liam Cave (1), no less than Hinemar of Rheims, and lastly Vaschasius Radbertus, unanimously declare the Apostles to be the authors of this Symbol.

It was also a general belief in the Romish church that the Apostles had constructed this Symbol, and that it was composed by them, by member and by article. This view was taken of it originally in the Lutheran church; the Centuriator of Magdeburg adopts the opinion; Selnecker, David Chytraus, Christopher Ireneus, Dan. Cramer, all acknowledge themselves inclined to the same view; and they supposed, even after the impression, of which we shall speak hereafter, began to prevail, that this Symbol did not immediately proceed from the Apostles, that they could still unite, on the authority of its origin, the various divisions of the protestant church. The Armenian, Christopher Sand, in his history of the church, countenances the apostolic origin of this Symbol, and he claims for it a precedence in time to the Nicene Symbol.

The first opposition to this opinion arose in the Romish church itself; Laurence Valla, and after him Erasmus, who in the preface to Matthew, says: "I do not know that it has been composed by the Apostles;" and he manfully maintains his assertion against the censures of the university of Paris. Dupin follows him, but above every writer of the Reformation, Rivetus, Thamier, Boetius, and especially John Gerh. Vossius, and the English writers Bingham, John Pearson, Peter King, and others. Among the theological writers of the Lutheran church, we notice first of all Luther himself, who does not express any definite opinion either for or against the apostolic origin of this Symbol; but in his sermon on the Epistle, at the feast of Trinity (2), remarks: "We have neither made nor conceived this Confession, nor did the ancient Fathers; but as the bee seeks her honey from numerous beautiful, airy flowers, so has this Symbol been collected from the books of the blessed Prophets and Apostles, that is, from the entire holy Scriptures, in a compendious form for children and illiterate Christians. For this reason a person may reasonably term it the Symbol or Faith of the Apostles; for it is evident that no one can compose a better or more excellent one in so brief and clear a style. And the opinion has prevailed in the church, from ancient times, that either the Apostles composed it themselves, or it was collected by their best schools, from their writings or sermons." This peculiar view is elegantly illustrated, in a pious and useful explication in his catechism by John Brentius: "Because the composition of these articles by the twelve apostles, seems to depend more on tradition than unexceptionable authority, we follow that opinion which appears the more probable. For it is called the Apostolic Symbol, because it contains the epitome, the compendium, the substance of all apostolic doctrine, indeed, as Luther says above, of every treatise concerning God the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. Hence this Symbol ought justly to be regarded as a little bible conveying a true knowledge of God. For there is abundance of internal evidence, that the articles, which in this Symbol have reference to Jesus Christ, were collected into this epitome from the first council, which Peter held on the day of Pentecost, the Apostles being present, and giving their approbation." Further arguments are urged against the authorship of the Apostles, as to this Symbol, by Texel, Buddeus, and Gotta. And though, indeed, if we regard the form which it now has, this Symbol may not have been composed by the Apostles themselves, yet that the nature of the materials is apostolic, no protestant can deny. John Andrew Quensted remarks that, "It is called Apostolic Symbol, not because it was framed by the Apostles themselves, (for it should be numbered among other canonical writings,) but because it was composed by apostolic men, who heard the

(1) Historia litterar. scriptorum eccleseast. (2) Church Postil, Ser. 9, page 29.

Apostles themselves, and digested into its present form, not only from their writings, but also from their oral councils." But it was not delivered to the church, in the words which it contains at present, until the fourth century after Christ. The form of this Symbol, both as to the words, as well as the connection and order of the articles, certainly does not agree with the form either in the eastern or western churches, until the fourth century.

The arguments which are employed against the authorship of the Apostles, are the following:

1. The silence of the holy Scriptures. Had the Apostles really been the authors of this Symbol, they would certainly have referred to it in their writings; and assuredly Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, would not have disregarded so important a fact, since events of far less relative importance are there described.

2. The equal silence of the primitive church. The Fathers of the church, Ireneus, Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius, Hilary, Cyril of Jerusalem, would surely have referred to this, even had it been merely as traditionary; for it would have been a powerful weapor. for them in their conflicts with the heretics. It is true Sixtus of Sienna says, that all the orthodox Fathers assert, that this Symbol was composed by the Apostles; but he has forgotten to prove by proper authority his positive assertion.

3. The nature and import of this Symbol, in which many important articles of the Christian doctrine are passed over, and many are embraced in expressions so general, that even persons could, and did receive it, who gave the words a different sense from that which the Apostles wish to imply. Had the Apostles really been the authors of this Symbol, as the rule of doctrine and of faith, they would certainly have produced a more comprehensive and definite system.

4. The number and diversity of Symbols framed by synods and individual teachers of the church, and the confessions of the first centuries, which could not have occurred, had a Symbol existed which was sanctioned by apostolic authority.

5. The different revisions of the Symbol itself, and the additions, which it evidently received from time to time; and this could never have occurred, had it been recognised in the primitive church as having apostolic origin; for in that case, alterations in this Symbol would have no more been attempted than in the text of the holy Scriptures.

6. The superscription of this Symbol, characterizing it as apostolic, is not decisive. Superscriptions frequently do not specify the true author of a work, and in general they have no force, when it is not expressly mentioned from whom they originate. But if we admit that the appellation apostolic, originally and with justice was applied to this Symbol, the same appellation might be understood in reference to the import or doctrine, just as well as the Nicene Symbol is in reality frequently called apostolic on account of its doctrine. Besides, the usages of language prove the interchange of ouu3020v with collatio manifestly false.

7. The traditions of the church likewise determine nothing, for they depend only upon Ruffinus, whose credibility Jerome has rendered very dubious, and upon the unknown author of a work concerning the times, attributed to Augustine. The latter is no evidence, and Ruffinus himself does not know how to introduce his information in any other way than by saying: "Our Fathers have said," &c.

8. Finally, it will never do to assert, as the Roman authors Baronius, and others have asserted, in order to establish the traditions of the church, that the composition of a Symbol by the Apostles was indispensable. Neither had the Apostles the necessity of such a bond of union, because they enjoyed the far more excellent bond of the Holy Ghost, nor was it necessary for the congregations, for these had the oral and written instructions of the Apostles. The necessity of such a rule of faith became far more indispensable after the death of the Apostles, and in conse

quence of the ever increasing extension of the church, especially after the appearance of heresies, which disturbed the unity of the church.

It is worthy of remark, that some have begun in modern times to ascribe the origin of this Symbol to the Apostles. G. E. Lessing seems determined to ascribe the verbal composition of the Symbol or rule of faith not only to the Apostles, but to Christ himself. Delbrick revives this opinion of Lessing, and says: "Whoever feels the interest of our church near his heart, must rejoice to discern, how the alleged expressions of the church Fathers agree, much to the gratification of Lessing, in testifying decisively, that the church indeed of the first century received an infallible rule of faith immediately from Christ, as a fountain of immutable doctrine, requiring no proof; and that the verbal and written communications of the Apostles and their successors, were only the effluences from the riches of this." J. C. Lindberg, in the Symbolical Books of the Danish church, published in Danish and Latin, 1830, endeavors to prove the assertion that the Apostolic Confession of faith should not be ascribed to the Apostles, entirely groundless and radically false. Rudelback also boldly declares himself for the apostolic origin of this Symbol, while he suffers himself to hope a complete settlement of this controversy; and indeed we should express our obligations anew to this excellent man, to whom the church owes so much, if by his means the question in this respect could be brought to a final decision. For if the apostolic character of this Symbol, and its adoption in the church from the earliest times, were indisputably secured by his explanation, no little would be gained in establishing the proof of its apostolic origin.

The origin of this Symbol and the time of its production, Laurence Valla ascribes to the ecumenical council at Nice; but Vossius on the contrary maintains that it was published by the leaders of the Romish church, an opinion with which J. H. Swicer coincides, but he places its first appearance in the second century. More especially, however, Spanheim feels assured, "that it is very probable the Symbol commonly called Apostolic was composed in the Roman church, very essential in this age of controversy as to its primary articles concerning God the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. The elements of the oriental Symbol were the same, used in the primitive eastern church before the council at Nice, and terminating in the article concerning the Holy Spirit." Hornbeck says in relation to this: "There was formerly in the primitive days of the church, a certain apostolic Symbol,— you may consider it to be that which is mentioned in Matthew 28,-but our Symbol of twelve articles, never had the Apostles for its authors, nor had it their authority; it was framed indeed a long time after the age of the Apostles, on various occasions, in opposition to various heresies, and for the support of this or of that article, which the Symbol we now possess has conveyed down to us, by what author it is not known, because it was not composed by one author, or at one time." From the want of a more definite specification, the opinion has attained the greatest prevalency, that this Symbol was not completed by one person only, nor at one time, in that form in which we now employ it for the regulation of the church; that it cannot, with complete certainty, be referred to, either in the oriental or in the western churches, before A. D. 400; and that its completion seems to fall in the sixth or seventh century. Indeed we find our text of this Symbol first published in the Greek Psalter of pope Gregory, according to which Usher makes quotations in his work on the ancient Apostolic Symbol of the Roman church. If any one would contend that the Symbol was first completed in the seventh century, because this manuscript belongs to that period, he would be asserting too much. It is indisputably much older, and it existed in the church in the earliest times, not only in its leading principles, but in the far greater portion of its contents. This proves the origin of this Symbol among the Fathers of the

church. It is true that it does not stand complete in any of the works by the ancient Fathers, a circumstance which is seriously to be regretted, but there is enough to show that its different parts were employed in their several writings. For, we ought never to forget that the Fathers did not wish to give a full relation of this Symbol in any corresponding passages of their works, but only so much as seemed necessary for the object in view. This is rendered sufficiently evident by a passage in Cyprian's epistle to Magnus, to which we have already referred in asserting that the word Symbol was at first used for a Confession in Baptism. In that letter Cyprian makes the following remark:

"This is a distinction which should prevent any one from saying, that to hold the same Novatian law, which the Catholic church holds, to baptize with the same Symbol with which we baptize, to acknowledge the same God the Father, the same Son Christ, the same Holy Spirit, enables him to usurp the same power of baptizing which seems not to differ from us in the ceremony of baptism. Whoever feels inclined to oppose this, let him consider that the first rule of the Symbol is not the same with us as with the Schismatics, nor is the interrogation the same. For when they ask, 'Do you believe the remission of sins and life everlasting by the holy church?'-they speak falsely in this interrogation, because they have no church. Besides they confess with their own lips, that the remission of sins cannot take place unless through the holy church, and, not possessing such church, they prove that the sins are not forgiven." So again in a similar passage to Flavianus, bishop of Constantinople, against the heresy of Eutychis, he demands: "How can any one acquire the necessary erudition in reference to the sacred pages of the New and of the Old Testament, who does not understand the beginning of his own Symbol? The sentiments which drop from the lips of all those about to be baptized, throughout the world, has not yet entered into the heart of this old man Eutychis. Ignorant, therefore, of what he ought to think of the incarnation of the Word of God, nor wishing to labor in diffusing the light of intelligence in the full extent designed by the holy Scriptures, he has regarded, with anxious attention, that Confession, at least as ordinary and imprudent, by which all the faithful profess to believe in God the Almighty, and in Jesus Christ, his only-begotten Son, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit, and of the Virgin Mary; by which three expressions the schemes of almost all the heretics are destroyed."

Very remarkable too appears a passage in the epistle of Ignatius to Trallianus: "Be ye deaf, then, when any one shall preach to you, without the authority of Jesus Christ, who was of the family of David, of the Virgin Mary; who was truly begotten, truly delivered up to Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died; who also was truly raised from the dead,-his Father raising him."

Although we do not find this passage introduced into any work upon our Symbol, yet we believe it demands peculiar attention on account of its tenderness, especially in the words, "was delivered to Pontius Pilate," and then again, "was crucified,” (εδιώχθη and εσαυρώθη.) Who does not feel the vigorous style of the Apostles running through the whole?

In connection with the form of baptism naturally came the confession at baptism, in reference to which, the applicant for baptism was furnished with instruction through the administration of that ceremony. For this contained the fundamental article of Christian faith, on which instructions of every kind are made to depend. Tertullian calls this system, "the Christian sacrament and substance of the New Testament;" other Fathers call it the "Canon of Truth;”"the ancient token of the church;"-"the rule of truth;"-"the tradition of truth;"-" the ministry, the heraldry, the faith of the church;"—" the legal, catholic faith;"-" the sacrament of faith;" "the pure tradition;" and simply, "the faith," ," "the rule," the truth," always referring it to the Apostles.

2. Nature and Design of this Symbol.-An examination of its Nature proves, that the Apostolic Symbol was an expansion of the form of baptism, but not an explanation of the whole Christian system, constructed for the purpose of instruction. It is therefore defective in many important points,-as, in reference to the unbounded grace of God,--the merit of Christ,-the personal union of the natures in Christ, and in consequence the conditional communion of attributes, the influence of the Holy Ghost,—the origin and the nature of sin,—justification by faith,-conversion and regeneration,-the means of grace, and many other subjects. And who, upon these points, can discern a want of Symbols? The Nature of this Symbol determines its Design. It was a confession at baptism, and as such, as is evident from its very character, it could represent not so well the whole system, as the historical facts of the Gospel, which are the groundwork of faith. Hence the object of a Symbol is to ascertain and explain the rule of faith or of truth in the church, which, fixing upon the words of the Symbol the definition of that rule, accommodates and unfolds the whole scheme of Christian confession to catechumen. The text of this Symbol was committed to the applicant a short time before baptism, with the admonition to commit it to memory; for on the one hand, it was to be secured from the profane by the secrecy of this method, and guarded against all profanation, to be dreaded by too general a publicity; and on the other hand, the new Christian was instructed by way of Symbols or signs, that it should be his first duty, to make the Symbol, by one invariable mode, his own, as Augustine remarks: "In order that you may retain the words of the Symbol, you ought by no means to write, but to learn them by hearing, nor to write them down, when you shall have learned them, but always to keep and retain them in your memory. For whatever you are about to hear contained in the Symbol, is contained in the divine writings of the holy Scriptures. But that which has been thus collected and reduced into a certain form, should not be written, and it serves to remind us of the promise of God, when predicting the New Testament through the Prophet, he said, Jer. 31, 33: This is my covenant,' &c. For the purpose of suggesting this passage, the Symbol is learned by hearing, nor is it written upon tables or upon any substance, but upon the heart." And Jerome says to the same effect: "The Symbol of our faith and our hope, which was written by the Apostles, not upon paper and with ink, but in the fleshly tables of the heart, hence the Greek Fathers frequently call it το μάθημα.

The delivery of this Symbol to young persons before baptism, corresponded with the return which they were required to make of it. When they had committed it to memory, they were required to rehearse it in the first place to their catechets, and afterwards to acknowledge it publicly before the whole congregation, and especially at baptism, to answer verbally from the Symbol the questions put to them upon the particular articles, of which the quotation from Cyprian given above, and many others from the Fathers are abundant evidence, and likewise according to what Tertullian says in his treatise concerning the origin of Baptismal rites: "After this, let us be immersed three times, making a greater number of answers than the Lord has pointed out in the Gospel.”

And thus the knowledge of the Symbol and of the Lord's Prayer was the least of that which the church required of those who wished to become her members; while they, in consequence of the regulation, that those who were destitute of this knowledge should not be allowed the privilege of becoming sponsors, (for it was the duty of the sponsor to direct his god-son or god-daughter in the knowledge of the Creed,) or to enjoy the privilege of communion, but to be subjected to the rigor of canonical laws, these, I say, were bound to secure the preservation of this Symbol. Members at their confirmation also, were required to rehearse the baptismal confession, so that this rehearsal by those who had received the rite of baptism

D