VII. Let us now examine the expositions of Tertullian. In the book De velandis Virginibus, and not far from the beginning, Tertullian rather refers to this rule of faith, than recites it, and of course it is mutilated and imperfect. There Christ is neither called our Lord, nor the only begotten Son of God, but simply is said to be the Son of God. Yet, by the way this was sufficient for Tertullian, who continually, with all the ancient Catholics, understood this title as applicable to Christ in a more sublime sense. But in that rule, there is no mention of the conception of the man Christ by the Holy Spirit, nor of the Holy Spirit himself. My opinion is, that Tertullian in that place has a particular reference to the Creed which was used in the African Church in his time, and which was nearly the same as the Roman; for Tertullian himself informs us, that the Church of Rome, in his time, agreed with the Churches in Africa.* Though the Roman Creed is more extensive than what Tertullian mentions, yet, as in other matters it is more compendious than the Creeds of the Eastern Churches, so it is in this article concerning the Son of God, for reasons which shall be mentioned hereafter. In the mean while, the faith of the Romish and Eastern Churches was the same; they all professed this article concerning the Son of God, though not in the same words, yet in the same sense. Of this, Tertullian was not ignorant.

Præs. adv. Hæres. сар. 36.

VIII. In another place quoted by Episcopius,* where he mentions the rule of faith, he also brings forward this article concerning the Son of God, more fully and clearly describing his existence to have been not only before the Blessed Virgin, but before all worlds, consequently before the creation of all things by him. For there, after he had said, that only should be disputed which calls in question the rule of faith; he immediately subjoins that rule, in the following words: "And the rule of faith is, that what we profess to believe, namely, that by which we "believe in one God, and in no other beside the "Creator of the world, who made all things of "nothing by his Word sent forth before all things. "That this Word is called his Son, who appeared "at different times to the Patriarchs in the name "of God, always spoke by the Prophets; lastly, "he was brought down by the Spirit and power of "God the Father into the Virgin Mary, was "made flesh in her womb, of her was born man, " and is Jesus Christ, &c." Having finished the Creed, he adds these words: "This rule was "established by Jesus Christ, as shall be proved, "and admits of no doubts but those which here"sies generate, and which make heretics." What can be more decisive and express against the assertion of Episcopius than these? The same rule of faith is mentioned by Tertullian in another place: "We (says he) believe that there is only

* Præs. adv. Hæres. cap. 13.

God, but under this dispensation which we call "economy, that his Son, the Word, who pro"ceeded from him, and by whom all things were "made, is also that one God. That he was sent

by the Father into the Virgin, was born of her, "Man and God, the Son of Man, and the Son of "God, and called Jesus Christ." Immediately he adds That this rule hath come down from "the beginning of the Gospel, even before any ❝of the ancient heretics, much more before "Praxeas, which is but of yesterday, both the "offspring of all the heretics, and the novelty of "Praxeas, which is of yesterday, will prove."*

From these quotations, it is abundantly evident, that the appeal of Episcopius to the expositions of this ancient Creed, by Irenaeus and Tertullian, is both rash and impertinent.

* Adver. Prax. cap. 2.

CHAP. V.

Of the Creed called that of the Apostles.

I. I come now to the Creed, called that of the Apostles, of which Episcopius thus speaks: "The

very Creed called that of the Apostles, makes "no mention of this peculiar mode of filiation ; "but is content with this short form: I believe "in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our "Lord." This is the chief argument of Episcopius, which hath also been violently urged by the author of the Irenicum, and Sandius. The same hath also been done by our late revivers of the Arian and Socinian heresy, of which they have every where boasted in their insipid and impious scrawls; and imagine themselves safely fortified against the charge of heresy, which has been justly urged against them by the Catholics.

II. That I may sufficiently answer this argument, in which these vain men trust, and of which they boast, I propose demonstrating these four propositions. 1. That the Creed called that of the Apostles, however conformable to their

doctrine, was neither dictated in the words, nor arranged in method by the Apostles, as in its present state. It is in reality nothing else than the Creed of the Romish Church, which was finished about A. D. 400, the Eastern Churches in the meantime using another. 2. That the Romish Church might use, and did use a more succinct and shorter Creed than what was suited to the Eastern Churches, which were so harassed by every kind of heresy. In the Romish Church, no heresy arose which taught them to understand their brief confession in any other way, than according to the received opinion of the Church. 3. Yet, in the Romish Creed, there is a profession of this special mode of the filiation of Jesus Christ, in these words: "I believe in Jesus "Christ, his (i. e. God the Father's) only be"gotten Son." 4. Lastly, in the Creed, or rule of faith, which prevailed in all the most ancient of the Eastern Churches before the Council of Nice, this special mode of the filiation of Jesus Christ was expressly taught and enjoined,

III. The first proposition is sufficiently proved by that eminent man, Jo. Ger. Vossius, in his dissertations on the three Creeds. To the first of which I recommend the reader, as I do not wish to repeat the subject.

The second proposition is confirmed by Ruffinus, who prefaces his exposition of the Creed, thus: "Before I begin to discourse on the mean