but for such short summaries of the Christian faith, as were most proper to be inculcated before baptism, as an introduction to the right understanding and professing the whole of the Christian religion. I have not room to explain myself so largely upon this head as the thing deserves; but I shall give one example to illustrate the truth of the observation. The article of life everlasting was, very probably, wanting for some centuries in the Creeds of Rome and Aquileiak. Yet who can pretend to say, that that was not as necessary and fundamental an article of faith, as any is or can be? But its being so easy, and obvious to every Christian, and hardly at all disputed, might be the reason why, however necessary it was to believe it, it was not thought necessary to make any explicit mention of it in those Creeds. Having premised those few things of Creeds in general, I proceed next to the Apostles' Creed in particular.

2. It is well known to learned men, that the Creed, called the Apostles', is no other than the Roman Creed. "It has obtained the name of the Apostolic Creed," as a learned and accurate author observes, " for no greater or "other reason than this: It was a custom to call those "churches in which any Apostle had personally taught, "especially if he had resided there any long time, or had "died there, Apostolic Churches. Of these there were a great many in the eastern parts; Jerusalem, Corinth, "Ephesus, Antioch, &c. but in the western parts, none "but Rome. So that any one that in the western parts "of the world spoke of the Apostolic Church, was sup"posed to mean Rome-and so their Bishop came to be "called the Apostolic Bishop; their see the Apostolic see, "their faith the Apostolic faith, and, among the rest, the "Creed that they used the Apostolic Creed, now called "the Apostles"." The Creed then of the Apostles (as it is

* Vid. Voss. de Trib. Symb. Dissert. 1. Thes. xliii. p. 29. Fell. Not. in Epist. Cyprian. Ixx. p. 190.

Mr. Wall's Hist. of Infant Baptism, part ii. ch. 9. p. 507.

particularly called, though other Creeds might as justly have, and really have had the name of the Apostles' Creed) is certainly no other than the Creed of one particular Church, the Church of Rome; and is neither so old, (taken all together,) nor of so great authority as the Nicene Creed itself: it is but imposing on the unlearned reader to recommend it as a professed paraphrase, and the most early of any, upon the text of St. Matthew, when indeed it is no professed paraphrase at all; or if it be, there is still no reason to prefer it to other, as valuable and as ancient, Creeds, which have the articles of the divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit more full and express; or to the continued testimonies of Church writers, which, after all, make a better and a juster paraphrase upon the text of St. Matthew, than either the Roman, or any other Creed, or than all the Creeds put together. For, indeed, the early Creeds being designedly brief and concise, full of matter, contrived rather to take in many particulars, than to dwell much upon any one, it is not to be wondered at, if they be not so explicit in this or that article; especially considering that some Churches, particularly the Roman, were less infested with heresies than others, and therefore needed not so long a Creed; and considering farther, that whatever mistakes might otherwise have happened to arise, through the brevity and conciseness of the Creeds themselves, they were effectually prevented by previous catechetical instructions, explaining more distinctly and fully what was but briefly hinted in the Creeds. To conclude this head: as to the Roman Creed, there is no reason to lay any more stress upon it than upon the Creeds of Irenæus, Tertullian, or Origen; or the Creed of Jerusalem, &c. all of them, probably, as old or older than the Roman: nor is it to be expected that every Creed, or any Creed designed only for the office of baptism, should teach, in explicit terms, all that is necessary to be believed by Christians. Yet, after all, even the Roman (called the Apostles') Creed, short as it is, when rightly understood, is diametrically opposite to the Arian principles; and, if

it must be called a paraphrase, is such a paraphrase on the text of St. Matthew, as sufficiently confirms the sense which I have given of it. Our Saviour Christ is, in the Roman Creed, characterized under the title of μovoyevns, or only-begotten of the Father. The meaning of that title or character was well known to the compilers of that Creed, and to the primitive catechists of the Church, who would not fail to acquaint the catechumens with it. The ancients are unanimous in understanding Christ's sonship of his divine nature. To call him the only-begotten, or the Son, of God the Father, was, in their account, declaring him to be of the same nature with God the Father; as truly God, as the Son of man is truly manm. Hence therefore it is manifest that the Roman Creed, though briefly, yet fully sets forth the divinity of Christ, as has been shown more at large by Bishop Bull". And the learned Stillingfleet, who well understood this matter, had good reason to say, "That although the Apostles' Creed "does not in express words declare the divinity of the "three Persons in the unity of the divine essence; yet "taking the sense of those articles as the Christian Church "understood them from the Apostles' times, then we "have as full and clear evidence of this doctrine, as we "have that we received the Scriptures from them." If

m Unigenitus ut solus ex Deo genitus proprie de vulva cordis ipsius. Tert. contr. Prax. cap. 7.

Hunc ex Deo prolatum didicimus, et prolatione generatum, et idcirco Filium Dei et Deum dictum, ex unitate substantiæ. Tertull. Apol. cap. 21.

IIgwróToxos av Toû Oroũ xai ☺sòs vrágxu. Just. Mart. Apol. i. p. 123. Comp. Dial. p. 183, 184, 364, 371.

Ὁ θεῖος λόγος ὁ φανερώτατος ὄντως Θεὸς, ὁ τῷ Δεσπότῃ τῶν ὅλων ἐξισωθεὶς, ὅτι ἦν υἱὸς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν ἐν τῷ Θεῷ. Clem. Αlex. p. 86.

Πρῶτον γέννημα εἶναι τῷ πατρὶ, οὐχ ὡς γενόμενον——ἑνὸς ὄντος τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τῆ viov. Athenag. p. 38. .

Θεὸς οὖν ὢν ὁ λόγος καὶ ἐκ Θεοῦ πεφυκώς, &c. Theoph. Antioch. p. 130.

Ut enim præscripsit ipsa natura hominem credendum esse qui ex homine sit: ita eadem natura præscribit et Deum credendum esse qui ex Deo sit. Novat. cap. 11.

n Bull. Judic. Eccles. p. 36, &c.

Stillingfleet on the Trinity, ch. ix. p. 229.

then we are to learn from the Apostles' Creed how the words of the form of baptism were universally understood in the primitive Church, we must understand the words of that form in the same sense as those articles of the Creed were universally understood in the primitive Church. For to pretend that the form of baptism is to be interpreted from the Creed, as understood by the primitive Church; and at the same time to put a novel construction upon the Creed itself, is such an affront to common sense, and such an abuse of the readers, as one shall seldom meet with among men of letters.

Upon the whole, these things are evident; 1. That the sense of the primitive Church, in the articles concerning Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, may be certainly known otherwise than from the Creeds. 2. That the Creeds themselves ought to be interpreted according to that sense so known, having been so understood from the beginning, or from the time of their compiling P. 3. That by laying of ancient testimonies together, and comparing of evidences, we have full and clear proof that the primitive Church never imagined baptism to run in the name of the Father only as God, and of the two other Persons as creatures ; but in the name of three Persons, every one God, and all together the one God of Christians.

And now, my Christian brethren, what remains but to exhort and warn you, as you tender your everlasting salvation, to abide evermore in that faith whereunto you have been baptized, and which alone can give you any

P N. B. A late writer (Modest Plea, &c. continued, p. 54.) says, that Dr. W. (speaking of the Creeds) is forced to add, "as interpreted by those that recite "them;" and the reason of it, he says, is, " because the oldest Creeds men"tion nothing of those matters," i. e. the eternity and consubstantiulity of God the Son. To which I answer, 1. That I had good reason to refer to the primitive writings for the interpretation of Creeds; especially at this distance, when unlearned readers may the more easily be imposed upon by a novel sense put upon them. 2. That this writer betrays his ignorance of the oldest Creeds; which, if they do not explicitly declare those articles, yet all, or most of them, do it implicitly: Irenæus's, Tertullian's, Origen's, Jerusalem Creed, Apostles', &c.

66

reasonable confidence, or hope of assurance towards God. Remember those who have gone before you, the Apostles and primitive martyrs and confessors, "whose faith fol"low, considering the end of their conversation. Jesus "Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. Be "not carried about with divers and strange doctrines, by "the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." What have they done, by reviving antiquated heresies, but disturbed the minds of the simple, raised confusion and distraction amongst many, and given a handle to Libertines, Deists, and Atheists, to insult and to blaspheme? What is there in Arianism, either of truth, or even of probability, to make us amends for these things? I mention not the daily inroads made upon Christian simplicity and godly sincerity; the wiles and artifices, dissimulation and disguises, by which it was at first promoted and propagated, and without which it cannot any where subsist. To this very day the patrons of it have no other way left, but to conceal and cover its deformity as much as possible; stifling of evidences that make against it, misrepresenting the truth of history, taking advantage of ambiguous terms, keeping off in generals, not daring so much as to own the certain and inevitable consequences of their principles, hardly the principles themselves; not trusting either to a fair, open, and regular examination, but shrinking always from the very point in question; opposing, objecting, cavilling perpetually against the orthodox scheme, but taking little or no care, either to answer, or so much as to mention, the main difficulties and inconsistencies visible in their own. For the truth of this I appeal to all who have been any thing curious observers of the rise, and progress, and present state of this heresy amongst us. They must not blame us for calling their doctrine heresy, which it really is, when they have the face so often to call ours new scholastic hypotheses, which it really is not. Names of reproach might have been spared on both sides, had not they began, and set us an example. Had they been contented modestly to pro