Coming now from the general to the particular, What can be said, what is claimed, for the Apostles' Creed as to its worth and usefulness as a statement of Christian doctrine? And first there are those who in all seriousness take its title as being a true one, and accept it as really emanating from the apostles. As might be expected, in Rome, the great stronghold of tradition, this is the characteristic view. Absurd as the claim is, for history gives no countenance to, if not absolute contradiction of, its validity, teachers of the Roman Catholic faith have been very explicit in making it. Some have gone so far as to adopt not only the account of its composition by the apostles given by Ruffinus; but also the later improvement on his improbable story-that which embellishes his fiction with a description in detail of the apostles, when assembled to compose the Creed, uttering each in succession one of its clauses, Peter offering this, John contributing that, James adding that, and so on. The general attitude, while perhaps scarcely going so far as this, has consistently been one of belief in its apostolic origin. Only of the Western Church, however, can this be said, for the Greek Church has been equally consistent in its skepticism of the tradition, and in its profession of ignorance of the early existence of such a creed. Further reference to its history is probably unnecessary, save perhaps to say that, if Calvin's hesitation in rejecting its apostolic origin is strange, Newman's description of it as the formal symbol which the apostles adopted and bequeathed to the church is not at all strange; while his assertion that “it has an evidence of its apostolic origin the same in kind with that for the scriptures,” is equally without the least justification.
There are those again, who, while allowing that its true apostolic origin, in the sense of its being formally drawn up by the apostles, is untenable, regard the Creed as apostolic in the sense of its expressing clearly and succinctly the truth they taught, and of some value therefore as a bulwark of the faith. If so, it is surely unfortunate that such expression is so meager as to be of little use for the purpose sought. Suppose that it were to be conceded for the moment that it is possible that the teaching of apostolic days, the common doctrine of the church, unformulated at first in documentary form, gradually took shape in this confession presumed to embody or give in summary whatever truth the early churches possessed. How far short it comes of primitive Christian doctrine as unfolded in the New Testament! Nay, mere inadequacy is not the only charge which may be brought against it. There is, even within such a limited field as its survey is concerned with, even upon such subjects as it does give a pronouncement, a want of harmony with scripture which is at once apparent. Thus in the case of creation, the Creed ascribes it exclusively to the Father, while the fact is that scripture never does so. Doubtless, the latter not infrequently presents the work as being that of God, i.e. God in the unity of His Being; but, as one has remarked, when the persons are distinguished it is never to the Father, but to the Son and to the Spirit, that creation is ascribed. Again, how little adequate it is as a barrier against error may be seen when one considers that neither of the Lord Jesus nor of the Holy Spirit is divinity categorically asserted. Arians have no hesitation in expressing themselves satisfied with it. Unitarians concur in its teachings. Either could very well accept it, and subscribe to it perhaps with less reluctance, preserving a better reputation for consistency than one who professes the fundamental doctrine of the trinity of persons in the Godhead. This, on account of its indefinite, incomplete presentation of such a fundamental truth as the true deity of Son and Spirit!
Taking no more than these two instances of its faulty, unskillful delineation of scripture doctrine, what confidence can it inspire with regard to less elementary truths? What trust as to its efficacy as a test of orthodoxy can we repose in it to-day, when subtle errors as to the person of Christ and the word of God are so numerous? The fact is that of the three great Creeds which have been (it is claimed) successively evolved in the church's long conflict with error—the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian—this is the most unsatisfactory, the one least entitled to respect, and is of the least use either as an outpost of the faith worthy to be garrisoned, or as a storehouse of the truth dispensing sustenance for the combat.
It is said, however, by some loth to part with this ancient “essence of Christian dogma,” that at the time of its formation, those elements which later Creeds defined were not in question, and its comparative silence on the topics is thus explained. That thus to-day, even, it is of use, if we fill out its apparent lacunae with those things which after all were incipient in it, as they were in the primitive faith to which it was the medium of expression. If, however, the Creed is only to be of value when issued in an edition interleaved with blank pages, we may justly be incredulous of its having any real worth in itself. And when the nature of some of the voluble comments which fill them is considered, many would prefer the blank page section dissociated from the ancient text, as we should then better know where we are. Modernism in doctrine would lose quite half its force if its modernity were frankly confessed. The attempt to associate it with what is ancient and venerable is what deceives many. The Presbyterian adoption of the Apostles' Creed as a convenient summary of the Christian faith, useful as a test or confession, according to the Westminster Confession, is, whether we concur in its estimate or not, one thing; the interpretation of apostolic testimony in the light of modern knowledge may prove quite another. The one is, as stated, an adoption; the other may be an adaptation. Not to prejudice the question from the very first, however, the use here made of the Creed in the way the Westminster divines suggested, may be considered a quite legitimate, and should certainly prove a very interesting, one.
“This Creed is here annexed,” declared the famous Westminster assembly, “not as though it were composed by the apostles, or ought to be esteemed canonical scripture, like the ten commandments or the Lord's Prayer, but because it is a brief sum of the Christian faith, agreeable to the word of God, and anciently received in the churches of Christ.” The important point in this claim for the ancient document for us is what is said as to its agreeableness to the word of God. Its efficiency as a summary of Christian truth, needless to say, depends in the first place solely upon that. Any worth it may have in the way of defining doctrines would be quite counterbalanced by failure to comply with scripture. Equally, in any fresh elaboration of it now, what concerns us primarily is just this question of keeping in line with scripture. Taking it thus, then, as a summarizing of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, subject to the consideration of its being “agreeable to the word of God,” what of the first clause, “I believe in God the Father Almighty”?
This lies at the very threshold of Christianity. It affirms as a matter of faith that without which no movement of spiritual life is possible. “He that cometh to God must believe that He is.” To bring such a primary truth as the existence of God therefore into the realm of matters which may be discussed is to descend to the very elementary. Yet as “all men have not faith,” and the propagation of rationalistic theories is being so actively pursued to-day, due attention upon even this fundamental fact is not bestowed in vain. Excessive laboring of the point need not be desired, as much occupation controversially with the topic would be a mistake on the part of simple believers; vet seasonable witness to its truth from whatever quarter is surely matter for thankfulness. It is satisfactory to begin with too, when one finds this argument for the being or existence of God based upon ethical rather than upon rational ground. That is to say, that our true knowledge of God is, at bottom, not a matter of reason or intellectual conviction, but intuitive and spiritual. And this is so. The existence of God is not a mere deduction proved by certain facts in nature, or by the undeniable traces of His hand throughout the entire universe, moral and material alike. It is a fact in itself, of which, as natural men even, we are convinced in the innermost recesses of our hearts, apart altogether from demonstration to the mental faculties. Nature's wonders may combine to pour into man's ear their testimony to their great Originator. Man's own indelible intuitions, however, and the promptings of his conscience, bear witness of Him in the heart.
Is there not something like all this in that ancient confession of Job's? “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear,” that may resemble the first; “but now mine eye seeth thee,” answers in measure to the latter. Supreme beyond all, however, as a more excellent way, is God known (because thereby in grace revealed) through faith in His word. Faith it is that apprehends Him, and to faith alone is He truly revealed. Not at the same time, as it is truly remarked, that ours is an unreasonable or irrational belief. Manifest or demonstrated facts are not opposed to, but confirmatory of, it. Yet in the last resort, he the sum of external evidence what it may, the great fact of the spiritual world—God is—is spiritually apprehended. It is in the soul and to the soul that the sense of God is borne witness of when faith is present; and where this is not so, the mere knowledge of His existence is, to put it at its highest, worthless. There is no need in all this to slight or overlook the value of the evidence so abundantly strewn abroad, not only of His existence, but also of His goodness. God has not left Himself without bright witness to both, in the face of the clouds of unbelief which man's forsaking of Him has superinduced. Of considerations then thought to bear testimony to Him we may note in detail (a) the witness of nature, (b) what is termed the universal religious sense.
Nature's witness to its great Originator is a fact both self-evident and attested by scripture. The strictly modified use of it made in scripture, however, is perhaps less given attention to than the deductions drawn from its phenomena by religious teachers enamored of natural science. Modern natural theology considers its borders greatly enlarged, and its horizon vastly extended, by the undeniably great progress made in recent years in all manner of scientific research. More than ever now the kingdom of nature, its vastness and its minuteness alike, is laid open to the human intelligence, and with so rich a store of wonders untold to draw upon, it might be thought that their appeal to its testimony of the existence of a great First Cause ought to be invincible. Powerful in itself, no doubt, such witness is, whatever in its effect upon man it may prove. Our theologians, however, ought not to be too sure that the increased weight of testimony which modern discoveries give to nature will ensure deeper and more widespread conviction of God in men's hearts. Men in the past have shown a wonderful aptitude for arming themselves against unwelcome truth. And we must remember also that, if the range and power of the projectile have been increased, so also has the strength and resistance of the armor. For, proud of his phenomenal progress in all departments of knowledge, the man of the world to-day tends to divorce science from religion, and to leave and keep God altogether out of account in the realm of nature. No doubt the familiar ground which is gone over when we are reminded of the contemplation of nature's wonders leading us up to nature's God is correct in the abstract, and that, whether the ground taken be the inevitable connection in our mind between cause and effect (an inexorable law of thought, as it is called), or, the more fully developed argument from design of the celebrated Paley. But does it prove true, has it in the past proved true as a matter of fact? Allowing the validity of both the cosmological and the teleological arguments, as they are termed, are they sufficient, are they reinforced by all that modern natural science teaches?
[J. T.]
(Continued from page 352)
(To be continued)