"A. Presbyteries, Conferences, Synods, or some individual leader. "Q. 41. Which is the oldest creed of human contrivance?

"A. Perhaps that irreverently and falsely called "the Apostles' Creed."

"Q. 42. Can you repeat it as received by the Catholic Church? "A. I can."

And you then give, instead of the creed known as the Apostles', that known as the Nicene! And any one, as unscrupulous in the use of terms, as, with all due respect for your talents and standing, I must say I think you are, might easily retort on you, and say that this is an irreverent and false representation. Most certainly, it is not a true one, and will deceive many, probably, who read your publication, as to a matter of fact, which should never be represented otherwise than as it is. You will, doubtless, see the moral necessity of correcting this statement, and telling the whole truth.

But garrulity is the privilege of an old man, and as I have began a letter to you, and have yet some room to spare on my paper, I will trouble you a little farther. There are, as you doubtless know, several able works, historical, expository, &c. on what is called, you say, irreverently and falsely the Apostles' Creed. I have some knowledge of some of these works, and really think them worth an attentive perusal. I would especially point out "Pearson on the Creed," as a book from which every lover of the gospel may derive interest and advantage. Pearson, however, was a Bishop of the Church of England; and as truth now-a-days is not truth in the abstract, but truth or falsehood, according to the mouth by which it is spoken, my reference to him and his book must be taken with some grains of allowance. But as I happen to have before me a scarce work, by the famous Lord King, written while he was a Dissenter, and somewhat of (what was then called) a Free-Thinker, I wish to furnish you, and under favor, (if you will print this piece,) your readers, with a few extracts from it. It is titled "The History of the Apostles' Creed;" and in his preface he says that he "hath not contented himself with reading of modern books, or collections made by later writers, but hath himself had immediate recourse to the remaining monuments of the primitive ages of the church, from whence only all learning of this kind can be fetched and derived." My extracts will begin on the 23d page, and as they will extend over several pages, must, of necessity, be somewhat elliptically given. If you have a copy of the work, you can easily verify them. They shall be fairly and truly made:

"The authors and composers have, for many ages successively, been esteemed to be the Apostles themselves; from whence it is called the Apostles' Creed. Now, that from the days of the Apostles there hath been used in the church a certain rule or form of faith, not much unlike our present creed, I am so far from denying, that I shall endeavor to prove it in the ensuing discourse, from Tertullian, and others of the most primitive writers: but that the Apostles themselves should be the inmediate authors of the creed, in the present form that now it is, and that, from their days it hath, without any variation, been inviola

bly transmitted down to us by tradition: this is justly questionable, and I doubt not but to evince the contrary." He then mentions some ancient writers who have held this opinion, which he thinks questionable, and then alleges some plain arguments to show that it could not have been prepared by the Apostles, as in that case it would have been alluded to by Luke in his history of their acts, and it would also have been referred to in some of the "innumerable councils and synods amongst the primitive Christians; whereas, no such thing appears, but the contrary thereunto;" and that "if the Apostles had really framed and delivered to their successors this creed, every church would have agreed therein, and there would not have been so many and diverse creeds as we find there were." He then goes on to say, "But though this creed be not of the Apostles' immediate framing, yet it may be truly styled apostolical, not only because it contains the sum of the Apostles' doctrine, but also because the age thereof is so great, that its birth must be fetched from the very apostolic times. It is true, the exact form of the present creed cannot pretend to be so ancient by 400 years, but a form not much different from it was used not long before. Ireneus, the scholar of Polycarp, the disciple of John, repeats a creed not much unlike ours, and assures us that the church dispersed throughout the whole world had received this faith from the Apostles and their disciples; [lib. i. c. 2.] which is also affirmed by Tertullian of one of his creeds, that that rule of faith had been current in the church from the beginning of the gospel: [Advers Praxean, p. 316.] And, which is very observable, although there was so great a diversity of creeds, as that scarce two churches did exactly agree therein, yet the form and substance of every creed was in a great measure the same; so that except there had been from the very plantation of Christianity a form of sound words, or a system of faith delivered by the first planters thereof, it is not easy to conceive how all churches should harmonize, not only in the articles themselves, into which they were baptized; but in a great measure also, in the method and order of them. As for the authors thereof, it cannot be denied but that there were several and many; the creed was neither the work of one man, nor of one day, but during a long tract of time, passed successively through several hands, ere it arrived at its present perfection; the composure of it was gradual, and not instantaneous; the manner whereof I apprehend to have been these two ways: 1. Some of the articles therein were derived from the very days of the Apostles. 2. The others were afterwards added by the primitive Doctors and Bishops, in opposition to gross heresies and errors that sprung up in the church."

This is as far as I can quote, at present; but, if you have the work, please insert the whole of chap. i. from which these extracts are taken. I have produced enough to show that the creed referred to may, with propriety, and not "irreverently," or "falsely," be called the Apostles', by the testimony of a competent witness, and one inclined to moderate opinions. He expressly says, it may be truly styled apostolical, because it contains the sum of the Apostles' doctrine, and because its birth must be brought from the very apostolic times.

Let me now make a few brief references to holy scripture, to show that the Apostles' Creed, if not directly drawn from the word of God, yet may be fully sustained by it; and, therefore, cannot, consistently with truth, be called "an abstract of human opinions":

"I believe in God," Ps. c. 3; Heb. xi. 6-"the Father," Eph. iv. 6; 2 Cor. i. 3-"Almighty," Rev. iv. 8; xi. 17-"Maker of heaven and earth;" Eph. iii. 9-"and in Jesus Christ," John xiv. 1; iv. 26— "his only Son," John iii. 16; Mark xiv. 62-"our Lord:" John xiii. 13; 2 Pet. i. 11-"who was conceived by the Holy Ghost," Matth. i. 20-"born of the Virgin Mary," Luke i. 27; ii. 7, 21-"suffered under Pontius Pilate," Mark xv. 15-"was crucified," Luke xxiii. 33– "Dead and buried:" Mark xv. 37; Luke xxiii. 55-"he descended into hell;" Acts in. 31-"the third day he rose from the dead," Acts x. 40-"he ascended into heaven," Luke xxiv. 51-"and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father, Almighty:" Mark xvi. 19—"from thence he shall come to judge the quick and dead." Philip iii. 20; Acts x. 42-"I believe in the Holy Ghost," Matth. xxviii. 19-"the" holy catholic [universal] church," Eph. v. 25, 27-"the resurrection of saints," Eph. ii. 19; 1 John i. 3-"the forgiveness of sins," Col. i. 14-"the resurrection of the body," 1 Cor. xv. 42, 44; Philip iii. 21-"and the life everlasting." John xvi. 40.

You must excuse me, therefore, if I cannot subscribe to, or adopt, your definition of creeds, as including the Apostles', to be an abstract of "human opinions," nor as being a human contrivance, any farther than the merely bringing together and arranging, for the sake of compression, in a few brief sentences, doctrines plainly declared on the pages of scripture; and nearly, if not wholly, in the very language of scripture itself. I must, moreover, be allowed to think, that you have indulged yourself, in the above quoted questions and answers, in a tone altogether too authoritative and contemptuous, and not savoring enough of that humility and brotherly kindness which are, indeed, scriptural characteristics of the christian. There is far too much, also, in your writings generally, of an ex cathedra style. You deal your censures much too indiscriminately; and, as if it was a well understood and settled point, that you, of all men living, have just views, a clear head, and an understanding heart; in short, as if you were, like the Roman Pope, infallible: which, you certainly are not, and are not like to be. You dwell too much in a bustle. Commune more with your own heart; learn to bear with other men's opinions, and to believe that they actually have powers of mind, and of heart; are capable of as pure motives, and are quite as likely to be actuated by them, as yourself.

Now, friend C. if you like plain dealing as well as you profess to, and are as ready to listen as to lecture, to be advised as to censure and condemn, you will publish this letter in your Harbinger. Accordingly, I shall look for it in your next number. I rather fear, however, that I shall not be allowed to see it in print. My estimate of your true character will be made up by the result; and you may then, possibly, hear from me again. BARNABAS.

MY GOOD SIR:

Reply to Barnabas.

OLD MEN, to which class you profess to belong, are sometimes in a captious mood; and in that mood are apt to say and do that, which in their better frames of mind and feelings, often gives them pain. It is not for me to explain to you the feelings which prompted the preceding address, which you see I have had the moral courage to lay before my readers. But, in the fulness of your devotion to ancient creeds, especially that called the Apostles', you have done me some injustice, without, perhaps, intending it. I am not guilty of the charge you so unceremoniously impute to me, of ascribing to the Apostles the Nicene Creed. This I have not done. It is true, I have given the Nicene Creed; but do not give it as the Apostles' Creed. A little more attention to the 42d question, would have prevented this imputation. The question is:

"Can you repeat it, as received by the Catholic church?"

In answering this question, the Nicene Creed is given. But then, the question is, Does not the Catholic church consider the Nicene Creed as much the Apostles' Creed, as you consider the Apostles' Creed to be the work of the twelve Apostles? You presume not to say that the Apostles so formed and arranged it, but that the doctrine which they taught justifies every word of it. So think the Catholics that the Nicene Creed is only an enlarged edition of the Apostles' Creed, and that every sentiment in it is contained in the Apostles' Creed.

Had I called that creed the Apostles' Creed, and not the Apostles' Creed as received by the Catholic church, I should have been guilty of a misrepresentation, and you might have had some ground of cenThe Apostles' Creed, as received by the Catholics, was presented in the form you find it in said Extra, for the purpose of more clearly exposing its unfounded pretensions to be the work of the Apostles.

sure.

But, as you define the word Apostles, I have no objection to say, that the facts stated in said creed, are all sustained by the Apostles. It reads thus, as received by the church of England:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth. And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord: who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty: from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

If this be a correct version of it, taken from the common prayer book published in Hartford, 1826, I can say, ex animo, that I believe every word of it. Because it is not, like all modern creeds, a synopsis of opinions, but a brief narrative of facts, and of all the great gospel facts.

That it is of great antiquity, I never doubted. Its simplicity, and freedom from abstraction, are internal evidences that it is ancient, beyond all other human creeds; and it is proof positive that the word belief, or the word faith, was understood, at the time of its formation, as I have labored to make all my readers understand it. Then, the belief of facts well attested, constituted faith. I have no evidence that ever the Apostles drafted a summary, and therefore no faith in any creed, as that of the Apostles; but, that the Apostles' doctrine authorizes every proposition, or statement of fact, in this creed, I am' fully persuaded. I am, indeed, glad that you have called my attention to it again, because it so well sustains all that I have written on the subject of faith, and the simplicity of the views of the earliest christians.

I trust it will be deemed superfluous for me to evince to you how far we moderns have apostatized from ancient simplicity, when you see of how little account the creed which, in one sense, you call the Apostles', is in the estimation of all sects. Not one of them thinks it sufficient as a term of communion, for it scarcely makes a hundredth part of the volume which exhibits the bonds of union and communion among even the Episcopalians, who so often repeat it.

As to the lecture which you have the goodness to tender me, it is such as every honest man will present to himself. Whatever the motives may have been which prompted you to give it, so far as it is apposite, it is worthy of attention. Our readers will judge how far you have reason to represent me as needing such an exhortation. If, however, I have been too authoritative in my style, or too censorious of others, it is not because I think other men have not heads, nor hearts, but it is because many of them seem to give neither of them fair play; apparently allowing other considerations than the arguments of the Saviour and his Apostles, to influence their decision.

There never was a reformer, or one who simply preached reformation to sinners, that might not have been exhorted by any sinner whom he addressed, as you exhort me. Many an irreclaimable sinner has counselled his exhorter to take more heed to himself, and to allow that other people had virtues mingled with their foibles, which made them as acceptable as himself. Far be it, however, from me, to insinuate that you are of that class. But, sir, I regard it as neither incompatible with humility, benevolence, nor christian love, to speak with confidence, when we feel it; for speaking in the subjunctive, or conditional mood, is wholly incompatible with the pretensions of any man who, like you or me, assumes to be a teacher of others.

It is not human opinions which we propose as the bond of union, unless you say that facts, and testimony, and faith, are all mere opinions. I have, however, long since, decided never to argue with the man who tells me that the sun, and moon, and stars, have no existence, save in the opinions of men; or, that the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, are opinions, as much as the doctrine of "original sin," and "total depravity," in the Calvinian or Arminian acceptation of these phrases.