CHAPTER I.

Of the three Creeds of the Church of England, viz., the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, as the proof of a gradual change of opinion from Unitarianism to Trinitarianism, in the early centuries of the Church.

PROTESTANTS do not doubt, that many doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic church, having no authority from Scripture, must have crept into existence, at times, subsequent to the Apostolic age. I believe that the doctrine of a Trinity of persons in the Godhead, and that of a union of two natures in Jesus Christ, had a similar origin. I think that they formed no part of primitive Christianity, but were slowly, and step after step, introduced among its principles, during the second, third, and succeeding centuries. It is proposed in these pages to produce the evidence which supports this opinion. My design will be to show at what times, and under what circumstances, Trinitarian notions were first held, how they gradually spread, what resistance they encountered, the ground on which they were defended, and the causes of their conception.

A review of the three Creeds of the churches of Rome and England will form an introduction to this subject; for they distinctly indicate a gradual change of opinion from the simplicity of the gospel to the complex system of Trinitarianism. The first Creed is Unitarian; the second is partly so; the third and last contains Trinitarianism in its boldest and most complicated state. As two of these Creeds were originally drawn up to be public Confessions, and as the third, though at first it was private, was afterwards made common, they are worthy, on this account, to be attentively considered. In this chapter I intend to explain them, in the order in which they stand.

I. The Creed, bearing the name of the Apostles', was generally thought, from the fourth century downwards, for many hundred years, to have been composed by the twelve chosen followers of our Saviour.* But for several reasons this opinion has been abandoned. Still, however, the great antiquity of the Creed cannot reasonably be doubted, or that it is a work of nearly apostolical importance.† Irenæus, one of the disciples, second in succession after John, has been justly thought to refer to it when he speaks

* King's History of the Apostles' Creed, 4th ed. p. 25.

+Ibid. p. 30. Bingham's Antiquities of the Christian Church, vol. iv. p. 82.

of that Faith, or Rule of Truth, which the churches, though scattered over the earth, had received, and into which all believers were baptized, on acknowledging Christianity.* The copy, indeed, which this father has quoted, differs considerably from that now generally known. But this has been explained by supposing that Irenæus did not so much intend to give the form itself as a commentary on it, since in another part of his writings we find a different version of it, or rather a different commentary, on the same Creed.†

It

appears that this form of faith was not at first committed to paper, but was used orally in the churches before baptism. In consequence of this, it is probable that it varied, in different places, in words, though not in substance, and that some additions also have been made to it since its first employment. Afterwards, when copies in writing had been taken of it, they were read before congregations as a part of the public worship.|| With these provisions, we may admit, I think, this Creed as a monument, in some measure, of the faith of the first era of Christianity.

"The Christian system," says Dr Mosheim," as it was hitherto taught, (referring to the primitive age), preserved its native and beautiful simplicity, and was comprehended in a small number of articles. The public teachers inculcated no other doctrines than those that are contained in what is commonly called the Apostles' Creed: and in the method of illustrating them, all vain subtleties, all mysterious researches, every thing that was beyond the reach of common capacities, were carefully avoided. This will by no means appear surprising to those who consider, that, at this time, there was not the least controversy about those capital doctrines of Christianity which were afterwards so keenly debated in the church; and who reflect, that the bishops of those primitive times were, for the most part, plain and illiterate men, remarkable rather for their piety and zeal than for their learning and eloquence."¶¶

What, then, are the doctrines of the Apostles' Creed? Are we recommended by it to believe in a three-one God, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost? No: but in God the Father only: 'I believe in GOD, THE FAther Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.' What are we to acknowledge concerning Christ? that he was co-eternal with the Father? co-equal with him? like him, Almighty, and the Maker of heaven and earth? No: but we are instructed to believe in Jesus Christ, his

* Irenæus, lib. i. c. 2. p. 45. Apud Dr Priestley's History of Early Opinions concerning Christ, vol. i. pp. 306, 307; see also Bingham's Antiquities, vol. iv. p. 84.

Dr Priestley's Hist. of Early Opinions, vol. i. pp. 305, 308.

King's History of the Creed, p. 32.

§ Bingham's Antiquities, vol. iv. pp. 75, 82.

|| King's History, p. 43.

¶ Dr Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, vol. i. p. 183.

only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the holy ghost (spirit), born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, he descended into hell (the grave), the third day he arose again from the dead, he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father ALMIGHTY, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.' Are we taught in this Creed the divinity of the Holy Ghost? No: for this portion of the Trinity is not even mentioned as a person, but only as a thing, being classed with a number of other things at the end of the Creed: 'I believe in the holy ghost (spirit), the holy catholic (general) church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.'

This form of faith is entirely silent about a Trinity in unity, an incarnate deity, a union of opposite natures in Christ, or any of those phrases and doctrines of Trinitarian divinity so common and so fashionable in after times. It can only be regarded as an Unitarian compilation, the work of an Unitarian age, when men were yet ignorant of the mysteries and subtleties which afterwards appeared.*

II. It was soon found, when the leaders of the church began to advance towards Trinitarianism, that the Apostles' Creed was insufficient to express the new opinions which began to be entertained. Other forms, therefore, were afterwards drawn up, as more aptly expressive of the growing sentiments

* The Unitarianism of the Apostles' Creed has sometimes been admitted and lamented by Trinitarians. The following curious specimen is given by Mr Lindsey, in his " Apology for resigning the Vicarage of Catterick in Yorkshire." It forms part of the angry criticism which some English and Spanish Jesuits passed upon this Creed, and is translated from a Latin work by Alphonsus de Vargas, a Spaniard. "I believe in the Holy Ghost. This proposition is put with a bad design, and is deservedly suspected for its affected brevity; for it craftily passes over in silence the divinity of the Holy Ghost, and his proceeding from the Father and the Son. Moreover, it smells grievously of Arian heresy, covertly favours the schisms of the Greeks, and destroys the undivided Trinity. And the whole of this exposition of the divine and undivided Trinity, contained in these eight articles, [viz., the Apostles' Creed so divided], is defective and dangerous; for it takes the faithful off from the worship and reverence undividedly and inseparably to be paid to the three Divine persons; and under a pretence of brevity, and making no unnecessary enlargement, it cunningly overthrows the whole mystery of the Trinity, whereof the perfect and explicit belief is an indispensable condition of salvation. So that this whole doctrine [viz., the Apostles' creed], can hardly be looked upon as any other than a cheat, because it maketh no mention of the divinity of the Son, or Holy Ghost, or their eternity, even intimates the contrary concerning the Son, in the third article, viz., who was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary." Lindsey's Apology, 4th edition, pp. 123–126.

but

B

of the times.

And though all of these were, ostensibly, only explanations* of the Symbol (as the Apostles' Creed was distinctively called),† we know from history, that much less importance was attached to it than to them, they only being thought, as they successively appeared, to be adequate representations of theology. The chief of these instruments in the fourth century was the Creed now known as the Nicene; so called because the greater part of it was drawn up by a general council held at Nice, in Bithynia, A. D. 325.‡ The part of it which explains the divinity of the Holy Ghost was added by a general council, held at Constantinople, A. D. 381, with the exception of the clause' and the Son,' which the Latin church affixed to it in the ninth century. This last clause the Greek church never adopted: she separated from the Latin communion, among other reasons, on account of it, denouncing its inventors and supporters as heretics. T

The Nicene Creed is semi-Trinitarian. It retains in part the spirit of Unitarianism; but in part it approaches the complex Athanasian system. Its first article is an expressive testimony to the supremacy of the Father; 'I believe in ONE GOD, THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, Maker of heaven, and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.' Yet immediately after, the divine claims of another being are asserted, though not in such a way as to imply equality with the One God, the Father, just described: ' and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God; begotten of his Father before all worlds; God of (or from) GOD; Light of (or from) LIGHT; Very God of (or from) VERY GOD.' That is to say, we are recommended by this Creed to believe, after God the Father Almighty, in our Saviour Jesus Christ, who was God also in a secondary sense, as deriving his birth in a peculiar manner from the Father, being God by derivation from His substance, and light by participation of His light. Still, in these expressions, equality, on the part of Christ, with the Supreme Deity is not declared, either as to power or glory. On the contrary, such phrases indicate the decided inferiority of the Son of God to his Father, and his entire dependance on Him, as on the self-existent Deity, the great first cause of all things.

But perhaps it may be thought, that equality was meant to be included in the phrase,' of one substance with the Father.' To this I answer, that many acute reasoners have otherwise understood this expression; allowing,

* Judgment of the Fathers, p. 21, in vol. iii. of old Unitarian tracts, A.D. 1695. King's History, p. 6. Bingham's Antiquities, vol. iv. p. 64.

Mosheim. Ecc. Hist. vol. i. p. 414. Dr Jortin's Remarks on Ecc. Hist. vol. ii. p. 66.

Mosheim, vol. i. p. 426.

Jortin, vol. iii. p. 62.

¶ Priestley's General Church History, vol. ix. of his works, pp. 156, 270, 444—

indeed, that it implied a parity of nature, but not the possession, to the full extent, of the attributes of Deity. It has been frequently admitted, that the members of the Nicene council, in making use of this phrase, just signified their belief that Christ partook of the substance or nature of his Father, as any child partakes of the substance or nature of his parents.* But do sons in general, because they partake of the substance of their fathers, possess, in consequence, the same stature, amount of health, degree of understanding, manners, and condition? If not, in what way is it certain that the members of the Nicene council thought that Christ, as a son, of the same substance with God, was therefore placed on a perfect equality with Him? That they held a contrary opinion would be manifest from an examination of their writings.

A profound silence was maintained in the council of Nice concerning the divinity of the Holy Spirit; which probably arose from this circumstance, that the church was not then prepared, or even a considerable party in it, to decide what precise dignity this third person was entitled to. The Spirit, indeed, not long after the Son, had been mentioned by theologians as a divine person, making part of a Trinity. But a considerable variety of opinion seems to have been entertained on this subject, and certainly less importance was attached for a long time to the Spirit than to Christ. Afterwards, when the ecclesiastical authorities became more bold, they added at Constantinople (A. D. 381.) the clause which we find in the present copy of the Creed, characterizing the Holy Ghost as 'the Lord and Giver of life; who proceedeth from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spake by the prophets.'

The Nicene Creed has sometimes been called Arian, even though expressly written in opposition to Arius at the instigation of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, prompted by his secretary, the celebrated Athanasius. Yet this impropriety of language may be excused, if we consider how little the Nicene Creed differs from the opinions which Arius entertained. In truth, Arius and his opponent Athanasius had not much reason to quarrel, for their tenets were not so at variance as is commonly supposed. Both had departed far enough from primitive simplicity of doctrine. Both, at the same time, were yet at a considerable distance from Trinitarianism in its finished state. What was the subject of contention between them? Arius and Athanasius agreed that Christ was a powerful Divine Being, to whom the honours and title of God were, in

* Jortin, vol. ii. pp. 55, 56. Ben Mordecai's Apology (by the Rev. H. Taylor, vicar of Portsmouth), Letter I. p. 32, &c.

Mosheim, vol. i. pp. 413, 414.

pp. 297-300.

Priestley's Gen. Ch. Hist. Works, vol. viii.