followers, alleged apostolical tradition in defence of their Anabaptism; which however, the church of Rome, in common with us, do not acknowledge to be genuine? The marks by which genuine may be distinguished from spurious traditions are so obscure, and the whole subject of traditions is so involved in the thickest shades of darkness, that they are incapable of proving any thing, and furnish no evidence sufficient to command assent. Thus the third argument also falls to the ground.

x. The fourth argument exposes to just suspicion, the opinion which it is produced to support. The Apostles, being full of the Holy Ghost, who guided them into all truth, stood in need of no such rule or bond of union for their direction in preaching the Gospel. Nor at the beginning of Christianity was any profession of faith required from those to whom baptism was about to be administered, except a simple declaration that they believed in Christ, or in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; as appears from the baptism of the converts mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. Thus, from an examination of the arguments, it is manifest, that they are insufficient to demonstrate that the Apostles are the Authors of that Creed which commonly bears their name.

XI. What has been said might suffice to destroy this hypothesis; which ought not to be believed, because it cannot be proved. To complete its overthrow, however, we shall produce several arguments, calculated to show that it is extremely improbable. 1st, If the Apostles had, by mutual consultation, compiled any such Creed as was intended to be a bond of union between themselves and a compendious rule of faith to the whole Church, it is not probable that St Luke, who

has accurately detailed the acts of the Apostles, and even some of their transactions that are of far less importance, would have passed over so momentous a matter in so profound silence; or that the Apostles themselves would have taken no notice of it in their Epistles. 2dly, The ancient Fathers also, when engaged in controversy with the heretics, would not have neglected to appeal to this Creed; of which they could and ought to have availed themselves, as a most useful compend and a most effectual weapon; if any such Creed prepared by the Apostles had existed. 3dly, The holy Fathers, had they possessed such a Creed, would never have thought of composing so many other Creeds and Confessions, which are much less plain, comprehensive, and perfect, than that which is styled the Apostles' Creed. Their numerous attempts of this kind can be accounted for on no other supposition, than that the Creed which is so indisputably superior to all of them, was not yet compiled and known. 4thly, If the Apostles had delivered, to the Church Universal, a particular Creed, consisting of certain sentences, arranged in a certain order, and expressed in certain words, it is reasonable to suppose that there would not have been much diversity in the Creeds of different churches. The Creed of Jerusalem, however, which Cyril has explained, varies not a little from the common one, in the sentences, in the arrangement, and in the words; as Vossius has shown by an accurate collation. But is it credible that any Church would have preserved the Creed with stricter fidelity, than that Church, in the bosom of which it is pretended that the Creed was formed?

4 See NOTE IV.

66

XII. Further, that the Apostles delivered each his own sentence, is so far from being a probable circumstance, that it appears almost ridiculous, and tends to transform this venerable summary of faith into a strangely incoherent rhapsody. Who can bring himself to believe, that Peter said, "I believe in God the "Father Almighty;" that John added, “the Maker of "heaven and earth," and so forth;-the articles sometimes improperly severed, sometimes improperly joined ? What has not temerity attempted, in order to make out the precise number of twelve articles, corresponding to the number of Apostles? Are these two expressions distinct articles,-first, "I believe in God the Father Almighty," secondly, "the Maker of heaven and "earth?" These, however, they so disjoin, as to attribute the former to Peter, the latter to John.-Do the following sentences make only one article, "He de"scended to hell: the third day he rose again from "the dead?" Yet these two sentences, which are quite distinct from each other, the one relating to the humiliation, the other to the exaltation of Christ, they reduce to one; which they ascribe to Thomas.-In fine, is this, which they attribute to James the son of Alpheus, no more than a single article, "I believe in "the Holy Ghost, in the holy catholic Church ?" These notions are too puerile, to deserve the least credit among men of sense.

XIII. What opinion then are we to hold respecting this Creed? We will state in a few words what appears to us to come nearest the truth. In the original simplicity of the Christian Religion, no Creed existed, excepting that which our Lord delivered, Matthew xxviii. 19. "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the

66

Son, and of the Holy Ghost." This short and simple Creed is the foundation, to which the ancient Fathers very frequently appealed. The venerable Voetius, a preceptor for whom it becomes me to entertain the greatest respect, has selected from their writings several passages to this effect, two of which I will here cite. "Athanasius, in his Epistle to all every where that "are sound in the faith, and in his Oration against "Sabellius, and against the Arians, says; The whole "sum and body of our faith is comprised in the words "of our baptism, and is founded on that scripture, Go “and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, "and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' Augustine, "in his discourse on the Creed, says in like manner, "Our Lord Jesus Christ himself hath furnished us "with this standard of doctrine, and no man of piety "entertains any doubt respecting that canon of the “catholic faith, which was dictated by him, who is him"self the object of faith. Our Lord Jesus Christ, I say, after his glorious resurrection from the dead, “and shortly before his ascension to the Father, bequeathed to the disciples these mysteries of faith, "saying, Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in "the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy "Ghost."

66

66

XIV. Heresies, however, increasing with the lapse of time, the church was no longer permitted to continue in that state of primitive simplicity. In order to distinguish the doctrine of the church from heresy, and the true sons of the church from heretics and their followers, several articles were gradually added, and reared as a superstructure on this simple foundation. Of this there is abundant evidence. 1st, The most aucient writers, as Martial, Ignatius, Justin, Irenæus,

and Tertullian, when they propose to give a summary of the faith, proceed no farther than the doctrine of the Trinity. Hilary contends at great length, that the profession of the Trinity ought alone to suffice, and should be held sufficient for the exclusion of heretics.* The same opinion is expressed by Paschasius.† 2dly, It is manifest that there were many copies of the Creed, in which the article respecting Christ's descent into hell, did not appear. Rufinus himself asserts, that, in his time, it was wanting in the Creed of the Roman, and of the Eastern churches. It is conjectured by Moulin, that that article was borrowed from the Creed of Athanasius, and inserted in the Apostles' Creed, by persons who did not observe that, in the former, the articles concerning Christ's death and burial are wanting. But, on this subject, we shall have occasion to speak more fully and particularly, in its proper place. 3dly, The epithet Catholic, given to the church, was unknown in the age of the Apostles; nor did Rufinus know it. It is probable that the purpose for which this title was originally assumed, was to distinguish the church which existed everywhere from the conventicles of heretics and schismatics, such as those of the Novatians, and afterwards of the Donatists. From these arguments we conclude, that the Creed was not the production of one author, or of one council, but was gradually enriched by numerous additions, in successive ages, on various occasions, by different hands;-traces, however, still remaining, of the old foundation upon which the rest of the articles were built.

De Trinitate, Lib. ii. initio.

+ Præfat. ad Libros de Spiritu Sando.

Expositio Symboli, Cap. xx.

§ Thesi. Sedanens. Tom. i, p. 581.