The Apostles' Creed to-day

Front matter

Class

Book

Copyright^?

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

I Creeds and Liberty 1 . 3

II The Origin and Character of the

II

Such considerations should cast light on the character of religious freedom and on its relation to creeds. Religious freedom conio THE APOSTLES' CREED TO-DAY sists in a man's ability to express himself truly in his relation to God and to his fellows. Alike to God and to his fellows. For religion is never a matter of relation to God alone. It is also a matter of human fellowship brought about by that relation, real or supposed, to God. From its beginnings religion has been a social rather than a purely individual matter. Religion began not with the individual, but with the tribe or clan or family. And as religion developed it has always been a means through which men were knit together by a common belief in their common relation to God. Even in its most individualistic forms religion has always offered a basis for some fellowship, even although that fellowship may have been conceived in most narrow terms, the admission into a small coterie of those who are initiated into a common access to the divine. The relation to God, or to a god, has always been regarded as opening up something of a common relation among men.

All this is supremely true of Christianity. Nothing is more distinctively true of the Christian gospel than that it reveals a relation with God which is at the same time a fellowship among men. Jesus exalts the individual life, in that He reveals the divine sonship of man and his relation to his heavenly Father. But the first word of His preaching is the Kingdom of God, and that is a social concept, that of human life under the rule of God. The divine sonship that Jesus revealed can never be separated from, must indeed be expressed in, the life of neighbourhood. The two great commandments, " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God," and " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," cannot be separated. They are but different sides of the gospel of the divine Fatherhood.

This union of the individual and the social runs through the whole New Testament from cover to cover. The Apostle Paul opens up the richness of the individual life, created through its surrender to God. The doctrine of justification by faith puts man in direct relation to God through Christ, exalts the individual, and establishes the supremacy of the individual conscience. But, it has been well said, to St. Paul the primal mystery of the gospel was the mystery of human unity, the overcoming of all outward marks that separate man from man, the discovery of the stupendous fact that there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all. St. John is sometimes called the mystic of the New Testament. And the mystic is often supposed to be one who in immediate contact with the life of God is separated from the world and from the life of men. Yet St. John says in the plainest words, " If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar." The love of God is not a reality unless it expresses itself in the life of men. To the whole New Testament the fellowship with God is also a fellowship with the children of God.

Later Christianity has had many faults and aberrations, but it has never utterly lost that ideal. It lies at the very heart of the belief in the Church. For the Church, rightly taken, stands for the ideal of a fellowship among men that is rooted and grounded on fellowship with God. In the deepest sense all Christian life is life in the

Church, that is in fellowship. Take the word Church in no narrow or sectarian interpretation, and the old saying, so often misused, becomes true in the deepest sense, " There is no salvation outside of the Church." For the heart of that saying is that there can be no fellowship with God unless it is realised through fellowship with men, that the love of God means love of the brethren.

This brings us back to the statement that religious freedom consists in a man's ability to express himself truly in his relation to God and to his fellows. What bearing on such liberty has a creed?

ill

It is necessary to distinguish carefully between a creed as such and an underlying theology or philosophy. Every religion has something corresponding to a theology, but not every religion has a creed in a distinctive sense. A creed properly taken embraces such elements of religious belief as are regarded as vital to the religious fellowship. In this sense it can hardly be said that the i 4 THE APOSTLES' CREED TO-DAY ancient religions of Greece or Rome had a creed. They had a theology, a general complex of religious and philosophical ideas, which were held more or less in common. But this complex of ideas was not regarded as a badge of fellowship. The mark of fellowship lay rather in the ritual, and he who performed the ritual was admitted to free religious fellowship without any question as to his belief. That belief was practically a matter of free discussion by the philosophers. Probably the same thing can be said in general of the religions of India. There was underlying them an immense mass of theology or philosophy. But questions as to such theology were apparently free, and it is probable that no mere difference of opinion could have produced religious alienation. There may be a partial exception in Buddhism, whose conception of the Way or the Path may be considered as a sort of creed or common basis of thought leading to fellowship.

But one thing is clear. There are certain religions in which a positive definite creed emerges, and in which acceptance of that creed is regarded as vital to the fellowship of that religion. The religion of Israel had such a creed. It finds definite expression as follows: " Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thine heart : and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the door posts of thy house, and upon thy gates." 1 The acceptance of the Lord as God becomes a creed, a badge of fellowship.

Mohammedanism has its creed. " There is no God except Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet." Under that creed the body of the faithful form a fellowship. Something of the same kind can be said of the ancient Persian religion of Zarathustra or Zoroaster.

Allegiance to the God of light against the power of darkness became a badge of fellowship. In all these cases we have not merely an underlying theology, but we have certain fundamental ideas expressing allegiance to a common God. And that allegiance and the beliefs that went with it become a pledge of a common fellowship.

All these religions are distinctly fighting religions. Each one is concerned with its own truth as vital. Each is in a sense an intolerant religion, that is it regards its own truth as a thing to be fought for. There is a great difference between such religions and the easy going tolerance of Greece and Rome, a tolerance that rested not upon a conviction of the rights of conscience, the only true basis for toleration, but upon an indifference to truth, or at least upon the suspicion that all ideas are in some way equally true. But these fighting religions have had aggressive power, they have had a distinctly missionary element. For, realising that religion implies truth, they could not be indifferent to truth and to its propagation.

Now the Christian religion had a creed from very early times. Not, of course, a formal creed. That came later. But in the New Testament it is perfectly clear that the early Christians were knit together in a common allegiance to their Lord, and that that allegiance was expressed in an elementary creedal form. The heart of this was the confession of Jesus as Lord and Christ. Perhaps its earliest form was that Jesus was the Christ, or more strictly that the Christ was Jesus. There is given no single form of words, but the importance of such a fundamental confession of faith in Christ is clearly seen. The following passages will serve as examples: " Every one therefore who shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father which is in heaven." 1 " If thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved: for with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation/' 2 " That every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." 1 " Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him and he in God." 2 And the following passage is very probably a quotation from an early hymn or confession of faith: " He who was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received up in glory." 8 These passages sufficiently indicate the fundamental confession of Christ which lay at the basis of the Christian fellowship.

A creed then is primarily an expression of religious allegiance and a badge of religious fellowship. It is not first a mere theology, a mere collection of dogmas or beliefs. It is primarily an expression of faith or belief, belief taken in a personal rather than in an intellectual sense, belief conceived of as trust or allegiance. It carries with it, of course, intellectual contents. But those intellectual contents are but the expression of a fundamental act of trust.

1 Phil. »: ii.

2 I John 4:15. Cf. I John 4:2-3, and II John, verse 7.

IV

Now is such a creed enslaving? Yes, if the path through the woods is enslaving to the man who is lost. Yes, if the map and compass are enslaving to the ship at sea. Yes, if the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are shackles on liberty. But if path and compass and map and constitution are means to secure liberty, and to escape from slavery, then may not a creed expressing a common allegiance serve the same purpose? If religious fellowship rests upon such common allegiance and upon the truth that that allegiance implies, then a creed expressing that allegiance and that truth is not a badge of slavery but of freedom.

It is an easy supposition that the abolition of all creeds would make for religious, for Christian, freedom. The question as to how the abolition of the Apostles' Creed would affect freedom can be discussed only after we have considered the character of that creed. Here the question concerns creeds in general. And there is no more reason to suppose that the abolition of all creeds would make for liberty in the Church any more than the abolition of constitutions and laws would make for liberty in the State. If men were only isolated individuals they would need no constitutions, no laws, and no creeds. But if men find their true life not in isolation but in fellowship, and if that fellowship rests on the discovery of true relations between men, then laws and constitutions are but the road to freedom. And if religious freedom goes hand in hand with religious fellowship, then the creed that maintains that fellowship is but an expression of the truth that makes men free.

Of course a creed may be misused. It may be interpreted in a narrow and coercive way. So may laws and constitutions be misused. Or a creed may be a false creed, expressing untrue relations and narrowing fellowship. So may constitutions and laws be falsely formed and thus may produce slavery. There is the danger of tyranny, whether in State or Church. And always men are to be found who hold that tyranny can be destroyed only by anarchy, that liberty can be maintained only by the abolition of law. But that way madness lies. The cure for misuse of law is right use of law. The cure for bad law is good law. When laws rightly express the life of a people and are administered to protect that life, then they are the guarantees of freedom. So must it be with Christian liberty. If a creed is a false creed or is falsely used, then it will produce slavery. But the cure for that slavery will be a true creed and a true conception of its use. The question then comes as to whether or not the Apostles' Creed is such a true expression of the Christian allegiance and the Christian fellowship, and if so how it is to be interpreted and used. That brings us to the subject of the next chapter, the origin and character of the Apostles' Creed.

THE ORIGIN AND CHARACTER OF THE APOSTLES' CREED

II

THE ORIGIN AND CHARACTER OF THE APOSTLES' CREED

HREE things are immediately to be said about the Apostles' Creed. In the first place, it was not written by the Apostles. Later tradition ascribed it to them, even going so far as to assign its separate clauses to individual members of the Twelve. We know now that, although it may claim a right to its title on the ground that it correctly expresses apostolic thought, yet it dates from a time much later than that of the Apostles.

In the second place, the Apostles' Creed was not composed all at once. It was the result of a growth, taking centuries to reach its present form.

In the third place, the Apostles' Creed is not a universal creed. There were many creeds in use in the early Church, and the particular development which resulted in the

Apostles' Creed took place in the West. While common to the Church of Rome and nearly all Protestantism, yet it is not used in the Eastern Churches, and is not strictly an ecumenical creed.

These considerations suggest that the creed is not to be regarded as a fixed and final formula for Christian faith. The creed is the product of the life of the Church. And it is therefore to be interpreted as a living product. Its character and meaning can therefore be understood only by its history. What were the causes that produced this creed? How is it related to the New Testament? How is it related to the life and experience of the Church? How does its history affect its interpretation and cast light on its value and use to-day?

I

The Apostles' Creed in substantially its present form can be traced back to the middle of the sixth century. But this creed was developed from a creed of which we have a definite account in the fourth century, and which was used in the Church of Rome.

This Roman creed is preserved in Latin in the writings of Rufinus of Aquileia about 400 A. D. A translation runs as follows : / believe in God the Father Almighty: and in Christ Jesus, His only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost from Mary the Virgin, crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried; on the third day He rose from the dead, ascended into the heavens, sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence He shall come to judge quick and dead. And in the Holy Ghost, holy Church, forgiveness of sins, resurrection of flesh.

This creed is also given in Greek by Marcellus of Ancyra, about 341 A. D. This form differs from that given by Rufinus only by the omission of the word u Father " in the first clause, and by the addition of the clause, " eternal life." Although Greek was probably the original language of this creed, and although the testimony of Marcellus shows that it was in use at Rome before the middle of the fourth century, yet the text as it comes to us from Rufinus is more reliably preserved and is therefore to be preferred. 1

1 For the form in Greek and Latin see A. E. Burn, An

It will be seen that the more important differences between this creed and our present creed consists in the lack of the following words and phrases: " Maker of heaven and earth," the word 11 conceived," the words " suffered " and " dead," the phrase " He descended into hell," the word u Catholic," and the phrases " communion of saints " and " life everlasting."

But now this creed in use in the fourth century, and which differs so little from our creed to-day, can itself be traced back to a creed in use in Rome at about the middle of the second century, perhaps earlier. This creed has not come down to us in absolutely definite form, but has to be collected from various sources. Consequently we cannot be sure as to its exact contents. Some scholars, including Prof. Harnack, think it to be practically the same as the creed of Rufinus. Others hold that it was shorter. Prof. McGiffert gives the following as its probable form:

/ believe in God the Father almighty and

Introduction to the Creeds, p. 46. McGiffert, The Apostles* Creed, pp. 42-3. Kattenbusch, Das apostolische Symbol, Vol. I, pp. 62 ff.

in Christ Jesus his son, who was born of Mary the Virgin, was crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried, on the third day rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, sitteth on the right hand of the Father, from whence he cometh to judge quick and dead; and in Holy Spirit, resurrection of flesh. 1

We find then a creed at least as long as the above form, and perhaps as fully developed as that of Rufinus, in use at Rome by about 150 A. D. ; perhaps earlier. What was the origin and character of this earlier creed?

II

In regard to it two things are quite clear. In the first place it was closely connected with Baptism. It may have been used as a basis for the instruction of catechumens, those to be baptised, or it may have been used as a confession of faith on the part of the candidate at the time of Baptism. In either case it was essentially a baptismal creed.

In the second place, this creed was an

1 The Apostles' Creed, p. 7.

enlargement or development of the formula used in Baptism. The person to be baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit expressed his faith in that Name, or received his preparation for Baptism through instruction as to the meaning of that Name. The creed is the expansion of the baptismal formula. To understand then the origin and character of this creed, we must consider the subject of Baptism, and especially the form of words used in Baptism. What was the original baptismal formula?

It might seem as though that question were definitely answered for us by the saying of Jesus, " Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptising them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." 1 But here we meet with a difficulty. This is the only place in the New Testament where Baptism is spoken of as given in the name of the Trinity. Baptism is mentioned many times in the New Testament. But with the exception of this one passage it is mentioned either without any formula given, or with some such form as " in " or " into Christ," or " into the name of the Lord Jesus. " Examples of this are so common in Acts and in the epistles of St. Paul that it is not necessary to quote cases. 1 If it were not for this one passage in Matthew we should take it for granted that early Baptism was always given in the name of Jesus or Christ. How shall we explain this diversity?

It may be contended that these words of Jesus were spoken, and afterwards were for a time forgotten or disregarded. But this seems most unlikely.

It may be held that two different formulas were in use, and that they were regarded as equivalent in meaning. Inasmuch as Baptism into the name of Jesus implied Baptism into the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, it was not necessary to distinguish between the two formulas. Such a view would have the truth that these two forms undoubtedly had the same essential contents,

1 See the following passages: Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, Rom. 6:3, I Cor. 1:12-16 (where the argument implies that they were baptised not into the name of Paul, but into the name of Christ) Gal. 3:27.

and to this truth we must shortly return. But it is very unlikely that two such different formulas existed side by side in the apostolic practice.

The most probable explanation, and the one now generally accepted by New Testament scholars, is that originally Baptism was given in the name of Jesus or of Christ, and that the Trinitarian form is a later, even although a perfectly legitimate, development of the original formula. He who was baptised into the name of the Lord Jesus was baptised into the name of the Father whom He revealed, and into the name of the Spirit whom He brought. The Trinitarian form became established, and the earlier form gradually disappeared from use.

But how then about the Trinitarian form given to us in the words of our Lord? Did Jesus not speak these words? We must remember that in the Gospels we do not have a literal transcript of our Lord's words. In the first place He did not speak in Greek but in Aramaic. In the second place our sources for His sayings are complex. These sayings were originally preserved by tradition.

They were incorporated into a collection of His sayings, ascribed to St. Matthew, and into the earliest of our Gospels, that of St. Mark. These two sources are doubtless the basis of our present synoptic Gospels. These contain reliable testimony as to the life and words of our Lord. But they cannot be stressed to verbal accuracy. They carry clear evidences of later recensions, of changes creeping in, of modifications that express the different points of view of the writers. To obtain the real words of our Lord we are obliged to compare our sources and to get back to their underlying substratum. In many cases we can do this with confidence that we have reliable evidence as to our Lord's words. In other cases we must frankly recognise that later elements have crept in, and that we have reflections of a later time. This passage in St. Matthew is most probably such a reflection. After the Trinitarian formula had become general it was reflected back by tradition, and was, with entire honesty, supposed to have come from Jesus Himself. There is no reason why Christian believers should be disturbed by this result. The Gospels are pictures rather than strict historical writings. And while we can be very sure of fundamenal and original elements contained in them, we must also recognise the effect of later tradition.

Indeed the result here reached can be seen to be distinctly helpful in our understanding of the nature and meaning of the early creed. If primitive Baptism was in the name of the Lord Jesus, then the primary attitude on the part of the man to be baptised was faith in the Lord Jesus. That Jesus was the Christ, or more strictly that the Christ who was to come was Jesus, this was the primary Christian confession of faith. This confession became a fact in Baptism.

Here we have the essential germ of the early Christian creed. It was the confession of Christ. We have an early form of such a confession preserved for us in an interpolation that at some early date crept into the text of the eighth chapter of Acts, the saying of the Ethiopian eunuch at his Baptism, " I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." 1

Although this is doubtless not a part of the original text, yet it well illustrates the early confession of faith made at Baptism. We may compare with this the passages of a creedal character in the New Testament which have been already quoted in the preceding chapter, as also the saying of St. Paul, " Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 The foundation of the Christian faith is Jesus Christ.

Now see what happened. Baptism came to be administered in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. And, as previously pointed out, this development was no departure from the meaning of the original formula. He who was baptised into the name of Jesus was also baptised into the name of the Father whom Jesus revealed. The Christian God was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. He that knew the Son knew the Father also. This knowledge of the Father through Jesus Christ His Son was one fundamental element of the Christian experience.

And the other fundamental element was the life of the Spirit. The New Testament through and through is the book of the Holy Spirit. Through Christ the followers of Christ were knit together into a new company. And the bond that united them was a divine bond. They were in possession of, or rather possessed by, a new and living Spirit. In Baptism into Christ they were baptised into the Holy Spirit of God. Thus Baptism into the name of Jesus became Baptism into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. This was no new Baptism. It was but making explicit that which was implicit in Baptism into Christ. Small wonder that a later generation with spiritual if not with literal truth put that form of Baptism into the words of Christ. In so doing they were building on that foundation than which no other could be laid.

Hence the creed. The man to be baptised into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, said, " I believe in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Ghost." The primary creed was but the expression of the baptismal formula. And the essence of that creed was belief in Jesus. The primary part of the creed was the second part, " I believe in Jesus Christ."

So much as this then can be clearly seen; the triune formula in Baptism was the outcome of Baptism into the name of Jesus, and the early creed was the expression of this formula. Baptism into Christ issued in Baptism in the name of the Trinity, and this Trinitarian formula was the basis of the creed which we find in use in the middle of the second century. So far we are on sure ground. 1

III

But now we come to a more disputed question. This creed contained much more than a simple expression of belief in Father, Son,

1 It is held by McGiffert that the words of St. Paul in II Cor. 13:14, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost" are the immediate basis of the early Roman creed, rather than the form given by St. Matthew. It hardly seems that McGiffert's argument meets the fact that the creed is in order and in general form more nearly akin to the passage in St. Matthew, than to that in second Corinthians. But, however that may be, the results as stated above are not materially affected.

and Holy Ghost. In the form given by Runnus and in use in the fourth century, it contained nearly all the contents of our present Apostles' Creed. And the form in existence in the middle of the second century if not identical with that used by Rufinus was at any rate nearly so. It contained a large number of additional clauses not found in the baptismal formula. It was not simply an expression of that formula but an expansion of it. At the very least it added the word " almighty " to the belief in God, it included the birth, crucifixion and burial of our Lord, His resurrection, ascension, session at the right hand of the Father, and coming again to judge the quick and the dead. After the words " Holy Ghost " it included the phrase " resurrection of the flesh." In addition it very likely had the word " only " before " Son," and in the last division the phrases " Holy Church " and " forgiveness of sins." How did these additional clauses come into the creed? What were the reasons that led to this expansion of the baptismal formula?

There are two theories, positive and polemic. The positive theory holds that the development of the creed was in order to incorporate in it the main positive elements of the Christian faith. The polemic theory holds that this development was intended to reject erroneous views or heresies, as those heresies came into existence and were seen to be hostile to the Christian faith.