ART.
VIII.

ARTICLE VIII.

Of the Three Creeds.

The Three Creeds, Nice Creed, Athanasius Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought throughly to be received and believed; for they may be proved by most certain Warrants of Holy Scripture.

ALTHOUGH no doubt seems to be here made of the names or designations given to those creeds, except of that which is ascribed to the apostles, yet none of them are named with any exactness: since the article of the procession of the Holy Ghost, and all that follows it, is not in the Nicene creed, but In Anchowas used in the church as a part of it; for so it is in Epipha- reto. nius, before the second general council at Constantinople; and it was confirmed and established in that council: only the article of the Holy Ghost's proceeding from the Son, was afterwards added first in Spain, anno 447, which spread itself over all the west: so that the creed here called the Nice creed is indeed the Constantinopolitan creed, together with the addition of filioque made by the western church. That which is called Athanasius's creed is not his neither; for as it is not among his works, so that great article of the Christian religion having been settled at Nice, and he and all the rest of the orthodox referring themselves always to the creed made by that council, there is no reason to imagine that he would have made a creed of his own; besides, that not only the Macedonian,* but both the Nesto

• The Macedonian heresy, so called from Macedonius, its founder. Upon the death of Eusebius, bishop of Constantinople, Paulus, who had been before dis placed by the Emperor, was again chosen to that see. The Arians at the same time chose Macedonius. When the Emperor Constantius became acquainted with this matter, he sent instructions to the president, to remove Paulus, and to establish Macedonius in that see. The installation of Macedonius was accompanied with an awful event-the slaughter of (according to Socrates) about 3150 persons. Such, says that historian, were the means that Macedonius and the Arians used to climb by slaughter and murder to be magistrates in the church. Afterwards, Macedonius gave place to Paulus, who, however, was not long after banished through the influence of the Arians, and in his exile murdered. Macedonius again took possession of the see of Constantinople, and grievously persecuted the orthodox, who adhered to the article of one substance,' or the essential deity of Christ; not only cutting them off from the churches, but banishing them from the city. He continued for a time to make war with and wear out those who held the truth as in Jesus, but was at length deposed. He was first an Arian, and then fell into another heresy. His opinion was, that although the Son of God was like unto the Father, as well in substance as in all other things, yet the Holy Ghost had not these titles of honour, but was only the servant or drudge of the Father and the Son.' His followers were called Macedonians, or Pneumatomachians. His heresy was condemned at the second general council at Constantinople, A.D. 381, at which 150 bishops were present, and the finishing touch' was there given to the decrees of Nice respecting the three persons in the Godhead.-Ed. 1

VIII.

ART. rian and the Eutychiant heresies are expressly condemned by this creed; and yet those authorities never being urged in those disputes, it is clear from thence, that no such creed was then known in the world; as indeed it was never heard of before the eighth century; and then it was given out as the creed of Athanasius, or as a representation of his doctrine, and so it grew to be received by the western church; perhaps the more early, because it went under so great a name, in ages that were not critical enough to judge of what was genuine and what was spurious.

There is one great difficulty that arises out of several expressions in this creed, in which it is said, that whosoever will be saved, must believe it; that the belief of it is necessary to salvation; and that such as do not hold it pure and undefiled shall without doubt perish everlastingly: where many explanations of a mystery hard to be understood are made indispensably necessary to salvation; and it is affirmed, that all such as do not so believe must perish everlastingly. To this two answers are made: 1. That it is only the Christian faith in general that is hereby meant, and not every period and article of this creed; so that all those severe expressions are thought to import only the necessity of believing the Christian religion: but this seems forced; for the words that follow, and the catholic faith is, do so plainly determine the signification of that word to the explanation that comes after, that the word catholic faith, in the first verse, can be no other than the same word, as it is defined in the third and following verses; so that this answer seems not natural. 2. The common answer in which the most eminent men of this church, as far as the memory of all such as I have known could go up, have agreed, is this, that these condemnatory expressions are only to be understood to relate to those who, having the means of instruction offered to them, have rejected them, *For an account of Nestorius, see page 63.

The Eutychian heresy, so called from Eutyches, its founder. Eutyches was abbot of a convent of monks at Constantinople. His opposition to the doctrines of Nestorius (see pp. 63, 64) led him into an error of the opposite extreme, equally prejudicial to the interests of the Christian church. The 'poisonous heresy' of Eutyches caused a provincial council to be summoned, which was accordingly held at Constantinople. At that council Eutyches thus delivered his doctrine: 'I confess that our Lord consisted of two natures before the divinity was coupled with the humanity, but after the uniting of them I affirm that he had but one nature.' He said, moreover, that the body of the Lord was not of the same substance with ours.' Wherefore he was degraded. Upon his application to the Emperor Theodosius, another council was called, which met at Ephesus. At this council Flavianius, bishop of Constantinople, who procured the condemnation of Eutyches, was, owing to the influence of Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, who was the declared enemy of the Bishop of Constantinople, condemned to be publicly scourged, and afterwards banished. He died of his wounds in Epipas, a city of Lydia, the place of his banishment. This council was called conventus latronum. Another, known as the fourth general council, was however summoned, and held at Chalcedon in the year 451, where Eutyches, who had been already sent into banishment, was condemned, and the following decreed- That in Christ two distinct natures were united in one person, and that without any change, mixture, or confusion.' Evagrius Scholasticus and Mosheim.—[ED.]

and have stifled their own convictions, holding the truth in ART.
unrighteousness, and choosing darkness rather than light: VIII.
upon such as do thus reject this great article of the Christian
doctrine, concerning one God and three Persons, Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, and that other concerning the incarnation
of Christ, by which God and man were so united as to make
one person, together with the other doctrines that follow
these, are those anathemas denounced: not so as if it were
hereby meant, that every man who does not believe this in
every tittle must certainly perish, unless he has been furnished
with sufficient means of conviction, and that he has rejected
them, and hardened himself against them. The wrath of
God is revealed against all sin,' and 'the wages of sin is
death: so that every sinner has the wrath of God abiding on
him, and is in a state of damnation: yet a sincere repentance
delivers him out of it, even though he lives and dies in some
sins of ignorance; which though they may make him liable to
damnation, so that nothing but true repentance can deliver
him from it; yet a general repentance, when it is also special
for all known sins, does certainly deliver a man from the
guilt of unknown sins, and from the wrath of God due to
them. God only knows our hearts, the degrees of our know-
ledge, and the measure of our obstinacy, and how far our
ignorance is affected or invincible; and therefore he will deal
with every man according to what he has received. So that
we may believe that some doctrines are necessary to salvation,
as well as that there are some commandments necessary for
practice; and we may also believe that some errors as well as
some sins are exclusive of salvation; all which imports no
more than that we believe such things are sufficiently re-
vealed, and that they are necessary conditions of salvation;
but by this we do not limit the mercies of God towards those
who are under such darkness as not to be able to see through
it, and to discern and acknowledge these truths. It were in-
deed to be wished, that some express declaration to this
purpose were made by those who have authority to do it:
but in the mean while, this being the sense in which the
words of this creed are universally taken, and it agreeing with
the phraseology of the scripture upon the like occasions, this
is that which may be rested upon. And allowing this large
explanation of these severe words, the rest of this creed im-
ports no more than the belief of the doctrine of the Trinity,
which has been already proved, in treating of the former
Articles.

As for the creed called the Apostles' creed, there is good
reason for speaking so doubtfully of it as the Article does,
that determinate creed was made
since it does not appear any
by them none of the first writers agree in delivering their
faith in a certain form of words; every one of them gives an
abstract of his faith, in words that differ both from one

ART. another, and from this form. From thence it is clear that VIII. there was no common form delivered to all the churches; and if there had been any tradition, after the times of the council of Nice, of such a creed composed by the apostles, the Arians had certainly put the chief strength of their cause on this, that they adhered to the Apostles' creed, in opposition to the innovations of the Nicene fathers; there is therefore no reason to believe that this creed was prepared by the apostles, or that it was of any great antiquity, since Ruffin was the first that published it: it is true, he published it as the creed of the church of Aquileia; but that was so late, that neither this nor the other creeds have any authority upon their own account. Great respect is indeed due to things of such antiquity, and that have been so long in the church; but, after all, we receive those creeds, not for their own sakes, nor for the sake of those who prepared them, but for the sake of the doctrine that is contained in them; because we believe that the doctrine which they declare is contained in the scriptures, and chiefly that which is the main intent of them, which is to assert and profess the Trinity, therefore we do receive them; though we must acknowledge that the creed ascribed to Athanasius, as it was none of his, so it was never established by any general council.

• For an account of Ruffin, see page 69.

ART.
IX.

ARTICLE IX.

Of the Original or Birth-Sin.

Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the* Pelagians do bainly talk), but it is the fault or corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the Offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from Original Righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the Flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit, and therefore in ebery Person born into the World it deserbeth God's Wrath and Damnation: And this Infection of Nature doth remain, pea in them that are regenerated, whereby the Lust of the Flesh, called in Greek pрóvnμa oapкòs, which some do expound the Wisdom, some Sensuality, some the Affection, some the Desire of the Flesh, is not subject to the Law of God. And though there is no Condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, pet the Apostle doth confess, That Concupiscence and Lust hath of itself the nature of Sin.

AFTER the first principles of the Christian religion are stated, and the rule of faith and life was settled, the next thing that was to be done, was to declare the special doctrines of this religion; and that first with relation to all Christians, as they

A new controversy arose in the church during the fifth century, and its pestilential effects extended themselves through the following ages. The authors of it were Pelagius and Cælestius, both monks; the former a Briton, the latter a native of Ireland: they lived at Rome in the greatest reputation, and were universally esteemed on account of their extraordinary piety and virtue. These monks looked upon the doctrines which were commonly received, concerning the original corruption of human nature, and the necessity of divine grace to enlighten the understanding, and purify the heart, as prejudicial to the progress of holiness and virtue, and tending to lull mankind in a presumptuous and fatal security. They maintained that these doctrines were as false as they were pernicious; that the sins of our first parents were imputed to them alone, and not to their posterity; that we derive no corruption from their fall, but are born as pure and unspotted as Adam came out of the forming hand of his Creator: that mankind, therefore, are capable of repentance and amendment, and of arriving to the highest degrees of piety and virtue by the use of their natural faculties and powers; that, indeed, external grace is necessary to excite their endeavours, but that they have no need of the internal succours of the Divine Spirit.' These notions, and some others intimately connected with them, were propagated at Rome, though in a private manner, by the two monks already mentioned, who, retiring from that city, A. D. 410, upon the approach of the Goths, went first into Sicily, and afterwards into Africa, where they published their doctrine with more freedom. From Africa, Pelagius passed into Palestine, while Cælestius remained at Carthage, with a view to preferment, desiring to be admitted among the presbyters of that city. But the discovery of his opinions having blasted his hopes, and his errors being condemned in a council held at Carthage, A. D. 412, he departed from that city, and went into the east.' Mosheim. In the east Pelagius met a friend and supporter in John, bishop of Jerusalem, whose attachment to the sentiments of Origen led him to favour those of Pelagius.