"N. B. Let it be observed, that in the Sermon on the Mount (one of the earliest discourses) our Saviour speaks of God as standing in that relation [of Father] to us, nearly twenty times, before he speaks of his standing in the same relation to himself -After his resurrection, how emphatically does he state it, my Father, and your Father, my God and your God.'" P. 4.

From this numerical argument we must either collect the fol lowing meaning, or no meaning whatever; that God is nearly twenty times as much our Father, as the Father of Christ. And with respect to the expression, "my Father and your Father," which we are told, marks emphasis; we are assured, on the authority of a Greek, that it marked opposition and distinction *. This ob. servation may be of course added to those which prove the qua lifications of Mr. Jones and his associates to improve on our Authorized Version.

As the preceding observation illustrates our authors' ingenuity and knowledge of Greek; the subsequent will evince their acquaintance with ecclesiastical antiquity.

"These Doxologies [Glory be to the Father and to the Son, &c.] as they are termed, are a Popish Invention. A Protestant, i e. a scriptural Christian may well be excused," &c. P. 4.

Yet this Popish invention unquestionably originated in the Eastern Church. A learned person who has inquired into this subject, with the greatest care and curiosity, has pronounced, that the custom of closing each Psalm with the doxology prevailed in the East from the primitive ages †. And such is the felicity which attends the Unitarians in all their conjectures, that in the Western Church, where the custom was unquestionably late, it was adopted, after the practice of the Eastern Churches, as it is believed by Pope Damasus, at the recommendation of St. Jerome §. Of all the Western Churches, it was exclusively used

→ S. Cyril. Catech. vII. § iv. p. 106. 1. 2. ed. Oxon. 1703. Oix εἰπὼν πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα ἡμῶν ἀλλὰ διελών, καὶ εἰπὼν πρῶτον τὸ οἰκεῖον πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα με, ὅπερ ἦν κατὰ, φύσιν· εἶτ ̓ ἐπαραγὼν ὁ καὶ Πατέρα →μar öz xaтà Jéow. Conf. S. Chrysost. in loc.

Thomassin. de Eccl. Discipl. P. I. Lib. II. cap. lxxi. Tom. I. p. 455. It accordingly occurs in S. James's, S. Basil's and S. Chrysostom's Liturgy; Vid. Liturg. SS. Patr. pp. 8. 44. 75. ed. Par. 1560.

Mabill. de Liturg. Gallic. disquis. de Curs. Gallic. §. 32. p. 405. ed. Par. 1685.

Sigeb. Chronogr. ad An. 382. Int. Scriptt. Rer. Germann. Tom. I. p. 403. ed. Francf. 1613.

in the Gallican, down to a late period; the Council of Narbonne having decreed that "Glory be to the Father," &c. should be sung at the end of each Psalm*. Can it be now matter of surprize that they who decide thus presumptuously, upon subjects on which they possess not the smallest information, should find so much to object to, in the Established Religion?

From the Doxologies we proceed to the Apostles' Creed.

"This Creed was not written by the Apostles, whose name it bears. And as we have an opportunity of repeating, when we please, their own genuine Creed out of the Scripture, it is not worth while to fasten on them, or on ourselves, any other. It may not be amiss to remark, that in Christian Churches before the Council of Nice, the first article stood, I believe in One God. (See Pearson.)" P. 8.

We have here another decision, delivered as usual, ex tripode. Yet peremptory as this dictum is, we venture to call it in question. Erasmus, we are fully aware, impeached the authenticity of this creed; and Vossius attacked it, in an express dissertation +. Their arguments, however, seem not to have made much impression upon the admirable Primate Usher; and we conceive they may be disposed of, without much trouble to the undertaker. We do not pledge ourselves to maintain the many improbabilities which have been recounted respecting it; that it is the joint production of the twelve Apostles, or was originally committed to writing. But we believe it not impossible to prove, as St. Jerome seems to have believed §, that it was dictated by some of those immediate disciples of our Lord, and was thence traditionally handed down, in the Eastern and Western Churches.

The first argument which may be urged in support of this creed, is deducible from the circumstance of its having been received, in those Churches; either in its present form, or with the addition of a few explanatory phrases directed against subsequent heresies; the impression, at the same time, prevailing that it had been traditionally delivered by the Apostles. Such was the opinion of Ruffinus, in the West, who wrote expressly

Mabill. ubi supr. §. 56. p. 423.

+ Erasm. Præf. in Paraphr. Matt. Voss. Dissert. de trib. Symbb. Amst. 1662.

Vid. Voss. uti supr. Dissert. I. §. x, p. 8.

S. Hier. ad Pam. Ep. LXI. cap. ix. Tom. II. p. 219. "In Symbolo fidei et spei nostræ, quod ab Apostolis traditum, non scribitur in charta et atramento, sed in tabulis cordis carnalibus, post confessionem Trinitatis, et unitatem Ecclesiæ, omne Chris tiani dogmatis sacramentum carnis resurrectione includitur." Conf. inf. p. 585. n.*

оп

on this subject; and the same conclusion may be gathered from Eusebius in the East, who possessed every means of investigating the tradition *. It seems not easy to account for its being thus generally received, but on the supposition, that it was authorized by the Apostles.

The same supposition receives the strongest confirmation from the internal evidence of the creed; and from the external testimony by which it is supported. Every article of this creed is directed against some error of those heresies which arose before the close of the Apostles' ministry. And every fundamental error of those heresies finds its express contradiction, in this short formulary. As this assumption is not verified, in this Creed and the state of opinion at any subsequent period; and as every addition made to it must be referred to subsequent heresies; it seems impossible to account for these facts on any principle, but that which presupposes, that this creed, though subsequently accomodated to later heresies, was compiled in the apostolical age, and of consequence composed by the Apostles.

We are not destitute of external evidence, even in the inspired writers, in referring this creed to this primitive period. Bishop Sherlock has ingeniously concluded, from the appeal to the authority of the Apostles, in St. Peter and St. Jude, who were themselves of apostolical rank, that some " Form of sound words," composed by the Apostles and directed against those heresies, must

Ruffin. in Symb. §. 1. p. 17: int. Opusc. subnex. Cypr. ed. Oxon. "Iccirco, denique hæc non scribi chartulis atque membranis, sed retineri cordibus [Apostoli] tradiderunt, ut certum esset, neminem hæc ex lectione, quæ interdum pervenire ad infideles solet, sed ex Apostolorum traditione didicisse sufficeret." Euseb. ap. Socr. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. cap. viii. p. 23. 1. 8. xads magáßoper maga τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν ἐπισκόπων κ.τ. Ibid. 1. 29. καθὼς καὶ Κύριος ἡμῶν ἀποσέλλων εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα τὸς ἑαυτὸ μαθητάς κ.τ..

+ This assertion may be easily illustrated from Ruffinus in Symb. §. 4. p. 14. "Orientis Ecclesiæ omnes ita tradunt," Credo in unum Deum Patrem Omnipotentem :" et rursum in sequenti sermone, ubi nos dicimus, "Et in Jesum Christum, unicum Filium ejus, Dominum nostrum ;" illi tradunt, "Et in unum Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, Filium ejus." Here in consequence of the notion, which prevailed in the East, relative to the existence of two Gods, vid. supr. p. 572. n. t. and of separate persons in Jesus Christ, vid. S. Iren. Lib. I. cap. xi. p. 188: the term "unum" was inserted before "Deum," and "Dominum nostrum" in the Oriental Creeds; though omitted in the original Creed, which was disseminated in the West and other regions, where those notions were not prevalent.

have prevailed in the first age; and he justifies his opinion by the language of those inspired writers, who plainly distinguish between these traditionary forms, and the general doctrines of the Gospel. As it is utterly inconceivable, that these forms of doctrine should have wholly disappeared, and a form, like the apostolical creed, have succeeded in their place, answering in every respect to the description given of them: we therefore conclude, that "the traditionary faith," to which there is a plain reference in St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Jude, must be the Creed of the Apostles. In this consideration a leading objection of Vossius, deduced from the silence of the inspired writers †, is at once overturned; as this Creed was directed against the heresies, which arose at the close of the Apostles' ministry, it could not have been mentioned in any part of their writings, but some of the later Epistles.

The chain of tradition, in favour of this Creed, may be easily extended below this period, to the fourth century, when the documents respecting it are full and explicit. Whatever scepticism is indulged respecting the Apostolical Constitutions, it is on all sides admitted, that they preserve the traditions, which prevailed in the Church, from the earliest ages. They, however, contain, not only an account of the Apostles having opposed those early heresies; but ascribe a formulary to them which is merely the Apostles' Creed, interpolated with some explanatory phrases, directed against subsequent heresies §. A further objection of Vossius, deduced from the silence of the primitive fathers, thus easily finds its answer. It could not have been necessary to repeat a Creed which, previously to its being superseded by a fuller exposition of the faith compiled by the first General Council assembled at Nice, every one committed to memory. Previously to that period, when Christianity became the established religion, it was a matter of religious scruple with Christians, to preserve their Creed, undivulged to the Pagans ¶. In the fourth century those obstacles to its promulgation were removed, by the suppression of Heathenism; in this century, it is consequently meutioned, without reserve or scruple.

* Vid. 2 Pet. iii. 2. Jud. 17. Comp. Bp. Sherl. Dissert. I. p. 196. 199. subj. to Disc. on Prophec. Lond. 1749.

+ Voss. ubi supr. §. xxv. p. 21.

Constit. Apost. Lib. VI. cap. xiii. p. 345.

Ibid. Lib. VII. сар. xli. p. 383.

Voss. ibid. §. xxiii. p. 18. §. xxviii. p. 23.

S. Cyril. Hieros. Cat. VI, §. xv. p. 97. 1. 21. Conf. Ruffin. supr. p. 585, n. ❤,

After

After this period it must be nugatory to search after evidence, in attestation of its authenticity. The fathers who mention it after this time, (among whom we number St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and Ruffinus *,) ascribe it, with one consent, to the Apostles t. Nor is there any thing in the subsequent objections of Vossius which at all invalidates their testimony. The improbability on which he insists, that any Church would invent a new Creed, had this been composed by the Apostles +, arises from his own false assumption, that such Creeds were invented. They invented no new Creed, while they preserved it altogether; merely adding such explanatory clauses, as were necessary to oppose the growth of error §. And any verbal difference, which is discoverable in the substance of the Apostles' Creed ||, as preserved in their larger formularies, is at once accounted for, on considering what St. Jerome attests, that it was preserved by tradition.

With respect to the final remark, on the phrase "I believe in one God," our authors exhibit their usual felicity of conjecture." For though it is true, that this phrase is found in the Creed, which Eusebius produced in the Council of Nice, and in that which the Arians published at a subsequent period ¶; as containing the original traditionary faith of the Churches of Palestine and Alexandria: there is ample ground to believe that they retain the term "one," as an interpolation, of the original. For (1.) the Roman Creed wants this term **; and of all the Creeds in the Eastern and Western world it only possessed the reputation of being unaltered ++. (2.) The Palestine and Alexandrine Creeds in which it occurs, are obviously accommodated to later heresies ; and of course disqualified from deciding the question. (3.) The intro

* S. Hier. ad Pam. Ep. LXI. cap. ix. Tom. II. p. 219. S. Ambros. Ep. xlii. §. 5. Tom. II. col. 967 b. Conf. Ep. xx. § 4. col. 853. b. S. August. Serm. cxv. de Tempore. Tom. X. c. 849. b. ed. Basil. Ruffin. in Expos. Symb. §. i. p. 17.

+ Genebrard. de Trin. III. p. 230. ed. Colon. 1560.

Voss. ibid. §. xxix. p. 23.

Vid. supr. p. 585. n. †.

Voss. ibid. §. xxxi. p. 24. sqq.

Vid. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. cap. viii. p. 23. 1. 15. Id. ibid. cap. xxvi. p. 61. 1. 26. Conf. Theod. H. E. Lib. I. cap.

xii. p. 38. Sozom. H. E. Lib. II. cap. xxvii. p. 83.

Lond. 1647.

** Vid. Usser. de Symb. p. 12. "Illud non importune com†† Ruffin. ubi supr. §. ii. p. 17. monendum puto, quod in diversis ecclesiis, aliqua in his verbis [Credo in unum Deum Omnipotentem] inveniuntur adjecta. In Ecclesia tamen urbis Romæ hoc non deprehenditur factum." ‡‡ Vid. Usser. ubi supr. p. 14, 15.

duction