sense, while there is in words a great diversity. The variety of expressions, used by the Ancients (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clemens, Tertullian, Novatian, &c. which you may see in Grotius upon Matth. 28. 19.) in giving an account of it's several Articles, make this manifest, they were not so strict and severe in any thing, as in the Rule of Faith. In other matters, tho' Ecclesiastical, they allowed more variableness and greater Latitude. Hac lege fidei manente, caetera jam disciplinae & conversationis admittunt novitatem correctionis, says Tertullian, de Virgin. veland. and yet in these, were satisfied with such an Uniformity as consisted only in Sense, not in Words. To one Form of words in this nicest point, and where varying was ⟨p. 101⟩most hazardous; they neither dlimited others, nor would be confined by others, no nor by themselves: We have seen this before in Justin Martyr, (Tertullian) and Ir•naeus (with others in Grotius) is also a very pregnant instance of it. eHe gives several accounts of the rule of Faith, de Veland. Virg. which neither agree with what is given by others, in mode of expression, neither with one another; there being no coincidence in any one phrase observable through the whole. And is it probable, that ⟨p. 102⟩they who left themselves and others so much liberty about formulas of Creeds, would deprive others of it, or be bereaved of it themselves, in Forms of Prayer (in Baptism, or elsewhere) where there is much more reason for more liberty? How incredible ⟨p. 103⟩is it, That their Prayers were limited to a set of Words, when the regula fidei, which more required it, had no such confinement? Sure, if they had judged any such limits requisite in any thing of this nature, they would have given them to that rule of Faith. No Prayers, Supplications, Lauds, Litanies, &c. could in their judgment require such strict, and precise, and unalterable bounds, as that which they counted and styled immobilem & irreformabilem.
sense, while there is in words a great diversity. The variety of expressions, used by the Ancients (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clemens, Tertullian, Novatian, &c. which you may see in Grotius upon Matth. 28. 19.) in giving an account of it's several Articles, make this manifest, they were not so strict and severe in any thing, as in the Rule of Faith. In other matters, tho' Ecclesiastical, they allowed more variableness and greater Latitude. Hac lege fidei manente, caetera jam disciplinae & conversationis admittunt novitatem correctionis, says Tertullian, de Virgin. veland. and yet in these, were satisfied with such an Uniformity as consisted only in Sense, not in Words. To one Form of words in this nicest point, and where varying was ⟨p. 101⟩most hazardous; they neither dlimited others, nor would be confined by others, no nor by themselves: We have seen this before in Justin Martyr, (Tertullian) and Ir•naeus (with others in Grotius) is also a very pregnant instance of it. eHe gives several accounts of the rule of Faith, de Veland. Virg. which neither agree with what is given by others, in mode of expression, neither with one another; there being no coincidence in any one phrase observable through the whole. And is it probable, that ⟨p. 102⟩they who left themselves and others so much liberty about formulas of Creeds, would deprive others of it, or be bereaved of it themselves, in Forms of Prayer (in Baptism, or elsewhere) where there is much more reason for more liberty? How incredible ⟨p. 103⟩is it, That their Prayers were limited to a set of Words, when the regula fidei, which more required it, had no such confinement? Sure, if they had judged any such limits requisite in any thing of this nature, they would have given them to that rule of Faith. No Prayers, Supplications, Lauds, Litanies, &c. could in their judgment require such strict, and precise, and unalterable bounds, as that which they counted and stiled immobilem & irreformabilem.
- dAnd when the Creeds had more stated Forms, in the IV. Century; in the same Country the Creeds of several Cities were not uniform, v. g. in Italy, that of Rome much differed from that at Aquileia, vid. Rusin. and Voss. de Symb. p. 29. &c. And that of Ravenna from both. Ush. de Symb. p. 7. Petr. Chrysol. Serm. 57. &c. de Maximo Taurinensiq.
- eThe Creed (regula fidei [Greek or Hebrew]) was at first no more than the words, wherewith Baptism was to be delivered, Matth. 28. 19. Parker de descens. Voss. de Symb. p. 23. it was enlarged by degrees, and till it grew too large, probably was used in the delivery of Baptism, as we have it in Justin Martyr, no other than a commentary, instead of the Text; afterward the use of it was, to be rehearsed by the Competantes, before they were Baptized, so but once, or twice, or in some places thrice a year. Not put into set Form till the fourth Age, or near it: And those Forms varied in several places in the same Country, vid. supra. It had no place in the Church Service, till near the sixth Age; for as the Lord's Prayer was used no where but in the Eucharistical Office, while the orders for the Catechumens were observed; so the Creed was not used but in Baptism, or in order to it, till late. The first who brought it into the Church Service, was (not as Voss. Timoth.) Petrus Gnapheus, a person stigmatized for more heinous crimes than one: part of his Character see in Evagr. l. 3. c. 17. He amongst other innovations, introduced this, [Greek or Hebrew], and which was more, [Greek or Hebrew], Theod. lect. collect. l. 2. p. 189. This was about the latter end of the fifth Age at Antioch, obiit an. 486. Afterwards Timotheus, a flagitious person and a Heretic, vid. Spond. an. 511. n. 3. brought it into the same use at Constantinople, being made Bishop there by Anastatius, according to Baronius, 511. till 517. [Greek or Hebrew], Theod. lect. collect. l. 2. p. 188. The Western Churches had it from the East (this not the first time the Church borrowed of Heretics. The unguent from the Valentinians, Iren. l.... c.... stated Fasts from Montanists) Illud symbolum, quod nos ad imitationem Graecorum intra missas adsumimus, Walafrid. Strabo de reb. Eccles. c. 22. first in Spain, Conc. Tolled. 3. c. 2. an. 589. per omnes Ecclesias Hispaniae & Galliciae, secundum formam orientalium ecclesiarum, Concilii Constantinopolitani symbolum recitetur. In France and Germany long after, Walafr. Strab. de reb. Eccles. cap. 22. Sed apud Gallos & Germanos, post dejectionem Faelicis Haeretici sub Gloriosissimo Carolo, Francorum Rege, idem symbolum latius & crebrius in missarum coepit officiis iterari. And the Constantinopolitan Creed rather than the Nicene, for a very weighty reason, quod aptius videretur modulis musicis; of which Baronius seems ashamed, ad an. 809. n. 3. Felix condemned, an. 794. Baron. Not at Rome till an. 1014. when Berno Augiensis, lib. de miss. relates, he being at Rome, cum Romani Presbyteri ab eo interrogorertur, Cur post evangelium (ut in aliis ecclsiis siebat) symbolum non canerent? they gave him a reason, such a one as it is; and adds, Imperatorem (Henric. 1.) Benedicto Papae persuasisse, ut ad publicam mssm symbolum decantarent, in Spond. ad an. 1014. n. 3.
