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 Certaine Bishops being sent by Constantius to his Brother Emperour of the West for to give an account of the Casting out of Paulus Athanasius concealed the precedent Formula of Beliefe made at Antioch and exhibited this other of their owne composure viz. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 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 Sonne our Lord Jesus Christ begotten of the Father before all Worldes 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 Wisdome and the Power and the Life and the true Light who in these last Dayes was for our sakes made Man and Borne of the holy Virgin was Crucified Dead and Buried and rose againe 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 Quicke and the Dead to render unto every one according to his workes Whose Kingdome 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 Soules of those who syncerely believe in him are Sanctifyed But those who say the Sonne 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 Catholick Church doth not acknowledge them for her owne 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 bin not long before Composed by the Bishops of that Faction in the Synod of Sirmium The Forme is this which followes We believe in one only and true God the Father Almighty Creator Framer of all things in one only-begotten Sonne of God begottten before all Worlds before all Begining 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 Sonne of his we know came from Heaven for the puttting away of sinne 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 Councell of his Father was crucifyed suffered and Dyed descended into the lower Partes of the Earth and ordered all things there the Porters of Hell Trembling at his sight he rose againe the Third Day Conversed with his Disciples and after forty Dayes 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 workes And in the holy Ghost whom the same only-begotten Sonne of God Jesus Christ promised to send unto mankind the Comforter according as it is writtē 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 downe by the Fathers without explication and not understood by the People gives 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 speake of God because the holy Scriptures mention not at all the essence of the holy Ghost or the Sonne but we say that the Sonne is like unto the Father in all Things as the holy Scriptures say and Teach Soc. lib. 2. cap. 29. The sixt 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 Emperours Court The Forme was this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We professe 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 Sonne 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 Wisdome 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 tooke flesh of the holy Virgin Mary for the putting away of sinne was made man suffered for our sinnes rose againe was taken up into Heaven sitteh at the right hand of the Father and shall come againe in Glory to judge the Quicke 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 Baptized in the name of the Father and of the Sonne and of the holy Ghost Those who Preach any other Faith than this wee Judge them aliens from the Catholick 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 Emperour Valentinian for succour from the Persecution of his Brother Valens and the Arian Bishop Eudoxius The Forme 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 Sonne 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 consubstantiall 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 downe was incarnate and made man suffered and rose againe 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 Sonne of God that there was a Time when he was not a Time
succeeding Creeds which the whole Church hath for many Ages imbraced they were Framed in generall Councels or confirmed by Generall Practise Now the Catholick Church which received the Creed from the Apostles and preserved â—t as an inviolable Depositum may justly be presumed best to know the meaning of it the Common Mother of Christians can best informe us which is the true sence of the Common Faith and hath sufficienâ— authority to impose it upon Her Children Reas 4. Those Fathers who wrote since the Nicene Councell set downe and explaine that Creed which beareth the Apostles name not that which was framed in the Councell of Nice as appeares by the fore-cited 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 shew that the Church had still the prime if not the sole respect to that Symbole or Rule of Faith which the Apostles left her as the maine 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 Councell have explained and commented on the Apostles Creed I have already mentioned viz. Chrysostome Augustine Chrysologus Venantius Eusebius c. Reason 5th It is a received Rule which S. Augustine laies downe 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 universall Church holdeth and hath alwaies retained not being ordained by a Councell 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 generall effect must have as generall a cause they must be both of the same latitude and extent now there is no Generall cause imagineable of a publiquely received Doctrine Goverment Ceremony or Discipline in the Catholicke Church such especially as is derived to it from hand to hand time out of mind but the Authority of a Generall Councell 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 alwayes reteined in the Church the Testimonies of the fore-aleadged Fathers shew and that it was not Framed in any Genenerall Councell 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 Councel held at Nice wherein they make mention of a Rule of Faith derived downe to them from the Apostles which some of them also set downe as Irenaeus Tertullian Origen Reason 6th Before the Nicene Creed was framed both the Easterne and Westerne Churches had an Ancient Symbole or Creede 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 Westerne or Romane Church had such an Ancient Symble appeares 1. By the words of Vigilius Byshop 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 Councell from the very Apostles times till this present in these termes delivered the Creed unto Believers And in Jesus Christ his Sonne our Lord leaving out the Particle Only 2. By Ruffinus in his Tract on the Creed who compares the Aquilean Creed with the Romane and withall tells us that the Creed was believed so ancient in his time that it was then held for an Apostolicall Tradition Now this Ruffinus was a man of note in the Church nine yeares before the first Councell of Constantinople viz. in the yeare 372. when he went with Melama from Rome to Alexandria about which time also S. Ierome wrote letters to him namely his Epist 5. 41. Secondly that the Easterne Churches had an ancient Creed too before the Nicene Councell appears by the same Ruffinus who compares the Aquilean Creed with that of the East as well as with the Romane The same appears by Cyril of Ierusalem who explaines it at large in his Catecheses and this Creed of his explaining we shall find much consonant to that which we now call the Apostolicall only cutting off some few exegeticall Particles which were added to fore-arme his Auditors and other orthodox Christians against succrescent Heresies to which Creed of his he adjoynes also some practicall Grounds for the more compleat instruction and Preparation of them against the time of Baptisme This Cyril was first Catechist then Patriarch of Ierusalem and sate afterwards in the first Councell held at Constantinople where the Easterne Bishops were only present and composed a Creed almost in the same termes with this of Cyril He composed these Catecheses in his youth about the yeare 350 and died in the yeare 386 five years after the celebration of that Councell as the learned Vossius demonstrates out of Leo and S. Jerome compared with a passage in his sixt Catechesis Now as the Fathers of the first Councell 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 least they might otherwise seeme 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 appeare 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 implyed in in Holy and Communion in Church or Congregation Ecclesia which is an Assembly of selected People and Christs descent into Hell is presupposed to the Article of his Resurrection Therefore to think that Cyril in his old Age or Iohn the Patriarch his Successor added all that to the Jerosolymitan Creed which followes the Articles of the Holy Ghost is nothing probable because Cyril doth not barely
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 owne Rituall Traditions as of necessity to Salvation some of which are uncertain others frivolus burthenous superstitious and even contrary to Gods word so did St Augustin long agoe sharply taxe Vrbicus a Romane Presbyter for pressing the Weekly Fast one Saturday as necessary to be observed by all Christian Churches whereas the vsuall Fasting-dayes at that time in all Churches were Wensday Fryday the Saturday fast being a peculiar custome of the Church of Rome But our Church abolisheth not all Traditions as appeares by this of the Creed which she with other Reformed Churches retaines as also by her 34th Article which was on purpose framed touching this subject wherein she intreateth only of Rituall not Doctrinall Traditions telling us that they need not to be alwayes and every where alike but may be diversified according to Times Countries and mens Manners so that nothing be ordained against Gods Word that what soever Private Person purposey and openly breaketh such ought to be openly rebuked and that every particular or nationall Church hath Authority to ordaine change and abolish Cerimonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by mans authority so that all Things be done to Edifying CAP. VIII Severall Objections which some have alleadged 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 Poynts which I proposed to my selfe 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 cleare my passage as I goe on by the removall of such Doubts and Objections which like so many rubbs or stumbling-blocks hinder my farther proceeding and obstruct the way The Truth though sufficiently cleare in it selfe yet will shine forth unto others more gloriously when these mists are scattered though firmely establisht yet her strength will appeare more formidable in the overthrow of her Adversaries For there be some and those of no vulgar ranke who have taken great Paines and still delight themselves in overthrowing those ancient fabricks which our forefathers left us building in their roome 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 Doome of the Jewish Temple upon the Christian Church that shee will not have one stone left upon another that shall not be thrown downe Math. 24. 2. As for this present Argument though the Reasons which some have brought against it seeme to the objectors more then probable yet I suppose that upon due triall they will appeare lesse then necessary so that they will prove unsufficient to overthrow the constant Tradition of so many Ages and to sway against the streame of so maine a current the joynt Authority and Testimony of so many Doctors of the Church as well Moderne as Ancient I shall therefore set downe their Reasons fully and faithfully yea somewhat more distinctly than they have done and then subjoyne their Answers in severall 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 principall a matter Sundry other things of farre lesse consequence he hath carefully recorded as the Apostles Decree concerning Ceremonies and things indifferent but of this so important and weighty a businesse the Decree concerning the Rule of Faith he makes not so much as one word mention which certainly he would never have failed to doe 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 speake 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. Mathew undertakes to write the History of our Saviours 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. Iohn S. Iohn especially composed his Gospell of those particular Actions and Speeches of our Saviour which were left unmentioned by the three former Evangelists yet he himselfe tells us in the conclusion of his Book that There were many other things which Iesus did the which if they should be written every one he supposed that even the World it selfe could not containe the Bookes that should be written Ioh. 21. 25. But to come closer yet to the Argument S. Luke in that Booke of his which is entituled The Acts of the Apostles mentions very few Acts of the Apostles in generall 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 Apostolicall Peregrinations and yet how many materiall Passages even touching S. Paul doth he omit some of which we find afterwards occasionally recorded by himselfe in his Epistles especially in those of his to the Churches of Galatia and Corinth As for example his Travailes into Arabia after his conversion his Coming to Ierusalem three yeares after and communicating his Gospell with Peter Iames and Iohn 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 signe of the Ship wherein he sailed to Italy and yet these are exprest the other excluded If it be replyed that this Argument is produced only as probable and yet will hold good unlesse some probable cause of the omission can be assigned why a poynt of so great importance and so necessary is not mentioned when others of lesse weight are and that the Evangelists omit indeed diverse Things which Christ said and did yet set downe all Things necessary to Salvation which was their main end I rejoyne 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. Lukes omission is sufficiently overthrowne by the positive Testimonies of the Ancients which I haue produced to the Contrary that the Composure of the Creed by the Apostles was a businesse 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 knowen in the Christian Church the Apostles delivering it to be kept and used wheresoever they Preached Secondly though S. Luke make no expresse mention of this Creed of the Apostles yet S. Paul in diverse of his Epistles not obscurely alludes unto it under severall Formes Phrases of Speech as hath bin shewen at large before so also doth S. Jude v. 3. Thirdly S. Luke sets downe the Apostles Decree concerning the ceremoniall Law because it was the Result of a Generall Councell and that Councell occasiond by a great Dissention in the Church of Antioch which sent to the Apostles about the Resolution of this question Now matters of dissention are the chiefe Theme of Histories and that Councell with the Proceedings and Formes thereof is set downe on purpose as a patterne to all succeeding Ages As for the Creed or Canon of Faith there was no such occasion for the mentioning of it seeing no Cavill then arose about it nor any generall Councell 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 spake 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 mentiō of the Creed and the Composure thereof by the Apostles I appeale to the former Testimonies cited out of Irenaeus Tertutullian and Origen who all lived within two hundred yeers after our Saviours Assension 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 Bookes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 tels 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 litle after Tentabimus quae omissa videntur a prioribus ad implere That he would endevour to supply what had been omitted by former Writers Secondly because it was the custome of the Ancient Bishops to expound the Creed unto Catechumeni when they came to Baptisme at those two solemne times of the year Easter Pentecost as appears by those Homilies or Catecheticall Sermons now extant of Cyril Chrysostome Austin Chrysollogus and others many more doubtles there were framed by former Bishops which either were never committed to paper or being then writen are now lost 3ly As to the silence of Ecclesiastical Historians touching this subject a little observation will informe us that nouell strange singular Passages are the usuall Arguments of their Pens not things Publick knowne and received such as the Creed is was common then in every Novices mouth So the Romane Historians set not downe their lawes customes court-proceedings as things vulgarly known and of daily practice amongst them the omission whereof rendring their Histories obscure to strangers they are set downe distinctly by Dionysius Halycarnasseus 'T is sufficient that severall Fathers in most Ages occasionally make mention of it when they had to deale with Hereticks who denied or perverted it But that Ancient Church-Historians mention the severall Confessions of Faith which were framed in severall Synods and Anti-Synods as Socrates and others in the businesse 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 Catholicks whence it was that to unmaske their false Glosses the Catholicks were faine to adde by way of explication unto the second Article of the Creed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so to cleare 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 yonger than the Age of the Apostles for the word Catholick was not knowen in their Time as witnesseth Pacianus in his Epistle to Sympronianus It is likly it was added in after Ages to distinguish the Vniversall Church spred through out the whole world from the Canventicles of Hereticks and Schismaticks suth 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 't is an improbable Reason because in the Apostles Age there were as many if not more Jewes out Palastine than in it as apeares 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 Hereticks and yet not prejudice the Antiquity of the whole So St Austin seemes to include it in the Epethete Holy for when he comes to this Article hee addes 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 doe so in one Age why not at other times I rejoyne That one word might be added then but by way of explication only not to supply a mutilous member or defective Article but the Forme being now setled for so many hundred years such liberty is taken away together with the cause of it the full and genuine sence of the Creed having been abundanty delivered to the Church in succeeding Exegeticall Creeds and expositions of the Fathers so that there is now no need of coyning new words or Phrases by way of explication But Secondly We have no need to make use of this supposall for the word Catholick 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 entituled De Catholico Nomine after he had dealt with him very gently in the begining superscribing his Epistle thus Pacianus Symproniano Fratri to winne 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
word or title Gennadius alluding in his rehearsall of the Athanasian Creed calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Confessor as we have already shewed 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 briefe these three Particulars First When Where and to whom this Creed was written To whom viz. To P. Iulius Liberius or the Emperour Iovianus Where At Rome Triers or Alexandria When In the yeare 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 Emperour 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 tels us that in an Ancient Manuscript in the Library of the German Monkes at Paris he found an imperfect Copy of the Synods taken forth by a namelesse Author which testifyed the same in these wordes Fertur Athanasius Patriarcha Symbolum praedictum edidisse apud Treverim in quodaÌ„ 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 mo 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 alioruÌ„ EpiscoporuÌ„ qui ad Synodum convenissent nec plane audiendus esset qui reuâ— 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 Catholicknesse of his Faith were well knowen to all so that there was no suspition 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 Publick profession of the Catholick Faith and that according to custome in the Latine Tongue before the Bishop of Rome and his Assessours Of the same opinion is Binius who in the first Tome of the Councels sets downe for one the second Roman Councell held by Iulius and above 50 Bishops when Athanasius had now expected the coming of the Eusebians to Rome above eighteene monethes 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 Publick Profession of the Catholick Faith which is called his Creed rehearsing it in the Latine Tongue before the Bishop of Rome and his Assessours 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 Manuell Caleca in his forecited Booke against the Greeks agrees in Substance with Bâ—nius and Baronius though he seeme to place the writing of this Creed a yeare sooner and sayeth that it was sent to P. Iulius 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 c. quam tunc temporis conscriptam ad Iulium Romanum Pontificem misit cum insimulareâ—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 meanes 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 severall times in all the forementioned Places First At Triers as the Inscription of the Well there is said to witnesse when he was first banisht about the yeare 336. Secondly He might send it in writing to Iulius 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 Iulius was president to satisfy them all concerning his beliefe A. D. 340. Lastly He might send it from a Synod at Alexandria to the Emperour of the East either to Constantius in his Synod held A. D. 339. Or rather to Iovianus in his last Synod held about the yeare 364 together with the Synodicall Epistle before mentioned which Nazianzen seemes to imply in the forecited Oration where he opposeth Emperour to Emperour as well as Doctrine to Doctrine that is the Catholick Jovians to Constantius the Arian as well as the Orthodoxe Creed to the Hereticall Confessions Except we will say that this Creed was exhibited in the Councell of Sardica a famous City in Illyricum held in the yeare 347 and called by Constans the Emperour of the West who favoured Athanasius and by Constantius joyntly or to Valentinian the successour of Iovianus in whose time Athanasius lived seaven or eight years but for this wee have no Authors Testimony The same Creed was probably sent also to Liberius Bishop of Rome as we shall shew 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 likelyhood suppose but that Athanasius in his so many years persecutioÌ„ by the Arians set forth some where the Confession of his Faith to cleare himselfe and that the Orthodoxe might see for what cause they so pertinaciously vext him Now that this Creed is that Confession will appeare besides what hath been already alleaged by the Agreement thereof both in words sense with those more full large Treatises of his against the Arians whereof this seemes a Compendium and by the Constant Tradition of the Church which hath received this and
following their example are said next to have added it and after them the Romane As for our Church of England venerable Bede tels us hist. eccl 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 yeare 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 Sonne Yet in the Canons entitled Cresconiana the Article touching the holy Ghost runs in the ancient Forme Et in Spiritum sanctum Dominum vivâ—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 Sonne together is worshipped and glorifyed who spake by the holy Prophets This Collection of Canons is extant in the Publick Library at Oxford Then for the French Churches Aeneas Bishop of Paris in a Booke of his not extant in Print which he wrote against the errours of the Greekes 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 Catholick 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 Sonne c. But to examine this controversy more particularly and in order In the yeare 767 there was a Synod held at Gentilliacum in France under Pipin Father to Charlemagne in which the Greeks and Latines 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 yeare 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 seemes 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 Monke of Jerusalem The wordes of Ado in his Chronicle concerning this Synod are these Syuodus magna Grani Aquis câ—ngregatur Anno Incarnationis Dom. 809 in qua Synodo de Processione Spiritus sancti quaestio agitatur utrum siâ—â—â— 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 finall determination unto this question Bernarius Bishop of Amiens and Jesse or Asius Bishop of Wormes were sent by the Synod together with Adelhardus Abbot of Corbey unto Leo 3 Bishop of Rome who confirmes the decree of the Synod concerning the Procession as agreeing with his Opinion yet speakes very honorably of the Constantinopolitan Fathers who added not the particle Filioque unto whom he would not presume to equall himselfe but withall he expresly chargeth them to raze it out of the Creed The sending of these three by the Synod is mentioned by a Monke of S. Eparch in the life of Charlemaigne the Answer of Leo is set downe in the Acts of the Synod collected by Smaragdus and out of him by Baronius in the yeare 809 wherein after much discourse the said Legates of the Synod thus aske 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 tooke order that this Creed should be engraven in a silver Table or Scutcheon without that Addition which he well foresaw would prove the Aple of contention between the Churches of East and West and so to be publikly hanged up and exposed to the view of all that so the whole world might see the Romane Church had added nothing to the Creed So Pet. Lâ—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 Successour Adrian who deceased in the yeare 872. They seeme not to have added it for Andrew Bishop of Colosse who pleaded in this cause against the Greekes in the Councell 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 lesse did Iohn the 8. the successour of Adrian make this Addition who sate in the Romane See till the yeare 882. For this Pope allowed the Restitution of Photius to his See and sent his Legats to the Synod held at Constantinople in the yeare 879. of which Synod Photius was President and wherein with the assistance of the Popes Legats whatsoever had been determined against Photius in the times of P. Nicolas and Adrian was abrogated amongst which chiefely that Synod was condemned which had been held in the yeare 869. against Photius by Ignatius then Patriarch of Constantinople and is now counted by the Church of Rome for the 8. Oecumenicall 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 Legats of Iohn 8. The Greekes lay the blame of this Addition on Pope
Christopher who thrust Leo the Fift out of his Chaire in the yeare 908. and after seaven Moneths 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 Apostolick See was quickly thrust out againe 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 Successour who made this businesse of the Procession his first and chiefe work and sent unto the French Bishops to gather the most solid Arguments they could find against the Errour of the Greekes 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 Errours 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 Romane writers never delivered to posterity the name of that Pope who contrary to the Precept and Practise of his Predecessor Leo 3. undertook to adde 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 alleadged they had laid both themselves and their cause open to the scoffes and railings of the Greekes who would greedily have laid hold on such an advantage Otherwise it were a Thing extreamly improbable that the Clergy and Notaries of the Romane Church should be so grossely negligent as not to insert a matter of this consequence into their publique Registers and that all the Ecclesiasticall Writers of that and the next Age should quite passe over it in silence Especially it being done in a great Synod of Westerne Bishops as the forenamed Bishop of Colosse witnessed in the Councell of Florence when he there disputed in this cause on behalfe of the Romane 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 Sonne and of the Sonne and that he proceedeth from him which he had not declared unlesse he had been compelled thereby to overthrow the opinion of the Hereticks as it fell out also in the Romane Church for a great Schisme being now ready to breake forth in the Churches of France and Spaine 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 Westerne 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 himselfe against the Latines 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 c. Leo Achridenus Metropolitan of Bulgaria seconded him Michael Psellus Tutor to Michael Ducas the Emperour surnamed Paropinaceus pursued the quarrell and so did Theophylact who flourished about the yeare 1070. Thus began and thus continued the deplorable Schisme 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 Easterne 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 generall Councell held at Ephesus which expressely forbad it and denounced an Anathema against him whosoever should dare to alter this Creed by Addition or Diminution cap. 7. For though an Oecumenicall Synod cannot absolutely prescribe to another Oecumenicall whence the first Councell of Constantinople added much by way of explication to the Nicene Creed yet it may prescribe Lawes to Inferiour Synods whether Provinciall or Nationall so that nothing ought to be done in the common cause of the Faith but by the common Judgment and determination of the Catholick Church Thus did the Greeks complaine And when the Latines afterward urged the Authority of the Romane See now growing daily greater that the Bishop of Rome by a peculiar priviledge derived from St Peter the Prince of the Apostles was to take care that the Church received no Damage that he had an infallible Judgment by the speciall 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 judgment of the Easterne Churches and that this was the Priviledge of the first See which had received the Primacy from S. Peter Christs vicar on Earth The Greeks replyed First that S. Peter never chalenged that priviledge to himselfe to judge alone and to be judged of none for being called in question that he had conversed with the Gentiles he was faine to make an Apology for himselfe in the publick audience of the Church Act. 11. And when the Controversy arose whether the Gentiles should be circumcised and observe the Ceremoniall Law no Appeale was made to S. Peter but a Synod was called wherin though he spake first yet Iames as Bishop of Jerusalem the place where the Synod was called decided the question and seemes to have sate therein as President Besides S. Paul resisted him to his face at Antioch and publickly rebuked him for causing others to Judaize by his example as we Read Galatians 2. 14. Which he would not have presumed to doe if he had conceived him endued with such a supereminent priviledge So then there appeares 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 Zeale 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 personall and annext to his Apostleship not derivable to any Episcopall successour and if derivable why should the Bishop of Rome rather arrogate it to himselfe than the Bishop of Antioch in which City S. Peter first sate Or the Bishop of Alexandria a See instituted by the same Apostle under S. Marke before he ever appointed any Bishop at Rome As for the Grounding of this priviledge on S. Peters martyrdome at Rome where appears any such Dependance or legacy bequeathed by S. Peter that his Infallibility and Supremacy should be annexed to that Chaire alone as to the place of his Death and Buriall 'T is true they confest that the Bishop of Rome was of old accounted Primae Sedis Episcopus The Bishop of the Principall See but withall 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 claime the same Power over the Bishop of Alexandria which is the third And so in like manner Alexandria over Antioch Antioch over Ierusalem 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 Ecclesiasticall that is not from any Apostolicall Priviledge derived from S. Peter but by the graunt of Emperours and Decrees of Councells It was fit that one Bishop should be chiefe for order sake this Honour was given to the Bishop of Rome for the Dignity of his Seat Rome beeing the Head of the Roman Empire For which cause Alexandria had of old the Second place as beeing Praefectura Augustalis the Peculiar of the Romane Emperour so ennobled by Augustus Caesar Antioch the third as the Metropolis of Syria and the Eastern Countryes adjoyning whereas if the preeminency of Sees had been derived from S. Peter the City of Antioch where he sate seven years in person should have beene preferd before Alexandria whether he only sent an other viz S. Marke and appointed him for the first Bishop And for this cause Caesarea too was made the Metropoliticall See of Palestine because it was the seat of the Roman Governor untill the Fathers of the Nicene Councel in honour of Jerusalem where S. James was made the first Bishop of the Christian world and whence the Gospell spread into the whole earth gave the Bishop therof a Patriarchall title that rather of dignity thē Authority for thus runs the seventh Canon of that Councell 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 Custome 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 Cesarea remaine entire For the same cause also when Constantinople was reedifyed made the seat of the Empire and called new Rome by Constantine the Great it was thought fit by the Emperours and succeeding Councells 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 Councell 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 Councell ordeined that the Bishop of Constantinople should be styled the second Patriarch but in all other things should be of equall 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 Mertropolitās Archbishops Bishops unto the state of the Empire the distinction of Provinces and the Dignity of the Cityes according to that ancient Rule Ecclesia est in Republicâ non Respublica in Ecclesiâ The Church is in the Commonwealth not the Common-wealth in the Church 2. The second cause of the Schisme was the Deposition and Excomunication of the Patriarch Photius and of the other Prelats and Abbots his adherents in a great Synod at Constantinople held under the Emperour Basiliu◠and the Patriarch Ignatius in the yeare 869 which businesse 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 Zeale of the said Patriarch Photius who first dared to accuse the Romane Church of Heresy because it held that the holy Ghost proceeded from the Sonne as well as from the Father whereas in all former disputes between the Greeks and the Latines whether by word or writing neither party accused his Adversary of Heresy for holding either opinion Yea the Latines Demōstrated that some of the Greeke Fathers spake as they did neither could the Greekes deny it And since this precipitate Censure of Photius not a few of the Romane Divines have in requitall accused the Greeke 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 Iohn surnamed Iejunator and Cyriacus his successour Patriarchs of Constantinople were very earnest with the emperour Mauritius to obteine the Title Authority of Oecumenicall Patriarchs 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 Romane Empire that of the West being utterly broken and Rome the Ancient Seate thereof for that Cause loosing its former Dignity Now against these their endeavours Gregory the great then Bishop of Rome publickly opposed himselfe and taxed them in expresse Termes of Antichristian ambition saying withall that Dato uni Episcopi universalis Titulo reliquos Sacerdotes honore debito privari The giving of the Title of Universall Bishop unto one doth deprive the other Bishops of their due Honour Yet with in lesse than two years after his Death Boniface the Third his Successour abtained the same Title of the Emperour Phocas which Gregory had so much Decried But the Greeke Prelates would never yeeld to it 5. The fift cause was the busines of Images which brake out after this contention about the Primacy For the Emperour Leo Isaurus and his sonne Constantinus Copronymus