William Goode's "The Divine Rule Of Faith And Practice" in three volumes, produced between 1842-1853. Chapter Four: THAT THERE ARE NO WRITINGS EXTANT ENTITLED TO THE NAME OF APOSTOLICAL TRADITIONS BUT THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES, pp.106-136.
Goode is--point by point-- building his case that the Tractators or Newmanians view tradition in the same way as Trent. This will go to the heart of "authority" for doctrine, worship and piety.
This is a most thorough refutation of the Roman notion that the Bible cannot stand as the sufficient source of saving truth. The massive case is developed from the early church fathers down to the romanizing Oxford Movement of Goode’s own day.
This work stands alongside the benchmarks of Chemnitz and Gerhard in the Lutheran faith; also William Whitaker and John Jewel in the Anglican tradition; also, Louis Gaussen and B.B. Warfield in the Reformed tradition.
It has, as a corrollary, an immediate "application" to the phenomenon of those with "open canons" and their modern claims to apostolicity and co-ordinate claims to authority with the Scripture.
Additional help may be had:
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2009/11/is-sola-scriptura-in-bible.html
Archbishop Whitgift on the necessity of the Bible and use of the Reformed Confessions
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2009/07/english-reformer-archbishop-john.html
Ambrose notes that Bible reading quells passions at: http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/02/ambrose-339-97-necessity-of-scripture.html
Hilary of Poitiers on the necessity, sufficiency and perspicuity of Scriptures
http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/02/hilary-of-poitiers-315-367-perspicuity.html
Goode's 3 volumes were the salvoes the Tractarians and Anglo-Catholics never answered. This fact too was noted by Tractarians themselves, as well as many Reformed Churchmen in the Church of England. Again, a little known fact.
Semper Fidelis.
Volume One is free and downloadable at:
http://www.archive.org/stream/divinerulefaith01goodgoog/divinerulefaith01goodgoog_djvu.txt
-----------------------------
CHAPTER IV.
THAT THERE ARE NO WRITINGS EXTANT ENTITLED TO THE NAME OF APOSTOLICAL TRADITIONS BUT THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES.
In entering upon the inquiry whether there remain to us any apostolical traditions besides the Scriptures of the apostles in the New Testament the first point which we have to ascertain is whether there are any writings extant of which the apostles may be considered as the authors besides those in the New
Testament.
That there are writings claiming to be so considered is well known. Such for instance are various apocryphal gospels and epistles, the apostolical canons, the apostolical constitutions, and various liturgies called by the names of the apostles. With respect to all these, however, it is so generally agreed that they cannot be considered the genuine productions of the apostles, that it is unnecessary to notice them any farther in this place. It is quite possible, indeed, that in these canons, constitutions,
and liturgies, there may be remains of apostolical teaching, though probably to a very small extent ; and negatively they may be made of considerable use in manifesting the corruptions that have been introduced into the Church since the primitive times. But there is no need now of arguments to prove that in their present form they are not the productions of the apostles, nor the genuine representations of apostolical teaching. And who is to separate what is apostolical from that which proceeded
from another source?
But besides these there is one relic of antiquity which has been contended for by some as a genuine relic of the apostles and for which Mr. Newman evidently claims an apostolical origin and authority — namely, what is commonly called the Apostles Creed. Mr. Newman calls it ''the formal symbol which the apostles adopted and bequeathed to the Church, (p. 270 ;) '' a collection of definite articles set apart from the first"' (p. 296;) and says that it ''is of the nature of a " written document" and has an evidence of its apostolical " origin the same in kind with that for the Scriptures.'' (p. 297.) And upon such grounds he would make it part of the authoritative rule of faith.
Now however great may be the value to be attached to this venerable relic of the primitive Church such claims as are here made in its behalf are utterly without foundation. Indeed to hear such a claim advanced for it in the present day is not a little remarkable. To say with Mosheim "All who have the
least knowledge of antiquity look upon this opinion as entirely false, and destitute of a foundation would perhaps seem inconsistent with the remarks which have dropped from the pen of one or two learned men on the subject ; but certainly I will venture to say, that Mr. Newman will find an overwhelming
majority of the learned divines of the last three centuries who have examined the subject, altogether against him.
As this matter is of some moment, I will enter somewhat fully into it, and in proof of the statement just made will endeavour to establish the following positions : —
1. That no precise form of words was left by the apostles.
footnote. Of coarse I am not here denying their value as important and interesting relics of the early Church. And the various copies of (so called) Apostolical Constitutions and Liturgies that have been discovered in modem times, particularly within the last few years, in different Oriental languages have afforded the opportunity of critical revision to an extent that much increases their value. But to authority as apostolical remains they have no daim; and that consequently from the first when the different Churches and early writers wished to give a brief summary of the Christian faith they did so in different words.
2. That there was no such definite summary of the chief articles of belief given by the apostles to the Christian Church as the Creed, the baptismal Creed being originally merely a declaration of belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and afterwards amplified by the different Churches and bishops
as each thought it desirable; and that what is called "the Apostles' Creed'' is merely the antient Creed of the Church of Rome, and no more entitled to the name than any other of the ancient Creeds.
3. That what is called "the Apostles' Creed" gradually attained its present form, and that two at least of the articles it now contains were not inserted in it before the fourth century.
4. That the Creeds of the primitive Church were derived originally from the Holy Scriptures.
And therefore,
5. That none of the antient Creeds can be considered as an apostolical production.
I. That no precise form of words was left by the apostles as the Christian Creed; and that consequently, from the first, when the different churches and early writers wished to give a brief summary of the Christian faith, they did so in different words.
On this point we naturally refer, first, to the canonical Scriptures of the apostles and disciples of our Lord. And considering the nature of those writings, we might not unreasonably expect to find some notice of such a formula having been published by them, if so it had been. But for such a notice we shall search in vain. Mr. Newman, indeed, without any hesitation, but also without any proof, maintains the contrary, and, silently assuming the correctness of his own private interpretation of one or two passages that seem to him to favour his views, boldly speaks of St. Paul quoting the Creed, and even tells us the name he gives to it. For, after observing that history informs us that the Creed was drawn up in the apostles' days he adds "Indeed St. Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians so speaks of it when quoting part of it, viz. as that which had been committed to him and which he had committed in turn to his converts. (1 Cor. xv. 3.)"' (p. 261.) "To guard and to transmit it, [i. e. the Creed,] not to remodel it, is her sole duty, as St. Paul has determined in his second epistle to Timothy (p. 267.)" It is delineated and recognised in Scripture itself, where it is called the Hypotyposis, or an "outline of sound words.'' (p. 297.) These cool assumptions are certainly very convenient, because they cut all knots at once, and by many readers are doubtless much preferred to the cautious and guarded statements of one who has well weighed his positions, and speaks only according to the evidence he possesses, but nevertheless must not be allowed to usurp the place of proof by one who wishes to know the truth. On what authority has Mr. Newman made these confident assertions of St. Paul quoting " the Creed?"There
is not a word about " the Creed" in either of the passages here referred to, nor, as it appears to me, would the expressions lead to Mr. Newman's view of their meaning, even if we knew from independent sources that a Creed had been at that time drawn up. In the first passage the apostle says, " I delivered unto you "first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for "our sins according to the Scriptures," &c. (1 Cor. xv. 8.) Now compare this passage with one just preceding it, in the
eleventh chapter, "For I have received of the Lord that which" also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night " in which he was betrayed took bread," &c. (xi. 28.) The expressions are all but identical, and surely, therefore, the obvious mode of interpreting the passage in the 15th is by that in the 11th chapter, where there is evidently no quotation from the Creed, And if anything further is wanting to show that the apostle did not " receive" his faith from "the Creed," we have it in his own words in his epistle to the Galatians, where he says, " The gospel which was preached of me is not after man, for I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.'' (Gal. i. 11, 12.) So much then for this "quotation from the Creed." The next passage is an exhortation to Timothy, "Hold fast the form (or outline) of sound words which thou hast heard of me"' &c. (2 Tim. i. 13.) Now the construction of these words in the original completely overthrows Mr. Newman's interpre-
tation. For the apostle does not say that Timothy had ''heard from him'' ''an outline of sound words" but that he had heard from him sound words of which he was to hold fast the outline, that is the great characteristic features. The English reader will observe that the word ''which" refers to the "sound
words so that the meaning of the passage would be more accurately conveyed to the English reader by the following translation : "Hold fast the form (or outline) of those sound words which thou hast heard of me." I admit that the passage has often been quoted in the sense which Mr. Newman has attributed to it and a remarkable instance it is among the many that might be mentioned of the way in which observations are handed down from one to another and repeated on the mere authority of their having once been made.
I repeat, then, we shall search Scripture in vain for any even the slightest intimation that the apostles drew up a Creed for the use of the Church. And it is hardly to be credited, that, had the apostles drawn up such a formula, we should have had no notice of it in the Acts of the Apostles.
Further ; if there was such a form of words, where is it? Which form, among all the various ones that have come down to us, is that of the apostles ? The form called by us "the Apostles' Creed" cannot be traced higher than the fourth century. And the forms given in the early writers vary much both from this and among themselves.
For instance the earliest extant is in Irenseus who having spoken of "'the unalterable rule of truth which he received by baptism" gives the faith preached by the Church thus, — "The Church, though scattered over all the world from one end of the earth to the other, received from the apostles and their disciples the " belief in one God, the Father Almighty, who made the heaven, and the earth, and the seas, and all things that are in them ; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate for our salvation ; and in the Holy Spirit, who preached by the prophets the dispensations, and the advents, and the birth by a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Jesus Christ our Lord, and his advent from heaven in the glory of the Father to restore all things, and to raise all flesh of all mankind; that to Christ Jesus our Lord and God and Saviour and King, according to the good pleasure of the invisible Father, every knee should bow of things in heaven and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess to him; and that he may execute just judgment upon all; that he may send the spirits of wickedness, and transgressing and apostate angels, and all impious and wicked and lawless and blasphemous men into everlasting fire ; and to the just and holy, and those that have kept his commandments, and remained stedfast in his love, some from the beginning, others after repentance, having given life, may confer on them immortality, and put them in possession of eternal glory."
The same writer, however, having occasion again to refer to the rule of faith, which he now calls, "the order, or rule, of that tradition which the apostles delivered to those to whom they committed the churches, gives it in the following words, — " Believing in one God, the maker of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them, through Christ Jesus the Son of God; who on account of his extraordinary love for his creature, submitted to be bom of a virgin, uniting man to God in his own person and having suffered under Pontius Pilate and rising again and being received in glory shall come in glory as the Saviour of those who are saved and the Judge of those who are condemned, sending the corrupters of the truth (transfiguratores veritatis) and the despisers of his Father and of his advent into eternal fire."
Passing from Irenseus to one who flourished shortly after him, viz. Tertullian, we have a '' Rule of faith" delivered to us in quite different terms. Tertullian himself, indeed, gives it us in three different forms of words.
In his book, "De prsescriptione hareticorum," he says, — " The rule of faith, — that we may now at once state what we believe, — is that by which we believe that there is but one God, and no other beside, the Maker of the world, who produced all things out of nothing by his Word which he sent forth first of all things. That that Word was called his Son, was seen at various times by the patriarchs under the name of Ood, was always heard by the prophets, and at last was brought down by the Spirit and power of God the Father into the Virgin Mary, and made flesh in her womb, and being born of her, lived in the person of Jesus Christ ; that from that time he preached a new law and a new promise of the kingdom of heaven ; that he performed miracles, was crucifled, rose again the third day, and being taken up into heaven, sat at the right hand of the Father, and in his stead sent the power of the Holy Spirit to guide believers; and that he shall come with glory to take the saints into the fruition of eternal life and the heavenly promises, and adjudge the wicked to everlasting fire, having restored to life both the one and the other, and raised their bodies. "This rule," he adds, " instituted by Christ, raises no disputes among us except such as heresies introduce, or such as make heretics."
Again, in his treatise "On virgins being veiled," he says,"The Rule of Faith is but one, alone unchangeable and unreformable, namely, of believing in one God Almighty, the Maker of the world, and his Son Jesus Christ, bom of the Virgin Mary crucified under Pontius Pilate raised the third day from the dead, received in the heavens, and now sitting at the right hand of the Father who shall come to judge the quick and the dead by the resurrection of the flesh."
He refers to it again in his treatise against Praxeas where he states it thus : — " We believe indeed one God, nevertheless under this mode of existence (dispensatione) which we call economy (oeconomiam), namely, that there is also a Son of that one God, to wit, his Word, who proceeded from him, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made; that he was sent by the Father into a virgin, and born of her man as well as God, the Son of man and the Son of God, and called Jesus Christ ; that he suffered and was dead and buried according to the Scriptures, and raised again by the Father, and taken back again into the heavens, and now sits at the right hand of the Father, about to come to judge the quick and the dead, from whence also he sent from the Father according to his promise the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, as the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and Son and Holy Spirit." And he adds, that "this rule had come down from the beginning of the Gospel.
The passages just quoted are, as far as I can find, (and as is generally understood,) the only passages in the writings extant of the first two centuries in which we have a formal and succinct delivery of the chief articles of the Christian belief, the next occurring in the writings of Origen who flourished towards
the middle of the next century.
It follows, therefore, I conceive, beyond question, that there was no form of words left by the Apostles as the Christian Creed; for had there been, that certainly would have been quoted in these passages. Had there been such a form left by the Apostles, there can be no doubt that it would have been religiously preserved by the Church, and recognised in such passages as those just quoted. But for the first three centuries and more there is not the slightest indication given us that the Apostles left such
a form. Each person who has occasion to give a summary of the chief articles of the faith gives it in different words, and if more than once, does not himself give always the same form.
The silence of the Nicene Council upon the matter is particularly observable, because then at least there would have been a recognition of such a form, had it existed. There were at that time no difficulties in the way to prevent its being openly brought forward, if there had been such a formula; for persecution had then ceased, and there could be no reason for concealing it, especially when the Council was about to promulge one intended for the same purposes as this is supposed to have answered. The rise of heresies might have rendered some addition desirable, but there would have been at least some respectful recognition of the formula left by the Apostles, had there been one. The silence of this council upon the subject appears to me conclusive against the idea.
Further, the early Fathers apply themselves to prove the Articles of the Creeds they give, from the writings of the Apostles, which obviously would have been altogether useless and absurd for one composed by the Apostles. Such a Creed would in fact have formed a portion of the Canonical Scriptures, and a portion of the highest authority, as sanctioned by the unanimous voice of the Apostles.
If it is replied, from a misunderstanding of the words of Jerome (quoted in the next page), that "the Creed" was not written, but delivered orally from one to another, I answer, that this is evidently a misinterpretation of his words, for "the Creed" had been before that time delivered without hesitation in writing by Rufinus, and so had been the Jerusalem form of it by Cyril, to say nothing of the forms given by Irenaeus and Tertullian ; and therefore the meaning of Jerome, when he says, that "the Creed is not written on paper or with ink, but on the fleshly tables of the heart," is, that true Christians, as a body, were to inscribe it on their hearts, and not on paper, which would be useless; and perhaps there may be also an allusion to the fact that " the Creed" was not to be written by the baptized, lest the catechumens might peruse it before they were prepared to receive the faith it contained, as we learn from Cyril. But such passages do not mean that " the Creed'' was not to be anywhere written for authors that make similar remarks have themselves left it in writing, as for instance Cyril of Jerusalem and Rufinus. It is not till the close of the fourth century that we meet with the report of its being composed by the Apostles. We do not even find the name "the Apostles' Creed"' (a name which
might have been given to it on many other grounds than from the Apostles having been considered its authors,) earlier than a letter of Ambrose, written about the year 389. The first assertion of its having been composed by the Apostles is found in Rufinus, who, in his Exposition of the Creed, written about the year 390, tells us that it was said to be written by them, though he himself, in a subsequent part of the same treatise, speaks in a manner that seems to show he at least felt doubts on the subject. Jerome also speaks of the Creed as having been delivered by the Apostles, and similar language is held respecting it by several writers in the fifth and sixth centuries, and those that follow, and hence for a time the notion gained credit that the Apostles were the authors of it. But the language of Jerome is
not decisive as to what his own view of the matter was for it may mean as Du Pin supposes it to mean merely that the Creed contained the apostolical faith. And his great contemporary Augustine not only has nowhere in his genuine works even given to it the name of "the Apostles' Creed" but has expressly
said as we shall show presently that it was compiled from the Scriptures.
The account of Rufinus is this, — "Our Fathers say, that after the ascension of our Lord .... the Apostles .... went each to different nations. Therefore, being ahout to separate from each other, they settle among themselves beforehand a " rule for their future preaching, lest perchance when apart from
one another, they should preach to those who were invited to the faith of Christ doctrines at all dissimilar. Therefore, being assembled all together and filled with the Holy Spirit, they composed that short summary of their future preaching, putting together what each one thought fit to supply, and resolve that this should be given to the faithful as a rule.''
And the Author of the Sermon numbered 115 of the "Semones De Tempore" of Augustine, kindly tells us what articles each apostle supplied, Thomas supplying the words, "he descended into hell," and Simon Zelotes, "the communion of saints;" which articles, as is well known, were not in the Creed till some two centuries at least after the death of all the Apostles.
A very pretty story, but coming rather too late in the day in the year 390, to make much impression, and withal not very complimentary to inspired men, that they should be so careful to confer with one another before they separated, lest they should preach different doctrines.
We assert further,
2. That there was no such definite summary of the chief articles of belief given by the Apostles to the Christian Church, as " the Creed ;" the baptismal Creed being originally merely a declaration of belief in the Father, the Son, and the Holy
footnote. * Serm. 115 and 181 of his Sermones de Tempore are confessedly spurions, and
rejected by the Benedictines.
Ghost, and afterwards amplified by the different churches and bishops as each thought it desirable ; and that what is called "the Apostles Creed" is merely the ancient Creed of the Church of Rome, and no more entitled to the name than any other of the antient Creeds.
In the first place, as we observed on the former head Scripture is silent as to their having left any such summary.
That they required a confession of faith from candidates for baptism is doubtless true, but how far that confession extended we have at least no evidence in Scripture, and the only recorded confession is, I think, that of the Ethiopian eunuch, — "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,'' — which was
evidently accepted by Philip as a sufficient baptismal confession, and which might be said to include virtually a confession of the whole Trinity. (Acts viii. 37.) And a similar confession is spoken of on other occasions as involving virtually an avowal of the Christian faith. (See ch. xvi. 31.)
So much, then, is of course freely granted, that the Apostles required a confession of faith previous to baptism, which mighty and probably did, include several of the articles now in "the Apostles' Creed." But as to the extent of that confession, or that it had any definite limits, there is at least no evidence upon which we can depend. Ingenious as are the conjectures which have been offered, founded upon the catechetical instructions of the Apostles, that such and such articles must have formed part of the baptismal Creed, they are but conjectures, and grounded upon a mode of argument which would
prove too much ; for if, as has been argued the articles of the resurrection of the dead and life everlasting are to be admitted, because the Apostle mentions in one place the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment as doctrines belonging to the foundation,'' on the same ground we must conclude that the doctrine of baptisms and of laying on of hands" formed part of that Creed in the time of the Apostles.
Moreover, had there been such a fixed and definite summary there would not have been so great a variation in the Creed given by the early writers. Had there been a collection of certain definite articles made by the Apostles, and left with the Church on the understanding that those were the articles
which should form the Creed there would not have been this variation.
Nor can there be any doubt that we should have had some reference to this fact in the Fathers of the first three centuries, and the proceedings of the Nicene council. They would have told us, especially when delivering " the rule of faith" that the Apostles had left a rule of faith consisting of certain definite
articles; but instead of this, when giving the Rule of faith, they vary in the number of articles given, and uniformly leave out some of those given in our present Creed.
Nay, more, the sunmaries given by the same Father vary in extent, so as to show that the selection was made by the individual writer. And all that is stated merely amounts to this, that the summary so given was agreeable to the faith delivered by the Apostles, or in other words, that the faith delivered in it had come from the Apostles.
To the argument, that unless there had been such a summary there would not have been the similarity we find in these Creeds, it is quite a sufficient answer to refer to the parting direction of our Lord to his disciples, "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost," (Matt, xxviii. 1 9,) in which we find at once the rudiments of the earliest Creeds, and from which "the Creed" appears to have derived its origin.
Such is the view taken of this passage by the great Athanasius.
" Let us moreover," he says, " observe, that this was from the beginning the tradition and doctrine and faith of the catholic church, which the Lord gave, and the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. For upon this the Church was founded, and he who falls away from this could not be, nor be called, a Christian. Therefore, there is a holy and perfect Trinity, &c. . . [proceeding to deliver the doctrine
of the Trinity] . . . And that this faith is the faith of the Church, let them learn from this, that the Lord, when he sent forth his disciples, commanded them to lay this foundation for the Church, saying, "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost;"and the Apostles went and taught thus; and this is what is preached to every church under heaven. Therefore, since the Church has this as the foundation of its faith, let them again address us and answer, whether there is a Trinity or a Duality?
And so again; — "This is the faith of the catholic Church. For the Lord hath founded and rooted it upon the Trinity, saying to his disciples, "Go and teach all nations, baptizing " them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. ''
And again, speaking of the name Father as being more appropriate for the first Person of the Trinity than Uncreated, he says, " Moreover, when teaching us to pray, he [i. e. our Lord] did not say. But when ye pray, say, God, uncreated, " But when ye pray, say. Our Father who art in heaven ; and also he wished the summary of our faith to lead likewise to this [name], where having commanded that we should be baptized, it is not in the name of the Uncreated and the created, nor in the name of the Creator and the creature, but in the name of Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost."
Hence it is said in the "Catholic Letter'' attributed to Athanasius, " The symbol, therefore, of our faith is the Consubstantial Trinity."
Hence, therefore, Tertullian, after giving "the Creed,'' adds, (in a passage already quoted, p. 112 above,) that "this rule" was " instituted by Christ."
So Basil, after giving a summary of "the Creed," taken professedly rom Scripture, adds, "Thus we believe, and thus we baptize into the Consubstantial Trinity, according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ, when he said, ' Go and " teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' "
So in the Creed of Lucian, (quoted p. 129 below), these words of our Lord are referred to as the foundation upon which the Creed was built.
Thus also Gregory of Nyssa says, "And afterwards he [i. e. our Lord] adds the words by which they [i.e. his disciples] " were about to take captive as in a net the whole earth, and " in which is contained the whole mystery of true religion ; for he says, 'Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." And so in another place he says, " We believe in accordance with that faith which our Lord set forth to the disciples, saying, ' Go and teach all nations/ &c.' This is the declaration of the mystery by which, through the birth from above, our nature is changed from that which is mortal to that which is immortal."
And thus speaks Augustine: " Who can be ignorant that it is not Christ's baptism, if the words of the Gospel, in which the Creed is contained, have been there wanting."
Thus also Hilary: "To believers the word of God, which was transfused into our ears by the testimony of the Evangelist united with the power of its own truth, was sufficient, when the Lord says, ' Go and teach all nations, baptizing them,' &c. [Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.] For what is there which concerns the mystery of the salvation of man, which is not contained in it? Or what is there which remains to be said, or is obscure ? All things are complete, as from one who is complete, and perfect, as from one who is perfect. . . . But we are compelled, through the sins of heretics and blasphemers, to handle points of which we have no permission to speak ; to climb the heights of Divine truth; to speak of ineffable mysteries ; to presume beyond what is revealed to us. . . . Their infidelity carries us into the region of doubt and danger, when it is necessary to put forward anything concerning things so great and recondite beyond the heavenly rule. The Lord had, said, that the nations were to be baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The form (or, rule) of faith is certain ; but as it regards the heretics, the whole meaning is ambiguous."
And lastly, thus speaks Theodoret : "'Go,' said he, 'and teach all nations, baptizing them, &c.' And, according to this law, both the divine apostles, and the teachers of the Church who followed them, teach those who come to them to believe in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; and baptize those who are thus taught, in the 'name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'"
The foundation of ''the Creed,'' therefore, was laid in these words delivered by our Lord himself. Each bishop or church, baptizing, according to our Saviour's command, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, required first and principally a brief confession of belief in the Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, in the terms which they thought most suitable to the orthodox faith ; and this direction of our Lord was evidently considered by the early Fathers as intimating that the sum and substance of the Christian faith consisted in such a confession; and hence Christians are called by Tertullian, "those who believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."
No comments:
Post a Comment