Athenasian Creed
CHAPTER III. —THE APOSTLES’ CREED
assume it as settled and proved, that the books which compose the New Testament were all given by inspiration of God; that the other works which have been ascribed to the apostles, who—they assuming the form of gospels, or epistles, or liturgies—for we have some under all these heads—are to be regarded neither as genuine nor authoritative; and that the books of the New Testament, along with those of the Old Testament, as commonly held canonical by Protestants, form the only authoritative standard of faith and practice. Alt the different productions here referred to, though claiming to emanate from the apostles of our Lord, are destitute of any adequate external historical evidence, and their spuriousness can be fully established by conclusive internal evidence derived from their contents. There is, however, one production, in favor of which a claim has been set up to an apostolic origin, and of the genuineness of which it has been generally admitted that there is no specific internal proof. I refer to what is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, Symbolum Apostolicum.[1] It is the doctrine of the Church of Rome, though some of the most candid and judicious Romanists have been unable to assent to it,[2] that this creed was composed by the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; and that, of course, it is to be regarded as possessed of the same direct divine authority as the canonical Scriptures; and Protestants in general, though they have commonly denied that it was composed by the apostles, or is possessed in itself of any proper authority, have admitted that it contains sound apostolic doctrine, which is in accordance with, and can be established by, the word of God. The Lutheran and Anglican churches have adopted it along with the Nicene and Athanasian creeds, as a part of their authorized symbolical profession of faith. The Westminster divines subjoined it, along with the ten commandments and the Lord’s prayer, to their catechisms, accompanied with this explanatory statement
“It is here annexed, not as though it were composed by the apostles, or ought to be esteemed canonical Scripture, as the ten commandments and Lord’s prayer, but because it is a brief sum of the Christian faith, agreeable to the word of God, and anciently received in the churches of Christ:”
It is not, however, possessed of any great antiquity, for it was not generally received in its present form till the very end of the fourth, or the beginning of the fifth century, since which time it has been adopted as the creed of the Roman or Western Church, and is often spoken of by old writers under the name of Symbolum Romanum, though it has never been received by the Oriental or Greek churches. Among other notions borrowed from the Church of Rome, this of the apostolic origin and authority of the creed has been embraced and advocated by the Tractarians. Dr Newman, long before he joined the Church of Rome, described it as “the formal symbol which the apostles adopted and bequeathed to the church,” and asserted that it has an evidence of its apostolical origin, the same in kind with that for the Scriptures.”[3]
Mosheim says that “all who have the least knowledge of antiquity look upon this opinion as entirely false, and destitute of all foundation.” The reasons which led Dr Newman and other Tractarians, who certainly had some knowledge of antiquity, to assert that the Creed was composed by the apostles, were probably these. They had been much in the habit, under the influence of a strong Popish leaning, of copying statements without much examination, notwithstanding all their pretensions to learning, from unscrupulous Popish controversialists. It is impossible, I think, for any man to doubt this, who has read Goode’s very learned and valuable work, entitled, “The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice:” With the views which these men held, in common with the Church of Rome, on the subject of tradition and the rule of faith, it was important to break down, as it were, the monopoly of infallibility which Protestants assign to the Scriptures, by bringing forward one other document not contained in Scripture, but handed down by tradition, which yet possessed apostolic authority. There is thus a great principle—that, viz., of the completeness or perfection of the sacred Scriptures—involved in the claim put forth on behalf of the Creed to an apostolic origin. And I have no doubt that another motive which induced them to support this notion was this, that, being determined enemies to the doctrines of grace—the great doctrines of the Reformation—they were glad to have a pretence for representing, as an inspired summary of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, a document in which these great truths were not explicitly asserted. Some of the early Protestant writers, such as the Magdeburg Centuriators, were disposed to concede the apostolic origin of the Creed, influenced apparently by the desire of being able to maintain, in opposition to the Romish charge against them of departing from the apostolic faith, that they held the whole doctrines which the apostles embodied in their summary of faith. Even Calvin[4] talks as if he had no great objection to concede to it an apostolic origin, and were rather disposed to favor the notion. It is nothing more than ascribing to Calvin (who may be fairly regarded as being, all things considered, the greatest and most useful gift that God has given to the church since the apostolic age) a participation in the common infirmities of humanity, if we suppose that he may have been unconsciously disposed to think more favorably of the apostolic origin of the Creed than the historical evidence warrants, because it seems to contain a more explicit assertion than the word of God does, of a doctrine which he held, and to which he appears to have attached some importance, viz., that Christ descended into hell, in this sense, that after death He went to the place of the damned, and shared somehow in their torments. Calvin says that the ancients, with one accord, ascribed it to the apostles, and Newman says that the evidence of its apostolic origin is the same in kind as that for the Scriptures. Let us briefly state how this stands as a matter of fact.
We have no notice of the Creed in its present form till about the end of the fourth century, and we have no evidence antecedent to that period of its being asserted, or generally believed, that the apostles drew up and committed to writing any formal creed or summary of faith. A notion of this sort, originating in the end of the fourth century, —not existing previously, and not based upon anything like evidence previously recognized, —is entitled to no weight whatever in proof of a matter of fact of the kind in question. The precise facts are these. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, in a letter written about the year 380, speaks of the Creed of the Apostles, which the Roman Church always preserves uncorrupted. But he does not expressly assign to it, as a document, an apostolic origin, and he might call it the Apostles’ Creed merely to indicate that it contained a summary of the doctrine which the apostles taught. Ruffinus, in his Exposition upon the Creed, published about fifteen yeas later, near the very end of the century, is the first who expressly ascribes it to the apostles; and his statement embodies some circumstances which throw much doubt upon his leading position. He describes it as a tradition of their forefathers, tradunt majores nostri; which may perhaps be regarded as an admission that this had not previously been asserted in writing in any of those ancient works which are now lost, any more than in those which have been preserved. He tells us that the apostles, before dispersing to preach the gospel over the world, resolved to prepare a common summary of the Christian faith, in order to guard against any diversity in their future teaching, —“ne forte alii ab aliis abducti diversum aliquid his qui ad fidem Christi invitabantur, exponerent;” —and accordingly they met together, and, under the guidance of the Spirit, they prepared this Creed in this way, by each contributing a portion as he thought best, —“conferendo in unum quad sentiebat unusquisque.” This is certainly a very improbable story, both as it respects the motive and the process of the composition. His statement as to the mode of composing it was very soon improved and adorned in a sermon, falsely ascribed to Augustine, and published in the fifth century, which informs us that each of the twelve apostles, when assembled to compose the Creed, uttered in succession one of the clauses of which it consists: Peter saying, “I believe in God the Father, Almighty Maker of heaven and earth;” Andrew, “and in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord;” James, “who was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,” etc. Pope Leo the Great, who flourished in the middle of the fifth century, repeats the substance of this story, ascribing a clause to each of the twelve apostles, but without specifying the individual authors of each. From this time, the apostolic origin of the Creed, in the sense of the document having been prepared in its present form by the apostles, was generally held as an article of faith in the Western churches, though so late as the Council of Florence, about the middle of the fifteenth century, the Greeks maintained that this Creed was, and had always been, unknown in the churches of the East.[5]
This is really the whole evidence from antiquity in support of the apostolic origin of the Creed, in its present form, as a document; and, even if we were to concede to Dr Newman that the evidence is the same in kind as for the Scriptures, still it is manifest that the difference in degree is so great, that we may confidently maintain, that in the one case it amounts to a conclusive proof, and in the other it does not reach even to a presumption. Some of the fathers, though none more ancient than the time of Ambrose and Ruffinus, have told us that the apostles used a creed which was not committed to writing, but handed down by memory and tradition. But this, even if true, is not relevant to the point under consideration; unless, indeed, it could be proved that the creed which they used and transmitted was precisely identical, not only in substance, but in words, with that which we now have.
Some of the earlier fathers speak frequently of a canon or rule of faith, evidently meaning by this, a brief, comprehensive summary of the leading doctrines of Christianity. But they did not, in using this language, refer to the present Creed, —for some of them, in using it, and even in applying to the summary the word symbolum, refer explicitly to the general confession of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost in the administration of baptism, as prescribed by our Saviour, and recorded in Scripture; and the rest, when they speak of the creed, the canon, the rule of faith, give us a creed of their own, agreeing, indeed, in substance with the present Creed, but not by any means identical with it. This latter statement applies more particularly to Irenaeus and Tertullian in the second century, who have given us each two different summaries of the faith generally received in the Christian church; and to Origen and Gregory Thaumaturgus, in the third, who have given us each one such creed or summary; —all these agreeing in substance with each other, and with the present Creed, but all so far differing from it, as to prove that it was not during the first three centuries known in the church as an apostolic document, and that no one brief summary of the Christian faith, supposed to possess apostolic authority, was then generally known and adopted. The entire absence of all reference to the Apostles’ Creed in the proceedings and discussions connected with the Nicene Council, and the formation of the Nicene Creed, affords conclusive proof that the church in general, even in the early part of the fourth century, knew nothing of any creed that was generally regarded as having an apostolic origin and authority. And this is confirmed by the fact that, whereas the Nicene Creed, like the creeds or summaries of faith which we find in Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen, was but an amplification of the confession of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, with a much more precise and specific condemnation of Arianism than we find in any previous creed or summary; it was not till the Council of Constantinople in 381, when our present Creed was becoming better known through the growing ascendancy of the Church of Rome, that there were added to the Nicene Creed, along with a much fuller profession concerning the divinity of the Holy Ghost, in opposition to the heresy of Macedonius, the other articles not so immediately connected with the confession of the Trinity, which still form the conclusion of the Creed.[6]
The diversities which we find subsisting among the ancient creeds or summaries, —and which are very considerable as to their fullness, or the number of the different articles they contain, and as to the words in which they are expressed, though they all agree as to their substance so far as they go, furnish satisfactory evidence that there was not during the first four centuries any creed, written or oral, which was generally regarded as the production of the apostles. And what is specially important and altogether conclusive, in showing that the present Creed has no claim to an apostolic origin in any other sense than this, that it contains, as all admit, a summary of the doctrine which the apostles taught, is the express testimony of Ruffinus, that the two articles, of the descent of Christ into hell, and the communion of saints, were not to be found in the creed of the Roman Church, or of any of the Eastern churches even at the end of the fourth century; while the creed of some other churches which contained these articles, wanted others which were found in the creeds of the Roman and Oriental churches.
In opposition to all this body of evidence, Romanists have really nothing to say that is possessed even of plausibility. They can say nothing but this, —that there was no material variation among the early creeds in point of substance. But this is not to the point. No one doubts that all those creeds which have been referred to, including the different versions of the present Creed, exhibit correctly, so far as they go, the substance of the doctrine which the apostles taught, and which is accordant with the Scripture. The only question is, —Was the present Creed, —as a document of course, as to the words of which it is composed, —or any other creed or summary of Christian doctrine, the production of the inspired apostles? and the evidence which has been referred to, requires us to answer this question in the negative. Yet the Church of Rome has defined in the Trent Catechism, that the apostles not only composed the Creed, but gave it the name of symbolum; and she exacts the belief of this of her subjects.
Laurentius Valla, a learned and candid writer who flourished before the Reformation in the end of the fifteenth century, maintained that the Creed was not the production of the apostles, and was not composed till the time of the Council of Nice; but the Inquisition compelled him to retract this heresy, and to profess that he believed what holy mother church believed upon this point.[7] Erasmus, in his preface to his Annotations upon Matthew’s Gospel, made the following very cautious statement “Symbolum an ab Apostolis proditum sit, nescio.” The Faculty of Theology at Paris censured this nescientia, as they called it, as fitted to promote impiety; and Erasmus, in a declaration which he published in consequence of the censure, has fully explained the grounds of his hesitation, though professing his willingness to believe in its apostolic origin, if the church required it.[8]
Dupin, one of the most fair and candid of the Romanist writers, held that there was no proof of the apostolic origin of the Creed, and that, on the contrary, the historical evidence was against it. But he was obliged by the Archbishop of Paris to make a sort of retraction of this opinion; although, after all, it was only in the following form: “I acknowledge that we ought to regard the Creed of the apostles as a formula of faith prepared by them in substance, though some terms in it were not the same in all churches.”[9]
Attempts have been made to show that the canonical Scriptures countenance the idea that the apostles prepared and communicated to the churches a brief summary of Christian doctrine; nay, it has even been asserted that there are references in Scripture to that very document which we now call the Apostles’ Creed. This notion is indeed repudiated by the more judicious and candid of the Roman Catholic writers,[10] but it has found favor among the Anglican Tractarians, and Dr Newman went so far as to say that the apostle Paul quotes from the Creed,[11] and refers in proof of this to 1 Corinthians 15:3: “I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.” The quotation of course is, “Christ died for our sins.” Dr Newman is of opinion that the source from which Paul derived this doctrine was the Creed. It is scarcely necessary to remark, that Paul has repeatedly and explicitly declared that he received his doctrine from a different and a higher source, even from the Lord, and by the revelation .of Jesus Christ. We have plain enough intimations in Scripture, that, before men were admitted by baptism into the communion of the visible church, they were not only instructed in the leading principles of Christianity, but were called upon to make a profession of their faith in Christ, and to answer some questions which were proposed to them. It was quite natural that the profession of faith which converts were expected and required to make before and at baptism, should be connected with, and based upon, a confession of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost., in whose name baptism was administered; and accordingly, as we formerly remarked, many of the fathers speak of the creed or rule of faith as comprised in the apostolic commission to baptize in the name of the three persons of the Godhead; and, moreover, we find that all the earlier creeds were just amplifications or explanations of these heads, —fuller statements of what the Scriptures teach concerning these three persons. This profession, though everywhere the same in substance, varied considerably at different periods and in different churches, just because there was no one form which was recognized as possessed of apostolical authority; and there was no church which, during the first three centuries, attempted to exercise, or was recognized as entitled to exercise, authority to impose a form upon the other churches of Christ.
We have no adequate materials for tracing the growth or enlargement of any of these early creeds, and the different changes they underwent; but we have good ground to believe generally, that explanations and additional declarations were from time to time introduced into them, guarding against the different errors and heresies that might have been broached, and importing upon the part of those who received them a renunciation of these errors and heresies; and this is just the principle which is to be applied in unfolding and explaining the history of all creeds and confessions down till the present day. This general statement applies no doubt to the Apostles’ Creed, which was just the creed commonly used in the Roman Church. We do not know precisely the history of all the changes which have been made upon it; but we do know the important fact, that the articles on Christ’s descent to hell and the communion of saints, formed no part of it till the end of the fourth, or the beginning of the fifth century; and we have no positive evidence that the article on Christ’s descent to hell had previously existed in the creed of any church except that of Aquileia: Attempts have been made to trace the additions which, since the apostles’ age, have been made to the Creed, by reference to the errors against which they were intended to guard. But this is not a subject of much practical importance, as the errors and heresies referred to have long ceased to meet with any support; and as it can scarcely be said that the Creed, even supposing it were possessed of authority, does give anything like an explicit decision upon any topics of importance which now divide the professing churches of Christ.
Protestants usually profess their adherence to all the articles of the Apostles’ Creed, as well as Papists; and neither party can deduce any argument against the other from anything actually contained in it. It is indeed true, that when Protestants used to defend themselves against the charge adduced by the Romanists, that they had departed from the apostolic faith, by alleging that they held all the doctrines of the apostolic Creed, some Papists met this allegation with a denial, and asserted that Protestants did not believe in the holy catholic church. But this, of course, they could make out only by attaching their own arbitrary and unwarranted sense, —first, to the holy catholic church as a subsisting thing; and secondly, to what is implied in a profession of belief in it. The Papists would fain have it assumed that the holy catholic church in the Creed, means a widely extended visible society, united in outward communion under the same government, and with one visible head. Protestants maintain that this is not the correct idea of the catholic church, as presented to us either in Scripture or in primitive antiquity; and of course object to the warrantableness of putting such an interpretation upon it in the Creed. Papists further contend that a profession of believing in the holy catholic church implies a conviction, not only that Christ has a church on earth, but also that all men are bound to believe the church in all things pertaining to faith. This is explicitly laid down in the ordinary Popish catechisms in common use in this country; and it was taught also by Dr Newman even before he made an avowal of Popery.[12] Protestants, however, repudiate this interpretation, and can easily prove that the words do not properly mean, and were not in the early church understood to mean, anything more than a belief in the existence of the catholic church as a society in some respects one.
If men appeal to the Creed as a proof of their orthodoxy, they are of course bound to explain its meaning, and to show that they hold its statements in a reasonable and honest sense. But except upon the ground of such an appeal made by ourselves, and thereby committing us, we are under no obligation to give any interpretation to the statements of the Creed, to prove that they have any meaning, or to establish what that meaning is, just because the Creed, not being possessed of any proper intrinsic authority, the truth and accuracy of all its statements must, like those of every other uninspired, and consequently unauthoritative document, be judged of by another standard. It may he an interesting inquiry to ascertain in what sense the articles of the Creed were generally understood at the time when, so far as we can learn, they were first introduced, and at subsequent periods. But the inquiry is a purely historical one, and the result, whatever it may be, can lay us under no obligation as to our own faith. An essay was once written by a Lutheran divine,[13] in which he exhibited in parallel columns the Lutheran, the Calvinistic, and the Popish interpretations of all the different articles in the Creed. And it certainly could not be proved that any one of them was inconsistent with the sense which the words bear, or in which they might be reasonably understood. Another writer afterwards added a fourth column, containing the Arminian or Pelagian interpretation of all the articles, and neither could this be successfully reargued, without having recourse to a standard at once more authoritative and more explicit.
Nay, it is well known that Arians, who deny the divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost, have no hesitation in expressing their concurrence in the Creed, and even appeal to the common use of it in early times, as showing that a profession of belief in the divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost, was not required in the primitive church. The conclusion which they draw is unfounded. It can be satisfactorily proved that the doctrine of the Trinity was generally held in the primitive church from the age of the apostles, although it is also certain that, before the Arians and other heretics openly opposed it, some Christian writers did not speak with so much precision and accuracy on these points as were used by subsequent authors; and that on the same ground it was not so prominently and explicitly set forth in the public profession of the church. It is also true that the Apostles’ Creed, and indeed all the ancient creeds, are plainly constructed upon a plan which insinuates, or rather countenances, the doctrine of the Trinity, as they are all based upon the apostolic commission embodying a requirement to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Still it cannot be said that the Apostles’ Creed excludes the Arian view with anything like explicitness; and it is certain that we have creeds composed by Arians in the fourth century, which do speak of the dignity of our Lord and Saviour, so far as the mere words employed are concerned, in a far higher strain than the Apostles’ Creed does.
These considerations are quite sufficient of themselves to prove that the Apostles’ Creed, as it is called, is not entitled to much respect, and is not fitted to be of much use, as a summary of the leading doctrines of Christianity. A document which maybe honestly assented to by Papists and Arians, by the adherents of the great apostasy and by the opposers of the divinity of our Saviour, can be of no real utility as a directory, or as an element or bond of union among the churches of Christ. And while it is so brief and general as to be no adequate protest or protection against error, it does not contain any statement of some important truths essential to a right comprehension of the scheme of Christian doctrine and the way of salvation. It is quite true that, under the different articles of the Creed, or even under any of the earlier creeds which contained merely a brief profession of faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, we might bring in, as many authors have done, an explanation of all the leading doctrines taught us in Scripture; but it is not the less true that they are not stated in the document itself, and that there is nothing in its words which is fitted to bring them to our notice.
Neither can it be said that all that is contained in the Creed is of primary importance; and it is rather gratifying to know that the articles of Christ’s descent into hell, and of the communion of saints—certainly the least important which it contains—were not inserted at least till the end of the fourth century. The first of these articles—viz., the statement that Christ descended into hell—has given rise to a good deal of discussion. In adverting to it, it must be remembered that, in so far as the statement that Christ descended into hell is merely to be found in the Creed, we are under no obligation to explain or to believe it. But the important question is, Does Scripture sanction the statement; and if so, in what sense? Now there is no reasonable doubt that the statement in terminis is sanctioned by Scripture. The declaration of Peter (Acts 2:27), seems to imply, that immediately antecedent to His resurrection, the yuch of Christ was in Hades, the word often translated by hell in our version; and the statement of Paul (Eph. 4:8-9), referring apparently to the same period of Christ’s history, seems to warrant us in applying to His condition at that time the idea of a descent, so that the statement applied to Christ in the Creed—katelqonta eiV adhn—“descendit ad inferos” —is in terminis supported by Scripture, and may therefore be warrantably adopted. It does not by any means follow, however, that it is either so clear in its sense as thus put, or so important in its application, as to be entitled to occupy a place in a public profession of faith, whether more compendious or more enlarged; and yet the Church of England has injudiciously made it the sole subject of one of her thirty‑nine articles. But the only important question is; What is the real meaning of those portions of Scripture which seem to warrant the statement that Christ descended into Hades?
Calvin’s view has been already stated, but. it is entirely unsupported by any scriptural evidence, and it seems to be plainly enough contradicted by our Saviour’s declaration to the penitent thief upon the cross, “Today shalt thou be with Me in paradise:” Many are of opinion that the scriptural statements mean merely that He was really and truly dead in the same sense in which other men die, by the actual separation of the soul from the body, and that He really continued under the power of death for a time. And the Westminster divines give this explanation of the article in the Creed about His descent into Hades, that “He continued in the state of the dead, and under the power of death, till the third day.” There is good scriptural ground for maintaining that Hades sometimes means merely the grave or the state of death, without including any more precise or specific idea: it is manifest that the scope of the passage in the second of Acts—and the same may be said of the passage in Ephesians—does not require us to attach any other meaning to it; and, therefore, so far as these two passages are concerned—and they constitute, as we have seen, the scriptural foundation of the position—nothing more than this can be proved. But the question still remains, naturally suggested by this subject, though not necessary to the exposition of it, Do we know nothing more of the condition of Christ’s soul during the period of its separation from His body? The only thing in Scripture that can be fairly regarded as conveying to us any certain information upon this point, is His own declaration to the thief upon the cross, that he would that day be with Him in paradise, which may be considered to imply that His soul did go to Hades, or the state of the departed, taken as descriptive of, or including the place and condition of the souls of the righteous in happiness, waiting for the redemption of their bodies. The Church of Rome teaches—and in this she has the sanction of some of the fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries, and even of Augustine, by far the greatest of them all—that Christ’s descent into hell means that He went to the limbus patrum, a place somewhere in the neighborhood of hell, in the more common sense of that word, where all the righteous men that died before His incarnation, from Adam downwards, had hitherto been kept, —took them thence with Him, and carried them to heaven. But all this is a presumptuous fable, having no warrant in the word of God. We have, indeed, no definite information as to anything Christ did, or as to the way in which He was engaged between His death and His resurrection, except His own declaration upon the cross, that He would that day be in paradise; for, with respect to the very obscure and difficult passage in 1 Peter 3:19, about His going and preaching to the spirits in prison, I must say that I have never met with an interpretation of it that seemed to me altogether satisfactory. Among the many interpretations that have been given of it, there are just two in support of which anything really plausible, as it appears to me, can be advanced—viz., first, that which regards the preaching there spoken of as having taken place in the time of Noah, and through the instrumentality of Noah; and secondly, that which regards it as having taken place after His resurrection, and through the instrumentality of the apostles. The latter view is ably advocated in Dr John Brown’s Expository Discourses on First Peter. If either of these interpretations be the true one, the passage has no reference to the period of His history between His death and His resurrection.
I think it is much to be regretted that so very inadequate and defective a summary of the leading principles of Christianity as the Apostles’ Creed, —possessed of no authority, and having no extrinsic claims to respect, —should have been exalted to such a place of prominence and influence in the worship and services of the church of Christ; and I have no doubt that this has operated injuriously in leading to the disregard of some important articles of Christian doctrine, which are not embodied in it, but which are of fundamental importance. Even in the third century, we find the doctrines of grace, —the true principles of the Gospel which unfold the scriptural method of salvation, were thrown into the background, were little attended to, and not very distinctly understood; while the attention of the church in the fourth century was almost entirely engrossed by controversial speculations about the Trinity and the person of Christ; and it is, I believe, in some measure from the same cause—i.e., having the Apostles’ Creed pressed upon men’s attention in the ordinary public services of the church, as a summary of Christian doctrine, entitled to great deference and respect—that we are to account for the ignorance and indifference respecting the great principles of evangelical truth by which so large a proportion of the ordinary attenders upon the services of the Church of England have been usually characterized, —a result aided, no doubt, by the peculiar character and complexion of the other two creeds which are also sanctioned by her articles, and which are sometimes, though not so frequently, used in her public service—the Nicene and the Athanasian.
ENDNOTES:
[1] Books and references on the Apostles Creed: —
Catech. Trident, P. 1., c.1.
Natalis Alecandri Hist. Eccles., Saec. 1., Diss. 12.
Usserius, de Romanae Ecclesiae Symbolo.
Vossius, de tribus symbolis. Op., tom. 6.
Fabricius, Codex Apocryphus N.T., P. 3, tom. 2, pp. 339-364, where a list is given of the authors who have written upon the Creed.
Heideggerus, Dissertaiones Selectae, tom. 2, Diss. 15 and 16.
Voetius, Disputationes Selectae, tom. 1, Disp. 5, p. 64.
Ittigius, Hist. Eccles., Saec. 1, c. 3, Sec. 1, pp. 76-120.
Ittigius,de Pseudepigraphia Christi, Mariae et Apostolorum (subjoined to Disputatio de Haeresiarchis), c. 8, p. 144.
Carpzovius, Isagoge in Libros Eccles. Lutheran. Symbolicos, Pars. 1, sec. 1.
Walchii Introductio in Lib. Eccl. Luth. Symb., Lib. 1, c. 2.
Kings History of the Apostles’ Creed, with critical observations on the different articles.
Bingham’s Origines Ecclesiasticae, B. 10, c. 3, vol. 3, p. 318.
Goode’s Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, c. 4; Peck’s Rule of Faith, p. 206.
The chief doctrinal expositions of the Creed are those of Pearson, Barrow, Witsius, and Nicole.
[2] Cat. Trid., P. 1, c. 1, sec. 3.
[3] Goode’s Rule of Faith, vol. 1, pp. 109, 110; new edition of 1853, p. 107.
[4] Instit., L. 2., c. 16, sec. 18.
[5] Ittigius Dissertatio de Pseudepigraphia Christi, Virginis Mariae et Apostolorum, p. 146, subjoined to his Dissertatio de Haeresiarchis aevi Apostolici et Apostolico.
Fabricii Codex Apoc. N.T. P, 3, p. 349.
Natalis Alexander, de Symbolo.
[6] The Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon make no mention of the Apostles’ Creed, and virtually repudiate any other than the Nicene. What we commonly call the Nicene Cried is really the Constantinopolitan.
[7] Ittigius, Hist. Saec. 1, pp. 79, 80.
[8] Fabricius, Codex. Apoc. N.T., P. 3, p. 353.
[9] Pfaff. Histor. Theol. Liter., Pars. 3, p. 280.
[10] Nicole sur le Symbole, pp. 6, 7.
[11] Goode’s Rule of Faith. New edition, vol. 1, p. 109.
[12] Goode’s Rule of Faith, vol. 1, p. 55.
[13] Ittigus, Hist. Eccles. Saec. 1, p. 78.
Admin Staff
sidgi