuance of a Collegiate Office, which then required me to pitch on some Fundamental part of Divinity, which might best fit the condition and capacity of the Youth who were then my proper Auditors; and serve as a Groundwork to settle them in the Principles of Religion.  
In order to this, I thought that I could not make a better choice, then by fixing on the Creed, which all ages of the Church have entitled to the Apostles, and looked on as an exact summary of Christian Religion, as to matter of Doctrine.  
But before I pitched on the Body of the Creed itself, I judged it very expedient, if not absolutely necessary, to prefix somewhat, by way of Preface, touching the Authors and Authority thereof, which to me seem to stand and fall together; for if the Creed were not composed by the Apostles, but afterwards gathered out of their writings, by some obscure Hand, not infallibly guided (as theirs) but obnoxious unto Error; I cannot as yet see, how it can well make good its Title of Apostolic, or justly challenge that sacred esteem, which it hath universally obtained from all Sorts and Sects of Christians, even from the most pestilent of Heretics▪  
And this I was the rather induced to do, by reason of a certain short Treatise of a Learned Countryman of ours, wherein he hath been pleased to lay down several Arguments in disprovall of the received Authors; the first, I suppose, who ever proceeded so fare, and thought fit to employ his wit and pains on so unhappy a Subject. And these Arguments of his (as Novelties usually spread farther, and take much at their first appearance in the world) we have found since, not only entertained, but improved also, and augmented in number, by a more Learned Forreiner. I could hearty wish, that they had bestowed their pains upon some other Subject, whereby they might have gained a more safe repute unto themselves, and a more solid advantage to the Public; both which are purchased, not by battering, and beating down what is already well built and settled, but by repairing the Decays and Breaches of the Christian Church, or by building on the old Foundations: whereas we may too justly say of such endeavours as these in matters of Faith, what the Apostle, by an elegant antithesis, speaks in a matter of fact, viz. The eating of Things offered to Idols, wherein the Trespasser most dangerously Scandalised his Brother; that by this ill-managed knowledge of his, he did aedificare fratrem in ruinam, Edify his weaker Brother, but in a most perverse sense, not to fear God, but to fall quite away from him.  
As to my own particular; the objections of these two Learned men served opportunely to awaken me unto a more serious and exact Review of those ancient Records, which the Primitive Church hath left us; wherein finding just Ground, as I conceived, for asserting the received Authors and Authority of the Creed, by many concordant Testimonies of those first and best Ages; and those seconded by the suffrages of the most eminent Divines of these latter Times, although divided into Parties, and differing in many other Points; I undertook to examine the force of the Arguments alleged to the contrary, in which though I found at the first sight some fair Probabilities, sufficient to startle an unwary Reader; yet upon a deliberate comparing them with the Consent, the Clearness, and the authenticalness of the contrary proofs, I could by no means see such a Proportion of weight and force in them, as to overthrow the combined strength of such an Army of witnesses.  
But whether or no, my answers to these objections will appear satisfactory unto others, I must leave unto those others to judge, who see not with my eyes, as I do not with theirs. Yet I hope that these my endeavours will meet with Pardon at least (though they come fare short of that perfection, which they may chance to look for, and I could wish for) when they please to consider, the ancient and acknowledged Right of the Cause I plead for; the number and Authority of my witnesses; by whom I am supported; together with the newness of the contrary Arguments, which as no Age before ever saw, so no Man (to my knowledge) ever went about to solve. The first attempts in any kind are usually rude and imperfect; much more, when they proceed from an unskilful, and unpractised Hand, such as mine, which never before ventured on aught which it durst expose unto the Public view. Yet to excuse myself in part from Temerity and Presumption in this particular, I ventured not on it before I had the approbation of some Learned Friends, who were pleased not only to peruse the Work, but solicited me also to the Publication, which if it shall awaken some more able Pen to perfect what I have thus rudely drawn, I shall not a little applaud myself as the Instrument of presenting so fortunate an Occasion.  
But I have almost seemed to have forgot your Lordship, whilst I have been thus particular in relating to you, the Occasion, the Beginning, the Progress, and the end of these imperfect labours of mine, which I am now bold to offer unto your Patronage, that so they may have the same Protection with the Author that presents them. For as the many Favours and Civilities which I have received from your Lordship's hands, oblige me to a Public acknowledgement, so your approbation of the Work (which hath had the Honour of your Perusal also in good part) hath encouraged me to present that acknowledgement in this kind. Besides, not only Gratitude, but strict Justice, seems to require this oblation at my Hands, the firstborn of my Pen; and entitleth your Lordship more peculiarly unto it; for though it were begotten elsewhere, it was borne under your Roof, and so belongs unto you, as to the Lord of the House, and the Father of the Family.  
There remains nought else, but that as I now present this Treatise to your Patronage, so to present my Prayers to God for your Person, for that of your Noble Lady, together with all the Branches of your ancient Family; that they may constantly Live, and comfortably Dye, in the true Christian, Apostolic Faith, which was once delivered unto the Saints. This as it still hath, so shall continue to be a constant part of the daily Orisons of  
MY LORD, Your Lordship's Most Faithful, and Affectionate Servant to Command GEO: ASHWELL.   

The Contents of the CHAPTERS.  

CAP. I. THE Dogmatic part of Theology, most necessary to be established; and in that, most especially the Creed, as the Foundation of the rest, and this for three Reasons. A double abuse of the Creed, which occasioned this Treatise. together with the abuse of Catechisms; The five Heads of the ensuing Treatise; The Creed contains all, and only Fundamentals. The Trinity, and Incarnation of the Son of God, cleared out of it.  
CAP. II. The History of the Apostles Composing the Creed out of Ruffinus Five Reasons, why the Apostles delivered it to the Church, not in Writing, but by an Oral Tradition. An Objection, against the preserving of it by Tradition, Answered.  
CAP. III. Testimonies of Scripture touching the Composure of the Apostles Creed; especially, out of S. Paul's Epistles; as the places are accordingly interpreted by Divines of good note, both Ancient, and Modern. Some Doubts against these Testimonies solved.  
CAP. IV. Testimonies concerning the Creed, and the Composure thereof by the Apost. taken out of the Greek Fathers, who bear witness for the Eastern Churches; some Objections against these Authorities partly Answered, partly Prevented.  
CAP. V Testimonies of the Creed, and the Composure thereof by the Apostles, taken out of the Latin Fathers, who bear witness for the Western Churches. Some Objections to the contrary Answered.  
CAP. VI Testimonies of the Authors, and Authority of the Creed taken out of the Protestant Divines, who have unanimously received and acknowledged this Creed of the Apostles, together with the Nicene Creed and that of Athanasius.  
CAP. VII. Six Reasons evincing the Apostles to have been the Composers of the Creed which commonly bears their Name. Some Objections against these Reasons Answered. The place where the Creed was Made. Of Fundamentals and Traditions.  
CAP. VIII. Several Objections which some have alleged against the fore-assigned Authors of the Creed Answered at large. Certain Creeds compared together, whereby their Conformity appears to one another, and to that of the Apostles.  
CAP. IX. The second Head of this Discourse, namely the Grounds on which, and the ends for which the Apostles framed the Creed. The Sufficiency also of the Creed for the Rule of Faith, is proved by the Testimonies of Divines as well Modern as Ancient, and those both Romish and Reform.  
CAP. X. The third Head of this Discourse; namely the several reasons, or significations of the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Creed bears in the Original Greek.  
CAP. XI. The fourth Head of this Discourse; namely, the Division or Parts of the Creed.  
CAP XII. The fift Head of this Discourse, touched in General viz. the supplemental or exegetticall Creeds, framed in succeeding Ages. The Grounds whereon they were Framed and their use. Some Copies of Creeds set down as well of the Heretics, as Orthodox, both consonant to this of the Apostles.   

Appendix the first, of the Athan. Creed.  
CAP. I. Two Reasons why this Creed hath been more oppugned than the rest. It's Authority, and Author are vindicated in general, more especially, touching the severity of the Preface.  
CAP. II. Several Testimonies, concerning the Author and Authority of the Athan. Creed.  
CAP. III. The Time, and Place, wherein Athanasius wrote his Creed, together with the Person to whom. The Cause wherefore he wrote it, and the Language wherein.  
CAP IU. Some Objections against what hath been laid down, Answered. Especially Nazianzens Testimony concerning the Athanasian Creed, is farther cleared and vindicated.   

Appendix the second of the Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creed.  
CAP. I. The Reason of the double name of this Creed. The Composure thereof▪ The Additionall, or exegetical Particles, inserted into it. When, and by Whom it was conveied to other Churches, and brought into Divine Service.  
CAP. II. When, and by whom the Particle [Filioque] was added to the Nicene Creed, is historically delivered, and at large. Several other causes, of the breach between the Churches of Greece, and Rome.    

To the Christian, and Catholic Reader.  
OUR Blessed Saviour, speaking of his second Coming, maketh this question or complaint, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the Earth. Luke 18. 8. Now he puts this question, to put it out of question, for this seeming doubt is a strong Affirmation, and amounts to a vehement Complaint, that when he shall come to Judgement, he shall find little or no faith amongst men. No faith, in matter of Practice; each man will be false to his Brother: Homo homini Vulpes, as well as lupus; the wisdom of the world, so generally counted and esteemed, being nought else but overreaching, the ancient Christian simplicity will be quite lost; and the Serpent expel the Dove: nothing but insinuating Compliments, and fair speeches, (like those of the Serpent, to our Grandmother Eve) will every where practise to deceive, under pretence of friendship. Nor, on the other side, will there be faith found in matter of Doctrine; Religion shall be lamentably torn and mangled by intestine Combats of the Tongue and Pen; New opinions shall be in Credit, as new fashions; till faith, of one by Division become none; as a great entire stream looseth itself, and is quite dried up, when parted into several small Channels.  
Now, that this day is near approaching, these sad Prognostics tell us; especially the latter, wherewith the present Age so greivously labours; all which mischief both heretofore arose amongst us, and now tyrannizeth over us, for want of a sure Rule or Ground of faith, rightly understood and applied. The holy Scripture indeed is an abundantly sufficient Ground of our Belief, and Rule of manners; but being exposed, as now adays it is, to every man's private Fancy, the Gloss too too oft wyer-drawes and corrupts the Text; so that we look upon God's word, through a false-coloured Glass; Pretences of a private Spirit, and enthusiastical Revelations, with the Anabaptist; of right Reason, with the Sosinian (which is as divers in men, as their fancies or faces) make what they please of Scripture, and force it to speak their mind; thus by perverting it to their own sense, they are not judged by, but judge the Law; and become (as S. James in a like Case saith) James: 4. 11. Not Doers [or Believers] of the Law, but Judges.  
The Apostles, those renowned Patriarches of the Christian faith, foreseeing this evil left us a double Remedy, both by Tradition preserved in the Church, to be delivered down unto all Ages, from hand to hand, viz. a Rule or Ground of faith; and the exposition; or right applying of this Rule. The Ground or Rule, in the Creed, composed by themselves as a Summary of the points of Faith, which lie dispersedly here and there in the large volume of the Scriptures. The undoubted Exposition, and right applying of this Rule, they have left us in the writings of the Fathers, who were their Successors, to whose care and custody, they not only committed the Oracles of God in writing, and the Creed by word of mouth; but the interpretation also of both, as they heard them expounded from their own mouths, whilst they lived and preached amongst them; for in vain had the Apostles given them the words, if they had not given them the sense withal, whereby to stop the mouths of Heretics, who arose even at the first preaching of the Gospel, as we may see in S. Paul's Epistles. This orthodox sense is that, which is so frequently mentioned in the writings of the Ancient Fathers, under the name of Depositum, Catholica seu Apostolica Traditio, fides Ecclesiae, and the like expressions; and which Tertullian makes use of to confound the whole Hydra of Heresies, in his Book De Praeser: adu: Haeret. bidding the Heretics go to those mother-Churches, which the Apostles founded, and personally resided in, and to which they committed the true genuine Faith; where saith he, ye shall hear no news of your upstart heterodoxe Doctrines, invented by yourselves; wherewith this proud factious Generation infested the Church, and led away after them many seduced Proselytes. Of this Tradition S. Paul speaks to his Disciple Timothy, whom he had left behind him as his Deputy at Ephesus, The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. 2 Tim: 2. 2. And to the Church of Thessalonica, Brethren stand fast, and hold the Traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our Epistle. 2 Thes: 2. 15. comp: v. 5. 6.  
Observe here the cunning of Satan, whereby in all Times, but especially in these last and worst, he makes way, by these his forerunners, for the coming of that great Anti-christ. He hath set men on work under pretence of honouring Scripture, as the sole all-sufficient Rule of Faith; and of withdrawing themselves from all dangerous Dependence on men's erroneous judgements (seeing every man is a liar) wholly referring and submitting themselves to the Holy Ghost, to be enlightened, guided, and directed by him; some to render suspected: others by degrees to enervate, and secretly subvert: a third sort, openly to decry the judgement and Decisions of the Church, in the Councils and Fathers; when in the interim, they are grossly and willingly ignorant, that what they deny to Her, they ascribe to themselves, strongly and confidently asserting that to be the sole meaning of the Holy Ghost, which agrees with their opinions, confirms their fore-received Tenants, and favours their Side and Faction.  
Now let all the world judge, if it will be but an indifferent Arbiter, whether it be not more equal to be judged, in point of Religion, by reverend Antiquity, then by upstart giddy Novelty: By the Consent of so many Ancient Worthies, who living long before our Times, are uninteressed and disengaged in our Quarrels; then by the partial Determinations of men educated in; and addicted to a Faction: By the joint consent of many, than the singular opinion of some one: By men eminent for Learning, who therefore well could not; and for Piety, who therefore would not deceive us, then by the conceited Ignorance, and factious spirit of some proud novelist, start up in this declining, wicked, Atheistical Age: By those who lived nearest the Apostles Times, when the Church was one (undevided into Greek and Latin, Romish and Reform, Lutheran and Calvinian) when Tradition was fresh, and uncorrupted, like a stream running pure near the Fountaine-head, which afterwards gathered dregs by running farther into the more remote and succeeding Ages; then by the Schismatical Directions of latter, degenerate corrupt Times: last (which is fare the most effectual Argument) by those who as they had newly received, so constantly, unanimously, and uncorruptly held the Doctrinal Traditions of the Apostles, the genuine sense of Scripture, which they themselves left behind them, who left the Scripture itself; then to pin our Religion upon the sleeves of some Idolized Innovatour, who though he pretend the Authority of God's Word, an unerring spirit, or the clear inducements of Reason, yet in truth hath nothing but Impudence, and his Ipse dixit, to maintain his Assertions. This Tradition it is, which made the Ancient Bishops and Doctors of the Primitive Church, so unanimous among themselves, in what Part of the World soever they lived, as having the same Deliverers of it who planted all those Churches, wherein they succeeded; and so taught in all, as who received it from the same spirit, who received it from the same Christ, who received it from the same God the Father, as Tertullian deduceth its Pedigree out of St john's Gospel. Ch. 16. 13. 14 and Ch. 8. 28. Else, if they had followed their own private judgements, they must needs have often varied in their Determinations. Hence it is, that they make a great Distinction between what they received and published to the world, as Depositaries, Witnesses, Historians, and what Expositions or Conclusions they drew from their own Brains, as being their private Opinions; in the latter they leave every man to his own Censure and Judgement, to receive or reject them as they find them Consonant to Scripture, Antiquity, and right Reason, but in the former, they require an absolute Assent, and condemn them all, for Heretics, who go not along with them in the same Path, in that they shown there modesty, in this their Piety.  
The Father's being thus cashired, and appealed from as unmeet, illegal Judges, because obnoxious to error, which hath been laboured to be made good by publishing some few paradoxical Tenants, found in the writings of some one, or few of them, which they conceive to be Errors, though many of them perhaps will not appear such upon due examination; and after all their undutiful, malicious, Search, whereby, like Cham, they have laid open their Father's nakedness, they cannot find one palpable Error, which they can justly lay to the charge of all, or a major part of them, thus at last (missing their aim) they proceed farther to call the Creed in question, that undoubted Rule and Foundation of the Christian Faith, which the Apostles with so much care Composed, and left unto the Church, as a most precious Depositum, the lydius, lapis or Touchstone of the Catholic Belief, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Orthodox Professors. They have called both the Authors, and Authority in question; first, by doubting of, and raising scruples against it; then absolutely denying, and laying down Arguments to disprove those Authors to whom it hath been constantly entitled: for they both fall together, take away the Authors, and the Authority will soon vanish; for if the Creed were not framed by the Apostles, but collected out of Scripture by some uncertain, and obscure Composer, or Composers, whose names are buried in forgetfulness, seeing it contains some Articles which are not set down totidem verbis in any determinate Place of Holy Writ, 'twere possible that some Points might be mistaken, not rightly gathered or deducted, (as by a fallible Hand) and so, the whole Frame of it of no more Authority, than some piece of a Father, or the Canon of a Council, if so much. For though it be granted that all the Articles of the Creed be either express words of Scripture, or by an undoubted consequence deducible from it, yet the drawing of these Articles forth of Scripture, requires an unerring, and Divinely-guided Hand; First, because none else can know which is an Article of Faith, that is, a Fundamental, or Point necessary to Salvation, who is not divinely informed of Gods will and pleasure in this matter. Secondly, because the Judge of the consequence must be infallible, for otherwise it oft falls out, that what in one man's judgement is a necessary Deduction, is not so in another's, but probable only, or perhaps false; else we should have had less about the Trinity and Incarnation, two main points of our Faith, to name no lesser one's. Having removed these two Forts out of their way, and demolished these Propugnacula fidei, then after they may safely build what new Fabrics they please, upon the abused Groundwork of Scripture; or rather having digged up the Groundwork of the Creed, lay Reason for a new Foundation, on which to build Castles in the Air; imaginary structures: much like the enchanted Fortresses dreamt of in the Monkish Romances; then they may entertain, whatsoever strange fancies they please, Fancies which unconstantly hover up and down in the Brain, like so many Clouds in the middle Region, carried hither and thither by the wind, and presenting now this, now that monstrous shape: having removed these two Bounds of Faith, they may wander in the large field of Scripture at random, scatter here & there what pernicious seeds they please, root up what was already sown, confound the furrows, mix adulterate grains with the pure seed of the word, thus making havoc of all, and turning the field into a Wilderness.  
And though they seem to honour Scripture, and appeal to it, as the sole adequate Rule of Theological Truth, yet in truth they use it but as a colour, to set off their new-fangled Inventions, the opinions bred within themselves; and so wrist it to serve their own Turns; for where ever it seems to oppose them, they straight accuse the Copy of Bastardy, that such or such a Passage hath crept out of the Margin, or Gloss into the Text; or the place hath been interlaced by some of the adverse Party, some opposite Father; they altar at pleasure points, letters, words, yea dash out whole verses, and after all, torture the poor Remainder, till they have forced it to bear witness on their side, and speak what they would have it; take but for instance the beginning of S. John's Gospel, as 'tis expounded by Volkelius. If they should openly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, reject Scripture, they would be exploded, and expelled out of Christian Commonwealths, and so hindered from doing mischief; but now the Devil's craft makes use of those to undermine and subvert holy Scripture, who seem most to stand for it; and to persuade the doctrines of men, who seem most to decry them.  
In a word the body of Socinianism (to which we may now add some other new Sects) is compounded (like some Hydra, or Chimaera, or what other horrid Poetical monster) of the must pestilent & poisonous Heresies, which the Church hath ever laboured under, or condemned in all Ages; And whereas this Age hath been much given to Systems and Compendium's, lest we should want one in any kind, these men have furnished us with an Epitome of Heresies, a Breviary of Epiphanius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: yea, which is worse yet, they have opened a large Gap for more, by making weak, depraved Reason (without any other light or guide; however the Scripture be pretended) the sole Judge of Truth; by abolishing faith, that Reason may be exalted in her Place; that Reason, which is never the same, or constant to itself, either in divers men, or the same man at divers times; & yet, though they so much cry up liberty of Opinion, they themselves are unwittingly, though willingly Slaves to Socinus; else why do they all follow him so close? was he the only unerring Guide? the monopoliser of Reason? The Socinians indeed outwardly receive the Canon of Scripture, & much extol it, to keep up their credit with the Christian world; but expounding it (as they do) in their own Sense, contrary to the received Interpretation of the Ancients, from & by whose hands they received the Canon itself, they do as good as not receive it, for the Scripture consists in the sense, not in the words. And whosoever shall take a full survey of their opinions, will find that they embrace no mystery therein revealed, but only what is demonstrable by, or (at least) falls within the Sphere of bare Reason, & the light of nature; All the rest, which appear, either opposite unto Reason, or placed above it, as the mysteries of the Trinity, the Hypostatical union, Christ's satisfaction for the sin of mankind, the Resurrection, of the same numerical Body, the everlasting punishment of the damned for temporal faults, etc. they cannot away with, because they can see no reason for them; diverting in the mean time all those Testimonies of Scripture, which are produced to confirm these Principles, by altering (as I said) of words, letters. points, wresting of phrases, & affixing to the words new contrary Glosses; & by perverting other places to serve their own turn, by false, unheardof Expositions; so that this right Reason proves a crooked Rule; and instead of imforming us of the Truth, deforms the Original, the Touchstone of its Trial. The Church of England in her 21 Article saith indeed, that General Councils may err, and have erred, But she saith not, that they have erred in matters of Faith, only she infers from hence, wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation, have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared, that they be taken out of Holy Scripture. And good reason; because the Scripture contains all things necessary to salvation. But by whom are these things to be so declared? Sure by the Fathers assembled in a General Council: So she makes these Fathers, Declarers, or Collectors of those necessary Points out of Scripture, and for aught I can see, judges of that necessity; A very great Privilege, and as much as was ever challenged by them. But she more expressly ties her Clergy to submit unto the judgement of the Fathers (whether in, or out of a Council) in weighty Points of Religion; Synod. Lond. An. 1571. Tit. 19 De Concionatoribus. Imprimis videbunt [Cincionatores] ne quid unquam doceant pro Concione, quoth a Populo religiose teneri & credi velint, nisi quod consentaneum sit doctrinae veteris aut N●vi Testamenti; quodque ex illa ipsâ doctrinâ Catholici Patres & veteres Episcopi collegerint. Where she makes the Orthodox Fathers, the sole Interpreters of Scripture, who are to be followed by Preachers, in matters of Consequence; and ranks their Collections out of Holy Scripture with the letter itself; which if it employ not infallibility in expounding Scripture, I am sure, it comes very near it.  
Reason then, is not the Judge of all Truth, (to which our Church may seem to refer us, by making Councils fallible) that is, bare natural Reason; but Reason enlightened: neither were the Fathers guided by it in the main Principles of Religion, but by Faith relying on Authority divine, or universal Tradition. She may indeed, yea ought to search into, and examine Tradition, whether it be genuine or spurious, as the Beraeans, Acts 17. 11. examined S. Paul's Citations of the Old Testament, touching the Prophecies of the Messiah. But when the Tradition is found to be good and clear, old and Catholic, then Reason must submit to it, although it may seem to thwart, or exceed her.  
Neither doth S. Peter bid us to give a reason of our faith, but to be ready to give an answer to every one that asketh us a reason of the hope that is in us. 1 Peter 3. 15. that is, upon what Grounds we expect eternal Happiness, by the Profession and Practice of the Christian Religion; and this answer, or reason to be given, not rashly or conceitedly, but with meekness and fear. Indeed, who the most Learned, much less every ordinary Christian (who hath the charge there given him) can give a Reason or Demonstration of all Mysteries in Religion? some of which (as the Trinity, and Incarnation) we cannot so much as conceive, or comprehend, fully and distinctly. Besides the word (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) there may be as fitly rendered, a Reckoning or Account; for the word is, thus elsewhere taken; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Give an Account of thy Stewardship, Luk: 16. 2. and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they shall give an Account thereof, viz. of every idle word. Mat. 12. 36. but never as fare as I remember, is the word used for a medium, or Demonstrative Argument a Priori.  
Is it not then the ready way to the Introduction of all Sects, of Libertinism, yea (at last) of Atheism itself, to bring all Points of Religion to the Censure, and Tribubunall of this conceitedly-blind judge, which according to the mad wish of that Roman Tyrant, cuts off the very neck of Religion at one blow? For all Religions, which hitherto have dared to show their face to the world, have grounded themselves on Authority either true or false; on Real, or Pretended Revelations; The Grecians had their Oracles, Numa his Egeria, and Mahomet his pretended Gabriel; as well as the Jews had their Moses; and Christians, their Jesus. Humane Reason, left to its own light, and guidance, never presumed in any Nation, to be the Mother of a new Religion: or a sufficient Directress in it, yea, the light of Nature is acknowledged by the most acute Philosopher, to be dim, and dark in relation to Divine Objects; compared therefore by him to the eye of an Owl at midday: 'tis not able therefore of itself, to show us the way to Heaven, who converse here in a spiritual Egypt, a land of darkness, which is our natural state; no getting into Canaan, but by a pillar of fire, supernaturally raised, and divinely moved.  
Now as Anabaptism is more suitable to the dregs of the People, and worketh on the grosser humours of the Body Politic, to whom Community of goods, and freedom from the power of Magistrates are pleasing Tenants: so this, as a poison fare more deadly, seizeth on the subtler wits, as on the finer animal-spirits, therefore the more dangerous, because abler Instruments of mischief, Reason at the best is fallacious enough, but when thus cried up as the sole, supreme Judge of all, from whom lies no Appeal, no marvel if she extremely please he self in novel Inventions, and become much enamoured of them, as her own genuine Births. She is therefore a most dangerous Guide, being thus left to herself, in matters of Religion, which (as Vincentius Lir. tells us) is not Res inventa, sed tradita, not found out by ourselves, but received from our Ancestors. Sure then, Eternal Salvation is a business of more weight, then to be entrusted to her Dictates and Directions; whence it is, that holy Scripture every where cries down the wisdom of the world, the judgement of the natural man, the vain deceits of the Heathen Philosophers (who were the great Masters and Admirers of Reason) and the darkness of our understanding in things Divine, in the Mystery of Godliness. And methinks when Reason decives us so oft in smaller matters, in objects fare lower, such as lie within its own Sphere; it should a loud proclaim this Caveat to an indifferent and experienced man, that we are not to trust it, in things of the greatest moment, which lie so fare above its reach; that we are not to follow a false, wandering Meteour, an Ignis fat●us here below, when we have the bright Morning Star to guide us, in this vale of darkness, until the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings.  
But, to return to the Argument, which I have in hand. As I dare not be so rash as to tax all those of Socinianism, who deny or doubt of the received Authors of the Creed; so this I may safely say, that unawares they may make way for it, as they do also, who decry or debilitate the Authority of the Church, and Fathers.  
I have endeavoured therefore in this following Treatise to vindicate as well the Authors, as the Authority of the Apostles Creed, as being the main Basis of the Christian Religion, to which all succeeding Creeds are in the nature of Paraphrases, or Superstructures; a work, I conceive, too suitable unto the Disease of this Age, and so most unhappily requisite; an Age wherein the very Principles of Christianity are called in Question, and Faith derided as the Portion of deluded Fools, and Idiots: An Age, wherein some have taken upon them to Correct the Old Creed; and others, to frame new Ones: An Age, wherein some accuse our Mother the Church of England for Believing too much, as the Socinian, with some other Sectaries; and others, for Believing too little, as the Roman Catholic: whose Church hath added to the Creed, several other Articles, to be believed by all Christians, as of necessity to Salvation; a Catalogue whereof we may find in the Bull of PIUS 4th, among the Acts of their late Tridentine Council; as also in the Roman Catechism. Wherefore I shall endeavour withal, to clear my much honoured Mother from this double crosse-imputation, by asserting as well the sufficiency, as the necessity of the Creed for Salvation. This is the sum and end of my Thoughts; which I never intended to make public, when I first composed these notes some years ago, for my Collegiate, catechistical Lectures. But when I since daily found many, little or nothing to regard the Authority of the Creed, and some (of no mean note) to write against both the Authority, and the Authors; I reviewed, and enlarged them by farther Testimonies of Divines, both Ancient and Modern; amongst whom finding an unexpected Harmony and Consent in this matter; I undertook to examine the Reasons produced to the contrary, which (as I hope) upon due trial, will not be found so weighty and convincing, as to overthrow so Old, so General, so Received a Tradition. Now having proceeded thus fare, and taken no small pains in the Search, I presumed to expose them to a more public view, not knowing any who hath hitherto handled this Argument Polemically, and in a set Discourse; wherein if I have any way failed, the Truth (I hope) will not suffer by my weak Defence, but meet hereafter with an abler Patron. But if I have so handled it, that I can revoke any erroneous Christian, fix the wavering, or confirm him that stands, I shall have great Cause, and good opportunity to rejoice, in contributing the least Mite to the profit of the Christian Church, or the praise of Christ our common Saviour, who is styled by the Apostle, The Author and finisher of our Faith, Heb. 12. 2. To whose blessed Guidance, and Protection I commit both thee and myself, in these dark, dangerous, and unsettled Times.   


〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

Symbolum D. Athanasii.  
QVicunque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est ut teneat Catholicam fidem, quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit. Fides autem Catholica haec est; ut unum Deum in Trinitate, & Trinitatem in unitate veneremur, neque confundentes Personas, neque substantiam separantes; Alia est enim Persona Patris, alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti; sed Patris, & Filii, & Spiritus Sancti, una est Divinitas, aequalis Gloria, coaeterna majestas. Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis Spiritus Sanctus: Increatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus Spiritus Sanctus: Immensus Pater, immensus Filius, immensus Spiritus Sanctus: Aeternus Pater, aeternus Filius, aeternus Spiritus Sanctus: Et tamen non tres Aeterni, sed unus Aeternus; sicut non tres Increati, nec tres Immensi, sed unus Increatus, & unus Immensus. Similiter, Omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omnipotens Spiritus Sanctus; & tamen non tres Omnipotentes, sed unus Omnipotens. Ita, Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus Spiritus Sanctus; & tamen, non tres Dii, sed unus est Deus. Ita, Dominus Pater, Dominus Filius, Dominus Spiritus Sanctus; & tamen, non tres Domini, sed unus est Dominus. Quia sunt sigillatim, unamquamque Personam Deum, & Dominum confiteri, Christiana veritate compellimur; Ita, tres Deos aut Dominos dicere, Catholicâ Religione prohibemur. Pater a nullo est factus, nec creatus, nec genitus est, Filius à Patre solo est, non factus, nec creatus, sed genitus. Spiritus Sanctus, à Patre [Filioque] non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus est, sed procedens. Unus ergò Pater, non tres Patres: unus Filius, non tres Filii: unus Spiritus Sanctus, non tres Spiritus Sancti. Et in hac Trinitate, nihil prius, aut posterius; nihil majus, aut minus; sed totae tres Personae coaeternae sibi sunt, & coaequales; ita ut per omnia, sicut jam dictum est, & unitas, in Trinitate, & Trinitas in unitate veneranda sit. Qui vult ergò salvus esse, ita De Trinitate sentiat. Sed necessarium est ad aeternam Salutem, ut Incarnationem quoque Domini nostri Jesu Christi fideliter credat. Est ergò fides recta, ut credamus & confiteamur, quia Dominus noster, Jesus Christus, Dei filius, Deus & Homo est; Deus est ex substantiâ Patris, ante Secula genitus; & Homo est ex substantiâ matris, in Seculo natus: Perfectus Deus, Perfectus Homo; ex animâ Rationali, & humanâ Carne subsistens; aequalis Patri secundùm Divinitatem, minor Patre secundùm Humanitatem: qui licet Deus sit, & Homo; non duo, tamen sed unus est Christus: unus autem, non conversione Divinitatis in Carnem, sed assumptione Humanitatis in Deum; unus omninò, non confusione substantiae, sed unitate Personae; nam, sicut anima Rationalis & Caro, unus est Homo; ita, Deus & Homo, unus est Christus. Qui passus est pro Salute nostrâ, descendit ad Inferos, tertiâ die resurrexit à mortuis, ascendit in Coelos, sedet ad dextram Dei Patris Omnipotentis; Ind venturus est judicare vivos & mortuos: ad cujus adventum omnes Homines resurgent cum corporibus, & reddituri sunt de factis propriis rationem; & qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vitam aeternam; qui verò mala, in ignem aeternum. Haec est fides Catholica, quam nisi quisque fideliter, firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit.   

〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.    

Of the Authors, and Authority of the APOSTLES CREED.  

CAP. I.  
The Dogmatic part of Theology, most necessary to be established; and in that, most especially the Creed, as the Foundation of the rest; and this for three Reasons. A double abuse of the Creed, which occasioned this Treatise; together with the abuse of Catechisms. The five Heads of the ensuing Treatise. The Creed contains all, and only Fundamentals. The Trinity, and Incarnation, of the Son of God, cleared out of it,  
AMongst the several parts of Divinity, which brancheth itself forth so largely, and variously, the Positive or Dogmatic is Best, and most necessary. As for Controversies, it had been happy for the Church, if she had never been exercised with any; they arose as accidentally, as unfortunately; for Ignorance, or Malice hath been the Mother of them All: Ignorance when men could not; Malice, when they would not see and acknowledge the Truth. Truth itself is still but one, which requires establishing, rather than questioning, for whilst we call all things into Dispute, even the main Grounds of our Religion, some begin to doubt, others deny.  
Now, amongst the Dogmatics in Divinity, which are reducible to these four Heads, the Principles of the Christian Catechism, viz. The Creed, the Commandments, the Lords Prayer, and the Sacraments, I have thought good to pitch upon the first named, the Creed, as the most necessary and Fundamental Part of Christianity, and so most requisite, to be premised unto the other three; for without a right Faith, whereof the Creed is the Rule and Ground, we can neither Pray, nor Obey, nor use the the Sacraments as we ought; this it is, which directs our Prayers, which quickens our Practice, and disposeth us aright for all Sacred Mysteries.  
But this necessity is more pressing in these distracted Times, and that for these following Reasons.  
1. Some we have, and those who would be thought the most Orthodox Reformers, who dare cavil at the Authority of the Creed, and question the letter of it; yea not only question, but dash out, and abolish the Article of Christ's Descent into Hell, either in words, or in the ancient and received Sense, though generally attested by the Verdict of Antiquity, and guarded by the third Article of our Church, on purpose inserted, as we may in all likelihood suppose, for settling the minds of her Children in this particular; because it began to be controverted, or at least perverted in the exposition thereof, by some Divines in those Days.  
2. Others we have of a fare higher strain, who overthrow the very Foundations of Religion, especially in the Articles of the Sacred Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Blessed Saviour (the eternal Son, or word of God made flesh, by which he became 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) both which are asserted in the Creed, as will appear by the following Discourse. And that they might the more boldly vent their desperate Tenants, have slighted the authority of the Creed, as an humane Invention, or Compilement; as falsely bearing the Apostles name in the Front; so the followers of Servetus, Valentinus Gentilis, Socinus, and others. The Framers of which Sects were not ashamed to divulge their project to the world, as well by the Pencil, as the Pen. They drew a Picture, wherein the Church of Rome was described, under the form of a great Edifice; on the Roof whereof sat Luther, and his Assistants, throwing away the Tiles: the Roof being thus bared, Zwinglius, Calvin, and others, beat down the Walls: when this was done, to perfect the work, come these Tritheits; Photinians, Arians, with the rest of their Consorts, armed with Spades, and Pick-axes, to dig up the Foundation. Here be Rooters with a witness, whose design it is not to Prune the Tree, by cutting of some superflous Branches, but utterly extirpate it, that they may plant a new Gospel of their own; such who instead of repairing fall to ruining; and instead of of restoring the Decays of God's Church, by a deliberate and well-ordered Reformation; endeavour to erect a new Building, in the Desolations of the old.  
3. The Age miserably labours with as many Religions, almost as men, every one strongly & confidently pretending to the True, and Excommunicating as Reprobates all those, who are either contrarily, or but diversely minded; in a word, who agree not with them in every Point, though of the smallest Concernment.  
Amongst which various Sects and Divisions, it concerns us, first to search out, & then to adhere unto, some constant Rule, whereby to regulate, and establish our Faith. Now this Rule is at Hand; for the Creed was anciently styled, and (I hope) is still accounted by all good Christians, Regula Fidei; A short, plain, certain, and Complete Rule: Short, without Tediousness; Plain, without perplexedness, or Obscurity; Certain, without Crookedness, or Error; and Complete, without Defect: It comprehends the whole Body of our Belief, & omnes Articulos, all the Joints or Members of that Body, no one wanting.  
If all Christians would but hold to this, as the Primitive Church did, than all Heresies and Sects would soon vanish; and the several Members of the Church, which now lie distracted, and torn asunder, like the Bones in Ezekiel's vision, the severed Parcels of a Skeleton, rather than a Body, would quickly come together, Bone to his Bone; the sinews, flesh, and skin would soon cover them; and then, the Breath of the Lord, the Spirit of Christ, who is the Head of this Body would Reenter into them, and give them life.  
There have been two Grand Causes (as I conceive) of these miserable Divisions; both sprung from an abuse of the Creed, what by adding to it, what by altering of it.  
1. The Church of Rome (contrary to S. Peter's Rule, from whom she boasts to derive her Prerogative) Lording it over God's Heritage. 1 Pet. 5. 3. And contrary to that of S. Paul, her Joint Founder taking upon her, to have Dominion over our Faith, 2 Cor. 14. hath added new Articles to these of the Apostles, especially in her last Council of Trent; and these she hath enjoined to be believed under an Anathema, and made the so believing, necessary to Salvation. Which domineering carriage of hers hath bred many heart-burnings, and stirs in the world, that otherwise would never have arisen, if she had kept herself entirely unto the old Rule, which only was required to be professed by the Genuine & Orthodox Sons of the Chuerh, in the Primitive and Best Times; for the Nicene, Chalcedon, & other succeeding Creeds, were only expositions of, not Additions to the Apostles Creed, as will be made appear.  
2. Bold Sectaries, under the specious Title of Reformers, taking occasion and advantage from hence (what from the Tyranny, and what from the example) have filled the world with Institutions, and Catechisms, and (I know not what) several Tracts of their false, heretical Tenants, arrogating the name of Truth, and of the true Church unto themselves: Some Tenants they have urged all to believe, which are besides, and not a few quite contrary to this Creed of the Apostles; promised Salvation to their own Disciples; but denounced damnation, not only against their opposers, but against all those too, who concur not with them in every tittle, and Io●a; whether negative Errors condemned; or positive Doctrines asserted. So that now, Ecclesiam quaerimus in Ecclesiâ, we have even lost the Church among so many Conventicles; we have as many Religions as Families; and those too, not seldom disagreeing; yet all appropriating Salvation to themselves. Every one takes upon him to be a Pope, the name so much in show detested; and seats himself in his usurped Chair, as an infallible Judge, guided by the Dictates of the Spirit; so that one knows not whom to adhere to, especially, weak and ignorant Christians are most dangerously scandalised. And, we heard of one not long ago, in Holland, who (whether out of Pride, or Despair, I know not,) had contracted the Church within the small compass of his own Microcosm; and upon that Ground (true Baptism being annexed unto the true Church) he Baptised himself; thence called the Sebaptist.  
Now what course might be taken to heal these numerous wounds? sure they would all close up of themselves, if all Christians would have recourse to this Ancient, Catholic, and undoubted Rule; believing as much, requiring no more,  
And by the way, we may account it none of the least Blemishes in the face of our Church, that so many private Catechisms, with other Tracts of the like nature, have been suffered to fly abroad from every quarter; not a few of them (for I should offend as much against Truth, as modesty, to censure all) erroneous; most of them defective in the main Points, yet stuffed with uncertainties, and impertinencies; which instead of Fundamentals, give us Circumstantials and Appendices; instead of a sound Body of Credenda's, hair and nails, if not boiles and botches:  
Thus have the tender Plants in the fair Garden of this Church, been partly infected with a poisonous joice, partly made crooked and deformed in their Infancy, whilst they have bend themselves towards this or that Pamphleter; like those heretofore in the Church of Corinth; who said I am of Paul, I of Apollo's, and I of Cephas, (and 'twere well, they had no worse Tutors) to the great prejudice of verity, and utter bane of unity.  
Now all this might have been prevented, if they had not thus from the Birth been put forth to strange Nurses, but caused to suck the Breasts of their true Mother, the Church of England: for S. Paul calls the first Rudiments of the Christian Religion, Milk, a nourishment fit for Babes; a good portion of which Milk is contained in the Creed, which therefore is styled by S. Cyril Patriarch of Jerusalem, Parvulorun in Christo lactea Introductio. Catech. 4.  
But before I enter upon the Body of the Creed (which I purpose to treat of hereafter, as God shall give me life, and strength, means, and leisure) I conceive it will be expedient, if not wholly necessary, to lay down by way of Preface or Introduction, some Prolegomena, which I shall reduce to these five Heads, the Bounds of my ensuing Discourse.  

1. That the Apostles were the Authors, or Composers of the Creed, which bears their Name.  
2. The Grounds upon which, and the Ends for which the Apostles framed it; where I shall speak also, of the Sufficiency of the Creed for the Rule of the Christian Faith.  
3. The several Reasons of the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the Title it bears in the Original Greek.  
4. The Division, or Parts of it.  
5. By way of Appendix, I shall add two Diatriba's or Discourses, concerning the Nicene Creed, and that of Athanasius, (especially the latter, because most questioned) which the Catholic Church and particulary the Church of England (in her eighth Article) hath jointly received with that of the Apostles; and are larger explications of it, especially in the two main Points of the Trinity, and Incarnation, then called in question, and perverted by Arius, and Macedonius.   
But before I proceed to the handling of these particulars, it will be requisite to remove some Doubts which may arise against what I have already written; thus clearing my way as I go, of all Imaginary rubs & obstacles.  
Ob. 1. The denying of the Apostles to be the Authors of the Creed, doth not seem to weaken or shake any Ground, by which we may prove a Trinity; first, because every Article of the Creed is confessed to be in Scripture: Then, because no other Argument is pretended to be fetched from the Creed, for the proof thereof, but this, that the Phrase [Credo In] is attributed to the Son, and Holy Ghost, as well as to God the Father; but not so, to the Catholic Church, or to the Articles which follow it; whereas this seems to be a groundless Proof; for in the Scripture, and the best Authors, Credere in Deum, in Deo, & Deo, are promiscuously taken, as signifying the same Thing. So we Read Exod. 14. 31. Crediderunt in Dominum, & in Mosem, They believed in God, and in Moses; which the 70 render, ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thus construing it for a mere Historical assent. So also, 1 Sam. 27. 12. Achish believed in Davidem, in David, (according to the Heb.) that is, he believed David. And 1 Joh. 5. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he believed not in the Testimony, is no more but to believe the testimony not to be true. The Creed of Nice, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And in some ancient Latin Copies of the Apostles Creed, we read, Credo in Ecclesiam Catholicam in remissionem Peccatorum, etc. Particularly in a very old MS. (in BIBL. BODL.) we have, Credo in Spiritu Sancto, Sanctâ Ecclesiâ, remissione Peccatorum etc.  
Answ. Every Article of the Creed is confessed to be in Scripture, either in express words, or by necessary Consequence; one of which Consequences or Conclusions is the Doctrine of the Trinity, gathered by Apostolical hands, and placed in their Creed; for who else could Infallibly collect it, and impose it on the Faith of Christians?  
As for the particle, Credo in, which (as Stephanus observes in his Thesaurus) is a phrase peculiar to Christian Divines; it's being applied to the three Persons in the Sacred Trinity, & to none else in Propriety of speech, is a sufficient Argument, for the proof of that high Mystery, & so generally understood by the Latin Fathers. S. Aug. Serm. 181. De Temp. upon those words of the Creed— Sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam— saith thus. Sciendum est, quod Ecclesiam credere, non tamen in Ecclesiam credere debemus quia Ecclesia non Deus, sed domus Dei est; we must know that we ought to believe the Church, not in the Church, for the Church is not God, but the Household of God. Ruffinus, in his Exposition of the Creed, on the same Article of the Church,— non dixit, in Sanctam Ecclesiam, nec in remissionem Peccatorum, nec in carnis Resurrectionem; si enim addidisset, [In] praepositionem, una, eademque vis fuisset cum Superioribus: nunc autem in illis quidem vocabulis, ubi de Divinitate fides ordinatur; In Deum Patrem, dicitur, & In Jesum Christum Filium ejus, & in Spiritum Sanctum: In caeteris verò, ubi non de Divinitate, sed de Creaturis, ac Mysteriis sermo est, [In] praepositio non additur, ut dicatur In Sanctam Ecclesiam, sed Sanctam Ecclesiam credendam esse non ut in Deum, sed ut Ecclesiam Deo congregatam: & Remissionem Peccatorum credendam esse, non in remissionem peccatorum; & resurrectionem carnis, non in resurrectionem carnis. Hac itaque Praepositionis syllabâ Creator à Creaturis secernitur, & divina separantur ab humanis. that is, He said not, In the holy Church, nor in the forgiveness of sins, nor in the resurrection of the Body; for if he had added the Preposition, In, there had been the same sense with what went before: but now in those passages of the Creed, wherein our faith concerning God is digested, we say, In God the Father; and in Jesus Christ his Son; and in the Holy Ghost; but in the residue, which speak of the Creatures, and the mysteries relating to them, the Preposition, In, is not added, for we say not, I believe in the Holy Church, but I believe the Holy Church; not as in God, but as the Church gathered to God: likewise, we are to believe the remission of sins, not in the remission of sins: and the resurrection of the Body, not in the resurrection of the Body. So by this short Preposition, the Creator is distinguished from the Creature, and God from man.  
Now, Ruffinus was one very well skilled in the Greek Tongue (as who Translated much of Origen out of that Language) as well as in the Latin; and so deserves the more credit in judging of the Phrase, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Credo in.  
Paschasius also in his Book de Spiritu Saucto, written against Macedonius, vindicates the true Writing and sense of the Creed, as touching this particular, in these words.— Credimus Ecclesiam quasi Regenerationis Matrem; non in Ecclesiam credimus quasi in Salutis Authorem; nam cum hoc de Spiritu Sancto universa confiteatur Ecclesia, numquid & in seipsam credere potest? qui in Ecclesiam credit, in Hominem credit; non enim Homo ex Ecclesiâ, sed Ecclesia esse caepit ex Homine: recede itaque, ex hac Blasphemiae persuasione ut in aliquam humanam te aestimes debere credere Creaturam, cum omninò nec in Angelum, nec in Archangelum sit credendum— nonnullorum imperitia praepositionem hanc (In) velut de proximà, vicinaque sentintiâ, in consequentem traxit, ac rapuit, & ex superfluo imprudentur apposuit; in nullis autem Canonicis, de quibus textus Symbolipendet, accepimus, quia in Ecclesiam credere, sicut in Spiritum Sanctum, Filiumque debeamus: Et ideò, cum ab hoc Honore Creatura omnis aliena sit, hic in quem credere praecipimur (viz. Spiritus Sanctus) Deus est: quod verbum Divinitati specialiter vox Domini Salvatoris assignat, ita dicens, Credit in Deum, & in me credit. Et iterum Qui credit in me, non credit in me, said in eum qui me misit. that is, We believe the Church, as the Mother of our new Birth; not in the Church, as in the Author of Salvation. For when as the whole Church professeth this of the Holy Ghost, can she believe also in herself? He who believeth in the Church, believeth in man; for man sprung not from the Church, but the Church from man; be fare therefore from this Blasphemous persuasion, as to think that thou oughtest to believe in any humane Creature; whereas our Faith is not to be placed, no not in an Angel, or Archangel. The unskilfulness of some, hath caused them to take the Preposition, In, from the neighbouring sentence which went before, and to apply it to the subsequent, rashly, imprudently, and superfluously: whereas, we are not warranted by any of the Canonical Books, on which the Text of the Creed depends, to believe in the Church, as we ought to believe in the holy Ghost, and the Son; and therefore seeing this Honour is not communicable to any Creature; he in whom we are commanded to believe, namely the holy Ghost, is God: hence also our Saviour especially applieth this word unto the Divinity, saying thus, ye believe in God, believe also in me. And again; He that believeth in me, believeth not in me, but in him that sent me.  
Thus did these Fathers read this Article of the Creed, and thus they understood it.— Credo in, that is, Colloco fiduciam in Deo; which the Scripture appropriats to God alone, as to the peculiar object of our Trust and Confidence, and wholly denies to Creatures. See Psal. 146. 3. & 44. 7. Jer. 17. 5. 1 Tim. 6. 17.  
As for that place, Exod. 14. 31. the Hebrew word there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used signifies properly to believe the truth or Fidelity of one, & so may well agree to Moses, who spoke to the People in God's name, and had so often confirmed the truth of his words, by the following miraculous Success, now the word is usually joined in Construction with a Noun of the Ablative Case, having the particle (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) prefixed, which is the sign of that Case; and therefore should be rather translated, if we follow the Hebraisme close— Crediderunt in Deo, & in Mose. However, the sense is this; They believed God's word spoken to them by Moses; God as the Author; Moses as the Messenger. So, here's no opposition, but a Subordination, and therefore no Derogation to God's Prerogative. But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Greek; and Credo in, in the Latin; are phrases implying more, and answer to the Hebrew word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] which signifies to depend or rely on an Infinite Power, and goodness, which therefore both can and will deliver us from all evil; and confer in due time, all Good upon us; now this is peculiar to God alone, and therefore appropriated to him both in the Scripture, and Fathers.  
The Particle [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in the Hebrew, is (I confess) oft superfluous; Thence, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Greek; and (In) in the Latin, which answer to it, sometimes redound in the Scriptures, Creeds and Fathers, in their translations out of the Hebrew, or imitations of that sacred Tongue; yet not always. Now, to know when these Particles redound, when not, we are to compare them with other Parallel places of Scripture, and Copies of the Creed; and then we shall find, that though some Greek Copies of the Creed prefix (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to the Article of the Church, and the three subsequent ones, yet others (as those of Marcellus, Anoyranus, and chrysostom, hereafter to be alleged) omit it as superfluous, but still religiously retain it in the precedent Articles of the Son and Holy Ghost; by which it plainly appears, that they esteemed it essential to these, but pleonasticall unto those. The like may be said of some old Latin Copies of the Creed (which yet are very few) wherein (In) redounds by the like Hebrew Pleonasme.  
Ob. 2. The Socinians say, they do all acknowledge the Apostles Creed for the matter, though they doubt whether it were composed in this Form by the Apostles wherein they are not the first, nor alone. Erasmus seems to have first made question of it; after him, Calvin, and most of his followers; wholly yet deny not the Authority, but acknowledge the matter to be true. Nay the Socinians complain, that whereas the Creed contains all Fundamental Truths, yet other Articles are obtruded as necessary, such as be not contained in the Creed; how then can the denial of the Composure of this Creed by the Apostles, any way advantage the Socinians?  
Answ. The Socinians deny some Articles of the Creed, in the Sense which the Ancient Fathers understood them from whom they received the Creed itself for words; and aught to have done, for meaning, and the denial of the Authors, makes them, in all likelihood the bolder in their misinterpretations. Then, although they hold that the Creed contains all Fundamental Truths, yet they hold not all the Articles thereof Fundamental. On the other side, they unjustly complain of other Articles obtruded on their Belief, whereas the Church hath only explained some few Articles of the Creed, and vindicated them from Heretical Glosses and Corruptions; warranting those her Expositions by old Catholic Tradition, upon a due legal search, in an Ecumenical Synod. Lastly, the denial of the Composure of this Creed by the Apostles, as a Summary of Truths ordinarily necessary to Salvation (which was the main end of Composing it) much advantageth the Socinians, who believe not all to be necessary; and some not true, as they are construed in the old received Sense.  
If Erasmus began first to doubt of the received Authors of the Creed, he cannot well be excused, for questioning so ancient, and established a Tradition, whereby no Benefit could redound to the Christian Church, but the Faith of many might be startled, and Heresies awaked, as we have seen by the Event; and I am sorry that the Socinians should look on him as they do (though I hope amiss) as their first Founder, or chief Patron in this latter Age; by reason of this, and some other extravagancies of his Pen; so that what Possevine, from others, says of him in relation to Luther, may be verified in respect of Socinus, in some of his Errors, Erasmus innuit, Socinus irruit; And this (Nescio) of Erasmus (which others have since improved to a Nego) was presently censured by the Parisian Divines. As for Mr Calvin, though he saith indeed that he will not contend with any one about the Authors of the Creed, as a Thing in his judgement, not overmuch material, yet he produceeth two Arguments in the same place, which evince the Apostles, and none others, to have been the Composers thereof; namely, the concordant suffrages of Antiquity; and the public receiving or use thereof, presently upon the Rise, or original of the Christian Church. Instit. lib. 12. cap. 16. 6. 18. But of his Testimony more fully hereafter.  
Ob. 3. It seems that the Creed contains not the whole Body of the Credenda, or Christian Belief: not all Credenda in general, for there are many thousand more which lie scattered in the Scriptures: no, nor all Fundamental Points, or necessary Doctrinal Truths; E. G. faith in the Trinity, the Canon of Scripture, that we are to worship God, and go to the Father by the Son, the doctrine of Repentance, good Works, Baptism, Imposition of hands; which are expressly called a Foundation. Heb. 6. 1, 2. none of which are in the Creed. Add hereunto the Deity of the Son of God, which seems not to be proved by those words in the second Article— His only begotten Son— for he is called the Son of God in Scripture in respect of his Conception, and Resurrection, both which relate to his Humane Nature. See Luk. 1. 35. Act. 13. 32, 33. Rom. 1. 4.  
Answ. The Creed contains all Fundamental Points, purely Doctrinal, or Speculative; that is, necessary Credenda, as opposed to the Agenda, or practicals of Christianity. The Canon of Scripture contains these Fundamentals dispersedly; and is delivered down to us, as the Creed is, by Tradition; but not comprehended in the Creed for when we name Fundamentals, we speak of Matters, or Points to be believed, not of the Books which contain those Points. The Points cited out of Heb. 6. are all Practical: so also, is the worship of God, and coming to the Father by the Son. Baptism is a Sacrament, one of the Agenda's in the Church; yet referred, in the Nicene Creed, to the 10th Article, as the outward ordinary means for remission of Sins. The Mystery of the Trinity is included in the Creed, as hath been already showed, And so is the Divinity of our Saviour, in those forecited words. Vnigenitum [Patris] Filium, The only begotten Son of the Father. For though he be called the Son of God in relation to his Humanity, in Luk. 1. 35. because in his Conception, or Incarnation, the Holy Ghost did supplere vicem Patris, by a miraculous overshadowing; or rather, not simply as man, but as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and man in one Person, in respect of that strange Union of the Humane Nature in one Hypostasis with the Divine, by the supernatural operation of the Holy Ghost: as also in relation to his Raising again, whereby he was chief demonstrated to be the true Messiah, or Son of God, the first begotten of the Dead. Act. 13. 32, 33. Rom. 1. 4. Col. 1. 18. and Revel. 1. 5. comp. Col. 1. 15. Rom. 8. 29. Yet in the second Article of the Creed, he is called the Only begotten Son of God, with relation to God the Father, and in respect of his Divinity, which he received of the Father by an ineffable Generation from all Eternity; for this Article is placed before his Conception by the Holy Ghost, and his Nativity of the Virgin Mary (much more before his Resurrection, which manifested, not made him the Son of God) and therefore cannot relate to his Manhood, but to his Godhead; not to his Conception (or Resurrection) in time, but to his Generation from Everlasting.   

CAP. II.  
The History of the Apostles Composing the Creed out of Ruffinus. Five Reasons, why the Apostles delivered it to the Church, not in Writing, but by an Oral Tradition. An objection, against the preserving of it by Tradition, Answered.  
TOuching the Composing of the Creed by the Apostles, which is my first Head, Ruffinus Presbyter of Aquileia, St Jeromes Contemporary, and great Emulatour, gives us this Relation in the beginning of his Exposition on the Creed.— Tradunt majores nostri, quod post Ascensionem Domini, cum per adventum Sancti Spiritus, super singulos quosque Apostolos igneae linguae sedissent, ut loquelis adversis variisque loquerentur, per quas nulla eye Gens extera, nulla linguae barbaries inaccessa videretur, & invia; praeceptum eye a Domino datum ob praedicandum Dei verbum, ad singulas quemque proficisci nationes. Discessuri itaque ab invicem, normam priùs futurae Praedicationis in common constituunt, ne fortè alias ab alio abducti, diversum aliquid his qui ad fidem Christi invitabantur, exponerent: Omnes Ergò in uno positi, & Spiritu Sancto repleti, breve istud futurae sibi, ut diximus, Praedicationis Indicium, conferendo in unum quod sentiebat unusquisque, componunt, atque hanc credentibus dandam esse Regulam statuunt; etc. The sum is this. We have received from our Ancestors, that after the Ascension of our Saviour into Heaven, and the Descent of the Holy Ghost from thence, in the shape of Fiery Tongues, on the Day of Pentecost; the Apostles enabled with the gift of Tongues, to Preach unto the most remote, and Barbarous Nations, prepared themselves accordingly to fulfil their Lords Command; for the more convenient and ready Discharge of which Duty, though authorised they were to Preach indifferently unto all, yet they sorted themselves into several Provinces: But before they went on this Embassy, being assembled together, and inspired from above, they Compiled the Summary of the Christian Faith, as the Groundwork of all their Preaching, and as a constant, uniform Rule of Belief to all their Auditors (whom they persuaded to embrace the Christian Belief) lest otherwise they might Preach more variously, and at random. And this they left behind them, both as a Symbol, or Token of their Faith, munimentum fidei ex lapidibus vivis, & margaritis Dominicis, which neither Winds nor Storms can subvert; and of their Unanimity, as being now ready to departed each from other: not as the Sons of Noah built the Tower of Babel, and were therefore punished with confusion of Language, being not able to understand each others Speech; for these endued with the knowledge of all Tongues— Turrim fidei unanimes construebant, ut illud Peccati, hoc Fidei probaretur Indicium. Thus far Ruffinus.  
Now, the Apostles having thus Composed their Creed, they committed it not to writing, but delivered it by word of mouth to the Bishops of the Churches, their Successors. So witness, besides Ruffinus here, St Jerome, Cyril of jerusalem, and Chrysologus; yea, many years before them, Irenaeus and Tertullian; as I shall show anon. The reasons of which manner of Delivery are thus assigned by the same Fathers.  
1.  certum esset, neminem haec ex lectione, quae interdum pervenire etiam ad infideles solet, sed ex Apostolorum traditione didicisse sufficeret. So Ruffinus, That it might not come by some unhappy chance, into the hands of Heathens and Infidels, to whom (as Dogs) these holy Mysteries of the Christian Faith were not to be cast, lest they should misconstrue or deride, Profane or pollute them, to their own greater Damnation, the Discouragement and Scandal of the weak Christian, and the Dishonour of Religion. And to this well agrees the signification of the word Symbolum, which Title the Creed of old hath borne, and most properly imports a watchword; now, a watchword (we know) is given by word of mouth, not in paper, lest the Enemy hap to come unto the knowledge of it.  
2. Observa fidem (saith Cyril of Jerusalem) à solâ Ecclesiâ tibi nunc traditam, & ex omni Scripturâ munitam, non in Chartâ scribendo, sed in Cord memoriam [ejus] insculpendo, necubi Catechumenus ea qua vobis tradita sunt, exaudiat. Catech. 5. It seems by him in this Place, that the very Catechumeni, who were instructed in the Principles of the Christian Catechism, were not acquainted yet with all the Mysteries of the Creed, until they came to Baptism; some Articles were to hard meat, even for them, to digest. Our Saviour hath a like speech to this purpose. Jo. 16. 12.  
3. Accepturi Symbolum, saith Chrysologus, Pectora parate non Chartam, quia committi non potest caducis, & corruptibilibus Instrumentis aeternum & coeleste Secretum, sed in ipsa areâ animae, in ipsa Bibliothecâ interni spiritus est locandum, ne profanus Arbiter, ne improbus, quod dilaceret, Discussor inveniat; & fiat ad contemnentis & ignorantis ruinam, quod confitentis & credentis donatum est ad Salutem. It suits with the Dignity of the Creed, to be engraven in no other Table than the Heart of man; & with the safety of Christians, that they receive it not otherwise then from the mouth of their Pastor, with his short, but sound exposition thereof. Serm. 58.  
4. The same Father in his 61 Sermon gives this Reasan. Hoc monemus ne quis committat literis quod est Corde mandaturus, ut credat. Apostolo sic monente Corde creditur ad justiam, o'er autem confessio fit ad salutem. Rom. 10. 10. The Confession of our Faith which we make in the Creed, hath the Heart for its Mother; the mouth for its Midwife: the Pen hath nothing to do here. So the Groundwork of this Tradition is laid by S. Paul, if we may trust the judgement of Chrysologus.  
5. The Creed is best and most safely preserved by Tradition; especially being so short an Epitome of the Christian faith; whereas Memory trusting to Paper is less careful of retaining: and we daily see what doubts and disputes there arise amongst Critics about the diversity of Copies, in the Transcription of our Sacred Books; and what Errors of the Transcribers. Nihil securum, quod extra animum fertur. Those two great Philosophers, Pythagoras and Socrates, whom we may justly style the Fathers of the Rest, are observed to have wrote nothing: neither did a far greater than They, our Blessed Saviour. Lycurgu's Laws by a bare Tradition, were kept inviolate above 500 years; when those of Solon, diligently engraven in wood, & carefully laid up, were notwithstanding soon forgotten, & frequently broken in the Lawgivers own life-time. Yea, we see by experience, both in ludicrous toys, as in children's sports; and in weightier matters, as in the several Habits & Customs of Nations, that without any Law written, they are both more easily retained, and more carefully observed.  
But because I foresee, that this last Reason will meet with opposition, I shall endeavour to clear and confirm it both by satisfying those Doubts which probably may arise against it. It will be objected that the Creed is not most safely preserved by Tradition, because several Copies thereof do not a little vary. That it seems very strange, a Thing should be safer kept by Tradition, then by writing; seeing Tradition depends on no other help, but memory; whereas Things committed to Paper, are conveyed to Posterity, and remain by two Helps, Memory, and Writing. If Tradition were the safest way to preserve Things, why were the Scriptures written? What is preserved of the doctrine of the Divides, of Pythagoras, Socrates &c: but what we find written?  
I Answer. The Creed is best preserved by Tradition, for the sense and substance of the Articles, because daily in public use, in the Catechumen's mouths, and the Liturgies of the Church; yet subject to variation in point of expression, by reason of several Tongues, and Dialects in the Christian World; as also, because of some exegetical Additions, interserted upom occasion of some particular Heresies, which arose in this, or that Church. So Laws are best preserved by continued Practice, though somewhat varying if received in divers Nations (as the Roman Laws are) in some specialty of expression; or by way of application to the exigence of the Times, and Genius of the People, in divers Countries.  
As for the dependence of Tradition, it relies not only upon Memory, but upon continual use and Practise; a better means of Preservation, then Writing, which is daily subject to the fraud, negligence, and ignorance of Transcribers; many differences arising from whence, have raised no small trouble unto Learned Critics, how to reconcile them; or (if irreconcilable) to discern the true Copy. The Hebrew Bible was preserved entire in the true reading thereof, (as being constantly used in the Jewish Synagogues) without any Points, or Vowels written, as now we have it, and that for many hundred years, according to the most received Opinion; a Thing infinitely more difficult, than the Preservation of the Creed. Wherefore, we may not without Reason say, that a short Summary of the Faith, such as the Creed is, is best kept by Tradition, especially such an one, as is in continual use and Practise; whereof the Fathers here cited give us good reason; in sum, that Non sunt evulganda fidei mysteria nisi Initiatis, & Magistro Deuce, seu Interpret; ne sc: derisui Profanis habeantur, aut malignantium Calumniis pageant; ne erroneis Ignorantium, aut male feriantium glossematis obiiciantur.  
The whole Word of God was committed to writing, because large and full of Variety; yet occasionally, and by Degrees: The like may be said of the many, long, various Discourses of Pythagoras, and Socrates, committed to Paper by their Scholars.  
Our Saviour's Sermons, and Discourses were oft very large, his Miracles, and memorable passages of his Life, almost infinite; and so could not otherwise be well preserved, then by Writing; yet Irenaeus tells us, that many Christian Nations had no Scripture amongst them in his Time, who notwithstanding kept Christianity diligently amongst them by an old Tradition. And on the other side, the Fathers tell us, that where the Scriptures were to be had, the Heretics oft set forth unsound Books under the Apostles names, and corrupted the true Copies of Scripture, which they got into their Hands; by this means, seducing many, & troubling more; to neither of which inconveniences, a known, practised, brief Tradition is obnoxious.  
As for the doctrine of the Druids, it was carefully preserved (as long as the Religion stood) by an unwritten Tradition; now Christianity hath a promise of continuance unto the end of the world. Mat. 28. 20. & so needs no more to fear a failing of its doctrine, than its Disciples.  
If it be farther objected, that all in general are commanded to confess Christ, and to give an account of the hope that is in them. 1 Pet. 3. 15. which seems to make against the second Reason, assigned by Cyril of jerusalem. That the Creed was of old committed to writing by Irenaeus, & Tertullian; & that when these Reasons, and exhortations were made by Ruffian, Cyril, and Chrysologus, the Creed was committed to writing both by themselves, and others.  
I answer; first that those Precepts belong properly to Christians, that is, to Persons entered into the Church by Baptism, who had the whole Creed explained unto them: but if they extend to the Catechumeni, the Confession and Account must be understood more indefinitely, and at large, to wit, of those more easy and general Principles, whereof they were informed by their Teachers. Secondly, the Creed is therefore called a Tradition, because not committed to writing by the Apostles, as the Gospel and Epistles were, though in after Ages it were put in writing by the Fathers and Councils, for the more public Conviction of Heretics. Yet, it clearly appears by the forecited Fathers, (who cannot well be thought ignorant of the Church's custom in their own Times) that the Creed was not delivered in writing to the Catechumeni, but taught them by word of mouth, to learn and profess, & this teaching or delivery, not without an explication of the Catechist, or Bishop, lest otherwise they might chance to err in the meaning: withal; it was not delivered all together, but line after line, as they were able to receive it.   

CAP. III.  
Testimonies of Scripture, touching the Composure of the Apostles Creed, especially out of S. Paul's Epistles; as the places are accordingly interpreted by Divines of good note▪ both Ancient, and Modern. Some doubts against these Testimonies, solved.  
THUS much for the History of the Creeds Composure, and its manner of Conveyance to after Ages. But that the Apostles did first Compile, and then deliver this Creed, by an oral Tradition, to the Christian Church, will need farther Confirmation. I shall endeavour to prove it by Scripture, Antiquity, and Reason; all which, I hope will be found to attest this Truth, as joynt-witnesses of what hath been already produced out of Ruffinus.  
And first, by Scripture; for though the Creed be not expressly set down in any place of the New Testament, because the Apostles, for the foremention'd reasons, thought not good to commit it unto writing; yet S. Paul in divers places of his Epistles, not obscurely alludes unto it, under several phrases of speech, & apt metaphours (which we find afteward applied to the Creed by the ancient Fathers) as they may be most probably interpreted, & are so understood de facto by the judgement of good Authors, both of the Primitive, and latter Times.  
1. First, Rom. 6. 17. The Apostle tells us of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That Form of Doctrine; and expressly calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Tradition, as the Ancients constantly style the Creed: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ye have obeyed from the Heart that Form of Doctrine which was delivered you: that is, whereas before Baptism, ye were the Servants of Sin; now now ye have professed your obedience to the Faith, by the public rehearsal of the Creed, delivered to the Church in a set Form by the Apostles, to be openly recited before the Congregation at the time of Baptism; a Custom used from the Beginning, and still retained in the Church. Thus is the place expounded by Anselme, our Learned and Renowned Archbishop of Canterbury— Quae doctrina est Forma, quia imaginem Dei deformatam restituit, which Doctrine saith he, is styled a Form, because it restores the defaced Image of God, to wit, by Baptism, (which the Apostle elsewhere calls,— The Laver of Regeneration. Tit. 3. 5.) whence it follows in the very next verse— Being then made free from sin, that is, saith the same Anselme. Per Spiritum Sanctum quem accepistis in Baptismo, By the Holy Ghost which ye received in Baptism.  
2. Secondly. Rom. 12. 6. He chargeth those who have the Gift of Prophecy, to Prophecy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the Analogy or Proportion of Faith. Now by the Gift of Prophecy in this place, Divines usually understand the Interpretation of Scripture: and by Faith, they understand the object of Faith, or the Principles of Christian Religion, which are contained in the Creed; thus expounding it. Let them so interpret Scripture, that they give no sense thereof, but what bears Analogy, and due correspondence with the main Grounds of Religion, comprehended in the Rule of Faith, or Articles of the Creed. Thus Beza, on the place expressly,— Significat Apostolus verum Canonem Prophetiae, id est, interpretationis Scripturarum verae à falsa discernendae, nempe si ad Christianae fidei Axiomata 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exigantur, Symbolo comprehensa quod Apostolicum vocant; & quod jam inde ab initio Evangelicae Praedicationis, veluti Evangelii Epitome scriptum fuit, ideoque norma, & regula fidei meritò à Tertulliano vocatur. Where he tells us that the Creed is the Epitome of the Gospel, the Rule of Faith, and (more particularly) the Rule of Prophecy, that is, of discerning the true Exposition of Scripture from the false: then, that it was framed at the first Preaching of the Gospel; therefore by the first Preachers of it, the Apostles: Lastly, that the Articles thereof are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ex se fide digna, that is, require our Assent without farther proof; therefore, framed by Divine Inspiration. With him agrees the Learned Estius, though of a divers Religion. Let him Prophecy (saith he) according to the proportion of Faith, id est, sic ut sequatur rectae fidei dictamen, & diligenter caveat, nequid vel pronunciet, quamvis sibi videatur praeditus spiritu Prophetico, vel pro Scripturae Interpretatione adferat, quod à Regula fidei discrepet. And before him, Anselme [secundùm rationem fidei] ut nihil extra fidei regulam loquamur, aut sapiamus. To whom we may add the Testimony of Simon Grynaeus, Scripturarum Epitome, saith he, est Symbolum Apostolorum, quod ideo Tertullianus normam & Regulam fidei appellat; quia ea tantùm vera habenda ac proinde credenda sunt, quae revera cum illis consentiunt. that is, The Apostles Creed is the Epitome of the Scriptures, which therefore Tertullian calls the Rule of Faith, because those things only are to be held for true, & believed, which agree with the Articles thereof.  
3. Thirdly, 1 Cor 3. 2. He thus bespeaks his Corinthians, I have fed you with Milk, and not with meat, for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. Then v. 10. He useth another Metaphor, As a wise Masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon; but let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. Now under these Metaphors, of Milk, and a Foundation, the Apostle seems to allude unto the Creed; calling it Milk, because it contains the first principles of Christianity, the proper food of new borne Babes. 1 Pet. 2. 2. Who were lately regenerated by Baptism. joh. 3. 3, 5. Rom. 6. 4. Whence cyril of jerusalem, alluding to this place, calls the Creed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Milky introduction. Catech. 4. And calling it a foundation; because it is the very Groundwork of Christiany, comprising the fundamentals of our Religion; whereas other Doctrines are but superstructures; which if good and profitable, he compares here to Gold, Silver, and precious stones: if Bad; to wood, hay, and stubble. Comp. 1. Thess. 2. 7. Rom. 15. 20. Eph. 2. 20. Rev. 21. 14. Heb. 5. 12, 13. & 6. 1, 2. Also 1 Cor. 4. 15. 2 Cor. 10. 16.  
4. Fourthly. The same Apostle, in his Epistles to the Churches of Galatia and Philippi, reprehending those who made a mixture of two Religions, joining Judaisme and Christianity together, endeavours, to bring them back, to the true and undoubted Rule, whereof they had formerly made profession in their Baptism. To the Galatians, thus. Cap. 6. v. 15, 16. In Christ jesus, neither circumcision availeth any Thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new Creature: And as many as walk according to this Rule [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Peace be on them, and mercy. Whence I observe three things.  
1. That the Apostle opposeth a new Creature, to the outward state of Circumcision and uncircumcision now, we are regenerated, or made new Creatures in Baptism, by Profession of our faith in Christ.  
2. That he immediately infers upon this, the walking according to a set Rule, such a rule as hath a manifest Reference to the  new Birth or Creature; now what Rule can this be, but the Creed, which hath been always professed in Baptism, and borne the same Title in all Antiquity. Irenaeus calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek, as he is cited by Epiphanius; and Tertullian, the most ancient of the Latins, usually calls it Regula Fidei. 3. The word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] which signifies more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an ordinary walking, for it is not a walking at random, but an orderly walking (as the same word is rendered, Act. 21. 24.) an exact keeping of a Path, without the least Declination either to the right hand, or to the left: which signification well sorts with the accurate observation of the Creed without varying from it in the least Particular.  
And, lest I should seem to go alone in this Interpretation, please but to consult the judgement of these Fathers whose expositions follow, and you will find them to understand this new Creature of Regeneration in Baptism: & by the Rule or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Rule of Doctrine, of Faith then professed. Chrys: on the place— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Apostle, saith he, means by this new Creature; our Christian law or discipline— for our soul grown old in Sin, is at once, or altogethr renewed by Baptism, receiving as it were a new Creation. Theophilact expounds it in the same sense, & the like words. Jerome -- nos qui nunc jam in Baptismate Christo consurreximus, in novum renati hominem, nec Circumcisioni nec praeputio serviamus, sed quod futuri sumus, jam nunc nos esse credamus. [Regulam] Ad normam omnia diriguntur, ut utrùm prava, rectave sint, cum Regula apposita fuerit, arguantur, ita ut doctrina Dei quaedam quasi norma sermonis sit etc. Where he expounds the new Creature, of Baptism, and the Rule, of that divine Doctrine, whereby all others are to be examined, the Sum whereof is the Creed, which was solemnly rehearsed, and professed at the time of Baptism; as for the divine Doctrine at large, comprised in the New Testament; much of it was not extant when this Epistle was written, and therefore cannot be here meant, by St Jerome.  
Theodoret, to the same purpose, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of which he speaks, the Doctrine publicly proposed, at the time of Baptism (wherein we put off our sins, and put on the spirit) what is it but the Creed? which was then professed? especially since he gives it such a Character of exactness, that it hath nothing either wanting, or waste, a fit Periphrasis of the Creed. Oecumenius, accordeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Pool wherein we are borne anew, is the water of Baptism: and the Rule or Doctrine opposed to the Law, which ought to satisfy us, as that which renders us new Creatures, is the Rule of Faith comprised in the Creed.  
Again, to the Philippians, the Apostle speaketh in these words. Chap. 3. v. 15, 16. Let us as many as be perfect, be thus minded; and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you: nevertheless whereto we have already attained, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, let us walk by the same Rule. Where the Apostle useth the very same phrase. And this by the way is a good admonition for moderation in Controversies, about points of lesser Consequence, which grate not upon the foundation; that we do not presently Reprobate those who are otherwise minded, but patiently expect their farther Illumination, in still keeping ourselves without wavering, close to those Grounds, whereto we have already attained by profession of our Creed in Baptism. The Fathers so understand this Place, together with latter Interpreters, in their Annotations on it. Ambrose: Non extra Regulam Disciplinae sapere in conversatione Fidei, sed hoc sapere quod Commune sit, & modestum; in Evangelii veritate; which is most properly applicable to the Creed, for that is the Rule of the Christian Discipline, or Faith, which is most commonly received, and most modestly urged.  
S. Chrysost. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Rule (saith he) receives neither Addition nor Diminution, for than it looseth the very essence of a Rule; let us walk therefore by the same Faith, within the same Bounds. What Rule, what Faith is this, but the Creed, which is the Boundary, or Limit of the Christian Belief? To him assents Theophilact, in the same words. Oecumenius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. By the Rule, saith he, he understands the Faith, or Creed for as you spoil a Rule, by taking away from it, or adding to it, so is it also in the Faith. Anselme construes this Rule of Communis Fidei sensus, the Common Sense or Substance of the Christian faith, which is comprehended in the Creed: Cajetan also, of the Regula Fidei & morum; the Rule of faith in the Creed, of life in the Commandments. Estius in like manner. Horror vos omnes eâdem Regulâ fidei & Doctrinae, incedere, eandemque Regulam tenere— etiam alibi, de fide loquens, Regulam nominat, ut Galat: vlt: Quicunque hanc Regulam— I exhort you to walk in the same Rule of faith & Doctrine & to hold the same Rule— The Apostle elsewhere speaking of the Faith, calls it a Rule Gal. 6, 15, 16.  
5. Fiftly; In his Epistle to the Ephesians, exhorting them to unity, he sets down seven motives or grounds thereof, and amongst these he reckons One Faith; where Faith is clearly taken for the Object of Faith, or Principles of Belief, which are contained in the Creed: whence it follows in the very next words, One Baptism: that Baptism wherein we make Profession of this Faith. Otherwise if we look on the Habit of Faith, or the actual Celebration of Baptism, we have as many Faiths as Believers; and as many Baptisms, as Persons Baptised.  
And, to clear this Interpretation farther yet, if we compare this Text with those words of his, Chap. 2. 20. in the same Epistle, we shall find the Framers of this Creed. Ye are built, saith he, on the Foundation of the Apostles, that is on the Grounds of Faith laid by the Apostles, not on their Persons, for they are dead long ago. It is added there— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and on the Foundation of the Prophets, viz: not the Prophets of the old Testament, but of the New, who were the Apostles Copartners in laying the foundation of the Christian Church. Comp. Eph: 3. 5. Act: 13. 1, 2, 3. Math: 23. 34. 1 Cor. 12. 28. & 14. 29, 32. Rev: 18. 20, 24.  
6. Sixtly; 1 Tim: 6. 20. He thus chargeth Timothy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, O Timothy keep the Depositum, or that which is committed to thy trust: which Depositum both our Divines, and those of the Church of Rome, understand of the saving Doctrine of the Gospel, which we find (for matter of Belief) summed up in the Creed. And the following words lead us to this construction, avoiding profane and vain babble, and oppositions of Science falsely so called, (of which Science, the Gnostics had their name) which some professing, have erred concerning the Faith. Besides, the Metaphor of a Depositum well suits with the Creed; first in the manner of Delivery, the one is committed to our Hands, the other to our Ears; both a kind of Tradition: Then in the strictness of keeping; not the least parcel of a Depositum is to be diminished, nor the least tittle of our Creed to be parted with: S. Basil therefore would not forgo one jota, when the Arians would have had him change 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
In this sense Expositors agree, both Ancient and Modern. So Jerome, Commendatum a nobis servandum tibi fidei Depositum custodi. And upon those words before, v. 12. thou hast professed a good Profession before many witnesses. In Baptismo, saith he, ab renunciando Seculo, & Pompis ejus: at which time they also constantly made a Profession of the Faith. Theophilact likewise by his Depositum, understands the Grounds of Faith, in opposition to humane Reasoning, which falsely usurps the name of knowledge, & make us err from the Faith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for the faith admits not, saith he, of disputes. Estius construes the words more plainly of a Doctrinal Tradition, contra-distinct to the Scripture, delivered by Christ, and received by the Apostles, which contains fully all the Articles of the Faith, to which nothing was added by succeeding Counsels, but the same preserved still, explained, illustrated, and defended, against succrescent Heresies. His words are these, Non solas Scripturas Paulus apud Timotheum deposuerat, sed doctrinam sanam viva voce ei tradiderat— Praeter Depositi rationem est ut ei aliquid addatur— hinc ergò sequitur, fidei semel à Christo traditae, & ab Apostolis acceptae, nihil prorsus addi posse, neque id agi in Conciliis Fidei causâ congregatis, ut novi condantur Articuli Fidei, sed ut fidei Doctrina ab initio tradita conservetur, explicetur, illustretur, & contra succrescentes haereses defendatur. Comp. 2 Tim. 2. 2. & 3. 14.  
7. Seventhly, the Apostle renews the same charge to him, 2 Tim: 1. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, (not which thou hadst of me in writing; for the Creed, as I have showed, is a Tradition) in faith, and love; that is, concerntng Christian Faith, and Charity: namely concerning Faith, in the Creed, concerning love or charity, in the Commandments: thus he conjoins our Credenda, and Agenda; that is, the Rules of our Belief, and Practise. And it follows in the next v. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Keep that good Depositum, the good Thing which was committed unto thee. Upon which words consult the following Interpreters. S. Chrysost. T● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. What is this Depositum? the Faith. S Jerome, Secundùm meam formam vide & doce, quam à me breviter accepisti, quomodo integrè credere, & alterutrum deligere debeamus. What is this brief and entire Form of Belief, but the Creed? Theophilact likewise by this Depositum, understands the Rule of Faith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Articles which we are commanded to believe; But how saith he wilt thou keep these Rules? not by humane strength, but by the holy Ghost. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which dwelleth in us through Baptism, take care therefore to keep that Spirit, and that Spirit will keep this Depositum. Cajetan Habeto in usu formam Sermonum quos a me non per Scripturas didicisti, sed audisti. Ipsa forma sanorum verborum, quae audierat a Paulo, appelatur Bonum Depositum. Now this set form of words, delivered by word of mouth: to what agrees it but to the Creed? Estius. in like manner. Depositum id est, Doctrina ab Apostolis continuata serie tradita, in sola Ecclesiâ Catholicâ asservatur, Scriptura enim ei cum Haereticis communis est. Now this Doctrine delivered down from the Apostles to us, in an uninterrupted Succession, which is here contradistinguished to the Scriptures, and said to be kept in the Catholic Church, what is it else but the Creed?  
8. Eightly. The Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (whom I little, or not at all, doubt to have been the same Apostle) tells the Jews, That they had need to be taught again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which be the first principles of the Oracles of God and that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Babes having need of milk. Now these Principles are contained in the Creed: and Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catech. 4. wherein he Paraphraseth on the Heads of the Creed (alluding plainly to this Place, as to the other two Parallel ones, 1 Cor. 3. 2. 1 Pet. 2. 2.) calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as I observed before. To this sense accord the following Fxpositions. Beda, Quod in lactis commemoratione posuit & Doctrinam, ipsa est quae per Symbolum traditur, & Orationem Dominicam. Anselmus, Elementa vocantur illae Parts, de quibus Sermo Dei priùs contexitur, sc: Incarnatio, Passio, Resurrectio, Commune Judicium, Damnatio malorum, Corona justorum, & caetera quae primum annunciantur eis qui convertunt tur, Exordium enim Sermonum est, Symbolum Christianae Fidei. Aquinas, Exordia Sermonum Dei, & prima Principia, et Elementa, sunt Articuli Fidei, et praecepta Decalogi. Cajetan, Elementa sermonum Dei sunt ea Principia, quae docemus Catechumenos,— Dicitur in Symbolo, Apostolica Ecclesia, quia fundatur in Apostolis. Their words are so plain, that they need no Logic to apply them to the Creed.  
Then in the Beginning of the next Chapter, viz: Heb: 6. 1. the same Author mentions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Foundation. Amongst which Fundamental Principles he reckons up— Faith towards God, and the Resurrection of the dead; which two be the first, & last Articles of the Creed, the last I say, reading the Creed, as some of the Ancients did, with this close, The Resurrection of the dead unto life everlasting, thus coupling two Articles in one.  
Let us now see what Expositors bear witness to this sense, applying these words to the Apostles Creed. S. Chrys. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Where he interprets the words of the grounds of Christianity, wherein we are Catechised, and whereinto Baptised; those fundamental Doctrines of faith, to which all the rest are in the nature of superstructures; and what are these but the Creed?  
S. Ambrose. Quis fit sermo inchoationis Christi, nisi Fidei initium? Sicut enim cum qui in doctrinam literarum inducitur, elementa oportet primum audire, sic & Christianus primum omnium de fide Catholicâ erudiri debet, quod est fundamentum nostrae salutis— quia enim fides fundamentum est, caetera verò superaedificationes sunt, D. Paulus sequentibus verbis ostendit. This fidei initium, the groundwork of Faith and Salvation; and this fides Catholica, wherein a Christian ought first to be instructed, as being that foundation, whereon the whole after-frame is built, what else can it be but the Creed? S. Aug. De fide & operibus cap. 11. Epistolâ quae ad Hebraeos inscribitur, cum eorum, qui baptizantur, commemorarentur Initia, posita est ibi paenitentia a mortuis operibus— Haec igitur omnia pertinere ad initia Neophytorum, satis apertéque Scriptura testatur. Venerable Bede hath the same words borrowing them (as much else of his Comments) from S. Austin. Both refer them to those Principles of Christianity, which the Novices or Catechumeni were instructed in, and professed at Baptism, among which the principal was the Creed. Oecumenius— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Where he shows the method of the Christian Catechism; some points whereof were explained to the Novices in Religion before Baptism, as Repentance from dead works, Belief in God, the nature and use of Baptism, as also of Imposition of Hands (in Confirmation after Baptism) whereby to be made Partakes of the Spirit: and, some after Baptism, as the Mysteries of our Saviour's Passion, and High-priesthood, his taking our sins on himself, and working our Salvation; the mysteries of our Resurrection, of the last judgement, and everlasting Reward, or life; the most of which Principles are comprehended in the Creed.  
Theophyl. also on the same place. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Where he interprets this repentance from dead works, of renouncing the works of the Devil in Baptism; and refers the resurrection of the Dead, in express terms, to our Confession of Faith, or Creed, which at the time of Baptism we publicly attest. Anselmus, [Necrursum jacientes fundamentum] Doctrinae (inquit) quae in exordio tradita est vobis per Symbolum, & orationem Dominicam, ut hac iterum incipiatis imbui. Estius. [fidei in Deum] Respicit ad professionem Symboli quam faciebant Baptizandi. Calvinus. Erant certa capita, de quibus Pastor Catechumenum interrogabat, quemadmodum ex variis Patrum Testimoniis constat, praesertim de Symbolo quod Apostolicum vocant, examen habehatur, Ille primus quasi ingressus erat in Ecclesiam iis, qui jam adulti, Christo nomen dabant, cum priùs alieni fuissent ab ejus fide. Paraeus. Fidem pro Symbolo fidei intelligere possumus, ubi haud dubiè quaerebatur, credisné in Deum Patrem? Credisné in Jesum Christum filium ejus unigenitum? Credisné in Spiritum Sanctum? In his quaestionibus Jeronimi temporibus Catechumeni baptizandi quadraginta diebus erudiebantur, ut ipse scribit ad Pammachium. These four Testimonies so clearly understand this place of the Creed, and so plainly speak of the profession thereof at the time of Baptism, that it were lost labour to insist farther on them.  
9 Ninthly, and lastly S. Judas in his general Epistle, ver. 3. exhorteth all good Christians, That they would earnestly contend for the Faith, which was once delivered to the Saints. Where by Faith is plainly meant the object of Faith, or the Principles of Belief, which are contained, as we know, in the Creed; for he renders this as the reason of his exhortation, in the words immediately following, That certain men (viz. Heretics) had crept in unawares, who denied the only Lord God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, which be the two first Articles of the Creed. This Faith saith the Apostle, was delivered, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So it is a Tradition, And but once delivered, to show the perfection and stability of it: the Perfection; for nothing must be added to it, since it was once delivered entire; and the stability of it; for nothing must be taken from it, it must for ever remain firm and untouched: in both, like a Depositum; no second Delivery thereof, either to increase or correct it. To conclude; This Faith the Apostle would have contended for; and that, not slightly, but earnestly, because it concerns the main Grounds, or foundation of Christianity, not some By-poynts, or slight superstructures.  
Thus at length, have I proved the Antiquity and Orinall Authors of the Creed from several Texts of Scripture accordingly expounded by Divines of the best note, both in the Primitive Times, and this latter Age. But before I proceed to any farther proofs, it will be requisite to remove such objections, as may be raised against what I have here produced.  
Ob. 1. How can it be proved out of Scripture, that the Apostles made the Creed, that is, this form of faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the same words, wherein we now have it? Seeing it is no where in Scripture, and as for those Metaphors, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. They agree to every Epistle or Sermon of the Apostles, as well as to the Creed; and therefore it will no more follow they speak of the Creed under those forms, then that I speak of Homo, therefore I mean Socrates. And indeed, most of the Fathers cited on those places, seem to relate to the Doctrine of faith in general, not to any Epitome of it, such as the Creed. Besides, Anselme, and Cajetan extend the Rule as well to the Agenda, as the Credenda, whereas the Creed comprehends no Agenda at all.  
Answ. Every Epistle or Sermon of the Apostles cannot properly be styled a form of Doctrine, a Rule, a Depositum, etc. First, not every Epistle; for the Apostles mention this form, whatsoever it were, in divers of their Epistles, as somewhat several from them, and contradistinct unto them: nor secondly, every Sermon; for the Apostles Sermons, which we find recorded in the Acts were commonly made unto the Jews, circumcised Proselytes, or to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the Gentile-worshippers of the true God, and observers of the seven Laws of the sons of Noah; now, such as these needed nothing to be proved to them, but that Jesus was the Messiah; that is, to have the foregoing Promises and predictions of the Old Testament, applied to a particular person, namely, to jesus the son of Mary: as for the rest, the most of the Creed, they believed it before, and therefore had no need to have it preached unto them. Yea, in that Sermon of S. Paul at Athens, Acts 17. to the Heathen Philosophers, who were pure idolatrous Gentiles, we find nought preached unto them, but the knowledge and worship of one true God, Christ's Resurrection, and coming to judgement, so, not the whole Canon or form of Doctrine; which if it were not explained to the Chatechumeni, before they came to Baptism, (as we have already learned from Cyril of jerusalem, when he was Catechist) much less was it propounded in gross to the raw Pagan who in likelihood, at first sight, might either deride the faith, or stumble at the threshold, upon the hearing of so many strange mysteries.  
Besides, many of the places alleged out of S. Paul's Epistles, not obscurely allude unto Baptism, wherein the Catechumene made his confession of Faith, by a public rehearsal of the Creed, (as will more fully appear hereafter) but had not that Creed Preached unto him, at his first invitation to Christianity: only in the precedent days of Lent, the Creed was explained to him by the Catechist, & on Palme-sunday, by the Bishop.  
The Rule involves the Agenda, or practical grounds of Christianity, as Anselme and Cajetan rightly tell us; but it includes the Credenda too, that is, our Articles of Belief, and primarily points at them; which is sufficient for our purpose, for we make not the Creed the whole, but the Principal part of the Christian Catechism, S. Paul therefore Heb. 6. 1, 2. and Cyril of jerusalem in his Catechises, join them both together, as necessary for the Catechumeni, who were to be taught what to do, & observe, as well as what to believe. As for the Fathers, in their Expositions on the forecited places of Scripture; some of them expressly mention the Creed, others refer what they say to Bapt., when the custom was to make open profession of the Creed; these therefore may well speak for the rest, and explain their meaning touching the doctrine of Faith, that though expressed it be in more general Terms, yet is to be understood in the same sense, for the Breviary of this Doctrine, couched in the Creed, and confessed at the time of Initiation into the Church by Baptism.  
Ob. 2. Suppose it be granted, that the forecited places of Scripture import, there was some Form of Doctrine delivered before the new Testament was written, or after; and, that it contained the chief heads of Christian Religion: yet, that this Form or Rule was the same with that which we call the Apostles Creed, is not necessarily inferred, nor do most of the Expositors alleged, affirm any such Thing. Nay, those Principles, Heb. 6. 1, 2. are such, as some of them are not mentioned in the Creed, as Baptism, Imposition of Hands, Repentance from dead works. It is not enough to prove, there were Summaries of Faith, containing the same in substance with the Creed, for so all Creeds, and Confessions of Faith, if true, might be called the Apostles Creed; nay, the Scripture of the New Testament contains nothing else in Substance: the Apostles Creed is that only which is delivered in this Form, and in these words, which distinguish it from all other Creeds. If any now among us, who receive it as framed by the Apostles, should even for explication, or under any other pretence, offer to alter the least word or tittle, we should count it, and that justly, high Presumption and Sacrilege; and should not esteem it, so altered (though containing nothing but Truth) to be the Apostles Creed.  
Answ. The forecited places of Scripture evince thus much, that, a Form containing the Heads of Religion was delivered not after, but before the New Testament was written, for else the New Testament could not have born witness of it: Now the Church saith, the Apostles Creed is that Form, for she hath delivered us none other, nor entitled any other to the Apostles name in any age past; therefore let the Objectours either produce another, or subscribe to the Church's Testimony. The like Argument may be urged touching any Book of Scripture. As for Instance; Antiquity tells us, that S. Paul wrote an Epistle to the Romans; the Church tells us, that the Epistle we now have so entitleed, is that Epistle, and none other: therefore if any man will doubt of, or deny it, let him either show another Epistle which S. Paul wrote to the Romans, or accept this upon the Church's word. As for what the Expositors say on the fore-alleaged Places of Scripture, hath been already shown. Those Principles mentioned Heb. 6. 1, 2. are some of them Practical Heads of Christianity, which were taught the Catechumeni, together with the Creed; and because Practical Points, not included in it; the Creed being composed for a Summary of pure Doctrinals: yet they all refer to the Tenth Article of the Creed, namely to Remission of sins: Repentance, as the Antecedent or preparative; Baptism, as the outward means, and Imposition of Hands, in Confirmation, as the Compliment or Perfection thereof.  
As for other Summaries of Faith, they cannot be either so truly, or so properly called the Apostles Creed, because they want the Attestation of the Church, which never acknowledged them for such; though otherwise perhaps in substance they agree with it, as Paraphrases, or parts thereof.  
The New Testament contains many things, besides the fundamental Articles of Belief; as smaller Doctrinal Points, Evangelicall Rules of Practice, matters of History, Disputes, Prophecies etc. All extra Fidem besides the Creed, the Form and words whereof were delivered by the Apostles, as well as the Heads and Substance of the Faith, though some now doubt which they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in express words.  
As for explicating, or altering the Creed; we may safely paraphrase, or comment on it now, though not alter the Text thereof in words or sense; because it hath been delivered to us totidem verbis by a confessed evident Tradition of above 1200 years, as the Oppugners of its Authors are forced to yield. Before it was thus settled, there was more liberty of expression, because divers Churches somewhat varied the Form, by reason of succresent Heresis; but now it hath triumphed over all, and is long ago settled in full possession of the Christian Faith. Besides in all those former variations, though the Form was changed in some few Particulars, yet the heads or Articles of Belief, continued the same; It was not therefore sufficient for any confession of Faith to gain the Title of the Apostles Creed, in that it contained nothing but Truth.   

CAP. IU.  
Testimonies concerning the Creed, and the composure thereof by the Apostles, taken out of the Greek Fathers, who bear witness for the Eastern Churches. Some objections, against these Authorities, partly answered, partly prevented.  
YOU have seen what light the Holy Scripture gives us, concerning this Creed of the Apostles; but this Truth will be farther cleared and confirmed, by the concordant Testimonies of the Fathers; and most of those the most ancient for Time, as living nearest the age of the Apostles; and the most venerable for Authority; who therefore may best be credited in this matter, and well speak for the rest.  
Now in reciting their Testimonies, when I produce some of them, who in their writings set down the Creed or Rule of Faith, not agreeing totidem verbis expressly in every word and tittle, with that, which the Church now receives for the Apostles; I shall desire my Reader to take notice of these three things.  
1. First, that divers of the Fathers, writing against the Heretics of their Times, mentioned only, or chief, those Articles, which were then called in question by those against whom they wrote; whence it is, that they do not always set the Creed down whole and entire: which by the way, may well be one Reason, why the Article of Christ's descent into Hell was omitted in many latter Creeds; because never questioned by any of the Heretics of those days. The same reason induced the Nicene Fathers, to proceed no farther in their Creed than this Article— & in Spiritum Sanctum, And I believe in the Holy Ghost; although the old Creed was larger (as will appear more fully in what I shall produce hereafter;) namely, because the Arian controversy required no more.  
2. Secondly, That the Father's main care in setting down this Rule of faith, was, to keep themselves to the same Heads or Articles of the Creed, giving themselves sometimes liberty to vary words & phrases; whence it is, that though they always, set down the Creed, wheresoever they mention it, as the only, necessary, unchangeable Rule of faith, the  Basis of Christianity, the distinctive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or assured mark of a true, orthodox Christian, contradistinguishing him, to Pagans, Jews, and Heretics; yet sometimes, as learned Discoursers, they enlarge the parts of the Creed by way of Paraphrase: otherwhiles, as short Comprisers thereof, they contract the sum of it into fewer words, according as they saw cause, or had occasion offered. So Tertullian, though he lay down this for a ground, that— Regula fidei una omninò est, sola immobilis & irreformabilis, The Rule of faith is only one, soley , and umchangeable. De Virg. vel chap. 1. Yet whereas he thrice rehearseth it in three several Tracts, he never useth the same words exactly, but varyeth his expression; now extending, now contracting it at pleasure.  
Besides, there is an other reason why some of the Creeds end with the Article of the Holy Ghost viz: because the four following Articles are virtually included in it, which appears by S. Chrysostom's first Homily on the Creed, as shall be shown by and by.  
As for us of this Age we are not unjustly abridged the like liberty, in varying of words or phrases.  
First, because these are suspected times, wherein the very Grounds of Faith are by many very doubtfully held, and by some called in question.  
Secondly, because the Form is now on all hands confessedly ancient, fully settled, and strictly enjoined for so many Ages; whereas the Fathers lived in a Time, when several Churches used to vary in the expression of several Articles; and they themselves were known Champions of the Faith, against the Heretics which then a rose. The case is much the same in the number of Canonical Books, which is now a like aknowledged by all and entirely settled, (at leastwise in those of the New Testament) but not so heretofore: Or, in the Translations of the Bible, which every one at the first, who had some skill in the Greek Tongue took upon him to perform; as S. Aug: tells us. Doct: Christ. lib: 2. cap: 12. Yet it is Prudence in the Church to tie her children ordinarily, to the use of one translation now (though not debarring the learneds recourse unto the Originals) when as there are so many Divisions, Opinions, Suspicions, Controversies, about matter of Religion, and such a multitude of Schisms thence arising, which might be probably continued and increased by such a promiscuous licence.  
Thirdly, that the Fathers in their catechistical Paraphrases on the Creed, which they made to the Catechumeni before they were admitted unto Baptism; sometimes intermixed matter of a divers kind, viz. Practical Heads or Points of Christianity, equally necessary for the instruction of their Auditors; so doth Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catacheses'. And in their other Tracts, wherein they dogmatically explain it, they often add some exegetical Particles against the Heretics of those days, the more clearly to confute them, and forearm their Disciples against their poisonous doctrines; so some of the Eastern Churches in the First Article of the Creed, added these two Attributes by way of exposition to God the Father viz. Invisible and Impassable; thus contradistinguishing God the Father to God the Son and contradistinguishing themselves to the Sabellians and Patripassians, who confounded the two Persons,  
Yet notwithstanding all these seeming Differences, the indifferent Reader will easily find, that the aforesaid Symbols or Rules of Faith which they set down in their writings do plainly relate to this Creed of the Apostles.  
First, because they affirm that they received them from the Apostles whereas no Creed ever bore their name but this one which the Church now acknowledgeth under that Title.  
Secondly, because they use the same method in setting down the Articles, and commonly they make use of the same words.  
This premised; I come now to set down their Authorities in order as they lie beginning with the most ancient, and so descending to latter times. And first of the Greek Fathers who show what Rule of Faith was received in the Churches of the East. These witnesses are eight in number, viz. Thaddaeus cited by Eusebius, Ignatius, Origen, Marcellus of Ancyra S. Basil the Great, Gregory Nyssen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and S. chrysostom.  
1. Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History; lib. 1. cap. 13. speaking of the History of our Saviour, and Abagarus King of Edessa; tells us how Thaddaeus one of our Saviour's Disciples, being sent to the King after his Ascension, was desired by him to relate the History of the Power and coming of his Master; to which he replied, that for the present he desired to keep silence; but on the morrow, when the King should have caused a public Assembly of his People, he would then at large discourse upon these following Heads which are the Articles of the Creed concerning our Saviour, touching whom only the King wished him to discourse, namely,— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Where we have these Articles. 1. Christ's Birth or Incarnation, expressed under the name of his Coming, and being Sent of the Father answerable to the Scripture language. Act. 7. 52. Joh. 17. 3. 2. His Sufering, Crucifying, and Death. 3. His Descent into Hell (an Article now so much questioned) amplified with this circumstance, that he broke in sunder that Hedge, mound, or Partitian-wall, which had of old separated us from the Communion and Privilege of the People of God, Eph. 2. 14. 4. His rising again from the Dead; amplified with the circumstance of raising other Dead with him who had slept in their graves for many Ages; for which see. Mat. 27. 52, 53. 5. His Ascension unto his Father; amplified with the circumstance of a great multitude which ascended up with him, whereas he descended alone; which great multitude may be understood either of those Saints whom he raised up with himself having rescued them from the power of Death, whereof the Devil is the Prince, see Col. 2. 15. Heb. 2. 14. Rev. 1. 18. Or rather, of the Angels, who waited upon him in his triumphant Ascension into Heaven Psal. 24. 7, 8. And 68 17, 18. Heb. 1. 6, 7. And: 2. 5, 9  
As for his Descent into Hell, Christ only is mentioned in it, not any that bore him company thither; for which, see Act. 2. 29, 31. Esa. 63. 1, 3. Whence he thus bespeaks the Thief upon the Cross To day shalt thou be with me in Paradise; not, To day thou shalt descend with me into Hell.  
But if any make doubt of the truth of this story, wherein Eusebius brings in Thaddaeus rehearsing these Articles of the Creed; I shall desire them impartially to consider, that it was found by him in the Records of the City Edessa where this Thaddaeus Preached; and translated by the same Eusebius out of the Syria●k tongue (wherein it was originally written as being the language of that City) into Greek according to what he there sets down; thus Eusebius in that place expressly tells us. Now what better proof can we reasonably desire of an historical Passage, than the Public Records of that place where the Thing was done? And what better witness of those Records, than he that saw them, and copied out the original with his own hand?  
2. Ignatius that famous Martyr and Patriarch of Antioch, contemporary to the Apostls; having occasion to confute some Heretics of those Times, who perverted the true Faith concerning our Saviour, thus lays down the Articles of the Creed which concern him, by way of an Antidote against this poison of theirs. In his Epistle to the Church of the Magnesians, thus— I desire saith he, that ye may have the full knowledge of Christ— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Then in his Epistle to the Church of Tralles, he sets down the same Articles in like words, which will not be unworthy our comparing— Stop your ears, saith he, when any one speaks to you, excluding Jesus Christ—  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Compare these to gither, and they present us with these Articles, which touch our Saviour— 1. That he is the Son of God begotten of the Father before all Worlds. 2. That he was borne, in time, of the Virgin Mary, without the company of man borne truly of the Virgin, as as he was begotten of God; but not in like manner, God and Man being of divers natures. 3. That he suffered, was crucified & died under Pontius Pilate. 4. That he descended into Hell and rose again after three Days. 5. That he ascended up to his Father into Heaven, and sitteth on his right Hand. 6. That he shall come at the end of the world, to judge both the quick and the dead, and to render to every man according to his works.  
But because the doctrine of the Trinity lies more implicitly couched in the Creed, he expresseth it more at large in his Epistle to the Church of Philippi, in these words— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is— There are not three Fathers, nor three Sons, nor three Comforters; but one Father and one Son, and one comforter; wherefore, the Lord sending his Apostles to teach all Nations, commanded them to Baptise in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; not into one with three names, or into three made man, but into the name of three of the same Dignity; for one of them only was made man, not the Father, nor the Comforter, but the Son alone; and that, not in opinion, or appearance, but in Truth.  
If any one question the truth of these Epistles (out of which I have produced these passages) whether they were written by Ignatius or no I shall desire him as well to disprove, as to deny, for Else nothing of Antiquity, which agrees not with every on's fancy shall escape the note of Bastardy I am sure the Epistle to the Church of Tralles, out of which I cited the Articles of the Creed which concern our Saviour, agreeing in substance, method, and very much in words with the form we now have, is acknowledged for the genuine Epistle of Ignatius, not only by Eusebius and St Jerome of old, & by Maestreus (a D. of the Sorbon) of late, but also by Rivet & Videlius, two protestant Divines, who have narrowly examined the Epistles which are entitled to him & purged them of what they suspected as asciticious.  
If any would know more of this Ignatius, his Antiquity, and Esteem in the Church, which may as well establish as ennoble whatsoever he shall testify in this or any other Particular; I shall refer him to Nicephorus, Eccles. Hist. lib. 2. cap. 35. Where he expressly tells us that he was that very child whom we find mentioned, Mat. 18. 3. Whom our blessed Saviour set in the midst of his Disciples, as a Pattern of Humility he therefore styles him in the same Place, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, One Taken by Christ, & borne in his Arms: which Relation seems to give light unto that Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the same Ignatius constantly assumes to himself in the Front of his Epistles, as a peculiar Epithet, whereby he specificates himself, & endears his Person to the Churches, his Age well accords to the story; so doth that passage of his in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, After the resurrection, saith he, I saw Christ in body, and believe that he remains so: for so, not only Maestreus translats it, [vidi] and understands the word of a corporal vision, in the presence of our Saviour; but Videlius also, in his Edition both consonantly to Jeron: in Ca Ep. in Dial. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 &, before them, Eus. l. 3. 30. as I find them cited. And therefore as I conceive, the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ought not be taken in an Active sense, Deum ferens (i) in pectore, vel ment, according to that of Damascene, speaking of the Greek Fathers. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: but in a Passive; Borne in Christ's arms▪ or led by his hand: for though I deny not that the Ancient Fathers of the Church may in a good pious sense be called by succeeding writers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, â Deo inflati, though inspired by God in a far lower Degree, than the Prophets and Apostles; yet for Ignatius himself to assume the Special style of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one divinly inspired, as a distinctive Character, severing him from, and exalting him above his fellow-Byshops might be not undeservedly censured of Arrogancy; a vice which he was least guilty of, as appears by several pasages in his Epistles.  
Origen in the Proem of his Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, translated out of the Greek by Ruffinus, thus informs us— Cum seruetur ecclesiastica Praedicatio per successionis ordinem ab Apostolis tradita, & usque ad praesens in Ecclesiis permanens, illa sola credenda est veritas, quae in nullo ab Ecclesiasticâ discordat Traditione. Illud tamen scire oportet, quoniam Sancti Apostoli Fidem Christi Praedicantis, de quibusdam quidem quaecunque necessaria crediderunt, omnibus credentibus, etiam his qui pigriores erga inquisitionem divinae scientiae videbantur, manifestissimè tradiderunt— Species verò eorum quae per praedicationem Apostolicam manifestè traduntur, istae sunt. Primo, quod unus est Deus, qui omnia creavit atque composuit, quique ex nullis fecit esse universa— & quod hic Deus in novissimis diebus, sicutper Prophetas suos ante promiserat, misit Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum. Tum deinde, quia Jesus Christus ipse qui venit, ante omnem creaturam natus ex patre est; qui cum in omnium conditione Patri ministrasset (per ipsum enim omnia facta sunt) novissimis temporibus seipsum exaniniens, homo factus est, incarnatus est cum Deus esset & Homo mansit quod Deus erat, corpus assumpsit nostro corpori simile eo solo differens, quod natum ex virgine de Spiritu Sancto est, & quod hic Jesus Christus natus & passus sit in veritae (& non per imaginem) communem hanc mortem, verè mortuus est; verè enim a mortuis resurrexit: & post resurrectionem conversatus cum Discipulis suis assumptus est. Tum deinde Honore ac Dignitate, Patri ac filio sociatum, tradiderunt Spiritum sanctum.— erit tempus resurrectionis mortuorum cum corpus hoc quod in corruption seminatur surget in incorruptione & quod seminatur in ignominiâ, surget in gloriâ— quod mundus iste factus sit, & a certo Tempore caeperit, & pro ipsa sui corruptione solvendus— esse Angelos Dei quosdam, & virtutes bonas, quae ei ministrent ad Salutem hominum consummandam— Then he adds as the fundamental principle of all, ad extra—▪ Quod per Spiritum sanctum Scripturae conscriptae sint.  
The sum of what he saith (for he paraphrastically enlargeth some points) is this; The Doctrine of the Church being successively derived from the Apostles, and abiding till that present in the Churchees, that only is to be credited as a Truth, which in nothing differs from that eclesiastical. Tradition, withal; that the Holy Apostles preaching the Faith of Christ, most clearly delivered to all Believers, even to the more dull and simple, whatsoever Points they conceived necessary for them, the Particular Heads whereof were these which follow, being indeed the Articles of the Creed, viz, That there is but one God, who made all things of nothing: That this God sent his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, begotten of the Father before every Creature, by whom all Creatures were made: He was incarnate, and made man, assuming a Body like in all things to us but that it was borne of the Virgin, being conceived by the Holy Ghost: He truly Died (not in apearance) the common death of all men, for he truly risen again: Having conversed with his Disciples after his Resurrection, he was taken up [into Heaven:] That the Holy Ghost is associate with the Father and Son, in the same Honour and Dignity:— there shall be a time for the Resurrection of the Dead when this body which is sown in corruption, shall rise in incorruption; and that which is sown in dishonour shall rise in glory— This world was made and had a certain time of beginning, and by reason of ' its corruptability shall be at length dissolved— That there are certain Angels of God, and good spirits, which minister unto him in procuring the salvation of man kind. He adds at last an other Traditional Foundation.— viz. That the Scriptures were written by the Holy Ghost.  
After all he concludes, oportet igitur velut elementis ac fundamentis hujusmodi uti, That we ought to make use of these as the first elements, and Grounds of Christian Religion, which he accordingly explains at large in those four books of his entitled therefore, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the Principles of Christianity a work fit for his office of Catachist, which he bore for many years in the Church of Alexandria.  
4. Marcellus Bishope of Ancyra in Gallatia, fellowsuferer with the great Athanasius, being accused by the Arians of Sabellianisme (as Athanasius also was) and by their means expelled his Bishopric flies unto julius Bishope of Rome for succour: and having long there in vain expected his adversaries coming, by confronting of whom he desired to have accquitted himself, at length, weary of longer stay, he takes his leave of julius, and leaves behind him an Epistle, wherein he makes this Profession of Faith, exceeding conformable to that of the Apostles, as we read it at this Day.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
That is,— I Believe in God Almighty and in Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son, our Lord: conceived by the Holy Ghost, and borne of the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried: the third Day he risen again from the Dead: he ascended into the Heavens, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father: whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead: And, [I believe] in the Holy Ghost: the Holy Church: the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the Body: the Life Everlasting.  
But this is not all; to show that this Creed was not of his own framing, a little after he subjoins these words— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: that is, Having received this Faith from the holy Scriptures, and being taught it of my spiritual Progenitors [or Divine Ancestors] I both Preach it in the Church of God, and have now wrote it unto thee, O julius. This Epistle with the foresaid Creed enclosed, we find recorded by Epiphanius in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Haeres. 72.  
Now whom doth Marcellus mean by his Progenitors or Ancestors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to, or in God? Sure he understands either his Godfathers at the Font; or the Bishops of the Church, by whom he was instructed in the Ancient Faith; Or lastly (which seems to me most probable) the Apostles themselves, who were the true and proper Fathers or Founders of the Christian Church; whence that of S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is. Though you have ten thousand Instructers, or Pedagogues in Christ, yet have ye not many Fathers: It follows there, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, For in jesus Christ I have begotten you through the Gospel. 1 Cor. 4. 15.  
5. S. Basil the Great, in his Tract 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, concerning the Creed, or Christian Faith, sets down this Symbol or Confession thereof— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, We Believe and profess one only true, and good God, the Father Almighty, of whom are all Things, the God and Father of our Lord and God Jesus Christ, and one only▪ begotten Son of his, our Lord and God Jesus Christ, the only True one by whom all things were made both visible and invisible, and by whom all things consist, who was in the Beginning with God, and was God; and afterward according to the Scripture, he appeared upon Earth and conversed with men; being in the form of God, he thought it not robbery to be equal with God, yet he made himself of no reputation, and taking upon him the form of a Servant by being borne of a Virgin, and being found in fashion as a man, he fulfilled all things which concerned him, and were written of him: according to the commandment of his Father, he became obedient to the Death, even the Death of the Cross: and the third Day arising from the Dead, according to the Scriptures, he appeared to his holy Disciples, and to the Rest according as it is written: he ascended into the Heavens, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father: from whence he shall come, at the end of this world, to raise up all, and to render to every one according to his works; when the righteous shall be taken into Life Eternal, and the Kingdom of Heaven, and the sinners shall be condemned to everlasting punishment, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched: And, in one only Holy Ghost the Comforter, by whom we are sealed to the day of Redemption, the Spirit of Truth.  
Here we have all the Articles of the Creed, but two, viz. The Belief of the Holy Catholic Church and the forgiveness of sins, which he sets down in the ensuing words; wherein he largely descants on the gifts of the Holy Ghost towards the Church— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. By which Spirit we are sealed unto the day of Redemption, the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of Adoption, by whom we cry Abba, Father; which distributeth, and effecteth in every one the Graces of God unto edification, according to his pleasure, the good Spirit which leadeth into all Truth and establisheth all that believe in the true and exact knowledge, in the Godly and Spiritual service and worship, and true confession of God the Father, and his only-begotten Son etc.  
Concluding thus— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thus we think, and thus we baptise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, into a coessential Trinity, according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said go and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Sun, and of the Holy Ghost.  
A little after he intimates from whom he received the foresaid confession of faith, namely, from Christ and his Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. I beseech you, saith he, that leaving off superfluous questions, and unhandsome contentions about words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you would be contented with those Doctrines, which have been delivered by word of mouth from the Holy [Apostles] and the Lord himself; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Doctrines not written, but spoken, spoken by the Saints and holy Apostles by the Direction & inspiration of the Lord; he the Author, they the instruments; Doctrines, opposed to curious or superfluous questions, and strifes about words; that is, Doctrines of moment, or fundamental points, such as the Creed contains. And this he dilivers more plainly in the closing up of all— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Beware of false Prophets, and withdraw yourselves from every Brother that walketh disorderly— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. And not after the Tradition which they received of us; let us exactly and orderly walk according to the Rule of the Saints, as being built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ our Lord being the head-corner-stone, in [or, by] whom the whole building fitly joined together groweth into an holy Temple in the Lord. This Tradition, this exact Rule, this Foundation of the Apostles to what can it be applied more congruously, than unto the Creed of the Apostles, the substance whereof he sets down before?  
6. Gregory Nyssen, Brother to the Great S. Basil, explains the Heads of the Creed in that Oration of his which is entitled; Catachetica Oratio magna.  
7. Cyril, Patriarch of Jerusalem, sets down the whole Creed in distinct Articles, and explains it at large in several catechetical Orations; as whose office it was, to instruct all his Auditors, not to oppose one Heretic, which, as I said, caused some of the. Fathers to set down the Creed more imperfectly, leaving out those Articles, which were not impugned. Cyrils' Creed is this which follows— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is, I believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven & earth & of all things visible & invisible: and, in one Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten son of God begotten of his Father before all worlds, incarnate and made man: crucified, and buried: he risen again from the Dead the third Day: he ascended into the Heavens and sitteth at the right hand of the Father: and shall come to judge the quick and the dead: And [I believe] in the Holy Ghost the Comforter, who spoke by the Prophets; one holy Catholic Church: one Baptism of Repentance for the remission of sins: the Resurrection of the Body and the Life Everlasting.  
Any one at the first sight may perceive that this is the same with that which we now call the Apostles Creed, in the full sense and substance of it, only a little altered in some few words, and explained in two or three Articles, by some Additionall Particles. This was the confession of Faith received in the Church of jerusalem, the mother Church of the Christian World, where this Cyril was Catechist, and afterward Patriarch. Ruffinus calls it Symbolum Orientale, the Creed of the Eastern Church, and compares it in his Exposition, with the Roman, and Aquileian. But of this, more hereafter.  
8. chrysostom hath wrote two Homilies upon the Creed in the former whereof he sets the Creed down in this form, which I am to give you out of the Latin Edition of Erasmus having not as yet met with the Greek Original, although sought for both, in Sr H. Saviles' Edition, and that of Fronto ducaeus— Credo in Deum Patrem Omnipotentem: & in unicum Filium ejus, Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum: iste natus est de. Spiritu Sancto ex Mariâ Virgin: crucifixus est sub Pontio Pilato; sepultus est, postquam mortuus: tertia die a mortuis resurrexit: sedet ad dextram Patris: inde venturus est judicare vivos & mortuos; credo in Spiritum sanctum: Iste spiritus perducet ad sanctam Ecclesiam: ipsa est quae dimittit peccata, promittit carnis resurrectionem: promittit vitam aeternam. that is— I believe in God the Father Almighty: and in his only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ conceived by the holy Ghost, borne of the Virgin Mary. crucified under Pontius Pilate, dead and buried: the third Day he risen again from the dead: he sitteth at the right hand of the Father: from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead: I believe in the holy Ghost: He bringeth us to the holy Church: she it is, which forgiveth sins; promiseth the resurrection of the Body: promiseth Life Everlasting. The consonancy of this Creed to that of the Apostles is sufficiently manifest, without farther Descant:  
To these Testimonies, I shall crave leave to add that Confession of Faith, which the Arch-heretick Arius (with his companion Euzoius) presented to the Emperor Constantine in writing; who being persuaded by a certain Presbyter (whom his Sister Constantia at her death had commended to him) sent for Arius to Constantinople (after he had been banished from Alexandria, for not subscribing to the Nicene council) whither being come with Euzoius, the Emperor asked him whether or no he assented to the Nicen Creed Arius feigning that he did, was straitwaise commanded by him to put his Belief in writing, which he did in this Form in the name of himself and Euzoius; we find it thus recorded, by Socrates in his Ecclesiastical History lib. 1. c. 19— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i.e. We believe in one God the Father Almighty and in the Lord Jesus Christ his Son begotten of him before all worlds, God the word, by whom all things were made both which are in Heaven and which are one Earth: who came down, and was incarnate: and Suffered: and Rose again: and ascended into the Heavens, & shall come again to judge the Quick and Dead: And in the Holy Ghost: the Resurrection of the Body: the life of the world to come: and the Kingdom of Heaven: and one Catholic Church of God, spread over the whole world.— This Confession of Faith, as I conceive by the Form was the Ancient Creed of the Church of Alexandria (whereof this Arius was Presbyter) deposited therein by its first Bishop S. Mark, who received it from the mouths of the Apostles, and more particularly from St Peter who sent him thither; for it was common with the Heretics to shelter themselves under the general Terms of the Apostles Creed, which admitted of divers constructions, and so lay the more open to be abused, and perverted by their unsound Glosses: thus did Photinus, aworse than Arius some years after; & thus do his Disciples the Socinians at this Day. Only Arius may be thought to have somewhat enlarged this Apostolical Creed in the second Article, touching the Divinity of our Saviour the better to counterfeit his assent to what the Nicene Fathers had declared in that Point, and decreed to be held.  
From these Testimonies of the Greek Fathers, who can best witness the Faith of the Eastern Churches, we may raise these observations; but more especially, from the two Creeds of Marcellus, and chrysostom (to which we may add that of Arius.)  
1. That the Greek Church received the Apostles Creed by Tradition, as well as the Latin Church; therefore it was no composure of the Roman Clergy, as some invidiously affirm.  
2. That this Creed, was extant amongst them long before the year 400 (contrary to the assertion of some) for both Marcellus, and chrysostom flourished before that time especially Marcellus, who convinced the Arians in the Council of Nice, as Epiphanius tells us in the fore cited place; Haer. 72.  
3. That these Creeds are found upon record, after that the Nicene Creed was framed; which shows that the Nicene as it was not the first, so it was not the only Creed of the Greek Church: yea, it shows that the Apostles Creed was of public use amongst them rather than the Nicene which was made but upon a particular occasion, viz. The detection and suppression of the Arian heresy. Afterwards indeed, when a full Creed was composed in the second General Council held at Constantinople, wherein the four last Articles of the Apostles Creed were added to the Nicene and some of them amplified more at large, partly for Illustration of the Faith, partly in opposition to Heretics; then that Creed began to be publicly used in the Greek Church, and inserted in their liturgy; yet, not as a Creed contradistinct to that of the Apostles, but as one including or containing it; so that we may not unfitly call it the Apostles Creed grown Bigger: the parts or Limbs the same; the Quantity only, augmented.  
4. That the Greek Particle [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] which S. Cyrils' Creed adds to the four last Articles, redounds by a Pleonasme (as also in that of Arius) for neither Marcellus, nor chrysostom prefix it to those Articles.   

CAP. V.  
Testimonies of the Creed; and the composure thereof by the Apostles, taken out of the Latin Fathers, who bear witness for the Westrne Churches. Some objections, to the contrary, Answered.  
YOU have heard what the Greek Fathers say concerning the Creed, and its Original; its Frame and Authors: let us now come nearer home, and examine what the Fathers of the Western Church, and other Doctors of note, famous for learning and Antiquity, have delivered concerning the same Argument, and we shall find I hope an unanimous Consent, a joint agreement in their Testimonies; which will not a little confirm this Truth to the impartial Reader, when he shall find both East and West to bring in their suffrages, in the cause. These Witnesses: shall be fourteen, viz, Clemens Romanus, Irenaeus, Turtullian, Ambrose, Jerome, Austin, Maximus Taurinensis, Crysologus, Leo the Great, Cassianus, Eusebius Gallicanus, Venantius Fortunatus, Isidore of Sevil, and Rabanus Maurus,  
1. Clemens Romanus, contemporary to the Apostles and mentioned by St Paul as his fellow-worker. Phil. 4. 3. Successor also to St Peter in the Bishopric of Rome, in his first Epistle Ad Fratrem Domini (translated into Latin by Ruffinus) hath these words— Apostoli collatâiis scientiâ linguarum, adhuc in uno positi, symbolum quod fidelis nunc tenet ecclesia, unusquisque quod sensit dicendo condiderunt; ut discedentes ab invicem, hanc Regulam per omnes Gentes praedicarent: that is, the Apostles having the gift of Tongues conferred upon them, being assembled together, framed that Creed which the Christian Church now keepeth, every one of them contributing thereto; that so, departing each from other, they might publish this Rule amongst all Nations. And alittle after— Hoc praedicti Sancti Apostoli interse per Spiritum Sanctum salubriter condiderunt, This Creed the said Holy Apostles jointly and profitably composed, through the Assistance of the Holy Ghost. But lest we should doubt, whether the Creed he here makes mention of, were the same which we now have, he thus briefly Sums up the Heads of it— Summam ergò totius fidei Catholicae recensentes, in qua & integritas credulitatis ostenditur, & unius Dei omnipotentis, id est, Sanctae Trinitatis aequalitas declaratur: & mysterium Incarnationis Filii Dei, qui pro Salute humani Generis a Patre de Coelo descendens, de virgine nasci dignatus est quoque ordine, & quando mortem pertulerit: quomodo sepultus surrexerit: & in carne ipsa Coelos ascenderit ad dexteramque Patris consederit: & Judex venturus sit: & qualiter Remissionem Peccatorum sacro Baptismo renatis contulerit, & Resurrectionem humani Generis in eadem Carne, in vitam aeternam, futuram; sic docuerunt. That is,  
The Apostles recounting the sum of the Catholic Faith, wherein the whole Belief of a Christian is declared, viz. The Equality of one Almighty God the Holy Trinity; and the mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God, who for the Salvation of mankind descended from the Father out of Heaven, deigned to be borne of a Virgin; how, and when he suffered Death; how after his Burial, he arose, and in the same Body ascended into Heaven, and sat on the right hand of the Father: and shall come as Judge; and how he conferred remission of sins on those who were regenerated by holy Baptism; and, that there shall be a resurrection of mankind in the same Body unto life Everlasting; thus have they taught us.  
And alittle after Et quod in primordio ejusdem Symboli praeponitur, Credo in Deum Patrem Omnipotentem— praeclarum fidei Testimonium & Fundamentum in prima fronte monstratur▪ that is, That which is set in the beginning of the Creed I believe in God the Father Almighty, shows in the very front a renowned Testimony and Foundation of the Faith.  
I am not ignorant that not a few among the Learned doubt of this Epistle whether it truly belong to Clemens, or be a counterfeit set forth under his name, as many Decretal Epistles have been falsely ascribed to several of the Ancient Bishops of Rome; and they bring this for the chief, if not only, reason of their Doubt, that the Author of this Epistle, which is entitled unto james the Brother of the Lord, makes mention therein of the Death of Peter, whereas Peter▪ survived james; james being Martyred at jerusalem about the midst of Nero's Empire as both josepus and Eusebius witness; but Peter was Crucified at Rome, in the latter end thereof. For the satisfaction of which doubt, I shall desire my Reader to consider what follows.  
First that the stile of this Epistle relisheth of the Ancient primitive Simplicity, and that it is entitled, To the Brother of the Lord, with this Addition— Episcopo Episcoporum, regenti Hebraeorum sanctam Ecclesiam Hierosolymis, sed & omnes Ecclesias quae ubique Dei Providentiâ fundatae suut. In which words the Author of this epistle gives this james two eminent Titles, namely, Bishop of Bishops, and Universal Bishop; and both of them, I conceive, in regard of his See jerusalem, where he was constituted the first Bishop that ever was in the Christian World; the Bishop of that Church, from which all other Churches sprang, as so many Daughters from the Mother Church, and therefore were to honour her accordingly. Isa. 2. 3. Now we know that in after Ages the Bishop of Rome was taxed for challenging to himself the Title of Episcopus Episcoporum (as Stephen by S. Cyprian; Conc. Carthag. apud Cyp.) and universal Bishop (which Boniface the third assumed by the grant of the Emperor Phocas) whereas here these Titles are not challenged by Clemens Bishop of Rome, but voluntarily given to an other; it is therefore wholly improbable, that this Epistle was feigned by some latter writer (as many of the decretal Epistles have been since) under the name of Clemens, to magnify the Bishop of Rome's Authority, since, nemo gratis mendax.  
Secondly, Ruffinus the forenamed Presbyter of Aquileia, translated it out of Greek into Latin, as the genuine Epistle of Clemens, it appears therefore that it was written at first in Greek (as was also, that famous Epistle of his to the Corinthians) so not by some latter Roman Author; and (at least) before the time of Ruffinus who flourished toward the latter end of the fourth Century.  
Thirdly, the Epistle might probably be thus inscribed, Fratri Domini, To the Lords Brother; then some latter Sciolus, finding James peculiarly honoured with this Title by S. Paul Gal. 2, v. 9 And finding that he about that Time was Bishop of jerusalem, too rashly added the name, jacobo: whenas, Clemens might well write it Simoni Cleophae the Brother of james, and his successor in that See: his Brother, as appears by comparing Mat. 13. 55. Mar. 15. 40. joh. 19, 25. And his successor in the Bishopric, as is witnessed by Eusebius, and others.  
Fourthly; But if the name [jacobo] must needs stand we may possibly suppose, that Clemens so far off, might not hear of the death of james. (as the Jews at Rome heard no evil report of S, Paul Act. 28. 21. from their countrymen in the East though for many years they had persecuted him both with tongue, and hand) and so write to him as alive: or, if this seem not probable, we have a very fair testimony out of the Chronicle called Epitome Temporum, that this james survived Nero, and consequently survived Peter (this Chronicle was set forth by Ios. Scaliger, and reacheth down from Adam to the 20th year of Heraclius the Emperor) the words are these— 1. Olymp: CCXII The Emp. Galba (Nero's Successor) and Titus Ruffinus being Consuls, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is. The the same year S. James the Apostle and Patriarch of Jerusalem whom S. Peter placed in his Throne [or See] as he was going up to Rome died; and Simeon (who is also called Simon) assumed the dignity of the Bishopric of Jerusalem, and became Patriarch. Which well agrees with that of Eusebius in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to wit. That Simon Cleophae succeeded James after the Destruction of Jerusalem; his words are— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The foresaid Epitome is thus praised by that Great Critic Scaliger, Opus utilissimum quanquam Scriptoris Idiotae. Onuphrius Panumus (whom Scaliger calls the Father of History) called it by the name of Fasti Siculi, because it was found first in Sicily, when learning revived in these Westrne Parts. But the Learned Vossius lib. 2. de Hist. Gr. cap. 23. Calls it by a third name, Chronicum Alexandrinum from Matt. Raderus (who set it out with his Translation) Eò quod in frontispicio illud commendet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who was probably the 50th Patriarch of that See An Do. JICXL Opus est, saith the same Vossius, Cronologis perutile, vel ob multa ex Africano atque Eusebio excerpta quae frustra alibi quaeras. See Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 23.  
2. Irenaeus, the Apostes Scholar but once removed (as who was Scholar to Polycarpus, the Scholar of St John) makes mention of the Apostles Creed, and sets it down lib. 1. adu. haer. cap. 2. I shall cite his words in the Original Greek (for in that tongue he wrote, as having been bred in the Asian Church, though afterwards translated to the Bishopric of Lions in France) according as Epiphanius records them. lib. 1. haer. 31.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is,  
The Church although dispersed throughout the whole world, from one end of the Earth unto the other, hath received from the Apostles and their Disciples▪ The Belief in One God the Father Almighty, who made Heaven, and Earth and the Seas, and Whatsoever is in Them: and in one Jesus Christ the Son of God, who was made flesh for our Salvation: and in the holy Ghost who published by the Prophets the offices and [double] coming of the Beloved Jesus Christ our Lord, his Birth of a Virgin, his Passion, his Resurrection from the Dead, and his bodily assumption into Heaven; and his coming from Heaven in the Glory of his Father to recollect all things, and to raise again every body of all mankind, to the end that every knee of Things in Heaven, and things one earth, and things under the earth may bow to Jesus Christ, our Lord and God & Saviour, & King, & every tongue may confess unto him; and that he may do righteous judgement unto All, by sending the wicked Spirits, the Transgressing and Apostate Angels, with the ungodly, unjust, lawless and blasphemous men, into everlasting Fire; and freely bestowing that life, immortality & eternal Glory, which he had purchased, one those who are Just, & Holy, who have kept his commandments, and abode in his love, either from the beginning, or since their Repentance and Conversion.  
The same Father, lib. 3. cap. 4. sets down the Creed more summarily and contractedly, with this preface to the form— Quid si neque Apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis, nun oportebat ordinem sequi Traditionis, quam tradiderunt iis quibus committebant Ecclesias? Cui ordinationi assentiunt multae gentes Barbarorum, eorum qui in Christum credunt, sine charactere vel atramento scriptam habentes per spiritum in cordibus suis Salutem, & veterem Traditionem diligenter custodientes— In unum Deum credentes, Fabricatorem Caeli & terrae & omnium quae in eyes sunt, per Jesum Christum Dei Filium, qui propter eminentissimam erga figmentum suum Dilectionem, eam quae esset ex Virgine Generationem sustinuit ipse per se Hominem adunans Deo; & Passus sub Pontio Pilato, & Resurgens & in claritate receptus, in Gloria venturus Salvator eorum qui saluantur, & Judex eorum qui judicantur, & mittens in ignem aeternum Transfiguratores veritatis, & contemptores Patris sui, & Adventus ejus— what if the Apostles saith he, had not left us the Scriptures, ought we not to follow the Rule and series of Tradition, which the Apostles delivered unto them to whom they committed the charge of the Churches? which Rule is held, and assented to by many of those barbarous Nations who believe in Christ, having the Doctrine of Salvation written by the Spirit in their Hearts without inky characters and diligently keeping the old Tradition, Believing in one God, Maker of Heaven and earth, and of all Things therein, through Jesus Christ the Son of God, who out of his most eminent love towards his Creature, undertook to be borne of a Virgin, thus uniting God and man in his own Person; he suffered under Pontius Pilate, and Rising again, was gloriously received [into Heaven] He shall come again in Glory, the Saviour of those who are to be saved, and the Judge of those who are to be condemned, casting into everlasting fire the corrupters of the Truth, the Despisers of his Father, and contemners of his coming.  
3. Turtullian, Lib. 1. adu. haeret. cap. 13. Having en gauged himself in the combat with the whole body of Heretics produceth against them the Body of the Faith, or Apostolical Creed, under the Title of Regula Fidei, which he sets down in these words. Regula est fidei, ut jam hinc quid credamus, profiteamur; illa sc: quâ creditur— unum omninò Deum esse nec alium praeter mundi conditorem, qui universa de nihilo produxerit, per verbum suum primò omnium emissum, Id verbum Filium ejus appellatum, in nomine Dei variè visum patriarchis, in Prophetis semper auditum: Postremò delatum ex Spiritu Dei Patris & virtute in Virginem Mariam, carnem factum in utero ejus & ex eâ natum Hominem, & esse Jesum Christum: exinde praedicasse novam legem, & novam promissionem regni Coelorum, virtutes fecisse: fixum Cruci: tertiâ die resurrexisse: in Coelos ereptum, sedere ad dextram Patris: misisse vicariam vim Spiritus Sancti, qui credentes agate: venturum cum claritate ad sumendos Sanctos in vitae aeternae & promissorum caelestium fructum, & ad prophanos judicandos Igni perpetuo, facta utriusque Partis resuscitatione, cum carnis resurrectione. that is— The Rule of Faith whereby we profess what we believe, is this, that there is one only God the same with the Creator of the world, who made all things of nothing, by his Word which he first of all sent forth [or which first of all came from him] This Word, called also his Son, variously [or in divers Forms] appeared in the name of God unto the patriarchs, was always heard to speak in the Prophets; at length conveyed by the Spirit and Power of God the Father into the Virgin Mary, was incarnate in her Womb, of her born Man and is Jesus the Christ: After this he Published a new Law, and the new Promise of the Kingdom of Heaven, wrought miracles: was fastened to the Cross: risen again the third Day: being taken up to Heaven, sitteth on the right Hand of the Father, sent the Deputy-power of the Holy Ghost to guide those who believe: shall come with Glory to assume the Saints unto the enjoyment of everlasting Life, and the Heavenly promises; and to adjudge the Profane to everlasting Fire; having raised up both Parties, by the Resurrection of the Body. Then he concludes— Haec Regula â Christo, ut probabitur, instituta, nullas habet apud nos quaestiones, nisi quas Haereses inferunt, & quae Haereticos faciunt. This Rule instituted, as will be proved, by Christ himself, admits of no doubts amongst us, but such as Heresies produce, and produce Heretics.  
Thus, ye see, Tertullian writing in general, as he doth in this Book, against all Heretics, puts down all the Articles thereof which were opposed by any heretic, either before or in his Age: For.  
1. Christ's descents into Hell, is included in the Article of the Resurrection▪ or presupposed by it, as in some other Creeds; but of this more hereafter.  
2. The Article of the Catholic Church is not so clearly put down as the rest, because not oppugned till Novatus and Donatus arose; which was after Tertullia's Death.  
3. Forgiveness of Sins is employed in the New Promise of the Kingdom of Heaven, whereof this is the First, and the Foundation to the rest.  
Yet, in another book of his, he makes mention of these two latter Articles, (namely, this of the Church, and The Forgiveness of Sins) as solemnly professed, at Baptism. Cum sub tribus & testatio fidei & sponsio salutis pignerentur, necessariò adilcitur Ecclesiae mentio quoniam, ubi Tres, id est, Pater & Filius, & Spiritus Sanctus; ibi Ecclesia, quae trium Corpus est. That is, When the Confession of our Faith, and the Covenant of our Salvation, are engaged under the Authority of Three, the Church is of necessity mentioned with them; for where those Three are, the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, there is that Church also, which is the Body of those Three. De Bapt: adu. Quintillan. cap: 6.  
And alittle after, giving the reason why Christ himself did not Baptise in Person; he shows how incongruous it had been for him, to have used the received form of the Church— Ne moveat quosdam, quòd Ipse non tinguebat; in quem tingueret? In paenitentiam? Quò ergò illi Praecursorem? In peccatorum remissionem, quam verbo dabat? In semetipsum, quem humilitate celabat? In Spiritum Sanctum, qui nondum a Patre descenderat? In Ecclesiam quam nondum Apostoli struxerant? That is— Let it not trouble any; that Christ himself did not Baptise: in whose name, or to what end should he have Baptised? To Repentance? Why then had he a forerunner? For Remission of sins, which he gave by his Word? In his own Name which in humility he concealed? In the Holy Ghosts, who as yet was not descended from the Father? into the Church, which the Apostles had not as yet built? cap. 11.  
A little after him, S Cyp. in his Epistle to Magnus (being the 76.) speaking of the Novatians, who retained the old wonted form of words in the baptismal Intertogatories, expresseth one of them thus— Credis remissionem peccatorum, & vitam aeternam per sanctam Ecclesiam? Dost thou believe the Remission of sins, and Life Eternal, by the Holy Church? in which words it is clear that these two Articles were part of the confession of Faith used at Baptism; that Life Eternal was a distinct Article from that of the Resurrection; and that the Particle, In, which Tert. prefixeth to the Articles of the Church, and Remission of sins, is not significant, but redundant, seeing that S. Cyp. here omitts it. compare his Epist: to Januarius etc. viz. the 70. in Pamel. Edit.  
But in two other Tracts, he sets down the Creed more briefly. First. lib. de virg. vel cap. 1. Regula fidei una omninò est, sola immobilis, & irreformabilis▪ Credendi sc. in unicum Deum Omnipotentem, mundi conditorem: & Filium ejus Jesum Christum: natum ex Virgin Maria: crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato: tertia die resuscitatum a mortuis: receptum in Coelis, sedentem nunc ad dextram Patris: venturum judicare vivos & mortuos; per carnis etiam Resurrectionem. Hac lege fidei manente, caetera jam Discipilinae & Conversationis, admittunt novitatem correctionis, operante sc: & proficiente usque in finem gratia Dei, That is, The Rule of Faith is one only, solely , and unchangeable, to wit— Of Believing in one only God Almighty, the Maker of the world; and in Jesus Christ his Son; borne of the Virgin Mary; crucified under Pontius Pilate; the third Day raised again from the Dead; received into the Heavens, and now sitting at the right hand of the Father; who shall come to judge the Quick and the Dead, by the Resurrection of the body— This Law of Faith abiding firm, the other parts of Christian Discipline, and Conversation, are capable of amendment and reformation, the Grace of God still working, and proceeding onward unto the end of the world.  
Secondly, In his book against Praxeus, cap. 2. He sets down the Creed in this short Form Unicum Deum credimus, sub hac tamen Dispensatione quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicimus, ut unici Dei sit & Filius Sermo ipsius, qui ex ipso processerit per quem omnia facta sunt, & sine quo factum est nihil: hunc missum a Patre in Virginem, & ex eâ natum Hominem & Deum, filium hominis & filium Dei, & cognominatum Jesum Christum: hunc passum, hunc mortuum, & sepultum secundùm Scripturas: & resuscitatum a Patre: & in Coelos resumptum, sedere ad dexteram Patris: venturum judicare vivos & mortuos: qui exinde miserit secundùm Promissionem suam a Patre Spiritum sanctum Paracletum, Santificatorem fidei eorum, qui credunt in Patrem, & Filium, & Spiritum sanctum. That is, We believe one only God; yet under this Order, or Oeconomy, that this one God hath a Son, his Word, who came forth from him, by whom all Things were made, and without whom nothing was made; he was sent by God the Father into the Virgin, and borne of her, God and man, the Son of man, and the Son of God, called Jesus Christ: he Suffered, Died, and was Buried, according to the Scriptures: was raised up again by the Father: and being taken up again into Heaven, sitteth at the right hand of the Father: he shall come to judge the Quick and the Dead: who afterward, according to his promise, sent from the Father the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, the Sanctifier of their Faith, who believe in the Father, and the Son, and the holy Ghost.  
Then, showing the Original of the Creed, he tells us Hanc Regulam ab initio Evangelii decurrisse, etiam ante Priores quosque haereticos, nedùm ante Praxean hesternum, probabit tam ipsa Posteritas omnium haereticorum, quam ipsa novellitas Praxeae hesterni; quo peraequè adversùs universas haereses jam hinc praejudicatum sit, Id esse verum, quodcunque primum; Id esse adulterum, quodcunque posterius. (i) That this Rule hath descended to us from the beginning of the Gospel before any Heretic arose, much more before Praxeas a fellow of yesterday, will easily appear both by the succession of all Heretics, and the yersterday. Rise of the novelist Praxeas; which newness doth equally convince all Heresies and condemn them, according to this Rule or Precedent, That which is most Ancient, is the Truth; that which Follows, is the Forgery.  
4. St Ambrose, Serm. 38. Thus affirms; Duodecim Apostolorum Symbolo Fides sancta concepta est, qui velut periti Artifices in unum convenientes, Clavem suo consilio conflaverunt; That is, The Holy Faith is comprehended (or, conceived) in the Creed of the twelve Apostles, who meeting together, like so many skilful workmen, by joint advice framed this Key of the Christian Belief, or mysteries of Religion.  
And in his 81. Epistle written by him, Bassianus, and others, to Syricius Bishop of Rome— Credatur Symbolo Apostolorum, quod Ecclesia Romana intemeratum semper custodit & servat; Let the Apostles Creed be believed, which the Church of Rome constantly keeps and preserves inviolate. So Canisius, and Augerius, in their Catechisms read the Place: but two Editions of Ambrose at Paris, viz. That of Erasmus, by Chevalonius, Anno Domini. 1529. And that of Felix Card de Monte Alto, 1586. Dedicated to Greg. 13. for [Intemerat●m] read [Iteratum] alluding, as I conceive, to the solemn Rehearsal of the Creed at Baptism, or in the public service of the Church but both these Readins come in effect, to one; for there's no better way to keep the Creed inviolate, and preserve it from corruption then the constant, public repeating of it; so, the Intemeratum, is an effect of the Iteratum.  
5. S. Jerome, in his Epistle to Pammachius, which he wrote against the errors of John Patriarch of Jerusalem, saith thus— In Symbolo fidei & spei nostrae, quod ab Apostolis traditum, non scribitur in Chartâ & Atramento, sed in Tabulis cordis carnalibus, post confessionem Trinitatis, & unitatem Ecclesiae, omne Christiani dogmatis Sacramentum carnis Resurrectione concluditur; In the Creed [or Profession] of our Faith and Hope, which being delivered by the Apostles, is not written with ink and paper, but in the fleshy Tables of the Heart, after the confession of the Trinity, and the unity of the Church, the whole mystery of the Christian belief is shut up with the Resurrection of the Body. Now he ends the Creed with the Article of the Resurrection, because (as some others of the Ancients) he reads the last Article of the Creed, thus— The Resurrection of the Body unto Life Eternal; thus joining two in one.  
6. S. Austin, in his 181. Sermon, de Tempore, concures with Ruffinus in the forecited Relation of the Apostles composing the Creed thus— Sancti Apostoli certam Regulam Fidei tradiderunt, quam secundum numerum Apostolorum duodecim sententiis comprehensam, Symbolum vocaverunt, per quam Credentes Catholicam tenerent unitatem, & per quam haereticam convincerent Pravitatem, Tradunt enim, quod post ascensionem Domini & Salvatoris nostri ad Patrem, cum per Aduentum Spiritus Sancti Discipuli ejus inflammati, linguis omnium loquerentur; ad singulas quasque Nationes, ut Dei Verbum praedicarent, ituri ac discessuri ab invicem normam prius sibi futurae Praedicationis in common statuerunt, ne localiter, ab invicem Discedentes, diversum vel dissonum praedicarent his, qui ad fidem Christi invitabantur: omnes igitur in uno positi, & Spiritu sancto repleti, Breve suae praedicationis Indicium, conserendo in unum quod sentiebat unnsquisque computabant, atque hanc ita Credentibus dandam esse Regulam instituerunt. That is, The holy Apostles delivered a certain Rule of Faith, which having (according to their own number) comprehended in twelve Sentences they called a Symbol [or collation] by means of which the Believers might hold the Catholic unity, and convince the perverseness of Heretics. For we have received by Tradition, that after the Ascension of our Lord and Saviour to the Father, when his Disciples being inspired with fiery tongues by the holy Ghost coming on them, spoke all manner of languages; they being to departed each from other, and go unto all Nations, to preach the Word of God; decreed first by common Consent to frame a Rule, or Prescript to themselves of their after-preaching, least departing thus a sunder they might Preach, any thing Divers, or differently sounding to those who were invited unto the Faith of Christ: All of them therefore being gathered together, and filled with the holy Ghost, Collected into one a short Summary of their Preaching, every one contributing what he thought meet, and this they appointed to be given as a Rule unto Believers.  
The same Father, in his 115th Sermon, De Tempore, sets down distinctly all the Articles of the Creed, and distributes them in several, according to the number of the Twelve Apostles, to each of them, one▪  
Then, in his little Book De fide & Symbolo, he also sets down all the Articles of the Apostles Creed; withal, he tells us, lib 1. Retract. cap. 17. Concerning this small Tract, that he wrote it as an exposition of the Creed, which he was commanded to make, before a full Council of African Bishops Assembled at Hippo Regia, when he was yet but Presbyter. Ut tamen non fiat illa verborum contentio, quae tenenda memoriter competentibus traditur; Yet not tying himself to that form of words, which is delivered unto the competentes to be got without book. Whence we may observe.  
1. That there was a certain Form of Belief delivered to the Competentes, or Petitioners of Baptism, which they were to rehearse Memoriter, when they came to be Partakars of that Sacrament.  
2. That St Austin had liberty to vary from this, when he made the said exposition; namely, to vary from it, not in the matter, but in the manner of expression, as other Doctors of the Church before him had done, in their more Learned Tracts which they published to the world, as we have seen in some former examples.  
last; In his Enchiridion to Laurentius, cap. 7. he hath these words,— Ecce tibi est Symbolum, & Dominica Oratio; quid brevius auditur, aut Legitur; Behold, thou hast the Creed and the Lords prayer; canst thou hear or Read any thing more brief? Where, Hearing refers to the Creed, as being an Oral Tradition; and Reading to the Lords prayer, as being written in the Gospel. A little after he adds, Quomodò invocabunt in quem non crediderunt? Propter hoc Symbolum. How shall they call on him, on whom they have not believed? For this cause, the Creed was Framed. Where, he makes Prayer necessarily to depend on the Creed, according to that of the Apostle, Rom. 10. 14▪ Therefore, according to St Austin, the Creed was as necessary from the Beginning of Christianity, as the Lords Prayer; and the Apostles Creed it is which he there explains.  
7. Maximus Bishop of Turin; in his Homily entitled, De Traditione Symboli; having spoken before of the word Shiboleth, where by the Ephraimites were discovered at the Fourds of Jordan, he thus applies it to the Creed. Quod Beati Apostoli, ut ego reor, exemplum sequentes, Ecclesiae Dei quam adversus malitiam Diabolici furoris armabant, mysterium Symboli tradiderunt; ut quia sub uno Christi nomine, Credentium erat futura Diversitas, signaculum Symboli inter fideles, Persidosque secerneret, & alienus a Fide atque hostis apareret Ecclesiae, aut tanquam Baptizatus nescisset, aut tanquam Haereticus corrupisset. That is— Which Patterne, saith he, as I suppose, the Blessed Apostles setting before their Eyes, delivered unto the Church of God the mystery of the Creed, thereby arming it against the malice of the Devil's fury; that because under the same name of Christ, there would be (as they foresaw) not small diversity of Professors, the Creed, as a Mark or Seal, should distinguish between the true Believers; and misbelievers; and he might appear an Alien from the Faith, and an enemy to the Church, who pretending to be Baptised was found ignorant thereof, or by his Heresy had corrupted it.  
8. Petrus, surnamed Crysologus, Bishop of Ravenna, hath left behind him six Homilies, one the Apostles Creed, viz. From his 56th Sermon to the 63.  
9 Leo the Great, Bishop of Rome, in his eleventh Sermon, of the Passion, hath these words— Hac Fidei Regula, quam in ipso exordio Symboli per Authoritatem Apostolicae Institutionis accepimus, Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, quem Filium Dei patris▪ Omnipotentis unicum dicimus, eundem quoque de Spiritu Sancto natum ex Maria Virgine confitemur, That is, By this Rule of Faith, which in the Beginning of the Creed we have received by the Authority of an Apostolic Institution, we confess the same Jesus Christ our Lord, whom we call the only Son of God the Father Almighty, to be also borne of the Virgin Mary, by the Power of the holy Ghost.  
The same Leo, in his thirteenth Epistle, written to the Empress Pulchcria, speaks more fully and distinctly of the Creed— Ipsius Catholici Symboli brevis, & perfecta confessio, duodecim Apostolorum totidem est signata Sententiis; That is, That brief and perfect confession of Faith in the Catholic Creed, is distinctly marked forth with twelve Sentences, equal to the number of the Apostles.  
10. Cassianus S. Chrysostom's Deacon, and afterwards Presbyter of Marceilles in France, at the command of Leo the great, wrote seven Books De Incarnatione Domini, against Nestorius as he himself tells us in his Preface; in the sixth whereof he hath these words touching the composure of the Creed. Quod Graece 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur, Latin Collatio nominatur: Collatio autem ideo, quia in unum ab Apostolis Domini totius Catholicae legis fide, quiquid per universum Divinorum voluminum Corpus immensa funditur copia, totum in Symboli colligitur Brevitate perfecta- Hoc est breviatum verbum quod fecit Dominus, Fidem sc. duplicis Testamenti sui in pauca colligens,▪ sed sensum omnium Scripturarum in brevia concludens, sua de suis condens, & vim totius legis compendiocissimâ brevitate perficiens; consulens sc. in hoc, ut piissimus Pater, vel negligentiae quorundam filiorum suorum, vel imperitiae, ut non laboraret utique quamvis simplex & imperita mens capere, quod possit facile etiam memoria contineri vides ergo in Symbolo authoritatem Dei esse (verbum enim breviatum faciet Dominus super terram) sed Hominum fortasse quaeris; ne id quidem deest; per Hominem enim id Deus fecit: sicut enim immensam illam Scripturarum sacrarum Copiam qer Patriarchas & Prophetas maxime suos condidit; ita Symbolum per Apostolos suos, Sacerdotesque constituit— Nihil ergo in Symbolo deest, quod ex scriptis Dei per Apostolos Dei conditum, totum in se, quantum ad authoritatem pertinet, habet, quicquid vel hominum est, vel Dei: quamvis etiam quod per homines factum est, Dei existimandum sit, quia non tam illorum per quos factum est, quam illius credendum esse qui fecit. (i) That which in Greek is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Latins call a Collation, a Collation, I say, because the Apostles of the Lord gathered into one, in the perfect Breviary of the Creed (wherein they faithfully summed up all the Points of the Catholic Belief) whatsoever is largely diffused through the whole Body of the Scriptures— This is that short word which the Lord uttered, collecting the Faith of both Testaments, and concluding the sense of the whole Scripture, in a few brief Sentences, framing this Model out of his own materials, and comprising the virtue of the whole Divine Law in a most compendious Summary; in this manner consulting, as a most indulgent Father, to apply a Remedy unto the negligence and Ignorance of some of his Children, that so the most simple and unskilful Novice should not be troubled to comprehend it, which might also be easily contained in memory: thou seest therefore in the Creed the Authority of God himself (for a short work [or word] will the Lord make upon the Earth, Rom. 10. 28.) But perhaps thou requirest the Authority of Men? neither is that wanting; for God made the Creed by the Ministry of men; for as he composed the great Bulk of holy writ chiefly by his Patriarches and Prophets, so he framed the Creed by his Apostles & Prejsts— There is nothing therefore defective in the Creed, which being compiled by the Apostles of God out of the Scriptures of God, hath perfectly in itself, for matter of Authority, whatsoever either God or men can contribute; although indeed, that which was thus framed by men, is to be esteemed the Work of God, it not being so much to be ascribed unto those by whom it was made, as to him who made it; nor to be thought the work of the Instruments, but of the Author.  
Afterward, he thus sets down the Text of the Creed— Credo in unum & Solum verum Deum, Patrem Omnipotentem, Creatorem omnium visibilium & invisibilium Creaturarum: & in Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, Filium ejus unigenitum, & primogenitum totius Creaturae, ex eo natum ante omnia Secula, & non factum, Deum verum ex Deo vero, homoousion Patri, per quem & secula compaginata sunt, & omnia facta: qui propter nos venit, & natus est ex Maria Virgin: & Crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato, & sepultus: & tertiâ Die resurrexit, secundùm Scripturas: & in Coelos ascendit: & iterum veniet judicare vivos & mortuos; & reliqua in Symbolo, quòd Ecclesiarum omnium Fidem loquitur, etc.  
I believe in one only true God, the Father Almighty, maker of all Creatures both visible and invisible: and in Jesus Christ our Lord, his only begotten Son, the first Borne of every creature, begotten of him before all worlds, and not made, very God of very God, of one substance with the Father, by whom the worlds were Framed [or Ages set in order] and all things made: who for our sakes came and was borne of the Virgin Mary: crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried: the third Day he Risen again according to the Scriptures: and ascended into the Heavens: and shall come again to judge the Quick and the Dead; And the rest that Follows in the Creed which speaks the Belief of all the Churches.  
By this Creed he confutes Nestorius through his whole First Book, as by that Faith which was received throughout the whole world; concluding in these words. Licet omnium ecclesiarum sit, quia una omnium fides, peculiariter tamen Antiochenae urbis atque Ecclesiae est, illius sc. in qua tu editus, in qua institutus, in qua renatuses, That is, Although this be the Faith of all the Churches (which believe all alike) yet it is more peculiarly the Faith of the City and Church of Antioch, to wit of that Church wherein thou (O Nestorius) wert Borne, Bred, and Baptised.  
11. Eusebius Emesenus [or rather, Gallicanus] hath three Homilies extant on the Apostles Creed, wherein he sets down the Creed verbatim, and after explains it, Gaigneus Chancellor of Paris set forth these Homilies under the name of Eus. Emesenus, grounding his opinion on two places of the Decret. wherein these Homilies, are cited under his name, others have ascribed them to Caesarius Bishop of Arles; a third sort, to Eucherius Bishop of Lions; a fourth, unto Faustus' Bishop of Regium, because the Author of these Homilies saith, that he was made Bishop ex Abbate lirinensi, as Faustus was; so Bellarmine. But the Learned Andrea's Schottus more probably entitles them to Eusebius (not Bishop of Emesa in Syria) a Bishop of Gaul, (sprung perhaps from that, or some other Emesa; and thence denominated) the Latin style being too elegant for a Translation, and savouring of the French Dialect: and to confirm this, he citys an ancient verse made by a Scholar of Rabanus Maurus, wherein such an one is set down by name, though his Diocese be not mentioned. But whoever were the Author of them, his Testimony is of good credit, each one of the Five mentioned having been Ancient and famous Bishops.  
12. Venantius fortunatus Bishop of Poitiers, hath written an explication of the Apostles Creed; in the Preface whereof he hath these words— Collata Apostolis scientia linguarum, adhuc in uno positi, hoc est, inter se, Symbolum, unusquisque quod sensit dicendo, condidere: That is, The Apostles having conferred on them the gift of Tongues, before their dispersion, framed the Creed by mutual consent among themselves, every one contributing what he thought meet. And, a little after— Symbolum Collatio dicitur Graece, quia hoc ipsi interse per spiritum Sanctum salubriter condiderunt. That is, The word Symbol in Greek, signifies a Collation, because the Apostles jointly framed it for the common benefit, through the assistance of the holy Ghost.  
13. Isidore, Bishop of Sevil; lib. de off. Eccles. cap. 22. speaks thus of the Creed— Symbolum competentes accipiunt— in quo pauca 〈◊〉 verba, sed omnia continentur Sacramenta; de totis enim Scripturis haec breviatim collecta sunt ab Apostolis, ut quia plures Credentium literas nesciunt; vel qui sciunt; prae occupationibus Seculi Scripturas legere non possunt, haec corde retinentes, habeant sibi sufficientem scientiam salutarem: That is, The Competentes receive the Creed— wherein there are but few words, but all mysteries are therein contained, which were briefly gathered out of the whole Scriptures by the Apostles; because that many of the Believers being unable to read, and they who can, being hindered by their worldly businesses, retaining these few sentences in memory, might have at hand a sufficient knowledge of Salvation To these words he subjoins the history of the Creeds composure, out of Ruffinus, which we have had already.  
14. Rabanus Maurus, that Ancient Archbishop of Mentz, and the most Learned Man of his Age, may well be added unto the former, who lib. 1. De Instit. Cleric. c. 26. thus informs us. Catechumenus dicitur, qui doctrinam Fidei audit, necdum tamen Baptismū recepit. Competentes sunt, qui jam post doctrinam Fidei, post continentiam vitae, ad Gratiam Chrsti percipiendam festinant, ideoque appellantur competentes, id est, gratiam Christi petentes; nam Catechumeni tantùm audiunt, necdum petunt; competentes autem jam petunt, etc. Istis traditur salutare Symbolum, quasi commonitorium Fidei, & sanctae Confessionis Indicium, quo instructi agnoscant, quales jam ad Gratiam Christi exhibere se debeant. That is, He is called a Catechumene, who heareth the Doctrine of the Christian Faith, but hath not as yet received Baptism. Competentes are they, who after the D●●●●ine of Faith, and Strictness of life, hasten to be made Partakers of the Grace of Christ; & therefore are called Competentes, That is, Petitioners for the Grace of Christ; for the Catechumeni are only Auditors, not Askers, but the Competentes are Petitioners etc. To these Competentes the saving Creed is delivered, as a Remembrancer of the Faith, and a breviate of that holy confession, wherein being instructed, they may take notice, what manner of persons they ought to show themselves, in reference to the Grace of Christ. Where, by the Grace of Christ, he understands the Priviliges of Baptism, at the Participation whereof they constantly made a Public profession of their Faith by the Rehearsal of the Creed, therefore the Creed could not come much short of the Institution of that Sacrament, & consequently from no other Composers, but the Apostles.  
Now, for a conclusion to these Testimonies of the forenamed Ancient Fathers, both Greek, and Latin, I shall sum up what they say, and prove in this Argument, in three short observations.  
1. They affirm, that the Apostles by joint consent, & the special Concurrence or Inspiration of the holy Ghost, framed a certain set Rule of Faith, or Form of Belief; and that those Confessions or Rules of Faith which they rehearse in their writings were received from the Apostles; and this they build upon the constant tradition of their Ancestors; the same evidence which we have, for the number, Authors, and Authority of the Canonical Books of Scripture. This is affirmed by Origen, and Marcellus of Ancyra, for the Eastern Church; By Irenaeus, and Tertullian, for the Western; all four very Ancient, to name no latter ones.  
2. That, in setting down these Rules or Confessions of Faith they keep themselves often to the same words, ordinarily to the same method, but constantly to the same heads or Articles of Faith; that is, no Head, or Article of Belief set down in the Creed of one Church or Father, is different in sense from the same proportionably set down in another; much less opposite to any divers Article either precedent or subsequent; and for the Difference of expression, it is not considerable, as being caused by the diversity of Tongues, and opposition of Heretics, the Church in those Times both practising, and allowing it. As for the Imperfection of the Forms; though they omit (some of them) to express some of the Articles of the Creed in those full and exact Terms wherein we now have them, because either not pertaining to the subject they were handling, or not questioned by the Heretics against whom they wrote, or as employed and enclosed in the Body of those Articles which they set down, by a necessary Dependence (so S. Chrys. in his forecited Homily involves the four last Articles in that of the holy Ghost; as appears by his explication) yet some of them set down all the Articles, as Marcellus, Cyrill Jeros, Augustin; Chrysologus, Eusebius Gallicanus; Irenaeus also and Tertullian scarce want any one; especially Tertullian; And for those Fathers whose Forms are more defective, they cannot be said to differ in substance from the other who deliver the Creed more fully; especially seeing they had several Grounds and occasions for what they so did; this is a Diversity only quoad majus & minus; in quantity, not in substance; some Articles made for▪ one Father's purpose, some for another; more for this, fewer for that: And they who cite the Creed defectively, say that the Forms set down by them, came from the Apostles, as well as they who set it down more fully, their meaning is, that those imperfect Forms came from the Apostles, though not so imperfectly, for they affirm not, that the Apostles delivered no more Articles than what they there set down, but that what they so set down came from no other than the Apostles. St Austin, and Leo the Great sufficiently inform us, that the Apostles jointly delivered all the twelve Articles, according as we now have them, for they distinctly mention and reckon up so many with reference to the same number of the Apostles who composed the Creed; but the Fathers in their writings set them not always down entirely, but those only which were opposite unto those Heresies that they were in hand with to confute; for urging the Creed (as they did) by way of Argument, and Convictions they might well omit those Articles which made not for their purpose. Now, as some of the Fathers have thus contracted the Creed, so others have enlarged part of the Articles by way of Paraphrase, that so they might both distinguish themselves, and defend the Church, from the Heretics of those Days, who seemingly received the Apostles Creed, and subscribed to the words, but perverted it to a wrong sense, by their false, erroneous Glosses. Withal in their prefaces to this subject, they have showed the several Reasons or ends for which the Apostles framed it, the Delivery thereof by an oral Tradition, and the Ancient Custom of rehearsing it in Public, at the time of Baptism.  
3. That some of these fore-alleadged Fathers lived before, others since the Nicene Council, wherein that Creed was framed which bears the name of the Council, the first which was ever publicly authorized by the Church assembled in a Synod: yet they who lived before the Council, make mention of a former Creed, as Ireneus, Tertullian, Origen; and Marcellus of Ancyra; and they who lived afterward, set not down, or explain the Nicene Creed, but one fare more ancient, received, as they themselves say, from the first Founders of the Christian Church; as St Basil, Cyril, chrysostom, among the Greeks; St Austin, Maximus, Chrysologus, Eusebius Gallicanus, among the Latins: which General Tradition so fully witnessed by the Fathers of so distant Churches (who had no intercourse with each other) and in the most ancient, uncorrupt Times, aloud Proclaims the Authors, and Antiquity of the Apostles Creed.   

CAP. VI  
Testimonies of the Authors, and Authority of the Creed taken out of the Protestant Divines, who have unanimously received and acknowledged this Creed of the Apostles, together with the Nicene Creed, and that of Athanasius.  
ALthough the Testimonies of the Fathers, might well suffice in this Business, the Ancient Doctors of the Church being the most apt, and able Witnesses of so ancient a Tradition; yet, because the Church at this day (especially this Western Part of it) is so unhappily broken into several divisions, whereto divers too pertinaciously addicting themselves, think nothing right or true, but what their own side allows, and their heads maintain, thus measuring all Religion by the private judgement of some late masters of the Reformation (whom, though choice Instruments in that work, we ought not sure, to look on as infallible dictatours, lest in a cross, ridiculous vanity, we be found to imitate, what we so much blame in our Adversaries, by giving that unto them which we have taken from the Pope, and so setting up many for one) I thought it not amiss, by declaring their Judgement also in this Point, to comply a little with these prejudices, and so give satisfaction even to the most partial, who look upon the Fame of the Author, rather than the Force of the argument, and value the proof according to the esteem they have of the Person; as if the Truth were commended by the Teacher, not the Teacher by the Truth; contrary to that short, and sharp expostulation of Tertullian, num ex Personis aestimamus Fidem, an ex Fide Personas? In compliance I say, with these I have thought good to subjoin unto the consent of Antiquity, the suffrages of our latter Protestant Divines (many of them the prime Instruments of the Reformation) who fully agree with the Fathers in this Point, whereby also I shall show the convincing evidence of this Truth, which hath obtained a free confession from the Mouths & Pens of those who have rejected so many other doctrines received in the Church of Rome, Especially, matters of Tradition, such as the Creed is; which hath been so universally received by them, who have repudiated or Reform all that they could find any fault with after a most severe examination; & who in other Points not a few, have showed themselves not only of a contrary judgement unto the Church of Rome, but even of a Different among themselves.  
These Testimonies then, may justly much prevail with those who profess themselves of the Reformed Churches; not only, because of the Dignity of their Name, and the uncorruptness of their writings (as being composed of late, & not at all suspected of corruption by any Romish fraud) but also, that when they speak of the Apostles Creed, they questionless mean that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the same in express Terms which is now extant; and so, are not liable to that Exception, which some (though without just Ground) have made against those Creeds set down in the writings of the Fathers, that they vary from the Form we now have, at least in some words and in the manner of expression.  
Hereby also, two sorts of men may likewise see their error. First, the Romane-Catholik, who with alike loudness and lying proclaims to the world, that the Protestant or Reformed Churches have brought in a new Religion, whereas their endeavour hath been to restore the old unto its Primitive Simplicity, by paring off from it, as well eroneous superstructures in matter of Doctrine, as Superstitious or Burdenous Appendices in matter of Ceremonies, Discipline, Government, and Manners. Secondly, the novelist, who though he seems outwardly much to honour the Prime Reformers, yet adheres not to their Principles, but runs wildly after his own Inventions, foolishly measuring the Truth of Religion by its opposition to the Church of Rome, as if she had wholly apostatised from the Faith. Now between these two extremes, the old Catholic Truth keeps a mean, though for this cause much suffering on both sides. Mat. 11. 19 But Wisdom is justified of her Children.  
Among these Protestant Divines, I have already produced the Testimonies of Calvin, Beza, Grynaeus, and Paraeus, in their Comments on the fore-alleaged Places of Scripture, viz. Beza, and Grynaeus, on Rom. 12. 6. Calvin, and Paraeus, on Heb. 1. 6. To these I shall now add the Testinnies of others; and withal, cite Calvin and Grinaeus in their other writings.  
1. Martin Luther, in his Tract of the three Creeds, which we find extant in the seventh Tome of his works, hath these words— Because some, after Confession of my Faith, Questioned my Religion, I have thought good to Publish these three Symbols (as they are called) or confessions of the Christian Faith, packed up as it were in one bundle; which Creeds the universal Church hitherto hath with general Approbation taught, read, & sung, [quas quidem hactenus universa ecclesia magno consensu docuit, legit, & cantavit] Quare iterum testatum volo, sentire me unice cum vera Christianâ ecclesiâ, quae ista Symbola magno consensu hactenùs tum docuit, tum retinuit: & e contra, toto Pectore abhorrere ac dissentire a falsâ illâ & hypocriticâ ecclestâ quae est saevissimus hostis verae ecclesiae Christi, quaeque neglectis & obscuratis istis pulcherrimis Symbolis, multiplicem interea Idololatriam in ecclesiam invexit.  
Whereby, saith he, I again desire to testify, that I wholly conform my judgement to that true Christian Church, which hath hitherto concordantly retained, and delivered those Creeds, and on the contrary, do cordially descent from, and abhor that false and hypocritical Church, which is the most cruel enemy of the true Church of Christ; which neglecting and debasing those most excellent Creeds, hath in the mean time introduced manifest Idolatry into the Church. Thus he, in his preface to the Reader.  
He proceeds thus; Est autem primum illud Apostolorum Symbolum, ex reliquis pulcherrimum, maximeque concinnum, utpote quod brevissime, & quodam ceu compendio, omnes fidei christianae Articulos complectitur, quo nomine & facilius à Pueris & Simplicioribus percipi ac disci potest. Alterum, Athanasii sc. Symbolum, est paulo prolixius,— estque hoc velut propugnaculum primi illius Apostolici Symboli, ab eo contra Arianos haereticos conditum est.  
That is, The first of these is the Apostles Creed, the most excellent & best composed of the rest, as which most briefly & compendiously comprehends all the Articles of the Christian Belief; in which regard it may be more easily learned and understood of Children, and the more simple sort. The Second, is the Creed of Athanasius, which is somewhat larger, and is in the nature of a Bulwark to that first Creed of the Apostles:— It was framed by him against the Arrians. The Third, which he there sets down, is Te Deum, being as well a Creed, as an Hymn.  
Then after— In Symbolo Apostolorum jactum est fundamentum Christianae Fidei.— Subjiciemus sub finem ad tria ista Symbola & Nicenum Symbolum, quod itidem, ut & Athanasii, contra Arium conditum est, quod singulis Dominicis diebus in missa canitur.  
That is, In the Apostles Creed was laid, the Foundation of the Christian Faith,— We will add, at latter end, to these three Creeds, the Nicene Creed also; which, as that of Athanasius, was framed against Arius; and which, upon every Lord's Day, is sung at Mass, that is, The second or communion service, for there of old it hath been placed.  
The same Luther in his Colloquies gathered and set forth by Peter Rebenstocke. Anno Dommini. 1571. Tom. 2. pag. 106. Ad suos frequenter aiebat; Symboli verba ab Apostolis constituta esse credo, qui in congregatione sua hoc Symbolum verbis tam brevissimis & consolatoriis confecerunt. est opus spiritus sanctirem tanta brevitate, tam efficacissimis & emphaticis verbis describere: extra Spiritum sanctum & Apostolos non potuisset ita componi etiamsi millia secula illud componere conarentur.  
That is, Luther was wont to say oft unto those about him, I Believe that the words of the Creed were agreed on by the Apostles, who meeting together framed this Creed in so curt but comfortable expressions. It is the work of the holy Ghost to describe a thing with such a brevity, and yet most efficatiously, and emphatically; it could not have been so composed unless by the holy Ghost and the Apostles, although a thousand Ages had endeavoured it. These full and clear Testimonies of his I find cited by Fevardentius in his annotations on Irenaeus, lib: 1: cap: 2. A fiery Adversary of his, and so not likely to lie for Luther's credit and Advantage,  
2. Calvin, Instit lib: 2. cap. 16: §: 18: saith thus of the Creed— Apostolis certè magno veterum consensu ascribitur— neque vero mihi dubium est, quin a primâ statim Ecclesiae origine, adeoque ab ipso Apostolorum seculo instar publicae & omnium calculis receptae confessionis obtinuerit, undecunque tandem initio fuerit profectum: Nec ab uno aliquo privatim fuisse conscriptum verisimile est, cum ab ultima usque memoriâ sacro sanctae inter Pios omnes authoritatis fuisse constet. Concerning the fullness of it thus: Dum paucis verbis Capita Redemptionis perstringit, vice tabulae nobis esse potest, in quâ distincte ac sigillatim perspicimus quae in Christo attentione digna sunt. Then; Id extra Controversiam positum habemus, totam in eo Fidei nostrae historiam succincte, distincteque recenseri, nihil autem contineri quod solidis Scripturae testimoniis non sit consignatum— quo intellecto, de authore, vel anxie laborare, velcum aliquo digladiari, nihil attinet; nisi cui forte non sufficiat certam habere Spiritus sancti veritatem, ut non simul intelligat, aut cujus ore enunciata, aut cujus manu descripta fuerit.  
In which words, (though according to his Judgement, an anxious Dispute about the Author of the Creed be needles) he affirmeth enough whereon to ground what I have said, concerning the composure of it by the Apostles, and none other; viz. 1. That the Ancients generally ascribe it to the Apostles. 2. That it was universally received as a public Confession of the Faith, presently upon the first Rise of the Christian Church, and from the Age of the Apostles. 3. That it is not probable to have been written, by any Private Man, seeing it is most certain to have been, time out of mind, of a most Sacred Authority amongst all Pious Christians. 4. That it is an assured Truth, or Dictate of the Holy Ghost; withal telling us, that some such Divine Truths are written, others only delivered to us by an Oral Tradition, such as the Creed is.  
Now I would feign know, to whom so Ancient, so universally received a Creed, one of so Sacred an Authority, and so Divine an Author as the Holy Ghost, can be justly attributed, except to the Apostles, who only, were the First, the General, the Holy, the Divinely-inspired, and authorized founders of the Christian Church, and Preachers of the common Faith.  
3. Beza subscribes in like manner to the Authority of the Creed, in his annotations on the forecited place. Rom. 12. 6. where he not only tells us, that the Creed was extant, when the Gospel began first to be Preached, and therefore (as we have reason to conceive) framed by the first Preachers of the Gospel, the Apostles, but also that the Articles therein contained are Axiomata 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such as require our Belief without any farther Proof, that is, without proof from Scripture, whereon our Belief is grounded; therefore, in the Judgement of Beza, they must needs come from the divinely-inspired Apostles, namely, the same Authors from whose Mouths or Pens the Scriptures of the New Testament were derived to us; for none else, under the Gospel, have delivered Axiomata 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Principles of Religion which require no farther Evidence; whence it is that Saint Luke tells us in his Preface, that he had his Gospel from the mouths of the Apostles; and St Mark, as Church-History hath constantly informed us, had his particularly from St Peter.  
4. Joannes Pappus Comment. in Confess. August. fol. 2. hath these words; Semper in ecclesiâ scriptorum quorundam publicorum usus fuit, quibus doctrinae divinitùs revelatae de certis Capitibus Summa comprehenderetur, & contra Haereticos, aliosque adversarios defenderetur. Talia scripta, licet perbrevia, sunt Symbola illa totius ecclesiae▪ consensu recepta, Apostolicum, Nicenum, Athanasianum.  
Where he tells us, that there have been certain Creeds in the Church of Public use, wherein the sum of Christian Doctrine was contained, and thereby defended, against Heretics; namely, the Apostles Creed; the Nicene and that of Athanasius, all received by the consent of the whole Church: Now, we know that the two latter were composed since the third Century, and therefore the Particle [Always] must especially, and absolutely relate only to the Apostles Creed; which if, as Pappus here affirms, it hath been of Public and Perpetual use in the Christian Church, challengeth the Apostles for its Composers, by those two Badges of Antiquity and Universality, besides the acknowledgement of its Title.  
5. Peter Martyr, loc, Comm▪ de missâ▪ cap. 12. saith thus, in Symbolis summa fidei comprehenditur; quae sane comprehensio vel summa, siquis veteres attente legate, Ecclesiae Traditio vocata est; quae cum ex divinis libris desumpta est, tum ad salutem creditu est necessaria; & nonnunquam a Tertulliano contra haereticos, qui sacros libros negabant, producitur. Symbolum plenum & absolutum Nicena Synodus edidit, non tamen primum, quandoquidem prius aliqua extabant, ut vel ex Tertulliano possumus cognoscere. Where he affirms.  
1. That the Creed is a summary of the Faith, necessary to Salvation, and called by the Ancients, the Tradition of the Church.  
2. That this Creed is produced by Tertullian, against those Heretics who denied the Scriptures.  
3. That the Nicene Creed, although a full and complete Form, yet was not the first which the Christian Church had; for which he refers us to Tertullian; Now, that Creed which was older than the Council of Nice, can be no other than the Apostles Creed seeing no other Creed was ever mentioned before the time of that Council nor other Authors assigned: And for Tertullia's Testimony, to whom we are referred, he clearly assigns the Apostles for the Authors.  
6. Bullinger in the Beginning of his Decades, whereto he prefixeth the Ancient Creeds, hath these words— Sufficiebat hactenus Symbolum Apostolorum & sufficisset Ecclesiae Christi, etiam Constantini Seculo; confitentur enim omnes, omnes Ecclesias non alio Symbolo quam Apostolico usas, eodemque fuisse per totam terrarum orbem contentas: quoniam verò Constantini magni aetate emerfit impius & blasphemus Arius, qui Christianae fidei puritatem corrupit, & simplicitatem doctrinae Apostolicae pervertit, coacti sunt ipsa necessitate Ecclesiarum ministri sese impostori opponere, ac Symbolo editio, verum, id est, veterem fidei confessionem (damnatâ Arii novitate) declarando ex Scripturis canonicis illustrare; neque enim & in aliis mox sequentibus tribus conciliis Generalibus editis Symbolis, quicquam mutatum est in Doctrinâ Apostolorum, neque quicquam novi adiectum, quod prius ex Scriptura sancta Ecclesiae Christi habuerunt, & crediderunt, sed corruptionibus & novitatibus Haereticorum antiqua veritas illustrata per Symbola, prudenter, utiliter & religiose est opposita.  
That is, Hitherto the Creed of the Apostles sufficed, and had sufficed the Church of Christ, even in the Time of Constantine; for it is confessed by all, that all Churches used no other Creed than that of the Apostles, and were contented therewith all the world over, but because in the Time of Constantine the Great, there sprang up that impious, and blasphemous Arius, who corrupted the Purity of the Christian Faith and perverted the Simplicity of the Apostolic Doctrine, the Pastors of the Churches were compelled out of necessity to oppose themselves unto such an Imposture; and setting forth a Creed, to illustrate the True, that is, the Ancient Confession of Faith, by manifesting it out of Scriptures; thereby condemning the novelty of Arius; for neither in the three other general Counsels, which followed that of Nice, was there any thing changed (by setting forth their Creeds) in the doctrine of the Apostles, nor any new thing added unto what the Churches of Christ formerly had, and believed out of the Holy Scripture; but the Ancient Faith being illustrated by the Creeds, was prudently, profitably, and piously opposed unto the Corruptions, and Novelties of the Heretics.  
7. Christopher Barbarossa, in the Preface to his catechetical Analysis (wherein he hath drawn into Method the catechistical Meditations of seventeen Protestant Divines) set forth by the Dean and College of Divines, in the Academy of Rostock, hath these words,— Apostoli & Synodi brevibus Symbolis doctrinae Christianae Summam complexi sunt— quilibet Apostolorum suum contulit ad hoc Symbolum. Ratio quare Apostoli composuerunt hoc Symbolum, duplex est. 1. Suiipsius causâ ut certam haberent Regulam & Amussim doctrinae, postquam exire vellent in totum Mundum. 2. Propter nos ipsos, ut haberemus Regulam & Amussim Fidei contra Haereticos. Nomen [Articuli] requirit integram omnium Fidei Articulorum cognitionem & confessionem, si modò Fides perfecta & integra esse debet.  
That is, The Apostles, and Synods comprehended the sum of Christian doctrine in certain brief Creeds— Every one of the Apostles contributed his part to the Creed. There is a double Reason why the Apostles composed the Creed. 1. For their own sake, that they might have a certain Rule or measure of Doctrine, after they had resolved to go forth into the whole world. 2. For our sakes that we might have a Square, or Rule of Faith against the Heretics. The word [Article] requires an entire knowledge, and Confession of all the Points of Faith, if so be it ought to be whole, and perfect.  
8. Grinaeus, de Eccles: contin:— Primitiva Ecclesia habuit Symbolum Apostolorum, cujus plena in Scriptures explicatio; non abit ab hoc, quod in Irenaeo extat Symbolum; lib. 1. cap. 2. That is, The Primitive Church had the Creed of the Apostles, which is fully explained in the Scriptures; This Creed is not divers from that, which is extant in Irenaeus.  
9 Nicol. Selneccerus, in his Paedagogia Christiana,— Tria Symbola usitate nominantur, Apostolicum Nicenum, & Athanasianum; Apostolicum majus, & in quarta Apostolorum Synodo conscriptum fuisse arbitrantur. 1. De electione Matthiae. 2. De Ordinatione Diaconorum. 3. De Abdicatione legalium. 4.  existimatur, de conscribendis his Fidei Articulis, ut certa norma & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 praecipuorum Capitum doctrinae Christianae: & cum Apostolis jam esset in totum terrarum orbem abeundum, extaret confessio, quae unanimem ipsorum consensum exhiberet; ut autem hoc se habeat, certum tamen est, in hoc Symbolo, quod internae nostrae Fidei Professio & concordia est, contineri omnia Capita totius Religionis Christianae, recte, perspicue & ordine.  
That is, There be three famous Creeds, the Apostles, the Nicene, and that of Athanasius; the Apostles Creed is of the greatest account, and is supposed to have been compiled in the fourth Synod of the Apostles; whereof, the first was concerning the election of Mathias; the Second concerning the Ordination of Deacons; the Third, concerning the disannulling of Ceremonies; Act. 15. the Fourth as is conceived, concerning these Articles of Faith, which should serve as a certain Rule or Model of the chief Heads of Christian Doctrine; and, seeing that the Apostles were now to go forth into the whole world, there might be extant a Confession, which should exhibit their unanimous consent unto all. But however this business was ordered, 'tis certain, that in this Creed which is the concordant profession of our inward Faith, are contained all the Heads of the whole Christian Religion, Rightly, Clearly, and Orderly.  
10. Alex. Nowell in his Catechism, giveth two Reasons, why the Creed is entitled to the Apostles; whereof the First and Chief, and to which he principally inclines, is this, that it was ab Ore Apostolorum exceptum, Received from the mouths of the Apostles and his following words confirm this reason of the Name, wherein he declares, that it hath been Ab initio usque Ecclesiae receptum, received from the very beginning of the Christian Church; and from that Time hath perpetually abode in it firm, Authentic, immoved, amongst all Pious Christians, ut certa atque constituta Christianae Fidei Regula, as a sure & settled Rule of the Christian Belief. As for his latter conjecture of the name Apostolic, that it might be so called, quia ex eorum scriptis summa fide collectum, because the Creed was most faithfully gathered out of the Apostles writings; he might well indulge to the doubtful speaking of some Divines in his Time.  
11. Confessio Saxonica Artic. 1. Affirmamus clare coram Deo, & universa Ecclesia in Coelo & in Terra, nos vera Fide amplecti omnia scripta Prophetarum & Apostolorum, & quidem in hac ipsa nativa sententia, quae expressa est in Symbolis, Apostolico, Niceno, & Athanasiano. Et haec ipsa Symbola, & eorum nativam sententiam sine corruptelis semper constanter amplexi sumus, & (Deo Juvante) perpetuo amplectemur. Damnamus etiam constantissimè omnes furores, qui pugnant cum Symbolis, ut sunt Samosateni, Serveti, Arii, Pneumatomachorum portentosae opiniones, & aliae condemnatae veris Ecclesiae Judiciis. That is  
We openly affirm before God, and the universal Church in Heaven, and in Earth, that with a true faith we embrace all the writings of the Prophets, and Apostles, in that very genuine, & primitive sense which is expressed in the Creeds of the Apostles, Nic. and Athanatius; and that we have always constantly embraced, and (by God's help) will always embrace these Creeds, and their true native meaning, without falsifying, or depravation; we also most resolutely condemn all those mad heresies which are repugnant to the Creeds, namely, those of Samosatenus, Servetus, Arius and the portentous opinions of the Pneumatomachi, and what others condemned by the Just censures of the Church.  
12 Bohemica Confessio— Fides Apostolica in duodecim Articulos digesta, & tradita in Symbolo, per Nicenam Synodum, atque adeò alias confirmata & exposita est. That is, The Apostolic Faith being digested into twelve Articles, and delivered in the Creed, hath been confirmed and explained by the Nicene, and other succeeding Synods.  
13. Galliae Confess. Art. 5. Tria illa Symbola, nempe Apostolicum, Nicenum, & Athanasianum, idcircò approbamus, quod sint verbo Dei Scripto consentanea. That is,  
Those three Creeds, the Apostolic, the Nicene, and that of Athanasius, we therefore approve of because they are agreeable to the written Word of God.  
And Serrarius the Jesuit (whom we may well credit in such a matter) in his Tract of the Athanasian Creed, informs us, that the Calvintan Divines in an Assembly of theirs at Lausanna, professed that they agreed with the Lutherans concerning those Ancient Creeds, and ascribed to them, together with the Sciptare, a Judiciary Power or Authority, which all aught to obey. Whence we may gather, that they Judged them to proceed from the same Fountain, to wit, from Divine or Apostolic Tradition; otherwise, they would not have conjoined them with the Scriptures, as the Authentic Judges or Rules, whereby all Controversies are to be decided.  
14. The Church of England, in her eight Art. of the three Creeds agrees with the rest— The three cedes, Nic. Creed, Athanasian Creed, and that which is commonly called the the Apostles Creed ought thoroughly to be received and observed, for they may be proved by most certain warrants of the holy Scripture.  
From these Four last Testimonies, taken out of the Confessions of the Reformed Churches, I gather.  
1. That they concordantly receive these three Ancient Creeds, and reject whatsoever Heresy, or opinion is repugnant to them; from whence it will appear, that they have introduced no new Faith or Religion, different from the old, much less opposite unto it.  
2. They not only receive the Apostles Creed, but also acknowledge it for such, and by that name contra distinguish it to the Nicene, and Athanasian; therefore by that Title they are as justly presumed to acknowledge the Apostles for the composers of the one, as the Council of Nice and Athanasius for the Composers of the other Two.  
3. The Bohemick Confession tells us, that the Nicene Council, and the rest that followed, did confirm and expound that Faith which had been delivered in the Creed of the Apostles, and distributed (according to their number) into twelve Articles: so than the Apostles Creed was the First, and not only the First, but the Entire, and Complete Summary of the Christian Faith; to which succeeding Ages added nothing in their several Forms of Confession, or Belief, but only explained them.  
4. The Gallican Church, and our Mother of England say indeed that they receive the three Creeds, because agreeable to the holy Writ, but they say not that they receive them only for that Reason; so that this expression doth not any way cross the fore-delivered Tenent of deriving the Creed immediately from the Mouths of the Apostles, no more than our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles confirming the Doctrine they taught by the testimonies of Moses and the Prophets, prejudiced the truth and infallibility of the Spirit by which they spoke. See Jo. 5. 39, 46, 47. Act. 26. 22. Chap. 28. 23. Such an Accessary confirmation renders the Truth more clear, and Full, and serves not so much to confirm the Doctrine itself, as the Persons to whom it is delivered.   

CAP. VII.  
Six Reasons, evincing the Apostles to have been the Composers of the Creed, which commonly bears their name. Some Objections against these Reasons, answered. The Place, where the Creed was Made. Of Fundamentals, and Traditions.  
TO the Testimony of Scripture, Consent of Antiquity and the joint concordant Suffrages of our latter Protestant Divines, I shall subjoin in the last Place, the Verdict of Reason, which waits upon the forementioned Authorities, giving strength unto some, and light unto others.  
Reason. 1. The Title which it bears of the Apostles Creed, or Symbol hath been generally acknowledged throughout all ages of the Church, & never questioned till of late; chiefly by our modern Antitrinitarians. That Arch▪ heritick Photinus, their Forefather, perverted it indeed with the comments,  fideliter & simpliciter dicta ad argumentum sui dogmatis traheret, That he might pervert the general words thereof to the countenancing of, or complying with his corrupt Tenants, as Ruffinus informs us, but he never durst deny either its Authority, or its Authors, Sure, this General Tradition, and unanimous consent of the Church, is no weak Argument, to evince the true Authors?  
But to this Reason, I find three things Objected.  
Ob. 1. Against the Name [Symbolum.] From whence some draw an Argument that it was jointly composed by the Apostles, because the Word is derived from [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] Confer in unum, and so signifies a Collation of many; the Metaphor being drawn from Caena collatitia, a Supper in common, whereto every one of the guests brought his dish of meat; or were he laid down his shot equally with the rest; whereas it might be called a Symbol, or Collation, not because it was gathered a Pluribus, sed ex Pluribus, not by many men, but out of many materials; and this Collation made out of Scripture, not by the Apostles themselves, but by Apostolic men, and their Disciples, ab Ecclesiarum Patribus, as Eusebius Emes. tells us, Hom. 1. in Symb. which appellation agrees to those who lived in latter Times. So Canon's Apostolorum, are called by the Apostles Names though not compiled by them, but by Clemens, as the Title of those Canons witnesseth; Yea, both Greek and Latin Fathers have communicated the name Apostle to others, to any Bishop; the Church of Rome keep the old stile still, The Apostolic See, The Apostolic Bulls; Our Saxon Predecessors gave the Bishop of Rome the Title of Apostle, and Apostolical Pope. Bed. hist. lib. 2. c. 2, 11. Austin the Monk is called Anglorum Apostolus; Philip the Deacon▪ is called an Apostle by Tertullian; and, Epaphroditus, by St Paul▪ Phil. 2. 25. So, many others besides the Twelve (whom St chrysostom, by way of Distinction, calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Apostles by way of Eminency) were called Apostles, who might give name to the Creed as well as the Twelve, therefore it is no concluding or necessary Argument, It is called the Apostle Creeds Ergo, it was made by the Twelve. Then for the Title [Symbolum] that doth not signify such a Collation, or Feast in Common, but the words [Symbola] and therefore cannot imply, or allude to any such composing of the Creed by the joint concurrence of the Apostles. Besides, Cajetan ad 2am 2ae qu. 1. art. 8. Tells us, that Aquinas thinking fit to number the Articles ex parte rei creditae, with relation to the matter, not the makers of the Creed, for this cause passed by that famous distribution of them according to the number of the Apostles, because it is accidental to the Articles of Faith, whether they be gathered by many, or by one, as that of Athanasius.  
Answ. Good Authors indeed assign that for the reason and etymology of the Apostolic Symbol that it was an Apostolical Collation, or Collection, of the Fundamental Points of Belief by the twelve Apostles, yet not as the principal argument but by way of Appendix, and Congruity unto the forementioned Tradition.  
But this distinction, (saith the objectour) or Collation of several Articles might be made by Apostolic Men, and their Disciples, out of the holy Scripture and from thence obtain the name of the Apostolic Symbol. But [it might be so] and [it was so] are two things: If it might be so, it might be otherwise; sure this private, groundless conjecture, may well give place to the constant assertion of so many Ancient and learned Authors, who affirm the Apostles to have been the Composers of the Creed, and give that for the reason of the name which it bears.  
As for the Testimony of Eusebius, Hom. 1. in Symb. who is there produced to say that the Creed was written, not by the Apostles but by the Fathers of the Churches; he hath no such exclusive words, as [non ab Apostolis quidem] but saith that the Fathers of the Churches (whom a little after he calls Magistri, the Masters of the said Churches) Composed the Creed; Now, who be these but the Apostles, expressed by way of Periphrasis; for they, and they only may properly be called the Fathers, or Masters, not of this or that Church in particular, but of all the Churches in the World, their Commission Being general; Go, and Teach all Nations; Math. 29. 19 Whereas others were limited to this or that Church, as the Apostles pleased to dispose of them; and were the Sons, or Disciples of the Apostles, as St Paul terms Timothy, and Titus, in his Epistles which he wrote unto them. 1 Tim. 1. 2. Tit. 1. 4. Hence also it is, that St Paul tells his Corinthians 1 Cor. 4. 15. Though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many Fathers, for in Christ Jesus I have Begotten you through the Gospel, And St James in his Epistle to the dispersed Jews, secretly taxing the proud-conceited Rabbins, who affected the highest seats in the Synagogues, & the office of teaching their Brethren, My Brethren, saith he Be not many Masters Jam. 3. 1.  
This conjecture therefore deserves as little faith, as it hath foundation, that is, none at all; for the Fathers constantly say it was called The Apostles Creed, because Framed by, and derived to the Christian Church, from the Apostles of Christ; and this may justly sway us in this Case; for the Title prefixed doth not only bear this construction; but more directly points out, and inclines us to this meaning; Titles being therefore given, that they may design the Authors, or Composers of that work unto which they are prefixed; and the Father's living in the first Ages should best know the Tradition; the Title then of the Apostles Creed is not nakedly produced as a convincing Argument, but as backed, and seconded with the Attestation of Antiquity.  
As for the contrary Instance of the Canons of the Apostles, although they bear the name of Clemens in the Inscription, who first gathered them into one Body, yet they may well challenge the Apostles for the Authors, who first instituted, and put them in Practice.  
Then, as to the promiscuous use of the name Apostle, and Apostolic and the applying of them to the Ancient Bishops it will not hurt at all, or prejudice the Title of the Creed, Because the Fathers entitle it to the Apostles so called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by way of Eminency; some of them expressly naming the Twelve, as Ambrose, Ruffian, and Augustine: others deciphering them by such circumstances, as can agree to none other than The Apostles, who left the Srciptures to us; so Irenaeus. Such Apostles, who received this Rule from Christ their Master, at the very beginning of the Gospel, and before the rise of any Heresy; so Tertullian. Such who left us the Faith per successionis Ordinem, by a continued line of Episcopal successors; so Origen. And all the rest name the Apostles indefinitely, not limited to a particular See, charge or place, by any determining circomstance; now, it is a known Rule in Logic concerning ambiguons Terms, Analogum per se positum, stat pro famosiori Analogato.  
Neither, indeed, do the instances alleged show that the Name was commonly given to every Bishop at large, but either to some Episcopal See, which the Apostles had personally founded, as to that of Rome, founded by Peter and Paul: or, to some special Person, who planted a New Church, or converted a whole Nation to Christianity, (which is a work properly Apostolical) as to Epaphroditus, of Colosse and Augustin, of our Saxon nation, & in his sense did our Saxon Kings probably give the Title of Apostolic to the Bishop of Rome, as well as for the former reason; because Gregory the Great sent over Augustine hither with certain coadjutors, to convert our Ancestors from Paganism.  
The like may be said, in proportion of Philip the Deacon, who was sent by the holy Ghost with a special Commission to convert the Eunuch of Queen Candace; and, by his means, the whole Nation of Ethiopia, as Church-story tells us.  
But to the critical quarrel against the word [Symbolum,] that not it, but [Symbola] signifies such a Collation; I shall endeavour to evidence the contrary out of good Authors, and by the judgement of learned Critics, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, collecta, caena collectitia, saith Budaeus in his Lexicon. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so Jul. Pollux in his Onomasticon. lib. 6. cap. 1. the accent whereof shows it is the Gen. case plural of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athenaeus hath the same instance, lib. 8. circa finem; reading the gen. case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: so Budaeus citys it, though Casaubon, in his Edition, read it otherwise. Latin Authors also agree to this Reading, in whose writings we find Symbolum taken in this sense, as well as Symbola. Ter. in Andr. Act. 1. Scen. 1. Symbolum dedit, caenavit. ubi Symbolum quidam imperitè corrigunt, saith Budaeus, cum utrumque dicatur aequè rectè. Plautus in Sticho; Eo condictum Symbolum ad caenam, ac ejus conservum Sangurinum Syrum. And, in his Curcul. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vocat Symbolorum Collectores-Legimus apud Gellium, Talia Symbola; saith H. Steph. in his Thesaurus; though in his own Edition of Gellius Par●● 1585. he read Tales Symbolae; this being in likelihood the ground of the difference, that Symbola is the more usual word, whereas in the old copies it was written Symbolum; this correction therefore is corrected by Budaeus. The same Stephanus in his Thesaurus, tells us— Apud Plautum ac Terentium, non solum Symbolam, sed & Symbolum legimus. And, concerning this Etymology of the Apostles, Symbol, he is clear and plain— ut ut sit, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Apostolicum potius ab hac 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significatione, quam ab altera (ad quam id nonnullos referre dixi) viz. Tessera militaris, appellatum fuisse, Augustini etiam testimonio confirmari potest. Serm. de Temp. Then, he adds; Symbolum tamen est potius quod confertur, id est, collatum, quàm collatio, haec enim est ipsa conferendi actio; Which words apply the Title of Symbolum more closely and genuinely to the Creed, which is nothing but Corpus Fidei è duodecim Articulis collatum, sive collectum.  
Although then we might say of this word Symbolum, as of some others, that the Holy Scriptures and Fathers take not a few Terms in another sense, than they are commonly used in by profane Authors, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Sacramentum etc. Yet in this particular we need not make use of any such refuge, because the Fathers who used the Title of Symbolum, were many of them skilled in the Greek tongue, and use it in the same sense, as other heathen Authors before them did.  
Lastly, to that Division of the Creed which Cajetan mentions out of Aquinas, which relates to the matter, not to the makers of the Creed, it is scarce worth the answering; for Cajetan there speaks of Symbolum in general, not of the Apostles Creed precisely; he grants that the Distribution of the Articles, according to the number of the Composers, was one very known, and famous; he brings such a reason of the word Symbolum, as contradicteth not the other, but rather alludeth to it; and lastly, apologizeth for Aquinas, because he passed by the usual distinction.  
Ob. 2. Against the Title [Apostolic] It might be so called, not that it was composed by the Apostles, but because it is a Compendium of the Apostles Doctrine, and, of all other Creeds, comes nearest the very words of the Apostles, and Evangelists. So, the Symbol of the Church at Jerusalem is styled by Cyril, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Tradition of the Holy and Apostolic Faith. Or, it might be called the Apostles Creed, because it was received from the Apostolic See, that is, the Roman, founded by Peter and Paul, two famous Apostles; and thence usually honoured with that Title.  
Answ. Here's another [might be] a private conjecture without any ground, or Proof; whereas he that will deny an Ancient and publicly received Tradition, aught to bring more than his bare conjecture, if he would be believed against the joint Testimonies of so many Authors both Ancient, and Modern. It is a maxim indeed in Controversies, that Affirmantis est Probare, that it behoves the Affirmer of a Tenent to show, not only that it may, but that it must be thus; to evince the opinion he maintains, by some convincing Argument; but this is to be exacted, when he broacheth some new opinion of his own, or maintains one lately held, and taken up by some few; not so, when the Affirmer relies upon a Tradition of so many years standing, and this Tradition confessed by the Adversary, as this of the Creed is; for such a Tradition as this, is a sufficient [must be] unless the falsity or mistake thereof can be demonstrated.  
Besides, the reason of the name delivered in the objection, doth notat all oppose, but agree with the Tradition; for the Apostles might well deliver in the Creed, the summary of what they were to Preach more at large; and, that the Apostles Creed comes nearest of any other to the words of the Apostles in their writings, argues them, rather than any other, for the Composers of it.  
As for the testimony of Cyril, he calls not the Jerosolymitan Creed in the place here cited, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Tradition or Declaration of the Holy Apostolic Faith, as the objector allegeth; but he tells his Auditors, that in the precedent Days of Lent, he had discoursed unto them, as fare as his Catecheses' would permit, of the Holy, and Apostolic Faith delivered unto them, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, to make open Profession thereof at their Baptism; which Holy and Apostolic Faith, was delivered in that Creed of his, which he there sets down, and explains; and is so called by him, in opposition to heretical senses and Interpretations: but that Creed, which he there Comments on, being the Jerosolymitan, differs not from that of the Apostles, as we shall show more clearly anon.  
Lastly, for the Denomination of the Apostles Creed from the Apostolic See of Rome, we shall examine it, when we come to answer the Objections.  
Ob. 3. Against the Traditio Majorum, the received Tradition and Consent of the Primitive Fathers, who were best like to know the Authors, as being nearest the Apostles Times; it is objected; That Ruffinus counts it not for a certain story, as appears by those general and indefinite words— Qui Symbolum tradiderunt, Those who delivered the Creed to us, as if he knew not who they were: as also, that no Author seems to have wrote so before the year 400; nor after this, except he lived in the western Church. And the  Creed differs from ours, and agrees more with the Nicene. Besides St Aug. Testimony Serm. 115. seems to be supposititious.  
Answ. The weakness of these Arguments which are brought to overthrow so old, and Catholic a Tradition, doth not a little confirm me in my Belief, that the Apostles were the Authors of the Creed.  
First; Ruffinus in that place shows no doubt at all of the Authors, as appears by the forecited Relation; but having before recited the Tradition of his Ancestors and himself accordingly affirmed the Apostles to have been the Authors in these words— Symbolum fecerunt Apostoli in his Sermonibus, in unum conferendo quod unusquisque sensit— Decessuri ad predicandum, istud unanimitatis & fidei suae Indicium Apostoli posuere. Sure those following words, qui Symbolum tradiderunt must needs relate to the Apostles, as the antecedent.  
Secondly; that several Authors have mentioned this Tradition before the year 400, as well as after, and those, not only of the Western, but of the Eastern Church▪ I appeal to the forecited Testimonies of the Fathers; among whom, Origen, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Cyril of Jerusalem, were of the Greek Church, and before the year 400; whereof the two latter set the Creed down, and Origen tells us, that the Apostles delivered it: Tertullian and Ambrose were of the Latin, or Western Church, whereof the former sets it down, and entitles it to the Apostles; and the latter names the Twelve Apostles for the Authors, citing for proof both of the Creed and its Composers, a perpetual, inviolate Tradition of the Church of Rome; now St Amb. flourished before the end of the fourth Century, Tertullian long before.  
As for the silencing of the Apostles Creed, since the Nicene Council, in the Eastern Church; 'tis clear, that it was extant amongst them since the Council, for Marcellus sets it down, and chrysostom explains it; but when the Constantinopolitan Creed was framed, it was by degrees, it seems, disused, because therein included. Then, as to the Ethiopian Creed; it is the very same with the Nicene or Constantinopolitan, and communicated from the Greek Church, by the neighbouring Patriarch of Alexandria (as in all likelihood we may suppose) to that more Southern People.  
Lastly, To the Testimony cited out of the 115. Serm. de Temp. The objector confesseth; that the Creed was first rehearsed entire, and then explained; only, he questions the assignation of the several Articles to distinct Apostles as a spurious piece inserted (out of the Margin) into the Body of the Sermon; the rest he acknowledgeth for genuine: but this passage I stand not much upon, whether it were so, or otherwise; for notwithstanding this supposal, the Creed may well be styled a Symbol, or Collation, because agreed on in common by the Apostles, they reducing the Number of the Articles to Twelve, because themselves were Twelve, the Founders, or Foundation of the Christian Faith, as St Paul calls them. Eph. 2. 20. & St Jo. Re. 21. 14.  
Reason 2d. In the Primitive Church the Catechumeni were men instructed in the first Rudiments of Christianity; chiefly, in the time of Lent: Then, on Palme-sunday, they were called Competentes, that is, joint Petitioners of Baptism, and had the whole perfection of the Faith, that is, the whole Body of the Creed expounded unto them, because Easter, the assigned Time of their Baptism, then approached. This is testified by S. Ambrose Epist. 35. lih. 5. Sequenti die, erat autem, Dominica, post lectiones atque Tractatum, dimissis Catechumenis, Symbolum aliquibus competentibus in Baptisteriis tradebam Basilicae. That is, The next day, being the Lord's day, after the Reading of the Scriptures, and the Sermon, having dismissed the Catechumeni, I delivered the Creed to certain Competentes, in that part of the Church which is assigned for Baptism. And, by Isidore of Sevil lib. 1. De Eccles. office▪ cap. 27. De Domin. Palm. Hac autem die Symbolum Competentibus traditur propter confinem Dominicae Paschae solemnitatem, ut quia jam ad Dei gratiam percipiendam festinant, fidem, quam confiteantur, agnoscant. That is, On this day [on Palmesunday] the Creed is delivered to the Competentes, by reason of the approaching solemnity of Easter, that so they may more fully understand and embrace, that Faith which they profess, their Baptism now hastening on. And we have already in part demonstrated the same, out of the forecited Fathers; particularly, out of their Homilies on the Creed, which they commonly made on Palmesunday to the Competentes, who were now ready to be baptised. But now, when Easter came, the solemn time of Baptism (as Pentecost also was) before they were admitted to it, they made an open confession of their Faith, as our Infants now do in the Person of their Godfathers.  
I ask then what confession of Faith was this, which they thus publicly pronounced at Baptism? No man is so absurd to think, that every one was left to his own discretion, to frame it as he pleased, but that the Church had a certain prescribed form of words, or Rule of Belief, which the Competentes did openly rehearse; the same form no doubt, which had been explained unto them on the foregoing Palmesunday; now, this was no other than the Apostles Creed, as appears both by those Homilies of the Fathers upon it, which were usually made to the Competentes on Palmesunday, as preparatives to their Baptism; as also, because we find no other Confession of Faith publicly received in the Church, for above 300 years after the Birth of our Saviour, besides this of the Apostles.  
To this agree the words of Saint Jerome, count. Lucifer. Solenne est in lavacro, post Trinitatis confessionem, interrogare; Credis in sanctam Ecclesiam? credis remissionem peccatorum? That is, It is the custom at Baptism, after confession of the Trinity, to ask; Believest thou the Holy Church? believest thou the Remission of sins?  
And long before him, S. Cyprian. Epist. 70. ad Janu▪ ar. etc. Ipsa interrogatio quae fit in baptismo, testis est veritatis; nam, cum dicimus, credis in vitam aeternam, & remissionem peccatorum per sanctam Ecclesiam? Intelligimus, remissionem peccatorum, non nisi in Ecclesiâ dari; That is, The very questioning in Baptism witnesseth the Truth; for when we say, believest thou the life everlasting, and remission of sins, by the holy Church? We conceive, that remission of sins is not given but in the Church.  
If any one desire to have this Custom of rehearsing the Creed at Baptism, brought higher yet, up to the Age of the Apostles, that so we may know positively when this form of Profession began; and the rather, because when the Apostles baptised 3000 in one day, and presently after S. Peter's Sermon, either no form was then used, or it was a very short one, and quickly learned.  
I Answer, That the custom of making Homilies on the Creed by the Catechists, and Bishops of old, for the better instruction of those who were to be Baptised, shows that this confession was very anciently practised; and Russinus (who himself was ancient) tells us of many Illustres Tractatores, many famous expounders of the Creed in this kind, before his Time; why then may not we justly refer that custom to the Age of the Apostles, whereof we can find no beginning in the Church?  
But to give you a more Positive and Express proof, that place in the First Epistle to Timothy cap. 6. v. 12. where he is said, to have made a good Profession before many witnesses, is understood of the Profession of the Creed at his Baptism, by S. Jerome, and Occumenius. And that other passage, in Heb. 6. 1, 2. of Faith towards God, and the doctrine of Baptisms, which are there joined together; is understood in the same sense, by chrysostom, Augustine, Oecumenius, Theophylact; and, of latter times, by Calvin and Panaeus, as hath been showed before.  
Then, for the instance of S. Peter's 3000 converts, it is not said that they were Baptised all in one day (which can hardly be judged probable at that time, for want of hands enough to the work, want of water about Jerusalem, and the danger of making so public a Baptism) but added to the Church, that is, dederunt nomina Christo, they put themselves in the list of Disciples, or Catechumeni, and so became Candidates of Baptism; a custom anciently used in the Church, as appears by Tertullian De Baptismo. But if by Adding, we must needs understand Initiating into the Church by Baptism; we must interpret [The same day] thus; About the same time; Day being put for Time, by an usual Hebraisme; for which see Deut, 27. 2. compared with Ios. 8. 30. etc. and Luk. 19 42.  
As for their Confession of Faith, whether the same Day or afterwards; I readily grant, that it could not be then framed in the words of the Apostles Creed, which was not so early composed, but instead of that they publicly attested to the Truth of Saint Peter's Sermon, which contained the fundamentals of Christianity, that were after succinctly gathered into one Body in the Summary of the Creed; which was thence forward the sole form of Confession, or Belief used at the time of Baptism, for none other we find then used.  
Besides, some of the first conversions were miraculous, and so not to be drawn into example, as ordinary, set Patterns of the Church's succeeding Practice; the Apostles had the gift of discerning faith in the heart, and so needed not always expect an open Profession; whereas others, in following Times, who had not the same Gift, were tied to the ordinary Rule and method of proceeding: thus the same Apostle caused Cornelius and his friends to be Baptised (without any formal Profession of their Faith that we read of) because he perceived that the Holy Ghost was poured on them. Act. 10. 47, 48.  
Reason 3d. The Creeds or Confessions of Faith, which were framed by the Counsels of Nice, Constantinople, Chalcedon, and the rest that followed, or, which we find in the writings of the Fathers, as in Athanasius, Jerome, and others, are no new Creeds, but comments on the old, explanations of some points, not so fully and clearly expressed, which were then called in question, and misinterpreted by some Heretics of those times: Now, this may serve for a third Argument to prove that these Counsels and Fathers had still a very careful Eye on some former Creed, derived from the Apostles unto their Times, as a Rule or pattern to square their Symbols by. To instance in the two most famous, the Nicene, and Athanasian.  
The Nicene Creed enlargeth itself chief, in the Point of our Saviour's Divinity, and that of the holy Ghost, withal adding here and there some small Particles by way of Explication.  
1. To the first Article it adds [and of all things visible, and invisible] thus more distinctly setting down the parts, ornaments, and inhabitants of Heaven and Earth; and, withal condemning the opinion of some ancient Heretics, who made the Angels the Creators of the world and so exempted these invisible Spirits from the rank of Creatures.  
2. To the third Article, it adds [who for us men, and our Salvation came down from Heaven and was incarnate etc.] thus setting down the end of our Saviour's Incarnation.  
3. To the fift Article, it adds [according to the Scriptures] thus showing how our Saviour's Resurrection answered to the foregoing Prophecies of the Old Testament.  
4. To the seventh Article, it adds [whose Kingdom shall have no end] thus setting down the necessary consequent of the general Judgement, namely, the eternity of his heavenly Reign, Christ having then fully vanquished, and trodden all enemies under his feet.  
5. To the eight Article, it adds these two Epithets which are applied unto the Church by way of explication, viz. [one, and Apostolic] the first included in the word [Church] which is of the singular number the second, in the word [Catholic] for as the Apostles Commission was universal, so also was their doctrine, on which the Church was Founded.  
6. To the tenth Article, it adds [I acknowledge one Baptism for etc.] thus showing the means or Ordinance of Gods appointing, whereby he forgives, and cleanseth us from sin.  
Then, for the Creed of Athanasius; If we cut of the Preface, and conclusion, which (to speak properly) are no parts but Adjuncts of it, as wherein he shows the necessity of the Catholic Faith to Salvation; that is, the evident danger of denying, opposing, or corrupting any Article of the Faith, as the Arians, and other Heretics of those days did.  
1. He explains at large the mystery of the Trinity, which lies enfolded in the First, Second, and Eight Articles of the Apostles Creed, wherein we profess to believe in God the Father, in his Son jesus Christ, and in the holy Ghost: for this believing, or putting our whole trust, and confidence in the Son, and holy Ghost, as well as in God the Father, shows their coequality of power, Goodness, Wisdom, and All sufficiency with him; and consequently, their Identity of nature; whence; the holy Scripture every where forbids us to place our Faith in, or rely upon any Creature but to trust in God alone; and when the Creed comes to the Article of the Church (which is but an assembly of men, though of the best and highest rank) it changeth the style, saying, not as before, I believe in the Holy Catholic Church, but, I believe the Holy Catholic Church.  
2. He distinctly unfolds, & illustrates at large the mystery of our Saviour's Incarnation, especially, by the similitude of the Soul and Body. Now, this is nought but a Paraphrase on the third Article of the Apostles Creed.  
3. To the tenth Article, namely, that of the Resurrection, he adds these words [all men shall give an account for their works] which show the end of the Resurrection, & are besides involved in the precedent Article of Christ's coming to judgement, for there can be no Judging of men's Actions without a previous examination, and giving an Account.  
4. To the last Article, namely, that of Life eternal for the good, he adds [and they that have done evil shall go into everlasting Fire] which necessarily follows by way of opposition, besides, that it is involved also in the Article of the General Judgement, as the Account of our works was.  
If it be objected here▪ that the Creeds, or confessions of Faith which we find in the Counsels, and Fathers, cannot be justly called Expositions of the Apostles Creed, seeing that those Forms extant in Irenaeus, and Tertullian, want many Articles which the Creed now hath, much less, have they all which the Creeds of Nice, Chalcedon, and that of Athanasius have.  
I answer, that the Creed, as it is set down in Irenaeus and Tertullian, is (I confess) somewhat defective, for which I have before given some Reasons; if we will find it full and entire, we must have recourse to some famous ancient Church, where it was deposited by the Apostles, as that of Jerusalem or Rome: now, to the Creeds of these Churches, the Nicene, Chalcedon, and that of Athanasius, have added nothing in substance (as appears by what hath been said) but only in explication.  
As for Tertullia's Creed, though it be more imperfectly set down in his Book De virg. Vel. and that against the heretic Praxeas; yet in his Book De Praescrip. adv. haer. Wherein he oppugneth all Heretics which had infested the Church until his time, (some of which scarce left any one Article of the Creed inviolate) he sets it down more fully; only, he expreseth not distinctly, and at large, the Article of the Catholic Church, and that of Remission of Sins, for the former had not been yet oppugned by Novatus, or Donatus; nor the latter, by Pelagius, who were not then risen; notwithstanding, we may find even some hints of these, wherein the substance of them lies implicitly hid.  
1. Those words of his [qui credentes agate] and those other [ad sumendos sanctos] wherein he expresseth, how the Holy Ghost doth guide [all Believers] and work in them; and that our Saviour will come at the last to take [the Saints] unto himself; will serve to make up the ninth Article of the Church, and Communion of Saints: for the Title of Believers is the usual stile of Christians, and of the Christian Church, under the New Testament; and, one Belief, or Holy Faith, is that which makes the Church a Communion of Saints, that is, of Persons severed and discriminated from those of other Religions, but united among themselves. Add hereunto that which the same Tertullian hath in his Book against Praxeas viz. That the holy Ghost is the Sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the holy Ghost; that is, Of the Catholic Church, which is a Communion of Saints, or Believers.  
2. Those words applied to our Saviour— That he Preached the new Law, and the New promise of the Kingdom of Heaven, imply the tenth Article viz. [I believe one Baptism for the Remission of sins] as it is more amply set down in the Nicene Creed: for by Baptism we are initiated into this new Law of Christianity, and engage ourselves to perform it as the condition of the gospel-covenant, required on our Part as necessary to Salvation; whence, by a metonomy, 'tis taken sometimes as including the Law or doctrine Preached by the Party Baptising; as in that question of our Saviour to the Pharaisees, The Baptism of john, whence was it? From Heaven, or of men? Mat. 21. v. 25. Where our Saviour's main end was to convince them, that he was the true Messiah, from the Word or Testimony of john the Baptist, whereby he gave witness to him, at that time especially when the Pharasees were sent unto john in a solemn Embassy, to inquire whether He were the Christ, or no? Io. 1. v. 19, 20, 24, 26, 27. And, as by Baptism we are initiated into this new Law, and thereby entitled unto the Kingdom of Heaven, and made Inheritors of it; so is Remission of sins the new Promise, the first and newest of the whole Gospel; which, reconciling us unto God makes us capable of his other Favours; to introduce which and prepare us for it, Repentance was first Preached by john the Baptist, our Saviour, and his Apostles, Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand; and, from which our Saviour took his Name, thereby signifying the chief end of his coming— Thou shalt call his Name jesus (saith the Angel to joseph) For he shall save his People from their Sins. Mat. 1. 21.  
3. As for the last Article viz that of Everlasting Life; it is partly employed in the Article of the Resurrection, which as it looks backward unto Death, so it looks forward on Life Everlasting; Death the last enemy, being by it subdued: partly expressed in the Article of our Saviour's Coming to judgement, the chief end whereof is setdowne in these words ad sumendos sanctos in [Vitae Aeternae] fructum, to assume his Saints unto the enjoyment of [Life Everlasting.]  
Now this Creed of Tertullian, which so nearly symbolizeth with that of the Apostles, deserves no mean regard; First, because, he is a very ancient Doctor of the Church, as who flourished about the end of the second Century. Secondly, because his works are confessedly genuine. Thirdly, and Chief, because this Creed of his setting down was not Framed by him, (but as he expressly tells us) derived from Christ, by the mouths of his Apostles before ever any Heretic appeared in the Church; so it was not made because of heresies now risen (whereof many arose even in the Apostles Times) but before any of them arose; not for Remedy, but prevention, and therefore must needs be very ancient.  
But in the two other places, he sets down this Creed or Rule of Faith more imperfectly, omitting what made not for his present purpose: yet those imperfect Creeds he calls Regulas immobiles & irreformabiles; inviolable and unchangeable Rules, that is, in regard of those Heads of Belief which he had occasion th' … to set down.  
So that all the Creeds which we meet with in the Fathers or Counsels, are to be compared with that which the Church for so many Ages hath acknowledged for the Apostles, as so many Copies with the Pattern, or Structures with the model: not so well with one another; for so they may differ in point of quantity and proportion; like so many Pictures or Statues made to represent the same body, whereof the original is entire and exactly proportioned, but the copies diversely shaped, and drawn; some too Giant. like; others too defectively, to the middle only, or the shoulders.  
If it be farther objected, that the Romanists affirm all their new Articles to be only Explications of the old, and confess that Articles cannot increase quoad numerum credibilium, sed quoad explicationem; yet, that we condemn them justly for obtruding those explications, as necessary to salvation.  
I answer; that the Romanists are justly blamed for obtruding their explications on other Churches, as necessary to Salvation, because themselves make but a particular Church and yet presume upon a false privilege of universal primacy, and Apostolic Infallibility. But as to the Exegericall succeeding Creeds which the whole Church hath for many Ages embraced, they were Framed in general Counsels or confirmed by General Practice. Now, the Catholic Church, which received the Creed from the Apostles, and preserved ●t as an inviolable Depositum, may justly be presumed best to know the meaning of it; the Common Mother of Christians can best inform us which is the true sense of the Common Faith, and hath sufficient authority to impose it upon Her Children.  
Reas. 4. Those Fathers who wrote since the Nicene Council set down, and explain that Creed which beareth the Apostles name, not that which was framed in the Council of Nice as appears by the forecited Testimonies; Now, this they would not, nor could have done if the Nicene Creed had been the first. The first Father, whom we find to meddle with, or handle the Nicene Creed, is St Cyril Patriarch of Alexandria, who flourished an whole Century after the making of it. Doth not this plainly show, that the Church had still the prime, if not the sole respect to that Symbol or Rule of Faith which the Apostles left her, as the main Basis on which the Faith of her Children was built; the Root, whereout other Creeds, as so many Branches, sprung? the Fathers, who since the celebration of that Council, have explained and commented on the Apostles Creed, I have already mentioned, viz. chrysostom, Augustine, Chrysologus, Venantius, Eusebius, etc.  
Reason 5th. It is a received Rule, which S. Augustine lays down, lib. 4. De Baptismo, cont. Donat. cap. 24. Quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec Conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi authoritate Apostolicâ traditum, rectissimè creditur. That is, That which the universal Church holdeth, and hath always retained, not being ordained by a Council, is most justly believed to have been derived unto us by the Authority of the Apostles.  
And, this rule is grounded upon good Reason, besides the Authority of the deliverer: for a general effect must have as general a cause; they must be both of the same latitude, and extent: now, there is no General cause imagineable of a publicly received Doctrine, Government, Ceremony, or Discipline in the Catholic Church (such especially, as is derived to it from hand to hand, time out of mind) but the Authority of a General Council, which is the Church Representative; or the concordant preaching of the Apostles, who first planted Christianity in the Churches of the whole world. So then, to apply this Rule unto our present purpose. That the whole Church holds the Apostles Creed, experience demonstrates: that it hath been always retained in the Church, the Testimonies of the fore-aleadged Father's show, and that it was not Framed in any general Council, sufficienty appears both by the copies of those Creeds which were framed in them, found varying from that of the Apostles; as also, by the writing of those Fathers who lived before, the first General Council held at Nice, wherein they make mention of a Rule of Faith, derived down to them from the Apostles which some of them also set down, as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen.  
Reason. 6th.  
Before the Nicene Creed was framed, both the Eastern, and Western Churches had an Ancient Symbol or Creed. Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 6. Which could be no other than that of the Apostles, since no other is assigned, or mentioned by any good Author.  
First; That the Western or Roman Church had such an Ancient Symble appears.  
1. By the words of Vigilius Bishop of Rome, lib. 4. De Eutiche— Roma, & antequam Nicena Synodus conveniret a temporibus Apostolorum usque all nunc— ita fidelibus Symbolum tradidit viz. & in Jesum Christum, Filium ejus, Dominum; nostrum; leaving out the Particle Vnicum That is.  
The Church of Rome even before the Nicene Council; from the very Apostles times till this present, in these terms delivered the Creed unto Believers— And in Jesus Christ his Son our Lord, leaving out the Particle [Only].  
2. By Ruffinus, in his Tract on the Creed, who compares the Aquilean Creed with the Roman, and withal tells us, that the Creed was believed so ancient in his time, that it was then held for an Apostolical Tradition. Now this Ruffinus was a man of note in the Church, nine years before the first Council of Constantinople, viz. in the year 372. when he went with Melama from Rome to Alexandria; about which time also S. Jerome wrote letters to him, namely his Epist. 5. & 41.  
Secondly, that the Eastern Churches had an ancient Creed too, before the Nicene Council, appears by the same Ruffinus, who compares the Aquilean Creed with that of the East, as well as with the Roman. The same appears by Cyril of jerusalem, who explains it at large in his Catecheses'; and this Creed of his explaining, we shall find much consonant to that, which we now call the Apostolical; only cutting off some few exegetical Particles, which were added to forearm his Auditors, and other orthodox Christians, against succrescent Heresies: to which Creed of his he adjoins also some practical Grounds, for the more complete instruction and Preparation of them, against the time of Baptism.  
This Cyril was first Catechist, than Patriarch of jerusalem, and sat afterwards in the first Council held at Constantinople, where the Eastern Bishops were only present, and composed a Creed almost in the same terms with this of Cyril: He composed these Catecheses' in his youth, about the year 350; and died in the year 386, five years after the celebration of that Council; as the learned Vossius demonstrates out of Leo and S. Jerome, compared with a passage in his sixth Catechesis. Now, as the Fathers of the first Council at Constantinople, laboured not to frame a new Creed, but were contented to enlarge the Article concerning the Holy Ghost, against Macedonius who perverted it: so, we may justly suppose, that the Nicene Fathers retained the words of that Creed, which had been of old received in the East (lest they might, otherwise, seem to have framed a new Faith) amplifying only the Article concerning the Divinity of our Saviour, which was then called in question by Arius; that so it might appear to the World, quaedam tantummodo explicatius dici, as the same Vossius rightly conceives. Cut off therefore from the Nicene, or Constantinopolitan Creed (or, from that of Cyril, which much symbolizeth with it) the Additionals unto those two Articles, and you have the whole Creed of the Apostles: for [the Communion of Saints] is not a distinct Article, but a part, or Paraphrase of what goes before; Saints, being employed in in [Holy] and Communion, in [Church] or Congregation, Ecclesia, which is an Assembly of selected People: and Christ's descent into Hell, is presupposed to the Article of his Resurrection.  
Therefore, to think that Cyril in his old Age, or john the Patriarch his Successor, added all that to the Jerosolymitan Creed, which follows the Articles of the Holy Ghost, is nothing probable, because Cyril doth not barely set down the Articles, but Catechetically explain them also, together with the rest which precede; and there hath been no reason, ever yet assigned, to make us doubt of the composing of these Catecheses' by the same man, and at the same Time when he was Catechist, which was in his youthful Age, seeing they all alike relish of the same juvenile, extemporary stile; the consideration whereof hath made some to doubt, whether any of them were Cyrils, or no; because they seemed not elaborate enough for so grave a Patriarch; though they seem indeed to have been set forth by his Successor john, and thence became entitled unto him by some latter, unwary Transcriber; which may serve to satisfy that objection taken out of Simlerus, who in his Index of those Books which the City of Auspurgh bought of Antony Eparch of Coreyra, reckoneth, Joannis Jerosol: Catech. Illuminat. du●deviginti, & Mystagogicus quinque.  
If any yet desire, to have this more fully, and clearly demonstrated, viz. That the Eastern Churches had an Ancient Form of Belief derived to them from the Apostles, and whereto they professed to add nothing in their following confessions (because as it is more obscure, so it is more oppugned) they may please to consult these following Testimonies.  
1. Epiphanius, in his Book called Anchoratus, having set down the Nicene Creed as we now have it at large adjoins these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This Faith, (saith he) was delivered by the holy Apostles, and (in the Church, the Holy City) by all the holy Bishops together, above 310 in number. The same Creed, than was delivered by both; by the Apostles, as the Primitive Authors; by the Nicene Fathers, as the Expositors. The Nicene Creed thus at full set down by Epiphanius, was written seven years before the first Council of Constantinople, which first added, all after the Article of the Holy Ghost, unto that form which the Nicene Fathers had delivered (although they were not the first framers of those additional Articles) and having thus completed the Creed by borrowing the remaining Articles from that of the Apostles, confirmed the entire form by their Synodical Authority, and so commended, yea prescribed the whole to the Catholic Church.  
2. The succeeding Counsels in the Eastern Church, expressly tell us, that they and their Predecessors, were neither Authors of any new Faith, nor Adders to it, but only Establishers and Exposirors of the old. The first Council of Constantinople (which was the second General) calls the Nicene Creed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, most ancient, although that Synod was celebrated but 56 years before; the reason therefore of this Title is, that they looked upon that Creed, not as first composed by the Bishops of the Nicene Synod, but as derived and declared out of a Creed ab ultima antiquitate in Ecclesiâ recepto, received in the Church from all Antiquity, as the Reverend and Learned Primate of Armagh hath rightly expressed it. They also decreed to retain it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as most agreeable to the Sacrament of Baptism. Theod. lib. 5. hist. cap. 9  
The Bishops Assembled at Tyre, Anno 518. profess to embrace the Nicene Creed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, expounded, (not made) by that Synod, Act. Concil. 5. Constant. sub Mennâ. And again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is, That holy Creed, whereinto we were all Baptised, the Nicene Synod with the assistance of the Holy Ghost hath publicly declared, that of Constantinople hath ratified, that of Ephesus hath confirmed, and (in like manner) the Great holy Synod of Chalcedon hath sealed.  
The Council of Chalcedon, (which was the fourth General) styles the Creed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Doctrine unshaken or unmoved, from the first Preaching of the Gospel; and withal tells us, that the Counsels of Nice and Constantinople, expounded the Faith, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not adding ought, as if the faith of their Predecessors had been deficient, but declaring their sense by Scripture Testimonies. Evagr. lib. 2. cap. 4. To this agrees also that of the Emperor justinian, writing to Epiphanius Patriarch of Constantinople; we keep, saith he, that decree of faith (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) or Symbol, which was explained by the 118 Father's [in the Council of Nice;] which also the 150 Father's [in the first Council of Constantinople] farther declared, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not as though the ancient faith were defective, but because the enemies of the Truth partly rejected the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, partly denied the Incarnation of God the Word, therefore the said Fathers by Testimonies out of Scripture explained this Doctrine more at large. Thus he, 7. leg. Cord. De Summâ Trinitate, & Fide Catholicâ.  
3. To give you the Testimony of the Western Church, for confirmation of the same Truth, The Liturgy called Ordo Romanus, a Book of known Authority and Antiquity, in the Preface to the Nicene Creed, hath these words, directed to the Persons who were to pronounce it before their Baptism; Audite suscipientes Evangelici Symboli Sacramentum, à Domino inspiratum, ab Apostolis institutum, cujus pauca quidem verba sunt, sed magna mysteria. In which words, the Nicene Creed is called, The Evangelicall Symbol, inspired by Christ, and ordained by his Apostles. And another old Latin Liturgy, in use about the year 700, hath these words of the same Creed, Finito Symbolo Apostolorum, dicat Sacerdos, Dominus vobiscum; Where it is also expressly called, The Creed of the Apostles, that is, the same explained and enlarged. For these Testimonies I am indebted to the said R. and Learned Bishop.  
Now for a close to these Authorities and Arguments, I shall subjoin the testimony of Franc. Quaresimus, of the Order of Minors, a Person of good note in the Romish Church, as who was made by the Pope, his Precedent, and Apostolic Commissary in the Holy Land; during which office of his, he took incredible pains in searching out the Antiquities of Palestine; now, this Author, in his Book called, Elucidatio Terrae Sanctae. Tom. 2. lib. 4. Perear. 9 cap. 1. Brings two opinions concerning the Place, wherein the Apostles composed the Creed.  
The first, that of Adrichomius, who thinks it probable that the place was Caenaculum Zion, a Place famous for many other sacred Actions, as wherein our Blessed Saviour celebrated his last Supper, and instituted the most holy Eucharist; wherein, the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles at Pentecost; and wherein, they held that famous Council about the abrogating of the Ceremonial Law. Act. 15. consonantly to which Tradition, he brings that saying of the Evangelicall Prophet, Out of Zion shall go forth the Law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. Isa. 2. 3.  
The second, that of Friar Anselme, and others; that the place, where the Apostles framed the Creed, was on Mount Olivet, three Bow-shootes from the place where Christ is said to have wept over Jerusalem; for which he gives this reason. Quia est communis in partibus istis Traditio, perpetuis monumentis a fidelibus confirmata, qui ibi antiquitùs pulchram eo intuitu aedificarunt Ecclesiam, sub titulo S. Marci Evangelistae, ut in vetusto MS. libello de locis sanctis exaratum inveni, & meminit Fr. Anselmus; & non modica illius fundamenta, & ruinae adhuc cernuntur. Subtùs est pulchra oblonga cisterna in r●pe montis excisa, duodecim habens in eadem rupe excisas naviculas siuè arcas, in memoriam duodecim Apostolorum, qui unà ibi collegerunt caelestis doctrinae aquas salutares, quibus totus mundus imbibendus erat; Ad eam descenditur per angustum ostium, quod Civitatem respicit.  
Thus both opinions agree in the main, that there was a certain place wherein the Apostles assembled to compose the Creed, although they somewhat differ about the assignation thereof; which circumstance is not much material, especially seeing Adrichomius delivers his opinion but as a probable conjecture; which may therefore well give place unto the latter, as being fortified with the more convincing circumstances, of an ancient, well-grounded Tradition preserved by the Neighbouring Inhabitants, and of a Church built in the memorial thereof, with a large Cistern underneath, hewn out of the main Rock, having twelve cavities in it according to the number of the Apostles.  
And thus, at length, have I run through my Proofs, drawn from Scripture, Antiquity, and Reason; which, I hope, may prevail with any indifferent judgement, to acknowledge this Creed for the Composure of the Apostles, rather than upon some few weak conjectural Grounds, to deny those Composers, which the Title points us to; and then ascribe it to I know not what Nameless, and uncertain Authors, at an indefinite, and uncerteine Time, that is, to they know not whom, nor when; contrary to so old, and general a Tradition.  
This destructive Divinity, which hath been so frequently broached in this All-reforming Age, will not be found altogether so good in the Issue; it is not safe tempering with the main Grounds of our Religion; If we deny, or doubt of the Infallible Authority of the Creed, (as we do, if we deny that it had infallible Authors) what will become of Christianity? If the Foundations be destroyed, what can the Righteous do? Ps. 11. 3. The profession of our Belief is that which makes us Believers, and ranks us in the number of the Faithful. The Creed is the main ground work of our Religion, take which a way (with the succeeding Creeds that have explained it in some points, by assigning the true sense thereof, in opposition to Heretical Glosses) and the whole frame of Christianity falls instantly to the Ground.  
Leave men once to the bare letter of Scripture, (which being large, and made up of several pieces, whereof all were not generally received till the end of the fourth Century, & since that by reason of its dark, and ambiguous expressions, and not a few seeming contradictions, hath been found unhapily abnoxious to the weakness and malice of erroneus interpreters) by taking a way the Creeds, which as they are more short so they are more clear and plain Summaries of the Christian Faith; together with the consentient judgement of Antiquity; which hath acknowledged and established them, and delivered them over to us: And then with out the spirit of prophecy, we may soon foretell what will become of Religion: Then what with Marcionis Machaera, and Valentini Stilus (to use the words of Tertullian), What with chopping off whole Books at a blow, yea an whole Testament, With the Anabaptist; what with razing out whole chapters, and verses, scraping out words and letters, altering of points and commas; What with wresting and torturing the poor remainder, until it speaks the torments mind (which hath been the desperate Project, and Practise of Heretics in all Ages) a very small portion of our Religion will be left entire, yea, no means will be at all left to convince many errors, or to satisfy Pilat's so necessary question What is Truth? Jo▪ 18. 38. Now Pilate missed of an answer, because he would not stay to hear it; but we may stay long enough without one, even till our Saviour (who was asked the question) come again, and discover the hidden things of Darkness.  
This made Tertullian bold to say, Non provocandum est ad Scripturas, nec in his constituendum certamen, in quibus aut nulla, aut incerta victoria est, aut parum certa. De praesc. adv. haer. cap. 19 that is, There's no appealing to the Scriptures, nor can we determine the controversies out of them from which we may expect but an uncerteine victory or none at all. Scripturas obtendunt (saith the same Tertullian of the Heretics) & hac suâ audacia statim quosdam movent; in ipso verò congressu firmos quidem fatigant, infirmos capiunt, medios cum scrupulo dimittunt cap. 15. that is, They pretend Scripture, & with this boldness of theirs they presently move some; but when they come to dispute, they weary the strong, catch the weak, and send away the indifferent, or middling sort, with scruples in their breasts. St Paul therefore chargeth Titus, (whom he had left as his Deputy in Crete, to oversee the Churches which he had there planted) not to dispute with Heretics (as being men condemned of themselves) but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to reject, or excommunicate them, after the first, or second 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is Public Admoniton; or Reprehension, for they who are so in love with their new opinions, as not to yield unto the Authority of the Church, will les yield unto the force of Arguments; which are easily illuded, or evaded by the subtlety of Heretics, who will fly to any shifts, rather than acknowledge a victory; and look upon their superiors as their equals, when they see them thus descend into the rank of Disputants, whom they can Combat with upon even Ground.  
Now, that which hath caused some latter Protestant Divines to call in question, or deny the assigned Authors of the Creed, is this, as far as I can conjecture; that the Creed comes to us under the name of a Tradition, and they are loath to acknowledge any such for Divine or Apostolical, lest Popery should break in at this Gap; and therefore they think it safest to adhere only to the word written.  
But why should this so much fright us? For the question between the Church of Rome, and the Reformed, is not (as I conceive) whether there be any certain Tradition, and consequently to be received? But what traditions are certain and allowable? For have we not received the Scripture itself by Tradition, viz. The number, Authors, and authority of the Canonical Books? Whence have we the Baptism of Infants but by Tradition? (For though we have a fair plea for it upon Scripture-Grounds, yet we have neither clear precept, nor precedent for it, that hath hitherto been shown) or, the setting a part of the Lords Day and other Festivals for Gods public Service? For we have no express command for the observation of these in holy writ, nor for many other Church ordinances that might be named.  
Our Church, indeed, justly blames the Romish, for obtruding upon us, and other Churches her own Ritual Traditions, as of necessity to Salvation; some of which are uncertain; others frivolus, burdenous, superstitious, and even contrary to God's word: so did St Augustin, long ago, sharply tax Vrbicus a Roman Presbyter for pressing the Weekly Fast one Saturday, as necessary to be observed by all Christian Churches, whereas the usual Fasting-days at that time in all Churches, were Wednesday, & Friday; the Saturday fast being a peculiar custom of the Church of Rome. But our Church abolisheth not all Traditions, as appears by this of the Creed, which she (with other Reformed Churches) retains; as also, by her 34th Article which was on purpose framed touching this subject, wherein she intreateth only of Ritual (not Doctrinal) Traditions telling us, that they need not to be always, and every where alike, but may be diversified according to Times, Countries, and men's Manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word; that what soever Private Person purposey and openly breaketh such, aught to be openly rebuked; and, that every particular or national Church hath Authority to ordain, change, and abolish Ceremonies or Rites of the Church, ordained only by man's authority so that all Things be done to Edifying.   

CAP. VIII.  
Several Objections, which some have alleged against the fore-assigned Authors of the Creed, answered at large. Certain Creeds compared together, whereby their conformity appears, to one another, and to that of the Apostles.  
HAving thus confirmed the first of the Five Points, which I proposed to myself in the beginning, namely, that the Apostles were the Framers or Composers of the Creed which commonly bears their name; I should now proceed in order to the Rest, but that I conceive it necessary to clear my passage as I go on; by the removal of such Doubts and Objections, which like so many rubs or stumbling-blocks, hinder my farther proceeding, and obstruct the way. The Truth, though sufficiently clear in itself, yet will shine forth unto others more gloriously, when these mists are scattered; though firmly established, yet her strength will appear more formidable, in the overthrow of her Adversaries. For there be some (and those of no vulgar rank) who have taken great Pains, and still delight themselves, in overthrowing those ancient fabrics which our forefathers left us, building in their room some slight, painted Toy, without either strength or use; to please the fancy of the contriver, not satisfy the judgement, or conduce to the profit, of the sober Christian. A course, if prosecuted, which will ere long, bring the Doom of the Jewish Temple upon the Christian Church, that she will not have one stone left upon another, that shall not be thrown down. Math. 24. 2.  
As for this present Argument; though the Reasons which some have brought against it, seem to the objectors more than probable, yet, I suppose, that upon due trial, they will appear less than necessary, so that they will prove unsufficient to overthrow the constant Tradition of so many Ages, and to sway against the stream of so main a current, the joint Authority and Testimony of so many Doctors of the Church, as well Modern as Ancient. I shall therefore set down their Reasons fully and faithfully, yea somewhat more distinctly than they have done; and then, subjoin their Answers in several.  
Object. 1. Were the Creed compiled by the Apostles, it is not likely that S. Luke, writing the history of their Acts, would have omitted so principal a matter: Sundry other things of fare less consequence he hath carefully recorded (as the Apostles Decree concerning Ceremonies, and things indifferent) but of this so important and weighty a business (the Decree concerning the Rule of Faith) he makes not so much as one word mention, which certainly he would never have failed to do, had they made any such? At least, if S. Luke had omitted it in the Acts, yet it cannot be conceived, how S. Paul and the rest of the Apostles, should not speak a word of it in their Epistles.  
I answer; First, that this is but a negative argument, and concludeth not; S. Luke makes no mention thereof in the Acts, therefore it was never done. To give a like instance, or two. S. Matthew undertakes to write the History of our Saviour's Life and Death, with the Precedents of the one, and the Consequents of the others; and yet there be many weighty Passages omitted by him, which we find afterwards related by S. Luke, and S. john. S. john especially, composed his Gospel of those particular Actions and Speeches of our Saviour, which were left unmentioned by the three former Evangelists: yet, he himself tells us in the conclusion of his Book, that There were many other things which jesus did, the which if they should be written every one, he supposed, that even the World itself could not contain the Books that should be written. joh. 21. 25.  
But to come closer yet to the Argument; S. Luke in that Book of his, which is entitled The Acts of the Apostles, mentions very few Acts of the Apostles in general, yet hath large Digressions concerning S. Stephen, and S. Philip, who were no Apostles, but Deacons; Then, he prosecutes the story of S. Peter, and S. Barnabas; but, more at large, that of S. Paul, whose companion he was in his Apostolical Peregrinations: and yet, how many material Passages, even touching S. Paul, doth he omit, some of which we find afterwards occasionally recorded by himself in his Epistles, especially, in those of his to the Churches of Galatia and Corinth? As for example, his Travails into Arabia after his conversion, his Coming to jerusalem three years after, and communicating his Gospel with Peter, james, and john; his withstanding Peter at Antioch, his rapture into Paradise, and unto the third Heaven; together with many other particulars: things, sure, of greater consequence than his making of Tents at Corinth, or the sign of the Ship wherein he sailed to Italy; and yet these are expressed the other excluded.  
If it be replied; that this Argument is produced only as probable, and yet will hold good unless some probable cause of the omission can be assigned, why a point of so great importance, and so necessary is not mentioned, when others of less weight are, and that the Evangelists omit indeed divers Things which Christ said, and did, yet set down all Things necessary to Salvation, which was their main end.  
I rejoin; That whosoever goes about to overthrow so old, and received a Tradition, may justly be required to bring more than probabilities and conjectures, if he expect to be believed; that this Probability grounded on S. Luke's omission is sufficiently overthrown by the positive Testimonies of the Ancients which I have produced to the Contrary; that the Composure of the Creed by the Apostles, was a business confessedly of great importance, but the mentioning of it by S. Luke in the Acts was not altogether so necessary, it being enough that it was otherwise testified; that, lastly S. Luke probably omitted it, because it was a thing so vulgarly known in the Christian Church, the Apostles delivering it to be kept, and used, wheresoever they Preached.  
Secondly, though S. Luke make no express mention of this Creed of the Apostles, yet S. Paul in divers of his Epistles not obscurely alludes unto it, under several Forms, & Phrases of Speech as hath been shown at large before, so also doth S. Judas. v. 3.  
Thirdly; S. Luke sets down the Apostles Decree concerning the ceremonial Law, because it was the Result of a General Council, and that Council occasioned by a great Dissension in the Church of Antioch▪ which sent to the Apostles about the Resolution of this question. Now, matters of dissension are the chief Theme of Histories; and that Council, with the Proceed and Forms thereof; is set down on purpose, as a pattern to all succeeding Ages. As for the Creed, or Canon of Faith, there was no such occasion for the mentioning of it, seeing no Cavil then arose about it, nor any general Council concurred to the Composure of it, but only a private meeting of the Apostles.  
Ob. 2d. Not one of the Ancient Fathers who lived within the three first Centuries, spoke of any such thing in any of their writings; and yet they should best know it, whose Times were nearest unto the Apostles. Then, of so many Church-historians, who studiously gathered together the confessions of Synods and Anti-Synods, not one makes mention of this, though a matter of the greatest consequence, as being the Rule of Faith, and mother of all following Confessions.  
I Answer. First, That the Ancient Fathers who lived within the three first Centuries, make mention of the Creed and the Composure thereof by the Apostles; I appeal to the former Testimonies cited out of Irenaeus, Tertutullian, and Origen, who all lived within two hundred years after our Saviour's ascension.  
Secondly; Though we have not any Comments extant on the Creed, written by the Fathers of the three first Centuries (Origen, excepted, who largely expounds it in his Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) yet it is more than probable, that more of them expounded it paraphrastically.  
First, because Ruffinus (who lived in the next Age) in the Preface to his Exposition of the Creed, tells us of those before him, comperi (saith he) nonnullos illustrium Tractatorum, aliqua de his pie, & breviter edidisse, That some famous Authors had wrote piously and briefly on this Subject. And, a little after; Tentabimus, quae omissa videntur a prioribus, ad implere, That he would endeavour to supply, what had been omitted by former Writers.  
Secondly, because it was the custom of the Ancient Bishops, to expound the Creed unto Catechumeni, when they came to Baptism, at those two solemn times of the year Easter, & Pentecost, as appears by those Homilies or catechetical Sermons now extant, of Cyril, chrysostom, Austin, Chrysollogus and others. many more (doubtless) there were framed by former Bishops, which either were never committed to paper, or, being then written are now lost. 3ly As to the silence of Ecclesiastical Historians touching this subject, a little observation will inform us, that novel, strange, singular, Passages are the usual Arguments of their Pens, not things Public, known, and received, such as the Creed is & was common then in every Novices mouth. So the Roman Historians set not down their laws, customs, court-proceeding, as things vulgarly known, and of daily practice amongst them; the omission whereof rendering their Histories obscure to strangers, they are set down distinctly by Dionysius Halycarnasseus.  
'Tis sufficient, that several Fathers in most Ages occasionally make mention of it, when they had to deal with Heretics, who denied or perverted it. But, that Ancient Church-Historians mention the several Confessions of Faith, which were framed in several Synods and Anti-Synods (as Socrates, and others, in the business of the Arian faction) hath this double Reason, That they were New, and contrary to each other; whereas, the Apostles Creed was an Old, known Tradition, and received verbo-tenùs by the Arians as well as the Catholics: whence it was, that to unmask their false Glosses, the Catholics were feign to add, by way of explication, unto the second Article of the Creed, the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] so, to clear the true meaning thereof, and distinguish themselves from the corrupters of the Faith.  
Ob. 3d The very Language of the Creed convinceth it to be younger than the Age of the Apostles, for the word [Catholic] was not known in their Time, as witnesseth Pacianus in his Epistle to Sympronianus. It is likely it was added in after Ages, to distinguish the Universal Church spread through out the whole world, from the Canventicles of Heretics and Schismatics, such as the Novatians, and Donastists; for if it be said, this word was added, to distinguish the Christian Church from the Jewish Synogogues, circumscribed within the limits of the land of Canaan; 'tis an improbable Reason, because in the Apostles Age, there were as many if not more Jews out Palestine, than in it; as appears by the History of the Acts.  
I Answer; 1. Some one word might possibly be added in succeeding Times, by way of explication, to distinguish the True Church from the Conventicles of Heretics and yet not prejudice the Antiquity of the whole; So, St Austin seems to include it in the Epethete [Holy] for when he comes to this Article, he adds by way of explication to— Sanctam Ecclesiam— Vtique Catholicam. In case of reply; that if one word be added, why not many? and if the Church might do so in one Age, why not at other times? I rejoin That one word might be added then, but by way of explication only, not to supply a mutilous member or defective Article; but the Form being now settled for so many hundred years such liberty is taken away together with the cause of it, the full, and genuine sense of the Creed having been abundanty delivered to the Church in succeeding exegetical Creeds, and expositions of the Fathers, so that there is now no need of coining new words or Phrases by way of explication.  
But, Secondly, We have no need to make use of this supposal; for the word [Catholic] might very well be placed in the Creed from the Original composure of it. notwithstanding whatsoever is produced to the contrary from the testimony of Pacianus. for this Pacianus (Bishop of Barcelona, and contemporary to S. Jerome) in his first Epistle to Sympronianus the Novatian, which is entitled, De Catholico Nomine; after he had dealt with him very gently in the beginning (superscribing his Epistle thus, Pacianus Symproniano Fratri) to win him over the more effectually to the Communion of the Church; in the Body of his Epistle he useth these words, Sub Apostolis, inquies, nemo Catholicus vocabatur▪ Esto; sic fuerit; vel illud indulge; cum post Apostolos haereses extitissent diversisque nominibus columbam Dei atque Reginam lacerare per parts & scindere niterentur, nun cognomen suum Plebs Apostolica postulabat, quo incorrupti Populi distingueret unitatem, ne intemeratam Dei Virginem Error aliquorum per membra laceraret? Where we may observe.  
First, That he mentions not at all the applying of the word [Catholic] to the Church, or whole Company of Believers as it is placed in the Creed▪ (for this was not called in question by Sympronianus) but the aplying of it to particular persons which in the Apostles times were called Disciples, or Christians, not Catholics; as Sympronianus objected.  
Secondly, That Pacianus absolutely granteth not, that the word [Catholic] was not so used in the Apostles Times, but only, indulgeth so much unto his adversary; because, notwithstanding this supposal, he was otherwise able to convince him upon his own concessions; which kind of supposal or indulgence, is most usual amongst Polemic writers, there by to win over, and work upon the Adversary.  
Thirdly, That the Reason of the name, brought by Pacianus, and urged upon Sympronian, namely, the distinguishing of the true Church, from the several Sects led by, & denominated from, their several factions, and Heretical heads, is very agreeable to the Apostles days and so required the like distinctive Epethete; for S. Paul blames the Church of Corinth for Schisms and addicting themselves factiously to several Idolised Teachers which they had chosen to themselves; for though he names only Peter, Apollo's, and himself, yet his Discourse chiefly aims at some other Popular Preachers, and false Apostles, as appears by comparing 1 Cor. 4. 6. 2 Cor. 11. 13, 20. And, S. John expressly names the Nicolaitans (denominated from one Nicolas) in his Revel. ch. 2. v. 15.  
As for S. Augustine's involving the word [Catholic] in the Epithet Holy; it proves not that it was not then in the Text of the Creed; for it was usual with the Fathers in their Paraphrastical explications, to omit the expression of several Particles, sometimes one sometimes another, which yet were confessedly in the Creed, & are expressly mentioned by them in their other Homilies, or Tractates, as we may see in Chrysollegus, Eusebius Gallicanus, and others.  
Thirdly; Heretics arose, not only after, but even in the very Apostles Times; the Tares were scattered presently upon the sowing of the Wheat, in the lateplowed field of the Church. S. Luke mentions Simon Magus, that Firstborn of the Devil, and Father of Heretics, as the Ancients Style him. Act. 8. 9— 24. S. Paul tells us of Hymenaeus, and Phyletus. 2 Tim. 2. 17. And, of Alexander, Phygellus, and Hermogenes. 1 Tim. 1. 20. 2 Tim. 1. 15. Yea, S. John informs us in more general Terms, That there were many Antichrists in the world, even whilst he lived, who denied the Father and the Son; 1 Io. 2. 18. 22. These Antichrists than were Heretics, who taught contrary to the Faith of Christ wherefore, it is most probable, that the word [Catholic] was placed in the Creed, even by the Apostles themselves, for the reason before assigned.  
Fourthly; The Christian Church might justly be styled Catholic, or universal, to distinguish it from the Church of the Jews, which was a particular Church, confined (if not within the Bounds of one Country) yet unto one Nation; whereas the Christian Church comprehended all Nations, and had no other Bounds than those of the world; although not actually at the time of making the Creed, yet in virtue, and power; according to that general Commission of our Saviour to his Apostles, Go, & teach all Nations Mat. 28. 29. And gain, Ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and all Judea, and in Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the Earth, Act. 1. 8. The Jews were so envious and proud, as not to receive the Gentiles into their communion, or acknowledge them partakers in the promises of the Messiah; they would have had them all circumcised and submit to the Ceremonial Law; but God broke down this Partition▪ wall, Eph. 2. 14. As he made appear by the Vision of the Sheet which he sent to S. Peter Act 10. 11. 15. And by the Decree of the Council at Jerusalem; Act. 15. And so gathered all into one Body or Church Catholic so called in respect of Time, Place, Persons, Faith; which is therefore called the Common Faith. Tit. 1. 4. For this Reason at least the Apostles might justly frame the Article at the very first Composure, in these words I believe the holy Catholic Church.  
Ob. 4th. The different relation of the Story betrays the uncerteinty of it; for they give not all the same Article to the same Apostle: and some marshal them one way, some another.  
Answ. First; Diversity of opinions in Circumstances not material cannot justly call the main Point in doubt. So, all Christians believe the Gospel of St Matthew, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, to be the Word of God, though Divines differ about the language in which, and the time when they were written: and they all agree there is an Hell, though they do not, about the place where. Therefore, notwithstanding some slight, groundless differences (some of them, of latter inconsiderable Authors) we have no just reason to disbelieve the Apostles Composing of the Creed.  
Secondly; As to the various marshalling and order of the Articles; it cannot justly argue the uncerteinty of the Tradition; because the Books of the holy Scripture are also placed in a various method, according unto several Editions and Translations; some following the order of the Hebrew Text, as the Protestant Churches; others that of the Septuagint, and the old Latin Translation, as the Churches of Greece, and Rome.  
Thirdly; Neither can the divers ascribing of them to several Apostles, raise any just doubt of the Composers of the whole; for we find not a few Controversies agitated amongst Divines, concerning the Authors of several Books of Scripture: in the Old Testament, of the Books of the Judges, Kings, and Chronicles, & of the Book of Job: in the New Testament, of the Second, and Third Epistle of St john, and of the Revelation; whether john the Elder were the Author of these Epistles; and, john the Divine of the Revelation; as distinct Persons from john the Evangelist? Or, whether john the Ap. were the Author of all three, under 3 several Titles? But more especially the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is questioned; whether it were Paul, or Barnabas, Luke, or Clemens. And yet, not withstanding all these Controversies, the Christian Church now doubts not of the Authority of these Books; why should we more doubt of the Authority of the Creed, although we know not how certainly to assign the Distinct Articles to their several Apostles; whenas in truth, the more probable opinion is, that they jointly concurd to the framing of them all.  
Ob. 5. If the Creed for matter, and form were from the Apostles, and they delivered it precisely in those words wherein we now have it, why is it not placed in the Canon of Scripture, for if you say, it pertains to unwritten Traditions (as S. Jerome, and others tell us) we must know that those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concern only the Government, and Rites of the Church; whereas the Creed is a Rule of Faith, or Doctrine, required to be professed by Christians at their Baptism.  
Answ. First; To retort a like question: why is not the number of the Canonical Books put into the Canon, that so we might the more certainly know, what Books are of Divine Authority, and what are Supposititious? This sure is a Doctrinal Point, the main Fundamental one; and highly concerns our Faith if any thing do; and yet it is derived unto us by Tradition; why may not the Creed in like manner.  
Secondly; the Creed is taken out of the Canon of Scripture either in express words, or by evident, and necessary Consequence (whereof the Apostles were unerring judges) reduced only to a Method and set Form.  
Thirdly; The Apostles thought not fit to commit it unto writing, but delivered it by word of mouth to the Pastors or Bishops of the Churches, whom they left to succeed them; and who, in a continued Succession down from the Apostles, delivered the Creed unto us.  
Fourthly; That unwritten Traditions comprehend not only matters of Practice (such as are the Rites, & Regiment of the Church) but also matter of Doctrine; I appeal not only to the former instance of the Canon of Scripture, and to this of the Creed constantly witnessed by St Jerome with many other Fathers, (whose testimony deserves much credit) but to a Third also, the perpetual Virginity of the Mother of God; of which Mr Perkins (no friend of Romish Traditions) saith thus; That the Virgin Mary lived, and died Virgin, is received for Truth, but yet not recorded in Scripture: and, in Ecclesiastical Writers, many worthy say of the Apostles and other holy Men are Recorded, and received of us for Truth, which nevertheless are not set down in the Books of the Old or New Testament; and, many things we hold for Truth, not written in the Word, if they be not against the Word. Thus he in his Reform. Cath. of Tradit. Concl. 2.  
Ob. 6th. The Creed hath not been preserved so safe from Addition, Detraction, Mutation, as the rest of the Scriptures always have been; therefore, not likely to have come from the Apostles.  
Answ. I could wish that the holy Scriptures had been kept so safe, as the Objectour bears us in hand; the Church than would have been more pure, and more peaceble. But,  
First; For Additions; Doth not our Church cut off those Apocryphal pieces which were long a go an▪ next to Daniel, and Hester? And do we not find the 151 Psalm added unto the rest a Copy whereof we have in Sixti Sen. Bibliothecâ? And in the New Testament, for some Ages, the Book called Hermae Pastor, was joined to the Books we now have, and esteemed by many for Canonical.  
Secondly, For Detraction; Have not whole books been taken a way by divers Heretics, who would acknowledge no scripture that made against them? For Instance; Martion acknowledged none of the four Gospels, but only that of St Luke; neither his, entirely; as Tertullian witnesseth. Examples of other Heretics are almost infinite. Yea which is more; some Canonical Books for a while were denied, or (at least) doubted of, and so left out in divers Copies, by some Orthodox Doctors of the Church, till the Truth became afterwards better cleared, as the Epistles of James, & jude, the Second Epistle of Peter, the Second, & Third Epistles of St john, the Epistle to the Hebrews, & the Revelation of St john. For this we may consult the Syriack Translation of the New Testament.  
Thirdly; For Mutation; The Heretics of old time, who were bold to cut off whole Books, did much more boldly adventure on changing of verses, words, letters, and points. The fraud of the Arians both old and new, is notorious in this kind.  
Nevertheless for all these subtle, and various Devices of Satan to overthrow Religion, and pervert the Word of Truth by these his mischievous Instruments, yet some ancient copies both of the Scripture & Creed, by God's especial Providence have been kept entire, whereby the rest might be examined and amended.  
Ob. 7th. Although the Creed hath ever been much esteemed in the Church, yet was it never accounted Canonical: The Ancient Doctors were so far from equalling it with Scripture, that they appealed from it thereunto as to an higher Authority; so did Cyr. Catech. 4. And Paschasius, in his Book against Macedonius Bib. Pat. Tom. 9 Which without question they never would have done had they thought, it had been from the Apostles, in such Form, and as now we have it.  
Answ. First; Whether the Creed were accounted for Authority, Canonical, that is Divine, and unquestionable; and, for Frame, Apostolical; I appeal to all those Ancient Fathers, which I have already produced; amongst whom Tertullian (one very Ancient expressly tells us, that the Creed was ordained by Christ viz. by the Ministry of his Apostles, who were Authorised by him, and assisted by his Spirit to compose it; according to that saying of his He that heareth you heareth me. Luk. 10. 16. Whence he sends the Heretics to the Churches founded by the Apostles, to find this Doctrine or Rule of Faith, there left by them. De praesc. adv. haer. cap. 21. Withal, he calls it The Canon or Rule of Faith as Irenaeus had done before him; and tells us, that no part thereof may be called in question.  
Seconly; 'Tis not unlikly that some of the Fathers may cite places of Scripture in confirmation of the Creed, as the Apostles themselves in their writings bring forth places out of the old Teastament to back and vindicate the truth of what they said; yea, our Blessed Saviour himself oft citys Moses, & the Prophets and authorizeth his doctrine by their Testimony, bidding his Auditors to Search the Scriptures (of the old Testament) for they are they (saith he) which Testify of me Io. 5. 39 See also, Act. 26. 22. 2 Pet. 1. 19 jam. 2, 14, 23. And it is the usual practice of our preachers at this day to bring proofs for their textual observations (though oft express words of Scripture) out of other parallel Places. But, as well those citations of the Fathers, as these of our Blessed Saviour, and his Apostles, are brought, not so much to confirm the truth of what they said, as to satisfy the minds of their Auditors, which were more fully confirmed when they they saw the joint correspondence of the Creed with the Scripture, and the Gospel with the Law. And, we find at this day, though divine Authority do abundantly suffice to confirm us in the Grounds of our Religion; yet it doth more fully content the judgement of the Learned when they see the probates of Reason to conspire with the dictates of Faith; for Instance, in the Unity of the Godhead, and the immortality of the Soul.  
Thirdly; As for the two Fathers, whom the objectour citys, I shall return a more particular Answer.  
First; Cyril, indeed, in that place tells us that the mysteries of the Faith ought not to be delivered unto the Catechumeni simply & nakedly, but as clothed with scripture; and, that they should not simply believe him, unless he brought proofs from thence for what he delivered; because the safety of our Faith (saith he) depends not on the pleasingness of Rhetoric, but on the demonstration of God's Word written: The reason whereof he assigns in the beginning of the same Homily, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. The Disciples of the Heretics by their elegancy of speech and fair, soothing tongues, under the name of Christians, deceive the hearts of the simple; they hid the poysoonusdartes of their ungodly Doctrines with sugared expressions, of all whom jointly our Lord saith, beware lest any man deceive you, than he goes on, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; for this cause the doctrine of Faith is delivered with expositions thereon. So that he would not have the Creed or himself believed without Scripture; not that the Creed, but the Times, required such proof: for the Heretics of those Days, partly framed new Creeds of their own; partly, added to, altered, and perverted the old, withal, endeavouring to make their doctrine good by seeming probabillities of Reason, and flourishes of Rhetoric. It was necessary therefore, in this case, to discover these false Creeds, and Interpretations, by bringing all unto the Text of Scripture.  
Secondly; The other Father Paschasius, in the beginning of his Book De Spiritu Sancto, written against Macedonius, taxeth a false reading of the Creed, crept into it through the ignorance of some Transcribers, who wrote I believe in the holy Church for I believe the holy Church: &, by this error enervated an Argument usually alleged by the Fathers for the Deity of the holy Ghost, against Macedonius and his Followers: Paschasius therefore proves by certain Places of Scripture that they are commanded to believe in God alone, but never in man; wherefore seeing the Church consists of a company of men, that reading of the Creed must consequently be false, which enjoins us to believe in the Church. But what of all this? He appealed not, in this, from the Creed unto Scripture, but by Scripture corrects a false reading of the Creed; as the Fathers, in their polemical writings against Heretics, frequently correct their corrupt quotations of some places of Scripture by other undoubted places.  
Ob. 8th. The Reason assigned, why the Apostles composed this Creed discovers the vanity of the Tradition; what was that? That it might be (forsooth) to the Apostles a Canon or Rule, according to which they should square, and conform their Preaching; what, to the Apostles, to whom Christ promised his Blessed Spirit that should lead them into all Truth? Certainly, they, needed it not for their own sakes, amongst whom there was no ground of difference, nor doubt of the Principles of Christianity. And, whereas others more probably say it was framed for the Church's sake, that she might have a short, plain, yet full confession of Faith, as a Formula of Belief, to be publicly recited at the Time of Baptism; neither will this hold; for in the Apostles Age, the Confession of Faith was plain and simple when they came to be Baptised, namely, in Jesus Christ; or, in the Father, Son, and holy Ghost; as appears by the History of the Acts; so that the Church had then no need of such a Formula. It began not to be required, till divers Heresies broke into the Church.  
Answ. First; It is readily confessed, that the Apostles needed no Rule of Faith whereby to square their Preaching, as if otherwise they should have erred; yet they might well agree one a Canon, or Rule of Fundamentals, wherewith they thought fit to acquaint all Christians, as with Points necessary to Salvation; whereas otherwise, they might have Preached more at large, and intermixed matters of lesser Consequence.  
As for the Authors who bring the Reason alleged in the objection, they lay it down, not in these Terms, lest the Apostles being separated each from other, ipsi inter se in varias scinderentur parts: much less, thus, ne subinde alii abaliis in doctrinâ abirent, as is odiously alleged. but Ruffinus renders the reason thus Ne diversum aliquid his, qui ad fidem Christi invitabantur, exponerent, S. Austin in like words, Ne diversum vel dissonum praedicarent his qui ad fidem Christi invitabantur. Now diversum and abversum, dissonum and absonum are two things. there was no fear that the Apostles by being severed each from other, should Preach aught contrary to the Truth, or to one Another, if they had not before agreed upon a Form: yet, they might have Preached somewhat divers from the Fundamentals of Christianity, namely, other Points of inferior concernment; or at least, the same in other words, if they had not agreed on this Rule at their setting forth; whence their Auditors might have taken occasion to suspect and argue them of falsehood (not believing they were all guided by the same Spirit) or to part themselves into factions, as it fell out in the Church of Corinth about Paul, and Apollo's, although they taught the same Gospel. And, what stirs arose in the Church about a Ceremony viz. the time of observing Easter, derived from a different tradition of S. john to the Churches of Asia, from the rest of the Christian world, (though they all agreed in the main, the keeping of the Feast) Eusebius, & others will sufficienly inform us.  
But, to come closer to our Subject. A notable instance in the very same kind, namely, in matter of of Doctrine (such as the Creed is) we find in the Greek and Latin Church about the middle of the fourth Century, touching the Grand mystery of the Trinity; which yet upon due examination, proved only a difference of the tongue & language. The Controversy is thus set down by Greg. Naz Orat. 21. written in praise of the Great Athanasius Num. 46. 47. The Orientals, saith he held one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Essence, and three Hypostases, or or subsistences. The Latins by Reason of the barrenness of their Tongue, and the narrowness of expression, could not distinguish Hypostasis from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Subsistence from Essence; & therefore instead of Hypostasis brought in the new-coind word Persona [Gr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] to signify the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the proper distinctive Relations of the Three, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Nature; what was the effect of this saith he? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The effect deserved laughter, or rather Lamentation; this small difference of words, seemed a diversity of Belief, for the Orientals suspected the Westrne Church of Sabilianisme because they would not acknowledge three Hypostases, but called them by the name of three Persons. And, the Western Church suspected the Orientals of Arianism, for holding three Hypostases. contentions daily growing hotter between them, had like to have separated the East and West about a syllabicall difference; But Athanasius, saith he, with much patience and prudence, calling unto him, and hearing both Parties, having examined their meaning, and the sense of the words, when he found them agreeing in the thing signified and at no difference about the doctrine itself, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, granting them the diversity of their Terms, he unites them together in the same Truth.  
Secondly; Though we hold it most certain, that the Apostles, considered single and apart, delivered nothing to the Church, either by word or writing, but what they were specially assisted in by the holy Ghost; and therefore most undoubtedly true; yet, for aught I know, as the holy Ghost revealed not all truths to the Apostles at once (no not when he descended on them at the Feast of Pentecost) but delayed the manifesting of some till afterwards, as for example the Conversion of the Gentiles to Peter in the vision of the sheet Act. 10. So he might not reveal some truths unto them, when they were single and apart, but only, when they met and consulted together; For though every one of them by himself was infallible in all necessary Points, that is, so as to deliver nothing contrary to the Faith or Truth of Christian Religion; yet without any Derogation to his privilege, they might need the more especial assistance of the holy Ghost upon their Assembly, to instruct them which Points of Faith were necessary to Salvation, which not.  
We have a famous Instance of this recorded, Act. 15. For, when there arose a great question in the Church of Antioch, whether the Gentiles newly converted in Syria and Cilicia, should be circumcised, and obey the Law of Moses? That Paul and Barnabas were sent unto Jerusalem about it. v. 2. that the Apostles, and Elders came together to consider of this matter v. 6. What needed this considering in a solemn meeting, if they had been ascertained what to resolve before they met? It follows v. 7. That there was much disputing, or debate in the Council. Why not, even among the Apostles themselves, who were the chief members thereof? At least this disputing might have been spared, or cut short by the Apostles, as a thing unnecessary, if it had not been thought a good, and needful Preamble unto a final Decision. If the Church had conceived S. Peter, or any other of the Apostles, an infallible Judge in this Point, with out due examination thereof, and the special assistance of the holy Ghost in a Synod, they might have spared both their meeting, and dispute. But when there had been much disputing and not before, they jointly determined what Laws to free them from, and what to impose upon them, as things necessary to be observed, v. 28. namely the abstaining from Blood, and (consequently) things strangled. v. 29. According to that primitive law, given to the Sons of Noah. Goe 9 4. (a Law still observed by the Greek Church, by the Moscontieth, & their neighbour churches of Poland which have admitted the Reformation; and long observed generally by the whole Western Church, even till the Times of Ludovicus Pius as appears by his, and his Father Charles capitular) together with the abstaining from Fornication, and things offered to Idols which the Apostle makes a species of Idolatry 1 Cor. 10. 19, 20, 21. And are more clearly against the Moral Law, though not so esteemed by the generality of the Gentiles. Then, and not before, they use that stile, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us; that is, To us, in the Plural, to us, assembled together.  
Consonantly to this, S. Paul tells us more plainly, Gal. 2. 2. that long after his conversion, and calling unto his Apostleship, he went up to Jerusalem by Revelation, and communicated the Gospel which he Preached among the Gentiles, unto the Apostles who there resided, namely, to james, Cephas, and john; giving this for a Reason, lest (saith he) by any means I should run, or had run in vain, Gal. 2. 2. Now, the composing of the Creed, wherein were to be comprised the main Grounds of Christian Religion, was a matter of the highest consequence; and so, might very well require the joint and serious deliberation of the Twelve, together with the special assistance of God's spirit.  
Thirdly; To the Reply against the second Reason; I Answer, That 'tis a groundless supposal, to think that the Persons to be Baptised in the Apostles times, were required to believe only in jesus Christ, or in the Trinity alone: for,  
First, we find other Principles of Christian Doctrine distinctly set down, in Heb. 6. 1, 2. And Preached by the Apostles, before they Baptised their Auditors: for instance; the Article of Remission of Sins, by Peter. Act. 10. 43. And by Paul Act. 13. 38, 39 The Article of the Creation of the World, by the same Paul Act. 17. 24.  
Secondly, As for belief in jesus Christ, the Apostles indeed required it as the main point, as we read in the History of the Eunuch, Act. 18. 37. and, of the Jailor. Act. 16. 31. Yet not as the sole point; for belief in the holy Ghost was also required as appears by the history of the Disciples at Ephesus Act. 19 2, 3, 6. 'Tis mentioned therefore as the principal, and that which virtually includes all the rest; for to believe in Jesus Christ as we ought, is to believe the Doctrine which he taught & revealed unto the world from the Father, as the guide or light to true Blessedness; now, what was this, but the Gospel of Salvation, whereof the Creed for matter of doctrinals, is the Epitome, consult to this purpose Io. 17. 3. And chap. 3. 13. 36.  
Thirdly, As for belief in the most Holy Trinity it gives us more scope, as that which comprehends all the Articles of our Faith: for, as to believe in Jesus Christ, implicitly contains all the mysteries of our Redemption, viz. His Godhead, Incarnation, and Birth, Passion, Burial, Descent into Hell, Resurrection, ascension, Sitting on the right hand of the Father, and second coming to Judgement, so, to believe in God the Father contains his works of Creation and Providence, which are the Visible effects of his eternal Power and Godhead Ro. 1. 20. And to believe in the holy Ghost involves the whole work of Sanctification, the applying of Christ's Benefits to his Church, and completing the Salvation of mankind, which are distinctly set down in the four last Articles. And, this S. chrysostom teacheth us in his first homily on the Creed already cited; where his Text ends thus I believe in the holy Ghost: but in his explication, he thus unravels the Article, and lays it open to view in its full extent— who brings us to the holy Church, she remiteth our sins, promiseth the Resurrection of the Body, and life everlasting.  
This belief therefore in Christ or in the Trinity is not to be nakedly & simply understood, as if no other Particulars were required, but with relation to those other Articles of the Creed, which in them lie hid, & embosomed; for the History of the Acts doth not express Passages at large (especially such as were ordinarily known and practised, as the profession of the Creed at Baptism) but briefly toucheth the heads of things. the Evangilists do the like in relation of speeches & miracles of our Saviour; so that we are feign to compare them together, to find out the several circumstances, and make up the Relation entire. To prosecute this point a little farther, and illustrate it by the like Instance. As the Apostles are said to require Faith in Christ (and nought else mentioned) of the Persons who came to be Baptised; so are they said, (and that oftener) to Baptise in the name of Christ, without naming any other Person of the Trinity Act. 2. 38, 41. And 10. 48. And 19 5. And, yet we cannot imagine, that they omitted the mention of the other two Persons. First, because it was Christ's express command, that they should Baptise all Nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost; Mat. 28. 19 Secondly; because the Christian Church hath always held, that as water is the Essential matter, so this composure of words is the essential Form of Baptism; and so at no hand to be omitted. Wherefore, when the business of rebaptisation was agitated in the Nicene Council it was determined thus; That the Persons Baptised with the formentioned Catholic from, should not be rebaptised, as being rightly initiated into the Church, though by an heretical hand; but as for the Pauliani, the Disciples of Paulus Samosatenus, who denied the Trinity, and therefore Baptised in a wrong Form; their Baptism was pronounced null and invalid; & those who were so illegally initiated, were received by a new Baptism into te Catholic Church. Let us say then with that most ancient Father Irenaeus, In Christi nomine subauditur, qui unxit, & ipse qui unctus est, & ipsa unctio qua unctus est: & unxit quidem Pater, unctus est vero Filius, in spiritu qui est unctio. that is In the name of Christ is to be understood, the Anointer the Anointed, and the unction wherewith he was Anointed: now, he who Anointed is the Father, the Person Anointed is the Son with the Spirit who is the unction.  
Lastly, That the Church had need of such a Formula of Belief, will appear, both by the Reason mentioned in the objection, for Heresies infested the Church from the beginning, to discover which, such a Shibboleth was necessary: and if those Heresies had not sprung up so early, yet such a Symbol was as necessary at first for prevention, as afterwards for Trial. But of this, more in the next chapter.  
Ob. 9h S. Aug. saith Verba Symboli per Scripturas sparsa sunt, & inde collecta, & ad unum reducta. That the words of the Creed lie dispersed in the Scriptures, from whence they are gathered, and reduced into a Form. De Symb. Catech. lib. 1. cap. 1. So likewise Paschasius. If so, how can the Apostles be the Authors thereof? For out of the Old Testament they could not gather, that Christ was borne of the Virgin Mary; or That he suffered under Pontius Pilate. And as for the new; many of the Apostles were dead before all was written; and James, before any was written.  
Answ. First; The Old Testament may well be said to contain the whole Creed, if not expressly, and in the history; yet typically and in the Prophecy. To instance in those two Articles mentioned in the objection, to wit, our Saviour's Birth, and Passion. Doth not the Prophet Esay say, A Virgin shall conceive and bare a Son? chap. 7. 14. Yea, in the present; Unto us a Child is borne? chap. 9 6. And▪ touching his Passion, doth not the same Prophet tell us, He was wounded for our Transgressions, he was bruised for our Iniquities, he is brought as a Lamb to the slaughter, he was cut off the land of the living? chap. 53. 5, 7, 8. And King David, in his person, They pierced my hands, and my feet Psal. 22. 16. comp. Zach. 12. 10. As for the names of the Virgin, and the Judge, they are no such considerable Additions, as to make a new, or another Article; so much may well be borrowed from the history of the Gospel, & yet the Article not improperly said to be extant in the Prophecy.  
Secondly; The Death of james, mentioned Act. 12. 1, 2. Is placed by Chronologers in the year 44. After our Saviour's Birth. But the writing of S. Mathewes Gospel (a Book sufficient to supply all those Articles, which are not expressly contained in the Old Testament) as placed by them in the year 41. And so, two or three years before the death of james. In the same year 44. Baronius, and Lorinus place the Dispersion of the Apostles into their several provinces, and the framing of the Creed, by joint Consent as a necessary Preparative thereunto; the dispersion, caused by the persecution of Herod; and the door of Faith being now opened to the Gentiles as God himself had informed them by the Vision shown to Peter, before he converted Cornelius. Act. 10. 11. and 15. 7. But, this is agreed on all Hands, that whether this dispersion were sooner (as Corn. a lap. placeth it. Anno Domini 37.) or latter, (as Appollonius cited by Eusebius. lib. 5. cap. 17.) that S. Matthew wrote his Gospel before it, (and that in the Hebrew Tongue, the language of the Jews amongst whom, and for whose use he wrote it, as Irenaeus, Origen, and others witness, though it were soon after translated into Greek by james the Lord's Brother, and Bishop of Jerusalem) for an Hebrew Transcript thereof was carried by S. Bartholomew into the Indies, and found there by Pantaenus of Alexandria, origen's Master; as witness Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 9 & jer. de Scriptor: Eccles. cap. 36. in Pantaeno. And, another Transcript thereof, was carried by Barnabas S. Paul's fellow-Apostle, unto the Gentiles whither he was sent, which he used always to carry about with him; and which was after found buried with him in Cyprus, (in the time of Zeno the Emperor) lying upon his Breast, The same Authors also agree, that the Creed was framed by the Apostles, a little before this general Dispersion. Therefore, when we are told, that the Ancients place the composing of the Creed in the next year after our Saviour's Ascension, and consequently before the writing of S. Mathewes Gospel, the matter is much mistaken. Ruffinus, and S. Augustine say indeed, that the Apostles composed the Creed after our Saviour's Ascension, and after the Descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, but how long after, they determine not. They agree it was composed before their general Dispersion into the several quarters of the World; which happened not in S. Stephen's Persecution, for than they abode all at jerusalem, Acts 8. 1. nor, before the conversion of Cornelius by S. Peter. Act. 10. For the set time of Preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles, and incorporating them into the Church, was not before revealed, as appears by the Series of the story; now, this conversion of Cornelius is placed by Baronius. Aᵒ 41. the very same year, wherein S. Mathews Gospel, according to him, was written. It is most probable therefore, that this Dispersion of the Apostles happened in that Persecution of Herod, mentioned Act. 12. for presently after this, we find Paul and Barnabas, solemnly consecrated, and sent away from Antioch, by the holy Ghosts command, for the performance of this great work, the conversion of the Gentiles Ast. 13. 2, 3, 4. Whereas before, the Gospel was Preached unto the Jews only, or (at the most) unto the Hellenists, who were Jew's by Nation, or Religion (that is, Jewish Proselytes) at least, though they speak the language of the Grecians, amongst whom they lived. This appears Act. 11. 19, 20. And to this accord the words of S. chrysostom; Apostoli praedicaverunt Iudaeis, longoque temporis spatio caesi & slagellati, in judaeâ manentes, ac demum ab ipsis propulsi, in Gentes profecti sunt. That is, The Apostles Preached unto the Jews, and having been a long time scourged and beaten, yet abode in jewry, till at length being driven out by them, they went forth unto the Gentiles. Hom. 70. in. Mat. cap. 22. Compare herewith Act. 1. 8. & chap. 13. 46, 47.  
Thirdly; S. Augustine's meaning in those words, may well be thus construed. The Articles of the Creed lie dispersed in the Scriptures of both Testaments (which, in his Time, were fully and completely extant) and were collected from thence; That is, partly, from the Old Testament then written: partly, from the History of the New, which the Apostles were eye and eare-witnesses of, and shortly after committed to writing. Otherwise, we must make him palpably to contradict himself; for elsewhere, he more than once affirms, that the Twelve Apostles composed the Creed which now bears their name, and which he there explains.  
Object. 10th. If the Creed were composed by the Apostles, latter Ages, out of respect unto them, would not have added aught unto it, as we see they did in the Creeds of Nice, Chalcedon, and that of Athanasius; for the Church of Rome was very slow to add one particle unto the Constantinopolitan Creed (viz. Filioque) thereby to signify the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, as well as the Father, though fully persuaded of the Truth thereof; so greatly did they respect those 150 Bishops who composed it, although they had made some Canons in prejudice of the former Dignity not only of the Alexandrian but of the Roman See. Sure succeeding Ages owed far more reverence to the Apostles.  
Answ. Succeeding Ages added nothing to the Apostles Creed but only explained some Articles, which by reason of their briefness, or obscurity, had been perverted by heretical Glosses. Now, this was no disrespect, but in honour of the Apostles, thus to vindicate their Creed from false Interpretations, and so restore it to its primitive Lustre, and Integrity.  
Secondly; The Constantinopolitan Creed, Framed by those 150 Fathers of the Eastern Church, had been confirmed by the Church of Rome, in the Synod under Damasus; no marvel then, if they were not over forward to add the Particle [Filioque] without their consents who were the prime Framers of that Creed, lest by so doing, they should seem to vary as well from themselves, as the Fathers of that Council.  
Howsoever than that Council might exalt the Dignity of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch (now seated in the Head City of the Empire) to the seeming prejudice of the Bishop of Rome; yet in matter of Faith (such as the Creed) there was no disagreement at all, and so no ground of Alteration.  
If it be replied; That to charge the Creed (written for the capacity of the meanest) with obscurity, is something hard; that, to insert aught or add to it, though, by way of explication, would be thought great presumption; that, to think they would add any thing to it, who would not endure that of [filioque] to be put into a Creed of humane Composure, & when they agreed in the matter, is hardly credible. Besides that succeeding Ages have added to the Creed in some Particulars, is apparent in the Nicene; and, if those additions be only explications, yet to join them with the other Articles, and to urge them as necessary, accounting all those Heretics who receive them not, is all one as to make new Articles, or fundamental Truths; and withal, it secretly taxeth the Apostles Creed of insufficiency, and obscurity without those Additions.  
I rejoin, First, That the Creed in itself is plain for the capacity of the meanest, yet the briefness, generally, & indefinitenes of some Articles, hath laid it open to variety of Glosses, and those oft Heretical; which hath forced the Church to deliver the true meaning thereof by exegetical Additions.  
Seconly; As for these explicatory Particles, the Fathers fetched them, not from their own Brains but from Apostolical Tradition, Conserved in the Church from hand to hand, and attested by the writings of precedent Bishops, to whom the Apostles both delivered the words of the Creed and the true sense of each Article: and hence it is that they urged, and imposed their explications on the Church, as necessary to be believed. Neither▪  
Thirdly, Is the Apostles Creed hereby argued of Insufficiency, or obscurity; seeing nothing is added to it, as if it were Defective in itself; or explaind as if it were of itself obscure. 'Tis only vindicated, by this means from corrupt Glosses, and restored to its primitive sense, and meaning; so the Scripture in like manner, though clear in all necessary Points, and more copious by far than the Creed yet hath been abused in all Ages by curious, and Daring Heads; whence, so many large comments on it, for remedy to this mischief; and we see daily, that laws though as clearly framed as may be, yet stand in need of Glosses, and Additionall Interpretations, when abused by reason of their Generality.  
Lastly, As to the addition of the Particle [Filioque] it is not of the same Nature; because it was annexed to the Creed contrary to the Decree of the third General Council, contrary to the mind and open protestation of the Greek Church, which had framed that Creed at Constantinople; and, by on part of the Church only, viz. The See of Rome, & her adherents in the west.  
Ob. 11h. If after Ages were forced, by new succrescent Heresies, to add something unto the Apostles Creed; yet sure if they had thought it to be theirs, they would never have taken aught from it, for this had been a ready course to make way for new Heresies; whereas we find several Articles of the Creed omitted by them in their new-framed Symbols.  
Answ. The Counsels, and Fathers, which have delivered unto us new Symbols, or Confessions of Faith, occasioned by emergent Heresies; or rather explications of the old Creed in some particulars, which were questioned, or denied by the Heretics of those times▪ have taken nothing from the Apostles Creed, as in itself superfluous; but have, in a larger Declaration, insisted on some Articles which were controverted by the said Heretics; omitting others, about which there was no doubt or question raised, and therefore not necessary, in that case, to be repeated.  
The truth of this will more clearly appear by the Paraphrases of some Fathers on the Apostles Creed, who frequently omit some Articles, or parcels of Articles, in their explications, even in that Age, when 'tis confessed on all Hands, that the Creed, which is now called the Apostles, was fully and completely extant. And, if they omitted some considerable Parts of the Creed, when they undertook professedly to explain it (because, either so plain, that they needed no explication; or, because handled before in some other Homily or Paraphrase) we may suppose, with greater Reason, that the Counsels and Fathers omitted some one, or few Articles, in the composing of their new Symbols (which were framed upon some especial occasion, & directed against a particular Heresy) though the Apostles Creed were then fully extant.  
For proof of this, consult the following Fathers.  
1. S. chrysostom, who flourished about the year 400. in his first Hom. on the Creed, omits these particles [maker of Heaven, & Earth— suffered, died, descended into Hell— ascended into Heaven] and ends the Text of his Creed, thus, I believe in the Holy Ghost.  
2. Petrus surnamed Chrysologus, who flourished about the year 440. in his 57 Hom. on the Creed, omits [Almighty maker of Heaven, & Earth— suffered under Pontius Pilate, died, descended into Hell.] In his 58 Hom. he omits [suffered, and died— rose [from the dead] descended into hell— Catholic] which Epithet is also omitted in the other following Homilies, though expressed in the 57 After sitting at the right hand of the Father— he leaves out [Almighty] as also in the 57 Homily.  
In Hom. 59 he omits [maker of Heaven and Earth.] In Hom. 61. he leaves out the last Article [life everlasting] as included in the precedent, of the Resurrection; for Death being conquered by our Rising again, it must needs be a Resurrection unto a life immortal.  
3. Eusebius Gallicanus (usually called Emesenus) a Father of uncertain Age, but placed by Bellarmine in the year 430. in his first Homily on the Creed, omits [maker of Heaven and Earth] as implied in [Omnipotent.] all the Articles between Christ's Birth and Ascension; although he mention them in his explication: He omits also the Article of the Holy Ghost— The remission of sins by Baptism; as enclosed in the belief of the Holy Catholic Church: and the two last Articles, viz. of the Resurrection, and life Everlasting. In his second Homily, he omits [Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth— [only] Son, in the second Article— Suffered under Pontius Pilate, died—.  
4. Venantius Fortunatus, who flourished about the year 570. in his Exposition of the Apostles Creed, omits Maker of Heaven and Earth— our Lord, in the second Article— rose again [from the Dead]— sitteth on the right hand of the Father; though it be in the explication.— I believe the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints— and, Life everlasting— which is included (as by Chrysologus) in the Article of the Resurrection.  
Object. 12. If the Creed were framed by the Apostles, and by them delivered to all Churches of the World; it could never have come into the Father's minds, to have composed so many Symbols and Confessions, which for Perfection, must needs give place to that of the Apostles; no such therefore was then extant; which he must needs grant who knows, that this simple formula was required of those that came to Baptism, whether they believed in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? Math. 28. 19  
Answ. The Fathers made no new Creeds, or Confessions of Faith, (as hath been already shown) but only explained the old: the occasion of which explicatory Creeds, is well rendered by the Learned Vossius, Non licuit per haereticos in ea simplicitate permanere. Haeresibus igitur obortis, quarum Architecti, vel Patroni sese pro Christianis venditarent, ac misere seducerent imperitos, coacti sunt addere alia, quibus Ecclesiae Doctrina ab Haereticâ, item Ecclesiae filii ab haereticis, & eorum Sectatoribus secernerentur. That is, The Heretics would not suffer the Church to continue in the Primitive simplicity of the Faith; for Heresies arising, whose Authors and abettors carried themselves for Christians, and under that name miserably seduced the ignorant, the Fathers were compelled to add other Creeds, whereby the Doctrine of the Church might be distinguished from Heresy, and the Children of the Church from Heretics, and their followers. Thus he De trib. Symb. Dissert. 1. num. 29.  
Sceondly; as to that Form of Belief in the Trinity, which the Apostles are said, by direction from their Master, to have required of those who came to Baptism, Mat. 28. 19 There is no such matter there set down; only, they are charged there to Baptise in the Name of the Trinity, not in the name of any strange God, or of any one Person of the sacred Trinity, but of all Three together. Yet, I willingly grant, that faith in the Holy Trinity was required of the Persons which came to Baptism, but not by virtue of that command, which was given to the Baptizers, not to the Persons who came to be Baptised: but this Faith was not the only thing required of them; for we read other points numbered amongst the principles, or beginnings of Christian Doctrine which the Catechumeni were taught, as Repentance from dead works, resurrection of the Dead, and Eternal Judgement. Heb. 6. 1, 2.  
Ob. 13th If the Creed had been Composed by the Apostles with the same sentences, words, & order, which we now have, and had been so delivered to the Catholic Church; there had not been divers Creeds about the year 400, according to divers Churches; divers in the manner of expression, and divers in the number of sentences; which diversity will appear to him that shall compare several Creeds together, especially the Nicene, which hath not a few sentences added, & others altered, with which additions and alterations it was afterwards received, and used in the Eastern Churches, the Apostles Creed being in a manner excluded.  
Answ. First; The diversity of several Creeds in some few words, or in the manner of expression, is a Circumstance not material, so the same sense be kept inviolate, and all the Heads, or Articles of the Faith preserved entire.  
Secondly; As to the number of Sentences (more in some Creeds, and fewer in others) we have before assigned some Reasons, why one or more articles have been omitted in some Creeds, and so the number made fewer; but, for the adding of any new Sentences unto the Apostles Creed, I constantly deny that the Primitive Church ever did it, but on the other side constantly disclaimed it; her office being this, to preserve the old Faith [which was once delivered to the Saints] not to coin a New.  
Thirdly; The Church upon occasion, hath added some Explicatory Particles to several Heads of the Creed, especially in the two first Synods of Nice, and Constantinople; partly to vindicate the Faith from the corrupt Glosses of Heretics; partly, the more fully to instruct her Children in the mysteries of Christianity: But all these exegetical Additions refer to some Article, or Limb of this Body of Faith, like Physic or nourishiment to the part; but make not any new Article, thereby to render the Body monstrous. The Fathers in those two Synods, did neither on the one side, dislocate or deprave any limb of the Creed; nor, on the other side, supplied any defective member; they only gave a new growth or Augmentation, as Burnishing to some Articles; or restored that natural vigour, and vital juce unto some parts, which the Heretics had deprived them off.  
The Nicene Creed, that is, the Apostles by this means become vegete and grown, was afterwards used in the Greek Church; yet not presently, either that alone, or Principally, but only once in the year: afterward indeed, in the time of Timotheus Patriarch of Constantinople, (which was about  years after its first composure) it was ordained to be used every Sunday. But before this, we may well presume that the Apostles Creed was used in their Litturgies, without these explications, except it can be shown, that for four hundred years and upward, they either used no Creed in their Church-service ordinarily, which is most improbable; or, that they used some other Creed, which no man yet hath demonstrated  
To demonstrate this more fully, and distinctly, it will not be unworthy our labour, to compare some Creeds together, in which Collation we may contemplate, with no small delight and satisfaction, The consent of Antiquity in matter of Faith, the great care of the Church in preserving that Faith entire, and the growing Perfection of our sacred Mother according as she grew in years. These Creeds shall be Six, The Apostles Creed; The Eastern Creed, or jerosolymitan, set down by Cyril, and compared by Ruffinus; The Nicene; The Athanasian; The Aquileian, set down by Ruffinus, and compared with the Eastern and Roman Creeds; The Chalcedon Creed; And to these we will add, That of the Church of Antioch, a good part whereof is set down by Cassianus.  

Article I.  
Apost. I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven, and Earth. East. I believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible, and Invisible. Nice▪ hath the same words. Aquil. I believe in God the Father Almighty, Invisible, and Impassable. Athan. There is one Person of the Father— The Father is God— The Father is Almighty. Antioch. I believe in one only true God maker of all Creatures Visible, and Invisible.   

Article II.  
Apost. And in Jesus Christ his only [or only-begotten] Son our Lord, East. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds. Nic. And in one Lord jesus Christ the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made, of one Substance with the Father, by whom all Things were made. Aquil. And in Jesus Christ his only [Unicum] Son our Lord. Athan. The right Faith is that we believe & confess that our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, is God, God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds, perfect God, equal to the Father as touching his Godhead. Chalc. We profess the Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, to be one and the same, and all us with one accord pronounce him to be perfect as concerning his Godhead, consubstantial to the Father according to the same Godhead, begotten of his Father before the worlds as touching his Godhead. Antioch. And, in our Lord Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son, the firstborn of every Creature, begotten of him before all Worlds, and not made, very God of very God, consubstantial to the Father, by whom the Worlds were framed (or, Ages set in order) and all things made.   

Artic. III.  
Apost. Conceived by the Holy Ghost, borne of the Virgin Mary. East: Incarnate and made man. Nic. Who for us men, and for our Salvation, came down from Heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man. Aquil. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, borne of the Virgin Mary. Athan. It is necessary to everlasting Salvation, to believe rightly in the Incarnation of our Lord jesus Christ; for the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man— Man of the substance of his Mother, borne in the World; perfect God, and perfect Man, subsisting of a reasonable soul and humane flesh; inferior to the Father, touching his Manhood; who although he be God and Man, yet he is not two, but one Christ, one, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood unto God; one altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of Person; For as the reasonable Soul and Flesh is one Man, so God and man is one Christ. Chalc. We profess the same, to be perfect God when he was made man, very God, and very Man, the same [subsisting] of a Reasonable Soul, and Body— of the same substance with us according to his Humanity, in all things like unto us, without sin— the same in these last Days, for us and, for our Salvation, was borne according to his Manhood of the Blessed Virgin, the Mother of God, one and the same jesus Christ, the Son, the Lord, the only-begotten, made known in two natures without confusion, conversion, division, or separation thereof, (the distinction of the natures being not at all taken away by reason of their union, but the propriety of each nature being preserved, and both meeting in the same Person) not severed, or divided into two Persons, but one, and the same only-begotten Son, God the Word, and Lord jesus Christ; according as the Prophets have from the beginning [or, from above] instructed us concerning him; yea and Christ himself, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered unto us. Antioch. Who for our sakes came, and was borne of the Virgin Mary.   

Article IU.  
Apost. Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried. East. crucified, and Buried. Nic. He was crucified also, for us under Pontius Pilate, he suffered, and was buried. Aquil. crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried. Athan. Who Suffered for our Salvation. Antioch. crucified under Ponitus Pilate, and Buried.   

Article V.  
Apost. He descended into Hell, the third Day he risen again from the Dead. East. The third Day he risen again from the Dead. Nic. And, the third day he risen again, according to the Scriptures. Aquil. The third Day he risen again from the Dead. Athan. Descended into Hell, risen again from the Dead. Athan. Descended into Hell, risen again the third Day from the Dead. Antioch. And, the third Day he risen again according to the Scriptures.  
Christ's descent into Hell (as we see in this Collation) is expressly set down but in two Creeds, namely, this of the Apostles, and the Athanasian; although the Fathers of the first Ages generally acknowledge it, and mention it in their writings, for which we may look back on the Creeds of Thaddaeus, and Ignatius, set down before. The reason therefore, why it is omitted in other Creeds, I conceive to be this; That they held it involved or presupposed in the following word— The third Day he risen again from the Dead. For Christ may not improperly be said to have risen the third Day, according to both Parts; from the Grave, in his Body: from Hell [a low place, especially in comparison of Heaven] in his Soul. So, both Parts, in this Rising met together from two several Places, whether they had before Descended; both which places are set down in holy Scripture as the Receptacles of the Dead, as well Good as Bad (so 'tis in either a Rising from the Dead) and are jointly called by the names of Sheol, Hades, Inferi This also S. chrysostom, in setting down the Creed, passeth by Christ's ascension into Heaven; as being included in, or presupposed by that which follows, His sitting at the Right Hand of the Father. See Gen. 37. 35. Job. 26. 6. Psal. 86. 13. & 139, 8. Prov. 15. 11. Isa. 13. 9 Luk. 16. 23. Rev. 1. 18. & chap. 20. 13.   

Artic. VI  
Apost. He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right Hand of God the Father Almighty. East. And ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father. Nic. hath the same. Aquil. the same. Athan. He ascended into Heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty. Antioch. And he ascended into Heaven.   

Article VII.  
Apost. From whence he shall come to judge the quick, and the dead. East. And he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. Nic. Who shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end. Aquil. From thence he shall come to judge the quick, and the dead. Athan. From whence he shall come to judge the quick and the Dead. Antioch. And he shall come again to judge the quick, and the dead.   

Article VIII.  
Apost. I believe in the Holy Ghost. East. And in the Holy Ghost, the comforter, who spoke by the Prophets. Nic. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son according to the Latins] who with the Father, and the Son together is worshipped, and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. Aquil. And, in the Holy Ghost. Athan: There is another Person of the Holy Ghost— the Holy Ghost is God— the Holy Ghost is of the Father [and of the Son] Neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.   

Article IX.  
Apost. I believe the holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints. East. One, holy, Catholic Church. Nic. One holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Aquil. The holy Catholic Church. Where Ruffinus in his explication, interprets [Holy] by that which preserves the Faith, or Religion of Christ entire; and opposeth the Church to the Conventicles of several Heretics, which he calls Concilia vanitatis; thus explaining the word Catholic, and the Communion of Saints.   

Article X.  
Apost. The forgiveness of Sins. East. One Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins. Nic, I acknowledge one Baptism for the Remission of Sins. Aquil. The Remission of Sins.   

Article XI.  
Apost. The Resurrection of the Body. East. And the Resurrection of the Body. Nice. And, I look for the Resurrection of the Dead. Athan. At whose coming All men shall rise again with their Bodies, and shall give an account for their own Works. Aquil. The Resurrection of this Body. In the Exposition whereof Ruffinus hath these words, Et ideo satis cautâ & providâ adjectione Ecclesia nostra [Aquilegiensis] docet, quae in eo quod a caeteris traditur, Carnis Resurrectionem, uno addito pronomine, tradit, Hujus Carnis Resurrectionem; hujus sine dubio, quam is qui profitetur, signaculo Crucis fronti imposito contingit. That is, our Church [the Aquileian] hath warily and providently added the Pronoune [This] to the Article of the Resurrection of the Body, which is delivered without it in other Churches; This Body, that is, which he toucheth, who maketh profession of the Creed, having the Sign of the Cross made upon his Forehead, whence we may observe, not only the Antiquity of the Cross in Baptism; but the custom also of the ancient Church, in adding some exegetical particles to the Creed, as a Thing publicly received and practised in the Christian World.   

Article XII.  
Apost. And, life Everlasting. East▪ And life Everlasting. Nic. And the life of the World to come. Athan. And they that have done good, shall go into life Everlasting; and they that have done Evil, into Everlasting fire. Aquil. Encloseth it in the precedent Article of the Resurrection, in the explication whereof, Ruffinus hath these words, Dabitur & peccatoribus incorruptionis & immortalitatis ex Resurrectione conditio; ut sicut Deus justis ministrat ad perpetuitatem Gloriae, ista peccatoribus ad prolixitatem confusionis ministret & paenae. That is, Sinners also shall rise to an immortal and incorruptible estate; so that as God affourdeth the rightious everlasting Glory, he also prepareth the sinners for length of shame and sorrow.  
Ob. 14th. That Creed which was neithe made by the Apostles nor by any General Council, nor was received by the Greek or Eastern Churches, but in the Church of Rome; and had been so long recited, and used in the Church, now about the year 400, that then it was held an Apostolical Tradition; which, it is certain, was conveyed also by the Church of Rome, to other Churches of the West, the Eastern Churches in the mean time using other Creeds; that Creed was composed by those who had the Government of the Roman Church: but, there is nought of this which agreeth not to the Creed, that we call the Apostles; therefore, the Bishop and Presbyters of the Church of Rome composed it.  
Answ. This is the summary Argument, used to disprove the Authors of the Creed, and which we have already answered by Parts. For, that the Creed was composed by the Apostles, we have proved at large, both by Authorities and Arguments. That it was received (for the full sense and substance thereof) in the Greek or Eastern Church,, appears both by what we have before cited out of the Greek Fathers, especially Marcellus and chrysostom; as also by the foresaid Parallel of the Jerosolymitan, Nicene, Antiochian, and Athanasian Creeds, with the Roman, and Aquileian.  
That it was held an Apostolical Tradition by the Church of Rome, before the year 400, appears by the forecited Testimonies of the Lain Fathers, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Ambrose, and others.  
That it was conveyed by the Church of Rome to other Churches of the West, which the Objector invidiously allegeth, to disparage it amongst the Reformed Churches) is more than hath been proved; but if it were, it maketh nothing against its Dignity, and Authority; for such a Conveyance will argue the Church only for the Deriver (as the Head, Mother, or Principal Church of the West) not the Original Composer of the Creed; and, 'tis generally acknowledged, that the Church of Rome, in the first Ages, was most famous for the purity of the Orthodox Faith; and the uncorrupt keeping of Traditions, especially Doctrinal. Lastly, that the Eastern Churches used other Creeds, hath been also disproved, if by [others] be meant Creeds divers in meaning, and in the substance of the Articles: Therefore the conclusion, namely, that the Creed was framed by the Bishop and Clergy of Rome, of its own accord falls unto the Ground.  
Thus have I endeavoured, not only to bring positive Arguments for the asserting of this Ancient Tradition, but withal to answer all those Objections which are brought against it; a Task, fare the more difficult of the two.  
First, because it is an untrodden Path, wherein I had neither Help nor Guide; no man, till these late busy Times, having ever presumed to write against the Authority, or the Authors.  
Secondly, because it is usually a fare easier labour, to establish a received Truth, then to demolish all the specious objections which are raised against it. I shall desire to meet with the same candour in my Reader, whosoever he be that shall compare these Arguments and Answers together, which I have used towards the Objectors, whose Persons I have not so much as named, (as having no quarrel to them) but only contended with their Objections: and, whatsoever my Answers be, their Arguments I am sure, are set down at full, and to the best advantage, lest otherwise I might seem to have fought with my own shadow. Let the indifferent Reader see, and judge.  
Yet, if after all this, I be farther asked by the more curious enquirer, which of all those Creeds or Symbols that we meet with in Antiquity, and which I have here produced, came 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in express words from the Apostles, neither more, nor less, not the least particle varied?  
I Answer; First, That this question, as it hath much difficulty in it, so it hath little necessity; for as long as those Creeds agreed in the substance of the Faith, it matters little or nothing, though there be some variety of expression.  
This indeed might make way for a difference in substance, if done rashly, upon a private judgement, and a design of countenancing some new opinion: but not so, when done by the general consent of the Church, assembled in a Synod, which is supposed, not only to have the words of the Creed, but also the true sense thereof kept in her, by Tradition, as an inviolable Depositum; and withal, to be directed by the Holy Ghost, so as not to err in any necessary, fundamental Point, such as the Articles of the Creed are. The Socinians indeed, would have the Nicene Creed to differ in substance from that of the Apostles, but such a censure is not to be much wondered at in them, who renew the Heresies condemned by that Creed, and by the two Counsels which composed it.  
Secondly; Amongst all the forementioned Creeds, those which we may have most probable recourse unto, as the exact Patterns, or Models of the rest, the Apostles genuine Births as well for words as matter, are the Creed of the Jerosolymitan Church, explained by Cyril; and the Creed of the Roman Church, which we of the West, now commonly call the Apostles Creed; for these two are most complete in themselves, and most consonant to each others.  
First; The Creed of the Jerosolymitan Church is likely to be the Apostles, because that was the Ancient mother Church of the whole World, where Christianity first began, and from thence was communicated unto all Nations; and wherein the Apostles are said to have composed the Creed, before they went unto the Gentilks.  
Secondly; The Church of Rome also hath a very fair Plea for her Antiquity and Integrity.  
First, Because that Church was founded by the two Prime Apostles, Peter and Paul.  
Secondly, Because she was in the greatest Repute, for the first Ages, as the most uncorrupt preserver of the Catholic Faith, and keeper of Apostolical Tradition, when other Churches swerved from the Apostolic Doctrine: whence it is, that the Fathers of those Ages frequently appeal to her, in their writings against Heretics.  
Thirdly, Because Heresies arising in other Churches, forced them to add some explicatory Particles to the Creed, thereby to vindicate the Faith from Imposture, and distinguish themselves from unsound Professors: but the Church of Rome had this happiness for a long while, that no Heresy sprang up in her, which by infecting her Children, enforced her to this necessity; for that of the Novatians, was about Ecclesiastical Discipline, rather a Schism then a Heresy; and Blastus, was a Quartadecuman, Erring only about the time of keeping Easter. As for Florinus and Praxeas; the one was not Roman, but a stranger, and soon discovered; and both, upon Discovery were banished, as it seems; for we hear not of any great harm they did, or store of Disciples they led after them. Now, this felicity of the Roman Church, caused them to keep their Creed entire, according as they had received it from the Apostles, their first renowned Founders, without any Alteration or Addition, so much as in the manner of expression; to which purpose we may consult these three following Testimonies.  
First, S. Amb. in his forecited Epistle to Syricius Bishop of Rome, exhorts all to believe the Apostles Creed, which the Church of Rome hath always preserved [intemeratum] untouched, and inviolate.  
Secondly; Ruffinus in his Exposition of the Creed, upon those words, [I believe in the Father Almighty] gives us this Admonition; Illud non importunè commonendum puto, quod in diversis Ecclesiis aliqua in his verbis inveniuntur adjecta, in Ecclesiâ tamen urbis Romae hoc non deprehenditur factum; quod ego propterea esse arbitror, quòd neque haeresis ulla illic sumsit exordium; & mos ibi servatur antiquus, eos qui gratiam Baptismi suscepturi sunt publicè, id est, fidelium populo audiente, Symbolum reddere; & utique adjectionem unius saltem sermonis, eorum qui precesserunt in fide non admittit auditus; in caeteris autem locis, quantum intelligi datur, propter nonnullos haereticos addita quaedam videntur, per quae novellae doctrinae sensus ceederetur excludi.  
That is, I think it not unseasonable to give notice, that in divers Churches somewhat is added to these words; but not so, in the Church of Rome; the reason whereof I suppose to be this; because neither any Heresy there took its Rise, and the ancient custom is there also kept, that the Persons who are to be baptised, publicly rehearse the Creed in the audience of the Church, which would not endure to hear the least word added: but in other Places, according as we are informed, some passages seem to be added by reason of certain Heretics, on purpose to exclude the novelty of their Doctrines, by expressing the true sense.  
1. Thirdly, Vigilius Bishop of Rome, in his 4th book against Eutyches, hath these words, Vniversitas profitetur, Credere se in Deum Patrem omnipotentem; & in Jesum Christum, filium ejus, Dominum nostrum. Huic Capitulo ob id iste calumniatur, cur non dixit, in unum jesum Christum Filium ejus, juxta Niceni decretum Concilii? Sed Roma, & antequam Nicena Synodus conveniret, à temporibus Apostolorum usque ad nunc, & sub Beatae memoriae Caelestino, cui iste rectae fidei testimonium reddidit, ita fidelibus symbolum tradidit; nec praejudicant verba, ubi sensus incolumis permanet. That is, The whole Church professeth, to believe in God the Father Almighty; and in jesus Christ his Son, our Lord▪ Eutyches cavils at this last Article, because it runs not thus, [In one jesus Christ his Son] according to the Decree of the Nicene Council: whereas the Church of Rome, before the assembling of that Council, from the Times of the Apostles until this present, (and under Caelestinus of Blessed memory, the rightness of whose faith Eutyches acknowledged) delivered▪ the Creed in these Terms unto the faithful; neither be the words prejudicial, where the sense is entire.  
So then; That the Church of Rome kept the Creed inviolate, this Apostolical Tradition faithfully, and entirely; witness here S. Ambrose, Ruffinus, and Vigilius: And, that the Apostles distinguished it into twelve Articles, according to their own number, witness (as hath been shown before) the same S. Ambrose, Augustine, and Leo the Great.  
But, because these two Creeds, of the jerosolymitan and Roman Churches, differ something in the Bulk, that of jerusalem being somewhat the larger; we may, if we please to make them exactly agree, cut off those Additionall Particles from the Creed of jerusalem, which were added because of Heresies, succrescent in those Eastern Parts.  
But if we let them alone, the difference will not appear considerable; rather, an admirable Harmony will be observed between the so distant Churches of East and West, in matter of Faith, which otherwise, in Discipline and Ceremonies, did not a little vary. Thus, the Church's Coat, like that of Christ her spouse, was seamles, though wrought with divers Colours.    

CAP IX.  
The Second Head of this Discourse; namely, The Gounds on which, and the ends for which, the Apostles Framed the Creed. The Suffiiciency also of the Creed foe the Rule of Faith, is proved by the Testimonies of Divines as well Modern as Ancient; and those, both Romish, and Reform.  
HAving evinced, as fare as in me Lies, the first, and chief Head which I proposed to Treat off, namely, That the Apostles were the Composers of the Creed which commony bears their Name; I come now to dispatch the other three, in their order as they lie, the which will require but a short discussion; and first; the Grounds, and ends of composiing it.  
First; The Apostles had Ground, and warrant for composing this Breviary of Faith, from divers Patterns in holy Writ, of Gods own setting. King Solomon in the old law contracts the whole Duty of Man into these two precepts, Fear God, and keep his Commandments Eccles. 12, 13. And a wiser than he, in the Gospel, our Blessed Saviour, reduceth the whole Law unto these two Heads, The love of God, and our Neighbour Mat. 22. 37.  
More particularly; God the Father, in the old Testament, concluded the whole law of nature with all its Branches, within the compass, of ten short Precepts; and those ten, he reduced into two Tables: Thus, we have a perfect Rule of Love, and obedience, from his Mouth. Then, God the Son, under the New Testament, at his Disciples request, gave us an exact Form of Prayer, whereby to ground, exercise, and regulate our hopes and desires. There remained now in the compiled some short complete Rule of Faith which the holy Ghost here did, delivering this Creed unto the Church by the Mouths of the Apostles, to be for ever kept therein as a sacred Depositum.  
Thus have we three Brief, but Full Rules of those Fundamental, Christian virtues, Faith, Hope, and Charity; namely, The Creed, The Lord's Paryer, and The Ten Commandments; delivered unto us by the three Persons of the Sacred Trinity.  
Secondly; The Framing of the Creed was most necessary for these two ends:  preservation of Faith, and Charity.  
First, For the ease, and safety of Christians; especially, of the plainer, weaker, and more Ignorant sort. Many have not the ability, or leisure to peruse the whole Body of Scripture, and thence to collect those Points of Faith which are necessary to Salvation; for they lie confusedly scattered here & there, mixed with matter of a divers kind▪ yea, some Articles of the Creed are not expressly and directly found in any determinate Place of holy writ, (as the eight and ninth; together with the mystery of the Trinity, which is therein contained) but depend on Consequences, and Logical deductions, which though sufficiently clear in themselves upon a just arguing, or comparing, of Places, yet it cannot be presumed that every one hath the skill to Frame them; so that there would be much fear of error, and danger of mistake in so weighty a Business. Wherefore it was very expedient, or rather absolutely necessary, that there should be gathered a summary of these points, digested into a method, and expressed in plain terms; and that by an unquestionable and unerring hand; that so we might know what to trust to, and have always at hand those main grounds of our Religion, which God requires to be believed by us, as necessary to Salvation.  
The whole Scripture is indeed a Perfect Rule of Faith, so is it also, of our hope, and life. A perfect Rule of our Life, and manners, in its precepts and prohibitions: of our hope in its Promises, & several Patterns of Prayer: of our Faith, in its Dogmatic Positions; yet as it pleased God to sum up the first in Ten short words, as Moses calls the Commandments. Deut. 10. 4. And, to sum up the second in seven shorter Petitions: so it was as requisite, that upon the the same Ground, the Third should be reduced unto some few Heads, as they are now in the twelve Articles of the Creed; which therefore we may not improperly call, Sepes Credendorum The fence or mound of our Faith, without which Boundary we should wander up and down in infinito Campo, in a large field at random.  
This Reason is touched by S. Austin De fide & Symb. cap. 1. Est Fides Catholica in Symbolo nota fidelibus, memoriaeque mandata, quantum res passa est brevitate Sermonis, ut incipientibus atque lactentibus, eye qui in Christo renati sunt, nondum Scripturarum divinarum diligentissimâ & Spirituali tractatione atque cognitione roboratis, paucis verbis credendum constitueretur proficientibus, & ad divinam doctrinam certa humilitatis atque Charitatis firmitate surgentibus, quod multis verbis exponendo esset perficiendum.  
Secondly; For the due bounding of our Faith and Charity. There are many lesser, circumstantial Points in divinity which Christians may differ about, Salva Fide & Charitate; without prejudice to either: but, others there be of fare higher Concernment, requisite to the very being of a true, and rightly grounded Christian; these we call Fundamental Points; the Nescience of most whereof, but the denial of any, is destructive of Salvation, without ensuing repentance. Now, it was necessary, that these should be known, and severed from the rest, that so the Church might know whom to admit to Baptism, and acknowledge for her Children, and on the other side, Whom to reject, or cut off, as Heretics, misbelievers. Yea besides, that every private Christian might know by this Rule, whom to communicate with, and whom to fly from and avoid, as Heathens and Publicans in our Saviour's Language.  
To demonstrate this Father, (namely that the Creed contains all Points which a good Christian is bound of necessity to believe) I shall produce a Reason, or two, and thereto subjoine the testimonies of the Ancients; which, among other Corollaries hence deducible, will serve to free the true reformed Churches from that just imputation of Heresy, which the Church of Rome hath been pleased to lay upon Them; for all of them generally & unanimously embrace the Creed, as appears by their several confessions; and therefore cannot justly be charged with heresy in the ancient, (which is the true, and genuine) acception of the word.  
The reasons are these two which follow.  
First; the End, for which the Apostles Framed the Creed, cannot be imagined to be any other than this, viz. To give us a Breviary of the fundamental Doctrines of Faith, Dare we say, that the Apostles came short of this their end? It must be then either for want of Power or want of will. Now, to affirm they could not compass it, is little better than Blasphemy and to affirm they would not, when they might; must needs argue them of gross negligence in their function, and uncharitablnesse to the Christian church; faults wholly uncompatible with the Apostolic office, and Zeal.  
Secondly; The name of Symbol [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] in the Greek and Regula Fidei, The Rule of Faith, in the Latin, whereby the Ancients style the Creed, argue the completeness of it: for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies Nota or Indicium; the Creed being the note of difference, between the true Children of the Church, and those who were either unbelievers or misbelievers. And, the Rule of Faith, as Tertullian calls it; or, The Rule of Truth, as Irenaeus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That unerring Rule of Truth which we received in Baptism; (from whom chrysostom and Austin borrowed the term who opposed the Creed to the Placita of Heretics; and will have them examined ad hujus amussim, by the line or Rule of the Creed) must be adequate to the Faith or necessary Truth, whereof it is a Rule, niether larger, nor narrower; for else, it looseth the very nature of a Rule.  
To this Truth the Fathers give in their Suffrages; I shall set down the Testimonies of some, who were the most Ancient, and the most famous in their Times.  
1. The Creed is called Breve Evangelium, the Epitome or breviary of the Gospel (like Homer's Works enclosed in a nutshell) according to the saying of S. Bartholomew, recorded by Dionys. Arear. lib, de mist. Theo. cap. 1.  
2. Clem. Romanus, in his forecited Epistle, Ad Fratrem Domini, calls the Creed Summun totius Fidei Catholicae, the Summary of the Catholic Faith: and farther saith, that in it Integritas credulitatis ostenditur, The entire, or whole Faith of a Christian is declared.  
3. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Magnesians, after he had reckoned up those Heads of the Creed, which touched our Saviour, concludes thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He, who fully knows, and believes these things, is Blessed, that is as far as concerns these Articles, or this part of the Faith, which relates to our Saviour; the same holds, in proportion of the rest; otherwise, not only a right belief (although full, and entire,) but a good life also, are requisite to happiness.  
4. Irenaeus tells us, that many barbarous Nations, who had not the Books of Scripture among them, yet, Sine Charactere, vel atramento, Scriptam habuerunt per Spiritum sanctum in Cordibus suis salutem, Had Salvation wrote in their Hearts by the Finger of the holy Ghost without the help of Pen, and Ink. Where, by [Salvation] he understands the Tradition of the Creed; (as appears by the following words) so called by a Metonymy, because it is a means, in its kind, sufficient to Salvation. Thus he, lib. 3. cap. 4. The same Father elsewhere gives this testimony of the fullness of the Creed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is, Neither the most able Orator amongst the Pastors of the Church, can say more than this (for no man is above his Teacher or Master) neither he who is weak in speech, can distinguish (or, speak less than) this Tradition; for there being one and the same Faith neither he who is able to speak much of it, hath augmented it; nor he who is able to say little, hath lessened it at all.  
5. Origen, in the preface of his Books 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith that the Holy Apostles Preaching the Faith of Christ, De quibusdam quidem etc. Concerning some Points, most plainly delivered unto all Believers, even the most dull and slow, whatsoever they judged necessary. where by Necessaries, he understands the Articles of the Creed, which he there reckons up.  
6. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his fift Catechesis, speaking of the Creed useth these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we comprehend, saith he, the whole Doctrine of Faith in a few versicles. And afterwards, comparing it unto a small grain of mustardseed, which virtually, contains many Branches, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so also doth this Creed, in a few words, comprehend the whole doctrine of Religion, which is delivered in the old & new Testament.  
7. Eusebius Galicanus (commonly called Emesenus) in the beginning of his second Homily on the 'Greed hath these words Hanc nobis fidem, velut magnam lampadem, Christus adveniens, errantibus viam monstraturus exhibuit, per quem possit Deus ignotus requiri, quaesitus credi, creditus inveniri. This Faith or Creed saith he, like some great Lamp, Christ exhibited for his coming, thus showing the way to those in error; By help whereof, God, who was before unknown, might be sought, being sought might be believed on, being believed on, might be found.  
The same Father, in his first Homily, derives the name Symbolum, from Caena collatitia; and then tells us, that De utroque Testamento, totius Corporis virtus in paucas est diffusa sententias, ut facilius animae Thesaurus, non in Arca said in memoria portaretur, The quintessence of the whole Body of Scripture is extracted into a few Sentences, that so this precious Treasure of the Soul might be the more easily borne, not in a Chest but in the Conscience.  
After this, he brings two similes to the same purpose; comparing the Creed to a picture, wherein are united all the several Graces of the choicest Beauties: and, to a Rich Man journeying, who puts all his wealth into a few Jewels, which are easily portable.  
8. S. Austin, in his 181 Sermon De Tempore, gives this Elegy of the Creed; Symbolum breve est verbis, sed magnum est Sacramentis; quicquid enim praefiguratum est in Scriptures, quiquid praedictum est in Prophetis vel de Deo ingenito, vel ex Deo in Deum nato, vel de spiritu Sancto, vel de suscipiendo omni Sacramento, vel de morte Domini, resurrectonisque ejus mysterio, totum breviter hoc Symbolum continet. That is, The Creed is little for words, but large in mysteries; for what soever was prefigured in the Patriarches, proclaimed in Scripture, foretold in the Prophets, either concerning God the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, or of undertaking the mysterious work of our Salvation, or concerning the Death, & resurrection of the Lord, this Creed doth contain in brief.  
9 Leo the Great, in his 13th Epistle, written to the Empress Pulcheria, calls the Creed (as is fore-alleadged) The short, and Perfect Confession of the Catholic Symbol distinctly marked forth by the twelve Apostles into so many sentences, Tanquam instructa sit munitione Caelesti ut omnes haereticorum opiniones solo ipsius possint gladio detruncari, cujus plenitudinem si Eutiches etc. As completely furnished with celestial armour, so that the the Heads of all heretical opinions may be cut off by its sword alone; the Fullness whereof if Eutiches etc.  
10. Cassianus, in his sixth Book of the Incarnation of our Lord, speaks fully to this purpose; Quicquid per universum etc. whatsoever is largely diffused throughout the whole Body of the Scriptures, is all summed up in the perfect breviary of the Creed. The place we have cited more at large; chap. 5.  
11. Venantius Fortunatus, in the preface to his explication of the Creed, gins thus Fidei Catholicae totius summam recensentes, in quâ integritas Credulitatis ostenditur, & unius Dei omnipotentis, id est, Sanctae Trinitatis aequalitas declaratur, & mysterium Incarnationis Filii Dei etc. That is, Whilst we declare the sum of the whole Catholic Faith, wherein the entire belief of a Christian is set forth, with the equality of one Almighty God, that is, of the Holy Trinity, and the mystery of the incarnation of the Son of God etc. where he useth the very words of Clemens Rom. Which we forecited. Then he concludes, Cunctis credentibus quae continentur in Symbolo, salus animarum & vitae perpetua bonis actibus praepareiur; Let all those who believe the Things contained in the Creed, provide, by good works, for the salvation of their Souls, and life everlasting: that Creed being sufficient for matter of belief, as good works are, for matter of practice.  
12. I shall conclude these Testimonies of the Ancients, with these words of Erasmus lib. de Rat. verae Theolog.— utinam nostra credulitas Symbolo esset contenta; ubi caepit esse minus Fidei inter Christianos, mox increvit Symbolorum & modus & numerus. Would to God, saith he, our Belief had been contented with the Creed; when there began to be less Faith amongst Christians, the Creeds straightway increased both in bulk, & number.  
For the farther clearing of this Truth, I shall add to the Authority of the Ancients, the Testimonies of some noted Doctors in the Roman Church, who make the Apostles Creed the Breviary of the Faith; and the note, or sign to distinguish the Orthodox Professors from Heretics, as well as Infidels: and so, by a necessary consequence, free the Reformed Churches from the injurious imputation of Heresy, seeing they all unanimously receive the Creed, in the old Primitive sense, as it was expounded and enlarged by the four first general Counsels.  
1. Aquinas 2a. 2ae. qu. 1. Art. 9 speaking of the Apostles Creed, useth these words; Necessarium fuit, fidei veritatem in unum colligi, ut facilius posset omnibus proponi, ne aliquis per ignorantiam fidei a veritate deficeret; Et ab hujusmodi sententiarum fidei collectione, nomen Symboli est acceptum. It was necessary, saith he, for the Points of the true Faith, to be drawn into one (from which Collection of Sentences it took the name of Symbolum) that so they might the more easily be presented to all; and for this end, lest any one should departed from it through ignorance. Whence it will follow, that all necessary points of Faith are therein contained, for if any were wanting; there were room left for ignorance.  
2. Canisius, in his Catechism, maketh this Question; Estné brevis aliqua fidei complexio, ac summa omnium nobis credendorum? Is there any short summary of the faith, and collection of all Points to be believed? He answers; Est illa, quam 12 Apostoli suo Symbolo tradiderunt— quod quidem Symbolum, velut illustris not a est, qua Christiani ab Impiis, qui vel nullam, vel non rectam Christi fidem profitentur, discernendi ac internoscendi sunt. There is, namely, That which the Twelve Apostles have delivered in their Creed— which Creed is a famous mark or sign, whereby Christians are to be discerned from those ungodly persons, who either profess no faith, or not the Right.  
3. Augerius, in his Catechism, proposeth the like question: Estné brevis aliqua methodus fidei, quae necessario nobis tenenda est? Is there any short method or rule of Faith, which is necessary to be held by us? He answers; Est, & quidem ab ipsis Apostolis tradita, quae Symbolum ideo vocari solet, quod sit quaedam Illustris notae, quâ Christianos distinguimus ab iis, qui Idololatrarum superstitionem, & haereticorum impiotatem comitantur. There is such an one, and that delivered by the Apostles themselves, which is therefore commonly called a Symbol, because it is a certain mark of note, whereby we distinguish Christians from those who follow the superstition of Idolaters, and the impiety of Heretics.  
4. The Roman Catechism, set forth by the Decree of the Council of Trent, and of Pius 5. hath these words touching the Creed; Hanc fidei formulam, Symbolum Apostoli appellârunt, quia eâ veluti notâ & tessera quadam uterentur, quâ desertos & subintroductos falsos fratres, qui evangelium adulterabant, ab iis qui verè Christi militiae sacramento se obligarent, facilè possent internoscere. That is, This form of Belief the Apostles called a Symbol, because they made use of it, as a certain Token or watch word, whereby they might easily discern false Brethren, who had privily crept into the Church, and corrupted the Gospel, from those who sincerely bound themselves by Oath (in Baptism) to the service of Christ.  
5. A Catechism, taken out of the Works of Costerus Pet. de Soto, and others; set forth by the command of the Archbishop of Triers; respons. ad 2am qu. saith thus, Haeretici quosdam Articulos, vel penitùs negant, vel interpretationibus depravatis in novas, alienasque. Sententias detorquent; neque ulla unquam, extitit haeresis, quae non hoc Symbolo damnari potuerit. That is, The Heretics do either wholly deny some Articles of the Creed, or by their corrupt interpretations wrest them into new, and strange senses; neither, did there ever arise any Heresy, which might not be condemned by this Creed of the Apostles.  
Now, how the Church of Rome, which gives this Testimony of the fullness of the Creed for the Rule of Faith, and makes it the Distinctive mark, whereby to know her true, genuine Children, from the Bastardy of Heretics, can justly add many other Articles to it, (as Pius 4. doth, in his Bull De professione fidei) to be believed as necessary to Salvation; and for the not receiving of them, as undoubtedly Catholic, necessary Truths, together with the Apostolic Articles, condemn the Reformed Churches of Heresy; I can see no shadow of Reason; except she include these her Dictates in the body of the ninth Article, and so enforce them upon us, by virtue of the Apostles pretended Authority, interpreting the Article thus, I believe the Holy Catholic Church, That is, I believe whatsoever the Church of Rome, usurping the Title of Catholic, requireth of me to be believed. But this Interpretation will be found obnoxious to a double Error.  
First, Because she begs the main thing in question, namely, That she is the Catholic Church; whereas, she is but a member thereof, and that a very diseased one.  
Secondly, Because the sense of the word [Credo] I believe, must in all reason be taken in the same sense here, as it is in the following Articles, unto which it is in like manner referred; viz. I believe, there is a Remission of Sins, that there is to be a Resurrection of the Body, and Life everlasting. So here; I believe there is an Holy Catholic Church; that is, That the Christian Church is Holy, and Catholic or Universal: Holy, for Doctrine, and Manners; and universal for Place, not tied to Greece, or Rome, or Geneva, but generally diffused throughout the whole world.  
To conclude this Point; I shall add some concurrent Testimonies of the Protestant Divines, whose agreeing in this with the Church of Rome, though much differing in others, shows the Power and clearness of this Truth, which extorts a Confession from all Mouths; and withal, may serve to stop the violence of some zealous Reformatists, who even Reprobate all those that go not along with them in every new-broached Doctrine, and in the Resolution of each Theological Controversy. These Divines shall be six.  
1. Luther in his larger Catechism, after he hath set down the Creed, the Commandments, and the Lords Prayer; he subjoins, In hisce tribus partibus, summatim ac nuditér, & (quoad ejus fieri potuit) simplicissimè comprehensa sunt omnia, quicquid passim in sacris literis longè, lateque tractamus. That is, In these Three are summarily, and plainly comprehended, whatsoever Things are handled at large in the holy Scriptures. The Creed being the Breviary of the whole Scripture, for matter of Faith; as the ten Commandments are, for matter of of Practice; and, the Lords Prayer, for our Petitions. Each perfect in its kind.  
2. Selneccerus, in his Paedag. Christianâ, saith, Certum est in hoc Symbolo [Apostolorum] contineri omnia Capita totius Christianae Religionis, rectè, perspicuè, & ordine. That is, It is certain, that in this Creed of the Apostles, are contained all the Heads of Christian Religion, rightly, clearly, and methodically.  
3. joan: Gerardu●, a late Learned, and Moderate Lutherane, in the Epistle Dedicatory to his second Tome of Common Places, speaks thus of the Creed, Quotquot Doctrinae Christianae etc. Whatsoever Collections or Systems of Christian Doctrine; which Saint Luke calls Catechises. Luke 1. 4. Act. 18. 25. Saint Paul, The form of sound words. 2 Tim. 1. 13. The Epistle to the Hebrews, The first Principles of the Oracles of God. chap. 5. 12. and, the Principles of the Doctrine of Christ. cha. 6. 1. Clemens of Alexandria, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, rude Draughts. Origen Principles, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dionysius of Alexandria, Elements of Divinity, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Eusebius, lib. 3. cap. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A breviary of the Elements of Religion, Nazianzen, Theology. Theophilus, and Lactantius, Institutions. The most at this day, call them Common Places. Whatsoever Collections, I say, in this kind, of Christian Doctrine, have been written and set forth by divers Authority, from the most ancient times of the Primitive Church, the first lineaments (as it were) and chief Heads of them, are set forth in the Apostles Creed.  
This Rule of Faith set down by Irenaeus and Tertullian, and styled an Apostolical Tradition, if any one compare with the words of the Apostles Creed, he will easily find a great agreement between them— sometimes, the Apostles Creed; sometimes the Scripture, itself, is called the Rule of Faith by the Ancients; namely, by reason of the exact harmony or concord between both, which looks on the holy Scripture, as the fountain, and the Creed as a stream thence derived. As in Ages past, when new Disputes ever and anon arose, the Fathers who succeeded the Apostles, were enforced to set forth larger and more express summaries of the Apostolic Doctrine; partly to unfold it more fully, partly to vindicate it from corrupt Glosses: So also, in this latter Age of ours, wherein the minds of many are very fare withdrawn from the Apostolic simplicity by the subtlety of Satan, the shortness of the Creed is to be explained more at large out of the fullness of Scripture, and thereby fortified against the corruptions of Heretics; that so we may faithfully preserve in our own persons, and deliver over to Posterity, the sacred Depositum of the Christian Faith. Thus for Jo. Gerardus.  
4. Calvin. Instit. lib. 2. cap. 16. §. 18. Of this we are undoubtedly assured, saith he, Totam in eo [Symbolo Apostolorum] fidei nostrae historiam, succinctè, destincteque recenseri; That the whole History, or subject of our Belief, is contained in the Apostles Creed briefly and orderly.  
5. Beza, on Rom. 12. 6. the place before cited, tells us, That the Apostles Creed was composed, at the very beginning of the Gospel's Preaching, veluti. Evangelii Epitome, as a Compendium, or short summary of the Gospel; and therefore was deservedly called the Rule of Faith, by Tertullian.  
6. Bullinger, in the Preface to his Decades, tells us, That the General Counsels, in setting forth their Creeds, changed nothing in the Doctrine of the Apostles, neque quicquam novi adjectum, neither added any thing thereto; therefore they judged that Doctrine full and complete. Now, that by the Doctrine of the Apostles, he means the Creed, appears clearly by the precedent words.  
The forecited Testimonies of Jo. Pappus, Chr. Barbarossa, and Pet. Martyr, say as much; which, who so please, may look back upon, for farther satisfaction.   

CAP X.  
The Third head of this Discourse; namely, The several Reasons, or significations of the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which the Creed bears in the Original Greek.  
THE Apostles Creed is styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Symbol, for more Reasons than one, all taken from the several Significations of the word, found even in profane Authors.  
First; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) signifies Collecta, or Collatio, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a conferendo: that is, a Feast, or Supper, whereto every one of the Guests brought his share either in meat or money; which kind of Feast was also, by an other usual name called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now this acception of the word, well suits with the Creed, as having reference both to the Makers and the Matter. For the makers or Composers of the Creed were the twelve Apostles, parallel in number to the twelve Articles whereof it consists, And, the matter of the Creed consists of the several points of Faith, gathered out of the whole Scripture and hear United in one methodical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Breviary.  
This also well consorts with an other signification of the word, mentioned by Pliny. Nat. Hist. lib. 33. cap. 1. Both Greeks' and Romans (saith he) in latter Times, called a Ring, Symbolum. Probably, from the several parcels, or grains of Gold, melted and fashioned into one Orbicle: which grains aptly signify the several Parts; and, the orbicular figure, the Perfection of the Creed.  
This reason of the name, we find given by Clemens Romanus, Ruffinus, Saint Austin, Cassianus, and Venantius Fortunatus.  
Secondly; The word signifies Tessera Pacti, a Tally in Contracts; a Bond, or Indenture, such as we make with God in our Baptism, by profession of our Faith in the Creed, wherein the Articles of our Covenant with God (for matter of Belief) are comprised, from which if we recede, we break our Covenant, and so renounce our Christendom, thereby forfeiting all the privileges of our Baptism.  
This reason of the name is rendered by Chrysologus, Hom. 62. in Symb. Placitum, vel pactum quod lucri spes venientis continet, vel futuri, Symbolum nuncupari, contractu etiam docemur humano; quod tamen Symbolum inter duos format semper geminata conscriptio, & in stipulatione cautum reddit humana cautela, ne cui surrepat, ne quem decipiat perfidia contractibus semper inimica. Sed hoc inter homines, inter quos fraus, a quo facta est, aut cui facta est, semper laedit: inter Deum vero, & homines, Symbolum fidei sola fide firmatur; non literae, sed spiritui creditur; & mandatur cordi, non chartae; quia divinum Creditum humana non indiget Cautione. And alittle after; Sed dicis; qui falli non potest quid est quod exiget Placitum? Quid Symbolum quaerit? quaerat ille propter te, non propter se; non quia ille dubitat, sed ut tu Credas. The sum is; That in humane Contracts there are required two Symbola or Tabellae, the Indenture and the Counterpane, and both these in writing to prevent mistakes, and cheat: but one only is required in our Baptismal contract, or Covenant, to wit, our Bond given to God, not in writing, but by way of parole, published in the face of the Church. The reason is; because God can be neither decieved, nor deceive; but we, unless thus bound, might through humane frailty, more easily departed from the Faith professed, and in fringe our Articles, not to the decieving of God, (who knows us better than ourselves) but to the destroying of our Grace, and the forfeiting of our glory.  
Hitherto also belongs that of Genebrard in his Book De Trinitate. Aristoteles pulchre dixit, elementa quae inter se qualitate unâ communicant, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Solebant autem Graeci in pactis conventis uti quibusdam tesseris, quae loco tabularum syngrapharumque essent, ex quibus jus diceretur, quae & vocarentur Symbola. ergo summa fidei compendio verborum concepta ab Apostolis, sive ab Ecclesiâ representatiuâ, verè Existit Symbolum, quòd ea in judicium Ecclesiae relata declaret penes eum Religionis virtutem esse, qui ipsa in suae fidei Probationem confert; nam certe penes illum consistit Religionis veritas, cui benè credulitate convenit cum doctrinâ Apostolicâ, cujus Symbolum est consensionis, conventique nota certissima.  
Thirdly; The word signifies, Tessera Amicitiae, or Tessera hospitalis, a certain Token, which not only particular men gave to their Friends and Allies, but which Cities also publicly be stowed on some well-deserving men, that so, in their Travails, they might (upon producing thereof) be friendly received, and courteously entertained in the confederate Towns. So Budaeus informs us out of Lysias the Orator. Now, this Confession of our Faith in the Creed, hath the same nature and use among all Churches wheresoever dispersed over the face of the whole Earth; for whosoever brings this Tessera, or Token with him is to be received as a Brother— But if there come any unto you saith St John, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your House, neither bid him, God speed. 2 Io. 10.  
To this Sense alludes Leo the Great, in his Epistle or Tract against Eutyches Fraterna vos & paterna solicitudine commonemus, ut inimicos Catholicae fidei, hosts Ecclesiae, incarnationis dominicae negatores, & instituto a Sanctis Apostolis Symbolo repugnantes, in nullum recipiatis consensionis affectum, we warn you out of a fraternal, and a fatherly care, that ye receive not into your communion the enemies of the Catholic Faith the adversaries of the Church, the Denyers of the Lords incarnation and the oppugners of the Creed by the holy Apostles.  
Fourthly; The word signifies Insigne militare, a military Flag, Ensigne, or Banner, by which Soldiers are known to what Captain or General they belong. So Herodian in the 4th book of his history tells us of the Emperor Antonius Caracalla; that partly to ingratiate himself the more with the Soldiers; partly, to harden himself in warlike exercises, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He sometimes bare on his own shoulders the weightiest Ensigns of the Army. Now, this signification also well agrees to the Creed; for by this Profession of our Faith, we show that we belong to Christ our General, fight under his Banner against our three enemies, the World, the Flesh, and the Devil: His Cognizance we take on us in our Baptism, by attesting to the Creed; either in our own Persons, if Adulti: or, if Infants, in Personis Susceptorum.  
Fiftly; The word signifies Tessera militaris, a watchword, whereby Soldiers of the same Army, or Camp know one an other, and discern themselves from the Enemy. Which signification, among all the Rest, seems most proper to the Creed, because by this profession of the Faith, Christians are distinguished, not only from jews, Turks, and Infidels, but, more especially from Heretics, those Renegadoes, and Deserters of the Christian Faith. For, as watchwordes are most necessary in civil wars, where the Difference is between the same Countrymen, who use the same Language, apparel, arms, and manner of fight; these being the only signs and tokens, whereby they may try those whom they suspect; & discover whether they be true friends or concealed Enemies: so Heretics profess Christ in outward show and take his name upon them; but do not truly Preach him, secundum Apostolicas Regulas, non integris Traditionum lineis nunciantes (to use the words of Ruffinus) what out of Pride, Curiosity, or discontent; what for gain, or Belly, they frame new Doctrines of their own, some besides, some against the Foundation; which they obtrude upon the Faith of others. Now, the watch word to discover these false Apostles, these Deceitful workers, who transformed themselves into the Apostles of Christ 2 Cor. 11. 13. Was (anciently) the Creed. If, upon examination, they embraced this in the old Catholic sense, they were received as Brethren: if not they were rejected and avouded as spies, false Brethren, Corrupters of the Faith.  
The Heathens also had the like Custom, to give for their wathwords, the names of their Gods, their supposed Deities, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Minerva and the like. what fit watchword then for a Christian, than the profession of his Faith in the true God, the thrise-holy Trinity, which he makes in the Creed.  
And this may be therefore judged the most proper in this Place, and most likely to be intended by the first entitlers; because the Ancient Church of God, following his Pattern in holy Scripture, useth many other the like military Terms, and seemeth to delight in the metaphor. The Church herself is described, Terrible as an Army with Banners. Cant. 6. 4. Our Blessed Saviour is styled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The chief Captain or General of our Salvation Heb. 2. 10. And S. Paul exhorts Timothy whom he had left his Lieutenant at Ephesus to endure hardness, as a good Soldier of jesus Christ. 2 Tim. 2. 3. In opposition to which (that I may give this note by the way) the heathen Soldiers under the Christian Emperors got the name of Pagani; because, when they refused to renounce their Idolatry, and so become Christians, they were dimissi in Pagos, cashiered, and sent into the Villages, and so returned unto their country Life. To proceed; our Christian Virtues, or graces, are styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Complete Armour of God. Eph. 6. 11. 13. The particulars whereof are there described. The grand mysteries of our Salvation have the name of Sacraments given them; now, Sacramentum properly signifies that Oath of obedience which Soldiers took unto their General. lastly; that part of the Church, which here on Earth, is styled militant: that in Heaven, Triumphant. Suitably then, doth the Creed wear the name of Symbolum, a watchword. The Reason of the name we find given by Clemens Romanus, Ruffinus, Maximus Taurinensis, and Isidore Bishop of Sevil.   

CAP XI  
The fourth Head of this Discourse; namely, The Division or Parts of the Creed.  
THE Apostles Creed hath a double Division, among Divines, to wit, A greater, and a less. The one distributes into four general Parts: The other Anatomizeth it into twelve Articles, limbs, or joints (for this is the literal signification of the word Articulus) which make up the entire Body of Christian Faith.  
As to the first Division. The four general Parts of the Creed, have for their Object, God and man, viz. The three Persons of the sacred Trinity, and the Church; instructing us what we should believe of either.  
1. The first part is touching God the Father; and consists but of one Article.  
2. The second Part, is touching God the Son; and comprehendeth six Articles.  
3. The third part, is touching God the holy Ghost; and consists but of one Article, as the first did.  
4. The fourth Part is concerning the Church and a threefold benefit conferred by God upon it answerable in number to the Persons of the sacred Trinity; viz. The Remission of sins by the Father Eph. 4. 32. Resurrection of the Body by the Son Io. 6. 39 Mat. 24. 31. everlasting Life by the holy Ghost, the Spirit of life, and Glory. Gal. 6. 8. Rev. 11. 11. Pet. 4. 14.  
Then for the Second division. The Creed brancheth itself into twelve Articles, usually referred to the twelve Apostles in several, but however answerable to their number. The Articles we have already distinctly set down and compared them with six other succeeding Creeds.  
These twelve Articles are compared by some to the twelve Stones, which joshua in his passage over to Jericho, took out of the midst of jordan to frame an Altar within Gilgal, in memory of having gotten possession of the promised land. For the holy Scriptures, which these Articles of our Belief are taken, are the true waters of life, a spiritual jordan. The river itself was sanctified by the the very Person of our Saviour, when he descended into it at his Baptism, in which solemnity all his Disciples have since made a Public profession of their Faith by attesting to the Creed, The twelve Articles thereof, compiled into one Body, well resemble those twelve Stones framed into an Altar, and that Altar erected, in memory of the Promises now obtained, the heavenly Canaan typifyed by the earthly; for the Creed contains the great benefits of God towards his Church, heretofore possessed in shadow, but now in substance, by virtue of our Blessed Saviour's Purchase, who was the Antitipe of josua, In whom the promises of God are yea, and Amen. 2 Cor. 1. 20.  
But, by others, they are more appositely compared to the twelve foundation-stones, mentioned in Reve. 21. 14. Which are there said to support the wall of the new jerusalem and wherein, as it is there expressly set down, the Names the twelve Apostles of the Lamb were written. This new jerusalem is Christ's Church on Earth, for it is there styled The Tabernacle of God with men. ver. 3. The wall of this City, is the Faith or professed doctrine of the Church, whereby it is guarded against her enemies, and separated from all other Religions. And the twelve Stones in the foundation of this wall are the twelve Articles of the Creed, which be the Grounds of our Faith, the Fundamentals of Christian Religion.  
To the same sense, and purpose S. Paul compares the Church to an holy Temple built upon the foundation of the Apostles, and Prophets, jesus Christ himself being the chief Corner Stone Eph. 2. 20, 21. Now, this foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, cannot be understood of their Persons (for they are dead long ago) but of the main Grounds of their Doctrine, which are continued, by their successors, in the Church, unto the world's end.   

CAP XII.  
The fift Head of this Discourse, touched in General viz. the supplemental, or, exegetical Creeds, framed in Succeeding Ages. The Grounds whereon they were framed, and their use. Some Copies of Creeds set down, as well of the Heretics as the Orthodox; both consonant to this of the Apostles.  
THIS Creed of the Apostles was in itself, a Complete Rule of Faith, sufficient to establish the Church in her Belief; but, in process of time, certain Heretics arose, who perverted the anciently received Faith in the old Catholck sense and meaning thereof yet in outward show, & Profession subscribed to the words. Such were those Arch-heretics Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutyches, against whom the four first general Counsels were called.  
Now, to detect, and convince these close, subtle Heretics, the Church was enforced to Frame some other Creeds or Symbols. Nihil mirum videri debet (saith S. Hilary) quod tam frequenter fides exponi caeptae sint; necessitatem hanc nobis furor haereticus imponit; that is, It is not to be marvelled that the Creed hath been so often explained in several Forms of Confession; the fury of heretics hath forced us to it.  
New Creeds than these were, not for the Sense, but only for the Frame and Composure; they being nought else but Paraphrases or expositions of the old; especially in those two main Points of the Trinity, and Incarnation, which were then (and I could wish, they were not by some now) chiefly oppugned; the Devil's malice, and man's curiosity, concurring together: the Devil's malice; as being Points of the higest concernment: and man's curiosity; as farthest removed out of the Reach of our natural Capacity, and beyond the ken of human Reason.  
Now, that we may, and how far we may lawfully thus explain the Christian Faith, and enlarge the Doctrinals of Christianity, let us hear Vincentius Lirinensis, who thus expresseth it with a like elegancy and Solidity. Forsitan dicet aliquis; nullusne in ecclesiâ Christi profectus habebitur Religionis? Habeatur sanè, & maximus; sed ita tamen, ut verè Profectus sit ille fidei, non permutatio. Crescat, oportet; sed in suo duntaxat genere crescat; in eodem sc. Dogmate, eodem sensu, eademque Sententiâ; Imitetur Animarum Religio rationem corporum, quae licet annorum processu numeros suos evoluant & explicent, eadem tamen, quae crant, permanent. multùm interest inter pueritiae florem, & senectutis maturitatem; iiden tamen ipsi fiunt senes, qui fuerant Adolescentes; ut quamvis unius, ejusdemque Hominis status habitusque mutetur, una tamen nihilominus, eadenque natura; una, eadenque Persona sit. Parva lactantium membra, magna juvenum, eadem ipsa sunt tamen. Quot parvulorum artus, tot virorum; & siqua illa sunt quae aevi maturioris aetate pariuntur, jam in seminis ratione proserta; ut nihil novum postea proferatur in senibus, quod non in pueris jam antea latitaverat— Quod sihumana species in aliquam deinceps non sui generis vertatur effigiem, aut certè addatur quippiam membrorum numero, vel detrahatur; necesse est, ut totum Corpus vel intercidat, vel prodigiosum fiat, vel certè debilitetur. Ita etiam Christianae Religionis dogma sequatur has, decet, profectuum leges, ut annis sc consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate; incorruptum tamen, illibatumque permaneat; & universis partium suarum mensuris, cunctisque quasi membris & sensibus propriis plenum atque perfectum sit; quod nihil praeterea Permutationis admittat, nulla proprietatis dispendia, nullam sustineat Definitionis varietatem.  
The sum whereof is this. That there may & aught to be a proficiency in Religion (the greater, the better) but it must be an increase, not a change. Religion must proceed on, and grow, but in the same sense, Doctrine, and substance; like our Bodies, which in process of Time, grow bigger, and yet abide the same. There is much diference, between the flower of Youth and the fading of Age, yet they are the same still. Their Bulk and stature, divers; but the same nature, and the same Person, as before The limbs of Children, are little; of Men grown, large; yet, both the same: the Infant hath as many members, as the fulgrowen; neither appears there, aught new in the old, which lay not hidden, and (as it were) enclosed in the young; so that riper Age doth but produce that to open view, which the seminal virtue concealed, and shut up in a narrower room— But, if in process of Time, the humane shape should be changed into that of a divers kind; if aught should be added to the just number of Parts, or taken from it; the whole Body must of necessity perish, grow prodigious, or (at least) insensibly Pine away. So, the Doctrine of Christian Religion must observe these Rules of Growth, that in process of years, it get strength, spread, & hieghten; yet still remain entire, and unaltered in all its parts; nothing added, changed, or cut off. Thus he, in his Commonitory against Heresies. Chapter. 28. & 29.  
Now, amongst those Explicatory Creeds, which unfold and enlarge the Christian Faith in the several Parts, or limbs thereof, the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are the two Principal, Framed both much about the same Time, generally approved of by the Catholic Church in succeeding Ages, and jointly received with that of the Apostles; particularly, by our Church of England.  
But, before I come to treat of these two distinctly, in a double Appendix, According to what I proposed in the beginning of my Discourse; I shall conclude this Chapter, and, together with it, this whole Treatise Concerning the Apostles Creed, in setting down some Ancient Forms, or Cenfessions of Faith yet untouched, which the Reader may please to compare with it; and thereby discern the variety of expression, but agreement in Sense, amongst other Bishops and Churches of that Primitive Age, as yet unmentioned; which will farther enlighten, and establish what hath been already asserted. And, amongst these, I shall Place some Confessions even of those Bishops, who favoured Arius and Macedonius, to show how near they came unto the Orthodox Forms, who therein may serve to shame, and testify against the Blasphemies of some modern sectaries.  
The first of these in Dignity, as well as Time, is that of Gregorius Thaumaturgus, afterwards recited & approved of in the fift General Council, held at Constantinople.  
The Creed, like his name, is well worthy our wonder; for, not only Nicephorus, lib. hist. 6. cap, 17. But Gregory Nyssen also, in his Encomiastical, Oration of Thaumaturgus, gives us this Relation of its Original, and Composure, That the Blessed Virgin revealed it unto him; by the mouth of S. john, whereupon he straight committed it to Paper, and left it to the Church, which hath since kept, and esteemed it as a sacred depositum, delivered her from Heaven. The occasion of this Creed so revealed, was the Heresy of Paulus Samosatenus (taken up afterwards by Photinus) who denied the Divinity of our Saviour, and consequently overthrew the Trinity; which heresy then staggered many in those Eastern Parts, and was therefore condemned in a Synod at Antioch, whereof this Paulus was Patriarch. The words thereof are these, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is, There is one God, the Father of the living word, of the subsisting wisdom, the eternal Power, and Character; the perfect Father of him that is Perfect, the Father of the only-begotten Son: There is one Lord, the only [Lord] from, or of the only [Lord] God of God, the character and image of the [Fathers] Divinity, the operative or effectual word, the wisdom which comprehendeth the whole frame of the World, the Power which made the whole Creation; the True, the Invisible, the Incorruptible, the Immortal, the Eternal Son, of the True, Invisible, Incorruptible, Immortal, and Eternal Father: And, one Holy Ghost, having his subsistence of (or, from) God, and by the Son clearly manifested unto men, the perfect Image of the perfect Son, the quickening life of the Living, that Holiness, which is the Author of Sanctification, by whom God the Father is manifested, who is above all, and in all; and God the Son, who is through all: The perfect Trinity, neither divided, nor diversified from each other, in Glory, Eternity, or Majesty: There is not therefore in the Trinity ought created, or subservient [to another Person] nor aught superinduced, as not existing at first, but afterwards added; so that the Father was never without the Son, nor the Son without the Holy Ghost, but the same Trinity [abideth] always, without the least change, or Alteration.  
The Second Creed, is that Confession of Faith made by Eusebius Caesariensis before the Fathers of the Nicene Council, and approved of by them, and, by the Emperor Constantine it runs thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of all Things both visible and invisible: and, in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only begotten Son, the Firstborn of every Creature, begotten of the Father before all Worlds, by whom all things were made; who was Incarnate for our Salvation, and conversed amongst men, suffered, risen again the Third Day, ascended unto the Father, and shall come again with Glory to judge both the quick and the dead: We believe also in the Holy Ghost. See for this Creed. Soc. Hist. lib. 1. cap. 5. Theod. lib. 1. cap. 12. Athan. Op. Tom. 2. Pag. 48. Edit. Commelin.  
The Nicene Fathers added some Passages to this Creed, for the fuller conviction of the Arian Heresy, and thus proposed it to the Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of all Things both visible and invisible: and, in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, begotten of the substance of his Father; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father; by whom all Things were made, both which are in Heaven, and which are in Earth; who for us Men, and for our Salvation, came down, was Incarnate, made Man, suffered, and risen again the third Day, he ascended into the Heavens, and shall come to judge the quick, and the dead: And, in the Holy Ghost.  
Both these Confessions, the lesser of Eusebius, and the larger of the Council, leave off at the Article of the Holy Ghost, because the Arian controversy, which was then in agitation, required no more; not that the Ancient Creed broke off there: whence, the Arian Bishops, who assembled at Antioch, Aᵒ 341. When, they came, in the rehearsal of their Faith, to the Article of the Holy Ghost, they added, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That is, If it be needful to add so much, we believe also the Resurrection of the Dead, and the life everlasting. See for this Soc. lib. 2. cap. 1. Athan. Tom. 7. pag. 687. Comm.  
As for the Creed of Eusebius, which the Nicene Fathers thus enlarged, he prefaceth it with this Elegy, which shows its Antiquity, and Authority, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. As we have received from the Bishops our Predecessors, both in our first Catechising, and at our Baptism; as we have learned from the Holy Scriptures, and as we have believed and taught, both when we were Presbyter, and when we came to be Bishop, so also now believing, we propose this our Faith unto you.  
The Third Creed, was framed in the Arian Synod at Antioch; for Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, the great Patron of the Arians, being made Bishop of Constantinople by the Emperor Constantius, calls a Council at Antioch; the Bishops whereof, not daring openly to tax what had been decreed in the Nicene Council, yet desiring to overthrow privily, the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, thus altered the form of the Nicene Creed, viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. We Believe, consonantly to the Evangelicall, and Apostolical Tradition, in one God the Father Almighty, Framer and Maker of all Things: and in one Lord Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son, God, by whom all things were made, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, entire of the entire, only of the only, perfect of the perfect [God] king of the king, Lord of the Lord; the living Word the Wisdom, the Life, the true Light, the way of Truth, the Resurrection, the Shepherd, the Door, Immutable & unalterable, the unchangeable Image of the Divine essence, Power, Council, & Glory of the Father; the firstborn of every creature; who was in the beginning with the Father, God the word (as it is said in the Gospel, &, the Word was God, by whom all things were made, and in whom all things consist) who in these last days came down from above, was borne of a Virgin, according to the Scriptures, and made man; the mediator of God, and men, the Apostle of our Faith, and Author (or Prince) of life; (as he saith, I came down from Heaven, not to do mine own will but the will of him that sent me) who suffered for us, and arose for us the third Day, and ascended into the Heavens, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory, and Power, for to Judge the Quick and the Dead: and, in the holy Ghost, who was given for the Comfort, the Sanctification, and Perfecting of Believers;  as our Lord Jesus Christ Charged his Apostles, saying, Go, and Teach all Nations, Baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. It is manifest, that the Father, is Truly [or, really] the Father; the Son, truly the Son; and the Holy Ghost, truly the Holy Ghost; the names, not being barely, or in vain imposed, but exactly signifying the proper subsistence, order, and Dignity of each Person so named; so that they are Three in the manner of Subsistence, but one in the Consent. Socr. Hist. lib. 2. cap. 7.  
The Fourth was Framed on this occasion. Certain Bishops being sent by Constantius to his Brother Emperor of the West, for to give an account of the Casting out of Paulus, & Athanasius, concealed the precedent Formula of Belief made at Antioch, and exhibited this other of their own composure viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Creator and maker of all Things, of whom the whole Family in Heaven, and Earth is named: and in his only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, begotten of the Father before all Worlds, God of God, Light of Light, by whom all things were made, both in the Heavens & in the Earth, whether Visible or Invisible; who is the Word, and the Wisdom, and the Power, and the Life, and the true Light: who in these last Days, was for our sakes made Man, and Borne of the holy Virgin: was Crucified, Dead, and Buried; and risen again the third Day from the Dead: he ascended into the Heavens, & sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and, shall come at the end of the World to Judge the Quick and the Dead, & to render unto every one according to his works; Whose Kingdom never ceasing, endureth unto all eternity; for he sitteth at the right Hand of God, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: We believe also in the holy Ghost, that is, in the Comforter, whom according to his Promise, he sent to his Apostles, after his ascent into Heaven, to teach them, & bring all things to their remembrance; by whom also the Souls of those who sincerely believe in him are Sanctified. But those who say the Son was made of nothing, or of any other Substance, and was not of God; and that there was a Time, when he was not; the Catholic Church doth not acknowledge them for her own. Socr. hist. lib. 2. cap. 14.  
The Fift Creed, is that which was rehearsed by Vrsacius and Valens, two Arian Bishops, in the Synod of Ariminum, & had been not long before Composed by the Bishops of that Faction in the Synod of Sirmium. The Form is this which follows. We believe in one only and true God, the Father Almighty, Creator & Framer of all things: & in one only-begotten Son of God, begottten before all Worlds, before all Beginning, before all imaginable Time, which we can possibly conceive or comprehend, begotten of God without sense or passion; by whom the Worlds [or Ages] were set in order, and all things were made; the only Son of his Father, God of God like unto the Father who begat him (according to the Scriptures) whose Generation no one knoweth but the Father who begat him: This only-begotten Son of his (we know) came from Heaven, for the puttting away of sin by the will of his Father; was borne of the Virgin Mary, conversed with his Disciples, fulfilled every Part of his office according to the will and Council of his Father; was crucified, suffered, and Died; descended into the lower Parts of the Earth, and ordered all things there, the Porters of Hell Trembling at his sight: he risen again the Third Day, Conversed with his Disciples, and after forty Days was taken up into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; and shall come at the last Day in the Glory of his Father, to render unto every one according to his works: And, in the holy Ghost, whom the same only-begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, promised to send unto mankind, the Comforter; (according as it is written; I depart unto my Father, & I will beseech the Father, and he shall send you another Comforter, the Spirit of truth, he shall receive of mine, and shall teach you, and bring all things to your remembrance) As for the word [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] essence, because it being set down by the Fathers without explication, and not understood by the People, giveth cause of offence, and because the Scriptures have no such word, we have thought good to take it away and to make no mention at all hereafter of it, when we speak of God, because the holy Scriptures mention not at all the essence of the holy Ghost, or the Son: but we say that the Son is like unto the Father in all Things as the holy Scriptures say and Teach. Soc. lib. 2. cap. 29.  
The sixth Confession of Faith, is that new Formula which Acacius Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, one of the Arian Party; proposed in the Synod of Seleucia, by Leo a great officer in the Emperors Court. The Form was this. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. We profess, and believe in one God the Father, Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, of things Visible and Invisible: we believe also in our Lord Jesus Christ his Son, begotten of him without Sense or Passion, before all worlds, God the Word, the only-begotten of God, the light, the life, the Truth, the Wisdom, by whom all Things were made, both which are in Heaven, and which are on Earth, whether visible or invisible: we believe, that in the latter Age of the World, he took flesh of the holy Virgin Mary, for the putting away of sin, was made man, suffered for our sins, risen again, was taken up into Heaven, sitteh at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again in Glory to judge the Quick and the Dead: we believe also in the holy Ghost, whom our Lord and Saviour called the Comforter, when he promised to send him to his Disciples after his departure, and accordingly sent him; by whom also he sanctifyeth those in the Church who believe, and are Baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost. Those who Preach any other Faith than this, we Judge them aliens from the Catholic Church. See for this, Socr. Hist. lib. 2. cap. 32.  
The Seventh Confession of Faith, is that of the Macedonians, exhibited by them to Liberius Bishop of Rome, when they fled to him, and the Emperor Valentinian for succour, from the Persecution of his Brother Valens, and the Arian Bishop Eudoxius. The Form was this. We believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible: and, in one only-begotten God, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, that is, of the Substance of the Father; God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial to the Father; by whom all Things were made, both which are in Heaven, and which are on Earth: who for us men and for our Salvation, came down, was incarnate, and made man, suffered, and risen again the third Day; he ascended into the Heavens; and shall come to Judge the Quick, and the Dead: And, in the holy Ghost. But those who say, of the Son of God, that there was a Time when he was not, a Time before he was begotten, and that he was made of nothing, or had any other Essence or Substance than that of his Father, or that he is obnoxious to change or Alteration; such as these the Catholic and Apostolic Church of God doth Anathematise. Socr. lib, 4. cap. 11.    

THE FIRST APPENDIX Concerning the CREED of Athanasius.  

CAP. I.  
Two Reasons, why this Creed hath been more oppugned, than the Rest. It's Authority, and Author are vindicated, in general; more especially, touching the severity of the Preface.  
AMongst all the Creeds, this of Athanasius hath met with most opposition; First, because it hath most resolutely and strictly oppugned the Ancient, and Modern Heresies, about those great Points of the Trinity and Incarnation; for, whereas other Creeds proceed by way of simple Confession, Narration, or Exposition of the Faith, I Believe etc. This runs in an higher style, more directly repugnant to the corrupters of the Christian Faith— Whosoever will be saved, must believe etc. Both in the Beginning, and the close, requiring an absolute Assent upon pain of Damnation, and tacitly anathematising all the Adversaries of the Faith. So that, we may compare the Apostles Creed to a Foundation; the Nicene, and other exegetical Creeds, that followed, unto a Superstructure: but this of Athanasius, to a Bulwark, or Defensive work, which guards the House, and excludes the enemy from approaching; no marvel then, it hath been so much oppugned. Secondly, because it was the work, and composure of a Private man, whereas the other Creeds either challenge the College of the Apostles for the Authors, or the Catholic Church assembled in a Synod; or, at least, the Tradition of some patriarchal, or other Ancient and famous Church, time out of mind; whereas this of Athanasius, though relying but upon a single Father's Authority, yet speaks much bigger than the Rest, and expressly requires a more exact obedience, than any of the other.  
Now, this double reason hath raised both it, and its Author, many Adversaries; whereof, some have styled the Preface of it, Proud and Insolent: others, have denied Athanasius for the Author, so to leave it destitute of a Patron, and deprive it of the Authority of so eminent a Champion of the Christian Faith: a Third sort have more impudently defamed both Work and Author, and styled it Sathanasius his Creed, as one Geo▪ Niger, and Valentinus Gentilis, as Genebrard tells us in his Epistle to Charles Cardinal of Lorraine, prefixed to his Book De Trinitate. Among all which Adversaries 'tis observable, that none have either denied the Author, or defamed the Creed, but such whom the Church hath noted of Heresy; and commonly, have been the Ringleaders to the Rest.  
In this heat, and fury of opposition, it will concern us, calmly to examine the Truth, whereby we shall at once vindicate the Credit, both of the Creed, and its Composer.  
First; for the Truth and Esteem of the Creed, it relies not on the Authority of one single Father, who composed it (though never so famous in his time, and all Ages since, among the Orthodox Professors) but on the Testimony of the Catholic Church, which hath received it, and commended it to all her Children, as the Buckler of the true Christian Faith: neither only so, but hath received it of old into her Liturgies, and still retains it; an Honour not vouchsafed to any other Creed of a Private man's composing▪ Constantinople, Rome, and the Reformed Churches, have jointly received it, and exposed it to public use, although they very much differ in other Points; a strong argument of its Verity, and Authority.  
Secondly, For the credit of the Author; whosoever consults Ecclesiastical History, and Nazianzens Encomiastic Oration, must needs acknowledge his great fame throughout the Christian World, for his Learning, Virtue, and unwearied Constancy in maintaining the true Faith against the Arian Faction, under four Emperor's Reigns, especially under Constantius & Valens, when they swayed all; which Undaunted constancy of his, when the other Bishops generally, either complied with the Enemy, or kept silence for fear, deservedly purchased this peculiar honour to his Creed, as the due reward of his unconquered Faith; and delivered his Fame unto succeeding Ages with so loud a Trump, that we hear Cosmas Laurens proclaim, Cum ex S. Athanasii Opusculis aliquid inveneris, nec ad scribendum Chartas habueris, in vestimentis tuis scribe illud. So Sophronii Prat. Spirit.  
Thirdly; As to the supposed Pride and Insolency of the Preface, with which Terms some have been pleased to dignify it, as being too stately for a private Man's work, and too peremptorily excommunicating all Christians, who out of Ignorance or mysperswasion, embrace not all the following deep misteryes contained in it; they may please also to take notice, that the Creed which follows, though for the composure it Have Athanasius only for the Author, yet the Faith therein set down and explained, is the common received Faith of the Church, derived down from the Apostles to his Times, and since commended by our Catholic Mother to succeeding Ages, as the Groundwork of Christian Religion most necessary to be first laid, and relied on; and therefore may well bear such a Proem which refers not so much to the Authority of the writer, as to the Creed written: the composure was a private Man's, but the Creed was Public; the Frame of one, but the Faith of All.  
Then, for the strict exacting the belief of his Creed from all Christians, they may please to observe, that it was wrote in opposition to the Arians, so that it doth not so directly exclude from Salvation the pure Ignorant, as the stubborn Heretic; nor, somuch condemn the bare nescience, as the negation of the Faith which was once delivered to the Saints. Jud. 3. though I conceive it to be very hard, if not utterly impossible, for any Christian to be saved, who doth not expressly believe the Substance of the Faith therein explained, especially in those two Points which he so much insists upon viz. The Trinity, and Incarnation; the Vision or Fruition of the Blessed Trinity being the last End, or Happiness of mankind; and, the Incarnation of our Saviour, with the consequents thereof, being the means appointed by God for to compass it. So that the great Athanasius shown not his Pride in prefixing such a Proem, but rather his mercy, and Paternal care towards the Church by a more express Declaration of the necessity of the Catholic Faith, which some otherwise might have more oscitantly harkened to, and been less careful to entertain, if not awakened by the Terror of this Preface.   

CAP. II.  
Several Testimonies, Concerning the Author, and Authority of the Athanasian Creed.  
Hving premised thus much, in way of a general Vindication, I shall now set down some special Testimonies, concerning the Author and Authority of this Creed, beginning with this latter Age wherein it hath begun to be questioned, and so by degrees ascending to the Time of Athanasius himself; thus, at length, arriving at the Fountain Head, by the guidance of the Stream, or Current.  
1. Protestant Churches generally receive it under the title & name of Athanasius, together with the Apostles Creed, and that of the Nicene Council; for which we are to consult the forecited Testimonies of Luther, Io. Pappus, anb Nic. Selneccerus, with the two Confessions of the Churches of Saxony, and France, attested by the Ingenuous Confession of Serrarius the Jesuit, who tells us in his Discourse on this Creed, that the Calvinian Divines in an Assembly at Lausanna, agreed with the Lutherans as touching the three Creeds, ascribing unto them, as well as to the Holy Scriptures, a Judiciary Power, or Authority, which all aught to obey: which, sure, they would never have done, if they had not thought, that the Creed of Athanasius, as well as the other two, had been derived from the same fountain whence the Scriptures flowed, to wit, from the Holy Ghost as the Author, and the Apostles as the Deliverers; which Faith so derived, Athanasius more largely paraphrased on, especially in those two main Points of the Trinity and Incarnation, then perverted by Heretics; by this means, not altering, but clearing the old Apostolic Tradition.  
2. joan. Cazonovius, though a professed enemy to the contents of this Creed, yet is forced to acknowledge, in his first Epistle unto M. Calvin, that this Creed is received under the name of Athanasius, Non solum in Latina Ecclesiâ, sed etiam Constantinopolitanâ, Servianâ, Bulgaricâ, Russicâ, Moscoviticâ; Not only in the Latin Church, but also in that of Constantinople, Servia, Bulgaria, Russia, and Moscovia. Now this Cazonovius, as Genebrard tells us, was a Polonian Knight, of an eminent Family, and (together with Gregorius Pauli, a Minister) the Chief of the Trinitarians. He wrote against those two Epistles which M. Calvin sent Ad Fratres Polonos: and, in the Colloquy between the Tritheits, and the Orthodox Divines, held at Petricow in Poland, during the Assembly of the Estates, Anno 1565. he was the Scribe, or Secretary on the Tritheits behalf. When, in that Colloquy, he, and his Adherents were urged again and again, to produce that Greek Copy of Athanasius his Creed, which they gave out, to be different from that received in the Latin Church (for he confessed a Creed of Athanasius received in the Greek Church, but divers from the Latin one) they could not do it; the truth is, the diversity is only in the particle [Filioque] added by the Latins in the Article of the Procession; so that they might as well have said that our Nicene Creed is divers from theirs, whereto it is likewise added. But of this more hereafter.  
3. Gennadius Scholarius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in his Book which he wrote in Defence of the the Florentine Council, the year after it was Celebrated, clearly names Athanasius for the Author of this Creed. These are his words; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Where he styles Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Confessor, from this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Confession of his Faith; and withal, sets down the Beginning of his Creed in express Terms, as now we read it.  
4. Eugenius the fourth Bishop of Rome, in his Instructions to the Armenians, given by him unto them in the forecited Council of Florence, which was celebrated in the year 1439, recommends unto them the Creed of Athanasius, in these words; Compendiosam illam fidei Regulam, per Beatissimum Athanasium editam, cujus Tenor talis est, Quicunque vult etc. That short Rule of Faith, set forth by the most blessed Athanasius according to this Tenor, Whosoever will be saved etc.  
5. Manuel Caleca, a Grecian, but one who wrote against the Errors of his Countrymen, presently after the Council of Lions (celebrated in the year 1274 under Gregory the Tenth) in which Council he is thought also to have been present; in his Second book Cont. Graecos cap. 20. tells us, that Athanasius wrote this Creed, and sent it to Julius' Bishop of Rome, cum insimularetur non rectae fidei, when he was accused of erring in the Faith: and because some of his Countrymen dissented from him in this Point, the chief (if not only) reason whereof was, because the Latins produced copies of it; with this Addition [filioque] in the Procession of the Holy Ghost; he strengthens his Assertion by this double Reason.  
First, that Gregory Nazianzen (whom he there calls the Divine, by way of Eminency) makes mention thereof; of whose Testimony more anon.  
Secondly, That it is sung every Lord's Day throughout all the Churches of the West, and the Author thereof is so famous, that even Children know him. Then he subjoins, Let them therefore either produce some other Creed of so Famous a man, which the Divine (Nazianzen) makes mention of, and to which the Tradition of the Church bears witness; or, if they cannot, let them embrace that which the Church now receives.  
6. Jo. Beleth, a Parisian Divine, Explic. Divin. Offic. cap. 40. having told us, that there were four Creeds allowed of by the Church; Secundum, inquit, & quoth in Primâ recitatur, quicunque vult salvus esse etc. Quod ab Athanasio Patriarchâ Alexandrino contra Arianos haereticos compositum est, licet plerique eum Anastasium fuisse falso arbitrentur. The Second of these Creeds, saith he, is that which is rehearsed in the first service, Whosoever will be Saved &c. which was composed by Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria against the Arian Heretics, although many falsely think that Anastasius was the Author.  
7. Gul. Durantes, or Durandus (otherwise called Mimatensis) who flourished about the year 1280, assigns this Creed to Athanasius; Rat. Divin. Off. lib. 4. cap. 25. For thus he writes, Secundum Symbolum, Quicunque vult salvus esse etc. ab Athanasio Patriarcha in civitate Treveri Compositum; that is, according to the Creed, Whosoever will be Saved &c. which was composed by the Patriarch Athanasius in the City of Triers.  
8. Rodolphus, and Hagmo, two Franciscan Friars, sent with Hugh & Peter, two Dominicans, by Gregory the ninth unto Constantinople in the year 1239, to reconcile the Greeks unto the Latins (thence called Apocrisiarii, Church-legats, as well by the Latins, as the Greeks) have thus determined the difference concerning the procession of the holy Ghost from the Son as well as the Father, out of the Athanasian Creed, Propterea, quicunque non crediderit spiritum sanctum a filio procedere, in via perditionis est; unde S. Athanasius, dum exulabat in partibus occidentalibus, in expositione fidei, quam Latinis verbis reddidit, sic ait, Pater a nullo est factus etc. Whosoever believeth not that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Son, is in the way of Perdition; whence, S. Athanasius, whilst he was an exile in the western Parts, in his exposition of the Faith which he set forth in Latin, saith thus, The Father was made of none etc. See for this Tom. 3. Eccles. Annal. Abrah, Bzovii. Aᵒ 1239.  
9 Abbo, Abbot of Floriack, who lived about the latter end of the tenth Century, hath these words in his Apollogetick which he made to the Kings of France, Hugh and Robert, Father and Son; Primitus de fide dicendum credidi, quam alternantibus Choris, & in Francia, & apud Anglorum Ecclesiam, variari audivi. Alii enim dicunt, (ut arbitror) secundum Athanasium, Spiritus Sanctus a Patre & Filio, non factus, non Creatus, sed procedens; qui dum id quod est [nec genitus] subtrahunt Synodicum D. Gregorii se sequi credunt, ubi ita est scriptum; spiritus sanctus nec ingenitus est, nec genitus, sed procedens. that is, I thought meet to speak first concerning the Faith, which I find diversely expressed in the French, and English Churches, for some say (as I suppose) according to Athanasius, The holy Ghost not made, nor Created, but proceeding from the Father and the Son: who, in leaving out that particle [nor begotten] conceive they follow the Synodical of S. Gregory, in which it is thus written, The holy Ghost is neither unbegotten, nor begotten, but proceeding. To which words Baron. in his Annals ad A. 1001, thus attests, Vides, lector, in his, jam ante sexcentos annos Symbolum vere ejus esse absque dubitatione creditum & praedicatum; thou seest here, Reader, that above six hundred years ago, the Creed which goes under the name of Athanasius, was verily believed to be his without the least doubt to the contrary. And well might he say so, for that ambiguous clause [ut arbitror, as I suppose] in this Testimony of Abbo, hath no reference to the Author, but to the words, and to the various Copies of Athanasius his Creed, as appears by the scope and purpose of the Abbot in his Citation.  
10 That this Creed was ascribed to Athanasius, in the Time of Charles the Bald, will appear; first; out of the second Book of Rathrannus, Monk of Corbey, written by him against the Greeks', a Book not yet extant in Print. Secondly; out of the first Book of Aeneas Bishop of Paris, written also against the Greeks; c. 19 Thirdly; out of the Capitulum of Hincmarus Archbishop of Rheims, which he gave to the Presbyters of his Diocese. Aᵒ 852. See the first Capit. in Apend. Tom. 3-Conc. Gall. set forth by Sirmondus. But for all three, See Armac. de Symb.  
11. The fourth Council of Toledo held in the year of our Lord 671 according to the edition of Io. Garsia Loaisa; and in the third year of K. Sisenandus, by threescore and two Bishops, whereof Isidore of Sevil was one; thus professeth its Faith in the words of the Athanasian Creed, only somewhat contracting them, for thus the Fathers of the council begin, cap. 1. Secundum divinas Scripturas, & doctrinam quam a Sanctis Patribus accepimus, Patrem, & Filium, & Spiritum Sanctum unius Deitatis atque Substantiae confitemur, in Personarum diversitate Trinitatem credentes, in Divinitate unitatem praedicantes, nec Personas confundimus, nec substantiam seperamus. Patrem a nullo factum, vel genitum dicimus— Christus descendit ad Inferos, ut sanctos qui ibidem tenebantur, erueret, devictoque mortis Imperio resurrexit— mortui resuscitandi sunt ab eo [jesu Christo] in die novissimo— percepturi ab ipso, alii pro justitiae meritis vitam aeternam; alii, pro peccatis, supplicii aeterni sententiam▪ Haec est ecclesiae Catholicae fides. Hanc Confessionem conservamus atque tenemus; quam quisquis, firmissime custodierit, perpetuam salutem habebit. that is, According to the Scriptures of God, & the Doctrine which we have received from the holy Father, we profess the Father, Son, and holy Ghost to have the same Godhead and Substance, believing a Trinity in a diversity of Persons, and an Unity in the Godhead, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance: we say that the Father was made of none, nor begotten— Christ descended into Hell, that he might deliver the Saints that were there detained, and having conquered the Power of Death he risen again— The Dead are to be raised up by him at the last Day— to receive from him, some, for their righteous deeds, life eternal; others, for their sins, the sentence of everlasting punishment. This is the Faith of the Catholic Church. This Confession we preserve and hold; which whosoever shall firmly keep, shall obtain everlasting Salvation.  
12. In two very Ancient Latin Psalters, which are in S. Rob. Cottons Library we find Athanasius his Creed together with that of the Apostles, containing the same number of Heads, with that of our Days. In the former Psalter (saith the Reverend, & Learned Armachanus) which we gather to be as old as Gregory the first (viz. 1050 years) both by the old fashion of the Pictures, & the largeness of the Characters, Athanasius his Creed bears the name of Fides Catholica, as it doth also in an other Psalter of S. Lewis 9th extant in King James his Library: the other is called Symbolum Apostolorum. In the latter Psalter, which was once K. Athelstans', That of the Apostles, hath simply the name of Symbolum: the other is called Fides S. Athanasii Alexandrini, The Faith of S. Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria.  
13. Boethius, that great Scholar and Statesman, in the Reign of Theodorick the Goth; in his Book De Trinitate, hath these words at the Beginning, which refer us plainly enough to the Creed of Athanasius—- Fidei Catholicae haec de Trinitatis unitate Sententia est, Pater, inquiunt, Deus, Filius Deus, Spiritus sanctus Deus; igitur Pater, Filius, Spiritus Sanctus, unus Deus, non tres Dii. That is, This is the Decree of the Catholic faith concerning the unity of the Trinity: The Father, they say, is God, the Son God, the Holy Ghost God, therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are one God, not three Gods. On which words Venerable B●de, our Countryman, makes this Gloss— Haec est fides quâ credimus, quae dicitur Catholica; unde in Symbolo, Haec est fides Catholica, quam nisi quisque crediderit etc. Haec est una apud omnes, unde Apostolus, una fides, unum Baptisma. that is, This is the Faith, wherein we believe, which is called Catholic, whence we say in the Creed, this is the Catholic Faith, which Whosoever doth not believe. etc. This Faith is the same among All, whence that of the Apostle, One Faith, One Baptism.  
14. S. Augustin, in several Parts of his works, takes whole sentences out of this Creed of Athanasius; which shows that it was then extant, and used by the Church. In his Book De Trinitate, cap. 8. He hath these words, Omnipotens Pater, Omnipotens Filius, omnipotens Spiritus sanctus, & tamen non tres Omnipotentes, sed unus Omnipotens. & Ibidem; Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus Spiritus sanctus, & tamen non tres Dii, sed unus est Deus: that is, The Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, the holy Ghost Almighty, and yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty▪ Again; The Father is God, the Son is God, and the holy Ghost is God, yet there be not three Gods, but one God. Which last passage he repeats word for Word in his 174th Epistle, written to Pascentius. So, in his Enchiridion cap. 36. Sicut anima rationalis & Caro unus est homo, ita Deus & homo unus est Christus; As the Reasonable Soul and the Body are one man, so God and man are one Christ. Now, these are the Passages for which the Sectaries chief deny the authenticalness of this Creed. The same father shuts up his Soliloquies which this Prayer, O tres coaequales & coaeternae personae, Deus unus etc. O three Coequal, and coeternal Persons, one God etc.  
Neither, can we, with any probability, say, that such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were casual, S. Augustine lighting by chance on the same expressions as Athanasius had used, writing on the same Subject; for besides the unlikeliness of hitting upon the same very words, in several passages, without the least variation; we may please to take notice, that the Fathers of the first Ages were very punctual in following the steps of their Ancestors, not only in the matter of Faith, but in the very form of expression; not accustoming themselves to vary, or invent new Phrases, except upon necessity, and the urgency of Heretics.  
The sight of these passages, caused the great Annalist Baronius to use these words; Aliquod Symboli Athanasiani exemplar etc. I easily persuade myself, that a Copy of the Athanasian Creed, was conveyed unto the Churches beyond Sea, by some African Bishop, who (as it oft fell out at other Times) was present at that Roman Synod under Julius; seeing it seems to have come unto S. Augustine's knowledge, whose writings appear interlaced with some Passages thereof; especially, in his Comment on Psal. 120. v. 6. The Sun shall not burn thee by day, nor the Moon by night: where, according to Possevins citation, Apparat▪ Sac. voce, Athanasius, (though now the reading be somewhat varied) he useth these words, De hoc Sole etc. Concerning this Sun the holy Father Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria thus excellently spoke, The Son of God is from the Father alone, neither made, nor created, but begotten.  
15. An old Manuscript, containing the Historical Fragments of S. Hilary, which came forth of the Library of P. Pithaeus, and was Printed at Paris, in the year 1598. sets down this Creed, and entitles it to Athanasius with this Preface, Fides dicta a S. Athanasio; sive Symbolum, quod ejus nomen praefert; The Faith pronounced by S. Athanasius, or, the Creed which bears his name.  
16. But the most Ancient, and pregnant Proof of this Creed, we have from the mouth of Gregory Nazianzen, in his 21 Oration, which he wrote in the praise of Athanasius; num. 44, 45. the words are these. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is. Athanasius presented the Emperor with a Gift truly Royal and magnificent, a Pious writing against an unwritten Innovation; that so one Emperor, Speech, and writing, might overcome the other. This Confession of his is received with much veneration, both by the Western Christians, and those of the East (as many as have the life of Faith in them) of whom some believe it in their heart, if you will believe what they say, but, they bring it not forth to light, so that it lies like a dead Embryo in the Mother's Womb: others, somewhat blow, and kindle this spark of Faith, so fare as to accord with the Time, and to give satisfaction to the more Godly and zealous of the Orthodox Laity: but others there be, who boldly profess the Truth; of which party I desire to be.  
To this agrees the Author of that Greek Book, of the Procession of the Holy Ghost, which was given to Lazarus Bayffius K. Francis 1. Ambassador at Venice, in the year 1533. Who not only Entitles this Creed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Confession of S. Athanasius; but farther confirms its Authority, by this Testimony of Nazianzen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Gregory the Divine (saith he) makes mention also of this Confession in his Encomiastic Oration of Athanasius, in which he saith, He first of all, and alone— This Confession of his, is received with much veneration etc. Where he citys the Oration, and sets down the words. The Author of this Book, who ever he were, lived in the time, when the Controversy of the Procession was hotly agitated between the Greeks' and Latins, which was about the ninth and tenth Centuries.  
But for the more clear understanding of these words, we must take notice of a threefold Creed, or Confession of Faith written by Athanasius.  
1. A Synodical Epistle written to the Emperor Jovianus, by Athanasius and the other Bishops of his Patriarchate, assembled at Alexandria, in the name of Egypt, Thebais, and Lybia; wherein they confirm, and set down the Nicene Creed, with a premised explication of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. See for this Theod. lib. 4▪ cap. 3. and Niceph. lib. 10. cap. 42. About the same time, a Synod of Bishops assembled at Antioch, under Meletius the Patriarch of that See, send the like Epistle unto the Emperor, prefixing also the Explication of the word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and subjoyning the Nicene Creed. For which see Soc. lib. 3. cap. 21. and Sozom. lib. 6. cap. 4.  
2. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Exposition of the Faith which we find in his Works, distinct both from the Nicene, and his own Creed. It seems a larger Paraphrase, or Explication of the Nicene Creed, or of his own.  
3. His 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Confession, Creed, or Symbol, which now commonly goes under his name, and is usually Printed with his other Works. This is that which I conceive to be understood in Greg. Nazianzens' Oration; and that, for these Reasons.  
First, because it appears by Nazianzen, that it was distinct from the Nicene Creed, whereof Osius, not Athanasius, was the Composer, as will appear by the next Appendix. And Athanasius his own works show, that it was divers from his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is but a Paraphrase on the Nicene, and not sent to any Emperor, or received by the Western Church, as this is witnessed to be. Nor, can any man show a Third Creed, or Confession of Faith, ascribed to Athanasius, besides that which now bears his name; It is That therefore, and none other.  
Secondly; Nazianzen here tells us, that both the East and West honoured this Creed: for which no better reason can be assigned, then that which agrees to this Creed of Athanasius; which was twice written, first in the West, for the satisfaction of Julius Bishop of Rome; after that, in the East, for the Emperor Jovianus his satisfaction: which can be affirmed of no other Creed but this.  
Thirdly; This Creed commended so much by Nazianzen, is styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Confession of Faith, to which word, or title Gennadius alluding, in his rehearsal of the Athanasian Creed, calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a Confessor, as we have already showed.  
Lastly, Nicetas Metropolitan of Heraclea, in his notes on this Oration, understands it of this Creed.   

CAP. III.  
The Time, and Place, wherein Athanasius wrote his Creed, together with the Person, to whom. The Cause wherefore he wrote it, and the Language wherein.  
HAving produced these Testimonies, in vindication of the Author, and Authority of this Creed; I shall in the next place, for the farther Illustration of this Argument, examine in brief these three Particulars.  
First; When, Where, and to whom, this Creed was written? To whom? viz. To P. julius, Liberius, or the Emperor jovianus? Where? At Rome, Triers, or Alexandria? When? In the year 340, before, or after?  
Secondly; The Ground, or Cause, whereupon it was written?  
Thirdly; The Language, wherein it was Written?  
First; As to the Time, Place, and Person to whom, Pelargus will have it wrote in a Synod at Alexandria, and sent to the Emperor of the East. And others say it was wrote in a Well at Triers, as the Inscription of that Well testifyes, so Possevine in his Apparatus. Genebrard also tells us, that in an Ancient Manuscript, in the Library of the Germane Monks at Paris, he found an imperfect Copy of the Synods, taken forth by a nameless Author, which testified the same in these words, Fertur Athanasius Patriarcha Symbolum praedictum edidisse apud Treverim, in quodam puteo latitans, propter gravissimam persecutionem Arianorum, & praecipue Constantii Imperatoris Ariani, qui eum ubique perquiri faciebat ad mortem, quia nolebat haeresi Arianae consentire. Nauclerus reports the same in his Chronology, Seculo 12 more.  
But the more rceeived opinion is, that Athanasius gave in this his Creed in writing unto Julius BP of Rome, in in a Synod of 50 Western Bishops, there Assembled in his Cause. So Baronius, ad An. 340. Athanasius Romam citatus quantumlibet ipsius Fides Catholica omnibus innotuisset, ut nulla penitus potuerit suboriri suspicio, tamen Romanae Sedis communicationem haud habere licuisset, & aliorum Episcoporum, qui ad Synodum convenissent; nec plane, audiendus esset qui reu● advenerat, nesi edita Publicè Catholicae fidei Professione, eademque ex more latino sermone, coram Pontifice, & ei assidentibus recitata. Athanasius, saith he, being cited to Rome, although the catholicness of his Faith were well known to all so that there was no suspicion at all to the contrary, yet he would not have obtained Communion with the See of Rome nor the other Bishops, who came unto the Synod; neither indeed, was he to be heard, being a person accused, before he had made a Public profession of the Catholic Faith, and that according to custom, in the Latin Tongue, before the Bishop of Rome and his Assessors.  
Of the same opinion is Binius, who in the first Tome of the Counsels, sets down for one the second Roman Council, held by julius, and above 50 Bishops when Athanasius had now expected the coming of the Eusebians to Rome, above eighteen months. At the same time, saith he, Publicam Catholicae Fidei professionem, quae Symbolum Athanasii appellatur, latino sermone coram Pontifice, eique assidentibus recitavit. Hanc Pontifex ab ipso cognitam atque susceptam, unà cum actis Synodi in amplissimo Romanae Ecclesiae Archivo, collocari mandavit▪ that is, Athanasius then made a Public Profession of the Catholic Faith, which is called his Creed, rehearsing it in the Latin Tongue, before the Bishop of Rome and his Assessors. This Creed so acknowledged and received, the Bishop of Rome commanded to be put in the Archives of the Roman Church, together with the Acts of the Synod.  
Manuel Caleca, in his forecited Book against the Greeks, agrees in Substance with B●nius, and Baronius, though he seem to place the writing of this Creed a year sooner; and sayeth, that it was sent to P. julius, not delivered him in presence. These are his words; Gregorius Theologus in Athanasii laudibus, ipsius meminit dicens, Solus ille, vel cum paucis admodum, ausus est veritatem in Scriptis confiteri etc. quam tunc temporis conscriptam, ad Iulium Romanum Pontificem misit, cum insimulare●ur non rectae esse fidei.  
Now all these opinions may well agree, according to Possevins Conjecture, who (in his Apparatus, verbo, Athanasius) thinks it probable ut sanct. Trinitatis acerrimus propugnator, hymnum illum (he means his Creed, because sung hymne-wsie in the Church-service) locis quibus potuit omnibus, scripser it, cantaverit, disseminaverit. So that he might write it, at several times in all the forementioned Places.  
First; At Triers. (as the Inscription of the Well there is said to witness) when he was first banished, about the year, 336.  
Secondly, He might send it in writing to julius' Bishop of Rome, when the Eusebian faction sent Legates unto him with letters, to accuse Athanasius Anno Domini 339.  
Thirdly, He might give it in writing to the Synod at Rome, of which julius was precedent, to satisfy them all concerning his belief. A. D. 340.  
last; He might send it from a Synod at Alexandria, to the Emperor of the East; either to Constantius in his Synod held, A. D. 339. Or rather, to jovianus, in his last Synod, held about the year 364, together with the Synodical Epistle before mentioned; which Nazianzen seems to imply in the forecited Oration, where he opposeth Emperor, to Emperor, as well as Doctrine to Doctrine; that is, the Catholic Jovians to Constantius the Arian, as well as the Orthodox Creed, to the Heretical Confessions. Except we will say, that this Creed was exhibited in the Council of Sardica (a famous City in Illyricum) held in the year 347, and called by Constans the Emperor of the West, (who favoured Athanasius) and by Constantius jointly: or, to Valentinian the successor of jovianus; in whose time Athanasius lived seven or eight years; but for this we have no Authors Testimony. The same Creed was probably sent also to Liberius Bishop of Rome, as we shall show anon.  
Secondly; As to the Ground or Cause whererupon Athanasius Framed his Creed; I answer, that he wrote it to give an account of his Faith, & to vindicate himself from the recrimination of his Adversaries; who accused him of Sabellianisme, as he did them of Ariniasme. Indeed, who can with any likelihood suppose, but that Athanasius in his so many years' persecution by the Arians, set forth some where the Confession of his Faith, to clear himself, and that the Orthodox might see, for what cause they so pertinaciously vexed him? Now, that this Creed is that Confession will appear, (besides what hath been already alleged) by the Agreement thereof both in words & sense, with those more full & large Treatises of his against the Arians, whereof this seems a Compendium; and, by the Constant Tradition of the Church, which hath received this, and none other, as the Confession or Creed of Athanasius; whose judgement ought to prevail with us above the the rashness of some novelists, who have questioned both the Authority & the Author.  
But because this Recrimination of Sabellianisme is but obscurely set down in the writers of that Age, and utterly denied by some of ours, I shall endeavour in a few worrdes to clear it.  
First; It was the custom of that Age, that when any was advanced to a Bishopric, but more espepecially, to a patriarchal See, such as Alxandria was, whereof Athanasius was Bishop he sent about his Literae Formatae, or Encyclicae, wherein he testified his Faith unto the Christian world, and his communion with the Catholic Bishops; and this was in use, whether the new Bishop were suspected of heresy, or not. Now, there was far greater Cause for this in the case of Athanasius, when he appealed to julius' Bishop of Rome, as the most Eminent Patriarch of the Church, and one not engaged in the quarrel between him, and the Eusebians. For it had little stood with the gravity, & impartial uprightness of such a Judge, to have presently, with an overforward affection, received a man into his Communion, laden with so many, and so heavy Accusations, before he had given an Account of his Belief: which, that it was the custom then observed, and particularly in the case of Athanasius, and his fellows, is plainly set down by Sozomen lib. 3. cap. 7. where, having premised that Athanasius and three other Bishops, being thrust out by the Arian faction, fled unto Julius for succour, he subjoins— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is, The Bishop of Rome having learned the crimes objected against each of them, after that he found them all agreeing in the Doctrine of the Nicene Council, he received them into his Communion, as persons of the same judgement with himself.  
Secondly; Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra, who was the chief of those three Bishops, that were thrust out by the Arian faction, and fled to Rome with Athanasius, having formerly accused the Eusebians of the Arian Heresy, and convicted them in the Nicene Council, was himself also scandalised with the cross imputation of Sabellianisme, whereupon he freely made an Orthodox Confession of his Faith at Rome, such as the Synod lately held at Sardica had embraced. Now, that Athanasius who was principally hated by the Eusebians, had the charge of Heresy recriminated also upon him, appears by a passage of the same Julius in his Letter to the Eastern Bishops then Assembled at Antioch, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Now as concerning Marcellus, saith he, seeing ye have wrote touching him also, as of one who thinks impiously of, or against Christ— where, the particle [Also] necessarily implies, that the Oriental Bishops, had accused the rest of the same crime, and who but Athanasius as the principal of the Accused. See the place in Athan. Apolog. 2. pag. 548. Edit. Comm. And, his Epistle ad Solitarios, two leaves from the beginning. Epiphanius also in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Her. 72. tells us, that this Marcellus, being accused by the Arians of Sabellianisme, to julius' Bishop of Rome, voluntarily came to Rome, and having long, but in vain, there expected the appearance of his Adversaries, upon his departure left an Epistle with julius, wherein he sets down a Confession of his Faith. His case is just parallel to that of Athanasius, who was accused of the same Heresy, as Epiphanius there witnesseth, and in like manner cleared himself.  
Thirdly; this imputation of Sabellianisme was so pertinaciously urged upon Athanasius by his Arian persecutors, that Liberius successor to Julius in the Roman See, was constrained to send a short Epistle to him, for farther satisfaction; wherein, having set down his own Faith concerning the Trinity, he adds by way of Antithesis— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wherefore I condemn the opinions of Sabellius and Arius, and all the forementioned Heresies, to everlasting punishment, according to the voice of our Saviour, Then he concludes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: If thou than agreest with me, Brother Athanasius, in this Confession (which is the only true Faith, received in the holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church) as in the presence of God, and his Christ; writ unto me thy consent, & agreement therein with me, that so I may be ascertained thereof, and without scruple perform thy commands. This Epistle of Liberius with the rescript of Athanasius, we find extant in the first Tome of Athanasius his works.  
The same Athanasius in his forecited 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or exposition of the Faith vindicates himself from Sabellianisme in these words— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is, We neither make the Father and the Son the same Person as the Sabellians do, in this destroying the relation of the Son; neither do we attribute to the Father that passable Body, which the Son took on him, for the Salvation of the whole world.  
Fourthly; Sulpitius Severus lib. 20 hist.. Tells us, that Athanasius was condemned of Sabellianisme in a certain Council, by the Arians. Add hereunto that Arius himself in his Disputation before Probus the Judge, taxeth Athanasius in these words; sometimes, saith he, he makes three appear One, saying, But these three are one God: then, I know not by what strange mixtion, he makes them Triforms, triple; saying, And this one God is the Trinity. So Geneb. To prevent such mistakes and cavils, Athanasius hath a chapter, in his Works entitled, Quod non tres Dii, that there are not three Gods.  
Thirdly; As to my last Query; in what Language this Creed of Athanasius was originally written? I Answer, it is most probable that Athanasius first wrote it in Latin, as being a Language which he well understood, (although some have been pleased to deny it) and the Creed being exhibited unto Julius' Bishop of Rome in a Synod of Latin Bishops. My reasons are these.  
First; The Latin edition of this Creed is the same in all Copies, whereas the Greek Copies vary, as Translations use to do. Genebrard, in his third book De Trinitate, hath set down three several versions there of, out of the Latin into the Greek; namely, Vulgatam, Dionysianam, & Constantinopolitanam. The first is that which is commonly Printed. The last is that which the Church of Constantin●ple useth. The middlemost is so called from Dionysius a Grecian Bishop, entitled Zienensis & Firmiensis, who gave the foreeited Manuscript of the Procession to Lazarus Bayffius; the Book was fairly written by the Learned Nic. Sophianus. And to these three, which are set down and compared by Genebrard, we may add a fourth, found in an Horologium of Greek hymns, composed by Thechara a Monk of Constantinople, and is set down by the R. Armach in his Tract de Symb. which besides that it hath much inserted here and there by the Greek Translator, very much differs in the residue from all the three former, as they also do from each other.  
Secondly; As the Bishop of Rome wrote in Latin to the Bishops of the East, so those Bishops wrote their Formulae Fidei, and Paenitentiae libelli to him in Latin; as Serrarius informs us in his Discourse on this Creed. Much more reason had Athanasius to write this his Creed in Latin, it being exhibited at Rome in a Synod of Latin Bishops, on purpose to satisfy them concerning his Belief; most of whom, in all likelihood, understood not the Greek Tongue.  
Thirdly; The foresaid reason is fortified by this other, that Athanasius himself well understood the Latin Tongue, and therefore needed not to communicate with them by an interpreter▪ Which skill of Athanasius is not only made probable, from the example of other Greek Bishops, as Eusebius Caesariensis, Photinus, and others of this latter Age also, who joined the study of both Tongues together; and, from his long abode in the Western Parts at several times, as at Triers, above two years, at Milan, and Aquileia; and at Rome above 18 months: but clearly proved from that forecited passage of Nazianzene, Orat. 21. Num. 46, 47. Which I brought by way of Answer to the eight Objection, against the Apostles Creed; where he tells us, how Athanasius composed the difference between the Greek and Latin Churches, about the words Hypostasis, and Essentia, verborum sententiâ diligenter & accurate perpensâ, having diligently and accurately weighed the meaning of the words; at length peswading both Parties that it was but a Logomachia, a contention about Terms, since both meant the same Thing. Now such a Controversy as this could never have been stated, with so full a satisfaction to both Parties, unless he had been furnished with more than ordinary skill, as well in the Latin, as the Greek.   

CAP FOUR  
Some objsctions, against what hath been laid down, answered. Especially, Nazianzens Testimony concerning the Athanasian Creed, is farther cleared and vindicated.  
THus far have I proceeded By way of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in a positive and demonstrative way, to assert the Author and Authority of the Athanasian Creed; and by the way, have enervated most of those Arguments, which I have found brought against either. But lest I should seem to leave the Tract unperfect, by passing by any considerable objection which hath to my knowledge, been alleged against it, I shall set down the objections distinctly, and subjoin some light Strictures, by way of Answer.  
Object. 1. They who ascribe this Creed to Athanasius, agree not either about the Time, or place Durandus, saith it was written in his first Banishment at Triers, where he lay hid in a Well, to avoid the treacheries of the Arians. Manuel Caleca, and Baronius say, it was wrote to P. julius, either from his Diocese at Alexandria; or given in writing to him, and the Roman Synod when he pleaded his Cause before them, that so he might be received into the Communion of the Church of Rome, wherein Baronius, is deceived more ways than one. first, because not only here, but in the the whole work of his Annals, he labours to prove, that in all Ages the Bishop of Rome had full Power to cite, absolve, or condemn the Bishops of the East, and of the whole World. Secondly, because Athanasius was not accused for matter of Doctrine by the Arians, but for matter of fact; and his restitution to his Bishopric opposed by them, for Political inconveniencies; as that his return had once already caused seditions & Slaughters in Alexandria: & that he had been restored to his See contrary to the Canons, as one condemned by the Synod of Tyre, and not yet absolved, Thirdly, because if he had needed to render an account of his Faith to Maximus Bishop of Triers, or julius of Rome, He would have used none other than the Necene Creed; it being not opportune to have used any other at that Time, for fear he might have been thought to imitate the Arians, and Semi-Arians, who ever and anon framed new Confessions in their Synods & ante-Synods, on purpose to depreciate the Nicene Creed, as false, imperfect, or obscure; and for this very reason, were chief hated by the Catholics.  
Answer. 1. The several opinions about the Time and Place, where and when Athanasius Published his Creed, are but circumstantial differences, and therefore not destructive of the main business; except we will therefore deny an Hell, because Divines differ about the Place where it is seated, and the Time when it was prepared. Besides, all these differences are easy enough to be reconciled, as I have showed already, taking my rise from Possevins judgement.  
As for the Well at Triers, what ever Baronius may judge of it, yet if it bear that Inscription which Possevine witnesseth, it may probably enough have been the Place where Athanasius at first composed this Creed of his; either lying in it there for shelter at his first coming to Triers, till he had made his innocency known to Constantine the younger, and to Maximus the Bishop of the place: or, inscribing that Title on it, in imitation of the Apostles Creed, which was framed in a like place, as we find it recorded by Fr. Quaresmius an Eyewitness, in his forecited Testimony.  
2. What though Baronius ascribe more authority to the Bishop of Rome, than in truth is due to him, or than julius challenged in that Age? What, if Athanasius acknowledged him not for universal Bishop? Nevertheless, he might prudently appeal to him as the chief Patriarch of the Christian Church, sitting in the head City of the Empire; & as to a Person disengaged in his quarrel, & so not to be justly excepted against by his adversaries. The appeal, was not out of duty, but discretion.  
3. That Athanasius was accused for matter of Doctrine, I have already proved; and therefore he had good reason to make confession of his faith.  
4. The Arians, and Semi-Arians were hated by the Catholics, for not assenting to the Nicene Council, and for rejecting the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Consubstantial, in explaining the Divinity of the Son of God; whereupon, they framed new Forms, or Confessions of their own, contrary to the Decrees of that Council. Yet, for all this, Athanasius the great Patron of the Nicene Faith, might very well compose a larger explanation of those two material and mysterious Points of the Trinity and Incarnation, then questioned; an explanation, not contrary (as the Arians Confessions) but concordant to the Nicene Creed; and this he might do without any more derogation thereto, than came afterwards from Jerome, Leo, & other succeeding Fathers, who made Confessions of their Faith, or Creeds of their own private composure, at this day extant in their works; Creeds, not to be imposed on all Churches, but to manifest their own Belief, or for the use of some particular Diocese. The Authorities produced to the contrary, speak against the fraudulent, destructive Symbols of heretical Synods.  
Ob. 2. This creed is usually left out of the Manuscripts of Athanasius his works, or, at least hath not his name prefixed.  
Answ. This is not a sufficient Argument to disprove the Author, because the other works of Athanasius being originally wrote in Greek, and communicated to us from the Eastern Church, 'tis no marvel if this Creed is omitted, which was at First written in Latin; especially, when the Latins produced it with the addition of [filioque] in the procession of the holy Ghost; which the Greeks so much abhorred as an adulterate Insertion, and repudiated the whole Creed, some of them, for that very Reason. Pet. Felcmannus testifies, that he met with a manuscript of the Palatine library, wherein it was entitled to Athanasius. The Reverend Armachanus also tells us, it is found in a very old book of Hymns, written part in Latin, and part in Irish, the Book said to be composed in the Nicene Synod by three Bishops, Eusebius, Dionysius, and a third unnamed. We have already produced many Authorities to the same purpose, all which the Tradition of the Church confirms, which no man can prove ever to have thought otherwise. Genebrard withal informs us, Quod in vetustiissimis Romanae Ecclesiae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sub Athanasii nomine ejus ad primam recitatio usu recepta est; That in the most ancient Horologies or liturgies of the Roman Church, this Creed hath been usually rehearsed under his name, at the first Service.  
Ob. 3. If this were Athanasius his Creed he would have mentioned it some where in his Historical Tracts, Epistles, or Apologies; or, some writer of the same, or the next Age. Or, at leastwise some writer of his life.  
Answ. We have produced Testimonies to this purpose, out of Nazianzene, Hylary, Augustine, and Boethius who all lived near his Time.  
Ob. 4. They who ascribe this Creed to Athanasius, say it lay a long while in the Roman Archives unknown to the Church. So Baronius and Possevine, which is improbably affirmed of this writing; if it had been framed by so famous admired a Champion of the Faith as Athanasius was; especially, seeing so many succrescent Heresies might have been refuted by it.  
Answ. Those Authors affirm indeed, that the Original written by Athanasius his own hand, lay long in the Roman Archives, together with the Acts of the Synod, wherein he delivered it: but they deny not, that Copies there of might have been taken, & divulged; yea, Possevine affirms there were such taken, & Baronius thinks it very probable: and those parcels of it, which we find in S. Augustine, and Boetius, confirm the same. As for the refuting of heresies by it, we find it alleged by S. Aug. to that purpose; and 'tis likely that many others did the like, whose works are not come to our hands, or not so diligently perused by the objector, as touching this particular. The Works of Athanasius, as of other ancient Fathers, were alleged by after Ages against succrescent Heresies, as we may see by Nazianzen.  
Object. 5. If this Creed had been certainly believed of Athanasius his making, the Latins had made use of it against the Greeks', in the controversy of the Procession, as being a Father of so great Authority amongst them; whereas the first whom we read of to have made use of this Argument, were the Apocrisiarii, or Legates of Gregory the 9th. When the Controversy had now continued almost 500 years, and been discussed in many Synods, and polemical writings.  
Answ. Although we now read in the Athanasian Creed, That the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and the Son; yet in all likelihood, it was not so put down in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or original written by Athanasius; nor by any other, for a good while after; and therefore, no marvel, if the Latins made not use of this Creed against the Greeks', as a testimony on their side, when there was no such testimony to be found. My reasons are these.  
1. The Greek Edition of Athanasius his Creed, as we have it Printed by Commelinus, in the year, 1600. hath no such words as [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] although the Latin read it, [Filioque] that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Son also. The same we may say of the Parisian, and other Printed Editions, which have not it in the Greek.  
2. Athanasius, in his other Works, acknowledgeth no such Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, though having ofttimes occasion to speak thereof, in his Tracts of the Trinity; yea, he seems rather to say the contrary, in more Places than one.  
3. They who took upon them to add the same clause [Filioque] to the Nicene Creed, framed in a Synod of Eastern Bishops, without ask the consent of the Church which framed it, yea contrary to the Decree of the third General Council; might well be more bold in adding to the Creed of Athanasius, which was the Composure of one single Father, made at Rome, in the Latin tongue, and kept in their own Archives. Now, the Church of Rome did the one; why not the other too, which might be done with less noise, and notice.  
4. This Additionall particle [Filioque] was not added to the Nicene Creed, until the ninth Century at the farthest; For Leo the third, Bishop of Rome, who flourished in the beginning of that Century, not only denied to insert this Particle into that Creed; and persuaded the French Bishops, that they should not add it; but withal caused the Creed to be engraven in a Silver Table, (and that Table publicly placed in S. Paul's Church at Rome) without the Particle [Filioque] so witnesseth Pet. Lombard. Sent. lib. 1. Dist. 11. It is likely that the same was added to the Athanasian Creed about the same time, as it was to the Nicene, and so afterwards made use of by those Apocrisiarii.  
Object. 6. Jo. Belethus, who slourished above Three Hundred years since, tells us of some, who thought it to be the Creed of Anastasius: now, this Anastasius, surnamed Sinaita, was Patriarcb of Antioch, and lived in the reign of the Emperor justinian, and of justine the younger; and was some two Ages juniour to Athanasius.  
Answ. The conjecture of those, whosoever they were, seems so groundless, that Belethus who mentions it, not so much as names the Authors, as being men of small or no credit; much less produceth any reason, to justify their conjecture: yea, he professedly condemneth this their opinion of falsehood. The mistake probably was this, because this Anastasius wrote a Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Concerning the Faith, now extant in the French Kings Library at Paris.  
Ob. 7. Meletius Patriarch of Alexandria, in his letter which he wrote to Io. Douza, Aᵒ 1597. acknowledgeth not this Creed as the writing of Athanasius— Athanasio, inquit, falso ascriptum Symbolum, cum Appendice illâ Romanorum Pontificum adulteratum, luce lucidius contestamur; We openly protest against that Creed, saith he, falsely entitled to Athanasius, being corruptly set forth with that Appendix of the Roman Bishops. where by the Appendix he means the particle [Filioque] in the Article of the holy Ghost.  
Answ. If Meletius his meaning extend to the whole Creed of Athanasius, his Authority, as a single and a late Author cannot in reason challenge a belief contrary to the verdict of so many grave Authors so much Ancienter than he; especially, in a matter of fact; such as this is. But I suppose, Meletius in those words absolutely denies not, that Athanasius was the Author of the Creed now entitled to him; but that it is not to be fathered on him, as 'tis now read in the▪ Western Church, with the Appendix, [filioque] added thereto by the Bishops of Rome; but not Originally inserted, as he conceives, by Athanasius of which I have already spoken.  
Ob. 8. Nazianzens' Testimony concerning Athanasius his Creed, or Confession of Faith, is to be understood of the latter end of that Synodical Epistle, which he sent to the Emperor Jovianus; wherein, after he had set down the Nicene Creed, he adds these words; Nonnulli hanc Fidem a Patribus in Concilio Niceno confirmatam antiquare non sunt veriti; alii vero simulant assentiri illi, reipsâ autem pernegant, dum hanc vocem [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] perversè interpretantur; iisdemque in Spiritum Sanctum loquuntur blasphemè, asserendo eum creatum esse, & factum per filium; That is, Some have not been afraid to abrogate this Faith Established in the Nicene Council; others there be, who feign to receive it, but in truth reject it, whilst they interpret the word Homoousion, in a perverse sense; the same men speak also blaspheamously against the Holy Ghost, affirming that he was created, and made by the Son. Then, in the close, they say; Quinetiam, neque Spiritum Sanctum a Patre & Filio separârunt, sed ei unà cum Patre & Filio, in unâ sanctae Trinitatis fide, propterea quod una est in sancta Trinitate Divinitas, gloriam tribuerunt, That is, Neither did they separate the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son, but ascribed glory to him, together with the Father and the Son, in the same faith of the holy Trinity, because there is but one Divinity in the holy Trinity. Theod. hist lib. 4. cap. 3.  
Answ. Whether, or no, this fragment, this foot, this Appendix of an Epistle, deserve the Title of a Confession of Faith, so venerably esteemed by the Churches of East and West; of Libellus, a Declaration; of a Gift truly Royal and Magnificent; with which Titles Nazianzen in that place honours Athanasius his Creed, let the impartial Reader judge.  
Besides, we may observe for our fuller satisfaction in this particular.  
1. That these words, which the Objector calls Athanasius his Creed, refer not to him, and to the Bishops of his Patriarchate, who wrote the said Epistle, but to the Fathers of the Nicene Council; for they run in the third Person— neque separarunt— gloriam tribuerunt. not in the first— neque separavimus— gloriam tribuimus. Therefore, they relate to those Fathers who made the Nicene Creed, which is immediately prefixed; not to the Bishops who sent this Synodical Epistle.  
2. That this Synodical Epistle was sent in the name of all the Bishops of Egypt, Thebais, and Lybia; whereas the Confession of Faith written by Athanasius, was attested by him only, or by very few besides. So witnesseth Nazianzen in his forecited Oration; Primus ille, & solus, aut cum admodùm paucis, veritatem palam, apertisque verbis promulgare non dubitavit, unam trium personarum Divinitatem & essentiam scripto confessus; & quod multis illis Patribus circa Filium prius concessum fuerat, idem ipse postea in asserendâ Spiritus Sancti Divinitate superno afflatu consecutus. Atque Imperatori donum vere Regium, & magnificum offered etc. That is, He first of all, and alone, or accompanied with very few, doubted not to publish the Truth openly, and in express Terms, professing in writing one Deity and Essence of three Persons; and that which God had formerly granted to many Fathers (viz. the Nicene) concerning the Son, Athanasius obtained the same afterwards, by an inspiration from above, to assert the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. And he presents the Emperor with a Gift truly Royal and Magnificent etc. Of what Creed, or Confession of Faith can these Words be understood, but of that which now bears the name of Athanasius, wherein he so clearly, and at large, asserts the great mystery of the Trinity in Unity; and, in particular, the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, in these words— The Holy Ghost also is God— such as the Father is, such is the Holy Ghost— The Holy Ghost is of the Father [and the Son] neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but Proceeding. Whereas the Nicene Fathers, had only vindicated the Divinity of the Son, then called in question by Arius and his Adherents, as Nazianzen here tells us.  
3. Nazianzen informs us here of the Time when Athanasius wrote his Creed, when very, very few, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, durst openly profess the true faith; which must needs be meant of the Times immediately succeeding the Death of Constantine the Great; or when he was first deposed by the Synod of Tyre, and banished to Triers, by the importune calumnies, and violence of the Arian Party, in the latter end of his Reign; for then there appeared but three Bishops in the cause with him, who were in like manner feign to fly into the West, as Sozomen witnesseth. lib. 3. cap. 7. Whereas, after this, in the year 347. there was a Synod of Orthodox Bishops called together at Sardica, a City of Illyricum, who professed the Nicene Faith; and when Athanasius sent the forenamed Epistle to the Emperor Jovianus, his whole Patriarchate subscribed, together with him, to the Nicene Creed therein enclosed, the Emperor being then a Catholic. Wherefore, it is most probable that Athanasius first wrote his Creed at Triers; or when he fled to julius' Bishop of Rome, for succour; which Creed he afterwards sent also, with that Synodical Epistle to the Emperor jovianus, by whom he was restored to his See, thereby to confute his Adversaries, who would have had the World believe, that he was justly condemned, as erroneous in the Faith. The Epistle, he sent in the name of the whole Synod: The Creed, in his own.    

THE SECOND APPENDIX OF THE Nicene or Constantinopolitan CREED.  

CAP. I.  
The Reason of the double name of this Creed. The Composure thereof. The Additionall, or exegetical Particles, inserted into it. When, and by Whom it was conveied to other Churches, and brought into Divine Service.  
THIS Creed hath a double name, from a double Council whereof the one began, and the other finished it. It was begun in the First general Council, held at Nice in Bythinia, in the year 325, thence called the Nicene Creed, But it was recited, approved, and enlarged, as now we have it; by the second general Council held at Constantinople, in the year 381, thence called, the Constantinopolitan Creed, by many latter writers.  
The Nicene Fathers, being 318 in number, all subscribed to it, except five who adhered to Arius, and would not acknowledge the Son to be of the same Essence or Substance with the Father, by admitting of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Constantinopolitan Fathers, were 150 in number, who all assented to this Creed; And, Damasus Bishop of Rome, confirmed it for the westrne Church, with the suffrages of his fellow Bishops; although not present at Canstantinople, either in his Person, or by Proctor.  
The Nicene Council was called against Arius, who denied the Son to be Coessential and coeternal with the Father; Those Fathers therefore enlarged the second Article of the Creed, touching the eternal Divinity of the Son of God. The Council of Constantinople was called against Macedonius, who denied the Divinity of the holy Ghost; whence, those Fathers enlarged the eight Article of the Creed, which concerns the Third Person of the Trinity.  
As for the Form of words, or Frame of this Creed; it had, in the first Place, Hosius Bishop of Corduba for the Composer, who sat in the Council of Nice as Precedent or Moderator, by the appointment of the Emperor Constantine the Great; and therefore subscribed in the first Place, before Vitus, and Vincentius, who were the Bishop of Rome's Legates; as we may see in Binius, Conc. Tom. 1. The Composing of this Creed by Hosius we have witnessed by Baronius A. 325, who took it out of the Epist. of Athan. ad Solitarios, who was present at the Council▪ the words of Baron are these; Consentientibus Catholicis Episc. & Arianis pariter assentientibus, concepta est Catholicae Fidei formula, quâ omnia Arianae haeresis capita truncarentur; fuit autem ejus formandae Osius imprimis Architectus sapientissimus; de quo haec S. Athanasius cum scribit in Arianos, ex verbis eorum in eundem Osium apud Constantium conclamantium; Hic princeps est Synodorum; & siquid scribit, ubique auditur; hic formulam Fidei in Nicenâ Synodo concepit, & Arianos ubique pro haereticis traduxit, that is, By the joint consent of the Catholic Bishops, the Arians also agreeing to it, there was Composed a Form of Catholic Belief: He that Composed it was Osius, that most wise Masterbuilder; concerning whom S. Athanasius, in his works against the Arians, thus writeth, rehearsing their very words wherein they cried out upon him before the Emperor Constantius, This is the chief Precedent of Synods; who, if he writ aught, is harkened to every where; he composed the Form of Belief in the Nicene Synod, and hath traduced the Arians every where for Heretics.  
But the Additionall Particles, or supplement of this Creed, was made by Gregory Nyssen, an eminent Father in the first Constantinopolitan Council, who perfected and completed the Form, as we now have it. So Nicephorus informs us. Eccles. Hist. lib. 12. cap. 13. From that time forward, it was held for one entire Creed, and promiscuously called by succeeding Ages; sometimes the Nicene, sometimes the Constantinopolitan Creed: It was called lthe Nicene for the honour of that Council, which was the first Ecumenical, and the Foundation of all the Rest that followed; as also, because it was contained virtually and implicitly in the shorter Creed of that Council. So Marcus Bishop of Ephesus, in the Synod of Ferrara Sess. 5. Conc. Tom. 4. And it was called the Constantinopolitan Creed, because finished in that Council, and brought to that perfection wherein we now see it.  
This Creed, according as it was framed in the Nicene Synod, far shorter than now we have it, we may see in these following Authors; viz. Athan. Epist. ad jovianum. Conc. Tom. 1. pag. 399. Cod. Can. Eccl. Afric. p. 19 Ruff. Eccl. Hist. lib. 1. cap. 6. Theod. lib. 1. Hist. cap. 12. Socr. lib. 1. c. 5. Cass. trip. hist. lib. 1. cap. 17▪ Niceph. lib. 1. cap. 12. We have already Englished it, in the Twelfth Chapter of the precedent Discourse on the Apostles Creed. Now, I shall set down the Original Greek, which runs thus;  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
After this, the Fathers of the Constantinopolitan Council enlarged this Form, partly by adding some explicatory particles; and partly by resuming out of the Apostles Creed those Articles, wherein it was defective. The Explicatory particles were chief touching the Holy Ghost. The Articles taken out of the Apostles Creed, were those which follow the Article of the Holy Ghost. Notwithstanding, they omitted three passages thereof, which were virtually enclosed in the rest, that preceded or followed, viz. 1. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God of God] because it follows, [very God of very God.] 2. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, both which are in Heaven, and which are in earth] because there went before, [by whom all things were made.] 3. [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That is, Of the substance of the Father] because they thought it sufficiently comprehended in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which signifies more than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Epiphanius tells us in his Anchoratus, viz. A person of one and the same individual substance with the Father; whence the Orthodox Christians were differenced from the Arians, by the Title of, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, vel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That is, of Homoousians, or of those who worshipped the Son of God under this Title, by professing him of the same substance with the Father. So then, the entire form thereof, as the Western Churches now read it, by resuming that passage [God of God] out of the first Nicene form; and adding the word [Filioque] that is, [and from the Son,] in the Procession of the Holy Ghost; runs thus, the additional particles being distinguished from the rest by this mark [] which encloseth them;  
I Believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker [of Heaven and Earth] and of all things visible and invisible: and, in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father [before all Worlds] [God of God] light of light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all Things were made: who for us men, and for our Salvation, came down [from Heaven] and was incarnate [by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary] and was made man; [and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;] he suffered [and was buried] and the third day he risen again [according to the Scriptures] and ascended into Heaven, [and sitteth on the right hand of the Father] and he shall come [again with Glory] to judge both the quick and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have none end. And, I believe in the Holy Ghost, [the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And, I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church; I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins; and, I look for the Resurrection of the Dead, and the life of the World to come.]  
That Gregory Nyssen, by order of the Second general Council held at Constantinople, added the particles here inserted, is witnessed, as I said, by Nicephorus Callistus, in hist. Eccles. lib. 12. cap. 13. his words are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. That is, They (the Fathers of that Synod) added to that Divine Confession of Faith made at Nice, The Glory of the most Holy Spirit, as a Person of equal Honour and Glory with the Father and the Son; Gregory of Nyssa supplying what was defective in that Sacred Creed, Not that they were the first framers of those additional particles, for we find them extant, before the celebration of this Council, in Epiphanius his Anchoratus, and (for the most part) in Cyrils Catecheses'; but the first, who by their Synodical Authority, confirmed the entire Form; having left out something of the Nicene Creed, (viz. those three fore mentioned Passages) but added more; and so commended, yea prescribed the whole unto the Christian Church.  
This Creed so enlarged, was presently received into the Public service of the Church; for Platina in the life of Damasus tells us; Mandavit ut in principio celebrationis, quam missam vocant, Confessio diceretur, ut hodie fit; that is, Damasus (who lived at the time of the Constantinopolitan Creed) commanded, that in the Beginning of Common-service, this Creed, or Confession should be rehearsed, as now we use it. And Walafridus Strabo, de Reb. Eccles. cap. 22. informs us, that this was done in imitation of the Greek Church; Illud Symbolum▪ quod nos ad imitationem Graecorum, intra missas adsumimus. Et mox. Ab ipsis ergo ad Romanos ille usus creditur pervenisse.  
Yet, for some years, though it were received into the Greek Liturgy, it was not Constantly used, till the Time of Timotheus Patriarch of Constantinople, who came to that See, in the year 511. So Theodorus Lector in the Second Book of his Eclogae, or Collectanea, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. that is Timotheus, at the desire of his Friends, took order that the Creed of the 318 Fathers should be rehearsed at every Communion; and this, in reproof of Macedonius, who had not received it; whereas before it was rehearsed only once in the year, to wit, on the Eve of the Passion, at the Time when the Bishop Catechised. By this it appears that it was used Publicly in the Eastern Church, though but once in the year, whereas this Timotheus caused it to be constantly rehearsed at every Communion. Not long after this, we find it commanded to be used in the third Council of Toledo, a Nationall Council of 78 Bishops, assembled under K. Recaredus, whereof Leander Bishop of Sevil was one. This Council was celebrated in the year 590, the second canon whereof runs thus. Pro reverentia sanctissimae Fidei, petitione Recaredi Regis, constituit Synodus, ut per omnes Ecclesias Hispaniae & Galliciae, secundum formam Orientalium Ecclesiarum, Concillii Constantinopolitaniss, hoc est 150 Episcoporum, Symbolum fidei recitetur, & prius quam Dominica dicatur oratio, voce clar● praedicetur, quo fides vera sit manifesta, & testimonium habeat, & ad Christi corpus & sanguinem praelibandum pectora populorum fide purifica●a accedant. that is, Out of a venerable regard of the most holy Faith, and upon the motion of K. Recaredus, the Synod hath ordained, that the Creed of the Constantinopolitan Council, that is, of the 150 Bishops, should be rehearsed after the use of the Eastern Churches, throughout all the Churches of Spain and Gallicia; and that it be openly published before the saying of the Lords Prayer; that so the true Faith may be manifested, and witnessed, and that the Hearts of the People, being purified by Faith, may come to the participation of Christ's Body and Blood.  
From Spain, in likelihood, it came over the Pyrenees into France; part whereof, namely Languedoc, and the Country adjacent, was then under the Dominion of the Gothish Kings of Spain. And as it was commanded, to be rehearsed in the Spanish Churches, on purpose to profligate the Arian heresy, wherewith all their Princes had been infected until K. Recaredus, so was it more generally received in the Churches of France, in the latter end of the 8 Century, when Elipandus' Archbishop of Toledo, and Felix Bishop of Urgell, had been condemned of Nestorianisme in two Synods; namely, at Ratisbone, in the year 792. And at Frankfort, where Charles the great was present in the year 794. So Walafridus Strabo de Rebus Eccles. c. 22. Apud Gallos' & Germanos, post dejectionem Felicis haeretici, sub gloriosissimo Carolo Francorum Rege, idem Symbolum latius crebrius in Missarum caepit officiis iterari; that is, The same Creed (viz. the Nicene) began to be used amongst the Galls, and Germans, after the deposition of the heretic Felix (under Charles the most glorious King of the French) more often, and throughout more Churches, in the Communion-service. And the Synod of Frankfort, to prevent the spreading of this Heresy, took order, that together with the Apostles Creed, the Nicene also should be diligently delivered for the public use of the Churches; the thirty third Canon, of which Synod, set forth by Sermondus, runs thus,  fides Catholica sanctae Trinitatis (id est, Symbolum Constantinopolitanum) & oratio Dominica, atque Symbolum fidei [Apostolorum] omnibus praedicetur ac tradatur. That the Catholic Faith of the holy Trinity (that is the Nicene or Constantinopolitan Creed) and the Lords Prayer, and the Apostles Creed, be Preached, and Delivered unto All.  
As for our Church of England, it was probably brought hither by Augustine, and his fellow Preachers, who were sent to convert the Nation, by Gregory the Great, than Bishop of Rome.   

CAP. II.  
When, and by whom the Particle [Filioque] was added to the Nicene Creed, is historically delivered, and at large. Several other causes, of the breach between the Churches of Greece, and Rome.  
IT will not be amiss for a close unto the Discourse on this Creed, to show (as far as good Authors give us light) the Time when, and the Person by whom, the Particle [Filioque and from the Son] was added to this Creed; which declares the holy Ghost to Proceed from the Son, as well as from the Father. And this I thought fit to add; partly, for that the matter is obscure, and not generally known; partly, for the completing of my discourse on this Creed; and, partly also, for to show the Original and progress of so chief a cause of Difference between the Churches of East; and West, which hath now lasted for some hundreds of years to which I shall add some other causes of the Breach, and so give a conclusion of the whole Treatise. My collections on this Argument I have chiefly from the Learned Vossius, who with his wont industry and fidelity hath acquainted us with what he found recorded concerning it, out of the best witnesses of Antiquity, viz. Dissert. 3a. De 3 bus. Symb.  
The Churches of Spain where the first who added this Particle to the Creed, in a Synod held in Gallicia, in the year 447 as it is cited by the R nd Armachanus.  
The French Churches, following their example▪ are said next to have added it; and, after them, the Roman. As for our Church of England, venerable Bede tells us hist. eccls. lib. 4. cap. 17. That Theodore Archbishop of Canterbury though a Grecian, in a Synod which he with his fellow-bishops held at Hatfeild, in the year 680. Spiritum sanctum ex Patre & Filio, inenarrabilitur procedentem praedica verunt, that is, declared the ineffable procession of the holy Ghost from the Father and the Son. Yet, in the Canons, entitled Cresconiana, the Article touching the holy Ghost runs in the ancient Form, Et in Spiritum sanctum, Dominum & viv●ficatorem ex Patre procedentem, cum Patre & Filio adorandum & conglorificandum, qui locutus est per sanctos Prophetas; that is, And I believe in the holy Ghost, the Lord, and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped, and glorified, who spoke by the holy Prophets. This Collection of Canons is extant in the Public Library at Oxford.  
Then, for the French Churches, Aeneas Bishop of Paris in a Book of his (not extant in Print) which he wrote against the errors of the Greeks', witnesseth for his Time, In fide Catholicâ, quam die Dominicâ decantat ad missam universalis Galliarum Ecclesia, sic canitur inter caetera Credo & in Spiritum sanctum, Dominum & vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit, qui cum Patre & Filio simul adoratur & conglorificatur, qui locatus est per Prophetas▪ that is, In the Catholic Faith or Creed, which the whole Church of France singeth at the Communion-Service, they sing this among the rest; And I believe in the holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son etc.  
But to examine this controversy more particularly, and in order. In the year 767, there was a Synod held at Gentilliacum in France, under Pipin Father to Charlemain, in which the Greeks and Latins disputed concerning the Procession of the holy Ghost. So Ado viennensis; Facta est tunc temporis Synodus, anno Incarnationis Domini 767, & quaestio ventilata inter Graecos & Romanos, de Trinitate; & utrum Spiritus, sicut procedit a Patre, ita procedat a Filio. that is, There was a Synod called in the year of our Lord 767, wherein, the question concerning the Trinity was agitated between the Greeks and Romans; as also, whether the holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, as he doth from the Father. Then in a Synod at Aquisgrane, the question was renewed, and decided, (as it seems, upon this occasion; because the Particle [Filioque] was usually added, in the singing of this Creed, throughout the Gallicane Churches; he who moved the question was one John, a Monk of Jerusalem, The words of Ado in his Chronicle, concerning this Synod, are these— Syvodus magna Grani Aquis c●ngregatur Anno Incarnationis Dom. 809, in qua Synodo de Processione Spiritus sancti quaestio agitatur, utrum si●●● procedit a Patre, ita procedat a Filio. Hanc quaestionem Joannes, Monacus Hierosolymitanus moverat; cum Regula & Fides Ecclesiastica firmet Spiritum sanctum a Patre & Filio procedere, non Creatum, non Genitum, sed Patri & Filio coaeternum, & Consubstantialem. To give a final determination unto this question, Bernarius Bishop of Amiens, and Jesse or Asius Bishop of Worms, were sent by the Synod, together with Adelhardus Abbot of Corbey, unto Leo 3 Bishop of Rome; who confirms the decree of the Synod, concerning the Procession, as agreeing with his Opinion; yet speaks very honourably of the Constantinopolitan Fathers (who added not the particle [Filioque]) unto whom he would not presume to equal himself: but withal he expressly chargeth them to raze it out of the Creed. The sending of these three by the Synod, is mentioned by a Monk of S. Eparch, in the life of Charlemaigne. the Answer of Leo, is set down in the Acts of the Synod collected by Smaragdus, and out of him by Baronius in the year 809, wherein after much discourse, the said Legates of the Synod thus ask the Pope; Ergo, ut videmus, illud a vestra Paternitate decernitur, ut primo illud de quo quaestio agitur, desaepe fato Symbolo tollatur, & tunc demum a quolibet licite ac libere, sive cantando, sive tradendo, discatur & doceatur. P. Leo answers; Ita procul dubio a nostrâ parte decernitur; ita quoque, ut a vestra assentitur a nobis omnimode suadetur. After this, as I said before, he took order that this Creed should be engraven in a silver Table, or Scutcheon, without that Addition (which he well foresaw would prove the Apple of contention between the Churches of East and West) and so to be publicly hanged up, and exposed to the view of all, that so the whole world might see the Roman Church had added nothing to the Creed. So Pet. L●mb. witnesseth, lib. 1. Sent. Dist. 11. Anastas. in the life of Leo 3. Euthymius Zygabenus in Panopliâ Dogmat. Tit. 12. Photius in Epist. ad Aquil. Episc. apud Baronium. A. 883. §. 9 & Nicetus Choniates in Orthod. fid. Thesauro, Tom. 21.  
Thus Leo 3d left the Nicene Creed, as he found it, without the insertion of this Particle. Then: for Nicholas 1. and his Successor Adrian, who deceased in the year 872. They seem not to have added it; for Andrew Bishop of Colosse, who pleaded in this cause against the Greeks' in the Council of Florence, having diligently revised all that belonged thereto, denies that Photius, although their bitter enemy for their opinion of the Procession, ever objected to them their corrupting of the Creed: These are his words; Photius, Romanae Ecclesiae inimicus acerrimus, nullam de Synodi additione faciens mentionem, in Nicholaum ac Adrianum summos Pontifices, literis invectus est Plurimum.  
Much less did john the 8. the successor of Adrian, make this Addition, who sat in the Roman See, till the year 882. For this Pope allowed the Restitution of Photius to his See, and sent his Legates to the Synod held at Constantinople in the year 879. of which Synod Photius was Precedent, and wherein, with the assistance of the Pope's Legates, whatsoever had been determined against Photius in the times of P. Nicolas, and Adrian, was abrogated: amongst which, chiefly that Synod was condemned, which had been held in the year 869. against Photius, by Ignatius then Patriarch of Constantinople, and is now counted by the Church of Rome for the 8. Ecumenical; whereas the Church of Greece gives that Title to this, wherein Photius Presided; in which, among other Things there transacted, the Nicene Creed was also read without the Addition of [Filioque] and so subscribed to; yea, that Addition was interdicted; and all this done, Consentientibus Ioannis Papae Legatis, by the consent of the said Legates of john 8.  
The Greeks' lay the blame of this Addition on Pope Christopher, who thrust Leo the Fift out of his Chair, in the year 908. and after seven Months was in like manner dejected by Sergius. But Baronius gives a reason to the contrary, Anno 888. Nullo pacto possunt tribui ista Christophoro, qui invasor Apostolicae Sedis, mox sede pulsus, perbrevi tempore eam tenuit tumultuosè. That is; This Addition cannot be ascribed to Pope Christopher, who having invaded the Apostolic See, was quickly thrust out again, having held it but a very little while, and that in great troubles.  
Wherefore, with more probability, we may attribute this Addition to Pope Sergius, his Successor, who made this business of the Procession his first and chief work; and sent unto the French Bishops, to gather the most solid Arguments they could find, against the Error of the Greeks'; upon the Receipt of which letters, a Synod was called at Soissons. 6 Cal. Jul. Aᵒ 909. Wherein Herivaeus Archbishop of Rheimes, earnestly exhorts the Clergy to prosecute the question against the Photian Errors and Blasphemies, Hortamur vestram Fraternitatem, saith he, ut unà me cum, secundum admonitionem Domini Romanae sedis presidis, singuli nostrum perspectis Patrum, Catholicorum sententiis, de divinae Scripturae pharetris acutas proferamus sagittas, ad conficiendam belluam monstri renascentis, & ad terebrandum Caput nequissimi Serpentis.  
And, this may be the reason, why the ancient Roman writers, never delivered to posterity the name of that Pope, who contrary to the Precept and Practice of his Predecessor Leo 3. undertook to add this Particle to the Creed; namely, because they were ashamed of such an Author as Sergius, an usurper of the See, and one of a most infamous life; whom if they had alleged, they had laid both themselves, and their cause, open to the scoffs and rail of the Greeks', who would greedily have laid hold on such an advantage. Otherwise, it were a Thing extremely improbable, that the Clergy and Notaries of the Roman Church should be so grossly negligent, as not to insert a matter of this consequence into their public Registers; and that all the Ecclesiastical Writers of that and the next Age, should quite pass over it in silence; Especially, it being done in a great Synod of Western Bishops, as the forenamed Bishop of Colosse witnessed in the Council of Florence, when he there disputed in this cause on behalf of the Roman Church. His words are these; Cyrillus literis mandavit, Sanctum spiritum esse per Filium, ac Filii esse, & ab ipso profluere; quam profecto sententiam non dixisset, nisi coactus fuisset haereticorum ipsorum opinionem evertere; quemadmodum etiam Romanae Ecclesiae contigit: nam maximo in Gallia, & in Hispaniis, Schismate imminente, cum jam [ex filioque] passim celebraretur, Romano Pontifici fuit necesse, in multorum Occidentalium amplae Dignitatis, magnique Consilii Patrum Conventu, addito [ex Filioque] Symbolum magis illustrare. That is, Cyril hath wrote, that the Holy Ghost is by the Son, and of the Son, and that he proceedeth from him; which he had not declared, unless he had been compelled, thereby to overthrow the opinion of the Heretics; as it fell out also in the Roman Church; for a great Schism being now ready to break forth in the Churches of France and Spain, when as the particle [Filioque] was commonly used, it was necessary for the Bishop of Rome, to illustrate the Creed by the Addition of that particle, which he did in an Assembly of many Western Bishops, and those of the greatest Dignity, and judgement, Sess. 7a.  
About 165 years after the ejection of the Patriarch Photius, Michael Cerularius vehemently set himself against the Latins; accusing them, not only concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost, but also concerning Traditions and Ceremonies; as for Communicating in unleavened bread, fasting on Saturday etc. Leo Achridenus, Metropolitan of Bulgaria, seconded him. Michael Psellus, Tutor to Michael Ducas the Emperor, surnamed Paropinaceus, pursued the quarrel; and so did Theophylact, who flourished about the year 1070.  
Thus began, and thus continued, the deplorable Schism between the Churches of East and West; the causes whereof were these that follow.  
1. The Addition of this particle [Filioque] to the Nicene, or Constantinopolitan Creed; not only without, but against the Consent of the Eastern Churches, who had composed that Creed; but were never called to that Synod, wherein this Alteration was made; yea, still protested against it. But, which was more; this Addition was made in contempt of the third general Council held at Ephesus, which expressly forbade it, and denounced an Anathema against him, whosoever should dare to alter this Creed, by Addition or Diminution. cap. 7. For though an Ecumenical Synod cannot absolutely prescribe to another Ecumenical (whence, the first Council of Constantinople added much, by way of explication, to the Nicene Creed) yet it may prescribe Laws to Inferior Synods, whether Provincial, or Nationall; so that, nothing ought to be done in the common cause of the Faith, but by the common Judgement, and determination of the Catholic Church.  
Thus did the Greeks complain. And, when the Latins afterward urged (the Authority of the Roman See, now growing daily greater) that the Bishop of Rome by a peculiar privilege, derived from St Peter the Prince of the Apostles, was to take care that the Church received no Damage; that he had an infallible Judgement, by the special, Gift of the holy Ghost, in all controversies of Faith, and authority to decide them, so that there was no necessity he should expect the judgement of the Eastern Churches; and, that this was the Privilege of the first See, which had received the Primacy from S. Peter, Christ's vicar on Earth.  
The Greeks replied. First; that S. Peter never challenged that privilege to himself, to judge alone and to be judged of none; for, being called in question, that he had conversed with the Gentiles, he was feign to make an Apology for himself in the public audience of the Church. Act. 11. And when the Controversy arose, whether the Gentiles should be circumcised, and observe the Ceremonial Law; no Appeal was made to S. Peter, but a Synod was called, wherein, though he spoke first yet james, as Bishop of Jerusalem, the place where the Synod was called, decided the question, and seems to have sat therein as Precedent. Besides, S. Paul resisted him to his face at Antioch, and publicly rebuked him for causing others to Judaize by his example; as we Read, Galatians, 2. 14. Which he would not have presumed to do, if he had conceived him endued with such a supereminent privilege.  
So then, there appears nought in Peter above the rest of the Apostles but a Primacy of order, or of Dignity, at the most; such as is acknowledged to be fit in the Church of God; and this Primacy conferred on him, either for that he was first called, or for his Age, or Zeal, or that he was commonly the first Speaker, and so rather the Mouth than the Head of the Apostles: but there appears no Primacy of order or Jurisdiction over his fellow-Apostles. But suppose we should grant, said they, that Peter had such an unerring, paramount privilege; yet this might well be personal, and annexed to his Apostleship, not derivable to any Episcopal successor: and, if derivable; why should the Bishop of Rome rather arrogate it to himself, than the Bishop of Antioch, in which City S. Peter first sat? Or, the Bishop of Alexandria, a See instituted by the same Apostle, under S. Mark, before he ever appointed any Bishop at Rome? As for the Grounding of this privilege on S. Peter's martyrdom at Rome; where appears any such Dependence, or legacy bequeathed by S. Peter, that his Infallibility and Supremacy should be annexed to that Chair alone, as to the place of his Death and Burial.  
'Tis true, they confessed, that the Bishop of Rome was of old accounted, Primae Sedis Episcopus, The Bishop of the Principal See: but withal, they said, that there was a vast difference between Primacy, and Power; for, if by this pretence, he should challenge any Authority, or Jurisdiction over the Bishop of Constantinople, the Second See; Why should not he of Constantinople likewise, claim the same Power over the Bishop of Alexandria, which is the third? And so, in like manner, Alexandria over Antioch? Antioch over jerusalem? An opinion never heard of, or entertained in the Church of God.  
The Bishop of Rome therefore had this primacy, not by divine right, but by humane, or Ecclesiastical: that is, not from any Apostolical Privilege derived from S. Peter, but by the grant of Emperors, and Decrees of Counsels. It was fit, that one Bishop should be chief for order sake; & this Honour was given to the Bishop of Rome for the Dignity of his Seat, Rome being the Head of the Roman Empire. For which cause, Alexandria had of old the Second place, as being Praefectura Augustalis, the Peculiar of the Roman Emperor, so ennobled by Augustus Caesar: Antioch, the third, as the Metropolis of Syria, and the Eastern Countries adjoining: whereas, if the preeminency of Sees had been derived from S. Peter; the City of Antioch, where he sat seven years in person should have been preferred before Alexandria, whether he only sent an other, viz, S. Mark, and appointed him for the first Bishop.  
And for this cause Caesarea too was made the Metropolitical See of Palestine, because it was the seat of the Roman Governor; until the Fathers of the Nicene Council in honour of Jerusalem, where S. James was made the first Bishop of the Christian world, and whence the Gospel spread into the whole earth, gave the Bishop thereof a patriarchal title, & that, rather of dignity, then Authority; for thus runs the seventh Canon of that Council, Quoniam mos antiquus obtinuit, & vetusta Traditio, ut Aeliae, id est, Hierosolimorum Episcopo honor Deferatur, habeat consequenter honorem, manente tamen Metropolitanae Civitatis (Caesareae) propriâ Dignitate. that is, Because, from an old Custom and Tradition, honuor hath been given to the Bishop of Aelia, that is, of Jerusalem, let him have Honour accordingly, provided that the Dignity of the metropolitan City (Caesarea) remain entire.  
For the same cause also, when Constantinople was re-edified, made the seat of the Empire, and called new Rome, by Constantine the Great, it was thought fit by the Emperors and succeeding Counsels, that the Bishop of Alexandria should no longer have the Second, but the third Place, Constantinople now succeeding in that honour; for thus runs the fift Canon of the first Council of Constantinople, Constantinopolitanae Civitatis Episcopum habere oportet Primatus honorem post Romanum Episcopum, propter quod sit nova Roma. that is, The Bishop of Constantinople ought to have the next place of honour after the Bishop of Rome, because his City is new Rome. And because there could not be two Sedes primae, two first or chief Sees; the same Council ordained that the Bishop of Constantinople should be styled, the second Patriarch, but in all other things, should be of equal Dignity and Authority with the Bishop of Rome.  
So, in all the rest; whosoever will please to compare the Prelates Sees with the Notitia Imperii, shall find that the Church still accommodated her Hierarchy of Mertropolitans, Archbishops, & Bishops, unto the state of the Empire, the distinction of Provinces, and the Dignity of the Cities, according to that ancient Rule, Ecclesia est in Republicâ, non Respublica in Ecclesiâ, The Church is in the Commonwealth, not the Commonwealth in the Church.  
2. The second cause of the Schism, was the Deposition and Excommunication of the Patriarch Photius, and of the other Prelates, and Abbots his adherents, in a great Synod at Constantinople, held under the Emperor Basiliu●, and the Patriarch Ignatius, in the year 869, which business was mainly urged, and furthered by two Bishops of Rome successively, viz. Nicolas the first, and Adrian the second.  
3. The third cause, was the Rash and Inconsiderate Zeal of the said Patriarch Photius, who first dared to accuse the Roman Church of Heresy, because it held that the holy Ghost proceeded from the Son, as well as from the Father; whereas in all former disputes between the Greeks and the Latins, whether by word or writing, neither party accused his Adversary of Heresy, for holding either opinion: Yea, the Latins Demonstrated, that some of the Greek Fathers spoke as they did; neither, could the Greeks' deny it. And since this precipitate Censure of Photius, not a few of the Roman Divines have, in requital, accused the Greek Church of the same Crime, for holding the Contrary.  
4. The fourth cause, was the contention about the Primacy between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople. For john surnamed jejunator, and Cyriacus his successor Patriarches of Constantinople, were very earnest with the emperor Mauritius to obtain the Title & Authority of Ecumenical Patriarches, thereby challenging a Superiority over the Bishops of the whole Christian World, from the Dignity of their City, which was then the Head of the Roman Empire, that of the West being utterly broken, and Rome the Ancient Seat thereof, for that Cause losing its former Dignity. Now, against these their endeavours Gregory the great than Bishop of Rome, publicly opposed himself and taxed them in express Terms, of Antichristian ambition; saying withal, that, Dato uni Episcopi universalis Titulo, reliquos Sacerdotes honore debito privari, The giving of the Title of Universal Bishop unto one, doth deprive the other Bishops of their due Honour. Yet, with in less than two years after his Death, Boniface the Third, his Successor abstained the same Title of the Emperor Phocas, which Gregory had so much Decried. But the Greek Prelates would never yield to it.  
5. The fift cause, was the business of Images, which broke out after this contention about the Primacy. For the Emperor Leo Isaurus, and his son Constantinus Copronymus, interdicted the worship thereof, and commanded them to be broken; Both of them, for this Cause, being very hateful to the Church of Rome.  
6. A sixth cause, was the Pride, Pomp, and Covetous Exactions of the Pope's Legates who were yearly sent from Rome, to carry the Chrism unto Constantinople.  
7. The seventh, and last cause, was the Division of East, and West Empire, caused by Leo 3. Bishop of Rome; who seeing Italy, and more especially his own Church and City, daily vexed, and in danger of imminent Ruin, by the incursions of the Saracen● on the East, & the oppression of the lombards from the West; and seeing that the Greek Emperor, at his earnest solicitation, either would not, or could not protect him: In fine, he persuaded the Senate, and people of Rome, to elect Charlemaigne▪ Emperor of the West, which they did; & he accordingly crowned him at Rome, in St Peter Church, upon Christmas Day Aᵒ Dni 800.  
Thus, this great Breach had its original both from Prince, and Prelate. The Emperors became odions to the Popes, for the business of Images; and the Popes to the Greek Emperors, for the Division of the Empire. Then, for the Clergy; The contention about the Primacy made way for the Schism. The Pride, Pomp, and Avarice of the Roman Legates, fomented it. Then, the Doctrine of the Procession, accompanied with the Deposition of Photius, and the adding of the particle [Filioque] to the Nicene Creed, on the one side; with the retortion of Heresy, wherewith Photius charged the Latin Church, on the other; brought it to the Height. And when the Differences were thus high, than every petty diversity in matter of Ceremony, or opinion, was a sufficient occasion of Cavil, and served to make the Breach wider.  
For, to insist a little upon this last. The Greeks celebrate the Eucharist in both kinds, and give it to Infants, presently upon their Baptism; but the Romanists do neither. They give it also in leavened bread, and condemn the contrary use; whereas the Church of Rome usually delivers it in light Wafer-cakes. They admit of Priests marriages, that is, the use of those wives whom they married before ordination; which the Romanists do not. They prohibit the fourth marriage in any Christian as a thing intolerable. They solemnize Saturday festival, in memory of the Creation, and eat flesh therein; forbidding as unlawful, to fast any Saturday in the year, except Easter Eve, in memory of our Saviour's then lying in the Grave. They Eat no blood, nor any thing strangled, in observation of that Decree of the Apostles. Act. 15 28, 29. They observe four Lents in the year. They reject the religious use of massy Images, or statues in their Churches; though they admit of Pictures or plain Images. They disallow private Masses, and the sale of Indulgences, and Pardons; with the Adoration of the elevated Host: lastly, they have their service in a known Tongue. In these, and some other small particulars, they differ in practice from the Roman Church▪ And, as in matter of practice so in opinion too; as about Transubstantiation, Purgatory, the State of Souls departed etc.  
But, too much of the causes, and the sad effects that followed. The great head of his Church, unite all his members, to himself, and each other, in Verity, and Unity, in the same Faith and the same Love. He who is the Wisdom of his Father, supply his Church with that Wisdom from above, which is first pure, then peaceable; that so, it may seek, and seeking obtain those two inestimable Blessings, Truth, and Peace. The Great Physician of Souls, in his due time, apply an effectual Salve to heal up these Wounds of his turn, mangled Spouse. The Great Shepherd of his Church, who came to bind up that which was broken, to seek that which was lost, to recollect the dispersed ones; and who once broke down the partition-wall between jew and Gentile, bring his Scattered Sheep into one Fold here, and hereafter set them at his right Hand in his Heavenly Kingdom.   
FINIS.   

ERRATA  
PAge 3. lin. 24. for sunt read sicut. p. 9 l. 24. r. 2 Cor. 1. 24. p. 17. l. 21. r. Marcellus Ancyranus. p. 88 l. 16. r. Contextio. p. 102. l. 32. r. Heb. 6. 1. p. 105. l. 20, 21. r. this— testimony. p. 117. l. 19 r. his comments. p. 118. l. 14. r. where. p. 122. l. 12. r. this. p. 116. l. 25. r. discessuri. p. 128. l. 19 r. confinem. p. 141. l. 17. r. Melania. p. 145. l. 31. r. God: p. 157. l. 6. r. form. p. 159. l. 23. r. out of. p. 161. l. 31. r. Test. p. 173. l. 29. r. this. p. 174. l. 27. r. Moscovitish. p. 175. l: 34. r. Act. 8. 37. p. 179. l: 21. r: is. p. 181. l. 12. r. spoke. p. 183. l. 22. r. generality. p. 189. l. 16. r. or. p. 193. l. 15. r. words. & l. 25. thus. p. 196. l. 20. r. ita. p. 204. l. 12. r. commonly. p. 205. l. 12. f. in the. r. to be. p. 207. l. 34. r. unjust. p. 209. l. 11. r. Areop. p. 210. l: 9 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 214. l. 31. r: or. p. 223. l: 18. Creed made by. p. 245. l: 34. r. Lauraeus. p. 252. l: 9 r: Haymo.