Exposition of the Creed, Article I (Pearson, 1877)

Work in progress: Article I, "I believe" (Burton 1877), printed pp. 1–122

Source: John Pearson, An Exposition of the Creed, revised and corrected by the Rev. E. Burton, D.D., sixth edition (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1877), Article I, printed pp. 1–122. First published 1659; this edition is public domain in the United States (pre-1930). Transcribed from the Project Canterbury scan; second proofread complete.

John Pearson, An Exposition of the Creed — Article I, "I believe" (Burton 1877)

Editorial note (modern — not Pearson's words)

This file transcribes Article I of Pearson's Exposition of the Creed — the article on the word I believe — from the Burton 1877 edition (Oxford, Clarendon Press), as supplied in Project Canterbury's article01a.pdf (printed pp. 1–45), article01b.pdf (printed pp. 45–85), and article01c.pdf (printed pp. 84–122). It is the second Pearson pilot section: the first, Pearson's Preface "To the Reader" from the 1821 edition, is preserved separately and nothing from it has been mixed into this file. Each section carries its own edition metadata; a common work-level landing page linking the two editions is a later step, not attempted here.

Pearson's Article I is an analysis of belief itself before the Creed's particular articles are reached: what I believe means, what Faith is as an act of the understanding, how Human and Divine Faith differ, and what it is for a thing to be credible; then the title of Father, the attribute of Almighty, and the work of Creation as Maker of Heaven and Earth. The body text is continuous English prose; the notes at the foot of each page carry the Greek, Latin, and patristic authorities on which each step rests. Both are transcribed here, notes following the printed page they belong to.

Mini table of contents / navigation (editorial — not Pearson's headings)

1. Definition of Belief: assent to that which is credible, as credible (pp. 1–3)
2. What makes a thing credible; the evident, the scientifical, and the credible distinguished (pp. 4–13)
3. Human faith by testimony: Moses, the Prophets, and the Apostles; faith by their writings after their deaths (pp. 14–21)
4. Confession of faith: its nature and necessity, in respect of God, ourselves, and our brethren (pp. 22–31)
5. That God is: the existence of God evidenced from his creatures (pp. 32–44)
6. The title of Father: generation and paternity in creatures, angels, and men; the Father of the Son; the priority of the Father (pp. 45–73)
7. "I believe in God the Father Almighty": omnipotency, universal dominion, infinity of essence (pp. 74–85)
8. Maker of Heaven and Earth: "heaven and earth" signify the world; creation from nothing and in six days; the antiquity of the world against heathen chronologies; God's freedom and goodness in creation; the close of Article I (pp. 85–122)

Assembly note (modern — not Pearson's words)

Page markers [Printed p. N] show every page break. Junctions, all verified word-for-word against the scans: the p. 3 sentence completes at the head of p. 4 (after the notes to pp. 2–3, which belong to their pages), and the p. 17 and p. 31 sentences complete at the heads of pp. 18 and 32 respectively; p. 45 → p. 46, "…and for several reasons unto the same" + "God."; pp. 65 → 66, "…from whom he receiveth his" + "origination, and the Holy Ghost unto the Son."; pp. 85 → 86, "…undoubted sense of the" + "Creed, because it is the known language of the sacred Scriptures."; pp. 103 → 104, "…then God is not" + "of the Jews and Christians." Marginal Scripture references are given in square brackets at their anchor points throughout. Footnotes split across pages are handled as printed.

Transcription

ARTICLE I. I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth.

[Printed p. 1]

As the first word Credo, I believe, giveth a denomination to the whole Confession of Faith, from thence commonly called the CREED; so is the same word to be imagined not stand only where it is expressed, but to be carried through the whole body of the Confession. For although it be but twice actually rehearsed, yet must we conceive it virtually prefixed to the head of every Article: that as we say, I believe in God the Father Almighty, so we are also understood to say, I believe in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord; as, I believe in the Holy Ghost, so also, I believe the Catholick Church. Neither is it to be joined with every complete Article only; but where any Article is not a single verity, but comprehensive, there it is to be looked upon as affixed to every part, or single truth contained in that Article: as for example, in the first, I believe in God, I believe that God to be the Father, I believe that Father to be Almighty, I believe that Father Almighty to be the Maker of Heaven and Earth. So that this Credo, I believe, rightly considered, multiplieth itself to no less than a double number of the Articles, and will be found at least twenty-four times contained in the CREED. Wherefore being a word so pregnant and diffusive, so necessary and essential to every part of our Confession of Faith, that without it we can neither have CREED nor Confession, it will require a more exact consideration, and more ample explication, and that in such a notion as is properly applicable to so many and so various truths.

[Printed p. 2]

Now by this previous expression, I believe, thus considered, every particular Christian is first taught, and then imagined, to make confession of his Faith: and consequently this word, so² used, admits a threefold consideration: first, as it supposeth Belief, or Faith, which is confessed: secondly, as it is a Confession, or external expression of that Faith so supposed: thirdly, as both the Faith and Confession are of necessary and particular obligation. When therefore we shall have clearly delivered, first, what is the true nature and notion of Belief; secondly, what the duty of confessing of our Faith; thirdly, what obligation lies upon every particular person to believe and confess; then may we be conceived to have sufficiently explicated the first word of the CREED, then may every one understand what it is he says, and upon what ground he proceeds, when he professeth, I believe.

For the right understanding of the true nature of Christian Faith, it will be no less than necessary to begin with the general notion of Belief; which being first truly stated and defined, then by degrees deduced into its several kinds, will at last make the nature of Christian Faith intelligible: a design, if I mistake not, not so ordinary and usual, as useful and necessary.

Belief in general I define to be an Assent to that which is credible, as credible. By the word Assent¹ is expressed that act or habit of the understanding, by which it receiveth, acknowledgeth and embraceth any thing as a truth; it being the nature² of the Soul so to embrace whatsoever appeareth true unto [Printed p. 3] it, and so far as it so appeareth. Now this Assent or judgment, of any thing to be true, being a general act of the understanding, and so applicable to³ other habits thereof as well as to Faith, must be specified by its proper object, and so limited and determined to its proper act, which is the other part left to complete the definition.

This object of Faith is first expressed by that which is credible; for every one who believeth any thing, doth thereby without question assent unto it as to that which is credible; and therefore all belief whatsoever is such a kind of Assent. But though all belief be an Assent to that which is credible, yet every such Assent may not be properly Faith; and therefore those words make not the definition complete. For he which sees an action done, knows it to be done, and therefore assents unto the truth of the performance of it because he sees it: but another person to whom he relates it, may assent unto the performance of the same action, not because himself sees it, but because the other relates it; in which case that which is credible is the object of Faith in one, of evident knowledge in the other. To make the definition therefore full, besides the material object, or thing believed, we have added the formal object, or that whereby it is properly believed, expressed in the last term, as credible, which being taken in, it then appears, that, first, whosoever believeth any thing, assenteth to something which is to him credible, and that as it is credible; and again, whosoever assenteth to any thing which is credible, as it is credible, believeth something by so assenting: which is sufficient to shew the definition complete.

3 But for the explication of the same, further observations will be necessary. For if that which we believe be something which is credible, and the notion under which we believe be the credibility of it, then must we first declare what it is to be credible,

Notes to p. 2:

¹ Πίστις δέ—πρόληψις ἐκουσίος ἐστι, θεοσεβείας συγκατάθεσις. Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. ii. [p. 432.] Πίστις μὲν οὖν ἐστι συγκατάθεσις ἀδιάκριτος τῶν ἀκουσθέντων ἐν πληροφορίᾳ τῆς ἀληθείας τῶν κηρυχθέντων Θεοῦ χάριτι. S. Basil. Ascet. de Fide. [vol. ii. p. 224 C.] The Basilians, 'Ὁρίζονται γοῦν οἱ ἀπὸ Βασιλείδου τὴν πίστιν ψυχῆς συγκατάθεσιν πρὸς τὶ τῶν μὴ κινουμένων αἴσθησιν διὰ τὸ μὴ παρεῖναι. Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. ii. [p. 443.] Κατὰ δὲ τὸν ἡμέτερον λόγον, πίστις ἐστὶν ἐκουσίος τῆς ψυχῆς συγκατάθεσις. Theodoret. Therap. Serm. i. [vol. iv. p. 479 A.] And yet he also afterwards acknowledgeth they had that definition from the Greeks: Τὴν μὲν γὰρ πίστιν καὶ οἱ ὑμέτεροι φιλόσοφοι ὁρίσαντο εἶναι ἐθελούσιον τῆς ψυχῆς συγκατάθεσιν. 'Credere—est cum assensu cogitare.' August. [De Prædestin. Sanct. c. ii. §. 5. vol. x. p. 792 E.] Et de Sp. et Lit. lib. 'Quid est credere, nisi consentire verum esse quod dicitur?' [c. 54. vol. x. p. 116 A.] So I take the συγκατάθεσις used by the Greek Fathers to signify assensum or assensionem, as A. Gellius translateth the Stoick, συγκατατίθεσθαι, sua assensione approbat. lib. xix. 1. And before him Cicero, 'Nunc de assensione atque approbatione, quam Græci συγκατάθεσιν vocant, pauca dicemus.' [In Lucullo §. 37.] Acad. Quæst. iv. 12. So ἀπιστία and συγκατάθεσις are opposed by the Greeks. As Sextus Empiricus speaking of Admetus seeing Alcestis brought back by Hercules from Hades, 'Ἐπεὶ μέντοι ἤδει ὅτι τέθνηκε, περιεπάτῳ αὐτοῦ ἡ διάνοια ἀπὸ τῆς συγκαταθέσεως, καὶ πρὸς ἀπιστίαν ἔκλινε. Pyrrh. Hypot. lib. i. 33.

² Φιλαλήθης ἡ ψυχὴ οὐδέποτε κατὰ τὸ ψεῦδος ἀνεχομένη διατίθεσθαι, ἀλλὰ κατὰ φανὲν ἀληθὲς πάντως καὶ εὐθύς. Simplic. in 3. Aristot. de Anima. [p. 59.] Κἂν τις τἀληθὲς σκοπῇ, εὑρήσει τὸν ἄνθρωπον φιλότιμον διαβεβλημένον μὲν πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ψεύδους συγκατάθεσιν, ἔχοντα δὲ ἀφορμὰς πρὸς πίστειν τἀληθοῦς. Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. ii. [c. 12. p. 458.]

Notes to p. 3 (note 3; the p. 3 body continues on the next spread):

³ As συγκατάθεσις, the Greek word used for this assent, is applied to other acts of the understanding as well as that of belief, so Clemens Alexandrinus, speaking of the definition of faith, 'Ἄλλοι δ' ἀφανοῦς πράγματος ἐνστικὴν συγκατάθεσιν ἀπέδωκαν εἶναι τὴν πίστιν, ὥσπερ ἀμέλει τὴν ἀπόδειξιν, ἀγνοουμένου πράγματος φανερὰν συγκατάθεσιν. Strom. lib. ii. [c. 2. p. 433.] And again, Πᾶσα οὖν δόξα καὶ κρίσις καὶ ὑπόληψις καὶ μάθησις, οἷς ζῶμεν καὶ σύνεσμεν ἀεί, τῷ γένει τῶν ἀνθρώπων, συγκατάθεσὶς ἐστιν· ἡ δ' οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἢ πίστις εἴη ἄν· ἥ τε ἀπιστία, ἀποσύστασις οὖσα τῆς πίστεως, δυνατὴν δείκνυσι τὴν συγκατάθεσιν τε καὶ πίστιν. [p. 458.]

[Editorial: the p. 3 sentence above completes on p. 4, following.]

[Printed p. 4]

and in what credibility doth consist, before we can understand what is the nature of Belief.

Now that is properly credible, which is not apparent of itself, nor certainly to be collected, either antecedently by its cause, or reversely by its effect, and yet, though by none of these ways, hath the attestation of a truth. For those things which are apparent of themselves, are either so in respect of our sense, as that snow is white, and fire is hot; or in respect of our understanding, as that the whole of any thing is greater than any one part of the whole, that every thing imaginable either is, or is not. The first kind of which being propounded to our sense, one to the sight, the other to the touch, appear of themselves immediately true, and therefore are not termed credible, but evident to sense; as the latter kind, propounded to the understanding, are immediately embraced and acknowledged as truths apparent in themselves, and therefore are not called credible, but evident to the understanding. And so those things which are apparent⁴, are not said properly to be believed, but to be known.

Again, other things, though not immediately apparent in themselves, may yet appear most certain and evidently true, by an immediate and necessary connection with something formerly known. For, being every natural cause actually applied doth necessarily produce its own natural effect, and every natural effect wholly dependeth upon, and absolutely presupposeth its own proper cause; therefore there must be an immediate connection between the cause and its effect. From whence it follows, that, if the connection be once clearly perceived, the effect will be known in the cause, and the cause by the effect. And by these ways, proceeding from principles evidently known by consequences certainly concluding, we come to the knowledge of propositions in mathematics, and conclusions in other sciences: which propositions and conclusions are not said to be credible, but scientifical; and the comprehension of them is not Faith, but Science.

Besides, some things there are, which, though not evident of themselves, nor seen by any necessary connection to their causes or effects, notwithstanding appear to most as true by some ex-

Notes to p. 4:

⁴ ‘Apparentia non habent fidem, sed agnitionem.’ Greg. 4. Dial. cap. 5. [see Hom. xxvi In Evang. vol. i. p. 1557 A.] ‘Habet Fides oculos suos, quibus quodammodo videt verum esse quod nondum videt, et quibus certissime videt, nondum se videre quod credit.’ S. August. Epist. 222. [Epist. 120. §. 8. vol. ii. p. 349 F.]

[Printed p. 5]

ternal relations to other truths; but yet so, as the appearing truth still leaves a possibility of falsehood with it, and therefore doth but incline to an Assent. In which case, whatsoever is thus apprehended, if it depend upon real arguments, is not yet called credible, but probable; and an Assent to such a truth is not properly Faith, but Opinion.

But when any thing propounded to us is neither apparent to our sense, nor evident to our understanding, in and of itself, neither certainly to be collected from any clear and necessary connection with the cause from which it proceedeth, or the effects which it naturally produceth, nor is taken up upon any real arguments, or reference to other acknowledged truths, and yet notwithstanding appeareth to us true, not by a manifestation, but attestation of the truth, and so moveth us to assent not of itself, but by virtue of the testimony given to it; this is said⁵ properly to be credible; and an Assent unto this, upon such credibility, is in the proper notion Faith or Belief.

Having thus defined and illustrated the nature of Faith in general, so far as it agreeth to all kinds of belief whatsoever; our method will lead us on to descend, by way of division, to the several kinds thereof, till at last we come to the proper notion of Faith in the Christian’s Confession, the design of our present 4 disquisition; and being we have placed the formality of the object of all belief in credibility, it will clearly follow, that a diversity of credibility in the object will proportionably cause a distinction of assent in the understanding, and consequently a several kind of Faith, which we have supposed to be nothing else but such an assent.

Now the credibility of objects, by which they appear fit to be believed, is distinguishable according to the diversities of its foundation, that is, according to the different authority of the testimony on which it depends. For we having no other certain means of assuring ourselves of the truth, and consequently no other motives of our assent in matters of mere belief, than the testimony upon which we believe; if there be any fundamental distinction in the authority of the testimony, it will cause the like difference in the assent, which must needs bear a proportion to the authority of the testimony, as being originally and essentially founded upon it. It is therefore necessary next to consider, in what the authority of a testimony consisteth, and so to descend to the several kinds of testimonies founded upon several authorities.

Notes to p. 5:

⁵ Αἱ διὰ τῶν μαρτύρων ῥᾴδιοι πίστεις. Aristot. Probl. xviii. 3. §. 2.

[Printed p. 6]

The strength and validity of every testimony must bear proportion with the authority⁶ of the Testifier: and the authority of the Testifier is founded upon his ability and integrity: his ability in the knowledge of that which he delivereth and asserteth; his integrity in delivering and asserting according to his knowledge. For two several ways he which relateth or testifieth any thing may deceive us; one, by being ignorant of the truth, and so upon that ignorance mistaking, he may think that to be true which is not so, and consequently deliver that for truth, which in itself is false, and so deceive himself and us; or if he be not ignorant, yet if he be dishonest or unfaithful, that which he knows to be false he may propound and assert to be a truth, and so, though himself be not deceived, he may deceive us. And by each of these ways, for want either of ability or integrity in the Testifier, whoso grounds his assent unto any thing as a truth upon the testimony of another, may equally be deceived.

But whosoever is so able as certainly to know the truth of that which he delivereth, and so faithful as to deliver nothing but what and as he knoweth, he, as he is not deceived, so deceiveth no man. So far therefore as any person testifying appeareth to be knowing of the thing he testifies, and to be faithful in the relation of what he knows, so far his testimony is acceptable, so far that which he testifieth is properly credible. And thus the authority of every Testifier or Relater is grounded upon these two foundations, his ability and integrity.

Now there is in this case, so far as it concerns our present design, a double⁷ testimony: the testimony of man to man, relying upon human authority, and the testimony of God to man, founded upon divine authority: which two kinds of testimony are respective grounds of two kinds of credibility, Human and Divine; and consequently there is a twofold Faith distinguished by this double object, a Human and a Divine Faith.

Notes to p. 6:

⁶ Τῷ γὰρ ποιόν τινα φαίνεσθαι τὸν λέγοντα, πιστεύομεν· τοῦτο δ’ ἐστίν, ἂν ἀγαθὸς φαίνηται, ἢ εὔνους, ἢ ἄμφω. Arist. Rhet. lib. i. cap. 8. §. 6.

⁷ ‘Fil. Testimoniorum quæ sunt genera? Pat. Divinum et Humanum. Divinum, ut oracula, ut auspicia, ut vaticinationes, ut responsa sacerdotum, haruspicum, conjectorum: Humanum, quod spectatur ex auctoritate, et ex voluntate, et ex oratione aut libera aut expressa; in quo insunt scripta, pacta, promissa, jurata, quæsita.’ Cicero, Orat. Partit. cap. 2. §. 6.

[Printed p. 7]

Human Faith is an Assent unto any thing credible merely upon the testimony of man. Such is the belief we have of the words and affections one of another. And upon this kind of Faith we proceed in the ordinary affairs of our life; according to the opinion we have of the ability and fidelity of him which relates or asserts any thing we believe or disbelieve. By this a friend assureth himself of the affection of his friend: by this the son⁸ acknowledgeth his father, and upon this is his obedience wrought. By virtue of this Human Faith it is that we doubt not at all of those things which we never saw, by reason of their distance from us, either by time or place. Who doubts whether there be such a country as Italy, or such a city as 5 Constantinople, though he never passed any of our four seas? Who questions now whether there was such a man as Alexander in the east, or Cæsar in the west? and yet the latest of these hath been beyond the possibility of the knowledge of man these sixteen hundred years. There is no science taught without original belief, there are no letters⁹ learnt without preceding faith. There is no justice executed, no commerce maintained, no business prosecuted without this; all secular affairs¹⁰ are transacted, all great achievements are attempted, all hopes, desires, and inclinations are preserved by this Human Faith grounded upon the testimony of man.

In which case we all by easy experience may observe the nature, generation, and progress of Belief. For in any thing which belongeth to more than ordinary knowledge, we believe not him whom we think to be ignorant, nor do we assent the more for his assertion, though never so confidently delivered: but if we have a strong opinion of the knowledge and skill of any person, what he affirmeth within the compass of his knowledge, that we readily assent unto; and while we have no other ground but his affirmation, this Assent is properly Belief.

Notes to p. 7:

⁸ ‘Nec dicant, Non credimus, quia non vidimus; quoniam si hoc dicant, coguntur fateri incertos sibi esse parentes suos.’ De fide rerum invisib. amongst the works of St. Augustin. [§. 4. p. 143 E. vol. vi.] Αὐτὸν γὰρ οὐδεὶς οἶδε τοῦ ποτ’ ἐγένετο· ’Αλλ’ ὑπονοοῦμεν πάντες, ἢ πιστεύομεν. Menander apud Stob. [quoted from Eustathius in Hom. p. 1412.] ἐπιστήμης ἢ πίστεως. Theodoret. Therap. Serm. i. [vol. iv. p. 481 C.] Οὐδὲ γὰρ τὰ πρῶτα στοιχεῖα μαθεῖν οἷόν τε μὴ τῷ γραμματιστῇ πεπιστευκότα. Ibid. [vol. iv. p. 479 B.]

⁹ ‘Ὑποβάθρα μέντοι καὶ κρηπὶς τῆς ἐπιστήμης ἢ πίστεως. Theodoret. Therap. Serm. i. [vol. iv. p. 481 C.] Οὐδὲ γὰρ τὰ πρῶτα στοιχεῖα μαθεῖν οἷόν τε μὴ τῷ γραμματιστῇ πεπιστευκότα. Ibid. [vol. iv. p. 479 B.]

¹⁰ Πάντα τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τελούμενα, καὶ τὰ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων τῆς ἐκκλησίας, τῇ πίστει τελεῖται. Cyril. Hier. Catech. 5. [p. 73 A.] Orig. cont. Cels. lib. i. [§. 11. p. 328.] Euseb. de Præp. Evang. lib. i. cap. 5. Arnob. adv. Gent. lib. ii. [p. 47.]

[Printed p. 8]

Whereas, if it be any matter of concernment in which the interest of him that relateth or affirmeth any thing to us is considerable, there it is not the skill or knowledge of the Relater which will satisfy us, except we have as strong an opinion of his fidelity and integrity: but if we think him so just and honest, that he hath no design upon us, nor will affirm any thing contrary to his knowledge for any gain or advantage, then we readily assent unto his affirmations; and this Assent is our Belief. Seeing then our Belief relies upon the ability and integrity of the Relater, and being the knowledge of all men is imperfect, and the hearts of all men are deceitful, and so their integrity to be suspected, there can be no infallible universal ground of Human Faith.

But what satisfaction we cannot find in the testimony of Man, [1 John v. 9.] we may receive in the testimony of God¹¹. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater. [Rom. iii. 4.] Yea, let God be true, and every man a liar, the ground of our Divine, the ground of our Human Faith.

As for the other member of the division, we may now plainly perceive that it is thus to be defined; Divine Faith is an Assent unto something as credible upon the testimony of God. This Assent is the highest kind of Faith, because the object hath the highest credibility, because grounded upon the testimony of God, which is infallible. [Numb. xxiii. 19.] Balaam could tell Balak thus much, God is not a Man, that he should lie; [1 Sam. xv. 29.] and a better Prophet confirmed the same truth to Saul, The Strength of Israel will not lie; and because he will not, because he cannot, he is the strength of [Ps. xviii. 2.] Israel, even my God, my strength, in whom I will trust.

For first, God is of infinite knowledge and wisdom, as Hannah [1 Sam. ii. 3.] hath taught us, The Lord is a God of knowledge, or rather, if our language will bear it, of knowledges, [Heb. אל דעות יהוה] which are so plural, or [LXX. Θεὸς γνώσεων Κύριος.] rather infinite in their plurality, that the Psalmist hath said, [Ps. cxlvii. 5.] Of his understanding there is no number. He knoweth therefore all things, neither can any truth be hid from his knowledge, who is essentially truth, and essentially knowledge, and, as so, [In the Heb. לתבונתו אין מספר] the cause of all other truth and knowledge. Thus the understanding of God is infinite in respect of comprehension¹², and

Notes to p. 8:

¹¹ ‘Quam indignum, ut humanis testimoniis de alio credamus, Dei oraculis de se non credamus!’ S. Ambros. lib. i. de Abraham, cap. 3. [§. 21. vol. i. p. 289 C.] Πῶς δ’ οὐκ εὐλογώτερον, πάντων τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων πίστεως ἡρτημένων, ἐκείνων μᾶλλον πιστεύειν τῷ Θεῷ; Orig. cont. Cels. lib. i. [§. 11. vol. i. p. 329 C.]

¹² ‘Cujus sapientia simpliciter multiplex, et uniformiter multiformis, in-’ (continued on p. 9.)

[Printed p. 9]

not so only, but of certainty also and evidence. Some things we are said to know which are but obscurely known, we see them but as in a glass or through a cloud: but [1 John i. 5.] God is light, and in him is no darkness at all: he seeth without any obscurity, and whatsoever is propounded to his understanding is most clear and evident; [Heb. iv. 13.] neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his 6 sight; but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Wherefore being all things are within the compass of his knowledge, being all things which are so are most clear and evident unto him, being the knowledge he hath of them is most certain and infallible, it inevitably followeth that he cannot be deceived in anything.

Secondly, The justice of God is equal to his knowledge, nor is his holiness inferior to his wisdom: [Deut. xxxii. 4.] A God of truth, saith Moses, and without iniquity, just and right is he. From which internal, essential and infinite rectitude, goodness, and holiness, followeth an impossibility to declare or deliver that for truth which he knoweth not to be true. For if it be against that finite purity and integrity which is required of Man, to lie, and therefore sinful, then must we conceive it absolutely inconsistent with that transcendent purity and infinite integrity which is essential unto God. Although therefore the power of God be infinite, though he can do all things; yet we may safely say, without any¹³ prejudice to his omnipotency, that he cannot¹⁴ speak that for truth which he knoweth to be otherwise. For the perfections of his will are as necessarily infinite as those of his understanding; neither can he be unholy or unjust more than he can be ignorant or unwise. [2 Tim. ii. 13.] If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful, he cannot deny himself. Which words of the Apostle, though properly belonging to the promises of God, yet are as true in respect of his assertions; neither should he more deny himself in violating his fidelity, than in contradicting his veracity. It is true, that [Heb. vi. 17, 18.] God willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath; that by two immutable things, in which it was

Notes to p. 9:

¹² (continued from p. 8.) comprehensibili comprehensione omnia incomprehensibilia comprehendit.’ S. August. de Civit. Dei, lib. xii. cap. 18. [p. 317 G. vol. vii.]

¹³ Δύναται δὲ καθ’ ἡμᾶς πάντα ὁ Θεός, ἅπερ δυνάμενος, τοῦ Θεὸς εἶναι, καὶ τοῦ ἀγαθὸς εἶναι, καὶ σοφὸς εἶναι οὐκ ἐξίσταται. Orig. cont. Cels. lib. iii. [§. 70. vol. i. p. 493 F.]

¹⁴ ‘Si volunt invenire quod omnipotens non potest, habent prorsus, ego dicam, mentiri non potest.’ S. August. de Civit. Dei, lib. xxii. cap. 25. [p. 693 A. vol. vii.]

[Printed p. 10]

impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation: but it is as true, that all this confirmation is only for our consolation; otherwise it is as impossible for God to lie, without an [Heb. vi. 13.] oath, as with one: for being he can swear by no greater, he sweareth only by himself, and so the strength even of the oath of God relieth upon the veracity of God. Wherefore being God, as God, is of infinite rectitude, goodness and holiness, being it is manifestly repugnant to his purity, and inconsistent with his integrity, to deliver any thing contrary to his knowledge, it clearly followeth that he cannot deceive any man.

It is therefore most infallibly certain, that God being infinitely wise, cannot be deceived¹⁵; being infinitely good, cannot deceive¹⁶: and upon these two immovable pillars standeth the authority of the testimony of God. For since we cannot doubt of the witness of any one, but by questioning his ability, as one who may be ignorant of that which he affirmeth, and so deceived; or by excepting against his integrity, as one who may affirm that which he knoweth to be false, and so have a purpose to deceive us: where there is no place for either of these exceptions, there can be no doubt of the truth of the testimony. But where there is an intrinsical repugnancy¹⁷ of being deceived in the understanding, and of deceiving in the will, as there certainly is in the understanding and will of God, there can be no place for either of those exceptions, and consequently there can be no doubt of the truth of that which God testifieth. And whosoever thinketh any thing comes from him, and assenteth not unto it, [1 John v. 10.] must necessarily deny him to be wise or holy: He that believeth not God, saith the Apostle, hath made him a liar. That truth then which is testified by God, hath a divine credibility: and an assent unto it as so credible, is Divine Faith. In which the material object is the doctrine which God delivereth, the formal object is that credibility founded on the authority¹⁸ of the

Notes to p. 10:

¹⁵ ‘Cum sit omnipotens, mori non potest, falli non potest, mentiri non potest.’ August. de Symb. ad Catechum. lib. i. cap. 2. [p. 547 C. vol. vi.]

¹⁶ ‘Deus facere fraudem nescit, pati non potest.’ Chrysol. Serm. 62. [p. 707 B.]

¹⁷ ‘Auctoritas Dei consistit in intrinseca repugnantia deceptionis seu falsitatis quam habet divinum judicium, et in intrinseca repugnantia actus voluntatis imperantis testimonium extrinsecum non consentiens judicio interno; quæ per terminos positivos actus intellectus infallibiliter veri, et actus voluntatis intrinsece et necessario recti, poterit explicari.’ Francis. de Oviedo Tract. de Fide. Contr. ii. punc. 2.

¹⁸ ‘Divina est auctoritas cui credimus; divina est doctrina quam sequimur.’ Leo, Serm. 7. in Nativ. [vol. i. p. 165.]

[Printed p. 11]

deliverer. And this I conceive the true nature of Divine Faith in general.

7 Now being the credibility of all which we believe is founded upon the testimony of God, we can never be sufficiently instructed in the notion of Faith, till we first understand how this testimony is given to those truths which we now believe. To which end it will be necessary to give notice that the testimony of God is not given unto truths before questioned or debated; nor are they such things as are first propounded and doubted of by Man, and then resolved and confirmed by interposing the authority of God: but he is then said to witness when he doth propound, and his testimony is given by way of Revelation, which is nothing else but the delivery or speech of God unto his creatures. And therefore upon a diversity of delivery must follow a difference, though not of Faith itself, yet of the means and manner of Assent.

Wherefore it will be further necessary to observe, that Divine Revelation is of two kinds, either immediate or mediate. An immediate Revelation is that by which God delivereth himself to man by himself, without the intervention of man. A mediate Revelation is the conveyance of the counsel of God unto man by man. By the first he spake unto the Prophets; by the second in the Prophets, and by them unto us. Being then there is this difference between the revealing of God unto the Prophets and to others, being the Faith both of Prophets, and others, relieth wholly upon Divine Revelation, the difference¹⁹ of the manner of Assent in these several kinds of Believers will be very observable for the explanation of the nature of our Faith.

Those then to whom God did immediately speak himself, or by an Angel representing God, and so being in his stead, and bearing his name (of which I shall need here to make no distinction), those persons, I say, to whom God did so reveal him-

Notes to p. 11:

¹⁹ ‘Sicut duplex est auditus et locutio, scilicet exterior sive corporalis, et interior ac spiritualis; ita duplex est fides, una quæ oritur in cordibus fidelium per auditum exteriorem, cum scilicet Deus per aliquos homines aliis credenda proponit; et ista est fides quæ nobis sive communi statui fidelium convenit, ex eo quod adhæremus revelationibus Prophetis et Apostolis factis: —alia est quæ oritur in aliquibus per spiritualem locutionem, qua Deus aliquibus per internam inspirationem credenda revelat, nullo hominis ministerio utens; sicut est fides Apostolorum et Prophetarum, qui ab ipso Deo per intrinsecam illuminationem sunt de credendis instructi.’ Francis. Ferrariensis in Thom. cont. Gent. lib. iii. cap. 40.

[Printed p. 12]

self, did by virtue of the same revelation perceive, know, and assure themselves, that he which spake to them was God; so that at the same time they clearly understood both what was delivered, and by whom: otherwise we cannot imagine that Abraham would have slain his son, or have been commended for such a resolution, had he not been most assured that it was God who by an immediate revelation of his will clearly commanded it. Thus ᵃby faith Noah being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house: [margin ᵃ: Heb. xi. 7.] which warning²⁰ of God was a clear revelation of God’s determination to drown the world, of his will to save him and his family, and of his command for that end to build an ark. And this Noah so received from God, as that he knew it to be an oracle of God, and was as well assured of the Author, as informed of the command. Thus the judgments hanging over Judah were revealed in the ears of Isaiah ᵇby the Lord of Hosts. [margin ᵇ: Isa. xxii. 14.] Thus ᶜthe Lord revealed himself to Samuel in Shiloh: [margin ᶜ: 1 Sam. iii. 21.] at first indeed he knew him not; that is, when the Lord spake, he knew it not to be the voice of God: ᵈNow Samuel did not yet know the Lord, neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed unto him; [margin ᵈ: 1 Sam. iii. 7.] but after that he knew him, and was assured that it was he which spake unto him, the Scripture teaching us that the ᵉears of Samuel were revealed, and the ᶠword of God revealed, and ᵍGod himself revealed to him. [margin ᵉ: 1 Sam. ix. 15. יהוה גלה את אזן שמואל; Κύριος ἀπεκάλυψε τὸ ὠτίον Σαμουήλ.] [margin ᶠ: 1 Sam. iii. 7. טרם יגלה אליו דבר יהוה; Πρὶν ἢ ἀποκαλυφθῆναι αὐτῷ ῥῆμα Κυρίου.] [margin ᵍ: 1 Sam. iii. 21. נגלה יהוה אל שמואל; Ἀπεκάλυφθη Κύριος πρὸς Σαμουήλ.] By all which we can understand no less, than that Samuel was so illuminated in his prophecies, that he fully understood the words or things themselves which were delivered, and as certainly knew that the deliverer was God: so Samuel the Seer, so the rest of the Prophets believed those truths revealed to them by such a faith as was a firm assent unto an object credible upon the immediate testimony of God.

But those faithful people to whom the Prophets spake 8 believed the same truth, and upon the testimony of the same God, delivered unto them not by God, but by those Prophets, whose words they therefore assented unto as certain truths, because they were assured that what the Prophets spake was immediately revealed to them by God himself, without which assurance no faith could be expected from them. [Exod. iii. 2.] When God appeared unto

Notes to p. 12:

²⁰ Πίστει χρηματισθείς, which word comes from the original χράω, appropriated by the Greeks to an oracle, or answer given by God: ‘Ὁ μὲν Θεὸς χρῇ, ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος μαντεύεται. Moschop. [Ecl. Attic. Dictionum. s. v. χράω.]

[Printed p. 13]

Moses in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush, and there immediately revealed to him first himself, saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and then his will, to bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt, Moses clearly believed God both in the revelation of himself and of his will, and was fully satisfied that the Israelites should be delivered, because he was assured it was God who promised their deliverance: yet notwithstanding still he doubted whether the Israelites would believe the same truth, when it should be delivered to them, not immediately by God, but by Moses; [Exod. iv. 1.] And Moses answered and said, But behold they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice; for they will say, The Lord hath not appeared unto thee. Which words of his first suppose, that if they had heard the voice of God, as he had, they would have assented to the truth upon a testimony divine; and then as rationally affirm, that it was improbable they should believe, except they were assured it was God who promised, or think that God had promised by Moses, only because Moses said so. Which rational objection was clearly taken away, when God endued Moses with power of evident and undoubted miracles; for then the rod which he carried in his hand was as infallible a sign to the Israelites, that God had appeared unto him, as the flaming bush was to himself; and therefore they which saw in his hand God’s omnipotency, could not suspect in his tongue God’s veracity; insomuch as Aaron became to Moses instead of a mouth, and Moses to Aaron instead of God, Aaron spake all the words which the Lord had [Exod. iv. 16, 30, 31.] spoken unto Moses, and did the signs in the sight of the people, and the people believed. For being persuaded by a lively and active presence of omnipotency that God had appeared unto Moses, and what was delivered to them by him came to him from God; and being sufficiently assured out of the very sense and notion of a Deity, that whatsoever God should speak must of necessity be true, they presently assented, and believed the Lord, and his servant Moses; Moses, as the immediate propounder; God, as the original revealer: they believed Moses [Exod. xiv. 31.] that God had revealed it, and they believed the promise, because God had revealed it. So that the Faith both of Moses and the Israelites was grounded upon the same testimony or revelation of God, and differed only in the proposition or application of the

[Printed p. 14]

testimony; Moses receiving it immediately from God himself, the Israelites mediately by the ministry of Moses.

In the like manner the succeeding Prophets were the instruments of Divine Revelation, which they first believed as revealed to them, and then the people as revealed by them: for what they delivered was not the testimony of man, but the testimony of God delivered by man. [Luke i. 70.] It was he who spake by the mouth of his holy Prophets which have been since the world began: the mouth, the instrument, the articulation was theirs; but the words were God’s. [2 Sam. xxiii. 2.] The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, saith David, and his word was in my tongue. [1 Kings viii. 53; xiv. 18.] It was the word of the Lord, which he spake by the hand of Moses, and by the hand of his servant Ahijah the Prophet. The hand, the general instrument of man, the mouth, the particular instrument of speech, both attributed to the Prophets as merely instrumental in their prophecies. The words which Balaam’s ass spake were as much the ass’s words, as those which Balaam spake were his; for [Numb. xxii. 28; xxiii. 5; xxii. 35.] the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and the Lord put a word in Balaam’s mouth; and not only so, but a bridle 9 with that word, only the word that I shall speak unto thee, that thou shalt speak. The Prophets, as they did not frame the notions or conceptions themselves of those truths which they delivered from God, so did they not loosen their own tongues of their own instinct, or upon their own motion, but as moved, impelled, and acted by God. So we may in correspondence to the antecedent and subsequent words interpret those words of St. Peter, [2 Pet. i. 20. ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως.] that no Prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation: that is, that no Prophecy which is written did so proceed from the Prophet which spake or wrote it, that he of himself or by his own instinct did open his mouth to prophesy*; but that all prophetical revelations came from God alone, and that whosoever first delivered them was antecedently inspired by him, as it followeth, for the Prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. That therefore which they delivered was the Word, the Revelation of God; which they assented unto as to a certain and infallible truth, credible upon the immediate testimony of God, and to which the rest of the Believers assented

Notes to p. 14:

• [So Philo Judæus, προφήτης γὰρ ἴδιον μὲν οὐδὲν ἀποφθέγγεται, ἀλλότρια δὲ πάντα ὑπηχοῦντος ἑτέρου. Vol. I. p. 510.]

[Printed p. 15]

upon the same testimony of God mediately delivered by the hands of the Prophets.

Thus [Heb. i. 1.] God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in times past unto the Fathers by the Prophets, and by so speaking propounded the object of Faith both to the Prophets and the Fathers, [Verse 2.] hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, and by so speaking hath enlarged the object of Faith to us by him, by which means it comes to be the Faith of Jesus. [Rev. xiv. 12.] Thus the only begotten Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, [John i. 18.] the express Image of his Person, [Heb. i. 3; Col. i. 19; ii. 9.] he in whom it pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell, he in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, revealed the will of God to the Apostles, who being assured that he [John xvi. 30.] knew all things, and convinced that he came forth from God, gave a full and clear assent unto those things which he delivered, and grounded their Faith upon his words as upon the immediate testimony of God. [I John xvii. 8.] I have given unto them, saith Christ unto his Father, the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me. Beside this delivery of these words by Christ to the Apostles, they received the promise of the [John xvi. 13; xiv. 26.] Spirit of Truth, which should guide them into all truth, and teach them all things, and bring all things into their remembrance whatsoever Christ had said unto them. So clearly, so fully, so constantly were they furnished with divine Illuminations and Revelations from God, upon which they grounded their own Faith; that each of them might well make that profession of St. Paul, [2 Tim. i. 12.] I know whom I have believed. Thus the Faith of the Apostles, as of Moses and the Prophets, was grounded upon the immediate Revelations of God.

But those Believers to whom the Apostles preached, and whom they converted to the Faith, believe the same truths which were revealed to the Apostles, though they were not so revealed to them as they were unto the Apostles, that is, immediately from God. But, as the Israelites believed those truths which Moses spake to come from God, being convinced by the constant supply of miracles wrought by the rod which he carried in his hand; so the blessed Apostles, being so plentifully endued from above with the power of miracles, gave sufficient testimony that it was God which spake by their mouths, who so evidently wrought by their hands. They which heard St. Peter call a

[Printed p. 16]

lame man unto his legs, speak a dead man alive, and strike a living man to death with his tongue, as he did Ananias and Sapphira, might easily be persuaded that it was God who spake by his mouth, and conclude that where they found him in his omnipotency, they might well expect him in his veracity. These were the persons for whom our Saviour next to the Apostles 10 prayed, because by a way next to that of the Apostles they believed. [John xvii. 20.] Neither pray I for these alone, saith Christ, but for them also who shall believe on me through their word. Thus the Apostles believed on Christ through his own word, and the primitive Christians believed on the same Christ through the Apostles’ word, and this distinction our Saviour himself hath clearly made; not that the word of the Apostles was really distinct from the word of Christ, but only it was called theirs, because delivered by their ministry, otherwise it was the same word which they had heard from him, and upon which they themselves believed. [1 John i. 1, 3.] That which was from the beginning, saith St. John, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled of the word of life, that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you. And this was the true foundation of Faith, in all them which believed, that they took not the words which they heard from the Apostles to be the words of the men which spake them, no more than they did the power of healing the sick, or raising the dead, and the rest of the miracles, to be the power of them that wrought them; but as they attributed those miraculous works to God working by them, so did they also that saving word to the same God speaking by them. [Acts xiii. 44.] When St. Paul preached at Antioch, almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God; so they esteemed it, though they knew him a man whom they came to hear speak it. [1 Thess. ii. 13.] This the Apostle commendeth in the Thessalonians, that when they received the word of God, which they heard of him, they received it not as the word of man, but (as it is in truth) the word of God; and receiving it so, they embraced it as coming from him who could neither deceive or be deceived, and consequently as infallibly true; and by so embracing it, they assented unto it, by so assenting to it, they believed it, ultimately upon the testimony of God, immediately upon the testimony of St. Paul, as he speaks himself, [1 Thess. i. 20.] because our testimony among you was believed. Thus the Faith of those which were converted by the Apostles was an assent

[Printed p. 17]

unto the word as credible upon the testimony of God, delivered to them by a testimony Apostolical. Which being thus clearly stated, we may at last descend into our own condition, and so describe the nature of our own Faith, that every one may know what it is to believe.

Although Moses was endued with the power of miracles, and conversed with God in the mount, and spake with him face to face at the door of the Tabernacle; although upon these grounds the Israelites believed what he delivered to them as the word of God; yet neither the miracles nor Moses did for ever continue with them; and notwithstanding his death, they and their posterity to all generations were obliged to believe the same truths. Wherefore it is observable, which St. Stephen saith, [Acts vii. 38.] he received the lively Oracles to give unto them; the Decalogue he received from the hand of God, written with the finger of God; the rest of the divine patefactions he wrote himself, and so delivered them not a mortal word to die with him, but living Oracles, [Gr. λόγια ζῶντα.] to be in force when he was dead, and oblige the people to a belief, when his rod had ceased to broach the rocks and divide the seas. Neither did he only tie them to a belief of what he wrote himself, but by foretelling and describing the Prophets which should be raised in future ages, he put a farther obligation upon them to believe their Prophecies as the revelations of the same God. Thus all the Israelites, in all ages, believed Moses; while he lived, by believing his words; after his death, by believing his writings. [John v. 46, 47.] Had ye believed Moses, saith our Saviour, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? Wherefore the Faith of the Israelites in the land of Canaan was an assent unto the 11 truths of the Law as credible upon the testimony of God, delivered unto them in the writings of Moses and the Prophets.

In the like manner is it now with us. For although Christ first published the Gospel to those [John i. 14.] who beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father; although the Apostles first converted those unto the Faith, who heard them speak with tongues they never learned, they never heard before, and discover the thoughts of men they never saw before; who saw the lame to walk, the blind to see, the dead to revive, and the living to expire at their command; yet did not these Apostles prolong their lives by virtue of that power which gave such testimony to their doctrine, but rather shortened them by their

[Printed p. 18]

constant attestation to the truth of that doctrine farther confirmed by their death. Nor did that power of frequent and ordinary miraculous operations long survive them; and yet they left as great an obligation upon the Church in all succeeding ages to believe all the truths which they delivered, as they had put upon those persons who heard their words and saw their works; because they wrote the same truths which they spake, assisted in writing by the same Spirit by which they spake, and therefore require the same readiness of assent so long as the same truths shall be preserved by those writings. While Moses lived and spake as a mediator between God and the Israelites, they believed his words, and so the Prophets while they preached. When Moses was gone up to Mount Nebo, and there died, when the rest of the Prophets were gathered to their fathers, they believed their writings, and the whole object of their Faith was contained in them. When the Son of God came into the world to reveal the will of his Father, when he made known unto the Apostles, as his friends, all things that he had heard of the Father, [John xv. 15.] then did the Apostles believe the writings of Moses and the Prophets, and the words of Christ, and in these taken together was contained the entire object of their Faith, and they believed the Scripture, and the word which Jesus had said. [John ii. 22.] When Christ was ascended up into Heaven, and the Holy Ghost came down, when the words which Christ had taught the Apostles were preached by them, and many thousand souls converted to the Faith, they believed the writings of the Prophets and the words of the Apostles; and in these two was comprised the complete object of their Faith. When the Apostles themselves departed out of this life, and confirmed the truth of the Gospel preached by the last of sufferings, their death, they left the sum of what they had received, in writing, for the continuation of the Faith in the Churches which they had planted, and the propagation thereof in other places, by those which succeeded them in their ordinary function, but were not to come near them in their extraordinary gifts. These things were written, saith St. John, the longest liver, and the latest writer, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name. [John xx. 31.]

Those Christians then which have lived since the Apostles' death, and never obtained the wish of St. Augustin, to see either Christ upon earth, or St. Paul in the pulpit, have believed the

[Printed p. 19]

writings of Moses and the Prophets, of the Apostles and Evangelists, in which together is fully comprehended whatsoever may properly be termed matter of divine Faith; and so the household of God is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets²¹, [Eph. ii. 20.] who are continued unto us only in their writings, and by them alone convey unto us the truths which they received from God, upon whose testimony we believe. And therefore he which put their writings into the definition of Faith, considering Faith as now it stands with us, is none of the smallest of the Schoolmen²². From whence we may at last conclude, that the true nature of the Faith of a Christian, as the state of Christ's Church now stands, 12 and shall continue to the end of the World, consists in this, that it is an assent unto truths credible upon the testimony of God delivered unto us in the writings of the Apostles and Prophets.

To believe therefore, as the word stands in the front of the CREED, and not only so, but is diffused through every article and proposition of it, is to assent to the whole and every part of it, as to a certain and infallible truth revealed by God (who by reason of his infinite knowledge cannot be deceived, and by reason of his transcendent holiness cannot deceive) and delivered unto us in the writings of the blessed Apostles and Prophets immediately inspired, moved, and acted by God, out of whose writings this brief sum of necessary points of Faith was first²³ collected. And as this is properly to believe, which was our first consideration; so to say I believe, is to make a confession or external expression of the Faith, which is the second consideration propounded.

Faith is an habit of the intellectual part of Man, and therefore of itself invisible; and to believe is a spiritual act, and consequently immanent and internal, and known to no man but him who believeth: For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of a man which is in him? [1 Cor. ii. 11.] Wherefore Christ being not only the great Apostle, sent to deliver these revealed truths, and so the Author of our Faith, but also the Head of the

Notes to p. 19:

²¹ 'Prophetæ et Apostoli, super quos omnium Ecclesiarum fundamenta locantur.' S. Hieron. in Psal. xvii. [vol. vii. App. p. 42.] 'Super Prophetas ædificatur orbis terrarum, credens in Domino.' Ruffin. Ibid. [p. 36.]

²² 'Fides est habitus quo assentimus dictis Scripturæ propter auctoritatem Dei revelantis.' Durand. lib. iii. Dist. 24. q. i. §. 9. [§. 5.]

²³ Οὐχ ὡς ἔδοξεν ἀνθρώποις συνετέθη τὰ τῆς πίστεως, ἀλλ' ἐκ πάσης γραφῆς τὰ καιριώτατα συλλεχθέντα μίαν ἀναπληροῖ τὴν τῆς πίστεως διδασκαλίαν. Cyril. Catech. [v. 12. p. 78 C.] 'Ecclesiarum Patres de populorum salute solliciti, ex diversis voluminibus Scripturarum collegerunt testimonia divinis gravida Sacramentis.' Euseb. Gall. in Symb. [Bibl. Patr. vol. v. pt. i. p. 552 E.]

[Printed p. 20]

Church, whose body consisteth of faithful members, and so the author of union and communion, which principally hath relation to the unity of Faith, he must needs be imagined to have appointed some external expression and communication of it: especially considering that the sound of the Apostles was to go forth unto the ends of the world, and all nations to be called to the profession of the Gospel, and gathered into the Church of Christ; which cannot be performed without an acknowledgment of the truth, and a profession of Faith, without which no entrance into the Church, no admittance to Baptism. What doth hinder me to be baptized? saith the Eunuch. And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. [Acts viii. 36, 37.] So believing with all his heart, as Philip required, and making profession of that Faith, he was admitted. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation²⁴. [Rom. x. 10.] The belief of the heart is the internal habit residing in the Soul, and act of Faith proceeding from it, but terminated in the same. The confession of the mouth is an external signification of the inward habit or act of Faith, by words expressing an acknowledgment of those truths which we believe or assent to in our souls. The ear receiveth the word, Faith cometh by hearing; [Rom. x. 17.] the ear conveyeth it to the heart, which being opened receiveth it, receiving believeth it; and then out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh²⁵. [Mat. xii. 34.] In the heart Faith is seated: with the tongue confession is made; between these two salvation is completed²⁶. If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. [Rom. x. 9.] This Faith of the heart every one ought, and is presumed to have; this confession of the mouth every one is known to make, when he pronounceth these words of the CREED, I believe; and if true, he may with comfort say, The word of Faith is nigh me, even in my mouth and in my heart²⁷ [Rom. x. 8.]: first in my heart

Notes to p. 20:

²⁴ 'Habes, homo, unde credere debeas, Corde creditur ad justitiam; habes unde debeas confiteri, Ore confessio fit ad salutem.' Chrysol. Serm. 56. [p. 702 F.]

²⁵ 'Sermo creat auditum, auditus concipit fidem, credulitatem parturit fides, confessionem credulitas nutrit, confessio perpetuam dat salutem.' Chrysol. Serm. 60. [p. 705 C.]

²⁶ 'Magnum, filioli, per hoc fidei nostræ videmus esse compendium, quando inter cor et linguam totum salutis humanæ versatur et geritur Sacramentum.' Chrysol. Serm. 56. [p. 702 F.] 'Quod a te et pro te reposcitur, intra te est, i. e. oris famulatus et cordis affectus.' Euseb. Gall. [de Symb. Hom. ii. p. 554 C.]

²⁷ 'De hoc sine dubio legimus per Prophetam, Prope est, inquit, in ore tuo, et in corde tuo.' Euseb. Gall. [de Symb. Hom. ii. p. 554 C.]

[Printed p. 21]

really assenting, then in my mouth clearly and sincerely professing with the Prophet David, I have believed, therefore have I 13 spoken. [Psal. cxvi. 10.] Thus briefly from the second consideration concerning confession implied in the first words I believe, we shall pass unto the third consideration, of the necessity and particular obligation to such a confession.

If there were no other argument, yet being the object of Faith is supposed infallibly true, and acknowledged to be so by every one that believeth, being it is the nature of Truth not to hide itself, but rather to desire the light that it might appear; this were sufficient to move us to a confession of our Faith. But beside the nature of the thing, we shall find many arguments obliging, pressing, urging us to such a profession. For first, from the same God, and by the same means by which we have received the object of our Faith, by which we came under a possibility of Faith, we have also received an express command to make a confession of the same: Be ready, saith St. Peter, always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you; [1 Pet. iii. 15.] and there can be no reason of hope but what is grounded on Faith, nor can there be answer given unto that without an acknowledgment of this. Secondly, it is true indeed that the great promises of the Gospel are made unto Faith, and glorious things are spoken of it; but the same promises are made to the confession of Faith together with it; [Rom. x. 10.] and we know who it is hath said, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. [Mat. x. 32.] Besides, the profession of the Faith of one Christian confirmeth and edifieth another in his, and the mutual benefit of all layeth an obligation upon every particular. Again, the matters of Faith contain so much purity of doctrine, persuade such holiness of life, describe God so infinitely glorious, so transcendently gracious, so loving in himself, so merciful in his Son, so wonderful in all his works, that the sole confession of it glorifieth God; and how can we expect to enter into that glory which is none of ours, if we deny God that glory which is his? Lastly the concealing those truths which he hath revealed, the not acknowledging that faith which we are thought to believe, is so far from giving God that glory which is due unto him, that it dishonoureth the Faith which it refuseth or neglecteth

[Printed p. 22]

to profess, and casteth a kind of contumely upon the author of it, as if God had revealed that which Man should be ashamed to acknowledge. Wherefore he that came to save us hath also said unto us, Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy Angels. [Luke ix. 26.] Such a necessity there is of confession of Faith, in respect of God, who commanded it, and is glorified in it; in respect of ourselves, who shall be rewarded for it; and in respect of our brethren, who are edified and confirmed by it. Which necessity the wisdom of the Church in former ages hath thought a sufficient ground to command the recitation of the CREED at the first initiation into the Church²⁸ by Baptism (for which purpose it was taught and expounded to those which were to be baptized

Notes to p. 22 (note 28 begins here and continues on p. 23, transcribed in full below):

²⁸ 'Ὁ τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας ἀκλινῆ ἐν ἑαυτῷ κατέχων, ὃν διὰ τοῦ Βαπτίσματος εἴληφε. Iren. lib. i. cap. i. [i. 9. 4. p. 46.] 'Quam sub tribus et testatio fidei et sponsio salutis pignerentur, necessario adjicitur Ecclesiæ mentio; quoniam ubi tres, id est, Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus Sanctus, ibi Ecclesia, quæ trium corpus est.' Tertul. de Baptis. [6. p. 226 D.] 'In quem tingueret? in pœnitentiam? quo ergo illi præcursorem? 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?' Idem. [II. p. 228 C.] 'Dehinc ter mergitamur, amplius aliquid respondentes, quam Dominus in Evangelio determinavit.' Id. de Cor. Militis. [3. p. 102 A.] 'Sed et ipsa interrogatio quæ fit in Baptismo testis est veritatis; nam cum dicimus, Credis in vitam æternam, et remissionem peccatorum per sanctam Ecclesiam? intelligimus remissionem peccatorum non nisi in Ecclesia dari.' S. Cyprian. Epist. ad Januarium, &c. [Ep. lxx. p. 125.] 'Quod si aliquis illud opponit, ut dicat eandem Novatianum legem tenere quam Catholica Ecclesia teneat, eodem Symbolo quo et nos baptizare, eundem nosse Deum Patrem, eundem Filium Christum, eundem Spiritum Sanctum, ac propter hoc usurpare eum potestatem baptizandi posse quod videatur in interrogatione Baptismi a nobis non discrepare: sciat quisquis hoc opponendum putat, primum non esse unam nobis et schismaticis Symboli legem, neque eandem interrogationem. Nam cum dicunt, Credis remissionem peccatorum, et vitam æternam per sanctam Ecclesiam? mentiuntur in interrogatione, quando non habeant Ecclesiam.' Idem, Epist. ad Magnum. [Ep. lxxvi. p. 154.] 'Mos ibi (id est Romæ) servatur antiquus, eos qui gratiam Baptismi suscepturi sunt, publice, i. e. fidelium populo audiente, Symbolum reddere.' Ruffin. in Symb. [3. p. cxcix.] 'Solenne est in lavacro, post Trinitatis confessionem interrogare, Credis in sanctam Ecclesiam? Credis remissionem peccatorum? S. Hieron. cont. Lucifer. [vol. ii. p. 184 D.] 'Mens Hæretica reliquit doctorem a quo fidem Ecclesiæ didicerat, oblita est pacti Dei sui, hoc est, fidei ipsius Dominicæ quæ in Symbolo continetur, quam se die baptismatis servaturum esse promiserat.' Idem, Com. in Prov. 'Interrogatus es, Credis in Deum Patrem omnipotentem? dixisti, Credo, et mersisti, hoc est, sepultus es. Iterum interrogatus es, Credis in Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, et in crucem ejus? dixisti, Credo, et mersisti, ideo et Christo es consepultus.—Tertio interrogatus, Credis et in Spiritum Sanctum? dixisti, Credo; tertio mersisti: ut multiplicem lapsum superioris ætatis absolveret trina confessio.' Ambros. de Sacram. lib. ii. cap. 7. [§. 20. vol. ii. p. 359 D.] Leo speaks thus of Eutyches in his Epistle to Flavianus, 'Quam enim eruditionem de sacris Novi et Veteris Testamenti paginis acquisivit, qui ne ipsius quidem Symboli initia comprehendit? et quod per totum mundum omnium regenerandorum voce depromitur, istius adhuc senis corde non capitur.' [Ep. xxiv. vol. i. p. 478.] And in the 12th Book de Trinitate, [p. 304.] (formerly attributed to Athanasius, but more probably now thought to belong to Vigilius Tapsensis,) 'Nec non et illa magna et beata Confessio Fidei, imo ipsa Fides Sanctorum, et Testamentum quod disposuimus ad Patrem, Filium, et Spiritum Sanctum, ad sacrum lavacrum regenerationis venientes, Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, et in Jesum Christum Filium ejus unigenitum, et in Spiritum Sanctum. Καθὼς παρελάβομεν παρὰ τῶν πρὸ ἡμῶν ἐπισκόπων ἐν τε τῇ πρώτῃ κατηχήσει, καὶ ὅτε τὸ λουτρὸν ἐλαμβάνομεν. Eusebius, of the Confession of Faith, which he exhibited to the Council of Nice. Socrat. lib. i. cap. 8. [p. 23.] Theodoret. lib. i. cap. 12. [p. 38.] 'Abrenuncio, inquis, Diabolo, pompis, spectaculis, et operibus ejus: et quid postea? Credo, inquis, in Deum Patrem omnipotentem. Salvian. de Gubern. Dei, lib. vi. [c. vi. Galland. vol. x. p. 35 C.] And when this Creed was enlarged by the Council of Nice, and after that by others, Epiphanius commits it to the Catechumeni, to be repeated at their baptism: Οὕτως ἕκαστον τῶν κατηχουμένων τῶν μελλόντων τῷ ἁγίῳ λουτρῷ προσιέναι, οὐ μόνον ἀπαγγέλλειν ὀφείλετε τὸ πιστεύειν τοῖς ἑαυτῶν υἱοῖς ἐν κυρίῳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ διδάσκειν ῥητῶς, ὡς πάντων ἡ αὐτὴ μήτηρ ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἡμῶν, τὸ λέγειν· Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεόν, &c. Epiph. in Ancorato. [119. vol. ii. p. 122 B.] And when he had yet farther enlarged it by reason of some new emergent heresies, he commits it, μάλιστα τοῖς τῷ ἁγίῳ λουτρῷ προσιούσιν, ἵνα ἀπαγγέλλωσι καὶ λέγωσιν οὕτως. Ibid. [121. p. 123 C.] The first Council of Constantinople confirms the Nicene Confession, as πρεσβυτάτην τε οὖσαν καὶ ἀκόλουθον τῷ βαπτίσματι. Theodoret. lib. v. cap. 9. p. [205.] And the Council of Chalcedon of the same, ἥν, ὡς κοινὸν ἐξ ἁγίων σύνθημα, τοῖς μυουμένοις πρὸς τὴν τῆς υἱοθεσίας παρεγγυῶμεν ἀσφάλειαν. Parte tertia. [Mansi, Concilia, vol. vii. p. 457 A.] The Synod at Jerusalem, τὸ ἅγιον σύμβολον εἰς ὃ ἐβαπτίσθημεν καὶ βαπτίζομεν. The Synod at Tyre, ἐν αὐτῷ βαπτισθέντες καὶ βαπτίζοντες. And the Council of Constantinople under Menna, to which the former sent their Synodical letters, τὸ ἅγιον σύμβολον ἐν ᾧ πάντες ἐβαπτίσθημεν. Concil. Constantinop. sub Agap. et Menna, Act. v. [Mansi, viii. p. 1044 E.] Basiliscus and Marcus, in two several edicts, confirmed the same Nicene Creed with these words, εἰς ὃ ἡμεῖς τε καὶ πάντες οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν πιστεύσαντες ἐβαπτίσθημεν. Evagr. lib. iii. cap. 4. et 7. And the edict of the Emperor Justinian, 'Anathematizaverunt eos qui aliam definitionem fidei, sive Symbolum, sive Mathema, tradunt accedentibus ad sanctum baptisma*.'

[Printed p. 23]

14 immediately before²⁹ the great solemnity of Easter), and to

Notes to p. 23 (note 29 begins here and concludes at the top of p. 24, transcribed in full below; the * and † notes are printed on p. 23):

²⁹ 'Ὅτι δεῖ τοὺς φωτιζομένους τὴν πίστιν ἐκμανθάνειν, καὶ τῇ πέμπτῃ τῆς ἑβδομάδος ἀπαγγέλλειν τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ ἢ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις. Concil. Laodic. Can. 46. [Mansi, ii. p. 571 C.] Where it is to be observed, that Πίστις is taken for the Creed or Symbolum Fidei, and was so translated anciently, as appeareth by the Canon preserved in the Canon Law, and rendered thus, 'Baptizandos oportet Fidei Symbolum discere, et quinta feria ultimæ septimanæ vel Episcopo vel Presbyteris reddere.' De Consec. dist. 4. cap. 58†. 'Symbolum etiam placuit ab omnibus Ecclesiis una die, i. e. ante octo dies Dominicæ resurrectionis, publice in Ecclesia competentibus tradi.' Concil. Agath. Can. 13. [Mansi, viii. p. 327 A.] 'Sicut antiqui Canones jubent, ante viginti dies Baptismi ad purgationem exorcismi Catechumeni currant, in quibus viginti diebus omnino Catechumeni Symbolum, quod est, Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, specialiter doceantur.' Concil. Bracar. 3. Can. 1. [Mansi, ix. p. 838 D.] The Canon of the Laodicean Council, already mentioned, is verbatim rehearsed in the sixth Council in Trullo. Can. 78. [Mansi, xi. p. 977 B.] It appeareth therefore a general command of the Church, that those who were to be baptized should have a certain time allotted for the learning and rehearsing of the Creed. And in case of necessity, if any were baptized, they were to learn the Creed immediately after their baptism, 'Ὅτι δεῖ (not, as it is in the edition of Binius, both in this Canon and in the former, most absurdly 'Ὅτι οὐ δεῖ) τοὺς ἐν νόσῳ παραλαμβάνοντας ἐκμανθάνειν τὴν πίστιν, καὶ γινώσκειν ὅτι θείας δωρεᾶς κατηξιώθησαν. Concil. Laodic. Can. 47. [Mansi, ii. p. 571 C.]

• [Though Pearson has clearly proved, that it was customary for some Confession of faith to be recited at baptism, he has left it uncertain whether this was the Apostles' Creed or no; and some of his quotations might seem to shew that the Nicene Creed was used in this way. But Bishop Bull has observed, that the Nicene Creed was not intended to be recited at baptism, Jud. Eccl. Cath. vi. 4, where he has treated this subject with great learning. See also Bingham's Antiquities, x. 4, 17. There seems some allusion to this recitation of a creed at baptism in Heb. x. 22, 23. 1 Pet. iii. 21.]

† [For this meaning of πίστις, see Suicer in v. p. 726.]

[Printed p. 24]

require a particular repetition³⁰ of it publicly, as often as the sacrament of the Eucharist was administered, and a constant and perpetual inculcation of the same by the Clergy³¹ to the People.

And as this necessity is great, as the practice useful and advantageous; so is the obligation of believing and confessing particular, binding every single Christian, observable in the number and person expressed, I believe. As if Christ did question every one in particular, as he did him who was born blind, after he had restored him his sight (and we are all in his condition), Dost thou believe on the Son of God? every single Christian is taught to make the same answer which he made, Lord, I believe. [John ix. 35, 38.] As if the Son of God did promise to every one of them which are gathered together in his name, what he promised to one of the multitude, whose son had a dumb spirit; If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth; each one himself returneth his answer, Lord, I believe; Lord, help my unbelief. [Mark ix. 17, 23, 24.] Not that it is unlawful or unfit to use another number, and instead of I, to say We believe: for taking in of others, we exclude not ourselves; and addition of charity can be no disparagement to confession of Faith. St. Peter answered for the twelve, We believe, and are sure that thou art that Christ, the [John vi. 69.]

Notes to p. 24 (note 29, begun on p. 23, concludes at the top of this page and is transcribed in full under p. 23 above):

³⁰ As appears in the ancient Greek Liturgies, and the decree of the third Council of Toledo: 'Ut omni sacrificii tempore ante communionem corporis Christi et sanguinis, juxta Orientalium partium morem, unanimiter clara voce sacratissimum fidei recenseant symbolum.' [Mansi, ix. p. 990 A.] Which custom, as they call it, of the Oriental parts, is said first to be introduced by Petrus Mongus at Alexandria, and after by Timotheus at Constantinople, as appears out of the fragments of Theodorus Lector*.

³¹ 'Symbolum quod est signaculum fidei, et orationem Dominicam dicere semper admoneant sacerdotes populum Christianum.' Concil. Mogunt. Can. 45. [Mansi, xiv. p. 74 B.]

• [It was not used to be repeated in the daily service till about the middle of the fifth century in the Greek Church, and not till some time after in the Latin Church. Bingham, x. 4, 17, who quotes several authorities.]

[Printed p. 25]

Son of the living God. For though Christ immediately replied that one of them had a devil, yet is not St. Peter blamed, who knew it not. But every one is taught to express his own Faith, because by that he is to stand or fall. The effectual fervent 15 prayer of a righteous man availeth much [James v. 16.] for the benefit of his Brother, but his Faith availeth nothing for the justification of another. And it is otherwise very fit that our Faith should be manifested by a particular confession, because it is effectual by particular application; therefore must it needs be proper for me to say, I believe, and to make profession of my Faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. [Gal. ii. 20.]

Being then I have described the true nature and notion of Belief, the duty of confessing our Faith, and the obligation of every particular Christian to believe and to confess; being in these three explications, all which can be imaginably contained in the first word of the CREED must necessarily be included; it will now be easy for me to deliver, and for every particular person to understand what it is he says, and upon what ground he proceeds, when he begins his confession with these words, I believe, which I conceive may in this manner be fitly expressed:

Although those things which I am ready to affirm be not apparent to my sense, so that I cannot say I see them; although they be not evident to my understanding of themselves, nor appear unto me true by the virtue of any natural and necessary cause, so that I cannot say I have any proper knowledge or science of them; yet being they are certainly contained in the Scriptures, the writings of the blessed Apostles and Prophets; being those Apostles and Prophets were endued with miraculous power from above, and immediately inspired with the Holy Ghost, and consequently what they delivered was not the word of man, but of God himself; being God is of that universal knowledge and infinite wisdom, that it is impossible he should be deceived; of that indefectible holiness and transcendent rectitude, that it is not imaginable he should intend to deceive any man, and consequently whatsoever he hath delivered for a truth must be necessarily and infallibly true; I readily and steadfastly assent unto them as most certain truths, and am as fully and absolutely, and more concerningly persuaded of them, than of any thing I see or know. And because that God who hath revealed them hath done it, not for my benefit only, but for the advantage of others, nor for that alone, but also for the manifest-

[Printed p. 26]

ation of his own glory; being for those ends he hath commanded me to profess them, and hath promised an eternal reward upon my profession of them; being every particular person is to expect the justification of himself, and the salvation of his soul, upon the condition of his own Faith; with a certain and full persuasion, I assent unto them, so with a fixed and undaunted resolution I will profess them; and with this faith in my heart, and confession in my mouth, in respect of the whole body of the CREED, and every Article and particle in it, I sincerely, readily, resolvedly say, I believe.

I believe in God.

HAVING delivered the nature of Faith, and the act of Belief common to all the Articles of the Creed, that we may understand what it is to believe; we shall proceed to the explication of the Articles themselves, as the most necessary objects of our Faith, that we may know what is chiefly to be believed. Where immediately we meet with another word as general as the former, and as universally concerned in every Article, which is GOD; for if to believe be to assent upon the testimony of God, as we have before declared, then wheresoever belief is expressed or implied, there is also the name of God understood, upon whose testimony we believe. He therefore whose authority is the ground and foundation of the whole, his existence begins the Creed, as the foundation of that authority. For if there can be no divine Faith without the attestation of God, by which alone it becomes divine, and there can be no such attestation except there were an existence of the testifier, then must it needs be proper to begin the confession of our Faith with the 16 agnition of our God. If his name³² were thought fit to be expressed in the front of every action, even by the Heathen, because they thought no action prospered but by his approbation; much more ought we to fix it before our confession, because without him to believe, as we profess, is no less than a contradiction.

Now these words, I believe in God, will require a double consideration; one, of the phrase or manner of speech; another, of the thing or nature of the truth in that manner expressed. For to believe with an addition of the preposition in*, is a phrase or

Notes to p. 26:

³² Θεός, θεός· 'Ἔθος ἦν ὅτε κατάρχοιντό τινος, θεὸν λέγειν ἐπευφημιζομένοις. Hesych. Lex.

• [See the Homily upon Faith, at the beginning.]

[Printed p. 27]

expression ordinarily conceived fit to be given to none but to God himself, as always implying, beside a bare act of Faith, an addition of hope, love, and affiance. An observation, as I conceive, prevailing especially in the Latin Church, grounded principally upon the authority of St. Augustin³³. Whereas among the Greeks, in whose language the New Testament was penned, I perceive no such constant distinction in their deliveries of the Creed; and in the Hebrew language³⁴ of the Old, from which

Notes to p. 27 (note 34 begins here and continues on p. 28, transcribed in full below):

³³ For, Ser. 181, which is upon the Creed, we find these words: 'Non dicit, Credo Deum, vel Credo Deo, quamvis et hæc saluti necessaria sint. Aliud enim est credere illi, aliud credere illum, aliud credere in illum. Credere illi, est credere vera esse quæ loquitur; credere illum, credere quia ipse est Deus; credere in illum, diligere illum.' [vol. vi. p. 279 A. append.] And though that collection of Sermons de tempore under the name of St. Augustin be not all his, (divers of them being translations of the Greek homilies,) yet this distinction may be collected out of other parts of his works. For first he distinguisheth very clearly and seriously between credere Deo, and credere in Deum. 'Numquam aliquis Apostolorum dicere auderet, qui credit in me.—Credimus Apostolo, sed non credimus in Apostolum.' Tract. 54. in Psalm. [Tract. 54. in Joan. Evang. §. 3. vol. iii. p. 650 D.] And again, 'Credimus Paulo, sed non credimus in Paulum; credimus Petro, sed non credimus in Petrum.' [Tract. 29. in Joan. p. 515 D.] Secondly, he distinguisheth between credere Deum and credere in Deum: 'Multum interest utrum quis credat ipsum esse Christum, et utrum credat in Christum. Ille credit in Christum qui et sperat in Christum, et diligit Christum.' De Verbis Dom. Serm. 61. [144. cap. ii. §. 2. vol. v. p. 693 F.] And, which is the sum of all, he puts a high value upon the preposition, as if, by virtue of the addition of in, the phrase did properly signify so great an accession unto faith. 'Quid est credere in Deum? Credendo amare, credendo diligere, credendo in eum ire, et ejus membris incorporari.' Tract. 29. in Joh. [§. 6. vol. iii. p. 515 D.] Which doctrine of St. Augustin's being taken notice of by Peter Lombard, hath since been continued by the Schoolmen; and Aquinas, Sum. ii. 2æ. q. 2. Art. i. §. 2. ad primum, bringing all three under one act of faith, hath been contradicted by Durandus, in 3 Sent. dis. xxiii. q. 7. §. 6. 'Credere in Deum non est præcise actus fidei, sed fidei et caritatis simul; et sunt etiam plures, et non unus actus tantum.' by whose subtle, but yet clear determination, (as many of his are beyond the rest of the Schools,) whatsoever is added by the preposition to believe, appears not to be a part of belief, but an act superadded to the act of faith.

³⁴ For האמין is sometimes joined with לְ, sometimes with בְּ: לְ answers properly to πιστεύειν τῷ Θεῷ, credere Deo, לְ being nothing else but a significator of the case; when with בְּ, it corresponds to πιστεύειν εἰς τὸν Θεόν, credere in Deum, בְּ being a preposition of the same nature with εἰς or in. But yet there is so little, or rather no difference in the Hebrew, that in the first place where it is used, and that of the father of the faithful, even for the act of justifying faith, והאמין ביהוה Gen. xv. 6. it is translated by the LXX. καὶ ἐπίστευσεν Ἀβρὰμ τῷ Θεῷ, not εἰς Θεόν, and that translation warranted by St. Paul, Rom. iv. 3. Gal. iii. 6. and St. James ii. 23. In the same manner, 2 Kings xvii. 14. אשר לא האמינו ביהוה אלהיהם is translated by the LXX. (as that translation is preserved in the Alexandrian and Complutensian copies) οἱ οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν κυρίῳ Θεῷ αὐτῶν. Besides, the same phrase is used in the same place both to God, and to man, as Exod. xiv. 31. ויאמינו ביהוה ובמשה עבדו And they believed in God, and in his servant Moses; which the Chaldee paraphrase explaineth thus, והימינו במימרא דיי ונביאותיה דמשה עבדיה And they believed in the word of God, and in the prophecy of

[Printed p. 28]

the Jewish and Christian Greeks receive that phrase of believing in, it hath no such peculiar and accumulative signification. For it is sometimes attributed to God, the author and original cause; sometimes to the Prophets, the immediate revealers of the Faith; sometimes it is spoken of miracles, the motives to believe; sometimes of the Law of God, the material object of our Faith. Among all which varieties of that phrase of speech, it is sufficiently apparent that in this confession of Faith it is most proper to admit it in the last acception, by which it is attributed to the 17 material object of belief. For the Creed being nothing else but a brief comprehension of the most necessary matters of Faith, whatsoever is contained in it beside the first word I believe, by which we make confession of our Faith, can be nothing else but part of those verities to be believed, and the act of belief in respect of them nothing but an assent unto them as divinely credible and infallible truths. Neither can we conceive that the Ancient Greek Fathers of the Church could have any farther meaning in it, who make the whole body of the Creed to be of the same nature, as so many truths to be believed, acknowledged,

Notes to p. 28 (no new note begins on p. 28; the remainder of note 34, begun on p. 27, is printed here):

³⁴ (continued) Moses his servant. And 2 Chron. xx. 20. האמינו ביהוה אלהיכם והאמנו בנביאיו Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established: believe in his Prophets, so shall ye prosper. For although the vulgar Latin, which our translation followeth, hath made that distinction which the Hebrew maketh not, 'Credite in Domino Deo vestro, et securi eritis; credite Prophetis ejus, et cuncta evenient prospera:' yet the Septuagint acknowledgeth no necessity of receding from the original phrase; 'Ἐμπιστεύσατε ἐν κυρίῳ τῷ Θεῷ ὑμῶν, καὶ ἐμπιστευθήσεσθε· ἐμπιστεύσατε ἐν προφήταις αὐτοῦ, καὶ εὐοδωθήσεσθε. Nor is it only attributed to Moses as joined with God, and so taken as it were into the same phrase, but separately by himself, as Exod. xix. 9. The Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, וגם בך יאמינו לעולם and believe in thee for ever. And therefore, when it was objected to St. Basil, that they did believe in Moses, as well as that they were baptized into Moses; and generally, ἡ πίστις ὁμολογηται ἤδη καὶ εἰς ἀνθρώπους γεγενῆσθαι· the Father doth not deny the language, but interpreteth it, εἰς αὐτὸν πίστιν ἐπὶ τὸν κύριον ἀναφέρεται. De Sp. S. cap. 14. §. 31–33. [vol. iii. p. 25 D 27 C.] Neither is this only spoken of Moses and the Prophets, that the Israelites believed in them, but of David, not as a Prophet, but as a bare relater of his own actions, 1 Sam. xxvii. 12, ויאמן אכיש בדוד, Καὶ ἐπιστεύθη Ἀγχὶς ἐν Δαυίδ. 'Et credidit Achis in David.' Vulg. 'Est ergo fides nostra primo quidem omnium in Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, consequenter vero etiam in omnes sanctos Patriarchas, vel Prophetas, vel Apostolos Christi.' Orig. in Apol. Pamphil. [Orig. vol. iv. Appendix, p. 38 B.] To conclude, this general phrase of believing in is originally attributed sometimes to the supreme Author of our faith, as to God; sometimes to the intervenient messengers, as the Prophets; sometimes to the motives of our faith, Psalm lxxviii. 32. ולא האמינו בנפלאותיו LXX. Καὶ οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν ἐν τοῖς θαυμασίοις αὐτοῦ, And they believed not for his wondrous works; sometimes to the object of it, or that which is believed, as Psalm cxix. 66. במצותיך האמנתי, I have believed in thy commandments, as Mar. i. 15. Πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ.

[Printed p. 29]

and confessed; insomuch as sometimes they use not believing in³⁵, neither for the Father, Son, nor Holy Ghost; sometimes using it as to them, they continue³⁶ the same to the following Articles of, the Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, &c. and generally³⁷ speak of the Creed as of nothing but mere matter of Faith, without any intimation of hope, love³⁸, or any such notion included in it. So that believing in, by virtue of the phrase or manner of speech, whether we look upon the original use of it in the Hebrew, or the derivative in the Greek, or the sense of it in the first Christians in the Latin Church, can be of no farther real importance in the Creed in respect of God, who immediately follows, than to acknowledge and assert his being or existence. Nor ought this to be imagined a slender

Notes to p. 29:

³⁵ Πιστεύομεν οὖν καὶ ὁμολογοῦμεν ἕνα μόνον ἀληθινὸν καὶ ἀγαθὸν Θεόν—καὶ ἕνα τὸν μονογενῆ αὐτοῦ υἱόν,—καὶ ἓν μόνον πνεῦμα ἅγιον. S. Basil. [de Fide, c. iv. vol. ii. p. 227 B.]

³⁶ Arius and Euzoius in their Confession delivered to Constantine, Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν πατέρα—καὶ εἰς κύριον Ἰησοῦν—καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ εἰς σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν, καὶ εἰς ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος, καὶ εἰς βασιλείαν οὐρανῶν, καὶ εἰς μίαν καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. cap. 26. [p. 61.] Sozomen. lib. ii. cap. 27. [p. 83.] Κατήχησις τῶν φωτιζομένων — σχεδιασθεῖσα εἰς τὸ καὶ εἰς ἓν πνεῦμα ἅγιον — καὶ εἰς μίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ εἰς σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν, καὶ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. S. Cyril. Hierosol. [Cateches. xvi. et xviii. init.] Εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον—εἰς μίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν. S. Epiphan. in Ancorato. [§. 120. vol. ii. p. 123 A.] And in a larger Confession, Πιστεύομεν εἰς μίαν καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ εἰς ἓν βάπτισμα μετανοίας, καὶ εἰς ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν, καὶ εἰς βασιλείαν οὐρανῶν, καὶ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. [§. ult. p. 124 C.]

³⁷ Gregorius Nyssenus calls them εὐσεβεῖς περὶ Θεοῦ ὑπολήψεις. And Eusebius, in his Confession exhibited to the Council of Nice, concludes, Πιστεύομεν καὶ εἰς ἓν πνεῦμα ἅγιον, τούτων ἕκαστον εἶναι καὶ ὑπάρχειν πιστεύοντες· [Socrat. i. 8. p. 23.] signifying that every particular* which he had rehearsed he believed to be; and that was all in the Confession intended. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, after a long declaration of the former Articles concerning the Father and the Son, draws to a conclusion on the latter Articles thus: Πρὸς δὲ τῇ εὐσεβείᾳ (l. εὐσεβεῖ) ταύτῃ περὶ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ δόξῃ ——— ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ ὁμολογοῦμεν ——— μίαν καὶ μόνην καθολικὴν τὴν ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν ——— μετὰ τοῦτον (vel τοῦτο) τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν οἴδαμεν. Theodoret. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. cap. 4. [p. 19, 20.] So Tertul. de Præscr. Adv. Hæret. [c. 13. p. 206 D.] 'Regula est fidei illa qua creditur unum omnino Deum esse:' and adv. Praxeam, cap. 2. [p. 501 B.] where he makes another rehearsal of his Creed, he begins with 'Unicum quidem Deum credimus.'

³⁸ 'Non est amor Dei Articulus, neque etiam amor proximi, quia etiamsi sint præcepta generalia activa, tamen cum actio contineatur, non oportet eum constituere articulum: sed ista sunt fidei dogmata quæ sunt columnæ et fundamenta legis divinæ.' Is. Abravanel de cap. fidei, cap. 11. 'Primus est deorum cultus, Deos credere.' Sen. [Epist. 95.]

• [This is not quite correct: τούτων ἕκαστον means each of these three persons, viz. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: and Eusebius says, We believe that each of these has a real and substantial existence; that the Father is really a Father, and the Son really a Son, not as the Sabellians say.]

[Printed p. 30]

notion or small part of the first Article of our Faith, when it really is the foundation of this and all the rest; that as the Creed is fundamental in respect of other truths, this is the foundation³⁹ even of the fundamentals: For he that cometh to God must believe that he is. [Heb. xi. 6.] And this I take for a sufficient explication of the phrase, I believe in God, that is, I believe that God is.

As for the matter or truth contained in these words so explained, it admits a threefold consideration, first of the notion of God, what is here understood by that name; secondly, of the Existence of God, how we know or believe that he is; thirdly, the Unity of God, in that though there be gods many and lords many, [1 Cor. viii. 5.] yet in our Creed we mention him as but one. When therefore we shall have clearly delivered what is the true notion of God in whom we believe, how and by what means we come to assure ourselves of the existence of such a Deity, and upon what grounds we apprehend him of such a transcendent nature that he can admit no competitor; then may we be conceived to have sufficiently explicated the former part of the first Article; then may every one understand what he says, and upon what grounds he proceeds, when he professeth, I believe in God.

The name of God is attributed unto many, but here is to be understood of him who by way of eminency and excellency bears that name, and therefore is styled God of gods; The Lord our God is God of gods, and Lord of lords: [Deut. x. 17.] [Psalm cxxxvi. 2.] and in the same respect is called the most high God [Dan. ii. 47. and xi. 36.] [Gen. xiv. 18, 19, 20, 22.] (others being but inferior or 18 under him), and God over or above all⁴⁰. [Rom. ix. 5.] [Eph. iv. 6.] This eminency and excellency, by which these titles become proper unto him and incommunicable to any other, is grounded upon the divine nature or essence, which all other who are called gods have not, and therefore are not by nature gods. Then when ye knew not God, saith St. Paul, ye did service unto them which by nature are not gods. [Gal. iv. 8.] There is then a God by nature, and others which are called gods, but by nature are not so: for either they have no power at all, because no being, but only in the false opinions of deceived men, as the gods of the Heathen; or

Notes to p. 30:

³⁹ יסוד היסודות ועמוד החכמות לידע שיש שם מצוי ראשון והוא ממציא כל נמצא de Fundam. Legis, cap. i. 1. The foundation of foundations and pillar of wisdoms is to know that the first being is, and that it giveth existence to every thing which is. Maimon.

⁴⁰ 'Imprimis necesse est concedatis esse aliquem sublimiorem Deum et mancipem quendam divinitatis qui ex hominibus Deos fecerit.' Tertul. adv. Gentes. [c. 11. p. 11 D.]

[Printed p. 31]

if they have any real power or authority, from whence some are called⁴¹ Gods in the Scripture, yet have they it not from themselves or of their own nature, but from him who only hath immortality, [1 Tim. vi. 16.] and consequently only Divinity, and therefore is the only true God. [John xvii. 3.] So that the notion of a Deity doth at last expressly signify a being or nature of infinite perfection⁴²; and 3. the infinite perfection of a nature or being consisteth in this, that it be absolutely and essentially necessary, an actual being of itself; and potential or causative of all beings beside itself, independent from any other, upon which all things else depend, and by which all things else are governed. It is true indeed that to give a perfect definition of God is impossible, neither can our finite reason hold any proportion with infinity: but yet a sense of this Divinity we have, and the first and common notion of it consists in these three particulars, that it is a Being of itself, and independent from any other; that it is that upon which all things which are made depend; that it governs all things. And this I conceive sufficient as to the first consideration, in reference to the notion of a God.

As for the existence of such a Being, how it comes to be known unto us, or by what means we are assured of it, is not so unanimously agreed upon, as that it is. For although some have imagined that the knowledge of a Deity is connatural to the Soul of man, so that every man hath a connate inbred notion of a God; yet I rather conceive the Soul of man to have no connatural knowledge at all, no particular notion of any thing in it from the beginning; but being we can have no assurance of its preexistence, we may more rationally judge it to receive the first apprehensions of things by sense, and by them to make all rational collections. If then the Soul of man be at the first like a fair smooth table, without any actual characters of knowledge imprinted in it; if all the knowledge which we have comes successively by sensation, instruction, and rational collection; then must we not refer the apprehension of a Deity to any connate notion or inbred opinion; at least we are assured God never chargeth us with the knowledge of him upon that account.

Again, although others do affirm, that the existence of God is

Notes to p. 31:

⁴¹ 'Ego dixi, Dii estis; sed in eo indulti nominis significatio est: et ubi refertur, Ego dixi, loquentis potius est sermo quam rei nomen.' S. Hilar. de Trin. lib. vii. [§. 10. p. 921 C.]

⁴² 'Deus plenæ ac perfectæ divinitatis est nomen.' Hilar. de Trin. lib. xi. [c. 48. p. 1110.] 'Deus substantiæ ipsius nomen, id est, Divinitatis.' Tertul. adv. Hermog. [c. 3. p. 234 B.]

[Printed p. 32]

a truth evident of itself, so as whosoever hears but these terms once named, that God is, cannot choose but acknowledge it for a certain and infallible truth upon the first apprehension; that as no man can deny that the whole is greater than any part, who knoweth only what is meant by whole, and what by part: so no man can possibly deny or doubt of the existence of God, who knows but what is meant by God, and what it is to be; yet can we not ground our knowledge of God's existence upon any such clear and immediate evidence: nor were it safe to lay it upon such a ground, because whosoever should deny it, could not by this means be convinced; it being a very irrational way of instruction to tell a man that doubts of this truth, that he must believe it because it is evident unto him, when he knows that he therefore only doubts of it, because it is not evident unto him.

Although therefore that God is, be of itself an immediate, 19 certain, necessary truth, yet must it be evidenced⁴³ and made apparent unto us by its connexion unto other truths; so that the being of the Creator may appear unto us by his Creature, and the dependency of inferior entities lead us to a clear acknowledgment of the supreme and independent Being. The wisdom of the Jews thought this method proper, [Wisd. of Sol. xiii. 5] for by the greatness and beauty of the creatures, proportionably the maker of them is seen: and not only they, but St. Paul hath taught us, [Rom. i. 20] that⁴⁴ the invisible things of God from the Creation of the World

Notes to p. 32:

⁴³ ‘Hæc propositio, Deus est, quantum in se est, per se nota est, quia prædicatum est idem cum subjecto, Deus enim est suum esse.—Sed quia nos non scimus de Deo quid est, non est nobis per se nota, sed indiget demonstrari per ea quæ sunt magis nota quoad nos, et minus nota quoad naturam, scilicet per effectus.’ Aquin. 1. p. q. 2. Art. i.*

⁴⁴ This place must be vindicated from the false gloss of Socinus†, who contends that it cannot be proved from the creature that there is a God, and therefore to this place of St. Paul answers thus: ‘Sciendum est verba a creatione mundi debere conjungi cum verbo invisibilia—Ait igitur eo in loco Apostolus, æternam divinitatem Dei, i. e. id quod nos Deus perpetuo facere vult, (Divinitas enim hoc sensu alibi quoque apud ipsum enunciatur, ut Col. ii. 9.) æternamque potentiam, i. e. promissiones quæ nunquam intercidunt, (quo sensu paulo superius dixerat Evangelium esse potentiam Dei,) hæc, inquam, quæ nunquam, postquam mundus creatus fuerat, ab hominibus visa fuerant, i. e. non fuerant eis cognita, per opera, hoc est, per mirabiles ipsius Dei et divinorum hominum, præsertim vero Christi et Apostolorum [continued on p. 34, under Notes to p. 34]

• [Barrow reduces the arguments for the being of a God to four: “The first is drawn from natural effects, observable by every man: a second, from the common opinions and practices of mankind from all antiquity: a third, from particular discoveries of such a divine power attested by history: a fourth, from every man's particular experience concerning a divine Providence.” Vol. vi. p. 94.]

† [The passage is in Prælectiones Theologicæ, cap. ii. vol. i. p. 538. ed. 1656.]

[Printed p. 33]

are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even ejus operationes, conspecta fuisse. In which explication there is nothing which is not forced and distorted: for though his first observation seem plausible, yet there is no validity in it. He bringeth only for proof, Matt. xiii. 35, κεκρυμμένα ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, which proves not at all that ἀπὸ κτίσεως has the same sense: and it is more probable that it hath not, because that is usually expressed by ἀπ' ἀρχῆς κτίσεως, Mark x. 6, and xiii. 19, 2 Peter iii. 4, never by ἀπὸ κτίσεως. Besides, the κεκρυμμένα in St. Matthew bears not that analogy with ἄδηλα which Socinus pretends, signifying not things unseen or unknown till then, but only obscure sayings or parables; for which purpose those words were produced out of the Psalms by the Evangelist, to prove that the Messias was to speak in parables, in the original חידות מני־קדם LXX. προβλήματα ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, i. e. wise, ancient sayings, which were not unseen and unknown, for it immediately followeth, which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us, Psalm lxxviii. 3. And though he would make out this interpretation by accusing other interpreters of unfaithfulness, ‘Plerique interpretes ex præpositione a, ex fecerunt, contra ipsorum Græcorum Codicum fidem, qui non ἐκ κτίσεως sed ἀπὸ κτίσεως habent;’ Ibid. yet there is no ground for such a calumny, because ἀπὸ may be, and is often, rendered e or ex as well as ἐκ, as Matt. iii. 4, ἀπὸ τριχῶν καμήλου, e pilis camelinilis, vii. 4, ἀπὸ τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ σου, ex oculo tuo, 16, ἀπὸ ἀκανθῶν, ex spinis; and even in the sense which Socinus contends for, Matt. xvii. 18, ἀπὸ τῆς ὥρας ἐκείνης, Vulg. ex illa hora, as Tully, ‘ex eo die,’ and Virgil.—

Ex illo Corydon, Corydon est tempore nobis. Ecl. vii. 70.

And,

Tempore jam ex illo casus mihi cognitus urbis Trojanæ. Æn. i. 623.

So the Greek ἀπὸ μέρους the Latins render ex parte, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἴσου, ex æquo: of which examples are innumerable*. There is no unfaithfulness then imputable to the interpreters; nor can such pitiful criticisms give any advantage to the first part of Socinus's exposition†. Howsoever the Catholic interpretation depends not on those words ἀπὸ κτίσεως, but on the consideration of the persons, that is the Gentiles, and the other words, ποίημα νοούμενα, which he farther perverts, rendering them the miraculous operations of Christ and his Apostles, or, as one of our learned men, their doings, mistaking ποίημα, which is from the passive πεποίημαι, for ποίησις, from the active ἐποίησα· for ποίημα is properly the thing made or created, not the operation or doing of it; as κτίσις is sometimes taken for the creature, sometimes for the creation, but κτίσμα is the creature only. As therefore we read, 1 Tim. iv. 4, πᾶν κτίσμα Θεοῦ καλόν, so Eph. ii. 10, αὐτοῦ γὰρ ἔσμεν ποίημα. In this sense spake Thales, properly, Πρεσβύτατον τῶν ὄντων Θεός, ἀγέννητον γάρ· κάλλιστον κόσμος, ποίημα γὰρ Θεοῦ. Diog. Laert., [Lib. i. §. 35.] The other interpretations, which he was forced to, are yet more extravagant: as when he renders the eternal Godhead, that which God would always have us do, or his everlasting will, and proves that rendering by another place of St. Paul, Col. ii. 9, For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, that is, says he,

Notes to p. 33:

• [The following passages are perhaps still more to the purpose: Matt. vii. 20, ἀπὸ τῶν καρπῶν αὐτῶν ἐπιγνώσεσθε αὐτούς. xi. 19, καὶ ἐδικαιώθη ἡ σοφία ἀπὸ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς. xvi. 21, πολλὰ παθεῖν ἀπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων. Luke xvii. 25, ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης. Act. ii. 22, ἄνδρα ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀποδεδειγμένον. Apoc. xii. 6, τόπον ἡτοιμασμένον ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ.]

† [Pearson's interpretation of the words ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου, in Rom. i. 20, which is the common interpretation, is rendered almost certain by the following passages: πάσῃ θνητῇ φύσει γενόμενος ἀθεώρητος ἀπ' αὐτῶν τῶν ἔργων θεωρεῖται ὁ Θεός. Aristot. de Mundo, c. 6. §. 26. ἀπὸ τοῦ κάλλους τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἐπὶ τὸ νοητὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ κάλλος ἀναφοιτῆσαι δεῖσθαι. ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ἐν τοῖς νόμοις καὶ τοῖς ἐπιτηδεύμασι τὴν ἀρετὴν αὐτοῦ δεῖ θεωρεῖν. Plato apud Cyril. Alex. adv. Julian. iii. vol. vi. p. 97 D.]

[Printed p. 34]

his eternal Power and Godhead. For if Phidias⁴⁵ could so contrive a piece of his own work, as in it to preserve the memory of himself, never to be obliterated without the destruction of the work, well may we read the great Artificer of the World in the works of his own hands, and by the existence of any thing demonstrate the first Cause of all things.

We find by the experience of ourselves, that some things in this World have a beginning, before which they were not; the account of the years of our age sufficiently infer our nativities, and they our conceptions, before which we had no being. Now if there be any thing which had a beginning, there must necessarily be something which had no beginning, because nothing can be a beginning to itself. Whatsoever is, must of necessity either have been made or not made; and something there must needs be which was never made, because all things cannot be made. For whatsoever is made, is made by another, neither can any thing produce itself; otherwise it would follow, that the same thing is and is not at the same instant in the same respect; it is, because a producer; it is not, because to be produced: it is therefore in being, and is not in being; which is a manifest contradiction. If then all things which are made were 20 made by some other, that other which produced them either was itself produced, or was not; and if not, then have we already an independent being; if it were, we must at last come to something which was never made, or else admit either a circle of productions, in which the effect shall make its own cause, or an infinite succession in causalities⁴⁶, by which nothing will be made: both which are equally impossible. Something then we must confess was never made, something which never had beginning. And although these effects or dependent beings, singly considered by themselves, do not infer one supreme cause and maker of them all, yet the admirable order and connexion of things shew as much⁴⁷; and this one

Notes to p. 34:

⁴⁴ (continued from p. 32) all the will of God, (whereas it is most certain, that where the Godhead is, especially where the fulness, even all the fulness of the Godhead is, there must be all the attributes as well as the will of God:) and when he interprets the eternal power to be the promises which shall never fail; and thinks he has sufficiently proved it, because the same Apostle calls the Gospel the power of God. For by this way of interpretation no sentence of Scripture can have any certain sense.

⁴⁵ In the shield of Pallas. Aristot. de Mundo. [c. vi. §. 29.]

⁴⁶ Ἀλλὰ μὴν ὅτι γ' ἐστὶν ἀρχή τις, καὶ οὐκ ἄπειρα τὰ αἴτια τῶν ὄντων, οὔτ' εἰς εὐθυωρίαν, οὔτε κατ' εἶδος, δῆλον. Aristot. Metaph. lib. ii. cap. 2. [lib. i. (min.) c. 2. §. 1.] and again, Εἴπερ μηδέν ἐστι τὸ πρῶτον, ὅλως αἴτιον οὐδέν ἐστι. [Ib. §. 4.]

⁴⁷ Πόθεν δῆλον εἰ ὅλως ἐστὶ θεός ; Ἐκ [continued on p. 35]

[Printed p. 35]

supreme Cause is God. For all things which we see or know have their existence for some end, which no man who considereth the uses and utilities of every species can deny. Now whatsoever is and hath its being for some end, of that the end for which it is must be thought the cause; and a final cause is no otherwise the cause of any thing than as it moves the efficient cause to work: from whence we cannot but collect a prime efficient Cause of all things, indued with infinite wisdom, who having a full comprehension of the ends of all, designed, produced, and disposed all things to those ends.

Again, as all things have their existence, so have they also their operations for some end⁴⁸; and whatsoever worketh so, must needs be directed to it. Although then those creatures which are indued with reason, can thereby apprehend the goodness of the end for which they work, and make choice of such means as are proportionable and proper for the obtaining of it, and so by their own counsel direct themselves unto it: yet can we not conceive, that other natural Agents, whose operations flow from a bare instinct, can be directed in their actions by any counsel of their own. The stone doth not deliberate whether it shall descend, nor doth the wheat take counsel whether it shall grow or no. Even Men in natural actions use no act of deliberation: we do not advise how our heart shall beat, though without that pulse we cannot live; when we have provided nutriment for our stomach, we take no counsel how it shall be digested there, or how the chyle is distributed to every part for the reparation of the whole; the mother which conceives takes no care how that conceptus shall be framed, how all the parts shall be distinguished, and by what means or ways the child shall grow within her womb: and yet all these operations are directed to their proper ends, and that with a greater reason, and therefore by a greater wisdom, than what proceeds from any thing of human understanding. What then can be more clear, than that those natural Agents which work constantly for those ends which they themselves cannot perceive, must be

Notes to p. 35:

⁴⁷ (continued) τῆς τῶν ὄντων συστάσεως τε καὶ διαμονῆς. Justin. Quæst. et Resp. ad Græcos*. [Quæst. iii. 6. p. 539 B.]

⁴⁸ Ἐν ὅσοις τέλος τί ἐστι, τούτου ἕνεκα πράττεται τὸ πρότερον καὶ τὸ ἐφεξῆς· οὐκοῦν ὡς πράττεται, οὕτω πέφυκε· καὶ ὡς πέφυκεν, οὕτω πράττεται ἕκαστον, ἂν μὴ τι ἐμποδίζῃ· πράττεται δὲ ἕνεκά του, καὶ πέφυκεν ἄρα τούτου ἕνεκα. Aristot. Phys. lib. ii. cap. 8. §. 7.

• [This is certainly not a work of Justin Martyr, and was probably written in the fifth century.]

[Printed p. 36]

directed by some high and overruling Wisdom? and who can be their director in all their operations tending to those ends, but he which gave them their beings for those ends? and who is that, but the great Artificer who works in all of them? For Art is so far the imitation of Nature, that if it were not in the Artificer, but in the thing itself which by Art is framed, the works of Art and Nature would be the same⁴⁹. Were that which frames a watch within it, and all those curious wheels wrought without the hand of Man, it would seem to grow into that form; nor would there be any distinction between the making of that watch, and the growing of a plant. Now what the Artificer is to works of Art, who orders and disposes them to other ends than by Nature they were made, that is the Maker of all things to all natural Agents, directing all their operations to ends which they cannot apprehend; and thus appears the Maker to be the Ruler of the World, the Steerer of this great Ship, the Law of this universal Commonwealth, the General of all the hosts of Heaven and Earth⁵⁰. By these ways, as by the testimony of the Creature⁵¹, we come to find an eternal and independent Being, upon which all things else depend, and by which all things else are governed; and this we have before supposed to be the first notion of God.

Neither is this any private collection or particular ratiocination, but the public and universal reason of the world. No age so distant, no country so remote, no people so barbarous, but gives a sufficient testimony of this truth⁵². When the Roman Eagle flew over most parts of the habitable world, they met with Atheism nowhere, but rather by their miscellany Deities at Rome, which grew together with their victories, they shewed no nation was without its God. And since the later art of navigation improved hath discovered another part of the world, with which no former commerce hath been known, although the customs of the people be much different, and their manner of Religion hold small correspondency with any in these parts of

Notes to p. 36:

⁴⁹ Ἄτοπον τὸ μὴ οἴεσθαι ἕνεκά του γίνεσθαι, ἐὰν μὴ ἴδωσι τὸ κινοῦν βουλευσάμενον. καίτοι καὶ ἡ τέχνη οὐ βουλεύεται· καὶ γὰρ εἰ ἐνὴν ἐν τῷ ξύλῳ ἡ ναυπηγική, ὁμοίως ἂν τῇ φύσει ἐποίει. Aristot. Phys. lib. ii. cap. 8. [§. 15.]

⁵⁰ Καθόλου ὥσπερ ἐν νηὶ κυβερνήτης, ἐν ἅρματι ἡνίοχος, ἐν χορῷ δὲ κορυφαῖος, ἐν πόλει δὲ νόμος, ἐν στρατοπέδῳ δὲ ἡγεμών, τοῦτο Θεὸς ἐν κόσμῳ. Arist. de Mund. [c. vi. §. 34.]

⁵¹ ‘Habet Dominus testimonium totum hoc quod sumus, et in quo sumus.’ Tertul.

⁵² Ἀρχαῖός τις λόγος καὶ πάτριός ἐστι πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις, ὡς ἐκ Θεοῦ τὰ πάντα, καὶ διὰ Θεοῦ ἡμῖν συνέστηκεν. Aristot. de Mundo. [c. vi. §. 2.]

[Printed p. 37]

the world professed, yet in this all agree, that some religious observances they retain, and a Divinity they acknowledge. Or if any nation be discovered which maketh no profession of piety, and exerciseth no religious observances, it followeth not from thence that they acknowledge no God: for they may only deny his Providence, as the Epicureans did; or if any go farther, their numbers are so few, that they must be inconsiderable in respect of mankind. And therefore so much of the Creed hath been the general confession of all nations⁵³, I believe in God. Which were it not a most certain truth grounded upon principles obvious unto all, what reason could we give of so universal a consent? or how can it be imagined, that all men should conspire to deceive themselves and their posterity⁵⁴?

Nor is the reason only general, and the consent unto it universal, but God hath still preserved and quickened the worship due unto his name, by the patefaction of himself. Things which are to come are so beyond our knowledge, that the wisest man can but conjecture: and being we are assured of the contingency of future things, and our ignorance of the concurrence of several free causes to the production of an effect, we may be sure that certain and infallible predictions are clear divine patefactions. For none but he who made all things, and gave them power to work; none but he who ruleth all things, and ordereth and directeth all their operations to their ends; none but he upon whose will the actions of all things depend, can possibly be imagined to foresee the effects depending merely on those causes. And therefore by what means we may be assured of a Prophecy, by the same we may be secured of a Divinity. Except then all the annals of the world were forgeries, and all remarks of history designed to put a cheat upon posterity, we can have no pretence to suspect God's existence, having so ample testimonies of his influence.

The works of Nature appear by observation uniform, and there is a certain sphere of every body's power and activity. If then any action be performed, which is not within the compass of the power of any natural agent; if any thing be wrought by the intervention of a body which beareth no proportion to it, or

Notes to p. 37:

⁵³ ‘Nec ulla gens usquam est adeo extra leges moresque projecta, ut non aliquos Deos credat.’ Sen. [Epist. 117. Other ancient authorities are quoted by Barrow, vol. vi. p. 104.]

⁵⁴ ‘Nec in hunc furorem omnes mortales consensissent alloquendi surda numina et inefficaces Deos.’ Sen. [lib. iv. de Benef. c. 4.]

[Printed p. 38]

hath no natural aptitude so to work; it must be ascribed to a cause transcending all natural causes, and disposing all their operations. Thus every miracle proves its Author, and every act of Omnipotency is a sufficient demonstration of a Deity. And that man must be possessed with a strange opinion of the weakness of our fathers, and the testimony of all former ages, [Ps. xliv. 1] who shall deny that ever any miracle was wrought. We have heard with our ears, O God, our fathers have told us, what works thou didst in their days, in the times of old. [Ps. lxxii. 18] Blessed be the Lord God, who only doth wondrous works.

Nor are we only informed by the necessary dependency of all things on God, as effects upon their universal cause, or his 22 external patefactions unto others, and the consentient acknowledgment of mankind; but every particular person hath a particular remembrancer in himself, as a sufficient testimony of his Creator, Lord, and Judge. [Rom. ii. 15] We know there is a great force of conscience in all men, by which their thoughts are ever accusing, or excusing them; they feel a comfort in those virtuous actions which they find themselves to have wrought according to their rule, a sting and secret remorse for all vicious acts and impious machinations. Nay those who strive most to deny a God, and to obliterate all sense of a Divinity out of their own souls, have not been least sensible of this remembrancer in their breasts. It is true indeed, that a false opinion of God, and a superstitious persuasion which hath nothing of the true God in it, may breed a remorse of conscience in those who think it true; and therefore some may hence collect that the force of conscience is only grounded upon an opinion of a Deity, and that opinion may be false. But if it be a truth, as the testimonies of the wisest Writers of most different persuasions, and experience of all sorts of persons of most various inclinations, do agree, that the remorse of conscience can never be obliterated, then it rather proveth than supposeth an opinion of a Divinity; and that man which most peremptorily denieth God's existence, is the greatest argument himself that there is a God. Let Caligula profess himself an Atheist, and with that profession hide his head, or run under his bed, when the thunder strikes his ears, and lightning flashes in his eyes; those terrible works of nature put him in mind of the power, and his own guilt of the justice of God; whom while in his wilful opinion he weakly denieth, in his involuntary action he strongly asserteth. So that a Deity will

[Printed p. 39]

either be granted or extorted, and where it is not acknowledged it will be manifested. Only unhappy is that man who denies him to himself, and proves him to others; who will not acknowledge⁵⁵ his existence, of whose power he cannot be ignorant, God is not far from every one of us. The proper discourse of St. Paul to the Philosophers of Athens was, [Acts xvii. 27] that they might feel 27 after him and find him. Some children have been so ungracious as to refuse to give the honour due unto their parent, but never any so irrational as to deny they had a father. As for those who have dishonoured God, it may stand most with their interest, and therefore they may wish there were none; but cannot consist with their reason to assert there is none, when even the very Poets of the Heathen have taught us that we are his offspring. [Acts xvii. 28]

It is necessary thus to believe there is a God, first, because 28 there can be no Divine Faith without this belief. For all Faith is therefore only Divine, because it relieth upon the authority of God giving testimony to the object of it; but that which hath no being can have no authority, can give no testimony. The ground of his Authority is his Veracity, the foundations of his Veracity are his Omniscience and Sanctity, both which suppose his Essence and Existence, because what is not is neither knowing nor holy.

Secondly, it is necessary to believe a Deity, that thereby we may acknowledge such a nature extant as is worthy of, and may justly challenge from us, the highest worship and adoration. For it were vain to be religious and to exercise devotion, except there were a Being to which all such holy applications were most justly due. Adoration implies submission and dejection, so that while we worship we cast down ourselves: there must be therefore some great eminence in the object worshipped, or else we should dishonour our own nature in the worship of it. But when a Being is presented of that intrinsical and necessary perfection, that it depends on nothing, and all things else depend on that, and are wholly governed and disposed by it, this worthily calls us to our knees, and shews the humblest of our devotions to be but just and loyal retributions.

This necessary truth hath been so universally received, that we shall always find all nations of the world more prone unto Idolatry than to Atheism, and readier to multiply than deny the Deity. But our Faith teacheth us equally to deny them both,

Notes to p. 39:

⁵⁵ ‘Hæc est summa delicti, nolle agnoscere quem ignorare non possis.’ S. Cyprian. de Idol. Van. [p. 227.]

[Printed p. 40]

and each of them is renounced in these words, I believe in God. First, in God affirmatively, I believe he is, against Atheism. Secondly, in God exclusively, not in Gods, against Polytheism and Idolatry. Although therefore the existence and Unity of God be two distinct truths, yet are they of so necessary dependance and intimate coherence, that both may be expressed by one word⁵⁶, and included in one Article⁵⁷.

And that the Unity of the Godhead is concluded in this Article is apparent, not only because the Nicene Council so expressed it by way of exposition, but also because this Creed in the churches of the East⁵⁸, before the Council of Nice, had that addition in it, I believe in one God. We begin our Creed then, as Plato did his chief and prime epistles⁵⁹, who gave this distinction to his friends, that the name of God was prefixed before those that were more serious and remarkable, but of Gods, in the plural, to such as were more vulgar and trivial. [Deut. iv. 35] Unto thee it was shewed, saith Moses to Israel, that thou mightest know that the Lord he is God; there is none else beside him. And as

Notes to p. 40:

⁵⁶ ‘Solum Deum confirmas quem tantum Deum nominas.’ Tertul. de Testim. Animæ, cap. 2. [p. 65 B.] When Leo, Bishop of Rome, in an epistle to Flavianus [Ep. xxiv. c. ii. vol. i. p. 479] had written these words, ‘Fidelium universitas profitetur credere se in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, et in Jesum Christum Filium ejus;’ one of the Eutychians objected with this question, ‘Cur non dixerit in unum Deum Patrem, et in unum Jesum, juxta Nicæni decretum Concilii?’ To which Vigilius, Bishop of Trent, or rather of Tapsus, gives this answer; ‘Sed Romæ et antequam Nicæna Synodus conveniret, a temporibus Apostolorum usque ad nunc, ita fidelibus symbolum traditur, nec præjudicant verba ubi sensus incolumis permanet: magis enim cum Domini Jesu Christi sententia hæc fidei professio facit, dicentis, Creditis in Deum, et in me credite: nec dixit in unum Deum Patrem, et in unum meipsum. Quis enim nesciat unum esse Deum, et unum Jesum Christum Filium ejus?’ Vigil. lib. iv. cont. Eutych. [§. 1. p. 34.]

⁵⁷ R. Chasdai in Or Adonai. R. Joseph Albo in Hikkarim.

⁵⁸ ‘Orientis Ecclesiæ omnes ista tradunt, Credo in uno Deo Patre omnipotente.’ Ruffin. in Symb. [§. 4. p. 18.] ‘Bene hæc omnia potuerunt ad solos Hæreticos pertinere, quia falsaverunt Symbolum, dum alter dixerit duos Deos, cum Deus unus sit.’ Optat. lib. i. c. 10. [p. 11.] ‘Nos enim et scimus, et legimus, et credimus, et tenemus, unum esse Deum, qui fecit cœlum pariter ac terram, quoniam nec alterum novimus, nec nosse, cum nullus sit, aliquando poterimus.’ Novatian. de Trin. cap. 30. [p. 728 D.] And before all these Irenæus, citing, under the title of Scripture, a passage out of the book of Hermas called Pastor; ‘Bene ergo pronuntiavit Scriptura, Primo omnium crede quoniam unus est Deus, qui omnia constituit et consummavit, et fecit ex eo quod non erat, ut essent omnia, omnium capax, et qui a nemine capiatur.’ Lib. iv. cap. 37. [iv. 20, 2. p. 253.]*

⁵⁹ Euseb. in Præp. Evang. [lib. xi. c. 13.] The passage is yet extant in the epistles of Plato. [Ep. xiii. p. 363.]

• [It is probable, that the early creeds asserted the unity of God against the Gnostics, who believed in two or more coeternal Principles, or did not allow the supreme God to be the Creator. See King on the Creed, p. 61. ed. 5.]

[Printed p. 41]

the Law, so the Gospel teacheth us the same, [1 Cor. viii. 4] We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and there is none other God but one. This Unity of the Godhead will easily appear as necessary as the existence, so that it must be as impossible there should be more Gods than one, as that there should be none; which will clearly be demonstrated, first, out of the nature of God, to which multiplication is repugnant; and, secondly, from the government as he is Lord, in which we must not admit confusion.

For first, the nature of God consists in this, that he is the prime and original cause of all things, as an independent Being upon which all things else depend, and likewise the ultimate end or final cause of all; but in this sense two prime causes are inimaginable, and for all things to depend of one, and to be more independent beings than one, is a clear contradiction. This primity God requires to be attributed to himself: [Isai. xlviii. 12] Hearken unto me, O Jacob, and Israel my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. And from this primity he challengeth his Unity; [Isai. xliv. 6] Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his Redeemer the Lord of Hosts; I am the first, and I am the last, and beside me there is no God.

Again, if there were more Gods than one, then were not all perfections in one, neither formally, by reason of their distinction, nor eminently and virtually, for then one should have power to produce the other, and that nature which is producible is not divine. But all acknowledge God to be absolutely and infinitely perfect, in whom all perfections imaginable 24 which are simply such must be contained formally, and all others which imply any mixture of imperfection, virtually.

But were no arguments brought from the infinite perfections of the divine nature able to convince us, yet were the consideration of his supreme dominion sufficient to persuade us. The will of God is infinitely free, and by that freedom doth he govern and dispose of all things. [Dan. iv. 35] He doth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, said Nebuchadnezzar out of his experience; and St. Paul expresseth him as [Eph. i. 11] working all things after the counsel of his own will. If then there were more supreme Governors of the World than one, each of them absolute and free, they might have contrary determinations concerning the same thing, than which nothing can be more prejudicial unto government. God is a God of order, not confusion; and therefore of unity, not

[Printed p. 42]

admitting multiplication. If it be better that the Universe⁶⁰ should be governed by one than many, we may be assured that it is so, because nothing must be conceived of God, but what is best. He therefore who made all things, by that right is Lord of all, and because all power is his⁶¹, he alone ruleth over all.

Now God is not only one, but hath an unity peculiar to himself⁶², by which he is the only God; and that not only by way of actuality, but also of possibility. Every individual man is one, but so as there is a second and a third, and consequently every one is part of a number, and concurring to a multitude. The Sun indeed is one; so as there is neither third nor second sun, at least within the same vortex: but though there be not, yet there might have been; neither in the unity of the solar nature is there any repugnancy to plurality; for that God which made this World, and in this the sun to rule the day, might have made another world by the same fecundity of his omnipotency, and another sun to rule in that. Whereas in the Divine Nature there is an intrinsical and essential singularity, because no other Being can have any existence but from that; and whatsoever essence hath its existence from another is not God. [Isa. xlv. 5, 6] I am the Lord, saith he, and there is none else, there is no God besides me: [Deut. iv. 35. & xxxii. 39] that they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none besides me. [Psal. xviii. 31] I am the Lord, and there is none

Notes to p. 42:

⁶⁰ Τὰ ὄντα οὐ βούλεται πολιτεύεσθαι κακῶς· Οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη, εἷς κοίρανος. Aristot. Metaph. lib. xii. cap. ult. [lib. xi. c. 10. §. 14.]

⁶¹ ‘Unus omnium Dominus est Deus: neque enim illa sublimitas potest habere consortem, cum sola omnem teneat potestatem.’ S. Cyprian. de Idol. Vanit. [p. 227.]

⁶² אלהים הוא אחד ואינו לא שנים ולא יותר על שנים, אחד שאין יחודו כיחוד האחדים הנמצאים בעולם, לא אחד על צד המין הכולל אחדים רבים, ולא אחד על צד הגוף שהוא נחלק לחלקים ולקצוות, אלא אחד שאין יחוד כמותו בעולם God is one, not two, or more than two, but only one: whose unity is not like to that of the individuals of this world, neither is he one by way of species comprehending many individuals, neither one in the manner of a body which is divisible into parts and extremes: but he is so one, as no unity like his is to be found in the world. Moses Maimon. de Fundam. Legis, cap. 1, 4. ‘Quod autem diximus, Orientis Ecclesias tradere unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem, et unum Dominum, hoc modo intelligendum est, unum non numero dici, sed universitate: verbi gratia, si quis dicit unum hominem, aut unum equum, hic unum pro numero posuit; potest enim et alius homo esse, et tertius, vel equus. Ubi autem secundus vel tertius non potest jungi, unus si dicatur, non numeri, sed universitatis est nomen. Ut si exempli causa dicamus unum solem, hic unus ita dicitur, ut alius vel tertius addi non possit; unus est enim sol: multo magis ergo Deus cum unus dicitur, unus non numeri, sed universitatis vocabulo nuncupatur, id est, qui propterea unus dicatur, quod alius non sit.’ Ruffin. in Symb. [§. 5. p. ccii.]

[Printed p. 43]

else. He who hath infinite knowledge knoweth no other God beside himself. [Isa. xlv. 18, 21, 22. & xliv. 8] Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God, I know not any. And we who believe in him, and desire to enjoy him, need for that end to know no other God but him: [John xvii. 3] For this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God; as certainly One⁶³, as God.

It is necessary thus to believe the Unity of the Godhead, that being assured there is a nature worthy of our devotions, and 25 challenging our religious subjection, we may learn to know whose that nature is to which we owe our adorations, lest our minds should wander and fluctuate in our worship about various and uncertain objects. If we should apprehend more Gods than one, I know not what could determinate us in any instant to the actual adoration of any one: for where no difference doth appear, (as, if there were many, and all by nature Gods, there could be none,) what inclination could we have, what reason could we imagine, to prefer or elect any one before the rest for the object of our devotions? Thus is it necessary to believe the Unity of God in respect of us who are obliged to worship him.

Secondly, It is necessary to believe the Unity of God in respect of him who is to be worshipped. Without this acknowledgment we cannot give unto God the things which are God's, it being part of the worship and honour due unto God, to accept of no compartner with him. When the Law was given, in the observance whereof the religion of the Israelites consisted, the first precept was this prohibition, [Exod. xx. 3] Thou shalt have no other gods before me; and whosoever violateth this, denieth the foundation on which all the rest depend, as the Jews⁶⁴ observe. This is the true reason of that strict precept by which all are commanded to give divine worship to God only, [Matt. iv. 10] Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve; because he alone is God: him only shalt thou fear, because he alone hath infinite power; in him only shalt thou trust, because [Ps. lxii. 2] he only is our rock:

Notes to p. 43:

⁶³ ‘Veritas Christiana districte pronunciavit, Deus, si non unus est, non est; quia dignius credimus non esse, quodcunque non ita fuerit ut esse debebit.’ Tertul. adv. Marcion. lib. i. cap. 3. [p. 366 D.] ‘Deus cum summum magnum sit, recte veritas nostra pronunciavit, Deus, si non unus est, non est. Non quasi dubitemus esse Deum, dicendo, si non unus, non est; sed quia, quem confidimus esse, id eum definiamus esse, quod si non est, Deus non est, summum scilicet magnum. Porro, summum magnum unicum sit necesse est; ergo et Deus unicus erit; non aliter Deus, nisi summum magnum; nec aliter summum magnum, nisi parem non habens; nec aliter parem non habens, nisi unicus fuerit.’ Ibid. [p. 367 A.]

⁶⁴ Moses Maimon. de Fundam. Legis, cap. 1, 3.

[Printed p. 44]

and our salvation; to him alone shalt thou direct thy devotions, [2 Chron. vi. 30] because he only knoweth the hearts of the children of men. Upon this foundation the whole heart of man is entirely required of him, and engaged to him. [Deut. vi. 4, 5] Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one God. And (or rather, Therefore) thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. Whosoever were truly and by nature God, could not choose but challenge our love upon the ground of an infinite excellency, and transcendent beauty of holiness; and therefore if there were more so Gods than one, our love must necessarily be terminated unto more than one⁶⁵, and consequently divided between them; and as our love, so also the proper effect thereof, our cheerful and ready obedience, which, like the child propounded to the judgment of Solomon, as soon as it is divided, is destroyed. [Matt. vi. 24] No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other: or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.

Having thus described the first notion of a God, having demonstrated the Existence and Unity of that God, and having in these three particulars comprised all which can be contained in this part of the Article, we may now clearly deliver, and every particular Christian understand, what it is he says when he makes his confession in these words, I believe in God; which in correspondence with the precedent discourse may be thus expressed.

[Rom. i. 20] Forasmuch as by all things created is made known the eternal power and Godhead, and the dependency of all limited beings infers an infinite and independent essence; whereas all things are for some end, and all their operations directed to it, although they cannot apprehend that end for which they are, and in prosecution of which they work, and therefore must be guided by some universal and overruling wisdom; being this collection is so evident, that all the nations of the earth have made it; being God hath not only written himself in the lively characters of his creatures, but hath also made frequent patefactions of his Deity by most infallible predictions and supernatural operations;

Notes to p. 44:

⁶⁵ ‘Numerus divinitatis summa ratione constare deberet, vel quoniam et cultura ejus in anceps deduceretur. Ecce enim duos intuens Deos, tam pares quam duo summa magna, quid facerem si ambos colerem? vererer ne abundantia officii superstitio potius quam religio existimaretur; quia duos tam pares et in altero ambos possem in uno demereri; hoc ipsum testimonio præstans parilitati et unitati eorum, dum alterum in altero venerarer, dum in uno mihi duo sunt.’ Tertul. adv. Marcion. lib. i. cap. 5. [p. 368 A.]

[Printed p. 45]

therefore I fully assent unto, freely acknowledge, and clearly profess this truth, that there is a God.

Again, being a prime and independent Being supposeth all other to depend, and consequently no other to be God; being the entire fountain of all perfections is incapable of a double head, and the most perfect government of the Universe speaks the supreme dominion of one absolute Lord; hence do I acknowledge that God to be but one, and in this Unity, or rather singularity of the Godhead, excluding all actual or possible multiplication of a Deity, I believe in God.

I believe in God the Father.

AFTER the confession of a Deity, and assertion of the Divine Unity, the next consideration is concerning God's Paternity; for that one God is Father of all, [Eph. iv. 6] and to us there is but one God, the Father. [1 Cor. viii. 6]

Now, although the Christian notion of the divine Paternity be some way peculiar to the evangelical patefaction; yet wheresoever⁶⁶ God hath been acknowledged, he hath been understood and worshipped as a Father: the very Heathen Poets⁶⁷ so describe their gods, and their vulgar names did carry Father in them⁶⁸, as the most popular and universal notion.

This name of Father is a relative; and the proper foundation of Paternity, as of a relation, is Generation. As therefore the phrase of generating is diversely attributed unto several acts, of the same nature with generation properly taken, or by consequence attending on it: so the title of Father is given unto divers persons or things, and for several reasons unto the same

Notes to p. 45:

⁶⁶ ‘Omnem Deum, qui ab homine colitur, necesse est inter solennes ritus et precationes Patrem nuncupari; non tantum honoris gratia, verum etiam rationis, quod et antiquior est homine, et quod vitam, salutem, victum præstat, ut pater. Itaque et Jupiter a precantibus Pater vocatur, et Saturnus, et Janus, et Liber, et cæteri deinceps.’ Lactant. de ver. Sap. lib. iv. cap. 3. [vol. i. p. 249.]

⁶⁷ That so frequent in Homer, Πατὴρ ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε. ‘Eundemque appellans dicit Ennius, Divumque hominumque pater rex.’ Var. de Ling. Lat. lib. iv. [lib. v. p. 71.] As Servius observes of Virgil, ‘A Poeta pene omnibus Diis nomen paternum additur, ut fiant venerabiliores.’ And before him Lucilius; Ut nemo sit nostrum, quin pater optimu' Divum, Ut Neptunu' Pater, Liber, Saturnu' Pater, Mars, Janu', Quirinu' Pater nomen dicatur ad unum. Lactant. ibid.

⁶⁸ As Jupiter, which is Jovis Pater, or Ζευπάτωρ, otherwise Diespiter, or Διϊπάτωρ· and Marspiter, of whom Servius, ‘Apud Pontifices Marspiter dicitur.’ Æneid. lib. iii. v. 35. So Semipater for Semo, [Sancus, the Sabine deity, or Deus Fidius,] and Σαρδοπάτωρ for Sardus, the proper deity of Sardinia. Ptolem. [Printed p. 46]

God. [Gen. ii. 4.] These are the generations of the heavens and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, saith Moses. So that the creation or production of any thing by which it is, and before it was not, is a kind of generation, and consequently the creator or producer of it a kind of Father. [Job xxxviii. 28.] Hath the rain a Father? or who hath begotten the drops of dew? By which words Job signifies, that as there is no other cause assignable of the rain but God, so may he as the cause be called the Father of it, though not in the most proper sense⁶⁹, as he is the Father of his Son: and so the Philosophers of old⁷⁰, who thought that God did make the world, called him expressly, as the Maker, so the Father of it. [1 Cor. viii. 6.] And thus to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things; to which the words following in the Creed may seem to have relation, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. But in this mass of Creatures and body of the Universe, some works of the creation more properly call him Father, as being more rightly Sons: such are all the rational and intellectual offspring of the Deity. Of merely natural beings and irrational agents he is the Creator⁷¹; of rational, as so, the 27 Father also; they are his Creatures, these his Sons. [Heb. xii. 9.] [Job xxxviii. 7.] Hence he is styled the Father of Spirits, and the blessed Angels, when he laid the foundations of the earth, his Sons; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy: [Acts xvii. 28.] hence Man, whom he created after his own image, is called his offspring, and Adam, the immediate work of his hands, the

Notes to p. 46:

⁶⁹ ‘Ἑτέρως γὰρ τὶς ὑετοῦ πατέρα Θεὸν ἀκούει, καὶ ἑτέρως υἱόν.’ Sever. in Job. [Catena Patrum in Job. c. 26. p. 551.]

⁷⁰ Plutarch of Plato, calling God πατέρα πάντων καὶ ποιητὴν, says, ‘Τῇ μεταφορᾷ χρώμενος, ὥσπερ εἴωθε, τὸν αἴτιον πατέρα τοῦ κόσμου κέκληκε.’ Platon. Quæst. [ii. tom. v. p. 1000 F.] And Alcimus, Πατὴρ δὲ ἐστὶ τῷ αἴτιος εἶναι πάντων.

⁷¹ So Plutarch answers the question, why Plato terms God the Maker and Father of all things? *Ἡ τῶν μὲν Θεῶν τῶν γεννητῶν καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων πατὴρ ἐστὶ—ποιητὴς δὲ τῶν ἀλόγων καὶ ἀψύχων. Father of Gods and men, Maker of things inanimate and irrational. Οὐ γὰρ χορίου φησὶ Χρύσιππος πατέρα καλεῖσθαι τὸν παρασχόντα τὸ σπέρμα, καίπερ ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος γεγονότος. Non enim agri pater, si Chrysippo credimus, is dicitur qui eum conserit, quanquam e semine deinde fruges nascuntur: as the Latin translation most absurdly. [Ibid.] For there is neither corn, nor field, nor any seed belonging to them in the words of Plutarch. But χόριον (not χωρίον) is the secunda*, the coat (or rather coats in the acception of Chrysippus, and the language of those times) in which the fœtus is involved in the mother's womb. Though therefore both the secunda and the fœtus be made of the seed of the male in the philosophy of Chrysippus, yet he is not called the Father of the after-birth, but of the child; the one being endued with life and reason, and the other not.

• [It is so in Wyttenbach's edition.]

[Printed p. 47]

Son of God: [Luke iii. 38.] hence may we all cry out with the Israelites taught by the Prophet so to speak, Have we not all one Father; hath not one God created us? [Malac. ii. 10.] Thus the first and most universal notion of God's Paternity, in a borrowed or metaphorical sense, is founded rather upon Creation than Procreation.

Unto this act of Creation is annexed that of Conservation, by which God doth uphold and preserve in being that which at first he made, and to which he gave its being. As therefore it is the duty of the parent to educate and preserve the child, as that which had its being from him; so this paternal education doth give the name of Father⁷² unto man, and conservation gives the same to God.

Again, Redemption from a state of misery, by which a people hath become worse than nothing, unto a happy condition, is a kind of Generation, which joined with love, care, and indulgence in the Redeemer, is sufficient to found a new Paternity, and give him another title of a Father. Well might Moses tell the people of Israel, now brought out of the land of Egypt from their brick and straw, unto their quails and manna, unto their milk and honey, Is not he thy father that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee? [Deut. xxxii. 6.] Well might God speak unto the same people as to his Son, even his first-born, [Exod. iv. 22.] Thus saith the Lord thy Redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb; Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, which are borne by me from the belly, which are carried from the womb. [Isa. xliv. 24. xlvi. 3.] And just is the acknowledgment made by that people instructed by the Prophet, Doubtless thou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not; [Isa. lxiii. 16.] thou, O Lord, art our Father, our Redeemer, from everlasting is thy name. And thus another kind of paternal relation of God unto the sons of men is founded on a restitution or temporal redemption.

Besides, if to be born causeth a relation to a Father, then to be born again maketh an addition of another: and if to generate foundeth, then to regenerate addeth a Paternity. Now though we cannot enter the second time into our mother's womb, nor pass through the same door into the scene of life again; yet we believe and are persuaded, that except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. A double birth there is, and the

Notes to p. 47:

⁷² So Eustathius observes out of an ingenious Etymologist: Πατὴρ Θεὸς μὲν ὡς τὸ πᾶν τηρῶν· ἄνθρωπος δὲ ὡς τοὺς παῖδας τηρῶν. Il. θ. [Odyss. θ. 480.]

[Printed p. 48]

world consists of two, the first and the second man⁷³. And though the incorruptible seed be the Word of God, and the dispensers of it in some sense may say, as St. Paul spake unto the Corinthians, [1 Cor. iv. 15.] I have begotten you through the Gospel: yet he is the true Father, whose word it is, and that is God, even the Father of lights, who of his own will begat us with the word of truth. [Jam. i. 17, 18.] Thus whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God; [1 John v. 1.] which Regeneration is as it were a second Creation; for we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works. [Ephes. ii. 10.] And he alone who did create us out of nothing, can 28 beget us again, and make us of the new creation. When Rachel called to Jacob, Give me children, or else I die; he answered her sufficiently with this question, Am I in God's stead? [Gen. xxx. 1, 2.] And if he only openeth the womb, who else can make the Soul⁷⁴ to bear? Hence hath he the name of Father, and they of Sons, who are born of him; and so from that internal act of spiritual Regeneration another title of Paternity redoundeth unto the Divinity.

Nor is this the only second birth or sole Regeneration in a Christian sense; the Soul, which after its natural being requires a birth into the life of Grace, is also after that born again into a life of Glory. Our Saviour puts us in mind of the Regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory. [Matt. xix. 28.] The resurrection of our bodies is a kind of coming out of the womb of the earth, and entering upon immortality, a nativity into another life. [Luke xx. 35, 36.] For they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, are the sons of God, being the sons of the resurrection; and then as sons, they become heirs, co-heirs with Christ, [Rom. viii. 17.] receiving the promise and reward of eternal inheritance. [Col. iii. 24.] [Heb. ix. 15.] Beloved, now we are the sons of God, saith St. John, even in this life by regeneration, and it doth not yet appear, or, it hath not been yet made manifest⁷⁵, what we shall be; [1 John iii. 2.] but we know, that if he appear, we shall be like him; the manifestation of the Father being a sufficient declaration of the condition of the sons, when the sonship itself consisteth in a similitude of the Father. And, [1 Pet. i. 3, 4.] Blessed be the God and

Notes to p. 48:

⁷³ ‘Totum hominum genus quodammodo sunt homines duo, primus et secundus.’ Prosp. [lib. Sententiarum ex Augustino, sent. 301. (al. 299.) vol. i. p. 313.]

⁷⁴ Οὐ γὰρ ἀντὶ Θεοῦ ἐγὼ εἰμι τοῦ μόνου δυναμένου τὰς ψυχῶν μήτρας ἀνοιγνύναι, καὶ σπείρειν ἐν αὐταῖς ἀρετὰς, καὶ ποιεῖν ἐγκύμονας καὶ τικτούσας τὰ καλά. Philo de Alleg. [lib. iii. vol. i. p. 122.]

⁷⁵ 1 John iii. 2. Καὶ οὔπω ἐφανερώθη.

[Printed p. 49]

Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for us. Why may not then a second kind of regeneration be thought a fit addition of this paternal relation?

Neither is there only a natural, but also a voluntary and civil foundation of Paternity; for the laws have found a way by which a man may become a father without procreation: and this imitation of nature is called adoption⁷⁶, taken in the general signification⁷⁷. Although therefore many ways God be a Father, yet lest any way might seem to exclude us from being his sons, he hath made us so also by adoption. Others are wont to fly to this, as to a comfort of their solitary condition, when either nature⁷⁸ hath denied them, or death bereft them of their offspring. Whereas God doth it not for his own, but for our sakes; nor is the advantage his, but ours. [1 John iii. 1.] Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God; that we, the sons of disobedient and condemned Adam by natural generation, should be translated into the glorious liberty of the sons of God by adoption; that we, who were aliens, strangers, and enemies, should be assumed unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom all the family⁷⁹ [Eph. iii. 14, 15.] in heaven and earth is named, and be made partakers of the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints. [Eph. i. 18.] For as in the legal adoption, the father hath as full and absolute⁸⁰ power over

Notes to p. 49:

⁷⁶ ‘Adoptio naturæ similitude est, ut aliquis filium habere possit, quem non generavit.’ Caii Inst. i. tit. 5. §. 1. Τί ἐστιν υἱοθεσία; νόμιμη πρᾶξις μιμουμένη τὴν φύσιν πρὸς ἀπαίδων παραμυθίαν ἐπινοημένη. Theoph. Inst. i. tit. 11.

⁷⁷ ‘Ἡ υἱοθεσία ‘Ρωμαϊκῇ φωνῇ λέγεται ἀδοπτίων· αὕτη οὖσα γενικὸν ὄνομα εἰς δύο διαιρεῖται, εἰς ἀδρογατίωνα, καὶ τὴν ὁμώνυμον ἀδοπτίωνα. Theoph. ibid.

⁷⁸ ‘Spadones autem qui generare non possunt, adoptare possunt: et licet filios generare non possint, quos adoptaverunt filios habere possunt.’ Caii Inst. i. tit. 5. §. 4. ‘Hi qui generare non possunt, velut spado, utroque modo possunt adoptare. Idem juris est in cœlibe.’ Ulpian. tit. 9. §. 5. Τυχὸν οὐκ ἔχων τις παῖδας διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ γάμων, ἢ ἐλθεῖν μὲν, μὴ παιδοποιῆσαι δὲ, ἢ παιδοποιῆσαι μὲν, ἀποβάλεσθαι δὲ τούτους, τὸ ἐκ τῆς φύσεως ἐλάττωμα, ἢ καὶ τὸ συμβὰν δυστύχημα βουλόμενος ἐπικουφίσαι, ἔλαβεν εἰς υἱοθεσίαν τινά. Theoph. Inst. i. tit. 11. Τοῖς ἀτύχοισιν ἀπαίδισιν λύειν βουλόμενος τὸ δυστύχημα νόμος υἱοθετεῖσθαι προστάσσει, καὶ γνώμῃ ἐκεῖνο κτᾶσθαι, ὃ μὴ εὔπορον λαβεῖν παρὰ τῆς φύσεως. Leonis Novel. 27.

⁷⁹ ‘In alienam familiam transitus,’ is the description in A. Gell. lib. v. 19. ‘Cum in alienam familiam inque liberorum locum extranei sumuntur, aut per prætorem fit, aut per populum: quod per prætorem fit, adoptatio dicitur; quod per populum, arrogatio.’ Ibid.

⁸⁰ As appears out of the form of rogation yet extant in this manner: ‘Velitis, jubeatis, Quirites, uti Lucius Valerius Lucio Titio tam jure legeque [continued on p. 50, under Notes to p. 50]

[Printed p. 50]

his adopted son, as over his own issue; so in the spiritual, the adopted sons have a clear and undoubted right of inheritance. 29 [Eph. i. 5.] He then who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, hath thereby another kind of paternal relation, and so we receive [Rom. viii. 15.] the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

The necessity of this faith in God as in our Father appeareth, first, in that it is the ground of all our filial fear, honour, and obedience due unto him upon this relation. [Eph. vi. 1, 2.] Honour thy father, is the first commandment with promise, written in tables of stone with the finger of God; and, Children, obey your parents in the Lord, is an evangelical precept, but founded upon principles of reason and justice; for this is right, saith St. Paul. And if there be such a rational and legal obligation of honour and obedience to the fathers of our flesh, how much more must we think ourselves obliged to him whom we believe to be our heavenly and everlasting Father! A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master. If then I be a father, where is my honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? [Mal. i. 6.] saith the Lord of hosts. If we be heirs, we must be co-heirs with Christ; if sons, we must be brethren to the only-begotten; but being he came not to do his own will, but the will of him that sent him, he acknowledgeth no fraternity but with such as do the same; as he hath said, [Matt. xii. 50.] Whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother. [1 Tim. iii. 4.] If it be required of a bishop in the church of God, to be one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; what obedience must be due, what subjection must be paid, unto the father of the family!

The same relation in the object of our faith is the life of our devotions, the expectation of all our petitions. Christ, who taught his disciples, and us in them, how to pray, propounded not the knowledge of God, though without that he could not hear us; neither represented he his power, though without that he cannot help us; but comprehended all in this relation, [Luke xi. 2.] When ye pray, say, Our Father. This prevents all vain repetitions of our most earnest desires, and gives us full security to cut off all tautology, [Matt. vi. 8.] for our Father knoweth what things we have need of before we ask him. This creates a clear assurance of a grant

Notes to p. 50:

⁸⁰ (continued from p. 49) filius sibi siet, quam si ex eo patre matreque familias ejus natus esset, utique ei vitæ necisque in eo potestas siet, uti patri endo filio est? Ibid.

[Printed p. 51]

without mistake of our petition: [Matt. vii. 9, 10, 11.] What man is there of us, who if his son ask bread, will give him a stone? or if he ask fish, will give him a serpent⁸¹? If we then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts unto our children, how much more shall our Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him!

Again, this Paternity is the proper foundation of our Christian patience, sweetening all afflictions with the name and nature of fatherly corrections⁸². [Heb. xii. 9, 10.] We have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection to the Father of spirits, and live? especially considering, that they chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness: they, as an argument of their authority; he, as an assurance of his love; they, that we might acknowledge them to be our parents; he, that he may persuade us that we are his sons: [Heb. xii. 6.] For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. And what greater incitement unto the exercise of patience is imaginable unto a suffering soul, than to see in every stroke the hand of a Father, in every affliction a demonstration of his love? Or how canst thou repine, or be guilty of the least degree of impatiency, even in the sharpest corrections, [Deut. viii. 5.] if thou shalt know with thine heart, that as a man chasteneth his son, so the Lord thy God chasteneth thee? How canst thou not be comforted, and even rejoice in the midst of thy greatest sufferings, when thou knowest that he which striketh pitieth, he which afflicteth is as it were afflicted with it? [Ps. ciii. 13.] For like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him.

30 Lastly, the same relation strongly inferreth an absolute necessity of our imitation; it being clearly vain to assume the title of son without any similitude of the Father. What is the general notion of generation but the production of the like⁸³; nature, ambitious of perpetuity, striving to preserve the species in the multiplication and succession of individuals? And this similitude consisteth partly in essentials, or the likeness of nature; partly

Notes to p. 51:

⁸¹ ‘Ἀντὶ πέτρης σκορπίον· παροιμία ἐπὶ τῶν τὰ χεῖρω αἱρουμένων ἀντὶ τῶν βελτιόνων. Zenob. [Cent. i. n. 88.] ‘Ὁ δ’ ἀντὶ πέτρης σκορπίον λαμβάνει σπέρας. Lycophron. Alex. v. 476.

⁸² ‘Quod si a Domino nonnulla credimus incuti, cui magis patientiam quam Domino præbeamus? Quin insuper gratulari et gaudere nos docet dignatione divinæ castigationis. Ego, inquit, quos diligo castigo. O servum illum beatum, cujus emendationi Dominus instat! cui dignatur irasci, quem admonendi dissimulatione non decipit.’ Tertul. de Patientia, [c. 11. p. 146 B.]

⁸³ Πᾶν τὸ γεννῶν ὅμοιον ἑαυτῷ γεννᾷ. Epiph. Hær. lxxvi. §. 6. [vol. i. p. 918 D.]

[Printed p. 52]

in accidentals, or the likeness in figure⁸⁴ or affections⁸⁵. [Gen. v. 3.] Adam begat a son in his own likeness, after his image: and can we imagine those the sons of God which are no way like him? a similitude of nature we must not, of figure we cannot pretend unto: it remains then only that we bear some likeness in our actions and affections. [Eph. v. 1.] Be ye therefore followers, saith the Apostle, or rather imitators⁸⁶ of God, as dear children. What he hath revealed of himself, that we must express within ourselves. Thus God spake unto the children of Israel, whom he styled his Son, [Lev. xi. 44. xix. 2. xx. 7. 1 Pet. i. 15.] Ye shall be holy, for I am holy. And the Apostle upon the same ground speaketh unto us, as to obedient children, As he that hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation. It is part of the general beneficence and universal goodness of our God, that he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. [Matt. v. 44, 45. Vide S. August. in Psalm c.] These impartial beams and undistinguishing showers are but to shew us what we ought to do, and to make us fruitful in the works of God; for no other reason Christ hath given us this command, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven⁸⁷. No other command did he give upon this ground, but, [Luke vi. 36.] Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father is merciful.

So necessary is this faith in God, as in our Father, both for direction to the best of actions, and for consolation in the worst of conditions.

But although this be very necessary, yet is it not the principal or most proper explication of God's paternity. For as we find one person in a more peculiar manner the Son of God, so must we look upon God as in a more peculiar manner the Father of that Son. [John xx. 17.] I ascend unto my Father, and your Father⁸⁸, saith our

Notes to p. 52:

⁸⁴ Τὸ ὅμοια γίγνεσθαι τοῖς γεννήσασι τὰ ἔκγονα, εὔλογον. Aristot. de Generat. Animal. lib. i. cap. 19. §. 5.

⁸⁵ Fortes creantur fortibus et bonis: Est in juvencis, est in equis patrum Virtus, neque imbellem feroces Progenerant aquilæ columbam. Hor. Carm. iv. 4. 29.

⁸⁶ Ephes. v. 1. Μιμηταί. ‘Filii hominum sunt quando male faciunt; quando bene, filii mei (Dei).’ S. August. in Psal. lii. [vol. iv. p. 489 G.]

⁸⁷ ‘Similitudinem patris actus indicent sobolis; similitudo operis similitudinem indicet generis: actus nomen confirmet, ut nomen genus demonstret. August. de Temp. Serm. 76. [Serm. 312. §. 2. vol. v. App. p. 524 G.]

⁸⁸ ‘Ἀναβαίνω πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου, καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν. Had πατέρα in both places had its article, there would have seemed two Fathers: had the article been prefixed to πατέρα ὑμῶν, he would have seemed first ours, then Christ's: but being prefixed to πατέρα μου, it shews God to be principally and originally Christ's, and by our reference unto him, our Father. Πατέρα μου μὲν κατὰ φύσιν [continued on p. 53, under Notes to p. 53]

[Printed p. 53]

Saviour; the same of both, but in a different manner, denoted by the article prefixed before the one, and not the other: which distinction in the original we may preserve by this translation, I ascend unto the Father of me, and Father of you; first of me, and then of you: not therefore his, because ours; but therefore ours, because his. So far we are the sons of God, as we are like unto him; and our similitude unto God consisteth in our conformity to the likeness of his Son. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. [Rom. viii. 29.] He the first-born, and we sons, as brethren unto him: he appointed heir of all things, [Heb. i. 2.] and we heirs of God, as joint-heirs with him. Thus God sent forth his Son, that we might receive the adoption of sons⁸⁹. [Rom. viii. 17. Gal. iv. 4, 5, 6.] And because we are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. By his mission are we 31 adopted, and by his Spirit call we God our Father. So are we no longer servants, but now sons; and if sons, then heirs of God, [Gal. iv. 7.] but still through Christ. [Heb. ii. 11.] It is true indeed, that both he that sanctifieth, that is, Christ, and they who are sanctified, that is, faithful Christians, are all of one, the same Father, the same God; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren: yet are they not all of him after the same manner⁹⁰, not the many sons like the Captain of their salvation: [Heb. ii. 10.] but Christ the beloved, the first-born, the only-begotten, the Son after a more peculiar and more excellent manner; the rest with relation unto, and dependence on his sonship; as given unto him: [Isa. viii. 18. Heb. ii. 13.] Behold I, and the children which God hath given me: as being so by faith in him; [Gal. iii. 26.] For we are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus: as receiving the right of sonship from him; [John i. 12.] For as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God.

Notes to p. 53:

⁸⁸ (continued from p. 52) ἐν τῇ θεότητι, καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν, διὰ χάριν δ’ ἐμὲ ἐν τῇ υἱοθεσίᾳ. Epiph. Hæres. lxix. §. 55. [vol. i. p. 778 C.] Οὐκ εἶπὼν, πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ἡμῶν, ἀλλὰ διελάλων, καὶ εἶπὼν πρῶτον τὸ οἰκεῖον, πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου, ὅπερ ἦν κατὰ φύσιν· εἶτ’ ἐπαναγάγων, καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν, ὅπερ ἦν κατὰ θέσιν. S. Cyril. Catech. vii. [c. 7. p. 116 A.] ‘Ἑτέρως οὖν αὐτοῦ πατὴρ, καὶ ἑτέρως ὑμῶν; πάνυ μὲν οὖν. Εἰ γὰρ τῶν δικαίων ἑτέρως Θεὸς καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων, πολλῷ μᾶλλον τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ ἡμῶν. ’Ἐπειδὰν γὰρ εἴπῃ, Εἴπὲ τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς, ἵνα μὴ ἀπὸ τούτου ἴσον τι φαντασθῶσι, δεικνυσι τὸ ἐνηλλαγμένον. S. Chrysost. ad locum. [Hom. 86. vol. viii. p. 515 C.]

⁸⁹ ‘Hoc facit Deus ex filiis hominum filios Dei, quia ex filio Dei fecit filium hominis.’ S. August. in Psal. lii. [§. 6. vol. iv. p. 489 G.]

⁹⁰ ‘Dicimur et filii Dei, sed ille aliter filius Dei.’ S. August. in Psal. lxxxviii. [Serm. i. §. 7. vol. iv. p. 939 F.] “Ἔστι τοίνυν ὁ Θεὸς πολλῶν μὲν καταχρηστικῶς πατὴρ, ἑνὸς δὲ μόνου φύσει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ. S. Cyril. Catech. vii. [c. 5. p. 114 D.]

[Printed p. 54]

Among all the sons of God there is none like to that one Son of God⁹¹. And if there be so great a disparity in the filiation, we must make as great a difference in the correspondent relation. There is one degree of sonship founded on creation, and that is the lowest, as belonging unto all, both good and bad: another degree above that there is grounded upon regeneration, or adoption, belonging only to the truly faithful in this life: and a third above the rest founded on the resurrection, or collation of the eternal inheritance, and the similitude of God, appertaining to the saints alone in the world to come: [1 John iii. 2.] For we are now the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him. And there is yet another degree of filiation, of a greater eminency and a different nature, appertaining properly to none of these, but to the true Son of God alone, who amongst all his brethren hath only received the title of his own son⁹², [Rom. viii. 32.] and a singular testimony from Heaven, [Matt. iii. 17. xvii. 5.] This is my beloved Son, even⁹³ in the presence of John the Baptist, even in the midst of Moses and Elias, (who are certainly the sons of God by all the other three degrees of filiation,) and therefore hath called God after a peculiar way his own Father. [John v. 18. πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγε τὸν Θεόν, as Rom. viii. 32. ὡς γε τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ οὐκ ἐφείσατο.] And so at last we come unto the most singular and eminent paternal relation, unto the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore; [2 Cor. xi. 31.] the Father of him, and of us, but not the Father of us as of him⁹⁴.

Notes to p. 54:

⁹¹ ‘Ergo nemo in filiis Dei similis erit filio Dei. Et ipse dictus est filius Dei, et nos dicti sumus filii Dei: sed quis erit similis Domino in filiis Dei? Ille unicus, nos multi: ille unus, nos in illo unum: ille natus, nos adoptati: ille ab æterno filius unigenitus [‘genitus’ in the Benedictine edition] per naturam, nos a tempore facti per gratiam.’ S. August. in Psal. lxxxviii. [Serm. i. §. 7. vol. iv. p. 939 E.]

⁹² ‘Ut magnificentia Dei dilectionis ex comparisonis genere nosceretur, non pepercisse Deum proprio filio suo docuit: non utique pro adoptandis adoptato, neque pro creatis creaturæ: sed pro alienis suo, pro connuncupandis proprio.’ Hilar. de Trin. lib. vi. cap. 45. [p. 909 D.]

⁹³ ‘Anne tibi in eo quod dicitur, Hic est, non hoc significari videtur, Alios quidem cognominatos ab eo in filios, sed hic filius meus est; Donavi adoptionis plurimis nomen, sed iste mihi filius est?’ Idem, de Trin. lib. vi. cap. 23. [p. 893 D.]

⁹⁴ ‘Non sicut Christi pater, ita et noster pater. Nunquam enim Christus ita nos conjunxit, ut nullam distinctionem faceret inter nos et se. Ille enim filius æqualis patri, ille æternus cum patre, patrique coæternus: nos autem facti per filium, adoptati per unicum. Proinde nunquam auditum est de ore Domini nostri Jesu Christi, cum ad discipulos loqueretur, dixisse illum de Deo summo patre suo, Pater noster; sed, aut Pater meus dixit, aut Pater vester; Pater noster, non dixit, usque adeo ut quodam loco poneret hæc duo: Vado ad Deum meum, inquit, et Deum vestrum. Quare non dixit, Deum nostrum? et Patrem meum dixit, et Patrem vestrum; non dixit, Patrem nostrum? Sic jungit ut distinguat, sic distinguit ut [continued on p. 55, under Notes to p. 55]

[Printed p. 55]

Christ hath taught us to say, Our Father: a form of speech which he never used himself; sometimes he calls him the Father; sometimes my Father, sometimes your, but never our: he makes no such conjunction of us to himself, as to make no distinction between us and himself; so conjoining us as to distinguish, though so distinguishing as not to separate us.

Indeed I conceive this, as the most eminent notion of God's Paternity, so to be the original and proper explication of this Article of the Creed: and that not only because the ancient fathers deliver no other exposition of it; but also because that which I conceive to be the first occasion, rise, and original of the Creed itself, requireth this as the proper interpretation. Immediately before the ascension of our Saviour, he said unto his Apostles, [Mat. xxviii. 18, 19.] All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 32 Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. From this sacred form of Baptism did the Church derive the rule of Faith⁹⁵, requiring the profession of belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, before they could be baptized in their name. When the Eunuch asked Philip, [Acts viii. 36, 37, 38.] What doth hinder me to be baptized? Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest: and when the Eunuch replied, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God; he baptized him. And before that, the Samaritans, when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, were baptized, both men and women. [Acts viii. 12.] For as in the Acts of the Apostles there is no more expressed

Notes to p. 55:

⁹⁴ (continued from p. 54) non sejungat. Unum nos vult esse in se, unum autem Patrem et se.’ S. August. in Joan. Tract. 21. [§. 3. vol. iii. part. 2. p. 457 B.]

⁹⁵ Arius and Euzoius, in their Creed delivered to Constantine: Ταύτην τὴν πίστιν παρειλήφαμεν ἐκ τῶν ἁγίων εὐαγγελίων, λέγοντος τοῦ κυρίου τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ μαθηταῖς, Πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. Socrat. lib. i. cap. 26. [p. 61.] And upon the exhibiting this Confession of Faith, they were restored to the communion of the Church by the Synod of Jerusalem. Sozomen. lib. ii. cap. 27. [p. 84.] In the same manner Eusebius delivered his Creed unto the Council of Nice, concluding and deducing it from the same text, Καθὼς καὶ κύριος ἡμῶν, ἀποστέλλων εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ μαθητὰς, εἶπε· Πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε, &c. Socrat. lib. i. cap. 8. [p. 23.] Theodoret. lib. i. cap. 12. [p. 38.] The same is also alleged by the Council of Antioch, under the Emperor Constantius and Pope Julius. Socrat. lib. ii. cap. 10. Vide S. Athanas. in Epist. ad ubique Orthod. Orat. cont. Gregales Sabellii, et cont. Arianos, ex Deo Deus. [vol. ii. p. 583.] Vide Basil. de Sp. Sanct. So Vigilius Tapsensis, Dial. lib. i. [c. 5. p. 88.] makes Arius and Athanasius jointly speak these words; ‘Credimus in Deum Patrem Omnipotentem, et in Jesum Christum Filium ejus, Dominum nostrum, et in Spiritum Sanctum. Hæc est fidei nostræ regula, quam cœlesti magisterio Dominus tradidit Apostolis, dicens, Ite, baptizate, &c.’

[Printed p. 56]

than that they baptized [Acts ii. 38. viii. 16. x. 48. xix. 5.] in the name of Jesus Christ: so is no more expressed of the faith required in them who were to be baptized, than to believe in the same name. But being the Father and the Holy Ghost were likewise mentioned in the first institution, being the expressing of one doth not exclude the other, being it is certain that from the Apostles' times the names of all three were used; hence upon the same ground was required faith, and a profession of belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Again, as the Eunuch said not simply, I believe in the Son, but I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, as a brief explication of that part of the institution which he had learned before of Philip: so they who were converted unto Christianity were first taught, not the bare names, but the explications and descriptions of them in a brief, easy, and familiar way; which when they had rendered, acknowledged, and professed, they were baptized in them. And these being regularly and constantly used, made up the rule of Faith, that is, the Creed. The truth of which may sufficiently be made apparent to any, who shall seriously consider the constant practice of the Church, from the first age unto this present, of delivering the rule of Faith to those which were to be baptized, and so requiring of themselves, or their sureties, an express recitation, profession, or acknowledgment of the Creed. From whence this observation is properly deducible; That in what sense the name of Father is taken in the form of Baptism, in the same it also ought to be taken in this Article. And being nothing can be more clear than that, when it is said, In the name of the Father, and of the Son, the notion of Father hath in this particular no other relation but to that Son whose name is joined with his: and as we are baptized into no other Son of that Father, but that only-begotten Christ Jesus, so into no other Father, but the Father of that only-begotten: it followeth, that the proper explication of the first words of the Creed is this: I believe in God the Father of Christ Jesus.

In vain then is that vulgar distinction applied unto the explication of the Creed, whereby the Father is considered both personally and essentially: personally, as the first in the glorious Trinity, with relation and opposition to the Son; essentially, as comprehending the whole Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. For that the Son is not here comprehended in the Father is evident, not only out of the original, or occasion, but also from the

Notes to p. 56:

(None — no footnotes are printed on this page.)

[Printed p. 57]

very letter of the Creed, which teacheth us to believe in God the Father, and in his Son; for if the Son were included in the Father, then were the Son the Father of himself. As therefore when I say, I believe in Jesus Christ his Son, I must necessarily understand the Son of that Father whom I mentioned in the first 33 Article; so when I said, I believe in God the Father, I must as necessarily be understood of the Father⁹⁶ of him, whom I call his Son in the second Article.

Now as it cannot be denied that God may several ways be said to be the Father of Christ; first, as he was begotten by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary; secondly, as he was sent by him with special authority, as the king of Israel; [Luke i. 35. John x. 35, 36. i. 49, 50.] thirdly, as he was raised from the dead, out of the womb of the earth unto immortal life, and made heir of all things in his Father's house: [Acts xiii. 32, 33.] so must we not doubt but, beside all these, God is the Father of that Son in a more eminent and peculiar manner, as he is and ever was with God, and God: [John i. 1.] which shall be demonstrated fully in the second Article, when we come to shew how Christ is the only-begotten Son. And according unto this paternity by way of generation totally Divine, in which he who begetteth is God, and he which is begotten, the same God, do we believe in God, as the eternal Father of an eternal Son. Which relation is coeval with his essence: so that we are not to imagine one without the other; but as we profess him always God, so must we acknowledge him always Father⁹⁷, and that in a far more proper manner than the same title can be given to any creature⁹⁸. Such is the fluctuant condition of human generation,

Notes to p. 57:

⁹⁶ ‘Pater cum audis, Filii intellige Patrem, qui filius supradictæ sit imago substantiæ.’ Ruffin. in Symb. [§. 4. p. cci.]

⁹⁷ “Ἅμα γὰρ ἐστὶ Θεὸς καὶ ἅμα πατὴρ· οὐχ ὑστερίζουσαν ἔχων τοῦ εἶναι τὴν γέννησιν, ἀλλ’ ὁμοῦ τῷ εἶναι πατὴρ καὶ ὑφεστὼς καὶ νοούμενος. S. Cyril. Alex. Dial. de Trin. 2. [vol. v. p. 457 D.] Πατὴρ ἀεὶ πατὴρ, καὶ οὐκ ἦν καιρὸς ὅτε οὐκ ἦν ὁ πατὴρ πατὴρ. S. Epiph. Hæres. lxii. §. 3. [vol. i. p. 515 A.] ‘Sicut nunquam fuit non Deus, ita nunquam fuit non Pater, a quo Filius natus.’ Gennad. de Eccles. dogm. cap. i. [p. 75 A.] ‘Credimus in Deum, et eundem confitemur Patrem, ut eundem semper habuisse Filium nos credamus.’ Chrysol. Serm. 59. [p. 704 E.] ‘Inest Deo pietas, est in Deo semper affectio, paternitas permanet apud illum: semper ergo Filium fuisse credas, ne Patrem semper non fuisse blasphemes.’ Idem, Serm. 62. [p. 707 E.] ‘Advertite, quod cum Dei Patris nomen in confessione conjungit, ostendit quod non ante Deus esse cœperit, et postea Pater, sed sine ullo initio et Deus semper et Pater est.’ August. de Temp. Serm. 132. [Serm. ccxlii. al. 131 de Temp. vol. v. Appendix p. 397 F.]

⁹⁸ ‘Deus solus proprie verus est Pater, qui sine initio et fine Pater est; non enim aliquando cœpit esse quod Pater est, sed semper Pater est, semper habens Filium ex se genitum.’ Faustinus, lib. cont. Arianos. [c. 7. p. [continued on p. 58, under Notes to p. 58]

[Printed p. 58]

and of those relations which arise from thence, that he which is this day a son, the next may prove a father, and within the space of one day more, without any real alteration in himself, become neither son nor father, losing one relation by the death of him that begot him, and the other by the departure of him that was begotten by him. But in the Godhead these relations are more proper⁹⁹, because fixed, the Father having never been a Son, the Son never becoming Father, in reference to the same kind of generation.

A farther reason of the propriety of God's Paternity appears from this, that he hath begotten a Son of the same nature and essence with himself, not only specifically, but individually, as I shall also demonstrate in the exposition of the second Article. For generation being the production of the like, and that likeness being the similitude of substance¹; where is the nearest identity of nature, there must be also the most proper generation, and consequently he which generateth, the most proper Father. If therefore man, who by the benediction of God given unto him at his first creation in these words, [Gen. i. 28. Gen. v. 3.] Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth, begetteth a son in his own likeness, after his image, that is, of the same human nature, of the same substance with him, (which if he did not, he should not according to the benediction multiply himself or man at all,) with which similitude of nature many accidental disparities may consist—if by this act of generation he obtaineth the name of Father, because, and in regard, of the similitude of his nature in the Son, how much more properly must that name belong unto God himself, who hath begotten a Son of a nature and essence so totally like, so totally the same, that no accidental disparity can imaginably consist with that identity!

Notes to p. 58:

⁹⁸ (continued from p. 57) 557 H.] ’Ἐπὶ τῆς θεότητος μόνης ὁ πατὴρ κυρίως πατὴρ ἐστί, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς κυρίως υἱὸς ἐστι, καὶ ἐπὶ τούτων καὶ μόνον ἔστηκε τὸ πατὴρ ἀεὶ πατὴρ εἶναι, καὶ τὸ υἱὸς ἀεὶ υἱὸς εἶναι. S. Athanas. Disp. cont. Arianos. [I. 21. vol. i. pt. i. p. 426 C.]

⁹⁹ ’Ἐπὶ μόνης τῆς θεότητος τὸ πατὴρ καὶ τὸ υἱὸς ἔστηκε καὶ ἔστιν ἀεὶ· τὸν μὲν γὰρ ἄνθρωπον εἰ πατὴρ λέγεται τις, ἀλλ’ ἕτερον γέγονεν υἱός, καὶ εἰ υἱὸς λέγεται, ἀλλ’ ἕτερον λέγεται πατὴρ· ὥστε ἐπ’ ἀνθρώπων μὴ σώζεσθαι κυρίως τὸ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ ὄνομα. S. Athanas. tom. i. Πατὴρ κυρίως, ὅτι μὴ καὶ υἱός. ὥσπερ καὶ υἱὸς κυρίως, ὅτι μὴ καὶ πατήρ. τὰ γὰρ ἡμέτερα οὐ κυρίως, ὅτι καὶ ἄμφο. Greg. Naz. Orat. 35. [Orat. xxix. 5. vol. i. p. 526 A.]

¹ ‘Etiamsi Filius hominis homo in quibusdam similis, in quibusdam sit dissimilis Patri; tamen quia ejusdem substantiæ est, negari verus Filius non potest, et quia verus est Filius, negari ejusdem substantiæ non potest.’ S. August. lib. ii. cont. Max. cap. 15. [§. 2. vol. viii. p. 711 A.] Vide Tho. Sum. p. i. quæst. 33. art. 2. ad quart.

[Printed p. 59]

34 That God is the proper and eternal Father of his own eternal Son is now declared: what is the eminency or excellency of this relation followeth to be considered. In general then we may safely observe, that in the very name² of Father there is something of eminence which is not in that of Son; and some kind of priority we must ascribe unto him whom we call the first, in respect of him whom we term the second Person; and as we cannot but ascribe it, so must we endeavour to preserve it³.

Now that privilege or priority⁴ consisteth not in this, that the essence or attributes of the one are greater than the essence or attributes of the other, (for we shall hereafter demonstrate them to be the same in both;) but only in this, that the Father hath that essence of himself, the Son by communication from the Father. From whence he acknowledgeth that he is from him, [John vii. 29. vi. 57. v. 26.] that he liveth by him, that the Father gave him to have life in himself, and generally referreth all things to him, as received from him. Wherefore in this sense some of the ancients have not stuck to interpret those words, [John xiv. 28.] The Father is greater than I⁵, of Christ as the Son of God, as the second person in the

Notes to p. 59:

² Αὐτὸ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς μεῖζόν ἐστι τοῦ υἱοῦ. Syn. Sardic. Theodoret. lib. ii. cap. 8. [p. 82.] [Mansi iii. p. 84 E.] ‘Insinuatur nobis in Patre auctoritas, in filio nativitas.’ S. August.

³ Τῷ μὲν ἀγεννήτῳ πατρὶ οἰκεῖον ἀξίωμα φυλακτέον, μηδένα τοῦ εἶναι αὐτῷ τῶν αἰτίων λέγοντας. Alex. apud Theodoret. lib. i. cap. 4. [p. 19.]

⁴ ‘Ἡμεῖς δὲ κατὰ μὲν τὴν τῶν αἰτίων πρὸς τὰ ἐξ αὐτῶν σχέσιν, προτετάχθαι τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸν πατέρα φαμέν, κατὰ δὲ τὴν τῆς φύσεως διαφορὰν οὐκέτι. S. Basil. cont. Eunom. lib. i. [§. 20. vol. i. p. 232 B.]

⁵ Μείζων, εἶπεν, οὐ μεγέθει τινὶ οὐδὲ χρόνῳ, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ πατρὸς γέννησιν. S. Athanas. cont. Arianos, lib. ii. [I. 58. vol. i. p. 462 E.] Λείπεται τοίνυν κατὰ τὸν τῆς αἰτίας λόγον ἐνταῦθα τὸ μεῖζον λέγεσθαι. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡ ἀρχὴ τῷ υἱῷ, κατὰ τοῦτο μείζων ὁ πατήρ, ὡς αἴτιος καὶ ἀρχή. διὸ καὶ ὁ κύριος οὕτως εἶπεν, ‘Ὁ πατὴρ μου μείζων μου ἐστί, καθὸ πατὴρ δηλονότι. τὸ δὲ πατὴρ τί ἄλλο σημαίνει, ἢ οὐχὶ τὸ αἴτια εἶναι καὶ ἀρχὴ τοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεννηθέντος; S. Basil. cont. Eunom. lib. i. [§. 25. vol. i. p. 236 C.] And the same St. Basil doth not only acknowledge this to be true in respect of the Divine nature of Christ, but thinketh the Divinity of the Son may be proved from hence. ‘Ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ ἐκ ταύτης τῆς φωνῆς τὸ ὁμοούσιον εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν τῷ πατρὶ δηλοῦσθαι πεπίστευκα· τὰς γὰρ συγκρίσεις οἶδα κυρίως ἐπὶ τῶν τῆς αὐτῆς φύσεως γινομένας· ἄγγελον γὰρ ἀγγέλου λέγομεν μείζονα, καὶ ἄνθρωπον ἀνθρώπου δικαιότερον, καὶ πτηνὸν πτηνοῦ ταχύτερον, εἰ τοίνυν αἱ συγκρίσεις ἐπὶ τῶν ὁμοειδῶν γίνονται, μείζων δὲ κατὰ σύγκρισιν εἴρηται ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ υἱοῦ, ὁμοούσιος τῷ πατρὶ ὁ υἱός. Ad Cæsarienses Epist. 141. [Epist. viii. 5. vol. iii. p. 84 B.] Τὸ μεῖζον μὲν ἔστι τῆς αἰτίας, τὸ δὲ ἴσον τῆς φύσεως. Greg. Naz. Orat. 36. [Orat. 30. §. 7. vol. i. p. 544 D.] et Orat. 40. [§. 43. p. 725 D.] Οὐ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν τὸ μεῖζον, κατὰ τὴν αἰτίαν δέ. Vide Epiph. in Ancorato, cap. 17. [vol. ii. p. 22.] Εἰ δὲ λέγοι τις μείζονα εἶναι τὸν πατέρα καθὸ αἴτιος τοῦ υἱοῦ, οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἀντεροῦμεν. S. Chrysost. Homil. in Joan. 75. [vol. viii. p. 443 D.] Ἴσος τοιγαροῦν κατὰ τὸν τῆς οὐσίας λόγον ὑπάρχων ὁ υἱὸς τῷ πατρί, καὶ ὅμοιος κατὰ πάντα, μείζονα αὐτὸν φησιν ὡς ἄναρχον, ἔχων ἀρχὴν κατὰ μόνον τὸ ἐξ οὗ, εἰ καὶ σύνδρομον αὐτῷ τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἔχοι. S. Cyril. Alex. Thesaur. cap. 11. [vol. v. p. 85 E.] And Isidore Pelusiota, lib. iii. Epist. 334. [p. 386 C.] [continued on p. 60, under Notes to p. 60]

[Printed p. 60]

blessed Trinity; but still with reference not unto his essence, but his generation, by which he is understood to have his being from the Father, who only hath it of himself, and is the original of all power and essence in the Son. [John v. 30.] I can of mine own self do nothing, saith our Saviour, because he is not of himself⁶; and whosoever receives his being, must receive his power from another, especially where the essence and the power are undeniably the same, as in God they are. [John v. 19.] The Son then can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do, because he hath no power⁷ of himself, but what the Father gave; and being he 35

Notes to p. 60:

⁵ (continued from p. 59) cites this saying of an ancient Father: Καὶ τὸ μεῖζον ἴσται [VERIFY: ἡ or ἢ] γεννῆσαι, καὶ τὸ ἴσον καθ’ ὃ θεὸς καὶ ὁμοούσιος. So Vigilius professes to believe the Son ‘æqualem per omnia Patri, excepto eo quod ille ingenitus est, et iste genitus.’ De Trin. lib. xi. [p. 285.] ‘Ideo totum quod habet, quod potest, non tribuit sibi, sed Patri, quia non est a seipso, sed a Patre. Æqualis est enim Patri, sed hoc quoque accepit a Patre.’ S. August. Epist. 66. [Ep. clxx. 8. vol. ii. p. 610 F.] ‘Necesse est quodammodo prior sit, qua Pater sit, quoniam antecedat necesse est eum qui habet originem, ille qui originem nescit. Simul ut hic minor sit, dum in illo esse se scit habens originem, quia nascitur.’ Novatian. [de Trin. c. 31. p. 729 C.] ‘Major itaque Pater filio est; et plane major, cui tantum donat esse quantus ipse est, cui innascibilitatis esse imaginem sacramento nativitatis impertit, quem ex se in formam suam generat.’ S. Hilar. de Trin. lib. ix. cap. 54. [p. 1020 E.] ‘Non præstantem quenquam cuiquam genere substantiæ, sed subjectum alterum alteri nativitate naturæ: Patrem in eo majorem esse quod pater est, Filium in eo non minorem esse quod filius est.’ Idem, de Syn. cont. Arianos. cap. 64. [p. 1187 D.] ‘Quis non Patrem potiorem confitebitur, ut ingenitum a genito, ut Patrem a Filio, ut eum qui miserit ab eo qui missus sit, ut volentem ab eo qui obediat? Et ipse nobis erit testis, Pater major me est.’ Idem, de Trin. lib. iii. cap. 12. [p. 813 E.] ‘In eo, quod in sese sunt, Dei ex Deo divinitatem cognosce; in eo vero quod Pater major est, confessionem paternæ auctoritatis intellig.’ Idem, lib. xi. cap. 12. [p. 1089 D.] And before all these Alexander Bishop of Alexandria: Τὸ δὲ ἀγένητον τῷ πατρὶ μόνον ἴδιωμα παρεῖναι δοξάζοντες, ἅτε δὴ καὶ αὐτοῦ, φάσκοντος τοῦ σωτῆρος, ‘Ὁ πατὴρ μου μείζων μου ἐστί. Theodoret. Hist. lib. i. cap. 4. [p. 19.] Lastly, we have the testimony of Photius, that many of the ancient Fathers so expounded it: Τὴν, ‘Ὁ πατὴρ μου μείζων μου ἐστί, τοῦ εὐαγγελίου φωνὴν, διάφοροι οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν ἐξειλήφασιν· οἱ μὲν γὰρ φασὶ τῷ αἰτίῳ μείζονα εἴρησθαι. Epist. 176. [p. 262.] ‘Æqualis Patri, sed major Pater, quod ipse dedit ipsi omnia, et causa est ipsi Filio ut sit, ut isto modo sit.’ Victor. Afr. adv. Arium. lib. i. [p. 193 C.] ‘Pater, inquit, major me est; merito major, quia solus hic auctor sine auctore est.’ Phœbadius. [contra Arianos. c. 13. p. 253 A.]

⁶ ‘Quicquid Filius habet ut faciat, a Patre habet ut faciat. Quare habet a Patre ut faciat? quia a Patre habet ut filius sit. Quare a Patre habet ut filius sit? quia a Patre habet ut possit: quia a Patre habet ut sit.’ S. August. Tract. 20. in Joan. [§. 4. vol. iii. part. 2. p. 450 D.]

⁷ ‘Non alia potentia est in Filio, et alia substantia; sed ipsa est potentia quæ et substantia; substantia ut sit, potentia ut possit. Ergo, quia Filius de Patre est, ideo dixit, Filius non potest a se facere quicquam: quia non est Filius a se, ideo non potest a se.’ Ibid. [p. 450 F.] ‘Totum quod est, de Patre est; totum quod potest, de Patre est; quoniam quod potest et est, hoc unum est, et de Patre totum est.’ Ibid. [§. 8. p. 452 F.] ‘Non potest Filius a se facere quicquam, nisi quod viderit Patrem facientem: quia de Patre est [continued on p. 61, under Notes to p. 61]

[Printed p. 61]

gave him all the power, as communicating his entire and undivided essence, therefore what things soever he doth, these also doth the Son likewise, by the same power by which the Father worketh, because he had received the same Godhead in which the Father subsisteth. There is nothing more intimate and essential to any thing than the life thereof, and that in nothing so conspicuous as in the Godhead, where life and truth are so inseparable, that there can be no living God but the true, no true God but the living. [Jer. x. 10.] The Lord is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting King, saith the Prophet Jeremy; and St. Paul putteth the Thessalonians in mind, how they turned from idols, to serve the living and true God. [1 Thess. i. 9.] Now life is otherwise in God⁹ than in the creatures; in him originally, in them derivatively; in him as in the fountain of absolute perfection, in them by way of dependence and participation; our life is in him, but his is in himself; and as [John v. 26.] the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself⁸: both the same life, both in themselves, both in the same degree, as the one, so the other⁹;

Notes to p. 61:

⁷ (continued from p. 60) totus Filius, et tota substantia et potentia ejus ex illo est qui genuit eum.’ Idem, Tract. 21. in Joan. [§. 2. p. 456 C.] ‘Et primum Filium cognosce, cum dicitur, Non potest Filius ab se facere quicquam, nisi quod viderit Patrem facientem. Habes nativitatem Filii, quæ ab se nihil possit facere nisi videat. In eo autem quod ab se nihil potest, innascibilitatis adimit errorem. Ab se enim non potest posse nativitas.’ S. Hilar. de Trin. lib. vii. cap. 21. [p. 929 C.] ‘Dum non ab se facit, ad id quod agit secundum nativitatem sibi Pater auctor est.’ Idem, lib. xi. cap. 12. [p. 1089 E.] ‘Auctorem discrevit cum ait, Non potest ab se facere: obedientiam significat cum addit, nisi quod viderit Patrem facientem.’ Idem, de Syn. cap. 75. [p. 1192 C.]

⁸ ‘Sicut habet Pater vitam in semetipso, sic dedit et Filio vitam habere in semetipso: ut hoc solum intersit inter Patrem et Filium, quia Pater habet vitam in semetipso quam nemo ei dedit, Filius autem habet vitam in semetipso quam Pater dedit.’ S. August. Tract. 19. in Joan. [§. 11. vol. iii. pt. ii. p. 442 C.] ‘Incommutabilis est vita Filii, sicut Patris, et tamen de Patre est: et inseparabilis est operatio Patris et Filii; sed tamen ita operari Filio de illo est, de quo ipse est, id est, de Patre.’ Idem, de Trin. lib. ii. cap. 1. [§. 3. vol. viii. p. 773 E.]

⁹ ‘Sicut habet dedit, quod habet dedit, qualem habet, talem dedit, quantam habet, tantam dedit.’ Idem, cont. Maximin. lib. iii. cap. 14. [II. 14. 7. vol. viii. p. 706 F.] ‘Ergo quod dicitur, dedit Filio, tale est ac si diceretur, genuit Filium; generando enim dedit. Quomodo dedit ut esset, sic dedit ut vita esset, et sic dedit ut in semetipso vita esset.’ Idem, Tract. 22. in Joan. [§. 10. vol. iii. part. 2. p. 469 G.] ‘Connectitur, tali confessione originis suæ, indiscretæ naturæ perfecta nativitas. Quod enim in utroque vita est, id in utroque significatur essentia; et in vita quæ generatur ex vita, id est, essentia quæ de essentia nascitur, dum non dissimilis nascitur, scilicet quia vita ex vita est, tenet in se originis suæ indissimilem naturam, quia natæ et gignentis essentiæ, id est, vitæ quæ habetur et data est, similitudo non discrepet.’ S. Hilar. de Syn. adv. Arianos. [c. 16. p. 1160 C.] ‘Quia ergo apparet vita Patris hoc esse quod ipse est; sicut habet vitam in se, sic dedit; sic dedit Filio habere vitam, id est, sic est Esse [continued on p. 62, under Notes to p. 62]

[Printed p. 62]

but only with this difference, the Father giveth it, and the Son receiveth it. [John vi. 57.] From whence he professeth of himself, that the living Father sent him, and that he liveth by¹⁰ the Father.

We must not therefore so far endeavour to involve ourselves in the darkness of this mystery, as to deny that glory which is clearly due unto the Father; whose preeminence undeniably consisteth in this, that he is God not of any other, but of himself, and that there is no other person who is God, but is God of him. It is no diminution to the Son, to say he is from another, for his very name imports as much; but it were a diminution to the Father to speak so of him: and there must be some preeminence, where there is place for derogation. What the Father is, he is from none¹¹; what the Son is, he is from him:

Notes to p. 62:

⁹ (continued from p. 61) Filii, sicut Esse Patris.’ Vigil. African. Disp. [p. 699 G.] ‘In vita naturæ et essentiæ significatio est, quæ sicut habetur, ita data esse docetur ad habendum.’ S. Hilar. ibid. [c. 19. p. 1163 A.]

¹⁰ ‘Propter Patrem vivit Filius, quia ex Patre Filius est—propter Patrem, quia eructatum est Verbum ex Patris corde, quia a Patre processit, quia ex paterno generatus est utero, quia fons Pater Filii est, quia radix Pater Filii est.’ S. Ambros. de Fide, lib. iv. cap. 10. [al. c. 5. §. 126. vol. ii. p. 545 B.]

¹¹ ‘Pater de nullo patre, Filius de Deo Patre: Pater quod est, a nullo est; quod autem Pater est, propter Filium est. Filius vero et quod Filius est, propter Patrem est, et quod est, a Patre est.’ S. August. Tract. 19. in Joan. [§. 13. vol. iii. p. 443 D.] ‘Filium dicimus Deum de Deo; Patrem autem Deum tantum, non de Deo. Unde manifestum est quod Filius habeat alium de quo sit, et cui Filius sit; Pater autem non Filium de quo sit habeat, sed tantum cui Pater sit. Omnis enim filius de patre est quod est, et patri filius est: nullus autem pater de filio est quod est.’ Idem, de Trin. lib. ii. cap. 1. [§. 2. vol. viii. p. 773 A.] ‘Filius non hoc tantum habet nascendo, ut Filius sit, sed omnino ut sit.’ Ibid. lib. v. cap. 15. [§. 16. p. 841 D.] ‘Filius non tantum ut sit Filius, quod relative dicitur, sed omnino ut sit, ipsam substantiam nascendo habet.’ Ibid. cap. 15. [§. 16.] ‘Pater non habet Patrem de quo sit, Filius autem de Patre est ut sit, atque ut illi coæternus sit.’ Ibid. lib. vi. cap. 10. [§. 11. p. 850 D.] ‘Ab ipso, inquit, sum; quia Filius de Patre, et quicquid est Filius, de illo est cujus est Filius. Ideo Dominum Jesum dicimus Deum de Deo, Patrem non dicimus Deum de Deo, sed tantum Deum; et dicimus Dominum Jesum Lumen de lumine, Patrem non dicimus Lumen de lumine, sed tantum Lumen. Ad hoc ergo pertinet quod dixit, Ab ipso sum.’ Idem, Tract. 31. in Joan. [§. 4. vol. iii. part. ii. p. 521 F.] ‘Pater non est si non habeat Filium, et Filius non est si non habeat Patrem: sed tamen Filius Deus de Patre, Pater autem Deus, sed non de Filio: Pater Filii, non Deus de Filio; ille autem Filius Patris, et Deus de Patre.’ Idem, Tract. 29. in Joan. [§. 5. p. 514 F.] ‘Hoc tamen inter Patrem et Filium interest, quia Pater a nullo hoc accepit, Filius autem per generationem omnia Patris accepit.’ Ambros. in Epist. ad Eph. cap. 2*. ‘Est ergo Deus Pater omnium institutor et creator, solus originem nesciens.’ Novatian. de Trin. cap. 31. [p. 729 C.] Whereas he speaks after of the Son, ‘Est ergo Deus, sed in hoc ipsum genitus, ut esset Deus.’ [p. 720 B.] ‘Pater est Deus de quo Filius est Deus, de quo autem Pater nullus est Deus.’ S. August. Epist. 66. [Ep. 170. vol. viii. p. 610 E.]

• [This is not a work of Ambrose: v. Opp. vol. ii. Append. p. 234 F.]

[Printed p. 63]

what the first is, he giveth; what the second is, he receiveth. The first is a Father indeed by reason of his Son, but he is not God by reason of him; whereas the Son is not so only in regard of the Father, but also God by reason of the same.

36 Upon this preeminence (as I conceive) may safely be grounded the congruity of the divine mission. We often read that Christ was sent, from whence he bears the name of an Apostle himself, [Heb. iii. 1.] as well as those whom he therefore named so, because as the Father sent him, so sent he them: the Holy Ghost is also said to be sent, sometimes by the Father, sometimes by the Son: [John xx. 21.] but²¹ we never read that the Father was sent at all¹², there being an authority¹³ in that name which seems inconsistent with this mission. In the parable, [Matt. xxi. 33, &c.] a certain householder which planted a vineyard, first sent his servants to the husbandmen, and again other servants; but last of all he sent unto them his son: it had been inconsistent even with the literal sense of an historical parable, as not at all consonant to the rational customs of men, to have said, that last of all the Son sent his Father to them. So God, placing man in the vineyard of his Church, first sent his servants the Prophets, by whom he spake at sundry times and in divers manners, [Heb. i. 1, 2.] but in the last days he sent his Son: and it were as incongruous¹⁴ and inconsistent with the divine generation, that the Son should send the Father into the world. [John vi. 57.] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, saith our Saviour: intimating, that by whom he lived, by him he was sent, and therefore sent by him, because he lived by him, laying his generation as the proper ground of his mission. Thus he which begetteth sendeth, and he which is begotten is sent¹⁵. [John vii. 29.] For I am

Notes to p. 63:

¹² ‘Pater enim solus nusquam legitur missus.’ S. August. de Trin. lib. ii. cap. 5. [§. 8. vol. viii. p. 776 A.]

¹³ ‘Solus Pater non legitur missus, quoniam solus non habet auctorem a quo genitus sit, vel a quo procedat. Et ideo non propter naturæ diversitatem, quæ in Trinitate nulla est, sed propter ipsam auctoritatem, solus Pater non dicitur missus: non enim splendor aut fervor ignem, sed ignis mittit sive splendorem sive fervorem.’ S. August. Serm. cont. Arian. cap. 4. [vol. viii. p. 627 F.] ‘Qui mittit, potestatem suam in eo quod mittit, ostendit.’ S. Hilar. de Trin. lib. viii. cap. 19. [p. 958 D.]

¹⁴ ‘Si voluisset Deus Pater per subjectam creaturam visibiliter apparere, absurdissime tamen aut a Filio, quem genuit, aut a Spiritu Sancto, qui de illo procedit, missus diceretur.’ S. August. de Trin. lib. iv. cap. ult. [vol. viii. p. 832 C.]

¹⁵ ‘Filius est igitur a Patre missus, non Pater a Filio; quia Filius est a Patre natus, non Pater a Filio.’ Fulgent. lib. viii. cont. Fabianum, in Collect. Theodul. de S. S. [p. 626. ed. 1684.] ‘Quis autem Christianus ignorat quod Pater miserit, missusque sit Filius? Non enim genitorem ab eo quem genuit, sed genitum a genitore mitti oportebat.’ S. August. cont. Maximin. lib. iii. cap. 14. [II. 14. 8. p. 707 F.] ‘Ubi audis, Ipse [continued on p. 64, under Notes to p. 64]

[Printed p. 64]

from him, and he hath sent me, saith the Son: from whom I received my essence by communication, from him also received I this commission. As therefore it is more worthy to give than to receive, to send than to be sent; so in respect of the sonship there is some priority in the divine Paternity: from whence divers of the ancients read that place of St. John with this addition¹⁶, [John xiv. 28. Gal. iv. 4, 6.] The Father (which sent me) is greater than I. He then is that God who sent forth his Son made of a woman, that God who hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. So that the authority of sending is in the Father: which therefore ought to be acknowledged, because upon this mission is founded the highest testimony of his love to man; for [1 John iv. 10.] herein is love, saith St. John, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Again, the dignity of the Father will farther yet appear from the order of the Persons in the blessed Trinity, of which he is undoubtedly the first. For although in some passages of the Apostolical discourses the Son may first be named, (as in that of St. Paul, [2 Cor. xiii. 14.] The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all, the latter part of which is nothing but an addition unto his constant benediction,) and in others the Holy Ghost precedes the Son (as, [1 Cor. xii. 4, 5, 6.] Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all; yet where the three persons are barely enumerated, and 37 delivered unto us as the rule of faith¹⁷, there that order is

Notes to p. 64:

¹⁵ (continued from p. 63) me misit, noli intelligere naturæ dissimilitudinem, sed generantis auctoritatem.’ Idem, Tract. 31. in Joan. [§. 4. vol. iii. p. 521 F.] ‘Ἐπειδὰν οὖν ὁ ἀποστείλας καὶ ὁ ἀποστελλόμενος, ἵνα δείξῃ τῶν πάντων ἀγαθῶν μίαν εἶναι τὴν πηγήν, τοὐτέστιν τὸν πατέρα. Epiph. Hæres. lxix. §. 54. [p. 776 D.] Hence the language of the Schools, ‘Missio importat processionem originis:’ as Thomas Aquinas, 1. q. 43. art. 1. ad primum; or, ‘auctoritatem principii:’ as Durandus, lib. i. dist. 15. q. 1. §. 7.

¹⁶ Λέγουσι γὰρ τὸ ῥητὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου κακῶς ἑρμηνεύοντες, ὅτι ὁ ἀποστείλας με πατὴρ μείζων μου ἐστί, saith Epiphanius of the Arians; and answering, grants in these words which follow, καὶ πρῶτον μὲν ὁ ἀποστείλας με πατὴρ, φάσκει, καὶ οὐχ ὁ κτίσας με. Hæres. lxix. §. 53. [vol. i. p. 775 B.] To the same purpose Athanasius, de Hum. Nat. susc. [c. 4. p. 873 D], and Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaur. lib. xi. [vol. v. p. 85 B.] read it, ‘Ὁ πέμψας με πατὴρ. And St. Basil makes Eunomius read it so, in his first book against him, [c. 21.] and with that addition answers it. So the second Confession of the Council of Sirmium, both in the Latin original and Greek translation. S. Hilar. de Syn. [§. 11.] S. Athanas. [de Syn. §. 28.] et Socrat. lib. ii. cap. 30. [p. 127.]

¹⁷ Παραδίδοις ὁ κύριος τὴν σωτήριον πίστιν τοῖς μαθητευομένοις τῷ λόγῳ, τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ υἱῷ συνάπτει τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ [continued on p. 65, under Notes to p. 65]

[Printed p. 65]

observed which is proper to them; witness the form of baptism, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; which order hath been perpetuated in all confessions of faith, and is for ever inviolably to be observed¹⁸. For that which is not instituted or invented by the will or design of man, but founded¹⁹ in the nature of things themselves, is not to be altered at the pleasure of man. Now this priority doth properly and naturally result from the divine Paternity; so that the Son must necessarily be second²⁰ unto the Father, from whom he receiveth his

Notes to p. 65:

¹⁷ (continued from p. 64) ἅγιον. S. Basil. Epist. 80. [Epist. clxxxix. 5. vol. iii. p. 278 D.]

¹⁸ ‘Ἀκίνητον καὶ ἀπαρεγχείρητον φυλάσσειν προσήκει τὴν ἀκολουθίαν ἣν ἐξ αὐτῆς τοῦ κυρίου τῆς φωνῆς παρελάβομεν, εἰπόντος, Πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα, &c. S. Basil. Epist. 78. [Epist. cxxv. 3. p. 217 A.]

¹⁹ “Ἔστι τι τάξεως εἶδος, οὐκ ἐκ τῆς παρ’ ἡμῶν θέσεως συνιστάμενον, ἀλλ’ αὐτῇ τῇ κατὰ φύσιν ἀκολουθίᾳ συμβαῖνον, ὡς τῷ πυρὶ πρὸς τὸ φῶς ἐστὶ τὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦ· ἐν τούτοις γὰρ πρότερον τὸ αἴτιον λέγομεν, δεύτερον δὲ τὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦ.—πῶς οὖν εὔλογον ἀρνεῖσθαι τὴν τάξιν, ἐφ’ ὧν ἐστὶ πρότερον καὶ δεύτερον, οὐ κατὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν θέσιν, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν αὐτοῖς ἐνυπαρχούσης ἀκολουθίας; S. Basil. adv. Eunom. lib. i. [§. 20. vol. i. p. 232 A.]

²⁰ Δευτερεύει μὲν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ πατρὸς τῷ αἰτίῳ· δευτερεύει δὲ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ κατὰ τὸν τῆς αἰτίας λόγον. S. Basil. apud Georg. Pachym. Hist. lib. vii. [c. ix. p. 20 B.] ‘Ὡς γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς τάξει μὲν δεύτερος τοῦ πατρός, ὅτι ἀπ’ ἐκείνου, καὶ ἀξιώματι, ὅτι ἀρχὴ καὶ αἰτία τοῦ εἶναι αὐτοῦ ὁ πατήρ, [τῷ εἶναι αὐτοῦ πατέρα, in the Benedictine ed.] καὶ ὅτι δι’ αὐτοῦ ἡ πρόοδος καὶ προσαγωγὴ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν καὶ πατέρα· φύσει δὲ οὐκέτι δεύτερος, διότι ἡ θεότης ἐν ἑκατέρῳ μία· οὕτω δηλονότι καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, εἰ καὶ ὑποβέβηκε τὸν υἱὸν τῇ τε τάξει καὶ τῷ ἀξιώματι—οὐκέτ’ ἂν εἰκότως ὡς ἀλλοτρίας ὑπάρχον φύσεως. S. Basil. cont. Eunom. lib. iii. [§. 1. vol. i. p. 272 B.] ‘Si unum Deum singulariter nominamus, excludentes vocabulum secundæ personæ, furorem ejus hæresis approbamus, quæ ipsum asserit Patrem passum.’ Phœbad. cont. Arian. [c. xxii. p. 256 D.] ‘Illi cui est in Filio secunda persona, est et tertia in Spiritu Sancto.’ Idem. ‘Sic alius a Filio Spiritus, sicut a Patre Filius; sic tertia in Spiritu ut in Filio secunda persona.’ Ibid. ‘Omne quod prodit ex aliquo, secundum sit ejus necesse est de quo prodit, non ideo tamen est separatum. Secundus autem ubi est, duo sunt; et tertius ubi est, tres sunt; tertius enim est Spiritus a Deo et Filio.’ Tertul. adv. Prax. cap. 8. [p. 504 C.] ‘Sic alium a se Paracletum, quomodo et nos a Patre alium Filium; ut tertium gradum ostenderet in Paracleto, sicut nos secundum in Filio.’ Ibid. cap. 9. [p. 505 A.] ‘Hic interim acceptum a Patre munus effudit Spiritum Sanctum, tertium nomen divinitatis, et tertium gradum majestatis.’ cap. 30. [p. 518 D.] ‘Ὁ δὲ ὡς ἐξ αἰτίου γεγονὼς υἱός, δεύτερος οὖν ἐστιν υἱὸς καθέστηκε, παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τὸ εἶναι καὶ τοιόσδε εἶναι εἰληφός. Euseb. Dem. Evang. lib. iv. cap. 3. [p. 147 D.] ‘Et quidem confessione communi secunda quidem ab auctore nativitas est, quia ex Deo est; non tamen separabilis ab auctore, quia in quantum sensus noster intelligentiam tentabit nativitatis excedere, in tantum necesse est etiam generationis excedat.’ S. Hilar. de Trin. lib. xii. cap. 51. [p. 1139 E.] ‘Tua enim res est, et unigenitus tuus est—filius ex te Deo Patre Deus verus, et a te in naturæ tuæ unitate genitus, post te ita confitendus, ut tecum, quia æternæ originis suæ auctor æternus es. Nam dum ex te est, secundus a te est.’ Idem, cap. 54. [p. 1141 B.] This by the Schools is called Ordo naturæ, ordo originis, ordo naturalis præsuppositionis. Which being so generally acknowledged by the Fathers, when we read in the Athanasian Creed, In this Trinity none is afore or after other, we must understand it of the priority of perfection or time. [Printed p. 66]

origination, and the Holy Ghost unto the Son. Neither can we be thought to want a sufficient foundation for this priority of the first Person of the Trinity, if we look upon the numerous testimonies of the ancient doctors of the Church, who have not stuck to call the Father the origin²¹, the cause²², 38

Notes to p. 66 (note 22 begins here and continues on p. 67, transcribed in full below):

²¹ Μικρῶν γὰρ ἂν εἴη καὶ ἀναξίων ἀρχὴν, μᾶλλον δὲ μικρῶς τε καὶ ἀναξίως· μὴ θεότητος ὢν ἀρχὴ καὶ ἀγαθότητος τῆς ἐν υἱῷ καὶ πνεύματι θεωρουμένης. Greg. Naz. Orat. 1. et 29. [Orat. ii. §. 38. vol. i. p. 30 D.] Μὴ χρονικὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ καταδέξῃ τινὸς λέγοντος, ἀλλὰ ἄχρονον ἀρχὴν γίνωσκε τὸν πατέρα· ἀρχὴ γὰρ υἱοῦ ἄχρονος, ἀκατάληπτος. S. Cyril. Hier. Catech. 11. [§. 20. p. 159 A.] 'Ἀρχὴ μὲν οὖν πατρὸς οὐδεμία, ἀρχὴ δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ ὁ πατήρ. S. Basil. cont. Eunom. lib. ii. [§. 12. vol. i. p. 247 C.] Φαίνεται λοιπὸν ὁ μακάριος εὐαγγελιστὴς σαφέστερον ἡμῖν ἑρμηνεύων τὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς ὄνομα. οὐδὲν γὰρ ἕτερον, ὡς εἰκὸς, τὴν ἀρχὴν εἶναι φησιν, ἢ αὐτὸν τὸν πατέρα, ἀφ' οὗπερ ὁ ζῶν ἐξέλαμψε λόγος, καθάπερ ἐξ ἡλίου τὸ φῶς. οὐκοῦν ἀρχὴ τῷ υἱῷ ὁ πατήρ. S. Cyril. Alex. Thesaur. cap. 32. [vol. v. p. 312 C.] 'Cum dixisset, quem mittet Pater, addidit, in nomine meo: non tamen dixit, quem mittet Pater a me, quemadmodum dixit, quem ego mittam vobis a Patre; videlicet ostendens quod totius Divinitatis, vel, si melius dicitur, Deitatis, principium Pater est.' S. August. de Trin. lib. iv. cap. 20. [§. 29. vol. viii. p. 829 E.] 'Unum principium ad creaturam dicitur Deus, non duo vel tria principia. Ad se autem invicem in Trinitate, si gignens ad id quod gignitur [gignit] principium est, Pater ad Filium principium est, quia gignit eum.' S. August. de Trin. lib. v. cap. 14. [c. 13. §. 14, 15. vol. viii. p. 840 F.] 'Pater ergo principium Deitatis.' Gennad. de Eccles. Dogm. cap. 1. [p. 75 A.] In this sense the Greek Fathers used ἄναρχος as proper to the Father, (in the same notion with ἀγέννητος, with relation to the principium productionis,) and denied it to the Son: 'Ὁ δὲ υἱὸς, ἐὰν μὲν ὡς αἴτιον τὸν πατέρα λαμβάνῃς, οὐκ ἄναρχος, ἀρχὴ γὰρ υἱοῦ πατὴρ ὡς αἴτιος· ἐὰν δὲ τὴν ἀπὸ χρόνου νοῇς ἀρχὴν, καὶ ἄναρχος. S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 29. [Orat. xx. §. 7. vol. i. p. 380 C.] Εἰ τις ἀγέννητον καὶ ἄναρχον λέγει τὸν υἱὸν, ὡς δύο ἄναρχα καὶ δύο ἀγέννητα λέγων, καὶ δύο ποιοῦν θεοὺς, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. Syn. Sirm. Conf. prima. [Socrates, lib. ii. c. 30. vol. ii. p. 126.] Thus first translated into Latin: 'Si quis innascibilem et sine initio dicat Filium, tanquam duo sine principio, et duo innascibilia, et duo innata dicens, duos faciat Deos, anathema sit.' S. Hilar. de Syn. [c. 38. p. 1177 B.] In which sense the Platonists did understand ἀγέννητος of God. 'Ὅστε οὐκ ἀγαθὸν τὴν λεγομένην ὕλην τὸ κοσμεῖσθαι, εἴπερ ἀγέννητος εἴη μὴ ἀπὸ χρόνου μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ἀπὸ αἰτίου· καθ' ὃ σημαίνουμεν καὶ τὸν θεὸν ἀγέννητον λέγομεν. Hierocles de Provid. [p. 248.] And the Latins, attributing the term principium to the Son, do it with the addition of de or ex principio. 'Pater principium non de principio, Filius principium de principio.' S. August. cont. Maximin. lib. iii. cap. 17. [II. 17. 4. vol. viii. p. 716 E.] 'Principium ex principio et unum est, et initio caret.' Faustus Rheg. Epist. 16. [p. 531 C.] 'Ex ore, inquit, Altissimi prodivi. Hæc est enim nativitas perfecta Sermonis, hoc est principium sine principio; hic est ortus habens initium in nativitate, in statu non habens.' Phœbad. cont. Arian. [c. xi. p. 253 A.] 'Sicut in creaturis invenitur principium primum et principium secundum; ita in personis divinis invenitur principium non de principio, quod est Pater, et principium a principio, quod est Filius.' Tho. Aquin. I. q. 33. art. 4. And to this all the Schoolmen writing on his Sums agree, as all upon the Sentences. I Dist. 29.

²² Αἰτία ἐστὶν ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ φύσις, καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ, καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, καὶ τῆς κτίσεως πάσης. S. Athanas. Dissert. Orthod. et Anom. [De Trinitate, Dial. ii. §. 23. vol. ii. p. 502 F.] 'Ἀλλὰ τὶς ἐστὶ δύναμις ἀγέννητος καὶ ἄναρχος ὑφεστῶσα, ἥτις ἐστὶν αἰτία τῆς ἁπάντων τῶν ὄντων αἰτίας· ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ πατρὸς ὁ υἱὸς, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα. S. Basil. Epist. 43. [Epist. xxxviii. 4. vol. iii. p. 117 C.] And

[Printed p. 67]

the author²³, the root²⁴, the fountain²⁵, and the head²⁶ of the Son, or the whole Divinity.

Notes to p. 67 (note 22 concludes here, begun on p. 66; note 23 begins here and continues on p. 68, transcribed in full below):

²² (continued) upon that place, This day have I begotten thee: 'Ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν, γενέσθαι, τὴν αἰτίαν ἀφ' ἧς ἔχει τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ εἶναι σημαίνει. Idem, cont. Eunom. lib. ii. [§. 17. vol. i. p. 252 D.] Πῶς οὐδεμίαν διαφορὰν καταλείπει, οὐδὲ τὴν τοῖς αἰτίοις πρὸς τὰ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐνυπάρχουσαν; Idem, lib. i. [§. 23. p. 234 E.] Πρὸς τὸ, ὅτι ἐγὼ ἦλθον ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ πατρός μου, ἐκεῖνο εἰδέναι χρὴ, ὅτι ἀρχὴν ἑαυτοῦ καὶ αἰτίαν ἐπιγράφουσι τὸν πατέρα, ταῦτα λέγει. Idem, Epist. 64. [Epist. ccx. 4. vol. iii. p. 315 D.] Διαφορὰν τῶν ὑποστάσεων ἐν μόναις ταῖς τρισὶν ἰδιότησι, τῇ ἀναίτιῳ καὶ πατρικῇ, καὶ αἰτιατῇ υἱϊκῇ, καὶ τῇ αἰτιατῇ καὶ ἐκπορευτῇ, ἐπιγινώσκομεν. Damasc. lib. iv. cap. 5. [lib. iii. c. 5. p. 210 C.] Τὸν πατέρα τοῦ λόγου καὶ τῆς σοφίας, καὶ προβολέα τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου, τὴν πρώτην αἰτίαν καὶ ἀρχὴν φαμὲν τῆς θεότητος εἶναι. Zachar. Mitylen. [Galland. xi. p. 285 E.] And although Thomas Aquinas, and Eugenius Bishop of Rome, in the definition of the Council of Florence, have observed that the Greeks in this case do use the term of causa, but the Latins only principium; yet the very Latin Fathers in the twenty-fifth Session of the same Council have these words, Μίαν γνώσκουμεν τὸν πατέρα αἰτίαν, καὶ ῥίζαν, καὶ πηγὴν τῆς θεότητος' [Mansi, xxxi. p. 880 D.] and we have before cited Victorinus Afer, who says 'Pater causa est ipsi Filio ut sit.' [lib. i. adv. Ar. p. 193 C.] So St. Hilary, 'Deum nasci, non est aliud quam in ea natura esse qua Deus est; quia nasci cum causam nativitatis ostendat, non disproficit tamen in genere auctoris existere.' De Trin. lib. xi. cap. 11. [p. 1088 F.] 'Ex spiritu enim spiritus nascens, licet de proprietate spiritus, per quam et ipse spiritus est, nascatur, non tamen alia ei præterquam perfectarum atque indemutabilium causarum ad id quod nascitur causa est; et ex causa, licet perfecta atque indemutabili nascens, necesse est ex causa in causæ ipsius proprietate nascatur.' Idem, lib. xii. cap. 8. [p. 1116 E.] 'Qui ex eo qui est natus est, intelligi non potest ex eo quod non fuit natus esse, quia ei is qui est, ad id quod est, causa est, non etiam id quod non est, origo nascendi est.' Ibid. cap. 17. [p. 1120 E.] 'Deus omnium quæ sunt causa est. Quod autem omnium rerum causa est, etiam sapientiæ suæ causa est, nec unquam Deus sine sapientia sua. Igitur sempiternæ sapientiæ suæ causa est sempiterna.' S. August. lib. de divers. quæst. lxxxiii. quæst. 16. [vol. vi. p. 4 F.] And as they called the Father the cause of the Son, so they accounted it the propriety of the Father to be without a cause, as appears out of Alexander the Bishop of Alexandria's Epistle before produced.

²³ We have cited Phœbadius speaking so before; to which may be added, 'Si quis igitur adhuc et de Apostolo requirit dominicum statum, id est, singularis substantiæ dualitatem quæ per naturam auctori suo jungatur:' [c. Arianos, c. xxi. p. 256 B.] et paulo post; 'Sed cum refertur ex ipso, certe ad Patrem, ut ad rerum omnium respicitur auctorem.' St. Hilary is known to speak frequently of the authority of the Father, as of the author of his Son; and several places have been already collected, especially by Petavius, to which these may be added, besides what have been already produced, 'Ipso quod Pater dicitur, ejus quem genuit auctor ostenditur.' De Trin. lib. iv. cap. 9. [p. 831 E.] 'Cum potius honor Filii dignitas sit paterna, et gloriosus auctor sit ex quo is, qui tali gloria sit dignus, extiterit.' Ibid. cap. 10. [p. 832 B.] 'Aliud est sine auctore esse semper æternum, aliud quod patri, id est, auctori, est coæternum. Ubi enim pater auctor est, ibi et nativitas est. At vero ubi auctor æternus est, ibi et nativitas æterna est: quia sicut nativitas ab auctore est, ita et ab æterno auctore æterna nativitas est.' Idem, lib. xii. cap. 21. [p. 1123 A.] 'Quod vero ex æterno natum est, id si non æternum natum est, jam non erit et pater auctor æternus. Si quid igitur ei, qui ab æterno patre natus est, ex æternitate defuerit, id ipsum auctori non est ambiguum deesse.' Ibid. 'Natum non post aliquid, sed ante omnia: ut nativitas tantum testetur auctorem, non

[Printed p. 68]

[Editorial — no body text on this page: the page is filled with the conclusion of note 23 and notes 24–26.]

Notes to p. 68 (note 23 concludes here, begun on p. 67; notes 24–26 begin here; the * note is printed at the foot of this page):

²³ (continued) præposterum aliquid in se ab auctore significet.' Ibid. cap. 51. [p. 1139 D.] 'Natum autem ita, ut nihil aliud quam te sibi significet auctorem.' Ibid. cap. 52. [p. 1140 C.] 'Ipsius tamen auctor est Pater generans sine initio.' Ruffin. in Symb. [§. 6. p. cciv.] 'Si propterea Deum Patrem Deo Filio dicis auctorem, quia ille genuit, genitus est iste, quia iste de illo est, non ille de isto; fateor et concedo.' S. August. cont. Maximin. lib. iii. cap. 14. [II. 14. 6. vol. viii. p. 706 A.]

²⁴ 'Nec dubitaverim Filium dicere, et radicis fruticem, et fontis fluvium, et solis radium.' Tertul. adv. Prax. cap. 8. [p. 504 C.] 'Nec frutex tamen a radice, nec fluvius a fonte, nec radius a sole discernitur; sicut nec a Deo Sermo.' Ibid. 'Ἔστι μὲν γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ τέλειον ἔχων τὸ εἶναι καὶ ἀνενδεὲς, ῥίζα καὶ πηγὴ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. S. Basil. Homil. cont. Sabellianos [§. 4. vol. ii. p. 193 D.] 'Dominus Pater, quia radix est Filii.' S. Ambros. in Luc. lib. x. cap. 1. [§. 5. vol. i. p. 1505 B.] ut et de Fide, lib. iv. cap. 5. St. Cyril of Alexandria, speaking of the baptismal institution, Τὴν μὲν γὰρ ἀνωτάτω ῥίζαν ἧς ἐπέκεινα τὸ συμπᾶν οὐδὲν, ἐννοήσεις τὸν πατέρα· τὸν δὲ γε τῆς ἀνωτάτω ῥίζης ἐκπεφυκότα καὶ γεγεννημένον, παραδέξῃ τὸν υἱόν. De S. Trin. Dial. 2. [vol. v. p. 422 E.]

²⁵ 'Ἄναρχος ὁ πατὴρ, πηγὴ τοῦ τῆς δικαιοσύνης ποταμοῦ, τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὁ πατὴρ. S. Cyril. Hier. Catech. xi. [§. 20. p. 159 A.] 'In hac ergo natura filius est, et in hoc originis fonte subsistens processit ex sapiente sapientia, ex forti virtus, ex lumine splendor.' Vigil. African. Disp. [p. 702 C.] 'Ὡς πνεῦμα θεοῦ καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ πεφυκὸς, αἴτιον αὑτὸν ἔχον, ὡς πηγὴν ἑαυτοῦ, κἀκεῖθεν πήγαζον. S. Basil. Homil. 28. Λέγει περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἡ θεία γραφὴ, Κλίνα, φησὶν, ἐπ' αὑτοὺς ὡς ποταμὸς εἰρήνης· ἐκπορευόμενος δηλονότι ἐκ τῆς ἀληθοῦς πηγῆς τῆς ζωῆς, τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς θεότητος. Act. Concil. Nic. lib. ii. cap. 22. [Mansi, i. p. 367 C.] And St. Cyril of Alexandria, who often useth this expression, gives us the full signification of it in these words, upon the first chapter of St. John: [vol. iv. p. 12 A.] 'Ἀδικήσει δὲ ὅλως οὐδὲν τὸ ὡς ἐν πηγῇ τῷ πατρὶ τὸν υἱὸν ὑπάρχειν ἐννοεῖν· μόνον γὰρ τὸ ἐξ οὗ τὸ τῆς πηγῆς ἐν τούτοις ὄνομα σημαίνει. 'Patrem quidem non genitum, non creatum, sed ingenitum profitemur: ipse enim a nullo originem ducit, ex quo et Filius nativitatem, et Spiritus Sanctus processionem accepit. Fons ergo ipse et origo est totius divinitatis.' Concil. Toletan. xi. [Præfatio. Mansi, xi. p. 132 E.] 'Quanto magis Dei vocem credendum est et manere in æternum; et sensu ac virtute comitari, quam de Deo Patre tanquam rivus de fonte traduxit?' Lactan. de Ver. Sap. lib. iv. cap. 8. [vol. i. p. 259.] et rursus, cap. 29. 'Cum igitur et Pater Filium faciat, et Filius Patrem, una utrique mens, unus spiritus, una substantia est; sed ille quasi exuberans fons est, hic tanquam defluens ex eo rivus; ille tanquam sol, hic tanquam radius a sole porrectus *.' [p. 320.]

²⁶ 'Caput, quod est principium omnium, Filius: caput autem, quod est principium Christi, Deus.' Concil. Sirm. [Mansi, iii. p. 260 D.] accepted and expounded as orthodox by St. Hilary. 'Caput enim omnium Filius, sed caput Filii Deus.' S. Hilar. de Syn. [c. 60. p. 1185 C.] 'Cum ipse sit omnium caput, ipsius tamen caput est Pater.' Ruffin. in Symb. [§. 6. p. cciv.] Tu capitis primique caput, tu fontis origo. Hilar. ad Leonem. [v. 9. p. 1369 D.] Οὔτε δύο εἰσὶν ἀρχαὶ, ἀλλὰ κεφαλὴ τοῦ υἱοῦ ὁ πατὴρ, μία ἡ ἀρχή. Cyril. Hier. Catech. xi. [§. 14. p. 156.] 'Caput Filii Pater est, et caput Spiritus Sancti Filius, quia de ipso accepit.' S. August. Quæst. Vet. Test. 9. St. Chrysostom is so clearly of the opinion that 1 Cor. xi. is to be understood of Christ as God, that from thence he proves him to have the same essence with God: Εἰ γὰρ κεφαλὴ γυναικὸς ὁ ἀνὴρ, ὁμοούσιος δὲ ἡ κεφαλὴ τῷ σώματι· κεφαλὴ δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ ὁ θεὸς, ὁμοούσιος ὁ υἱὸς τῷ πατρί. [Hom. xxvi. in Act. Apost. vol. x. p. 229 B.] So likewise Theodoret upon the same place: 'Ἡ δὲ γυνὴ οὐ ποίημα τοῦ ἀνδρὸς, ἀλλ' ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ ἀνδρὸς· οὐδὲ ὁ υἱὸς ἄρα ποίημα τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀλλ' ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ θεοῦ. [In Ep. ad Cor. i. vol. iii. p. 172 A.] So St. Cyril. Κεφαλὴ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ Θεὸς, ὅτι ἐξ αὐτοῦ κατὰ φύσιν· γεγέννηται γὰρ ὁ λόγος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς. Ad Regin. Ep. 1. [de Recta Fide, p. 64 A.]

• [Upon the subject of this note, see Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. iv. 1. 3.]

[Printed p. 69]

For by these titles it appeareth clearly, first, that they made a considerable difference between the Person of the Father, of whom are all things, [1 Cor. viii. 6.] and the Person of the Son, by whom are all things. Secondly, that the difference consisteth properly in this, that as the branch is from the root, and river from the fountain, and by their origination from them receive that being which they have; whereas the root receiveth nothing from the branch, or fountain from the river: so the Son is from the Father, receiving his subsistence by generation from him; the Father is not from the Son, as being what he is from none.

Some indeed of the ancients may seem to have made yet a farther difference between the Persons of the Father and the Son, laying upon that relation terms of greater opposition. As if, because the Son hath not his essence from himself, the Father²⁷ had; because he was not begotten of himself, the Father²⁸ had been so; because he is not the cause of himself, the Father²⁹ were. Whereas, if we speak properly, God the Father hath 39 neither his being from another, nor from himself³⁰; not from another, that were repugnant to his Paternity; not from himself, that were a contradiction in itself. And therefore those expressions are not to be understood positively and affirmatively, but negatively and exclusively³¹, that he hath his essence from

Notes to p. 69 (note 31 begins here and continues on p. 70, transcribed in full below):

²⁷ Lactan. lib. i. cap. 8. S. Hilar. lib. ii. Zach. Mitylen.

²⁸ Lactan. ibid. Synes. Hymn.

²⁹ S. Hieron. in cap. iii. ad Eph. [vol. vii.]

³⁰ 'Ἄναρχος οὖν ὁ πατήρ· οὐ γὰρ ἑτέρωθεν αὑτῷ, οὐδὲ παρ' ἑαυτοῦ τὸ εἶναι. S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 30. [Orat. xx. §. 7. vol. i. p. 380 C.] 'Ὁ ἀγέννητος οὐ γεγέννηται, οὔθ' ὑφ' ἑαυτοῦ, οὔθ' ὑφ' ἑτέρου. S. Athanas. 'Si rursum quod a semetipso sit accipias, nemo sibi ipse et munerator et munus est.' S. Hil. de Trin. lib. ii. cap. 7. [p. 792 D.] 'Qui putant Deum ejus potentiæ esse ut seipsum ipse genuerit, eo plus errant, quod non solum Deus ita non est, sed neque corporalis neque spiritualis creatura. Nulla enim omnino res est quæ seipsam gignat ut sit. Et ideo non est credendum, vel dicendum, quod Deus genuit se.' S. August.

³¹ This appeareth by those expositions which have been given of such words as seem to bear the affirmation: as Αὐτογένεθλος, αὐτοφυὴς, αὐτόγονος, αὐτογενὴς, &c. Αὐτογενὴς, αὐτογένεθλος, οὐκ ἐκ τινος γεννώμενος. Hesych. And Αὐτολόχευτος, Θεὸς ἀγέννητος, αὐτογέννητος. Idem. And after him Suidas: Αὐτολόχευτος, αὐτογέννητος, ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ἀγέννητος. And if αὐτογέννητος be not αὐτόθεν γεννητὸς, no more is αὐτόθεος to be taken for αὐτόθεν, or ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ θεός. Eusebius in his Panegyrical Oration gives this title to the Son, Οἷα τοῦ καθόλου Θεοῦ παῖδα γνήσιον καὶ αὐτόθεον προσκυνεῖσθαι. Hist. lib. x. cap. 4. [p. 468.] And in his Evangelical Demonstration calls him, Αὐτονοῦν, καὶ αὐτολόγον, καὶ αὐτοσοφίαν, καὶ εἴ τι δὲ αὐτοκαλὸν καὶ αὐτοαγαθὸν. lib. iv. cap. 2. [p. 146 A.] And in the thirteenth chapter of the same book, with relation to the former words, Τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος, αὐτοζωὴ τυγχάνων, καὶ αὐτοφῶς νοερὸν, καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα προκατείλεκται. Theodoret terms him, Αὐτοδύναμιν καὶ αὐτοζωὴν καὶ αὐτοσοφίαν. cont. Anathem. quartum Cyrilli. [vol. iv. p. 712 C.] St. Basil, Αὐτοζωὴν, in Psal. xlviii. et de Spiritu Sancto, cap. 8. and Αὐτοδικαιοσύνην. Epist. 141. [al. viii.] St. Chrysostom, Αὐτοαθανασίαν,

[Printed p. 70]

none, that he is not begotten of any, nor hath he any cause of his existence. So that the proper notion of the Father in whom

Notes to p. 70 (no new note begins on p. 70; the remainder of note 31, begun on p. 69, is printed here; the * note is printed at the foot of this page):

³¹ (continued) αὐτομακαριότητα. St. Athanasius gives him them, and many more to the same purpose. And before all these Origen: 'Ὃν μὲν νομίζομεν καὶ πεπείσμεθα ἀρχῆθεν εἶναι Θεὸν, καὶ υἱὸν Θεοῦ, οὗτος ὁ αὐτολόγος ἐστὶ, καὶ ἡ αὐτοσοφία, καὶ ἡ αὐτοαλήθεια. [c. Cels. iii. 41. vol. i. p. 474 A.] And again, Τίς μᾶλλον τῆς Ἰησοῦ ψυχῆς ἢ κἂν παραπλησίως κεκόλληται τῷ Κυρίῳ, τῷ αὐτολόγῳ καὶ αὐτοσοφίᾳ καὶ αὐτοαληθείᾳ καὶ αὐτοδικαιοσύνῃ; lib. vi. [c. 47. p. 669 F.] Εἰκὼν μὲν τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεώς ἐστιν ὁ αὐτολόγος, καὶ ἡ αὐτοαλήθεια, ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἡ αὐτοσοφία. Ibid. [§. 63. p. 680 D.] And certainly in the same sense that αὐτὸς is joined with one attribute, it may be joined with any other, and with the Godhead: because all the attributes of God are really the same, not only with themselves, but with the essence. But in what sense it ought to be understood, when thus used by the Fathers, it will be necessary to inquire, lest it be so attributed to the Son, as it prove derogatory to the Father. St. Basil, I confess, may seem so to speak, as if the Son were therefore αὐτοζωὴ, because he hath life of himself, not from the Father, (and consequently he may be termed αὐτόθεος, as God of himself, not from the Father,) for he denieth those words, I live by the Father, to be spoken of Christ, according to his divine nature, and that only for this reason, that if it were so understood, he could not be called αὐτοζωή. Εἰ διὰ τὸν πατέρα ὁ υἱὸς ζῇ, δι' ἑτέρου καὶ οὐ δι' ἑαυτὸν ζῇ· ὁ δὲ δι' ἑτέρου ζῶν, αὐτοζωὴ εἶναι οὐ δύναται· from whence he concludeth, εἰς τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν οὖν, καὶ οὐκ εἰς τὴν θεότητα, τὸ εἰρημένον νοεῖν δεῖ. cont. Eunom. lib. iv. [vol. i. p. 290 D.] But because the authority of that book is questioned*, I shall produce the same author upon the same Scripture, speaking to the same purpose, in his 141st Epistle, which is unquestionably genuine: 'Ἐνταῦθα δὲ τὸ ῥητὸν οὐ τὴν προαίρεσιν, ὡς οἴμαι, ζωὴν ὀνομάζει· πᾶν γὰρ τὸ δι' ἑτέρου ζῶν, αὐτοζωὴ εἶναι οὐ δύναται. [Epist. viii. 4. vol. iii. p. 83 E.] To which testimonies I answer, first, that those words of his, ὡς οἴμαι, (as I think,) shew that he doth not absolutely deny these words of Christ to be understood of his Divinity, of which the rest of the Fathers quoted before did understand it; and not only they, but St. Basil himself, in his book de Spiritu Sancto, cap. 8, hath delivered a clear resolution of this point according to that interpretation, wholly consonant to his doctrine of the Trinity in other parts of his works: 'Ὅμως μέντοι, ἵνα μὴ ποτε ἐκ τοῦ μεγέθους τῶν ἐνεργουμένων περισπασθῶμεν εἰς τὸ φαντασθῆναι ἄναρχον εἶναι τὸν κύριον, τί φησιν ἡ αὐτοζωή; 'Ἐγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα. καὶ ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ δύναμις; Οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ οὐδέν. καὶ ἡ αὐτοτέλης σοφία; 'Ἐντολὴν ἔλαβον, τί εἴπω, καὶ τί λαλήσω; [§. 19. vol. iii. p. 16 E.] Christ therefore as αὐτοζωὴ spake those words, I live by the Father, and by them shewed his origination from him, from whom he received his life, power, and wisdom, as receiving his essence, which is the same with them: wherefore those former passages are to be looked upon, as if αὐτὸς in composition did not deny origination, but participation, or receiving by way of affection. And that he understood it so, appears out of the places themselves: for in the first, after ὁ δι' ἑτέρου ζῶν αὐτοζωὴ εἶναι οὐ δύναται, immediately followeth, οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁ κατὰ χάριν ἅγιος αὐτόαγιος· and in the second, after πᾶν γὰρ τὸ δι' ἑτέρου ζῶν αὐτοζωὴ εἶναι οὐ δύναται, followeth likewise, ὡς οὐδὲ τὸ ὑφ' ἑτέρου θερμανθὲν αὐτοθερμότης εἶναι. The meaning then of St. Basil must be this, that he which receiveth life from another merely as a grace or favour, as the saints receive their sanctity, cannot properly be termed αὐτοζωὴ, no more than they αὐτοάγιοι· or if he receive it by derivation or participation, as water receiveth heat from fire, he deserveth the same name no more than water heated to be called αὐτοθερμότης. And this is fully consonant to the expressions of the rest of the ancients: as particularly Athanasius, Οὐ κατὰ μετοχὴν ταῦτα ὢν, οὐδὲ ἔξωθεν ἐπιγινόμενων τούτων αὐτῷ

• [The Benedictine editor considers it genuine.]

[Printed p. 71]

we believe is this, that he is a Person subsisting eternally in the one infinite essence of the Godhead; which essence or subsistence he hath received from no other Person, but hath communicated the same essence, in which himself subsisteth, by generation to another person, who by that generation is the Son.

Howsoever, it is most reasonable to assert that there is but one Person who is from none; and the very generation of the Son and procession of the Holy Ghost undeniably prove, that neither of those two can be that Person. For whosoever is generated is from him which is the genitor, and whosoever proceedeth is from him from whom he proceedeth, whatsoever the nature of the generation or procession be. It followeth therefore that this Person is the Father, which name speaks nothing of dependence, nor supposeth any kind of priority in another.

Notes to p. 71 (no new note begins on p. 71; the remainder of note 31, begun on p. 69, is printed here):

³¹ (continued) κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοῦ μετέχοντας, καὶ σοφιζομένους δι' αὐτοῦ, καὶ δυνατοὺς, καὶ λογικοὺς ἐν αὐτῷ γινομένους· ἀλλ' αὐτοσοφία, αὐτολόγος, αὐτοδύναμις ἰδία τοῦ πατρὸς ἐστιν, αὐτοφῶς, αὐτοαλήθεια, αὐτοδικαιοσύνη, αὐτοαρετή. in fine Protrept. [Orat. cont. Gent. §. 46. vol. i. p. 46 A.] And to the same purpose, 'Ὅτι οὐ μεθεκτὴν ἔχει τὴν δωρεὰν, ἀλλ' αὐτοπηγὴ καὶ αὐτόρριζα πάντων ἐστὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν, αὐτοζωὴ καὶ αὐτοφῶς, καὶ αὐτοαλήθεια, in the MS. Catena in the king of France's library. Petav. de Trin. lib. vi. cap. 11. All therefore which these compositions signify, is either a negation of a derivative participation, or an affirmation of a reality and identity of substance, as yet farther appears by St. Epiphanius, Αὐτουσία ἐστὶν ὁ θεὸς πατὴρ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὐχ ἑτερουσία· and Origen himself upon St. John, 'Ἡ αὐτοδικαιοσύνη ἡ οὐσιώδης, Χριστός ἐστι. [vol. iv. p. 107 E.] as also ἡ αὐτοαλήθεια ἡ οὐσιώδης, καὶ, ἵν' οὕτως εἴπω, πρωτότυπος τῆς ἐν ταῖς λογικαῖς ψυχαῖς ἀληθείας. [Ibid.] To conclude, there is a catholic sense in which the Son is termed αὐτόθεος, αὐτοσοφία, &c. by the ancient Fathers; and another sense there is in which these terms are so proper and peculiar to the Father, that they are denied to the Son. Indeed αὐτόθεος, in the highest sense, ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ θεὸς, positively taken, belongeth neither to the Son nor to the Father, as implying a manifest contradiction; because nothing can have its being actually from itself, as communicated to itself, and that by itself: but in a negative way of interpretation, by which that is said to be of itself, which is and yet is not of or from another, αὐτόθεος belongs properly to the Father, neither generated by, nor proceeding from another; and in that sense it is denied to the Son, because he is generated by the Father, as ἐκ θεοῦ θεὸς, ἐκ σοφοῦ σοφία, ἐκ λογικοῦ λόγος, καὶ ἐκ πατρὸς υἱός. saith St. Athanasius, cont. Arian. Orat. v. [Orat. iv. 1. p. 618 B.] from whence he thus proceeds, 'Ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ ἂν τις εἴποι αὐτοσοφίαν εἶναι καὶ αὐτολόγον τὸν θεὸν, ἀλλ' εἰ τοῦτο, εἴη ἂν αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ πατὴρ καὶ υἱός. [Ib. §. 2. p. 618 D.] And again, Εἰ δὲ αὐτοσοφία ὁ θεὸς, καὶ τὸ ἐκ τούτου ἄτοπον εἴρηται παρὰ Σαβελλίῳ. [Ibid.] Lastly, in another sense, in which αὐτὸς in composition is taken not in obliquo, but in recto; αὐτόθεος, that is, αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς, God himself, and αὐτοζωὴ, αὐτὴ ἡ ζωή, life itself; so all these terms are attributed to the Son as truly, really, and essentially, as to the Father. And that the Fathers took it so appears, because they did sometimes resolve the composition: as when Eusebius calleth Christ αὐτόθεον, in the Panegyrick before cited, presently after he speaketh thus: [Eus. H. E. x. 4. p. 469.] Τί γὰρ καὶ ἔμελλε τοῦ παμβασιλέως καὶ πανηγεμόνος καὶ αὐτοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου ἐνστήσεσθαι τῷ νεύματι; where αὐτοῦ Θεοῦ is the same with αὐτοθέου. [For the subject of this note, see Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. iv. 1. 7.]

[Printed p. 72]

From hence it is observed that the name of God, taken absolutely³², is often in the Scriptures spoken of the Father: as when we read of God sending his only Son; [Rom. viii. 3.] of the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God; [2 Cor. xiii. 14.] and generally wheresoever Christ is called the Son of God, or the Word of God, the name of God is to be taken particularly for the Father, [1 Cor. viii. 6.] [Eph. iv. 6.] because he is no Son but of the Father. From hence he is styled one God, the true God, [1 Thess. i. 9.] the only true God, [John xvii. 5.] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ³³. [2 Cor. i. 3.] [Eph. i. 3.]

Which, as it is most true, and so fit to be believed, is also a most necessary truth, and therefore to be acknowledged, for the avoiding multiplication and plurality of Gods³⁴. For if there were more than one which were from none, it could not be denied but there were more Gods than one. Wherefore this origination³⁵

Notes to p. 72 (note 35 begins here and continues on p. 73, transcribed in full below):

³² 'Ὅθεν οἱ ἀπόστολοι, καὶ πᾶσα σχεδὸν ἡ θεία γραφὴ, ὅταν εἴπῃ, ὁ Θεὸς, οὕτως ἀπολύτως καὶ ἀπροσδιορίστως, καὶ ὡς ἐπίπαν σὺν ἄρθρῳ, καὶ χωρὶς ἰδιώματος ὑποστατικοῦ, τὸν πατέρα δηλοῖ. Theod. Abucara Opusc. 42. [p. 437 C.]

³³ 'Unxit te Deus, Deus tuus. Id enim quod ait, tuus, ad nativitatem refertur; cæterum non perimit naturam. Et idcirco Deus ejus est, quia ex eo natus in Deum est. Non tamen per id quod Pater Deus est, non et Filius Deus est. Unxit enim te, Deus, Deus tuus; designata videlicet et auctoris et ex eo geniti significatione, uno eodemque dicto utrumque illum in naturæ ejusdem et dignitatis nuncupatione constituit.' S. Hilar. de Trin. lib. iv. cap. 35. [p. 848 B.] 'Deo enim ex quo omnia sunt Deus nullus est, qui sine initio æternus est. Filio autem Deus Pater est, ex eo enim Deus natus est.' Idem, cap. 37. [p. 849 B.] 'Cum autem ex Deo Deus est, per id quoque Deus Pater Deo Filio et nativitatis ejus Deus est, et naturæ Pater, quia Dei nativitas et ex Deo est, et in ea est generis natura qua Deus est.' Idem, lib. xi. cap. 11. [p. 1089 A.] So St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 11. [§. 18. p. 158 A.] Θεὸς ὁ γεννήσας, Θεὸς ὁ γεννηθείς· Θεὸς μὲν τῶν πάντων· Θεὸν δὲ ἑαυτοῦ τὸν πατέρα ἐπιγραφόμενος.

³⁴ Μὴ μοι—εἴπητε, δύο θεοὺς κηρύττει, πολυθεΐαν καταγγέλλει· οὐ δύο θεοὶ, οὐδὲ γὰρ δύο πατέρες· ὁ μὲν ἀρχὰς εἰσάγων δύο, δύο κηρύττει θεοὺς. S. Basil. Homil. cont. Sabellianos. [Hom. xxiv. §. 4. vol. ii. p. 192 A.] 'In duobus ingenitis diversa Divinitas invenitur; in uno autem genito ex uno ingenito naturalis unitas demonstratur.' Fulgent. Resp. cont. Arian. ad Obj. 5. [p. 59.] 'Si quis innascibilem et sine initio dicat Filium, tanquam duo sine principio, et duo innascibilia, et duo innata dicens, duos faciat Deos anathema sit.' Concil. Sirm. [Mansi, iii. p. 260 D.] 'Deus utique procedens ex Deo, secundam personam efficiens, sed non eripiens illud Patri, quod unus est Deus. Si enim natus non fuisset, innatus comparatus cum eo qui esset innatus, æquatione in utroque ostensa, duos faceret innatos, et ideo duos faceret Deos. Si non genitus esset, collatus cum eo qui genitus non esset, et æquales inventi, duos Deos merito reddidissent non geniti; atque ideo duos Christus reddidisset Deos. Si sine origine esset ut Pater inventus, et ipse principium omnium ut Pater, duo faciens principia, duos ostendisset nobis consequenter et Deos,' &c. Novatian. de Trin. cap. 31. [p. 729 D.]

³⁵ 'Ὥσπερ δὲ μία ἀρχὴ, καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο εἷς θεός. S. Athanas. Orat. 5. [Orat. iv. 1. vol. i. p. 617 E.] Τηροῖτο δ' ἂν, ὡς ὁ ἐμὸς λόγος, εἷς μὲν θεὸς, εἷς ἓν αἴτιον καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἀναφερομένων. S. Greg. Naz. Orat. 29. [Orat. xx. §. 7. vol. i. p. 379 E.] 'Ὅπου γὰρ μία μὲν ἡ ἀρχὴ, ἓν δὲ τὸ ἐξ αὐτῆς, καὶ ἓν μὲν τὸ ἀρχέτυπον, μία δὲ ἡ εἰκὼν, ὁ τῆς ἑνότητος λόγος οὐ δια-

[Printed p. 73]

in the Divine Paternity hath anciently been looked upon as the assertion of the Unity: and therefore the Son and Holy Ghost have been believed to be but one God with the Father, because both from the Father, who is one, and so the union of them³⁶.

Secondly, It is necessary thus to believe in the Father, because our salvation is propounded to us by an access unto the Father. We are all gone away and fallen from God, and we must be brought to him again. There is no other notion under which we can be brought to God as to be saved, but the notion of the Father; and there is no other person can bring us to the Father, but the Son of that Father: for, as the Apostle teacheth us, through him we have an access by one Spirit unto the Father. [Eph. ii. 18.]

41 Having thus described the true nature and notion of the Divine Paternity, in all the several degrees and eminencies belonging to it, I may now clearly deliver, and every particular Christian understand, what it is he speaks, when he makes his confession in these words, I believe in God the Father: by which I conceive him to express thus much:

As I am assured that there is an infinite and independent Being, which we call a God, and that it is impossible there should be more infinities than one: so I assure myself that this one God is the Father of all things, especially of all men and angels, so far as the mere act of creation may be styled generation; that he is farther yet, and in a more peculiar manner, the Father of all those whom he regenerateth by his Spirit, whom he adopteth in his Son, as heirs and co-heirs with him, whom he crowneth with the reward of an eternal inheritance in the heavens. But

Notes to p. 73 (note 35 concludes here, begun on p. 72; note 36 begins here):

³⁵ (continued) φθείρεται. S. Basil. Homil. cont. Sabellian. [§. 4. vol. ii. p. 192 C.] 'Patri suo originem suam debens, discordiam Divinitatis de numero duorum Deorum facere non potuit, qui ex illo qui est unus Deus originem nascendo contraxit.' Novatian. de Trin. cap. 31. [p. 730 A.] 'Confitemur—non Deos duos sed Deum unum, neque per id non et Deum Dei Filium, est enim ex Deo Deus; non innascibiles duos, quia auctoritate innascibilitatis Deus unus est.' S. Hilary de Synod. [c. 64. p. 1187 C.] whose assertion is, 'Unum Deum esse ex quo omnia, unam virtutem innascibilem, et unam hanc esse sine initio potestatem:' which words belong unto the Father, and then it followeth of the Son: 'Non enim Patri adimitur quod Deus unus est, quia et Filius Deus sit. Est enim Deus ex Deo, unus ex uno: ob id unus Deus, quia ex se Deus. Contra vero non minus per id Filius Deus, quia Pater Deus unus sit. Est enim unigenitus Filius Dei, non innascibilis, ut Patri adimat quod Deus unus sit.' De Trin. lib. iv. cap. 15. [p. 836 A, B.]

³⁶ Φύσις δὲ τοῖς τρισὶ μία, θεὸς· ἕνωσις δὲ, ὁ πατὴρ, ἐξ οὗ, καὶ πρὸς ὃν ἀνάγεται τὰ ἑξῆς. Greg. Naz. Orat. 32. [Orat. xlii. 15. vol. i. p. 758 D.] Unto which words those of Theodore Abucara have relation, Θεὸς δὲ ἐξαιρέτως λέγεται, ἐπειδὴ ἡ ἕνωσις, ἤτοι ἀνάπτυξις καὶ ἀνακεφαλαίωσις τῆς τριάδος, ὁ πατὴρ ἐστὶν, ὡς εἶπεν ὁ θεολόγος. Opusc. 42. [p. 437 D.]

[Printed p. 74]

beyond and far above all this, beside his general offspring, and peculiar people, to whom he hath given power to become the sons of God, [John i. 12.] I believe him the Father, in a more eminent and transcendent manner, of one singular and proper Son, his own, his beloved, his only-begotten Son: whom he hath not only begotten of the blessed Virgin, by the coming of the Holy Ghost, and the overshadowing of his power; not only sent with special authority as the King of Israel; not only raised from the dead, and made Heir of all things in his house; but antecedently to all this, hath begotten him by way of eternal generation in the same Divinity and Majesty with himself: by which Paternity, coæval to the Deity, I acknowledge him always Father, as much as always God. And in this relation, I profess that eminency and priority, that as he is the original cause of all things as created by him, so is he the fountain of the Son begotten of him, and of the Holy Ghost proceeding from him.

I believe in God the Father Almighty.

AFTER the relation of God's Paternity, immediately followeth the glorious attribute of his Omnipotency³⁷: that as those in heaven in their devotions, so we on earth in our confessions might acknowledge that Holy, holy, holy Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come; [Rev. iv. 8.] that in our solemn meetings at the Church of God, with the joint expression and concurring language of the congregation, we might some way imitate that voice of a great multitude, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Allelujah, for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth³⁸. [Rev. xix. 6.]

This notion of almighty in the Creed must certainly be interpreted according to the sense which the original word beareth in the New Testament; and that cannot be better understood than by the Greek writers or interpreters of the Old, especially when the notion itself belongs unto the Gospel and the Law

Notes to p. 74:

³⁷ For the oldest and shortest Creed had always this attribute expressed in it. Insomuch that Παντοκράτωρ was ordinarily by the ancients taken for the Father, as Orig. lib. vii. cont. Celsum. [c. 10. vol. i. p. 700 E.] 'Ἔχρην δὲ αὐτὸν—ἐκθέσθαι αὐταῖς λέξει τὰς προφητείας, εἴτ' ἐν αἷς Θεὸς Παντοκράτωρ ἐπηγγέλλετο εἶναι ὁ λέγων, εἴτ' ἐν αἷς ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, εἴτ' ἐν αἷς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον λέγων εἶναι ἐπιστεύετο. And according to this general confession did Polycarp begin his prayer at his martyrdom: Κύριε ὁ Θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ καὶ εὐλογητοῦ παιδὸς σοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ πατήρ. Eccles. Smyrn. Epist. [c. 14. Cotel. i. p. 200.]

³⁸ Οἱ παρρησίαν εἰληφότες τὸν παντοκράτορα Θεὸν πατέρα καλεῖν. Constit. Apost. lib. i. Proœm. [Cotel. i. p. 202.]

[Printed p. 75]

indifferently. Now the word which we translate almighty³⁹ the most ancient Greek interpreters used sometimes for the title of God, the Lord of Hosts, sometimes for his name Shaddai, as 42 generally in the book of Job: by the first they seem to signify the rule and dominion which God hath over all; by the second, the strength, force, or power by which he is able to perform all things. The heavens and the earth were finished, saith Moses, and all the host of them: [Gen. ii. 1.] and he which begun them, he which finished them, is the Ruler and Commander of them. Upon the right of creation doth he justly challenge this dominion. I have made the earth, and created man upon it; I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded. [Isa. xlv. 12.] And on this dominion or command doth he raise the title of the Lord of Hosts: Κύριος Σαβαὼθ. which, though preserved in the original language⁴⁰ both by St. Paul and St. James, yet by St. John is turned into that word which we translate almighty. Wherefore from the use of the sacred Writers, from the notation⁴¹ of the word in Greek, and

Notes to p. 75 (note 41 begins here and continues on p. 76, transcribed in full below):

³⁹ Παντοκράτωρ, translated by Tertullian and St. Augustin, Omnitenens, (as Tertullian translates κοσμοκράτορας, munditenentes,) by Prudentius, Omnipollens, by all, Omnipotens, (as St. Hilary translated κοσμοκράτορας, mundipotentes,) and, as I conceive, it is translated, capax universorum, by the Latin interpreter of Hermas. 'Primum omnium credere quod unus est Deus, qui omnia creavit, et consummavit, et ex nihilo omnia fecit. Ipse capax universorum, solus immensus est.' lib. ii. Mand. 1. [Cotel. i. p. 85.] Which, by the interpreter of Irenæus, is thus translated, 'Omnium capax, et qui a nemine capiatur.' lib. iv. cap. 37. [c. 20. §. 2. p. 253.]

⁴⁰ Εἰ μὴ Κύριος Σαβαὼθ ἐγκατέλιπεν ἡμῖν σπέρμα. Rom. ix. 29. the words of Isai. i. 9. Καὶ αἱ βοαὶ τῶν θερισάντων εἰς τὰ ὦτα Κυρίου Σαβαὼθ εἰσεληλύθασιν. Jam. v. 4. which are the words of St. James in relation to Deut. xxiv. 15. 'Ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος, Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ παντοκράτωρ. Rev. iv. 8. which were before in Isaiah; 'Ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος Κύριος Σαβαὼθ. Isai. vi. 3. Τὸ δ' ὅμοιον ἐροῦμεν καὶ περὶ τῆς Σαβαὼθ φωνῆς, πολλαχοῦ τῶν ἐπῳδῶν παραλαμβανομένης· ὅτι εἰ μεταλαμβάνομεν τὸ ὄνομα εἰς τὸ Κύριος τῶν δυνάμεων, ἢ Κύριος στρατιῶν, ἢ παντοκράτωρ, (διάφορος γὰρ αὐτὸ ἐξεδέξαντο οἱ ἑρμηνεῦοντες αὐτὸ) οὐδὲν ποιήσομεν. Orig. cont. Cels. lib. v. [c. 45. vol. i. p. 613 A.]

⁴¹ That Παντοκράτωρ should have the signification of government in it, according to the composition in the Greek language, no man can doubt, who but only considers those vulgar terms of their politics, δημοκρατία and ἀριστοκρατία, from whence it appears that μονοκρατία might as well have been used as μοναρχία· and in that sense αὐτοκράτωρ is the proper title given by the Greeks to the Roman emperor, as not only the later historians, but even the coins of Julius Cæsar, witness. Hesych. Αὐτοκράτωρ, αὐτεξούσιος ἢ κοσμοκράτωρ, because the Roman emperor was ruler of the known world. So the devils or princes of the air are termed by St. Paul, κοσμοκράτορες, Eph. vi. 12. which is all one with ἄρχοντες τοῦ κόσμου, as will appear, John xii. 31. and xiv. 30. and xvi. 11. As therefore Κράτος signifieth of itself rule and authority, Hesych. Κράτος, βασιλεία, ἐξουσία· Κράτει, ἄρχῃ, ἐξουσίᾳ· to which sense Eustathius hath observed Homer led the following writers by those words of his,— Σὸν δὲ κράτος αἰὲν ἀέξειν. Il. μ'. 214. Τὸ μὲν κράτος συλλαμβάνεται τι τοῖς ὕστερον τὴν βασιλείαν κράτος λέγουσι· whence Æschylus calls Agamemnon

[Printed p. 76]

from the testimony of the ancient Fathers⁴², we may well ascribe unto God the Father, in the explication of this Article, the dominion over all, and the rule and government of all.

This authority [Ἐξουσία] or power properly potestative is attributed unto God in the sacred Scriptures; from whence those names⁴³ [Luke xii. 5.] [Acts i. 7.] [Jude 25.] [Rev. v. 13.] or titles which most aptly and fully express dominion, are frequently given unto him; and the rule, empire, or government of the world is acknowledged to be wholly in him, as necessarily following that natural and eternal right of dominion.

What the nature of this authoritative power is, we shall the more clearly understand, if we first divide it into three degrees or branches of it; the first whereof we may conceive, a right of making and framing any thing which he willeth, in any manner as it pleaseth him, according to the absolute freedom of his own will; the second, a right of having and possessing all things so made and framed by him, as his own, properly belonging to him, as to the Lord and Master of them, by virtue of direct dominion; the third, a right of using and disposing all things

Notes to p. 76 (the remainder of note 41, begun on p. 75, is printed here, followed by notes 42 and 43; the * note is printed at the foot of this page):

⁴¹ (continued) and Menelaus δίθρονον κράτος Ἀχαιῶν, and Sophocles after him, δικρατεῖς Ἀτρεῖδας· and as κρατεῖν, to rule or govern, (Κρατεῖ, κυριεύει, ἄρχει· from whence Κρατὺς, ἄρχων, ἐξουσιάζων·) so also in composition, παντοκράτωρ, the ruler of all. Παντοκράτωρ, ὁ θεὸς, πάντων κρατῶν. Hesych. Παντοκρατορία, πανταρχία. Suid.

⁴² Αἱρετικοὶ—οὐκ οἴδασιν ἕνα παντοκράτορα θεὸν. Παντοκράτωρ γὰρ ἐστιν ὁ πάντων κρατῶν, ὁ πάντων ἐξουσιάζων. οἱ δὲ λέγοντες τὸν μὲν εἶναι τῆς ψυχῆς δεσπότην, τὸν δέ τινα τοῦ σώματος, οὐδέτερον αὐτῶν τέλειον λέγουσι, τῷ λείπειν ἑκάτερον θατέρῳ. 'Ὁ γὰρ ψυχῆς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων, σώματος δὲ ἐξουσίαν μὴ ἔχων, πῶς παντοκράτωρ; καὶ ὁ δεσπόζων σωμάτων, μὴ ἐξουσιάζων δὲ πνευμάτων, πῶς παντοκράτωρ; S. Cyril. Hier. Catech. viii. [§. 3. p. 122 A.] 'Ὡς γὰρ τὸ πῦρ ἰσχυρότατον τῶν στοιχείων, καὶ πάντων κρατοῦν, οὕτω καὶ ὁ Θεὸς παντοδύναμος καὶ παντοκράτωρ, ὁ δυνάμενος κρατῆσαι, κτίσαι, ποιῆσαι, τρέφειν, αὔξειν, σῴζειν, σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων. Theodotus apud Clem. Alex. ex Script. Prophet. Eclog. cap. 26. [vol. ii. p. 996.] 'Unus est Dominus Jesus Christus per quem Deus Pater dominatum omnium tenet; unde et sequens sermo Omnipotentem pronunciat Dominum. Omnipotens autem ab eo esse dicitur, quod omnium ille teneat potentatum.' Ruffin. in Symb. [§. 5. p. ccii.]*

⁴³ As אדני κύριος, δεσπότης. 'Ἐν μὲν τῷ κυρίῳ καὶ πρώτως ὢν, οὗ ἐν τῇ χειρὶ πάντα, καὶ ὡς ἁπάντων δεσπόζει· Τὰ γὰρ σύμπαντα δοῦλά σα. Phot. Epist. 162. [p. 215.]

• [The word Almighty conveys three ideas; that God is omnipotent, his dominion universal, and his essence infinite. It was necessary to assert these three points against the Gnostics, who believed that God had not the power of creating matter; who gave the title of Cosmocrator, or Ruler of the world, to an inferior being, or emanation from God; and who believed that God did not exceed the limits of the Pleroma. See King on the Creed, p. 82, &c. Barrow says that the word may import either right and authority over all, omnipotestas; or power and ability to do all things, omnipotentia; or actual exercise of such authority and power, in ruling and disposing all things, omnipotentatus; also the possession or holding all things, omnitenentia; and the preservation or upholding all things, omnicontinentia. Works, vol. vi. p. 177.]

[Printed p. 77]

so in his possession, according to his own pleasure. The first of these we mention only for the necessity of it, and the dependence of the other two upon it. God's actual dominion being no otherways necessary, than upon supposition of a precedent act of creation; because nothing, before it hath a being, can belong to any one, neither can any propriety be imagined in that which hath no entity.

But the second branch, or absolute dominion of this Almighty, is farther to be considered in the independency and infinity of it. First, it is independent in a double respect, in reference both to the original, and the use thereof. For God hath received no 43 authority from any, because he hath all power originally in himself, and hath produced all things by the act of his own will, without any commander, counsellor, or coadjutor. Neither doth the use or exercise of this dominion depend upon any one, so as to receive any direction or regulation, or to render any account of the administration of it; as being illimited, absolute, and supreme, and so the fountain from whence all dominion in any other is derived. Wherefore he being the God of Gods, [Deut. x. 17.] is also the Lord of Lords, and King of Kings, the only Potentate; [Ps. cxxxvi. 3.] [1 Tim. vi. 15. μόνος δυνάστης.] [Sap. Syr. xlvi. 5. ὕψιστος δυνάστης.] [2 Mac. xv. 29. ὁ δυνάστης. v. 23. δυνάστης τῶν οὐρανῶν. iii. 24. ὁ τῶν πατέρων κύριος, καὶ πάσης ἐξουσίας δυνάστης. ὕπατος κρειττόνων. Ἰλ. θ'. 13.] because he alone hath all the power of himself, and whosoever else hath any, hath it from him, either by donation or permission.

The infinity of God's dominion, if we respect the object, appears in the amplitude or extension; if we look upon the manner, in the plenitude or perfection; if we consider the time, in the eternity of duration. The amplitude of the object is sufficiently evidenced by these appellations which the holy writ ascribeth unto the Almighty, calling him the Lord of heaven, the Lord of the whole earth, the Lord of heaven and earth; [Dan. v. 23.] [Josh. iii. 11. 13.] [Ps. xcvii. 5.] [Mic. iv. 13.] [Zech. iv. 14. and vi. 5.] [Matt. xi. 25.] [Acts xvii. 24.] [Deut. x. 14.] under which two are comprehended all things both in heaven and earth. This Moses taught the distrusting Israelites in the wilderness: Behold the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the Lord's thy God, the earth also with all that is therein. With these words David glorifieth God: The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine; so acknowledging his dominion; as for the world and the fulness thereof, thou hast founded them: so expressing the foundation or ground of that dominion. And yet more fully at the dedication of the offerings for the building of the Temple, to shew that what they gave was of his own, he saith, Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine.

[Printed p. 78]

Thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as head above all. [Ps. lxxxix. 11.] Both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reignest over all⁴⁴. [1 Chron. xxix. 11, 12.] [מושל בכל] [xxix. 14.] [כי־ממך הכל.] If then we look upon the object of God's dominion, it is of that amplitude and extension, that it includeth and comprehendeth all things: so that nothing can be imagined which is not his, belonging to him as the true owner and proprietor, and subject wholly to his will as the sole governor and disposer: in respect of which universal power we must confess him to be Almighty.

If we consider the manner and nature of this power, the plenitude thereof or perfection will appear; for as in regard of the extension, he hath power over all things; so in respect of the intension*, he hath all power over every thing, as being absolute and supreme. This God challenged to himself, when he catechised the Prophet Jeremy in a potter's house, saying, O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in my hand, O house of Israel. [Jer. xviii. 6.] That is, God hath as absolute power and dominion over every person, over every nation and kingdom on the earth, as the potter hath over the pot he maketh, or the clay he mouldeth. Thus are we wholly at the disposal of his will, and our present and future condition framed and ordered by his free, but wise and just, decrees. Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? [Rom. ix. 21.] And can that earth-artificer have a freer power over his brother potsherd (both being made of the same metal) than God hath over him, who, by the strange fecundity of his omnipotent power, first made the clay out of nothing, and then him out of that?

The duration of God's dominion must likewise necessarily be eternal, if any thing which is be immortal. For, being every thing is therefore his, because it received its being from him, and the continuation of the creature is as much from him as the first production; it followeth that so long as it is continued, it must be his, and consequently, being some of his creatures are immortal, his dominion must be eternal. Wherefore St. Paul 44 expressly calleth God the King eternal, [1 Tim. i. 17. Τῷ βασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων.] with reference to that of

Notes to p. 78:

⁴⁴ Πάντη γὰρ πάντα τοῖς θεοῖς ὕποχα, καὶ πανταχῇ πάντων ἴσον οἱ θεοὶ κρατοῦσι. Xenoph. de Exped. Cyr. lib. ii. [5. 2.] [c. 5. §. 7.]

• [The modern editions had intention. I have restored intension, as in the first and fourth editions. So Jeremy Taylor, “Faith differs from Hope, in the extension of its object, and in the intension of degree,” as it is rightly quoted by Johnson, though altered in Heber's edition, vol. iv. p. 185.]

[Printed p. 79]

David, Thy kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and thy dominion endureth throughout all generations. [Ps. cxlv. 13.] [מלכות כל־עלמים LXX. βασιλεία πάντων τῶν αἰώνων.] And Moses in his Song hath told us, The Lord shall reign for ever and ever: [Ex. xv. 18.] [לעלם ועד LXX. ἐπ' αἰῶνα καὶ ἔτι. S. Hier. in seculum et ultra. So Aquila, Theod. and the fifth edit. in Ps. xxi. 4. So the LXX. again. Dan. xii. 7. εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ ἔτι· and Mic. iv. 5. εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ ἐπέκεινα. Ps. xvi. 2.] which phrase for ever and ever in the original signifieth thus much, that there is no time to come assignable or imaginable, but after and beyond that God shall reign.

The third branch of God's authoritative or potestative power consisteth in the use of all things in his possession, by virtue of his absolute dominion. For it is the general dictate of reason, that the use, benefit, and utility of any thing redoundeth unto him whose it is, and to whom as to the proprietor it belongeth. 'Tis true indeed, that God, who is all-sufficient and infinitely happy in and of himself, so that no accession ever could or can be made to his original felicity, cannot receive any real benefit and utility from the creature. Thou art my Lord, saith David, my goodness extendeth not to thee⁴⁵: and therefore our only and absolute Lord, because his goodness extendeth unto us, and not ours to him, because his dominion is for our benefit, not for his own: for us who want, and therefore may receive; not for himself, who cannot receive, because he wanteth nothing, whose honour standeth not in his own, but in our receiving⁴⁶.

But though the universal Cause made all things for the benefit of some creatures framed by him, yet hath he made them ultimately for himself; and God is as universally the final as the efficient cause of his operations. The Apostle hath taught us, that not only of him, and by him, as the first Author, but also to him, and for him, as the ultimate end, are all things. [Rom. xi. 36.] [Heb. ii. 10.] [1 Cor. viii. 6.] [Prov. xvi. 4.] And 'tis one of the proverbial sentences of Solomon, The Lord hath made

Notes to p. 79:

⁴⁵ 'Ille nostra servitute non indiget, nos vero dominatione illius indigemus, ut operetur et custodiat nos: et ideo verus solus est Dominus, quia non illi ad suam sed ad nostram utilitatem salutemque servimus. Nam si nobis indigeret, eo ipso non verus Dominus esset, cum per nos ejus adjuvaretur necessitas, sub qua et ipse serviret.' S. August. de Gen. ad lit. lib. viii. cap. 11. [§. 24. vol. iii. part 1. p. 234 D.] 'Dixi Domino, Deus meus es tu: quare? quoniam bonorum meorum non eges. Ille non eget nostri, nos egemus ipsius; ideo verus Dominus. Nam tu non valde verus dominus servi tui; ambo homines, ambo egentes Deo. Si autem putas egere tui servum tuum, ut des panem, eges et tu servi tui, ut adjuvet labores tuos. Uterque vestrum altero vestrum indiget: itaque nullus vestrum vere dominus, et nullus vestrum vere servus; Audi verum Dominum, cujus verus es servus, Dixi Domino, Deus meus es tu; quare tu Dominus? quoniam bonorum meorum non eges.' Idem, ad Psal. lxix. [§. 7. vol. iv. p. 717 B.]

⁴⁶ Τιμὴν ποιεῖται τοῦ ἀνενδεοῦς τὴν τῶν ἀπ' ἐκείνου προτεινομένων ἀγαθῶν ὑποδοχήν. Hierocl. in Aur. Carm. [p. 22.] And again, 'Ὅστις τιμᾷ τὸν Θεὸν ὡς προσδεόμενον, οὗτος λέληθεν οἰόμενος ἑαυτὸν τοῦ θεοῦ εἶναι κρείττονα.

[Printed p. 80]

all things for himself, yea even the wicked for the day of evil. For though he cannot receive any real benefit or utility from the creature, yet he can and doth in a manner receive that which hath some similitude or affinity with it. [Ps. civ. 31.] Thus God rejoiceth at the effects of his wisdom, power, and goodness, and taketh delight in the works of his hands. Thus doth he order and dispose of all things unto his own glory, which redoundeth from the demonstration of his attributes.

An explicit belief of this authoritative power and absolute dominion of the Almighty is necessary, first for the breeding in us an awful reverence of his majesty, and entire subjection to his will. For to the highest excellency the greatest honour, to the supreme authority the most exact obedience is no more than duty⁴⁷. If God be our absolute Lord, we his servants and vassals, then is there a right in him to require of us whatsoever we can perform, and an obligation upon us to perform whatsoever he commandeth⁴⁸. Whosoever doth otherwise, while he confesseth, denieth him; while he acknowledgeth him with his tongue, he sets his hand against him. Why call ye me Lord, Lord, saith our Saviour, and do not the things which I say? [Luke vi. 46.]

Secondly, This belief is also necessary to breed in us equanimity and patience in our sufferings, to prevent all murmuring, repining, and objecting against the actions or determinations of 45 God, as knowing that he, who is absolute Lord, cannot abuse his power; he, whose will is a law to us, cannot do any thing unwisely or unjustly. Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth: shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? [Isa. xlv. 9.] But let the man after God's own heart rather teach us humble and religious silence. I was dumb, saith he, and opened not my mouth, because thou didst it. [Ps. xxxix. 9.] When Shimei cast stones at him, and cursed him, let us learn to speak as he then spake: The Lord hath said unto him, Curse David: who shall then say, Wherefore hast thou done so? [2 Sam. xvi. 10.]

Thirdly, The belief of God's absolute dominion is yet further necessary to make us truly and sufficiently sensible of the benefits we receive from him, so as by a right value and estimation

Notes to p. 80:

⁴⁷ 'Ἡμεῖς δὲ μεγάλῳ Διὸς πειθόμεθα βουλῇ, 'Ὃς πᾶσι θνητοῖσι καὶ ἀθανάτοισιν ἀνάσσει Hom. Ἰλ. μ'. 241.

⁴⁸ 'Ἐμοὶ πόλις ἐστὶ καὶ καταφυγὴ καὶ νόμος Καὶ τοῦ δικαίου τοῦ τ' ἀδίκου παντὸς κριτὴς 'Ὁ δεσπότης· πρὸς τοῦτον ἕνα δεῖ ζῆν ἐμέ. Servus apud Menand. [Stobæus, Flor. tit. lxii. 38.]

[Printed p. 81]

of them to understand how far we stand obliged to him. No man can duly prize the blessings of Heaven, but he which acknowledgeth they might justly have been denied him; nor can any be sufficiently thankful for them, except it be confessed that he owed him nothing who bestowed them.

But as the original word for almighty is not put only for the Lord of Hosts, but often also for the Lord Shaddai: so we must not restrain the signification to the power authoritative, but extend it also to that power which is properly operative and executive. In the title of the Lord of Sabaoth we understand the rule and dominion of God, by which he hath a right of governing all: in the name Shaddai we apprehend an infinite force and strength, by which he is able to work and perform all things. For whether we take this word in composition⁴⁹, as signifying the all-sufficient; whosoever is able to suppedinate all things to the sufficing all, must have an infinite power: or whether we deduce it from the root⁵⁰ denoting vastation or destruction; whosoever can destroy the being of all things, and reduce them unto nothing, must have the same power which originally produced all things out of nothing, and that is infinite. Howsoever, the first notion of almighty necessarily inferreth the second, and the infinity of God's dominion speaketh him infinitely powerful in operation⁵¹. Indeed in earthly dominions, the strength of the governor is not in himself, but in those whom he governeth: and he is a powerful prince whose subjects are numerous. But the King of kings hath in himself all power of execution, as well as right of dominion. Were all the force and strength of a nation in the person of the king, as the authority is, obedience would not be arbitrary, nor could rebellion be successful: whereas experience teacheth us that the most puissant

Notes to p. 81:

⁴⁹ So R. Solomon [Rashi on Gen. xvii. 1.] will have it compounded of ש the pronoun, and די, שיש די [אני הוא] באלהוהי לכל בריה: because in God there is sufficiency, that is, sufficient power, over every creature: from whence the LXX. Ruth i. 20, 21. Job xxi. 15. and xxxi. 2. translate it ἱκανός, as Symmachus, Job xxii. 3. and Aquila with him, Ezek. i. 24.

⁵⁰ שדד vastavit, destruxit, perdidit: from whence שדי the destroyer; and because utter destruction requireth power equivalent to production, the Omnipotent, from whence the LXX. Job viii. 3. translate it, ὁ τὰ πάντα ποιήσας. And this etymology, rather than the former, seemeth to be confirmed by the Prophet, Isa. xiii. 6. Howl ye, for the day of the Lord is at hand, :כשד משדי יבוא It shall come as a destruction from the Almighty (destroyer).

⁵¹ Homer hath well joined these two: 'Ὦ πάτερ ἡμέτερε, Κρονίδη, ὕπατε κρειόντων, Εὖ νυ καὶ ἡμεῖς ἴσμεν ὅ τοι σθένος οὐκ ἐπιεικτόν. 'Ἰλ. θ'. 31.

[Printed p. 82]

prince is compelled actually to submit, when the stronger part of his own people hath taken the boldness to put a force upon him. But we must not imagine that the Governor of the world ruleth only over them which are willing to obey, or that any of his creatures may dispute his commands with safety, or cast off his yoke with impunity. And if his dominion be uncontrollable, it is because his power is irresistible. For man is not more inclinable to obey God than man, but God is more powerful to exact subjection, and to vindicate rebellion. In respect of the infinity and irresistibility of which active power we must acknowledge him Almighty: and so, according to the most vulgar acception, give the second explication of his Omnipotency⁵².

But because this word almighty⁵³ is twice repeated in the 46 Creed, once in this first Article and again in the sixth, where Christ is represented sitting at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; and although in our English and the Latin the same word be expressed in both places, yet in the ancient Greek copies there is a manifest distinction; being the word in the first Article may equally comprehend God's power in operation, as well as authority in dominion; whereas that in the sixth speaketh only infinity of power, without relation to authority or dominion: I shall therefore reserve the explication of the latter unto its proper place, designing to treat particularly of God's infinite power where it is most peculiarly expressed; and so conclude briefly with two other interpretations, which some of the ancients have made of the original word, belonging rather to philosophy than divinity, though true in both. For some⁵⁴ have stretched this word almighty, according to the Greek notation, to signify that God holdeth, incircleth, and containeth all things. Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the [Prov. xxx. 4.]

Notes to p. 82:

⁵² 'Hoc nisi credamus, periclitatur ipsum nostræ Confessionis initium, qua nos in Deum Patrem Omnipotentem credere confitemur. Neque enim ob aliud veraciter vocatur Omnipotens, nisi quoniam quidquid vult potest, nec voluntate cujuspiam creaturæ voluntatis omnipotentis impeditur effectus.' S. August. Enchir. cap. 96. [§. 24. vol. vi. p. 231 F.]

⁵³ Art. 1. Πιστεύω εἰς θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα. Art. 6. Καθεζόμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ θεοῦ πατρὸς παντοδυνάμου, as it is in the ancient copy of the Creed taken out of the library of Bene't College, and set forth by the Archbishop of Armagh.

⁵⁴ As Theophilus Bishop of Antioch, giving account of those words which are attributed unto God, as Θεὸς, κύριος, ὕψιστος, tells us he is called Παντοκράτωρ, ὅτι αὐτὸς τὰ πάντα κρατεῖ καὶ ἐμπεριέχει. τὰ γὰρ ὕψη τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ τὰ βάθη τῶν ἀβύσσων, καὶ τὰ πέρατα τῆς οἰκουμένης ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν. Ad Autol. lib. i. [§. 4. p. 340 C.]

[Printed p. 83]

earth? who but God? Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure? who but he? [Isa. xl. 12.] Thus then may he be called almighty, as holding, containing, and comprehending all things.

Others⁵⁵ extend it farther yet, beyond that of containing or comprehension, to a more immediate influence of sustaining or preservation. For the same power which first gave being unto all things, continueth the same being unto all. God giveth to all life, and breath, and all things. In him we live, move, and have our being, [Acts xvii. 25, 28.] saith the strangest Philosopher that ever entered Athens, the first expositor of that blind inscription, To the unknown God. How could any thing have endured, if it had not been thy will? or been preserved, if not called by thee? [Wisd. xi. 25.] as the wisdom of the Jews confesseth. Thus did the Levites stand and bless: Thou, even thou, art Lord alone: thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all things that are therein, the sea and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all. [Neh. ix. 6.] Where the continual conservation of the creature is in an equal latitude attributed unto God with their first production. Because there is as absolute a necessity of preserving us from returning unto nothing by annihilation, as there was for first bestowing an existence on us by creation. And in this sense God is undoubtedly almighty, in that he doth sustain, uphold, and constantly preserve all things in that being which they have.

From whence we may at last declare what is couched under this attribute of God, how far this Omnipotency extends itself, and what every Christian is thought to profess, when he addeth this part of the first Article of his Creed, I believe in God the Father ALMIGHTY.

As I am persuaded of an infinite and independent Essence, which I term a God, and of the mystery of an eternal generation by which that God is a Father; so I assure myself that Father

Notes to p. 83:

⁵⁵ As Gregorius Nyssenus, Οὑκοῦν ὅταν τῆς Παντοκράτωρ φωνῆς ἀκούσωμεν, τοῦτο νοοῦμεν, τὰ πάντα τὸν Θεὸν ἐν τῷ εἶναι συνέχειν. [contra Eunom. Or. ii. vol. ii. p. 467 D.] Neither, says he, would God be termed Παντοκράτωρ, εἰ μὴ πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις τοῦ περικρατοῦντος αὐτὴν, καὶ ἐν τῷ εἶναι συντηροῦντος, ἐδέετο. Cont. Eunom. lib. i. [ibid. p. 467 C.] 'Creatoris namque potentia, et Omnipotentis atque Omnitenentis virtus, causa subsistendi est omni creaturæ. Quæ virtus ab eis quæ creata sunt regendis si aliquando cessaret, simul et illorum cessaret species, omnisque natura concideret.' S. August. in Genes. ad lit. lib. iv. cap. 12. [§. 22. vol. iii. part 1. p. 167 E.]

[Printed p. 84]

is not subject to infirmities of age, nor is there any weakness attending on the Ancient of days; but, on the contrary, I believe Omnipotency to be an essential attribute of his Deity, and that not only in respect of operative and active power, (concerning which I shall have occasion to express my faith hereafter,) but also in regard of power authoritative, in which I must acknowledge his antecedent and eternal right of making what, and when, 47 and how he pleased, of possessing whatsoever he maketh by direct dominion, of using and disposing as he pleaseth all things which he so possesseth. This dominion I believe most absolute in respect of its independency, both in the original, and the use or exercise thereof: this I acknowledge infinite for amplitude or extension, as being a power over all things without exception; for plenitude or perfection, as being all power over every thing without limitation; for continuance or duration, as being eternal without end or conclusion. Thus I believe in God the Father Almighty.

Maker of Heaven and Earth.

ALTHOUGH this last part of the first Article were not expressed in the ancient Creeds⁵⁶, yet the sense thereof was delivered in the first Rules of Faith⁵⁷, and at last these parti-

Notes to p. 84 (note 57 begins here and continues on p. 85, transcribed in full below):

⁵⁶ For we find it not mentioned by St. Augustin, de Fide et Symbolo; neither hath Ruffinus expounded it in the Aquileian, or noted it to be found in the Roman or Oriental Creeds. Leo, reciting the three first Articles in his Epistle to Flavianus, maketh no mention of it. [Ep. xxiv. vol. i. p. 479.] Maximus Taurinensis hath it not in Traditione Symboli, nor Petrus Chrysologus in his Sermons, amongst six several expositions. It is not in the Homilies of Eusebius Gallicanus, or the exposition of Venantius Fortunatus. Marcellus Bishop of Ancyra left it not at Rome with Julius; nor did Arius in his Catholic Confession unto Constantine acknowledge it: neither are the words to be found in the Latin or Greek copy of the Creed written about the beginning of the eighth century, and published out of the MSS. by the most reverend and learned Archbishop of Armagh; or in that which Etherius and Beatus produced against Elipandus, Archbishop of Toledo, toward the end of the seventh century.

⁵⁷ As in that delivered by Irenæus, Εἰς ἕνα θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα, τὸν πεποιηκότα τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰς θαλάσσας, καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς. Adv. Hær. lib. i. cap. 2. [I. 10. 1. p. 48.] and that by Tertullian, 'Unum omnino Deum esse, nec alium præter mundi conditorem, qui universa de nihilo produxerit.' De præscr. adv. Hær. cap. 13. [p. 206 D.] and that under the name of Novatian, not in formal words, but with an id est, by way of explication; 'Regula exigit veritatis ut primo omnium credamus in Deum Patrem et Dominum Omnipotentem, id est, rerum omnium perfectissimum conditorem, qui cœlum alta sublimitate suspenderit, terram dejecta mole solidavit, maria soluto liquore diffuderit, et hæc omnia propriis et condignis instrumentis et ornata et plena digesserit.' De Trin. cap. 1. [p. 706 A.] It was also observed by Origen, that the Christians were wont most

[Printed p. 85]

cular words inserted both in the Greek and Latin Confessions. And indeed the work of Creation most properly followeth the attribute of Omnipotency, as being the foundation of the first, and the demonstration of the second explication of it. As then we believe there is a God, and that God Almighty; as we acknowledge that same God to be the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in him of us: so we also confess that the same God the Father made both heaven and earth. For the full explication of which operation, it will be sufficient, first, to declare the latitude of the object, what is comprehended under the terms of heaven and earth; secondly, to express the nature of the action, the true notion of Creation, by which they were made; and thirdly, to demonstrate the Person to whom this operation is ascribed.

For the first, I suppose it cannot be denied as the sense of the Creed, that under the terms of heaven and earth are comprehended all things; because the first rules of Faith did so express it, and the most ancient Creeds had either, instead of these words, or together with them, the Maker of all things visible and invisible, which being terms of immediate contradiction, must consequently be of universal comprehension; nor is there any thing imaginable which is not visible or invisible. Being then these were the words of the Nicene Creed; being the addition of heaven and earth in the Constantinopolitan could be no diminution to the former, which they still retained together with them, saying, I believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; it followeth, that they which in the Latin Church made use only of this last addition, could not choose but take it in the full latitude of the first expression.

48 And well may this be taken as the undoubted sense of the

Notes to p. 85 (no new note begins on p. 85; the remainder of note 57, begun on p. 84, is printed here):

⁵⁷ (continued) frequently to mention God under that as the most common title; “Ἡ γὰρ ἀορίστως ὁμολογοῦσι τὸ κοινὸν ὄνομα, τὸ, ὁ Θεὸς, ἢ καὶ μετὰ προσθήκης τῆς, ὁ δημιουργὸς τῶν ὅλων, ὁ ποιητὴς οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς. Cont. Cels. lib. i. [c. 25. vol. i. p. 343 E.] Eusebius delivered the first Article thus in his Confession to the Nicene Council, Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα, τὸν τῶν ἁπάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν. [apud Socrat. i. 8. p. 23.] and that Council expressed the same without alteration in their Creed. But after the Nicene Council we find added ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechism, [cat. ix. p. 126 A.] and Epiphanius in Ancorato: [§. 120. vol. ii. p. 122 C.] which addition was received, confirmed, and transmitted to us by the Council of Constantinople. By which means at last we find this Article thus expressed in the Western Confessions, Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, creatorem cœli et terræ. [Printed p. 86]

Creed, because it is the known language of the sacred Scriptures. [Exod. xxxi. 17.] In six days, saith Moses, the Lord made heaven and earth: [Exod. xx. 11.] in the same time, saith God himself, the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is. So that all things by those two must be understood which are contained in them: and we know no being which is made or placed without them. When God would call a general rendezvous, and make up an universal auditory, the Prophet cries out, [Isa. i. 2.] Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth. When he would express the full splendour of his majesty, and utmost extent of his actual dominion, [Isa. lxvi. 1.] Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. When he would challenge unto himself those glorious attributes of Immensity and Omnipresence, [Jer. xxiii. 24.] Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord. These two then taken together signify the Universe, or that which is called the World. St. Paul hath given a clear exposition of these words in his explication of the Athenian altar; [Acts xvii. 24.] God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands. For being God is necessarily the Lord of all things which he made, (the right of his direct dominion being clearly grounded upon the first Creation,) except we should conceive the Apostle to exempt some creature from the authoritative power of God, and to take some work of his hand out of the reach of his arm; we must confess that heaven and earth are of as large extent and ample signification as the world and all things therein. Where it is yet farther observable, that the Apostle hath conjoined the speech of both Testaments together. For the ancient Hebrews seem to have had no word in use among them which singly of itself did signify the World, as the Greeks had, in whose language St. Paul did speak; and therefore they used in conjunction the heaven and earth, as the grand extremities within which all things are contained⁵⁸. Nay, if we take the expositions of the later writers in that language, those two words will not only as extremities comprehend between them, but in

Notes to p. 86:

⁵⁸ Καλῶς δὲ πάντες σχεδὸν ἐξεδέξαντο τοῖς ἄκροις, οὐρανῷ τε καὶ γῇ, τὰ μέσα συμπεριειληφέναι στοιχεῖα.—πῶς δὲ ἄκρα φημί; ὅτι γῆ μὲν τὸ κέντρον παντὸς ἐμπεριείληφε. καὶ ἔστι κάτωθεν μὲν ἀρχὴ πάντων ἡ γῆ, πέρας δὲ τούτων ὁ πάντα περιέχων οὐρανός· τοὔμπαλιν δὲ ἄνωθεν, ἀρχὴ μὲν ὁ οὐρανός, πέρας δὲ πάντων ἡ γῆ· μετὰ δὲ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τῆς γῆς τὰ λοιπὰ τρία περιείληπται στοιχεῖα. Jo. Philop. de Mundi Creat. lib. i. cap. 5. [Galland. xii. p. 478 B.] Τῷ μὲν οὐρανῷ σώματι (ἡ φύσις) τὸ πέριξ τοῦ παντὸς ἀπέμειμε· τῷ δὲ περιγείῳ τὸ κέντρον· ἐν δὲ σφαίρᾳ ἄλλως μὲν τὸ κέντρον ἀρχή, ἄλλως δὲ ὁ τοῦ περιέχοντος ὅρος. Hierocl. in Aur. Carm. [v. 52. p. 180.]

[Printed p. 87]

the extension of their own significations contain all things in them. For when they divide the universe into three worlds⁵⁹, the inferior, superior, and the middle world; the lower is wholly contained in the name of earth, the other two under the name of heaven. Nor do the Hebrews only use this manner of expression, but even the Greeks themselves; and that not only before, but after⁶⁰ Pythagoras⁶¹ had accustomed them to one name. As therefore under the single name of World or Universe⁶², so also under the conjunctive expression of heaven and earth, are contained all things material and immaterial, visible and invisible.

49 But as the Apostle hath taught us to reason, When he saith [1 Cor. xv. 27.] all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him: so when we say, all things were made by God, it is as manifest that he is excepted who made all things. And then the proposition is clearly thus delivered; all beings whatsoever beside God were made. As we read in St. John concerning the Word, that the world was made [John i. 10] by him; and in more plain and express words before, All things [Ver. 3.] were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. Which is yet farther illustrated by St. Paul: [Col. i. 16.] For by him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in

Notes to p. 87:

⁵⁹ For the Rabbins usually divide the whole frame of things into שלש עולמות three worlds: the first, עולם התחתון the inferior, or עולם השפל the depressed and lowest world; הוא זה עולם that is this world, say they, to wit, this globe of earth on which we live. This they divide into three parts; ים the sea, lakes and rivers, מדבר the desert, solitary and inhabitable* places, רחוק מן הישוב far from the habitations of men, and ישוב τὴν οἰκουμένην, the earth inhabited. The second is called עולם התיכון the middle or inmost world; הוא עולם הגלגלים this is the world of the spheres, containing the aërial region, and the starry heavens. The third is, עולם העליון the superior world; הוא עולם המלאכים this is the world of angels, אלהים of God, נפשות of souls, עולם הרוחני the spiritual world. [Buxtorf. Lex. Rabb. sub עולם.] Now being these three comprehend all things imaginable; being the first is sufficiently expressed in ארץ the earth, and the two last in שמים the heaven; it followeth that, in the sense of the Hebrews, heaven and earth signify all things.

⁶⁰ Εἷς, ταῖς ἀληθείαισιν, εἷς ἔστιν θεός, Ὃς οὐρανὸν τέτευχε καὶ γαῖαν μακράν. Sophocl. apud Just. Mart. Clem. Alex. &c.

⁶¹ Πυθαγόρας πρῶτος ὠνόμασε τὴν τῶν ὅλων περιοχὴν, κόσμον, ἐκ τῆς ἐν αὐτῷ τάξεως. Plutarch. de Plac. Philosoph. lib. ii. cap. 1. [p. 886 B.]

⁶² ‘Si mundum dixeris, illic erit et cœlum, et quæ in eo, sol, et luna, et sidera, et astra, et terra, et freta, omnis census elementorum. Omnia dixeris, cum id dixeris quod ex omnibus constat.’ Tertul. de Virg. Veland. cap. 4. [p. 175 B.] Φασὶ δὲ οἱ σοφοὶ καὶ οὐρανὸν καὶ γῆν καὶ θεοὺς καὶ ἀνθρώπους τὴν κοινωνίαν συνέχειν, καὶ φιλίαν, καὶ κοσμιότητα, καὶ σωφροσύνην, καὶ δικαιότητα· καὶ τὸ ὅλον τοῦτο διὰ ταῦτα κόσμον καλοῦσιν. Iambl. Protrept. [c. xix.] but the words are Plato's in Gorgia. [p. 507.]

• [This word would now be written uninhabitable.]

[Printed p. 88]

earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him. If then there be nothing imaginable which is not either in heaven or in earth, nothing which is not either visible or invisible, then is there nothing beside God which was not made by God.

This then is the unquestionable doctrine of the Christian Faith, That the vast capacious frame of the world, and every thing any way contained and existing in it, hath not its essence from or of itself, nor is of existence absolutely necessary; but what it is, it hath not been, and that being which it hath was made, framed, and constituted by another. And as every house [Heb. iii. 4.] is builded by some man; for we see the earth bear no such creature of itself; stones do not grow into a wall, or first hew and square, then unite and fasten themselves together in their generation; trees sprout not cross-like dry and sapless beams, nor do spars and tiles spring with a natural uniformity into a roof, and that out of stone and mortar: these are not the works of Nature, but superstructions and additions to her, as the supplies of art, and the testimonies of the understanding of man, the great artificer on earth: so if the world itself be but an house⁶³, [Job xxvi. 7.] if the earth, which hangeth upon nothing, be the foundation, and the glorious spheres of heaven the roof, (which hath been delivered as the most universal hypothesis,) if this be the habitation of an infinite Intelligence, the Temple⁶⁴ of God; then must we acknowledge the world was built by him, and, consequently, that [Heb. iii. 4.] he which built all things is God.

From hence appears the truth of that distinction, Whatsoever hath any being, is either made or not made: whatsoever is not made, is God; whatsoever is not God, is made. One uncreated and independent Essence; all other depending on it, and created by it. One of eternal and necessary existence; all other indifferent, in respect of actual existing, either to be or not to be, and that indifferency determined only by the free and voluntary act of the first Cause.

Now because to be thus made includes some imperfection,

Notes to p. 88:

⁶³ ‘Ὁ αἰσθητὸς οὗτος κόσμος οὐδὲν ἄρα [VERIFY] ἄλλο ἐστὶν ἢ οἶκος θεοῦ. Philo de Insomn. [vol. i. p. 648.] Κόσμος εὐπρεπὴς καὶ ἕτοιμος, αἰσθητὸς οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ. Idem, de Plant. Noe. [vol. i. p. 337.] Θεῖόν τι μέγεθος ὁ κόσμος, καὶ οἶκος θεοῦ αἰσθητός. Idem, de Mundi Incorr. [vol. ii. p. 509.]’

⁶⁴ Lucretius calls the heavens, —Mundi magnum et versatile templum. De Rer. Nat. lib. v. ver. 1435. Τὸ ἀνώτατο καὶ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν ἱερὸν θεοῦ νομίζειν τὸν σύμπαντα χρὴ κόσμον εἶναι. Philo de Monarch. [lib. ii. vol. ii. p. 222.]

[Printed p. 89]

and among the parts of the world some are more glorious than others; if those which are most perfect presuppose a Maker, then can we not doubt of a creation where we find far less perfection. This house of God, though uniform, yet is not all of the same materials, the footstool and the throne are not of the same mould; there is a vast difference between the heavenly expansions. This first aerial heaven, where God setteth up his pavilion, where [Ps. civ. 3.] he maketh the clouds his chariot, and walketh upon the wings of the wind, is not so far inferior in place as it is in glory to the next, the seat of the sun and moon, the two great lights, and stars innumerable, far greater than the one of them. And yet that second heaven is not so far above the first as beneath the third, into which St. Paul was caught. [2 Cor. xii. 2.] The brightness of the sun doth not so far surpass the blackness of a wandering cloud, as the glory of that Heaven of presence surmounts the fading beauty of the starry firmament. For in this

50 great Temple of the World, in which the Son of God is the High Priest, the Heaven which we see is but the Veil, and that which is above, the Holy of Holies. This Veil indeed is rich and glorious, but one day to be rent, and then to admit us into a far greater glory, even to the Mercy-seat and Cherubins. For this third Heaven is the proper habitation of the blessed Angels, [ἴδιον οἰκητήριον. Jude 6.] which constantly attend upon the Throne. And if those most glorious and happy spirits, those morning stars which sang together, those sons of God which shouted for joy when [Job xxxviii. 7, 4.] the foundations of the earth were laid, if they and their habitation were made; then can we no ways doubt of the production of all other creatures, so much inferior unto them.

Forasmuch then as the Angels are termed the sons of God, it sufficiently denoteth that they are from him, not of themselves; all filiation inferring some kind of production: and being God hath but one proper and only-begotten Son, whose propriety and singularity consisteth in this, that he is of the same increated essence with the Father, all other offspring must be made, and consequently even the Angels created sons; of whom the Scripture speaking saith, [Ps. civ. 4.] Who maketh his Angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. For although those words, as first spoken by the Psalmist, do rather express the nature of the wind and lightning: yet being the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews hath applied the same to the Angels properly so called, we cannot but conclude upon his authority, that the same God who

[Printed p. 90]

[Amos iv. 13.] created the wind, [Job xxviii. 26.] and made a way for the lightning of the thunder, hath also produced those glorious spirits; and as he furnished them with that activity there expressed, so did he frame the subject of it, their immaterial and immortal essence.

If then the angels and their proper habitation, the far most eminent and illustrious parts of the world, were made; if only to be made be one character of imperfection; much more must we acknowledge all things of inferior nature to have dependence on their universal Cause, and consequently this great universe, or all things, to be made, beside that one who made them.

This is the first part of our Christian Faith, against some of the ancient Philosophers, who were so wildly fond of those things they see, that they imagined the Universe⁶⁵ to be infinite and eternal, and, what will follow from it, to be even God himself. It is true that the most ancient of the Heathen were not of this opinion, but all the Philosophy for many ages delivered the world to have been made⁶⁶.

Notes to p. 90 (note 66 begins here and continues on p. 91, transcribed in full below):

⁶⁵ ‘Mundum, et hoc quod nomine alio cœlum appellare libuit, cujus circumflexu teguntur cuncta, numen esse credi par est, æternum, immensum, neque genitum, neque interiturum unquam.’ Plin. Nat. Hist. lib. ii. cap. 1.

⁶⁶ Γενόμενον μὲν οὖν ἅπαντες εἶναί φασιν, says Aristotle, de Cœlo, lib. i. cap. 10. [§. 2.] confessing it the general opinion that the world was made. Which was so ancient a tradition of all the first Philosophers, that from Linus, Musæus, Orpheus, Homer, Hesiod, and the rest, they all mention the original of the world, entitling their books, Κοσμογονία, or Θεογονία, or the like. Εἰσὶ γὰρ τινες οἱ φασὶν οὐδὲν ἀγέννητον εἶναι τῶν πραγμάτων, ἀλλὰ πάντα γίγνεσθαι· γενόμενα δὲ, τὰ μὲν ἄφθαρτα διαμένειν, τὰ δὲ πάλιν φθείρεσθαι· μάλιστα μὲν οἱ περὶ τὸν Ἡσίοδον εἶτα καὶ τῶν ἄλλων οἱ πρῶτοι φυσιολογήσαντες, says Aristotle, de Cœlo, lib. iii. cap. 1. [§. 7.] In which words he manifestly attributes the doctrine of the creation of the world, not only to Hesiod, but to all the first natural philosophers: which learning, beginning with Prometheus the first professor of that science, continued in that family amongst the Atlantiadæ, who all successively delivered that truth. After them the Ionian philosophy did acknowledge it, and the Italian received it by Pythagoras, whose scholars all maintained it beside Ocellus Lucanus, the first of them that fancied the world not made, whom Plato, though he much esteemed him, yet followed not; for there is nothing more evident than that he held the world was made. Λέγομεν δὴ, δι' ἥντινα αἰτίαν γένεσιν καὶ τὸ πᾶν τόδε ὁ ξυνιστὰς ξυνέστησεν· ἀγαθὸς ἦν. [Plato. Timæus, p. 29 D.] In which words he delivers not only the generation of the universe, but also the true cause thereof, which is the goodness of God. For he which asks this plain and clear question, Πότερον ἦν ἀεί, γενέσεως ἀρχὴν ἔχων οὐδεμίαν, ἢ γέγονεν, ἀπ' ἀρχῆς τινος ἀρξάμενος; and answers the question briefly with a γέγονεν· [p. 28 B.] he which gives this general rule upon it, Τῷ δ' αὖ γενομένῳ φαμὲν ὑπ' αἰτίου τινὸς ἀνάγκην εἶναι γενέσθαι· and then immediately concludes, Τὸν μὲν οὖν ποιητὴν καὶ πατέρα τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς εὑρεῖν τε ἔργον, καὶ εὑρόντα εἰς πάντας ἀδύνατον λέγειν· [ibid.] cannot (notwithstanding all the shifts of his Greek expositors) be imagined to have conceived the world not made. And Aristotle, who best understood him, tells us clearly his opinion; Ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ, (from whence I cited the precedent words,)

[Printed p. 91]

When this tradition of the creation of the world was delivered in all places down successively by those which seriously considered the frame of all things, and the difference of the most an- 51 cient Poets and Philosophers from Moses was only in the manner of expressing it; those which in after-ages first denied it, made use of very frivolous and inconcluding arguments, grounding their new opinion upon weak foundations.

For that which in the first place they take for granted as an axiom of undoubted truth, that Whatsoever hath a beginning must have an end⁶⁷, and consequently, Whatsoever shall have no end had no beginning, is grounded upon no general reason, but only upon particular observation of such things here below, as from the ordinary way of generation tend in some space of time unto corruption. From whence, seeing no tendency to corruption in several parts of the world, they conclude that it was never generated, nor had any cause or original of its being. Whereas, if we would speak properly, future existence or non-existence hath no such relation unto the first production. Neither is there any contradiction that at the same time one thing may begin to be, and last but for an hour, another continue for a thousand years, a third beginning at the same instant remain for ever: the difference being either in the nature of the things so made, or in the determinations of the will of him that made them. Notwithstanding then their universal rules, which are not true but in some limited particulars, it is most certain the whole world was made, and of it part shall perish, part continue unto all eternity; by which something which had a beginning shall have an end, and something not.

The second fallacy which led them to this novelty was the very name of universe, which comprehendeth in it all things; from whence they reasoned thus⁶⁸: If the world or universe were made, then were all things made; and if the world shall be dissolved, then all things shall come to nothing: which is impossible. For if all things were made, then must either all, or at least something, have made itself, and so have been the cause

Notes to p. 91 (the remainder of note 66, begun on p. 90, is printed here, followed by notes 67–68):

⁶⁶ (continued) words,) ἐκεῖ γὰρ φησι τὸν οὐρανὸν (where by the way observe that in Plato's Timæus οὐρανὸς and κόσμος are made synonymous) γενέσθαι μὲν, οὐ μὴν φθαρτόν. [de Cœlo, lib. i. cap. x. §. 12.]

⁶⁷ Ocellus Lucanus, Περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς φύσεως, which book Aristotle hath made use of, and transcribed in many parts.

⁶⁸ Τὸ γε δὲ πᾶν γινόμενον σὺν πᾶσι γίνεται, καὶ τὸ φθειρόμενον σὺν πᾶσι φθείρεται· καὶ τοῦτό γε δὲ ἀδύνατον, ἄναρχον ἄρα καὶ ἀτελεύτητον τὸ πᾶν. Ocell. [c. i. §. 3. p. 7.]

[Printed p. 92]

of itself as of the effect, and the effect of itself as of the cause, and consequently in the same instant both have been and not been; which is a contradiction. But this fallacy is easily discovered: for when we say the Universe, or all things, were made, we must be always understood to except him who made all things, neither can we by that name be supposed to comprehend more than the frame of heaven and earth, and all things contained in them; and so he which first devised this argument hath himself acknowledged⁶⁹.

Far more gross was that third conceit, that if the world were ever made, it must be after the vulgar way of ordinary natural generations: in which two mutations are observable⁷⁰, the first from less to greater, or from worse to better; the second from greater to less, or from better to worse. (The beginning of the first mutation is called generation, the end of it perfection: the beginning of the second is from the same perfection, but concludeth in corruption or dissolution.) But none⁷¹ hath ever yet observed that this frame of the world did ever grow up from less to greater, or improve itself from worse to better: nor can we now perceive that it becomes worse or less than it was, by which decretion we might guess at a former increase, and from a tendency to corruption collect its original generation. This conceit, I say, is far more gross. For certainly the argument so managed proves nothing at all, but only this, (if yet it prove so much,) that the whole frame of the world, and the parts thereof which are of greater perfection, were not generated in that manner in which we see some other parts of it are: which certainly no man denies. But that there can be no other way of production beside these petty generations, or that the world was 52 not some other way actually produced, this argument doth not endeavour to infer, nor can any other prove it.

Notes to p. 92:

⁶⁹ Τὸ δὲ γε ὅλον καὶ τὸ πᾶν ὀνομάζω τὸν σύμπαντα κόσμον, διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο καὶ τῆς προσηγορίας ἔτυχε ταύτης, ἐκ τῶν ἁπάντων δὴ κοσμηθείς. Ocell. [c. i. §. 8. p. 12.]

⁷⁰ Πᾶν τὸ γενέσεως ἀρχὴν εἰληφός, καὶ διαλύσεως ὀφείλον κοινωνῆσαι, δύο ἐπιδέχεται μεταβολάς· μίαν μὲν τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ μείονος ἐπὶ τὸ μεῖζον, καὶ τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ χείρονος ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτιον—δευτέραν δὲ τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ μείζονος ἐπὶ τὸ μεῖον, καὶ τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ βελτίονος ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον—Ἐὰν οὖν καὶ τὸ ὅλον καὶ τὸ πᾶν γεννητὸν ἐστὶ καὶ φθαρτόν, γενόμενον, ἀπὸ τοῦ μείονος τὸ μεῖζον μετέβαλε, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ χείρονος ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτιον. Ocell. [c. i. §. 4. p. 8.]

⁷¹ Τὸ δὲ γε ὅλον καὶ τὸ πᾶν οὐδὲν ἡμῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ παρέχεται τεκμήριον τοιοῦτον· οὔτε γὰρ γενόμενον αὐτὸ εἴδομεν, οὔτε ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτιον καὶ τὸ μεῖζον μεταβάλλον, οὔτε χεῖρον ποτε ἢ μεῖον γενόμενον· ἀλλ' ἀεὶ κατὰ ταὐτὸ καὶ ὡσαύτως διατελεῖ, καὶ ἴσον καὶ ὅμοιον αὐτὸ ἑαυτῷ. Ocell. [c. i. §. 6. p. 11.]

[Printed p. 93]

The next foundation upon which they cast off the constant doctrine of their predecessors, was that general assertion, That it is impossible⁷² for any thing to be produced out of nothing, or to be reduced unto nothing: from whence it will inevitably follow, that the matter of this world hath always been, and must always be. The clear refutation of which difficulty requires an explication of the manner how the world was made: the second part before propounded for the exposition of this Article.

Now that the true nature and manner of this action may be so far understood as to declare the Christian Faith, and refute the errors of all opposers, it will be necessary to consider it first with reference to the Object or Effect; secondly, in relation to the Cause or Agent; thirdly, with respect unto the Time or Origination of it.

The action by which the Heaven and Earth were made, considered in reference to the effect, I conceive to be the production of their total being; so that whatsoever entity they had when made, had no real existence before they were so made. And this manner of production we usually term creation, as excluding all concurrence of any material cause, and all dependence of any kind of subject, as presupposing no privation, as including no motion, as signifying a production out of nothing⁷³; that is, by which something is made, and not any thing preceding out of which it is made. This is the proper and peculiar sense of the word creation: not that it signifies so much by virtue of its origination or vulgar use in the Latin tongue⁷⁴; nor that the Hebrew word used by Moses, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, hath of itself any such peculiar acception. For it is often used synonymously⁷⁵ with words which signify

Notes to p. 93 (note 75 begins here and continues on p. 94, transcribed in full below):

⁷² Ἀμήχανον γὰρ τὸ ὂν ἀποτέλεσθαι ἐκ τῶν μὴ ὄντων, ἢ εἰς τὸ μὴ ὂν ἀναλυθῆναι· ἄφθαρτον ἄρα καὶ ἀνώλεθρον τὸ πᾶν. Ocell. [c. i. p. 16.]

⁷³ So I conceive it best expressed by Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury: ‘Dicitur aliquid esse factum de nihilo, cum intelligimus esse quidem factum, sed non esse aliquid unde sit factum. Monolog. cap. 8. [p. 7 A.]

⁷⁴ ‘Creatio apud nos generatio vel nativitas dicitur, apud Græcos vero sub nomine creationis verbum facturæ et conditionis accipitur.’ S. Hieron. in Epist. ad Eph. cap. 4. [vol. vii. p. 626 E.]

⁷⁵ ברא is promiscuously used with עשה, which is of the greatest latitude, denoting any kind of effection, and with יצר, which rather implies a formation out of something, from whence יוצר a potter. For the first, we read Gen. ii. 3. that God rested from all his work אשר־ברא אלהים לעשות, not that on the sixth day he did the work of two days, that he might rest on the seventh, as Rabbi Solomon [on Gen. ii. 3, quoted from the Bereshit Rabba]; not that in six days he made the roots of things that they might afterward produce the like, as Aben Ezra [Comm. on Gen. ii. 3.]; not these or any other fancies of the Rabbins; as if ברא signified one

[Printed p. 94]

any kind of production or formation, and by itself it seldom denotes a production out of nothing, or proper creation, but most frequently the making of one substance out of another preexisting, as the fishes of the water, and man of the dust of the earth; [Gen. i. 21, 27. ii. 7. Psal. li. 10. Isa. lxv. 17.] the renovating or restoring any thing to its former perfection, for want of Hebrew words in composition; or, lastly, the doing some new or wonderful work⁷⁶, the producing some strange and admirable effect, as the opening the mouth of the earth, and the signal judgments on the people of Israel. [Numb. xvi. 30. Isa. xlv. 7.]

We must not therefore weakly collect the true nature of creation from the force of any word which by some may be thought to express so much; but we must collect it from the testimony of God the Creator, in his word, and of the world created, in our 53 reason*. The opinion of the church of the Jews will sufficiently appear in that zealous mother to her seventh and youngest son; [2 Mac. vii. 28.] I beseech thee, my son, look upon the heaven and the earth, and all that is therein, and consider that God made them of things that were not: which is a clear description of creation, that is, production out of nothing. But because this is not by all received as Canonical, we shall therefore evince it by the undoubted testimony of St. Paul, who expressing the nature of Abraham's faith, propoundeth [Rom. iv. 17.] him whom he believed as God who quickeneth the dead,

Notes to p. 94 (the remainder of note 75, begun on p. 93, is printed here, followed by note 76):

⁷⁵ (continued) work, and עשה another; for they both express the production, as appears clearly in the following verse, These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, בהבראם when they were created, ביום עשות in the day that the Lord God made the heavens and the earth. So Isa. xlv. 12. I have made the earth, and created man upon it: where the first expresseth the proper, the second the improper creation. Which indifferent acception appeareth in collating Psal. cxv. 15. and cxxi. 2. with Isa. xlii. 5. and xlv. 18. as also Isa. xvii. 7. with Eccl. xii. 1. From whence the LXX. translate ברא indifferently ποιεῖν or κτίζειν. For the second, יצר is usually rendered by the Targum ברא, and by the LXX. though generally πλάττειν, yet sometimes κτίζειν. And that it hath the same signification will appear by conferring Gen. ii. 7. with Isa. xlv. 12. and not only so, but by that single verse, Isa. xliii. 1. Now thus saith the Lord, בראך that created thee, O Jacob, ויצרך and he that formed thee, O Israel. Lastly, all these are jointly used in the same validity of expression, Isa. xliii. 7. Every one that is called by my name: for בראתי I have created him for my glory, יצרתי I have formed him, yea עשיתיו I have made him.

⁷⁶ ‘Creatio atque conditio nunquam nisi in magnis operibus nominentur: verbi causa, mundus creatus est, urbs condita est, domus vero, quamvis magna sit, ædificata potius dicitur, quam condita vel creata. In magnis enim operibus atque facturis verbum creationis assumitur.’ S. Hieron. in Epist. ad Eph. cap. 4. [vol. vii. p. 627 A.]

• [i. e. the word of God, or the scripture, will give us the testimony of God himself; our reason will enable us to collect another testimony from the material creation.]

[Printed p. 95]

and calleth those things which be not, as though they were. For as to be called in the language of the Scripture is to be, (Behold [1 John iii. 1.] what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God, saith St. John in his Epistle, who in his Gospel told us, [John i. 12.] he had given us power to become the sons of God:) so to call is to make, or cause to be. As where the Prophet Jeremy saith, [Jer. xxxii. 23.] Thou hast caused all this evil to come upon them, the original may be thought to speak no more than this, Thou hast caused this evil to them. He therefore calleth those [ויקרא] things which be not, as if they were, who maketh those things which were not, to be, and produceth that which hath a being out of that which had not, that is, out of nothing. This reason, generally persuasive unto Faith, is more peculiarly applied by the Apostle to the belief of the creation: for [Heb. xi. 3.] through faith, saith he, we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Not as if the earth, which we see, were made of air; or any more subtil body, which we see not; nor as if those things which are seen were in equal latitude commensurable with the worlds which were framed: but that those things which are seen, that is, which are, were made of those which did not appear⁷⁷, that is, which were not.

Vain therefore was that opinion of a real matter coeval with God as necessary for production of the world by way of subject, as the eternal and Almighty God by way of efficient. For if some real and material being must be presupposed by indispensable necessity, without which God could not cause any thing to be, then is not he independent in his actions, nor of infinite power and absolute activity, which is contradictory to the divine perfection. Nor can any reason be alleged why he should be dependent in his operation, who is confessed independent in his being.

And as this coeternity of matter opposeth God's Independency, the proper notion of the Deity, so doth it also contradict his

Notes to p. 95:

⁷⁷ For I take μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων in this place to be equivalent unto οὐκ ἐξ ὄντων in the Maccabees, and that of the same sense with ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, as the Syriac translation, מן אילין דלא מתחזין ex iis quæ non conspiciuntur. Which manner of speech may be observed even in the best Greek authors: as in Aristotle, Nat. Auscult. lib. v. cap. 2. §. 8. Μεταβάλλει δὲ τὸ μεταβάλλον τετραχῶς· ἢ γὰρ ἐξ ὑποκειμένου εἰς ὑποκείμενον, ἢ οὐκ ἐξ ὑποκειμένου εἰς οὐκ ὑποκείμενον, ἢ μὴ ἐξ ὑποκειμένου εἰς ὑποκείμενον, ἢ ἐξ ὑποκειμένου εἰς μὴ ὑποκείμενον. Where οὐκ ἐξ ὑποκειμένου is the same with ἐξ οὐκ ὑποκειμένου, and μὴ ἐξ ὑποκειμένου with ἐξ μὴ ὑποκειμένου. [In Bekker's edition there is a different reading of this passage.]

[Printed p. 96]

All-sufficiency. For if without the production of something beside himself he cannot make a demonstration of his attributes, or cause any sensibility of his power and will for the illustration of his own glory; and if without something distinct wholly from himself he cannot produce any thing, then must he want⁷⁸ something external: and whosoever wanteth any thing is not all-sufficient. And certainly he must have a low opinion and poor conception of the infinite and eternal God, who thinks he is no otherwise known to be Omnipotent than by the benefit of another⁷⁹. Nor were the framers of the Creed so wise in prefixing the Almighty before Maker of heaven and earth, if, out 54 of a necessity of material concurrence, the making of them left a mark of impotency rather than omnipotency.

The supposition then of an eternal matter is so unnecessary where God works, and so derogatory to the infinity of his power, and all-sufficiency of himself, that the later Philosophers⁸⁰, something acquainted with the truth which we profess, though rejecting Christianity, have reproved those of the school of Plato, who delivered, as the doctrine of their master, an eternal companion, so injurious to the Father and Maker of all things.

Wherefore to give an answer to that general position, that out of nothing nothing can be produced, which Aristotle⁸¹ pretends to

Notes to p. 96:

⁷⁸ ‘Nemo enim non eget eo de cujus utitur; nemo non subjicitur ei cujus eget, ut possit uti: sic et nemo de alieno utendo, non minor est eo de cujus utitur; et nemo qui præstat de suo uti, non in hoc superior est eo cui præstat uti.’ Tertul. adv. Hermog. cap. 8. [p. 236 A.]

⁷⁹ ‘Grande revera beneficium Deo contulit, ut haberet hodie per quem Deus cognosceretur et omnipotens vocaretur: nisi quod jam non omnipotens, si non et hoc potens, ex nihilo omnia proferre.’ Ibid. [p. 236 B.] ‘Quo igitur ab homine divina illa vis differret, si, ut homo, sic etiam Deus ope indiget aliena? indiget autem, si nihil moliri potest, nisi ab altero illi materia ministretur.’ Lactan. lib. ii. cap. 9. [c. 8. vol. i. p. 121.]

⁸⁰ As Hierocles, Καὶ τὶ καταλέγω σοι τούτους; ὅπου γε καὶ τῶν Πλατωνικῶν τινὲς οὐκ ὀρθὴν τὴν περὶ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ θεοῦ διασώζουσιν ἔννοιαν; οἱ γὰρ ἱκανοὶ αὐτὸν εἶναι φήσαντες, αὐτοτελῶς ὑποστῆσαι δυνάσθαι κόσμον οἰκείᾳ δυνάμει καὶ σοφίᾳ ἐξ ἄϋλου ἐνεργοῦντα· ἀλλ' ἀγεννήτου ὕλης συνεργείᾳ· καὶ τῇ μὴ παρ' αὐτοῦ ὑποστάσῃ φύσει καταχρώμενοι, μόνος δημιουργεῖν δύνασθαι. De Provid. et Fato. [p. 246.]

⁸¹ Πᾶν τὸ γινόμενον ἀνάγκη γίνεσθαι ἢ ἐξ ὄντων ἢ ἐκ μὴ ὄντων· τούτων δὲ τὸ μὲν ἐκ μὴ ὄντων γίνεσθαι ἀδύνατον· περὶ γὰρ ταύτης διομολογοῦσι τῆς δόξης ἅπαντες οἱ περὶ φύσεως. Phys. lib. iv. cap. 1*. [lib. i. c. iv. §. 4.]

• [It is well observed by Barrow, that “it is nowise harder, nor more impossible, to produce matter itself, than to produce a form therein, without or against its aptitude to receive it: nay, it seems more difficult to make children to Abraham out of stones, than to make them out of nothing: there being a positive obstacle to be removed; here no resistance appearing; there being as well somewhat preceding to be destroyed, as something new to be produced.” Vol. vi. p. 198.]

[Printed p. 97]

be the opinion of all natural Philosophers, I must first observe, that this universal proposition was first framed out of particular considerations of the works of art and nature. For if we look upon all kinds of artificers⁸², we find they cannot give any specimen of their art without materials. Being then the beauty and uniformity of the world shews it to be a piece of art most exquisite, hence they concluded that the Maker of it was the most exact Artificer⁸³, and consequently had his matter from all eternity prepared for him. Again, considering the works of nature and all parts of the world subject to generation and corruption, they also observed⁸⁴ that nothing is ever generated but out of something preexistent, nor is there any mutation wrought but in a subject, and with a presupposed capability of alteration. From hence they presently collected, that if the whole world were ever generated, it must have been produced out of some subject, and consequently there must be a matter eternally preexisting.

Now what can be more irrational, than from the weakness of some creature to infer the same imbecility in the Creator, and to measure the arm of God by the finger of man? Whatsoever speaketh any kind of excellency or perfection in the artificer, may be attributed unto God: whatsoever signifieth any infirmity, or involveth any imperfection, must be excluded from the notion of him. That wisdom, prescience, and preconception, that order and beauty of operation which is required in an artist, is most eminently contained in him, who hath [Wisd. xi. 20.] ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight: but if the most absolute idea in the artificer's understanding be not sufficient to produce his design without hands to work, and materials to make use of, it will follow no more that God is necessarily tied unto preexisting matter, than that he is really compounded of corporeal parts.

Again, it is as incongruous to judge of the production of

Notes to p. 97:

⁸² ‘Ut igitur faber cum quid ædificaturus est, non ipse facit materiam, sed ea utitur quæ sit parata, fictorque item cera: sic isti providentiæ divinæ materiam præsto esse oportuit, non quam ipse faceret, sed quam haberet paratam.’ Cicero de Nat. Deorum. [Fragm. ap. Lact. ii. 8.] ‘Ἀπεικάστέον τῷ μὲν θεῷ τῶν τεχνιτῶν, τῶν δὲ ἀνδριάντα τῷ κόσμῳ. Method. περὶ τῶν γεννητῶν. [in Photii Bibl. 235. p. 303.]

⁸³ So Hierocles calls him κοσμοποιὸν καὶ ἀριστότεχνον θεόν. in Aur. Carm. [v. i. p. 14.]

⁸⁴ ‘Ὅτι δὲ αἱ οὐσίαι, καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα ἁπλῶς ὄντα ἐξ ὑποκειμένου τινός γίνεται, ἐπισκοποῦντι γένοιτ' ἂν φανερόν· ἀεὶ γὰρ ἔστι τί ὁ ὑπόκειται, ἐξ οὗ γίνεται τὸ γινόμενον, οἷον τὰ φυτὰ καὶ τὰ ζῷα ἐκ σπέρματος. Aristot. Phys. lib. i. cap. 7. §. 6.

[Printed p. 98]

the world by those parts thereof which we see subject to generation and corruption: and thence to conclude, that if it ever had a cause of the being which it hath, it must have been generated in the same manner which they are; and if that cannot be, it must never have been made at all. For nothing is more certain than that this manner of generation cannot possibly have been the first production even of those things which are now generated. We see the plants grow from a seed; that is their ordinary way of generation: but the first plant could not be so generated, because all seed in the same course of nature is from the preexisting plant. We see from spawn the fishes, and from eggs the fowls receive now the original of their being: but 55 this could not at first be so, because both spawn and egg are as naturally from precedent fish and fowl. Indeed because the seed is separable from the body of the plant, and in that separation may long contain within itself a power of germination; because the spawn and egg are sejunctible from the fish and fowl, and yet still retain the prolific power of generation; therefore some might possibly conceive that these seminal bodies might be originally scattered on the earth, out of which the first of all those creatures should arise. But in viviparous animals, whose offspring is generated within themselves, whose seed by separation from them loseth all its seminal or prolific power, this is not only improbable but inconceivable. And therefore being the Philosophers⁸⁵ themselves confess, that whereas now all animals are generated by the means of seed, and that the animals themselves must be at first before the seed

Notes to p. 98:

⁸⁵ These words of Aristotle are very observable, in which he disputes against Speusippus and the Pythagoreans, who thought the rudiments of things first made, out of which they grew unto perfection: “Ὅσοι δὲ ὑπολαμβάνουσιν, ὥσπερ οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι καὶ Σπεύσιππος, τὸ ἄριστον καὶ κάλλιστον μὴ ἐν ἀρχῇ εἶναι, διὰ τὸ καὶ τῶν φυτῶν καὶ τῶν ζῴων τὰς ἀρχὰς αἰτία μὲν εἶναι, τὸ δὲ καλὸν καὶ τὸ τέλειον ἐν τοῖς ἐκ τούτων, οὐκ ὀρθῶς οἴονται· τὸ γὰρ σπέρμα ἐξ ἑτέρου ἐστὶ προτέρων τελειότερον· καὶ τὸ πρῶτον οὐ σπέρμα ἐστὶν, ἀλλὰ τὸ τέλειον. οἷον πρότερον ἄνθρωπον ἂν φαίη τις εἶναι τοῦ σπέρματος, οὐ τὸν ἐκ τούτου γεννόμενον, ἀλλ' ἕτερον ἐξ οὗ τὸ σπέρμα. Metaph. lib. xi. cap. 7. [§. 10.] By which words Aristotle hath sufficiently destroyed his own argument, which we produced before out of the first of the Physics, and is excellently urged in that philosophical piece attributed unto Justin Martyr: Εἰ πρῶτόν ἐστι τὸ σπέρμα σπέρμα, καὶ ὕστερον τὸ ἐκ σπέρματος γινόμενον, καὶ γενητὰ ἀμφότερα, τῇ μὲν γενέσει τοῦ κειμένου ἐκ σπέρματος γινομένου ὑπάρχει τὸ σπέρμα· τῇ δὲ γενέσει τοῦ σπείραντος ὑποκεῖσθαι τὸ σπέρμα οὐ δύναται. οὐκ ἄρα ἀεὶ τὰ ζῷα καὶ τὰ φυτὰ ἐκ σπέρματος γίνεται. Aristot. Dogm. Evers. [i. p. 556 C.] Ὅθεν οὐδεὶς λέγει τοῦ σπέρματος εἶναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, οὐδὲ τοῦ ᾠοῦ εἶναι τὴν ἀλεκτορίδα· τῆς δὲ ἀλεκτορίδος τὸ ᾠὸν εἶναι, καὶ τὸ σπέρμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου λέγομεν. Plutarch. Sympos. lib. ii. Probl. 3. [vol. ii. p. 636 F.]

[Printed p. 99]

proceeding from them; it followeth that there was some way of production antecedent to and differing from the common way of generation; and, consequently, what we see done in this generation can be no certain rule to understand the first production. Being then that universal maxim, that nothing can be made of nothing, is merely calculated for the meridian of natural causes, raised solely out of observation of continuing creatures by successive generation, which could not have been so continued without a being antecedent to all such succession; it is most evident it can have no place in the production of that antecedent or first being, which we call Creation.

Now when we thus describe the nature of creation, and under the name of heaven and earth comprehend all things contained in them, we must distinguish between things created. For some were made immediately out of nothing, by a proper, some only mediately, as out of something formerly made out of nothing, by an improper kind of creation. By the first were made all immaterial substances, all the orders of angels, and the souls of men, the heavens, and the simple or elemental bodies, as the earth, the water, and the air. [Gen. i. 1.] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; so in the beginning, as without any preexisting or antecedent matter: this earth, when so in the beginning made, was [Gen. i. 2.] without form and void, covered with waters likewise made, not out of it but with it, the same which, [Verse 9.] when the waters were gathered together unto one place, appeared as dry land. By the second⁸⁶, all the hosts of the earth, the fowls of the air, and the fishes of the sea; [Verse 11.] Let the earth, said God, bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind. [Verse 20.] Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature, that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth; and more expressly yet, [Gen. ii. 19.] Out of the ground God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air. And well may we grant these plants and animals to have their origination from such principles, when we read, [Verse 7.] God formed man of the dust of the ground; and said unto him whom he created in his own image, [Gen. iii. 19.] Dust thou art.

Having thus declared the notion of creation in respect of those things which were created, the next consideration is of

Notes to p. 99:

⁸⁶ ‘Hic visibilis mundus ex materia quæ a Deo facta fuerat, [‘ex his quæ creata fuerant’ is the Benedictine editor's reading,] factus est et ornatus.’ Gennad. [Eccl. Dogm.] cap. 10. [p. 77 C.]

[Printed p. 100]

that action in reference to the Agent who created all things. Him therefore we may look upon first as moved; secondly, as 56 free under that motion; thirdly, as determining under that freedom, and so performing of that action. In the first we may see his goodness, in the second his will, in the third his power.

I do not here introduce any external impulsive cause, as moving God unto the creation of the world; for I have presupposed all things distinct from him to have been produced out of nothing by him, and consequently to be posterior not only to the motion but the actuation of his will. Being then nothing can be antecedent to the creature beside God himself, neither can any thing be a cause of any of his actions but what is in him; we must not look for any thing extrinsecal unto him, but wholly acquiesce in his infinite goodness, as the only moving and impelling cause. [Matt. xix. 17.] There is none good but one, that is God⁸⁷, saith our Saviour; none originally, essentially, infinitely, independently good, but he. Whatsoever goodness is found in any creature is but by way of emanation from that fountain, whose very being is diffusive, whose nature consists in the communication of itself. [Gen. i. 31.] In the end of the sixth day God saw every thing that he had made, and behold it was very good: which shews the end of creating all things thus good was the communication of that by which they were, and appeared, so.

The ancient Heathens have acknowledged this truth⁸⁸, but with such disadvantage, that from thence they gathered an undoubted error. For from the goodness of God, which they did not unfitly conceive necessary, infinite, and eternal, they collected that whatsoever dependeth of it must be as necessary and eternal⁸⁹, even as light must be as ancient as the sun, and

Notes to p. 100 (note 89 begins here and continues on p. 101, transcribed in full below):

⁸⁷ Ἄλλο γὰρ τὸ ἐπίκτητον ἀγαθόν, ἄλλο τὸ καθ' ἑαυτὸ ἀγαθόν, ἄλλο τὸ πρῶτος ἀγαθόν. Proclus in Timæum. [lib. ii. p. 110 D.] Τὸ δὲ αὐτοαγαθὸν πρῶτος ἀγαθόν. Ibid.

⁸⁸ As Plato, Λέγομεν δὴ δι' ἣν τινα αἰτίαν γένεσιν καὶ τὸ πᾶν τόδε ὁ ξυνιστὰς ξυνέστησεν· ἀγαθὸς ἦν. ἀγαθῷ δ' οὐδεὶς περὶ οὐδενὸς οὐδέποτε ἐγγίγνεται φθόνος· τούτου δ' ἐκτὸς ὢν πάντα ὅτι μάλιστα γενέσθαι ἐβουλήθη παραπλήσια ἑαυτῷ· ταύτην δὴ γενέσεως καὶ κόσμου μάλιστα ἄν τις ἀρχὴν κυριωτάτην παρ' ἀνδρῶν φρονίμων ἀποδεχόμενος, ὀρθότατα ἀποδέχοιτ' ἄν. In Timæo. [p. 29 D.] Αἰτία γὰρ τῆς τῶν πάντων ποιήσεως οὐδεμία ἄλλη πρόσεστιν εὔλογος, πλὴν τῆς κατ' οὐσίαν ἀγαθότητος. Hieroc. in Aur. Carm. [v. i. p. 20.] Αἰ γὰρ παρὰ τὴν ἀγαθότητα λεγόμεναι αἰτίαι τῆς δημιουργίας τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς, ἀνθρωπίνας μᾶλλον περιπάτειν ἢ τῷ θεῷ πρέπειν. Ib.

⁸⁹ Ἀνάγκη διὰ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἀγαθότητα ὄντος τοῦ κόσμου, ἀεὶ τε τὸν θεὸν ἀγαθὸν εἶναι, καὶ τὸν κόσμον ὑπάρχειν· ὥσπερ ἥλιῳ μὲν καὶ πυρὶ συναφίσταται φῶς, σώματι δὲ σκιά. Sallust. de Diis et Mundo, cap. 7. [p. 24.] Εἰ γὰρ ἔμεινον μὴ ποιεῖν, πῶς εἰς τὸ ποιεῖν μεταβέβηκεν; εἰ δὲ τὸ ποιεῖν, τὶ μὴ ἐξ ἀϊδίου ἔπραττεν; Hierocl. de Fato et Provid. [p. 248]. Neither doth he mean any less, when in his

[Printed p. 101]

a shadow as an opacous body in that light. If then there be no instant imaginable before which God was not infinitely good, then can there likewise be none conceivable before which the world was not made. And thus they thought the goodness of the Creator must stand or fall with the eternity of the creature.

For the clearing of which ancient mistake, we must observe, that as God is essentially and infinitely good without any mixture of deficiency, so is he in respect of all external actions or emanations absolutely free without the least necessity. Those bodies which do act without understanding or preconception of what they do, as the sun and fire give light and heat, work always to the utmost of their power, nor are they able at any time to sus- 57 pend their action. To conceive any such necessity in the divine

Notes to p. 101 (the remainder of note 89, begun on p. 100, is printed here):

⁸⁹ (continued) sense he thus describes the first cause of all things: ‘Ἔστ' ἄν (so I read it, not ἔστ', ἄν, as the printed copies, or ἕως ἄν, as Curterius) ἢ τὸ πρῶτον αὐτὸν αἴτιον, ἀμετάβλητον πάντῃ καὶ ἄτρεπτον, καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν τῇ ἐνεργείᾳ τὴν αὐτὴν κεκτημένον, καὶ τὴν ἀγαθότητα οὐκ ἐπίκτητον ἔχων, ἀλλ' οὐσιωμένην καθ' αὑτήν, καὶ δι' αὑτὴν [αὑτῆς in Needham's edition] τὰ πάντα πρὸς τὸ εἶναι παράγον· (so I read it, not πάντων πρὸς τὸ εὖ εἶναι, as the printed.) Hierocl. in Aur. Carm. [v. i. p. 20.] Συνήρτηται ἄρα τῇ μὲν ἀγαθότητι τοῦ πατρὸς ἡ τῆς προνοίας ἐκτένεια· ταύτῃ δὲ ἡ τοῦ δημιουργοῦ διαιώνιος ποίησις· ταύτῃ δὲ ἡ τοῦ παντὸς κατὰ τὸν ἄπειρον ἀϊδιότης.—καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς λόγος ταύτην τε ἀναιρεῖ, καὶ τὴν ἀγαθότητα τοῦ πεποιηκότος. Proclus in Timæum. [lib. ii. p. 111 E.] Now although this be the constant argumentation of the later Platonists, yet they found no such deduction or consequence in their master Plato; and I something incline to think, though it may seem very strange, that they received it from the Christians, I mean out of the School of Ammonius at Alexandria; whom though Porphyrius would make an apostate, for the credit of his heathen gods, yet St. Jerome hath sufficiently assured us that he lived and died in the Christian faith.* The reason of my conjecture is no more than this: Proclus acknowledgeth that Plutarch and others, though with Plato they maintained the goodness of God to be the cause of the world, yet withal denied the eternity of it: and when he quotes other expositors for his own opinion, he produceth none but Porphyrius and Iamblichus, the eldest of which was the scholar of Plotinus the disciple of Ammonius. And that he was of that opinion, I collect from him who was his scholar both in philosophy and divinity, that is, Origen, whose judgment, if it were not elsewhere apparent, is sufficiently known by the Fragment of Methodius, Περὶ γεννητῶν, preserved in Photius [Bibl. 235. p. 302]. “Ὅτι δ' Ὠριγένης, ὃν κένταυρον καλεῖ, ἔλεγε συναΐδιον εἶναι τῷ μόνῳ σοφῷ καὶ ἀπροσδεεῖ θεῷ τὸ πᾶν. Being then Porphyrius and Iamblichus cited by Proclus, being Hierocles, Proclus, and Sallustius were all either ἐκ τῆς ἱερᾶς γενεᾶς, as they called it, that is, descended successively from the School of Ammonius, (the great conciliator of Plato and Aristotle, and reformer of the ancient Philosophy,) or at least contemporary to them that were so; it is most probable that they might receive it from his mouth, especially considering that even Origen a Christian confirmed the same.

• [Eusebius says the same, (Hist. Eccles. vi. 19.) but the testimony of Porphyry is preferred by Brucker, Mosheim, &c. There were two persons named Ammonius; one of whom was a Christian writer; the other was founder of the later Platonists.]

[Printed p. 102]

operations, were to deny all knowledge in God, to reduce him into a condition inferior to some of the works of his own hands, and to fall under the censure contained in the Psalmist's question, [Psal. xciv. 9, 10.] He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall he not know? Those creatures which are endued with understanding, and consequently with a will, may not only be necessitated in their actions by a greater power, but also as necessarily be determined by the proposal of an infinite good: whereas neither of these necessities can be acknowledged in God's actions, without supposing a power beside and above Omnipotency, or a real happiness beside and above All-sufficiency. Indeed if God were a necessary Agent in the works of creation, the creatures would be of as necessary being as he is: whereas the necessity of being is the undoubted prerogative of the first Cause. [Eph. i. 11.] He worketh all things after the counsel of his own will, saith the Apostle: and wheresoever counsel is, there is election, or else it is vain; where a will, there must be freedom, or else it is weak. We cannot imagine that the all-wise God should act or produce any thing but what he determineth to produce; and all his determinations must flow from the immediate principle of his will. If then his determinations be free, as they must be coming from that principle, then must the actions which follow them be also free. Being then the goodness of God is absolutely perfect of itself, being he is in himself infinitely and eternally happy, and this happiness as little capable of augmentation as of diminution; he cannot be thought to look upon any thing without himself as determining his will to the desire, and necessitating to the production of it. If then we consider God's Goodness, he was moved; if his All-sufficiency, he was not necessitated: if we look upon his Will, he freely determined; if on his Power, by that determination he created the world.

Wherefore that ancient conceit of a necessary emanation of God's goodness in the eternal creation of the world will now easily be refuted, if we make a distinction in the equivocal notion of goodness. For if we take it as it signifieth a rectitude and excellency of all virtue and holiness, with a negation of all things morally evil, vicious, or unholy; so God is absolutely and necessarily good: but if we take it in another sense, as indeed they did which made this argument, that is, rather for beneficence, or communicativeness of some good to others; then God is not

[Printed p. 103]

necessarily, but freely, good, that is to say, profitable and beneficial. For he had not been in the least degree evil or unjust, if he had never made the world or any part thereof, if he had never communicated any of his perfections by framing any thing beside himself. Every proprietary therefore being accounted master of his own, and thought freely to bestow whatever he gives; much more must that one eternal and independent Being be wholly free in the communicating his own perfections without any necessity or obligation. We must then look no farther than the determination of God's will in the creation of the world.

For this is the admirable power of God, that with him to will is to effect, to determine is to perform. So the Elders speak before him that sitteth upon the throne: [Rev. iv. 11.] Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure (that is, by thy will) they are, and were created. Where there is no resistance in the object, where no need of preparation, application, or instrumental advantage in the agent, there the actual determination of the will is a sufficient production. Thus God did make the heavens and the earth by willing⁹⁰ them to be. This was his first command unto the creatures, and their existence was their first obedience. Let there be light⁹¹, this is the injunction; and there was light, [Gen. i. 4.] that is the creation. Which two are so intimately and immediately 58 the same, that though in our and other translations⁹² those words, let there be, which express the command of God, differ from the other, there was, which denote the present existence of the creature; yet in the original there is no difference at all, neither in point nor letter. And yet even in the diversity of the translation the phrase seems so expressive of God's infinite power, and immediate efficacy of his will, that it hath raised some admiration of Moses in the enemies⁹³ of the religion both

Notes to p. 103 (note 93 begins here and continues on p. 104, beyond this file):

⁹⁰ So Clemens Alexandrinus speaks of God, Ψιλῇ τῷ βούλεσθαι δημιουργεῖ, καὶ τῷ μόνῳ ἐθελῆσαι αὐτῷ ἕπεται τὸ γεγενῆσθαι. Protrept. [c. iv. vol. i. p. 55.] Idem, lib. ii. adv. Eunom. [§. 21. vol. i. p. 257 B.]

⁹¹ Γενηθήτω φῶς, καὶ τὸ πρόσταγμα ἔργον ἦν. S. Basil. [In Hexaem. Hom. II. 7. vol. i. p. 19 C.] “Ὅταν δὲ φωνὴν ἐπὶ θεοῦ καὶ ῥῆμα καὶ πρόσταγμα λέγωμεν,—τὴν ἐν τῷ θελήματι ῥοπὴν—ἡγούμεθα ἐν εἴδει προστάγματος σχηματίζεσθαι. Idem, in Hexaem. [ib.] Τίνος ὑπουργίας δέοιτο ὁ θελήματι μόνῳ δημιουργῶν, ὁμοῦ τῇ βουλήσει συμφισταμένης τῆς κτίσεως;

⁹² As, Γενηθήτω φῶς, καὶ ἐγένετο φῶς. Fiat lux, et facta est lux; or as Aquila, Γενέσθω, καὶ ἐγένετο· as Symmachus, Ἔστω, καὶ ἐγένετο· all with a difference: whereas in the Hebrew it is a most expressive and significant tautology יהי אור ויהי אור

⁹³ As Dionysius Longinus, Περὶ ὕψους, sect. 9. [p. 22.] Ταύτῃ καὶ ὁ τῶν Ἰουδαίων θεσμοθέτης, οὐχ ὁ τυχὼν ἀνήρ, ἐπειδὴ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ δύναμιν κατὰ τὴν ἀξίαν ἐγνώρισε κἀξέφηνεν, εὐθὺς ἐν τῇ εἰσβολῇ γράψας [Printed p. 104]

of the Jews and Christians. God is in the heavens, he hath done whatsoever he pleased⁹⁴, saith David; yea in the making of the heavens, he therefore created them, because he pleased; nay more, he thereby created them, even by willing their creation.

Now although some may conceive the creature might have been produced from all eternity by the free determination of God's will, and it is so far certainly true, that there is no instant assignable before which God could not have made the world; yet as this is an Article of our Faith, we are bound to believe the heavens and earth are not eternal. [Heb. xi. 3] Through faith we understand the worlds were framed by the word of God. And by that faith we are assured, that whatsoever possibility of an eternal existence of the creature may be imagined, actually it had a temporal beginning; and therefore all the arguments for this world's eternity are nothing but so many erroneous misconceptions. [Prov. viii. 22, 23] The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old, saith Wisdom. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. And the same Wisdom of God being made man reflecteth upon the same priority, saying, [Joh. xvii. 5] Now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. [Eph. i. 3, 4] Yea, in the same Christ are we blessed with all spiritual blessings, according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world. The impossibility of the origination of a circular motion, which we are sure is either in the heaven or earth, and the impropriety of the beginning of time, are so poor exceptions, that they deserve not the least labour of refutation. The actual eternity of this world is so far from being necessary, that it is of itself most improbable; and without the infallible certainty of faith, there is no single person carries more evidences of his youth, than the world of its novelty⁹⁵.

It is true indeed, some ancient accounts there are which would persuade us to imagine a strange antiquity of the world, far beyond the annals of Moses, and account of the same Spirit which made it*.

Notes to p. 104:

⁹³ (continued from p. 103) τῶν νόμων, Εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς, φησὶ· τί; γενέσθω φῶς, καὶ ἐγένετο· γενέσθω γῆ, καὶ ἐγένετο. Where observe, Longinus made use of the translation of Aquila.

⁹⁴ Πάντα ὅσα ἤθελησεν ἐποίησεν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ· ὁρᾷς ὅτι οὐχὶ πρὸς τὴν δημιουργίαν τῶν ἐν τῇ γῇ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς τὴν κτίσιν τῶν ἄνω δυνάμεων ἥρκεσεν ἡ θέλησις αὐτοῦ μόνη; S. Chrysost. Περὶ τοῦ ἀκαταλήπτου ii. [§. 4. vol. i. p. 457 E.]

⁹⁵ As even Lucretius confesseth, and that out of the principles of Epicurus: Verum, ut opinor, habet novitatem summa, recensque Natura est mundi, neque pridem exordia cepit. De Rer. Nat. lib. v. ver. 33.

[Printed p. 105]

which made it*. The Egyptian Priests pretended an exact chronology for some myriads of years⁹⁶, and the Chaldeans or Assyrians far out-reckon them⁹⁷, in which they delivered not only a catalogue of their kings, but also a table of the eclipses of the sun and moon⁹⁸.

59 But for their number of years nothing is more certain than their forgery; for the Egyptians did preserve the antiquities of other nations as well as their own, and by the evident fallacy in others have betrayed their own vanity. When Alexander entered Egypt with his victorious army, the Priests could shew him out of their sacred histories an account of the Persian empire, which he gained by conquest, and the Macedonian, which he received by birth, of each for eight thousand years⁹⁹: whereas nothing can be more certain out of the best historical account, than that the Persian empire, whether begun in Cyrus or in Medus, was not then three hundred years old, and the Macedonian, begun in Coranus, not five hundred. They then

Notes to p. 105:

⁹⁶ Plato tells us of an account which an Egyptian priest gave to Solon, in which the Athenians were 9000 years old, and those of Sais 8000. Προτέραν μὲν τὴν παρ' ὑμῖν ἔτεσι χιλίοις ἐκ γῆς τε καὶ Ἡφαίστου τὸ σπέρμα παραλαβοῦσα ὑμῶν, τήνδε δὲ ὑστέραν· τῆς δὲ ἐνθάδε διακοσμήσεως παρ' ἡμῖν ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς γράμμασιν ὀκτακισχίλιων ἐτῶν ἀριθμὸς γέγραπται. In Timæo. [p. 23 D.] Pomponius Mela makes a larger account out of Herodotus: ‘Ipsi vetustissimi (ut prædicant) hominum trecentos et triginta reges ante Amasim, et supra tredecim millium annorum ætates certis annalibus;’ [lib. i. cap. ix. §. 8.] where, as the Egyptians much stretch the truth, so doth Mela stretch the relation of Herodotus, who makes it not 13,000, but 11,340 years. [ii. 142.] Diodorus Siculus [i. 26.] tells us of 23,000 years from the reign of the first king of Egypt to the expedition of Alexander; and Diogenes Laertius, out of other authors, more than doubles that account. Αἰγύπτιοι μὲν γὰρ Νείλου γενέσθαι παῖδα Ἥφαιστον, ὃν ἀρχαὶ φιλοσοφίας, ἧς τοὺς προεστῶτας ἱερέας εἶναι καὶ προφήτας· ἀπὸ δὲ τούτου εἰς Ἀλέξανδρον τὸν Μακέδονα ἐτῶν εἶναι μυριάδας τέσσαρας, καὶ ὀκτακισχίλια ὀκτακόσια ἔτη ἑξήκοντα τρία· [Proœm. §. 1, 2.]

⁹⁷ Ἀσσύριοι δέ, φησιν Ἰάμβλιχος, οὐχ ἑπτὰ καὶ εἴκοσι μυριάδας ἐτῶν μόνας ἐτήρησαν, ὡς φησὶν Ἵππαρχος· ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλας ἀποκαταστάσεις καὶ περιόδους τῶν ἑπτὰ κοσμοκρατόρων μηνῶν παρέδοσαν. Proclus in Timæum. [lib. i. p. 31 C.]

⁹⁸ Ἐν οἷς ἡλίῳ μὲν ἐκλείψεις γενέσθαι τριακοσίας ἑβδομήκοντα τρεῖς, σελήνης δὲ ὀκτακοσίους τριάκοντα δύο. Diog. Laert. [Proœm. §. 2.]

⁹⁹ This fallacy appeareth by an epistle which Alexander wrote to his mother Olympias, mentioned by Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, St. Cyprian, and St. Augustin. ‘Persarum autem et Macedonum imperium usque ad ipsum Alexandrum, cui loquebatur, plus quam octo millium annorum [‘octo et annorum millium’ in the Bened. ed.] ille constituit; cum apud Græcos Macedonum usque ad mortem Alexandri quadringenti octoginta quinque reperiantur; Persarum vero, donec ipsius Alexandri victoria finiretur, ducenti et triginta tres computentur.’ S. August. de Civit. Dei, lib. xii. cap. 10. [vol. vii. p. 309 C.]

• [i. e. far beyond also the account given by persons who were inspired by the same Spirit which made the world.]

[Printed p. 106]

which made so large additions to advance the antiquity of other nations, and were so bold as to present them to those which so easily might refute them, (had they not delighted to be deceived to their own advantage, and took much pleasure in an honourable cheat,) may without any breach of charity be suspected to have extended the account much higher for the honour of their own country. Beside, their catalogues must needs be ridiculously incredible, when the Egyptians make their first kings' reigns above one thousand two hundred years apiece¹, and the Assyrians theirs above forty thousand*; except ye take the Egyptian years for months², the Assyrians for days; and then the account will not seem so formidable.

Again, for the calculation of eclipses, as it may be made for

Notes to p. 106:

¹ As Diodorus Siculus takes notice of the Egyptians, and Abydenus of the Chaldeans, whose ten first kings reigned 120 sari. ‘Ὡς τοὺς πάντας εἶναι βασιλεῖς δέκα· ὧν ὁ χρόνος τῆς βασιλείας συνῆξε σάρους ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι.’ [Euseb. Chron. lib. i. p. 5.] Now this word σάρος was proper to the Babylonian or Chaldean account. Hesych. Σάρος, ἀριθμός τις παρὰ Βαβυλωνίοις· but what this number was, he tells us not. In the fragment of Abydenus preserved by Eusebius. [Chron. lib. i. p. 5.] Σάρος δέ ἐστιν ἑξακόσια καὶ τρισχίλια ἔτη· every σάρος is 3600 years, and consequently the 120 σάροι belonging to the reign of the ten kings 432,000 years. Neither was this the account only of Abydenus, but also of Berosus; neither was the interpretation only of Eusebius, but also of Alexander Polyhistor. [in Euseb. Chron. lib. i. p. 6.] who likewise expresseth τὸν χρόνον τῆς βασιλείας αὐτῶν σάρους ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι, ἤτοι ἐτῶν μυριάδας τεσσαράκοντα τρεῖς καὶ δύο χιλιάδας. This seemed so highly incredible, that two ancient monks, Anianus and Panodorus, interpreted those Chaldean years to be but days, so that every σάρος should consist of 3600 days, that is, nine years, ten months and a half; and the whole 120 σάροι for the ten kings 1183 years, six months, and odd days. This is all which Jos. Scaliger or Jacobus Goar of late could find concerning this Chaldean computation: and the first of these complains that none but Hesychius makes mention of this account. I shall therefore supply them, not only with another author, but also with a diverse and distinct interpretation. Σάροι μέτρον καὶ ἀριθμὸς παρὰ Χαλδαίοις· οἱ γὰρ ρκ′ σάροι ποιοῦσιν ἐνιαυτοὺς βσκβ′, οἷ γίνονται ιη′ ἐνιαυτοὶ καὶ μῆνες ἕξ. That is, according to the translation of Portus, Sari apud Chaldæos est mensura et numerus: nam 120 sari faciunt annos 2222, qui sunt anni 18 et sex menses. Well might he fix his N. L. or non liquet, to these words; for as they are in the printed books, there is no sense to be made of them; but by the help of the MS. in the Vatican Library, we shall both supply the defect in Suidas, and find a third valuation of the σάροι. Thus then that MS. represents the words: Οἱ γὰρ ρκ′ σάροι ποιοῦσιν ἐνιαυτοὺς βσκβ′ κατὰ τὴν Χαλδαίων ψῆφον, εἴπερ ὁ σάρος ποιεῖ μῆνας σεληνιακῶν σκβ′, οἷοι γίνονται ιη′ ἐνιαυτοὶ καὶ μῆνες ἕξ. And so the sense is clear. Σάρος, according to the Chaldee account, comprehends 222 months, which come to eighteen years and six months; therefore 120 σάροι make 2220 years; and therefore for βσκβ′, I read, leaving out the last β, βσκ′, that is, 2220.

² Εἰ δὲ καὶ ὁ φησιν Εὐδόξος ἀληθὲς, ὅτι Αἰγύπτιοι τὸν μῆνα ἐνιαυτὸν ἐκάλουν, οὐκ ἂν ἡ τῶν πολλῶν τούτων ἐνιαυτῶν ἀπαρίθμησις ἔχοι τι θαυμαστόν. Proclus in Timæum, xxxi. 50. [p. 31 F.]

• [In the first edition it is thirty thousand.]

[Printed p. 107]

many thousand years to come, and be exactly true, and yet the world may end to-morrow; because the calculation must be made with this tacit condition, if the bodies of the earth, and sun, and moon, do continue in their substance and constant motion so long: so may it also be made for many millions of years past, and all be true, if the world have been so old; which the calculating doth not prove, but suppose. He then which should in the Egyptian temples see the description of so many eclipses of the sun and moon, could not be assured that they were all taken from real observation, when they might be as well described out of proleptical supposition.

Beside, the motions of the sun, which they mention together and with authority equal to that of their other observations, are so incredible and palpably fabulous, that they take off all credit and esteem from the rest of their narrations. For with this wild account of years, and seemingly accurate observations of the heavens, they left it written to posterity, that the whole course of

60 the celestial motions were four times changed: so that the sun hath twice risen in the east, and set in the west, as now it does; and, on the contrary, twice risen in the west, and set in the east³. And thus these prodigious antiquaries confute themselves⁴.

Notes to p. 107:

³ Ἐν τοίνυν τούτῳ τῷ χρόνῳ τετράκις ἔλεγον ἐξ ἠθέων τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατεῖλαι· ἔνθα τε νῦν καταδύεται, ἐντεῦθεν δὶς ἐπανατεῖλαι· καὶ ἔνθεν νῦν ἀνατέλλει, ἐνθαῦτα δὶς καταδῦναι. Herod. Euterp. [c. 142.] ‘Mandatumque literis servant, dum Ægyptii sunt, quater cursus suos vertisse sidera, ac solem bis jam occidisse unde nunc oritur.’ Mela, lib. i. cap. 10. [c. ix. §. 8.] Whereas Aristotle more soberly, ‘Ἐν ἅπαντι γὰρ τῷ παρεληλυθότι χρόνῳ κατὰ τὴν παραδεδομένην ἀλλήλοις μνήμην οὐθὲν φαίνεται μεταβεβληκὸς, οὔτε καθ' ὅλον τὸν ἔσχατον οὐρανὸν, οὔτε κατὰ μόριον αὐτοῦ τῶν οἰκείων οὐθέν.’ De Cœlo, lib. i. cap. 3. [§. 11.] Vide Simplic. [ad loc.]

⁴ As the Chaldees did affirm that they had taken observations of the celestial motions for 470,000 years; and withal they also affirmed, that for the same space of time they had calculated the nativity of all the children which were born. Which last is certainly false. ‘Nam quod aiunt quadringenta et septuaginta millia annorum in periclítandis experiundisque pueris quicunque essent nati Babylonios posuisse, fallunt: si enim esset factitatum, non esset desitum. Neminem autem habemus auctorem qui aut fieri dicat, aut factum sciat.’ Cicero. lib. ii. de Divinat. [c. xlvi. §. 97.] And if the last be false, we have no reason to believe the first is true; but rather to deny their astronomical observations by their vain ambition in astrological predictions. And indeed those observations of the Chaldees being curiously searched into by Callisthenes, appointed by Aristotle for that purpose, were found really to go no farther than 1903 years before Alexander, as Porphyrius hath declared, who was no friend to the account of Moses. Διὰ τὸ μὴπω τὰς ὑπὸ Καλλισθένους ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος πεμφθείσας παρατηρήσεις ἀφικέσθαι εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα τοῦ Ἀριστοτέλους τοῦτο ἐπισκήψαντος αὐτῷ· ὡς τίνας διηγεῖται ὁ Πορφύριος χιλίων ἐτῶν εἶναι καὶ ἐννεακοσίων τριῶν μέχρι τῶν χρόνων Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Μακεδόνος σωζομένας. Simplic. ad lib. ii. Aristot. de Cœlo, p. 123.

[Printed p. 108]

What then are these feigned observations and fabulous descriptions for the world's antiquity, in respect not only of the infallible annals of the Spirit of God, but even of the constant testimonies of more sober men, and the real appearances and face of things, which speak them of a far shorter date?

If we look into the historians which give account of ancient times, nay, if we peruse the fictions of the poets, we shall find the first to have no footsteps, the last to feign no actions, of so great antiquity. If the race of men had been eternal⁵, or as old as the Egyptians and the Chaldees fancy it, how should it come to pass that the poetical inventions should find no actions worthy their heroic verse before the Trojan or the Theban war, or that great adventure of the Argonauts? For whatsoever all the Muses, the daughters of Memory, could rehearse before those times, is nothing but the creation of the world, and the nativity of their gods.

If we consider the necessaries of life, the ways of freedom and commerce amongst men, and the inventions⁶ of all arts and sciences, the letters which we use, and languages which we speak, they have all known originals, and may be traced to their first authors. The first beginnings were then so known and acknowledged by all, that the inventors and authors of them were reckoned amongst their gods, and worshipped by those to whom they had been so highly beneficial: which honour and adoration they could not have obtained, but from such as were really sensible of their former want, and had experience of a present advantage by their means.

If we search into the nations themselves, we shall see none

Notes to p. 108:

⁵ This argument is therefore to me the stronger, because made by him who cannot be thought a favourer of our religion, because he was a countenancer of none, Epicurus, whose mind is thus delivered by Lucretius; Præterea, si nulla fuit genitális origo Terrarum et cœli, semperque æterna fuere, Cur supera bellum Thebanum et funera Trojæ, Non alias alii quoque res cecinere Poetæ? Quo tot facta virum toties cecidere? neque usquam Æternis famæ monumentis insita florent? De Rer. Nat. lib. v. ver. 325.

⁶ Pliny gives a large account of these, lib. vii. cap. 57. and Lucretius makes use of this argument; Quare etiam quædam nunc artes expoliuntur, Nunc etiam augescunt, nunc addita navigiis sunt Multa; modo organici melicos peperere sonores: Denique natura hæc rerum ratioque reperta est Nuper, et hanc primus cum primis ipse repertus Nunc ego sum in patrias qui possim vertere voces. De Rer. Nat. lib. v. ver. 333.

[Printed p. 109]

without some original: and were those authors extant which have written of the first plantations and migrations of people, the foundations and inhabiting of cities and countries⁷, their first rudiments would appear as evident as their later growth and present condition. We know what ways within two thousand years people have made through vast and thick woods for their

61 habitations, now as fertile, as populous as any. The Hercynian trees, in the time of the Cæsars, occupying so great a space, as to take up a journey of sixty days⁸, were thought even then coeval with the world⁹. We read without any show of contradiction, how this western part of the world hath been peopled from the east; and all the pretence of the Babylonian antiquity is nothing else, but that we all came from thence. Those eight persons saved in the ark, descending from the Gordiæan mountains, and multiplying to a large collection in the plain of Sinaar, made their first division at that place; and that dispersion, or rather dissemination, hath peopled all other parts of the world, either never before inhabited, or dispeopled by the flood.

These arguments have always seemed so clear and undeniable, that they have put not only those who make the world eternal, but them also who confess it made, (but far more ancient than we believe it,) to a strange answer, to themselves uncertain, to us irrational.

For to this they replied, that this world hath suffered many alterations¹⁰, by the utter destructions of nations and depopulations

Notes to p. 109:

⁷ I mean, not only such as wrote the building of particular cities, as Apollonius Rhodius Καύνον κτίσιν, Xenophanes Κολοφῶνος κτίσιν, Crito Συρακουσῶν κτίσιν, and Philochorus Σαλαμῖνος κτίσιν· but those more general, as Aristotle Κτίσεις καὶ πολιτείας, Polemo Κτίσεις πόλεων ἐν Φωκίδι, Charon Πόλεων κτίσεις, Callimachus Κτίσεις νήσων καὶ πόλεων, Hellanicus Κτίσεις ἐθνῶν καὶ πόλεων, and the indefinite Κτίσεις written by Dercyllus, Dionysius, Hippys, Clitophon, Trisimachus, and others.

⁸ ‘Sylvarum, Hercynia—dierum sexaginta iter occupans, ut major aliis, ita et notior.’ Mela, lib. iii. cap. 3. §. 3.

⁹ ‘Hercyniæ sylvæ roborum vastitas intacta ævis et congenita mundo, prope immortali sorte miracula excedit.’ Plin. lib. xvi. cap. 2.

¹⁰ (note 10 begins here and continues on p. 110, transcribed in full below) Thus Ocellus, who maintained the world was never made, answers the argument brought from the Greek Histories which began with Inachus, as the first subject, not author of History, (as Nogarola in his Annotations mistakes Ocellus,) Διὸ καὶ τοῖς λέγουσι τὴν τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς ἱστορίας ἀρχὴν ἀπὸ Ἰνάχου εἶναι τοῦ Ἀργείου, προσκτέον οὕτως, οὐχ ὡς ἀπὸ τινος ἀρχῆς πρώτης, ἀλλὰ τῆς γενομένης μεταβολῆς κατ' αὐτήν. So that he will have Inachus to be the first not absolutely, but since the last great alteration made in Greece; and then he concludes that Greece hath often been, and will often be, barbarous, and lose the memory of all their actions: Πολλάκις γὰρ καὶ γέγονε καὶ ἔσται βάρβαρος ἡ Ἑλλὰς, οὐχ ὑπ' ἀνθρώπων μόνον γινομένη μεταστάσεις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπ' αὐτῆς τῆς φύσεως οὐ μείζονος οὐδὲ μείους αὐτῆς γινομένης, ἀλλὰ γὰρ νεωτέρας ἀεὶ καὶ πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀρχὴν

[Printed p. 110]

of countries, by which all monuments of antiquity were defaced, all arts and sciences utterly lost, all fair and stately fabrics ruined, and so mankind reduced to paucity, and the world often again returned into its infancy. This they conceived to have been done oftentimes in several ages, sometimes by a deluge of water, sometimes by a torrent of fire; and lest any of the elements might be thought not to conspire to the destruction of mankind, the air must sweep away whole empires at once with infectious plagues, and earthquakes swallow up all ancient cities, and bury even the very ruins of them. By which answer of theirs they plainly afford two great advantages to the Christian Faith. First, because they manifestly shew that they had an universal tradition of Noah's flood, and the overthrow of the old world: secondly, because it was evident to them, that there was no way to salve the eternity or antiquity of the world, or to answer this argument drawn from history and the appearances of things themselves, but by supposing innumerable deluges and deflagrations. Which being merely feigned in themselves, not proved, (and that first by them¹¹ which say they are not subject themselves unto them, as the Egyptians did, who by the advantage of their peculiar situation¹² feared neither perishing by fire

Notes to p. 110:

¹⁰ (continued from p. 109) λαμβανούσης. Ocell. de Universo, cap. 3. [p. 44.] Thus Plato, who asserted the creation of the world, but either from eternity, or such antiquity as does not much differ from it, brings in Solon inquiring the age of the Greek Histories, as of Phoroneus, and Niobe, Deucalion and Pyrrha; and an Egyptian priest answering, that all the Greeks were boys, and not an old man amongst them; that is, they had no ancient monuments, or history of any antiquity, but rested contented with the knowledge of the time since the last great mutation of their own country. Πολλαὶ γὰρ κατὰ πολλὰ φθοραὶ γεγόνασιν ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἔσονται, πυρὶ μὲν καὶ ὕδατι μέγισται, μυρίοις δὲ ἄλλοις ἕτεραι βραχύτεραι. In Timæo. [p. 22 C.] Origen of Celsus, Τὸ πολλὰς ἐκ παντὸς αἰῶνος ἐκπυρώσεις γεγονέναι, πολλὰς δ' ἐπικλύσεις, καὶ νεώτερον εἶναι τὸν ἐπὶ Δευκαλίωνος κατακλυσμὸν ἔναγχος γεγενημένον· σαφῶς τοῖς ἀκούειν αὐτοῦ δυναμένοις παρίστησι τὸ κατ' αὐτὸν τοῦ κόσμου ἀγένητον. lib. i. [§. 19. vol. i. p. 337 C.] And Lucretius the Epicurean, who thought the world but few thousand years old, as we believe, and that it should at last be consumed, as we also are persuaded, thinks this answer of theirs so far from being a refutation of the former, that he admits it as a confirmation of the latter part of his opinion: Quod si forte fuisse antehac eadem omnia credis, Sed periisse hominum torrenti sæcla vapore, Aut cecidisse urbeis magno vexamine mundi, Aut ex imbribus assiduis exisse rapaces Per terras amneis, atque oppida cooperuisse: Tanto quippe magis victus fateare necesse est, Exitium quoque terræ cœlique futurum. De Rer. Nat. lib. v. ver. 339.

¹¹ Ἔστωσαν δὲ τῷ Κέλσῳ τοῦ περὶ τῶν ἐκπυρώσεων καὶ ἐξυδατώσεων μύθου διδάσκαλοι οἱ κατ' αὐτὸν σοφώτατοι Αἰγύπτιοι. Orig. adv. Cels. lib. i. [c. 20. p. 338 B.]

¹² (note 12 begins here and continues on p. 111, transcribed in full below) So that Egyptian priest in Plato's Timæus tells Solon, that the Fable of Phaethon did signify a real con-

[Printed p. 111]

nor water,) serve only for a confirmation of Noah's flood so many ages past, and the surer expectation of St. Peter's fire, we know not how soon to come.

62 It remaineth then that we steadfastly believe, not only that [Gen. ii. 1] the heavens and earth and all the host of them were made, and so acknowledge a creation, or an actual and immediate dependence of all things on God; but also that all things were created by the hand of God, in the same manner, and at the same time, which are delivered unto us in the books of Moses by the Spirit of God, and so acknowledge a novelty, or no long existence of the creature.

Neither will the novelty of the world appear more plainly unto our conceptions, than if we look upon our own successions. The vulgar accounts, which exhibit about five thousand six hundred years, though sufficiently refuting an eternity, and allaying all conceits of any great antiquity, are not yet so properly and nearly operative on the thoughts of men, as a reflection upon our own generations. The first of men was but six days younger than the being, not so many than the appearance, of the earth: and if any particular person would consider how many degrees in a direct line he probably is removed from that single person Adam, who bare together the name of man and of the earth from whence he came, he could not choose but think himself so near the original fountain of mankind, as not to conceive any great antiquity of the world. For though the ancient Heathens did imagine innumerable ages and generations¹³ of men past,

Notes to p. 111:

¹² (continued from p. 110) flagration of the world; but so as all they which lived in mountains or dry parts of the earth were scorched and consumed, but of those which lived near the seas or rivers, in the valleys, some were preserved. ‘Ἡμῖν δὲ, saith he, ὁ Νεῖλος εἰς τε τἄλλα σωτὴρ, καὶ τότε ἐκ ταύτης τῆς ἀπορίας σῴζει λυόμενος.’ [Plat. Tim. 22 D.] Thus the Egyptians pretend Nilus saved them from the flames of Phaethon. Nor were they only safe from conflagrations, but from inundations also. For when in Greece or other parts a deluge happened, then all their cities were swept away into the sea: Κατὰ δὲ τήνδε τὴν χώραν, says the priest, οὔτε τότε, οὔτε ἄλλοτε ἄνωθεν ἐπὶ τὰς ἀρούρας ὕδωρ ἐπιρρεῖ· τὸ δ' ἐναντίον κάτωθεν ἐπανιέναι πέφυκεν· ὅθεν καὶ δι' [VERIFY: ὡς or ἃς] αἰτίας τάνδε σῳζόμενα λέγεται παλαιότατα. [ibid.] So Egypt receiving not their waters from above by clouds, but from below by springs filling the river Nile, was out of danger in a deluge, and thereby preserved the most ancient monuments and records. But, alas, this is a poor shift to them which believe that in the great and universal flood, all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. Gen. vii. 11.

¹³ (note 13 begins here and continues on p. 112, transcribed in full below) So Cicero indeed speaks, innumerabilia sæcula, in his book of Divination; [ii. c. lxxi. §. 147.] and Socrates in Plato's Theætetus brings this argument against the pride of great and noble families, that they which mention a succession of their ancestors which have been rich and powerful, do it merely ὑπὸ ἀπαιδευσίας, οὐ δυνάμενοι εἰς τὸ πᾶν ἀεὶ βλέπειν, οὐδὲ λογίζεσθαι, ὅτι πάντων καὶ προγόνων μυριάδες ἑκάστῳ γεγόνασιν ἀναρίθμητοι, ἐν αἷς πλούσιοι καὶ πτωχοί, καὶ βασιλεῖς καὶ δοῦλοι, βάρβαροι τε καὶ

[Printed p. 112]

though Origen¹⁴ did fondly seem to collect so much by some misinterpretations of the Scriptures; yet if we take a sober view, and make but rational collections from the chronology of the sacred Writ, we shall find no man's pedigree very exorbitant, or in his line of generation descent of many score.

When the age of man was long, in the infancy of the world, we find ten generations extend to one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years, according to the shortest, which is thought, because the Hebrew, therefore the best account; according to the longest, which, because the Septuagint's, is not to be contemned, two thousand two hundred and sixty-two, or rather, two thousand two hundred and fifty-six. From the flood, brought at that time upon the earth for the sins of men which polluted it, upon* the birth of Abraham, the father of the faithful, not above ten generations, if so many, took up two hundred and ninety-two years according to the least, one thousand one hundred and thirty-two according to the largest account. Since which time the ages of men have been very much alike proportionably long; and it is agreed by all that there have not passed since the birth of Abraham three thousand and seven hundred years. Now by the experience of our families, which for their honour and greatness have been preserved, by the genealogies delivered in the sacred Scriptures, and thought necessary to be presented to us by the blessed Evangelists, by the observation and concurrent judgment of former ages, three generations¹⁵ 63

Notes to p. 112:

¹³ (continued from p. 111) Ἕλληνες πολλάκις μυρίοι γεγόνασιν ὁμοῦ· [Theæt. 175 A.] as if every person were equally honourable, having innumerable ancestors, rich and poor, servants and kings, learned and barbarous.

¹⁴ Origen did not only collect the eternity of the world from the coexistence of all God's attributes, as because he is παντοκράτωρ and δημιουργὸς, therefore he was always so, (for how could he be δημιουργὸς ἄνευ δημιουργήματος, or παντοκράτωρ ἄνευ τῶν κρατουμένων;) but also from the 90th Psalm; From everlasting to everlasting thou art God. For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday: and that at the beginning of Ecclesiasticus; Who can number the sand of the sea, and the drops of the rain, and the days of eternity? But Methodius, Bishop and Martyr, hath well concluded that disputation: Ταῦτά φησιν ὁ Ὠριγένης σπουδάζων, καὶ ὅρα ὅσα παίζει. [Phot. Bibl. 235. p. 304.]

¹⁵ By the Greeks called Γενεαί, which are successions of generations from father to son: as in St. Matth. i. 17. Indeed sometimes they take it for other spaces of time; as Artemidorus observes, for seven years: Κατ' ἐνίους μὲν ἔτη ζ′. ὅθεν καὶ λέγουσιν οἱ ἰατρικοί, τῶν δύο γενεῶν (not πρὸ τῶν, as Wolfius and Portus would correct it) μηδένα (not μὴ δεῖν, as Suidas) φλεβοτομεῖν, τὸν τεσσαρα-καιδεκαετῆ (not τεσσαρεσκαιδέκατον, as Suidas transcribing him negligently) λέγοντες. Sometimes they interpret it twenty, twenty-five, or thirty years, as appears by Hesychius: and by that last account they reckoned the years of Nestor, Κατ' ἐνίους δὲ λ′. ὅθεν καὶ τὸν Νέστορα βούλονται εἰς ἐννενήκοντα ἔτη γεγονέναι· so Artemidorus and the grammarians. Although I cannot imagine that to be the sense of Homer; Τῷ δ' ἤδη δύο μὲν γενεαὶ μερόπων ἀνθρώπων Ἐφθίατ', οἳ οἱ πρόσθεν ἅμα τράφεν ἠδ' ἐγένοντο. Il. α′. 250. And I conceive that gloss in Hesychius, Ἐπὶ διαστήματος χρόνων τῶν μὴ κατ' αὐτὸ βεβιοκότων, to be far more properly applicable to that place. But, in the sense of which now we speak, it is taken for the third part ordinarily of an hundred years; as Herodotus, mentioning the Egyptian feigned genealogies, Καὶ τοὶ τριηκόσιαι μὲν ἀνδρῶν γενεαὶ δυνάται μύρια ἔτεα, 300 generations equalize 10,000 years, γενεαὶ γὰρ τρεῖς ἀνδρῶν ἑκατὸν ἔτεα ἐστὶ. Euterp. [c. 142.] And after him Clemens Alexandrinus, Εἰς τὰ ἑκατὸν ἔτη τρεῖς ἐγκαταλέγονται γενεαί. Strom. lib. i. [c. 21. vol. i. p. 401.]

• [Upon. This means to the birth of Abraham. The words "upon the birth" — "three thousand and seven hundred years" were not in the first edition.]

[Printed p. 113]

usually take up a hundred years. If then it be not yet three thousand and seven hundred years since the birth of Abraham*, as certainly it is not; if all men which are or have been since have descended from Noah, as undoubtedly they have; if Abraham were but the tenth from Noah, as Noah from Adam, which Moses hath assured us: then it is not probable that any person now alive is above one hundred and thirty generations removed from Adam. And indeed thus admitting but the Greek account of less than five thousand years since the flood, we may easily bring all sober or probable accounts of the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Chineses, to begin since the dispersion at Babel. Thus having expressed at last the time, so far as it is necessary to be known, I shall conclude this second consideration of the nature and notion of creation.

Now being under the terms of heaven and earth we have proved all things beside God to be contained, and that the making of all these things was a clear production of them out of nothing; the third part of the explication must of necessity follow, that he which made all things is God. This truth is so evident in itself, and so confessed by all men, that none did ever assert the world was made, but withal affirmed that it was God who made it. There remaineth therefore nothing more in this particular, than to assert God so the Creator of the world as he is described in this Article.

Being then we believe in God the Father, Maker of heaven and earth, and by that God we expressed already a singularity of the Deity; our first assertion which we must make good is, that the one God did create the world. Again, being whosoever is that God cannot be excluded from this act of creation, as being an

Notes to p. 113:

• [In the first edition it was, "If then it be not yet four thousand years since the universal deluge."]

[Printed p. 114]

emanation of the Divinity, and we seem by these words to appropriate it to the Father, beside whom we shall hereafter shew that we believe some other persons to be the same God; it will be likewise necessary to declare the reason why the creation of the world is thus signally attributed to God the Father.

The first of these deserves no explication of itself, it is so obvious to all which have any true conception of God. But because it hath been formerly denied, (as there is nothing so senseless, but some kind of heretics have embraced, and may be yet taken up in times of which we have no reason to presume better than of the former,) I shall briefly declare the creation of the world to have been performed by that one God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

As for the first, there is no such difference between things of the world as to infer a diversity of makers of them, nor is the least or worst of creatures in their original any way derogatory to the Creator. [Gen. i. 31] God saw every thing that he had made, and behold it was very good, and consequently like to come from the fountain of all goodness, and fit always to be ascribed to the same. Whatsoever is evil, is not so by the Creator's action, but by the creature's defection.

In vain then did the heretics of old, to remove a seeming in- 64 convenience, renounce a certain truth; and whilst they feared to make their own God evil¹⁶, they made him partial, or but half the Deity, and so a companion at least with an evil God. For dividing all things of this world into natures substantially evil and substantially good, and apprehending a necessity of an origination conformable to so different a condition, they imagined one God essentially good, as the first principle of the one, another God essentially evil, as the original of the other. And this strange heresy began upon the first spreading of the Gospel¹⁷; as if the greatest light could not appear without a shadow.

Notes to p. 114:

¹⁶ ‘Inde Manichæus, ut Deum a conditione malorum liberet, alterum mali inducit auctorem.’ S. Hier. in Nahum, cap. 3. [vol. vi. p. 582 E.]

¹⁷ (note 17 begins here and continues on pp. 115–116, transcribed in full below) For we must not look upon Manes as the first author of the heresy, though they which followed him were called from him Manichæans. Nor must we be satisfied with the relation of Socrates, [H. E. i. c. 22. p. 54] who allots the beginning of that heresy μικρὸν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν Κωνσταντίνου χρόνων, a little before Constantine; being Epiphanius asserts the first author of it, στέλλεσθαι τὴν πορείαν ἐπὶ τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα περὶ τοὺς χρόνους τῶν Ἀποστόλων, to have gone to Jerusalem even about the Apostles' times. [adv. Hær. lib. ii. tom. ii. §. 3. vol. i. p. 620 A.] Manes then, formerly called Cubricus, (not Urbicus, as St. Augustin,) who disseminated this heresy in the days of Aurelianus or Probus the

[Printed p. 115]

Whereas there is no nature originally sinful, no substance in itself evil, and therefore no being which may not come from the

Notes to p. 115:

¹⁷ (continued from p. 114; continued on p. 116) Emperor, about the year 277, had a predecessor, though not a master, called first Terebinthus, after Buddas. For this Buddas left his books and estate to a widow, who, saith Epiphanius, ἔμεινε πολλῷ τῷ χρόνῳ οὕτως, [p. 621 B.] continued with his estate and books a long time, and at last bought Cubricus for her servant. This Buddas had a former master called Scythianus, the first author of this heresy. Beside these, between Scythianus and Cubricus there was yet another teacher of the doctrine, called Zaranes. Ἦν δὲ πρὸ τούτου (Μάνητος) καὶ ἕτερος τῆς κακίας διδάσκαλος ταύτης, Ζαράνης ὄνοματι, ὁμόφρων αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχων. If then we insert this Zaranes into the Manichæan pedigree, and consider the time of the widow between Buddas and Cubricus, and the age of Cubricus, who was then but seven years old, as Socrates [i. 22. p. 55] testifies, when she resolved to buy him, and discover the heresy to him; there will be no reason to doubt of the relation of Epiphanius, that Scythianus began about the Apostolical times. Nor need we any of the abatements in the animadversions of Petavius, much less that redargution of Epiphanius, who cites Origen as an assertor of the Christian faith against this heresy; for though he certainly died before Manes spread his doctrine, yet it was written in several books before him, not only in the time of Buddas, to whom Socrates and Suidas attribute them, but of Scythianus, whom St. Cyril and Epiphanius make the author of them. Neither can it be objected that they were not Manichæans before the appearance of Manes: for I conceive the name of Manes (thought by the Greeks to be a name taken up by Cubricus, and proper to him) not to be any proper or peculiar name at all, but the general title of Heretic in the Syriac tongue. For I am loath to think that Theodoret or the author in Suidas were so far mistaken, when they call Scythianus Manes, as to conceive Cubricus and he were the same person; when we may with much better reason conclude that both Scythianus and Cubricus had the same title. For I conceive Manes at first rather a title than a name, from the Hebrew מִין or מִינָא signifying a Heretic. And although some of the Rabbins derive their מִין from Manes, yet others make it more ancient than he was, referring it to Tzadok and Bajethos, called רָאשֵׁי הַמִּינִים the first or chief heretics, who lived 100 years before Christ. [Buxtorf. Lex. Rab. sub מִין.] Wherefore it is far more rational to assert, that he which began the heresy of the Manichees was called מִין as an Heretic in the Oriental tongues, and from thence Μάνις by the Greeks, (to comply with μανία or madness in their language,) than that Μάνις was first the name of a man counted an heretic by the Christians, and then made the general name for all heretics, and particularly for the Christians by the Jews*. Which being granted, both Scythianus and Cubricus might well at first have the name of Manes, that is, Heretic. However the antiquity of that heresy will appear in the Marcionites, who differed not in this particular from the Manichees. ‘Duos Ponticus Deos affert, tanquam duas Symplegadas naufragii sui: quem negare non potuit, id est, creatorem, id est, nostrum; et quem probare non poterit, id est, suum. Passus infelix hujus præsumptionis instinctum de simplici capitulo Dominicæ pronunciationis, in homines non in Deos disponentis exempla illa bonæ et malæ arboris, quod neque bona malos neque mala bonos proferat fructus.’ Tertul. adv. Marcion. lib. i. cap. 2. [p. 366 B.] This Marcion lived in the days of Antoninus Pius, and, as Eusebius testifieth, Justin Martyr wrote against him. Hist. lib. iv. cap. 11. [p. 157.] Irenæus relates how he spake with Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna, who was taught by the Apostles, and conversed with divers which saw our Saviour, lib. iii. cap. 3. [c. 4. p. 176.] Nei-

• [Beausobre derives Manes and Manichæus from Manaem or Manachem, a Comforter, in Persian. Hist. de Manichée, vol. i. p. 69.]

[Printed p. 116]

[Isa. xlv. 7, 5] same fountain of goodness. I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I the Lord do all these things, saith he who also said, I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God besides me. Vain then is that conceit which framed two gods, one of them called Light, the other Darkness; one good, the other evil; refuted in the first words of the Creed, I believe in God, Maker of heaven and earth.

But as we have already proved that one God to be the Father, so must we yet farther shew that one God the Father to be the Maker of the world. In which there is no difficulty at all: the whole church at Jerusalem hath sufficiently declared this truth [Acts iv. 24, 27] in their devotions: Lord, thou art God which hast made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pi- 65 late with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together. Jesus then was the child of that God which made the heaven and the earth, and consequently the Father of Christ is the Creator of the world.

We know that Christ is the light of the Gentiles, by his own interpretation; we are assured likewise that his Father gave* him, by his frequent assertion: we may then as certainly conclude that the Father of Christ is the Creator of the world, by [Isa. xlii. 5, 6] the Prophet's express prediction: For thus saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens and stretched them out, he which spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; I the Lord have called thee

Notes to p. 116:

¹⁷ (continued from p. 115) ther was Marcion the first which taught it at Rome, for he received it from Cerdon. ‘Habuit et Cerdonem quendam informatorem scandali hujus, quo facilius duos Deos cœci existimaverunt.’ This Cerdon succeeded Heracleon, and so at last this heresy may be reduced to the Gnostics, who derived it from the old Gentile Philosophers, and might well be embraced by Manes in Persia, because it was the doctrine of the Persian Magi, as Aristotle testifieth: ‘Ἀριστοτέλης ἐν πρώτῳ περὶ φιλοσοφίας καὶ πρεσβυτέρους (τοὺς Μάγους) εἶναι τῶν Αἰγυπτίων, καὶ δύο κατ' αὐτοὺς εἶναι ἀρχὰς, ἀγαθὸν δαίμονα καὶ κακὸν δαίμονα.’ Laert. in Proœmio. [§. 8.] And this derivation is well observed by Timotheus, Presbyter of Constantinople, speaking thus of Manes: Παρὰ δὲ Μαρκίωνος καὶ τῶν πρὸ ἐκείνου αἰσχροποιῶν καὶ δυσσεβῶν καὶ τῶν κατὰ Περσίδα μάγων ἀφορμὰς λαβὼν δογματίζει δύο ἀρχὰς†.

• [The meaning of gave in this place may be seen in the end of the following quotation.]

† [The subject of this note is illustrated by Wolfius, Manichæismus ante Manichæos: and the history of Manes is most fully discussed by Beausobre, Histoire critique de Manichée et du Manichéisme. Concerning the words, Maker of heaven and earth, being added to the Creed on account of the Gnostics, see King on the Creed, p. 93, &c.]

[Printed p. 117]

in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles.

And now this great facility may seem to create the greater difficulty: for being the Apostles teach us that the Son made all things, and the Prophets that by the Spirit they were produced, how can we attribute that peculiarity in the Creed unto the Father, which in the Scriptures is assigned indifferently to the Son and to the Spirit? Two reasons may particularly be rendered of this peculiar attributing the work of creation to the Father. First, in respect of those heresies arising in the infancy of the Church, which endeavoured to destroy this truth, and to introduce another Creator of the world, distinguished from the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. An error so destructive to the Christian religion, that it raseth even the foundations of the Gospel, which refers itself wholly to the promises in the Law, and pretends to no other God, but that God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob; acknowledgeth no other speaker by the Son, than him that spake by the Prophets: and therefore whom Moses and the Prophets call Lord of heaven and earth, of him our blessed Saviour signifies himself to be the Son, rejoicing in spirit, and saying, [Luke x. 21] I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth. Secondly, in respect of the paternal priority of the Deity, by reason whereof that which is common to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, may be rather attributed to the Father, as the first Person in the Trinity. In which respect the Apostle hath made a distinction in the phrase of emanation or production: [1 Cor. viii. 6] To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. And our Saviour hath acknowledged, [John v. 19] The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do; which speaketh some kind of priority in action, according to that of the Person. And in this sense the Church did always profess to believe in God the Father, Creator¹⁸ of heaven and earth.

The great necessity of professing our faith in this particular appeareth several ways, as indispensably tending to the illustration of God's glory, the humiliation of mankind, the provocation to obedience, the aversion from iniquity, and all consolation in our duty.

Notes to p. 117:

¹⁸ ‘Stabat fides semper in Creatore et Christo ejus.’ Tertul. adv. Marcion. lib. i. cap. 21. [p. 375 D.] ‘Non alia agnoscenda erit traditio Apostolorum, quam quæ hodie apud ipsorum Ecclesias editur. Nullam autem Apostolici census Ecclesiam invenias quæ non in Creatore christianizet.’ Ibid.

[Printed p. 118]

God is of himself infinitely glorious, because his perfections are absolute, his excellencies indefective; and the splendour of this glory appeareth unto us in and through the works of his hands. [Rom. i. 20] The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead. [Jer. x. 12: li. 15] For he hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion. After a long enumeration of the wonderful works of the creation, the Psalmist breaketh forth into this pious meditation; [Ps. civ. 24] O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all. If then the glory of God be made apparent by the creation, [Prov. xvi. 4] if he have made all things for himself, that is, for the manifestation of his glorious attributes, [Ps. civ. 31] if the Lord rejoiceth in his works, because his glory 66 shall endure for ever; then is it absolutely necessary we should confess him Maker of heaven and earth, that we may sufficiently praise and glorify him. [Ps. cxlviii. 13] Let them praise the name of the Lord, saith David, for his name alone is excellent, his glory is above the earth and heaven. Thus did the Levites teach the children of Israel to glorify God: [Neh. ix. 5, 6] Stand up and bless the Lord your God for ever and ever: and blessed be thy glorious name, which is exalted above all blessing and praise. Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their hosts, the earth and all things that are therein. And the same hath [Rom. xi. 36] St. Paul taught us: For of him, and through him, and to him are all things, to whom be glory for ever. Amen. Furthermore, that we may be assured that he which made both heaven and earth will be glorified in both, the Prophet calls upon all those celestial hosts to bear their part in his hymn: [Ps. cxlviii. 2, 3, 4, 5] Praise ye him all his angels, praise ye him all his hosts. Praise ye him sun and moon, praise him all ye stars of light. Praise him ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. Let them praise the name of the Lord, for he commanded, and they were created. [Rev. iv. 10, 11] And the twenty-four Elders in the Revelation of St. John, fall down before him that sitteth on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns, the emblems of their borrowed and derived glories, before the throne, the seat of infinite and eternal majesty, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honour, and power; for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Wherefore, [Ps. xix. 1] if the heavens declare the glory of God, and all his works praise

[Printed p. 119]

him; then shall his saints bless him; [Ps. cxlv. 10, 11] they shall speak of the glory of his kingdom, and talk of his power. And if man be silent, God will speak; while we through ingratitude will not celebrate, he himself will declare it, and promulgate: [Jer. xxvii. 5] I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my outstretched arm.

Secondly, The doctrine of the world's creation is most properly effectual towards man's humiliation. As there is nothing more destructive to humanity than pride, and yet not any thing to which we are more prone than that; so nothing can be more properly applied to abate the swelling of our proud conceptions, than a due consideration of the other works of God, with a sober reflection upon our own original. [Ps. viii. 3] When I consider the heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou hast ordained; when I view those glorious apparent bodies with my eye, and by the advantage of a glass find greater numbers before beyond the power of my sight, and from thence judge there may be many millions more, which neither eye nor instrument can reach; when I contemplate those far more glorious spirits, the inhabitants of the heavens, and attendants on thy throne; I cannot but break forth into that admiration of the Prophet, [Ps. viii. 4] What is man, that thou art mindful of him? what is that offspring of the earth, that dust and ashes? what is that son of man, that thou visitest him? what is there in the progeny of an ejected and condemned father, that thou shouldest look down from heaven, the place of thy dwelling, and take care or notice of him? But if our original ought so far to humble us, how should our fall abase us? that of all the creatures which God made, we should comply with him who first opposed his Maker, and would be equal unto him from whom he now received his being. All other works of God, which we think inferior to us, because not furnished with the light of understanding, or endued with the power of election, are in a happy impossibility of sinning, and so offending of their Maker: the glorious spirits which attend upon the throne of God, once in a condition of themselves to fall, now by the grace of God preserved, and placed beyond all possibility of sinning, are entered

67 upon the greatest happiness, of which the workmanship of God is capable: but men, the sons of fallen Adam, and sinners after the similitude of him, of all the creatures are the only companions of those angels which left their own habitations, and are [Jude 6]

[Printed p. 120]

[2 Pet. ii. 4] delivered into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment. How should a serious apprehension of our own corruption, mingled with the thoughts of our creation, humble us in the sight of him, whom we alone of all the creatures by our unrepented sins drew unto repentance? How can we look without confusion of face upon that monument of our infamy, recorded [Gen. vi. 6] by Moses, who first penned the original of humanity, It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart?

Thirdly, This doctrine is properly efficacious and productive of most cheerful and universal obedience. It made the Prophet call for the commandments of God, and earnestly desire to know what he should obey: [Ps. cxix. 73] Thy hands have made me and fashioned me: give me understanding, that I may learn thy commandments. By virtue of our first production, God hath undeniably absolute dominion over us, and consequently there must be due unto him the most exact and complete obedience from us. Which reason will appear more convincing, if we consider, of all the creatures which have been derived from the same fountain of God's goodness, none ever disobeyed his voice but the Devil and man. [Isa. xlviii. 13] Mine hand, saith he, hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens; when I call unto them, they stand up together. The most loyal and obedient servants, which stand continually before the most illustrious prince, are not so ready to receive and execute the commands of their sovereign lord, as all the hosts of heaven and earth to attend [Isa. xl. 26] upon the will of their Creator. Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their hosts by number: he calleth them all by names, by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power, not one faileth, but every one maketh his appearance, ready pressed to observe the designs of their commander in chief. Thus the Lord commanded, and they [Judg. v. 20] fought from heaven, the stars in their courses fought against Sisera. [1 Kings xvii. 4, 6] He commanded the ravens to feed Elias, and they brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening; and so one Prophet lived merely upon the obedience of the fowls of the air. [Jonah ii. 10] He spake to the devouring whale, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land; and so another Prophet was delivered from the jaws of death by the obedience of the fishes of the sea. [Ps. cxlviii. 8] Do we not read of fire and hail, snow and vapour, stormy wind fulfilling his word? Shall there be a greater coldness in man

[Printed p. 121]

than in the snow? more vanity in us than in a vapour? more inconstancy than in the wind? If the universal obedience of the creature to the will of the Creator cannot move us to the same affection and desire to serve and please him, they will all conspire to testify against us and condemn us, when God shall call unto them, saying, [Isa. i. 2] Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth, for the Lord hath spoken: I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.

Lastly, The creation of the world is of most necessary meditation for the consolation of the servants of God in all the variety of their conditions: [Ps. cxlvi. 5, 6] Happy is he whose hope is in the Lord his God, which made heaven and earth, the sea and all that therein is. This happiness consisteth partly in a full assurance of his power to secure us, his ability to satisfy us. [Ps. xxiv. 1, 2] The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof, the world and they that dwell therein. For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods. By virtue of the first production he hath a perpetual right unto, and power to dispose of all things: and he which can order and dispose of all, must necessarily be esteemed able to secure and

68 satisfy any creature. [Isa. xl. 28] Hast thou not known, hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? There is no external resistance or opposition where Omnipotency worketh, no internal weakness or defection of power where the Almighty is the agent; and consequently there remaineth a full and firm persuasion of his ability in all conditions to preserve us. Again, this happiness consisteth partly in a comfortable assurance, arising from this meditation, of the will of God to protect and succour us, of his desire to preserve and bless us. [Ps. cxxi. 2, 3] My help cometh from the Lord, who made heaven and earth: he will not suffer thy foot to be moved, saith the Prophet David; at once expressing the foundation of his own expectancy and our security. [Job x. 3] God will not despise the work of his hands, neither will he suffer the rest of his creatures to do the least injury to his own image. [Isa. liv. 16, 17] Behold, saith he, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work. No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord.

Wherefore to conclude our explication of the first Article, and to render a clear account of the last part thereof; that every one may understand what it is I intend, when I make confession

[Printed p. 122]

of my faith in the Maker of heaven and earth, I do truly profess, that I really believe, and am fully persuaded, that both heaven and earth and all things contained in them have not their being of themselves, but were made in the beginning; that the manner by which all things were made was by mediate or immediate creation; so that antecedently to all things beside, there was at first nothing but God, who produced most part of the world merely out of nothing, and the rest out of that which was formerly made of nothing. This I believe was done by the most free and voluntary act of the will of God, of which no reason can be alleged, no motive assigned, but his goodness; performed by the determination of his will at that time which pleased him, most probably within one hundred and thirty generations of men, most certainly within not more than six, or at farthest seven, thousand years*. I acknowledge this God Creator of the world to be the same God who is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: and in this full latitude, I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

Notes to p. 122:

¹⁹ (this note anchors in the Article II body on p. 122, not transcribed in this file; it ends here mid-quotation as printed — p. 123 is blank in this scan and the continuation is not in article01c.pdf) ‘Eadem regula veritatis docet nos credere post Patrem etiam in Filium Dei, Christum Jesum, Dominum Deum nostrum, sed Dei Filium; hujus Dei qui

• [In the first edition, "most certainly within much less than six thousand" "years."]

[Editorial note — modern, not Pearson's words: Article I ends on printed p. 122 with the words "I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth." The page continues with the heading "ARTICLE II. And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.", followed by the first line of Article II: "THE second Article of the Creed presents unto us, as the object of our faith, the second Person of the blessed Trinity..." Article II body text is NOT transcribed in this file.]

Source pages

Thumbnails of the source pages for the article above. Click any thumbnail for the full page image. Each image is a two-page spread of the printed book.

• 
  Title page (Burton 1877)
• 
  Spread 7 (printed p. 1)
• 
  Spread 8 (printed pp. 2–3)
• 
  Spread 9 (printed pp. 4–5)
• 
  Spread 10 (printed pp. 6–7)
• 
  Spread 11 (printed pp. 8–9)
• 
  Spread 12 (printed pp. 10–11)
• 
  Spread 13 (printed pp. 12–13)
• 
  Spread 14 (printed pp. 14–15)
• 
  Spread 15 (printed pp. 16–17)
• 
  Spread 16 (printed pp. 18–19)
• 
  Spread 17 (printed pp. 20–21)
• 
  Spread 18 (printed pp. 22–23)
• 
  Spread 19 (printed pp. 24–25)
• 
  Spread 20 (printed pp. 26–27)
• 
  Spread 21 (printed pp. 28–29)
• 
  Spread 22 (printed pp. 30–31)
• 
  Spread 23 (printed pp. 32–33)
• 
  Spread 24 (printed pp. 34–35)
• 
  Spread 25 (printed pp. 36–37)
• 
  Spread 26 (printed pp. 38–39)
• 
  Spread 27 (printed pp. 40–41)
• 
  Spread 28 (printed pp. 42–43)
• 
  Spread 29 (printed pp. 44–45)
• 
  Spread 30 (printed p. 45)
• 
  Spread 31 (printed pp. 46–47)
• 
  Spread 32 (printed pp. 48–49)
• 
  Spread 33 (printed pp. 50–51)
• 
  Spread 34 (printed pp. 52–53)
• 
  Spread 35 (printed pp. 54–55)
• 
  Spread 36 (printed pp. 56–57)
• 
  Spread 37 (printed pp. 58–59)
• 
  Spread 38 (printed pp. 60–61)
• 
  Spread 39 (printed pp. 62–63)
• 
  Spread 40 (printed pp. 64–65)
• 
  Spread 41 (printed pp. 66–67)
• 
  Spread 42 (printed pp. 68–69)
• 
  Spread 43 (printed pp. 70–71)
• 
  Spread 44 (printed pp. 72–73)
• 
  Spread 45 (printed pp. 74–75)
• 
  Spread 46 (printed pp. 76–77)
• 
  Spread 47 (printed pp. 78–79)
• 
  Spread 48 (printed pp. 80–81)
• 
  Spread 49 (printed pp. 82–83)
• 
  Spread 50 (printed pp. 84–85)
• 
  Spread 51 (printed pp. 84–85)
• 
  Spread 52 (printed pp. 86–87)
• 
  Spread 53 (printed pp. 88–89)
• 
  Spread 54 (printed pp. 90–91)
• 
  Spread 55 (printed pp. 92–93)
• 
  Spread 56 (printed pp. 94–95)
• 
  Spread 57 (printed pp. 96–97)
• 
  Spread 58 (printed pp. 98–99)
• 
  Spread 59 (printed pp. 100–101)
• 
  Spread 60 (printed pp. 102–103)
• 
  Spread 61 (printed pp. 104–105)
• 
  Spread 62 (printed pp. 106–107)
• 
  Spread 63 (printed pp. 108–109)
• 
  Spread 64 (printed pp. 110–111)
• 
  Spread 65 (printed pp. 112–113)
• 
  Spread 66 (printed pp. 114–115)
• 
  Spread 67 (printed pp. 116–117)
• 
  Spread 68 (printed pp. 118–119)
• 
  Spread 69 (printed pp. 120–121)
• 
  Spread 70 (printed p. 122)