The symbol of the apostles; a vindication of the apostolic authorship of the creed on the lines of Catholic tradition.

Front matter

Br S95 Me Leos

MacDonald, Alexander, 1858- Lyall.

The symbol of the apostles nt

Preface

Tue nucleus of the present work is a series of articles which ran in The Ecclesiastical Review from January to July of the current year. They are reproduced from that Magazine by kind permission of the Editor, and, with sundry changes and additions, form the contents of chapters one to six inclusive. The rest is new matter, including the Introduction on the Discipline of the Secret, which is the foundation whereon the whole work rests. For convenience of reference, the several chapters are divided into sections, having each its proper heading.

While these pages were being written, one or two notable articles on the Name of the Church appeared in The Ecclesiastical Review and Dolphin, over the pen-name “ PRopa- GANDIST.” By special request the writer of those articles has contributed the closing chapter on the origin of the Catholic Name.

Contents

INTRODUCTION. . Meaning of ‘‘ Symbol.” VIII. The Precept of the Master. . Confusion of Ideas. IX. A Second Century Witness. Rufinus and Swainson. X. A Cloud of Witnesses.

. A Boomerang. XI. Further Testimony.

. The Discipline of the Secret. XII. In the Heart of the New . Sacraments, Sacrifice, and Testament.

CHAPTER I. Apostolic Authorship of the Symbol

. The Tradition. V. The Symbol and the Discipline . Witnesses to the Tradition. of the Secret.

Testimony of Rufinus. VI. Testimony of Eastern Fathers. . The Tradition andthe Legend. VII. Conclusion.

CHAPTER II. The Quest of the Symbol

. True Starting-point. V. The Creed in Tertullian. . The Symbol One. VI, The Creed in Irenzus.

Method of Historical Criti- VII. Conclusion. cism.

. The Creed in the Third Century.

CHAPTER III. Harnack on the Creed

. Harnack’s Mental Equip- II. Specimens of His Critical ment. Work.

CONTENTS.

Ill. Original Text of the Old Roman Creed.

VI. Irenzus Misconstrued.

VII. Tertullian not Duly Weighed.

IV. Measuring Creeds with a Tape VIII. ‘‘ Contesserarit.”

Line.

V. Harnack’s Theory on the

Origin of the Creed.

IX. Conjectures.

Chapter IV

St. Augustine and the Authorship of the Symbol.

I. St. Augustine and the Ancient Tradition.

II. The Homily de Symbolo ad Catechumenos.

IlJ. Further Proofs of its Spuriousness.

IV. A Paradox and its Elucidation. V. The Fallacy of Silence.

VI. An Important Testimony.

VII. The Gospel in a Nutshell.

CHAPTER V. The Symbol in the East

I. The Nicene Creed No New VIII.

Creed.

II. Counterpart of the Old Roman Symbol. . Testimony of St. Basil. . Creed of Jerusalem.

V. A Sister’s Daughter. . Creed of Marcellus. . Testimony of St. Hilary.

The Unwritten Creed.

IX. Origen’s ‘‘ Plain Rule.”’

X. Symbol of Alexandria.

XI. Justin and Ignatius.

XII. A Sideglance.

XIII. ‘‘Handed Down from Apostles.”

A Belated Witness.

the

XIV.

CHAPTER VI. The Symbol in the Second Century

I. AFlimsy Theory.

II. Demolished by Tertullian.

sion.

V. The Oath of Allegiance. . The Christian Password. . The Fundamental Law.

. ‘The Skipper from Pontus,”’ . The Pre-Marcionite Confes-

VIII. Evidence Subjective and Objective.

IX. The Rule of Faith.

X. Meaning of *‘ Regula.”’

XI. A Guess.

XII. Converted into a Certainty. XII{. An Instructive Parallel.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER VII. The Symbol in the Sub-Apostolic Age

I. A Passage in Pliny. IV. The Oath of the Catechumen. II. Guarding the Deposit. V. The Old Roman Creed. Ill. “‘ Abnegare.”’

CHAPTER VIII. The Symbol in the New Testament

I. State of the Question. VI. Scriptural Allusions.

It. An Objection Met. VII. The Pattern of Sound Words. Ill. The Stream of Tradition. VII. Summing up the Case. IV. The Broad Fact of Catholi- IX. A Simple Parable.

cism. X. Harnack’s Guesswork.

V. The Symbol and the Script-

ure.

CHAPTER IX. Drawn Up by the Twelve

I. The Abbé Fouard’s Theory. IV. Rufinus Speaks for Himself.

II. The Unaltered Symbol. V. An Additional Proof.

Ill. A Two-edged Objection. VI. Primary Purpose of the Symbol. CHAPTER X.

The Kerygma and the Symbol.

I. The Rule of Faith. VI. A Case of Felo de Se.

II. Not a Definite Formulary. VII. The Rule and Symbol One.

Ill. A Plentiful Lack of Clear- VIII. Corroborative Proof. ness. IX. A Spurious Criticism,

IV. St. Cyprian’s Rule.

V. Light and Darkness.

2 CHAPTER XI.

Meeting Objections.

I. Dr. Schaff Holds a Brief. III. Two More Worthless Pleas. Il. The Fallacy of Silence Again.

CHAPTER XII.

The Articles of the Creed.

I. The Object of Our Faith. VII. The Drama of Redemption. If. An “ Article’ of Faith. VIII. The Fourth Article, it

CONTENTS.

Ill. The Unseen Element. IX. Creator, Redeemer, Sancti- IV. Four Other Articles. fier.

V. Holy Church. X. The Seventh Article. VI. Two Citations in Point. XI. The Twelfth and Last.

XII. A Legend and its Source.

CHAPTER XIII.

The Additions to the Creed.

I. The Apostles’ Creed andthe VII. A Question of Vital Mo-

Old Roman Symbol. ment.

II. Self-explaining Additions. VIII. The Church One and Visible. III. The Communion of Saints. IX. A Specious Objection. IV. The Word ‘ Catholic.” X. A Divine Organism. V. The Name Catholic. XI. The Roman Symbol Unre- VI. From an Historical Point of vised. View. XII. The Word “ Father.”

XIII. The Forgetful Critic.

CHAPTER XIV.

The Name Catholic.

I. A Rejected Hypothesis. VI. Jew and Gentile. II. Another Hypothesis. VII. A Crisis in the Church. III. Catholic and Christian. VIII. The Church Catholic. IV. A Many-Nationed Church. Ix. True Comprehensiveness.

V. Patriotism and Religion.

I

From immemorial time the : Meanine or Apostles’ Creed has gone by the : ~S¥™80L.” name of the Symbol, or theSym- =” bol of the Apostles. This word is from the Greek svyforor, “token,” in military language, “ watchword,” in commercial parlance, “ bargain” or “agreement.” It is made up of Bédko and 75”, whence svfédo, “ T throw or put together.” The root-meaning of the word is, therefore, a putting together, a putting this and that together, and the thing so put together. Rufinus (A.D. 390 or 400) held that the Apostles themselves gave the Creed this name of Symbol. He tells us that there were “good reasons and sound”’ why they should so name it. “ For, in Greek, the word symbol may mean both a sign and a collation—a collation being what many bring together into a

INTRODUCTION.

common fund. This the Apostles did in their conference; they brought together into a common fund what each thought. And it [the Creed] is called an index or watchword, because at that time, as the Apostle Paul tells us, 1 Cor. c. 11, and [as we are told] in the Acts of the Apostles, c. 15, there were many Jews who pretended that they were apostles of Christ, and went about for the sake of gain, or of making a living, naming indeed the name of Christ, but not preaching Him after the full lines of the tradition. Therefore the Apostles fixed upon this index, whereby might be recognized the man who preached Christ in truth according to the Apostolic rule.”—Comm. in

Symb. Apost. n. 2.

iEE

Conrusion or: “* As early as the time when the ie, SeaEAE: commentary ascribed to Rufinus

was composed,” writes Swainson ' “doubts had arisen amongst Latin writers as to the origin of this designation: confusion ae

1 The Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds, p. 172. 14

INTRODUCTION.

had arisen between 747010, a mark or sign, and supfory, a collation or joint contribution: or rather, attempts were made to ascribe to siuporo the signification of cvfor7.” This is far from a true account of the matter. Rufinus was too good a Greek scholar to confound cbpBoroy with cvpfori. What he did was to distinguish between the received meaning of cbpBo.ov and its etymological meaning, which the author (St. Ambrose?) of the Hxuplanatio calls “‘rationem nominis,”’ and to put forward the very plausible suggestion that, whether you consider the one meaning or the other, the word is a fitting designation of the Creed. Harnack is equally wide of the truth when he writes: “The contention that this later creed or symbol [the Textus Receptus| traced its origin to a 78044 or collatio involves a confusion between 0%, which also bears the meaning of summa or brevis complexio, and cbpBoror, that is signum, indicium, in the sense not only of a distinction between Christians and heretics, but also in the sense of tessera militum, a token or deed of agreement” ?

1 The Apostles’ Creed, p. 10. 15

INTRODUCTION.

This is, in the words of our homely English proverb, to put the cart before the horse. The contention, or rather the tradition, of the men of old was that the Apostles composed the Creed by putting their heads together, as we say in English, to determine what portions of their common Faith it should embody. This being the tradition, those same men of old saw in it one reason why the Creed was called the Symbol, not confounding 700% with svp0474, but going back to the common root of both words. Har- - nack would have us believe that they found an indication of the joint composition of the Creed by the Apostles in the name “ symbol,” whereas, on the contrary, they conceived that they found warrant for the name in the fact of the joint composition. The contention of the old commentators, from Rufinus down, is not that the Creed was the joint work of the Twelve because it is called the Symbol, but that it is called the Symbol because it was the joint work of the Twelve. It is Harnack, not they, that has got things mixed up.

INTRODUCTION.

SEER EO LAE,

ITI.

Rufinus has it that the Symbol : Rurinus anp served as a tessera and watchword : SWA!S0N. from the time of the Apostle, = first to enable the faithful to distinguish true from false teachers of the Gospel, and again to enable them to recognize one another. “In fine, as happens in civil war,” he writes, “ where men wear the same dress, and speak the same language, and fight after the same fashion, each leader gives his soldiers a distinct watchword, in Latin called signum or indicium, so that there may be no room for deceit or treachery. And if anyone is suspected, on being asked to give the watchword, he will show whether he is an enemy or a friend.” Swainson (/oc. cit.) deems it needless to dwell on “the futility of this explanation. Rufinus forgot,” he says, “that followers of the Apostolic tradition might become schismatics or even heretical as to points not distinctly enunciated in this document (sic), and then carry away their watchword into the enemies’ camp. We must look out,” he goes on to say, “ for another

4 ir

INTRODUCTION.

explanation : and we have it in the cireumstances of the third century, when the precept of the Saviour, that the Gospel should be preached to every creature, became checked by the prevalent persecutions ; and the example set by St. Paul, when he stood before Agrippa, was, from the same causes, deprived of its force. Driven unwillingly to secrecy, the Christians, with a not unnatural aptitude, began to represent to themselves and others that this secrecy had its advantages; that in point of fact it was in itself desirable.”

There are many things here set down that will not bear close scrutiny. First of all, the reason relied on by Swainson to prove the futility of the explanation given by Rufinus is itself futile. Rufinus did not forget: it is Swainson rather who forgot, though he had the words of Rufinus before his eyes while he wrote. The latter distinguished two uses of the Symbol as a watchword, one of which was to serve as a badge of the true apostle of Christ in the preaching of the Gospel, the other to serve as a badge of the true Christian and mark him off from the unbeliever. ‘“ And 18

INTRODUCTION.

thus they [‘majores,’ ‘forefathers in the faith,’] handed it down,” are the concluding words of the passage in Rufinus as reproduced by Swainson himself (loc. cit.), “that their watchword should not be written on paper or parchment but retained in the hearts of the believers, so that there could be no doubt that, if anyone knew it, he must have received it from the Apostles by tradition, and not by reading it in a book; for a book perchance micht fall into the hands of unbelievers.” Certainly as against the “ Jews who pretended to be apostles of Christ, and named His name but did not preach Him after the full lines of the tradition,” the Symbol must have proved a serviceable device; for it followed faithfully the lines of the tradition, and could not therefore be adopted by men who did not keep to these lines. Those “ false brethren ”’ would not give the watchword even if they could. As for the pagans, on the other hand, they could not if they would. But what if “followers of the Apostolic tradition should become schismatics or even heretics, and carry away the watchword into the enemies’ camp?” ‘To this there is a 19

INTRODUCTION.

threefold rejoinder. (1) Traitors may befound in every camp, but not the less do leaders still give their men the Watchword. (2) The greatest possible precaution was taken in the early Church to guard the Symbol : it was only after a long period of probation, years even, that it was delivered to the catechumen, who was required, on the day of his baptism, to take a solemn oath that he would not betrayit. The instances, then, would be exceedingly rare in which a Christian would do the base thing that Swainson suggests—carry away the watchword into the enemies’ camp. (3) It was not from the schismatic nor the heretic that Christians had to apprehend the betrayal of their Symbol, but from the apostate to paganism. Schismatics and heretics were in the same case with orthodox believers when there was question of persecution on the part of the pagans. If they fell into the clutches of the persecutor, they, too, would have been called on to renounce Christ, and, failing this, would have been put to death. Asa matter of fact we find Tertullian upbraiding the heretics of his day with their want of care in hiding the mysteries from 20

INTRODUCTION.

the uninitiated. “In the first place,” he says, “it is doubtful who is a catechumen, who a believer among the heretics. They have all access alike, they hear alike, they pray alike; even if heathens come in upon them, they will cast that which is holy unto dogs, and pearls, false though they be, before swine.” ?

Live

Swainson’s objection recoils : A Boomerupon himself. If “Rufinus fore ; 4N% | got that followers of the Apostolic tradition might become ”’ apostates in the first century, “ and then carry away their watchword into the enemies’ camp,” Swainson forgot that the same thing might happen in the third century with the same result. It could have happened but very, very seldom, it is true ; for, besides the reason given above, it would have proved difficult for a pagan, even should he succeed in getting the Symbol, to give it out article by article, and word by word, so as not at least to arouse suspicion, not being

1 De Praesc, 41. a1

INTRODUCTION.

to the manner trained. But there can be no doubt that it did happen once in a while, and that traitor lips betrayed believers with the Symbol, even as Judas betrayed the Master with a kiss.

And as there were traitors in the first century as well as in the third, so were there persecutors, so was there persecution. Swainson tells us it was not till the third century the prevalent persecutions drove the Christians to secrecy, and that it was then the Disciplina Arcani arose. But surely this is to fly in the face of history. The history of the Church for the first three hundred years of her existence is little else than a record of the persecutions, fierce and frequent, which the Christians bore with such heroic constancy. First the Jews persecuted in Palestine, and when they themselves were crushed and all but extirpated by the conquering Romans, paganism persecuted to the full extent of its power, for well-nigh three centuries, until no amphitheatre was there in Rome’s world-wide empire but had rung with the ery of Christianos ad leones, no arena but had run red

INTRODUCTION.

with the blood of martyrs. If persecution gave rise to the Discipline of the Secret, then as surely as persecution raged when Stephen won his crown in Jerusalem, and Peter in Rome had a like passion with his Master, so surely did there exist the Discipline of the Secret from the very infancy of the Church.

V.

What then was this Discipline : Tue Discrof the Secret, and when was it ene ea = first set in operation, and why? (77 The name Disciplina Arcani is relatively recent ; the system described by the name is as old as the Catholic Church. They read the New Testament to little purpose who fail to find in it clear traces of a fixed resolve from the very first, on the part of the Founder of Christianity, to withhold the mysteries of His religion from the profane, and commit them only to members of the household of the faith. He distinctly forbids His disciples to cast their pearls before swine (Matt. 7: 6), and as distinctly declares that unto them “it is given to

INTRODUCTION.

know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God” (Ib. 13: 11), while “ unto those that are without all things are done in parables” (Mark 4: 11). St. Paul lays special emphasis everywhere on this principle of secrecy. He sees in the ministers of Christ “the dispensers of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4: 1). He would have “the wisdom of God, a wisdom which is hidden,” spoken “in a mystery,” and only “among the perfect ” (Ih. 2: 6, 7)—the competentes of a later day. He asks the Ephesians to pray for him that he may “ with confidence make known the mystery of the Gospel” (Eph. 6: 19), but elsewhere explains that it is “to the saints” of God the mystery in question is to be unfolded (Col. 1: 26). Finally, he requires of deacons that they should hold “the mystery of faith in a pure conscience.” (1 Tim. 3: 9).

Va:

SACRAMENTS, : As for the things which came SACRIFICE, : Herat 1 f

anp Sympor.: Under the rule of secrecy, we i? ceca ' learn that they were chiefly the words which make up what is now known as a4

INTRODUCTION.

the “form” of the several Sacraments, the Kucharistic service, and the Symbol, not only as enshrining the principal mysteries of religion but especially as being the Watchword given to the soldier of Christ in his warfare with the pagan world. On this head Professor Zahn extracts valuable testimony from the Didaché or “Teaching of the ‘Twelve Apostles,” a work composed some time between 80 and 130 A. D. “This book,” are his words, “with deliberate intention, gives only fragmentary directions with reference to baptism, as with reference to the Lord’s Supper. For example, the service of Holy Communion itself is not described at all. Only forms of prayer are given which are to be used before and during the celebration. Already at the time of St. Paul’s first missionary journey, that the candidate for baptism was accustomed to offer a confession of faith when he received baptism, was borne witness to by St. Paul himself— superfluously, for it is self-evident. He reminds Timothy of the beautiful confession he once made hefore the assembled community when he followed the call to eternal life” 25

INTRODUCTION.

(Cf. 1 Tim. 6: 12, 13). In his famous letter to Trajan, Pliny the Younger bears witness that the Christians in Asia Minor were in the habit of holding secret meetings before daylight, and that they bound themselves by oath not to give up a “ deposit,” which is identified, in a later chapter of the present work, with the Confession of Faith. It appears also from this letter of Pliny’s that the Christians were regarded asmembers of an extensive secret society, whereof the brotherhoods (hetaeriae) were proscribed by an imperial edict.

In the Acts of the martyrdom of Pope Alexander First, we find decisive evidence of the existence of the discipline of secrecy in sub-apostolic times. Alexander suffered for the Faith in the last year of Trajan’s reign. The precise date is May 3, A. D. 117. The Acts of his martyrdom, which the Bollandists speak of as “sincerissima,” plainly genuine and free from interpolation, were drawn up before the

1 The Articles of the Apostles’ Creed (translated by C. 8S. and A. E. Burn), pp. 79, 80. 2 See Chap. VII. 8 O. Plin. et Traj. Epist. 96 (97). 26

INTRODUCTION.

persecution under Decius (A. D. 249-251). “Count Aurelianus,” we read, “ordered Pope Alexander to be brought before him, and said to him: ‘I require you first to reveal to me all the mysteries of your sect, that I may know why you choose to be put to death for one Christ, | know not whom, rather than yield.’ Saint Alexander replied: ‘What you ask for is holy, and we are not permitted by Christ to give that which is holy unto dogs.’”” Here we have an authoritative declaration by the head of the Church, the successor of Peter, that what are known as the mysteries were to be jealously guarded. Rather than reveal them he himself gave up his life. He became a martyr, though by no means the first, to the Discipline of the Secret. And it is especially worthy of note that he, not less than the Fathers of the third and fourth centuries, as we shall presently see, finds the reason and sanction of this Discipline in the precept of the Master.

Tertullian testifies to the stringency of this law of secrecy in the early Church. He takes it for granted that a Christian woman who a7

INTRODUCTION.

should marry a pagan would be strictly bound to hide the mysteries from her husband, and uses this as an argument against mixed marriages. “ Will not your husband know,” he asks one whom he supposes to have wedded a pagan, “ what you taste in secret, before every other food? And if he knows of the bread, will he not believe it to be what it is said to to be?” * 2. e., bread dipped in the blood of an infant, as the common pagan calumny of the day represented the Eucharist to be.

VI.

Reasons For: ‘There were various reasons for _ Secrecy. = this law of secrecy. The Chris-

tians were subject to persecution from the first, as our Lord expressly foretold they should be. Common prudence would therefore dictate that they should not parade their religion in the open view of those who were on the alert to seize and drag them before persecuting tribunals. Again, the mysteries of faith were precisely those pearls that

INTRODUCTION.

the Master bade them not cast before swine. The Fathers give yet another reason. St. Basil draws attention to the fact that overmuch familiarity with sacred things is apt to breed contempt. He points to the mystery which surrounded the Holy of Holies in the Old Law as enhancing the reverence and awe with which the Israelites regarded it. ‘This is the reason,” he says, “‘ why certain teachings (which he has just spoken of as having been received in a secret manner from the tradition of the Apostles), have been handed on without writing.’ * The same principle is strongly insisted on by St. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Kusebius. The first-named cites Plato as counselling his disciples not to commit the deep things of God to writing, and on the words of St. Paul (1 Cor. 2: 6, 7; 3:1, 2, 3,) observes: “By milk is meant the catechism, the first nutriment of the soul, as it were.’ ? _ The allusion is plain to the ancient discipline which kept the Symbol from the catechumens,

INTRODUCTION.

while yet they were “babes in Christ,” and gave it only when, after careful drilling and a lengthened probation, they were “able to bear” the “meat” or stronger food reserved for the soul in the mysteries of the Faith. Eusebius likewise cites the words of Plato, and adds: “To the same purpose also is that salutary precept which we have, ‘ Give not that which is holy to dogs’ (Matt. 7:6), andagain, ‘The animal man perceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God’” (1 Cor. 2:14)" “ But after those whom we admonish have advanced in virtue,” are the words of Origen, “... then at length they are initiated in the mysteries. For, we speak wisdom among the perfect” (1 Cor. 2:6.)? He, too, cites Plato, and adds: ‘“‘But I make bold to affirm, .. . that the disciples of Christ, after they were imbued with the grace of God, knew far better than Plato what things were to be written and how, and what was to be made known to the people without writing; what things were to be

1 Prepar. Evang. 1,12; c. 7 (Migne, P. G., tom. 21). 2 Contra Celsum, 1, 3; c. 59 (Migne, P. G., tom. 11). 30

“INTRODUCTION.

spoken, and what to be kept secret.”! And, once more, in his homily on Lev. 5, n. 3 (Migne, tom. 12), he observes: “I know that there are other things that the children of Israel, that is, laics, can come in unto; not, however, strangers, unless they are already admitted to the Church of God; ‘For the Egyptian in the third generation shall enter into the assembly of the Lord’ (Deut. 23:8). I take it that the third generation is said in a mystic sense, because of the faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in whom every one who is joined to the Church of God believes.” Here is a distinction drawn between those that are without and those that are within, and again, in the number of the latter, between laymen and clerics. Those that are without have no part in the “mysteries ;”” of those that are within, laics have access to some, not to all. What they have access to are the mysteries of the faith embodied in the Symbol, “the faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in whom all who are members of the Church believe.” Origen ehbe de Os: 6.6, 31

INTRODUCTION.

Ce NEALE ET seems to discern in the Egyptian children of the third generation who were admitted into the synagogue, a mystic and subtle allusion to the three classes of catechumens, inciprentes, proficientes, competentes, of whom only the third were initiated into the mysteries and received in the Symbol of the Faith, the Watchword of the Army of Christ.

VIII.

Tue Precept: ‘Tertullian, in the passage from OF THE i . . ° . .

Master, . Which the citation is given above, saeneens “-" traces the law of secrecy to the precept of the Master (Matt. 7: 6), which he quotes as follows: “Cast not, He says, your pearls before swine, lest haply they trample them under their feet, and turn and rend you.” Christians in the first, second, and third centuries, who had before their eyes the spectacle of a rampant paganism, savage and ferocious to the last degree, wallowing, also, in the mire of every abomination, were keenly alive to the wisdom of this divine precept, and in no wise slow to act upon it. On every side were these

INTRODUCTION.

swine: did not the words of the Master find here their most pointed application ? Clement and Origen and Basil, too, as the reader will have observed, discern in the words of our Lord and in the Scriptures both of the Old Testament and the New the origin and sanction of the discipline of secrecy, which they all of them regard, not as a thing of recent growth, but as a something that existed in full vigor from the very beginning. It is important to note this, and to lay due stress upon it. The root-reason for the Discipline of the Secret, the reason which our Lord Himself assigns, existed in all its force and peremptoriness, in the first century as in the fourth; nay, with tenfold greater force and peremptoriness in the first century than in the fourth ; therefore the Discipline of the Secret existed in the first century, and was enforced with tenfold greater rigor, as the need was greater. To have decked Christianity in its pearls while yet it lay in its cradle, in open view of the pagan swine that ran about on all sides, rampant and furious—this surely had been a fatuous and suicidal policy.

INTRODUCTION.

If some of the earlier writers, such as Ireneus, Theophilus of Antioch, Justin, Ignatius, and Minucius Felix, make no mention of the law of secrecy, or only hint at it, this may be either because we have not to-day all their writings, in some cases, but mere fragments, or rather, perhaps, because they are silent of set purpose. How could they more effectually hide the mysteries than to act as if they knew not of the concealment? ‘ Minucius Felix and Arnobius,” writes Newman, “ in controversy with Pagans, imply a denial that then the Christians used altars; yet Tertullian speaks expressly of the Ara Dei in the Church. What can we say, but that the Apologists deny altars in the sense in which they | Pagans | ridicule them; or that they deny that altars such as the Pagan altars were tolerated by Christians? ... It would be wrong indeed to deny, but it was a duty to withhold, the ceremonial of Christianity ; and Apologists might be sometimes tempted to deny absolutely what at furthest could only be denied under Some of these writers, however, dy conditions.