the New Testament was penned, I perceive no such constant 'distinction in their deliveries of the CREED; and in the Hebrew language of the Old, from which the Jewish and Christian Greeks received 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

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.

*For is sometimes joined with, sometimes with: when with, it auswers properly, to TOTEVε T Oε, credere Deo, being nothing else but a significator of the case); when with it corresponds 10 πιστεύειν εἰς τὸν Θεὸν, credere in Deum, (ʼn being a preposition of the same nature with sig 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

והאמן,the act of justifying faith

Gen. xv. 6. it is translated by the LXX. καὶ ἐπίστευσεν ̓Αβρὰμ τῷ Θεῷ, ποὺ εἰς Θεὸν, 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), οἳ 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. N

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 ἐμπιστευ θήσεσθε· ἐμπιστεύσατε ἐν προφήταις αὐτ τοῦ, καὶ εὐοδωθήσεσθε, Noris 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 bear when I speak with thee,

66

bis 18" Ton 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 Moscs, and generally: ἡ πίστις ὡμολόγηται ἤδη καὶ εἰς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους γεγενῆσθαι : the Father doth not deny the language, but interprets it: ἡ εἰς αὐτὸν πίστις ἐπὶ τὸν κύριον ἀναφέρεται. De Sp. S. c. 14. 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.

sat ויאמן אכיש בדוד .12 .xxvii

-and they be ביהוה ובמשה עבדו

lieved in God, and in his servant Moses; which the Chaldee paraphrase

Jonathan, and

Onkelos

ἐπιστεύθη Δαυὶδ ἐν τῷ ̓Αγχους, LXX. '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. p. 489. 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, Psal. Ixxviii. 32.

והימינו בשום,explaineth this מימרא דיי ובנבואתיה דמשה

,lieving in ויאמינו במימרא דיי ובנביאות and they believed in משה עבדיה

the word of God, and in the prophecy of Moses his servant. And 2 Chron. xx. 20. TT UN

אלהיכם ותאמנו האמינו בנביאיו Believe in the Lord your והצליחו LXX. cut o האמינו בנפלאתיו

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

ἐπίστευσαν ἐν τοῖς θαυμασίοις αὐτοῦ, and they believed not in his wondrous works; sometimes to the object of it, or that which is believed, as Psal.

I have במצותיך האמנתי .66 .cxix

believed in thy commandments, as Mark i. 15, πιστεύετε ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ.

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 acceptation, by which it is attributed to the 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 to 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, and confessed; insomuch as sometimes they use not believing in, neither for the Father, Son, nor Holy Ghost; sometimes using it as to them, they continue the same to the following articles of, the Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, &c. and generally speak of the CREED as nothing but mere matter of faith, without any intimation of hope, love, or any such notion included in it.§ So that believing in, by virtue of the phrase

* Πιστεύομεν οὖν καὶ ὁμολογοῦμεν ἕνα μόνον ἀληθινὸν καὶ ἀγαθὸν Θεὸν, καὶ ἕνα τὸν μονογενῆ αὐτοῦ υἱὸν, καὶ ἓν μόνον πνεῦμα ἅγιον. S. Basil. de Fide,

c. 4.

† Arius and Euzoius in their confession delivered to Constantine: Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν πατέρα, καὶ εἰς ἕνα 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. I. i. c. 26. Sozomen. 1. ii. c. 27. Κατήχη σις τῶν φωτιζομένων σχεδιασθεῖσα εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον, καὶ εἰς μίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ εἰς σαρκὸς ἀνάστα· σιν, καὶ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. S. Cyril. Hierosol. Catech. 18. Εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, εἰς μίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν. S. Epiphan. in Anc. §. 120. 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. §. 121.

f. Greg. Nyss. calls them εὐσεβεῖς περὶ Θεοῦ ὑπολήψεις. And Eusebius in his Confession exhibited to the council of Nice, concludes; Πιστεύο

μεν καὶ εἰς ἓν πνεῦμα ἅγιον, τούτων ἕκαστον εἶναι καὶ ὑπάρχειν πιστεύοντες : signifying that every particular which he bad 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 article thus: Πρὸς δὲ τῇ εὐσεβεία (Ι. εὐσεβεῖ) ταύτῃ περὶ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ δόξηἓν πνεῦμα ἅγιον ὁμολογοῦμεν. -μίαν καὶ μόνην καθολικὴν τὴν ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν- -μετὰ τοῦτον (vel τοῦτο ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν οἴδαμεν. Theodor. Hist. Eccl. l. i. c. 4. So Tertull. de Prescript. adv. Haret. c. 13. ' Regula est fidei illa qua creditur, Unum omnino Deum esse:' and adv. Praxeam, c. 2. where he makes another rehearsal of his Creed, he begins with: Unicum quidem Deum credimus.'

§ 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 Gdei dogmata, quæ sunt columnæ et fundamenta legis divinæ. Is. Abravanel de cap.

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 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 foundation * 66 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 explanation 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 ground 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. Dan. ii. 47. xi. 36.) and in the same respect is called "the most high God," (Gen. xiv. 18-20. 22.) (others being but inferior, or under him), and, "God over or above all." (Rom. ix. 5. Ephes. 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 to 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 fidei, c. 11. Primus est deorum cultus, deos credere.' Sen. Epist. xcv. p. 470.

it giveth existence to every thing which is. Maimonides de Fundamen. Legis, c. 1.

*Imprimis necesse est concedatis esse aliquem sublimiorem Deum et mancipem quendam divinitatis, qui ex hominibus Deos fecerit.' Tertull. adv. Gentes, c. 11.

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 if they have any real power or authority, from whence some are called gods* in the Scripture, yet they have 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 perfection; † and 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 pre-existence, 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 or 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 charged us with the knowledge of him upon that account.

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

Ego dixi, Dii estis; sed in eo indulti nominis significatio est: et ubi refertur, ego dixi, loquentis est potius sermo quam rei nomen.' S. Hilar. de Trin, J. vii. c. 10.

+'Deus plenæ ac perfectæ divinitatis est nomen.' S. Hilar. de Trin. 1. xi. c. 48. 'Deus substantiæ ipsius nomen, id est, divinitatis.' Tertull. adv. Herm. c. 3.

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, certain, necessary truth, yet must it be evidenced and made apparent unto us by its connexion to other truths; so that the being of a Creator may appear unto us by his creature, and the dependency of inferior entities may lead us to a clear acknowledgment of the supreme and independent Being. The wisdom of the Jews thought this method proper, "for by the greatness and beauty of the creatures, proportionably the Maker of them is seen:" (Wisd. of Sol. xiii. 5.) and not only they, but St. Paul hath taught us, that "the invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead." (Rom. i. 20.) + For if Phidias could so

*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. 2.

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. id quod nos Deus perpetuo facere vult (Divinitus enim hoc sensu alibi quoque apud ipsum enunciatur, ut Col. ii. 9.), æternamque potentiam, i. promissiones quæ nunquam intercident (quo sensu paulo superius dixerat Evangelium esse potentiam Dei), hæc, inquam, quæ nunquam postquam mundus creatus est ab hominibus visa fuerant, i. non fuerant eis cognita, per opera, hoc est, per mirabiles ipsius Dei et divinorum ho

minum, præsertim vero Christi et Apostolorum ejus, operationes, conspecta fuisse.' In which explication there is nothing which is not forced and distorted; for though his first observation seems plausible, yet there is no validity in it. He bringeth only for proof, Matt. xiii. 35. кεкρvμμέvа ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, which proves not at all that άTò кTiσewç 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 Pct. iii. 4. never by ἀπὸ κτίσεως. Besides the κεκρυμpéva in St. Matthew bears not that analogy with dópara 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 LXX. πρößλýμara ἀπ' ἀρχῆς, i. 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, Psal. Ixxviii. 3. And though he would make out this