An introduction to the creeds and to the Te Deum

«

secre SO
a Pr oy “Si

ΣΤ,
ΣΡ

δ.

Fae
hee ee

EE Lee
psec,
fc tase:

ἜΡΩΣ

than ἢ
CUS

out hs
ae
a)

ee
acts

casts
eis

aaa

ΡΣ

ou

bee
cat me
A Sect

cr ag

Mires

pose ΠΣ

oe Pig ete
pre

pe
OY oh

ehh

ΤΣ
ae

ἣν

ert

Ks
ὡς ἐὰν
ΠΛΉΝ

x

ae
ay pees

~
ie Se

xs

ee

a

AN INTRODUCTION («FO
THE CREEDS

AN INTRODUCTION
ΤΗΡ CREEDS

AND TO

ΜΒ ΤΡ ΡΟΝ

« N oe

Ae EX’BURN, B.D.

TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
RECTOR OF KYNNERSLEY, WELLINGTON, SALOP
EXAMINING CHAPLAIN TO THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD

ay

METHUEN & CO.
36 ESSEX STREET, W.C.
LONDON

1899

TO

<a

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN,

yee

IN PIAM MEMORIAM
PATRIS IN DEO
IOSEPHI BARBER LIGHTFOOT
EPISCOPI DUNELMENSIS
OPUSCULUM DEDICAUIT

DOMUS ALUMNUS

In Fest. 5. PETRI MDCCCXCVII.

PREFACE

ee

THE following Introduction to the Creeds and to the Karly
History of the Ze Dewm has been designed, in the first
instance, for the use of students reading for the Cambridge
Theological Tripos. I have edited all the Creed-forms set
for that examination, with the exception of three lengthy
formularies, which belong rather to a history of doctrine than
to my present subject. These are—the letter of Cyril to
Nestorius, the letter of Leo to Flavian, and the Definition of
the Council of Chalcedon.

At the same time, I hope that the book may be useful to
a wider circle of readers—to clergy and candidates for Holy
Orders. The subject is of supreme importance to all teachers
of Church doctrine; and the only excuse for adding to the
number of books which already deal with it, is the desire to
enable others to gather the first-fruits of many writers and of
recent researches in England and abroad.

During the past three years I have had the privilege,
with the aid of the Managers of the Hort Memorial Fund
αὖ Cambridge, of visiting many libraries to collate MSS., and
have endeavoured to make good use of the opportunities so
kindly offered. In 1896 I visited Leiden, Cologne, Wiirzburg,
Munich, §. Gallen, Karlsruhe, Heidelberg, Wolfenbiittel ; in

vii

Vili PREFACE

1897, Amiens, Rouen, Chartres, Orléans, Paris (Bibliotheque
Nationale), Troyes (the Town Library and the Treasury of
the Cathedral), Rheims; in 1898, Rome (the Vatican Library
and the Library of Prince Chigi), the Ambrosian Library at
Milan, and the Chapter Library at Vercelli. I desire to
express my gratitude for the unfailing courtesy and frequent
personal kindness of the Librarians in all these towns.

I have published some of my collations in The Guardian,
and I beg to thank the proprietors for permission to use
articles contributed to their paper on the Athanasian Creed
and the Ze Deum. I have published some “Sermons on the
Apostles’ Creed” and other notes on creed-forms in the
Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte, xix. Band, 2 Heft, July
1898. I desire to thank Prof. F. Kattenbusch of Giessen
for his kind help in translating my English notes into
German, as for much information at various times.

The net results of such journeys are not to be measured
by the mere storage of new collations in notebooks. So
many new avenues of thought are opened out, the imagina-
tion is stimulated by the sight of historic buildings and the
everlasting hills, knowledge is increased by opportunities of
conversation with distinguished scholars.

I must also express my indebtedness to Prof. J. A.
tobinson as editor of the Zeaxts and Studies, and to the
Syndics of the Cambridge University Press for leave to
reprint certain pages from my book, The Athanasian Creed
and ws Early Commentaries, on pp. 191 seg., 298-307.
My thanks are also due to the Rev. Dr. Robertson, editor
of this series; to the Revs. R. Burn, 5. C. Freer, J. A. Kemp-
thorne, and J. R. Pyle, for help with the MS. or proofs; and
in particular to the Rev. W. G. Clark Maxwell, who has read

PREFACE ix

the proofs throughout. My Chapter on the Ze Dewm is mainly
founded on the learned articles of Dom. G. Morin, O.S.B.,
to whom I am indebted for much information and some
valuable collations. I have also acknowledged some in-
teresting suggestions from the Revs. Dr. Gibson and F. E.
Brightman.

A kindly French critic! of my former book took me to
task for “somewhat rash hypotheses.” I must plead guilty
to the charge of repeating some of those hypotheses, and even
of adding to them. Surely it is not possible to make any
progress without new hypotheses. The one thing needful is
to state the evidence fully enough to serve the critic, who
has a better hypothesis to suggest. Such criticism may
succeed in altering the historical point of view from which
we regard a particular creed; it may change our opinion as
to its date or authorship. But it cannot claim to control
our conviction as to the truth of the teaching recorded in the
Creed, which must rest upon the better foundation of faith.
“Eadem tamen que didicisti ita doce ut cum dicas noue non

dicas noua.” 2

1 Revue Critique, 18th Oct. 1897.
2 Vincentius, Commonitoriwm, xxvii.

= ran

> erate nl
Ὕ τς Sere a
Set Naas :

pastes bes
ee :

a
tae
ee pierces

a
ta
᾿ :
Eton error
mikes
ae τ
ἢ

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTORY
SEC, PAGE
I. Of Method . : : : ᾿ : ‘ 1
II. Of Faith . : E : ᾿ ‘ 3
CHAPTER II

“THE FAITH” IN APOSTOLIC TIMES

I. What we look for in the Epistles of the New Testament . : 8

II. Four Admitted Epistles of S. Paul : : : 10
III. The Epistles of his Captivity i ‘ Ξ : ἢ 18
IV. The Acts and Pastoral Epistles . ; : : ‘ 14
VY. S. John’s Epistles . ; ; : ; Ἷ : 17
VI. The Baptismal Formula . : ς ; : ‘ 20
VII. Types of Preaching Ἶ ‘ P : ' ; 25
VIII. The Apostolic Fathers : ἡ ᾿ : : ; 26
IX. Conclusions ‘ : ‘ ; ‘ ; 31

CHAPTER 11
THE HISTORIC FAITH IN THE SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES

I. A Theory of Growth : Σ , F : ‘ 33
II. The Apologists : ‘ : : : 35
III. Witnesses to the Old ώοΝ Cr or P ; , ; 45
IV. Was the Old Roman Creed ever Revised? . ; : : 57
V. The Date of the Old Roman Creed ; ‘ ; ; 64
VI. The Old Creed of Jerusalem ‘ : : : : 66

VII. Conclusions Σ : aa ὶ ; ‘ ᾿ 70
ΧΙ

ΧΙ

SEC.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER IV

THE THEOLOGICAL FAITH OF THE FOURTH CENTURY

. Of Theological Creeds

. Arius and Arianism ;

. The Council of Nicea in 325

. “The Fight in the Dark” a

. The Council of the Delavan (Second au ἡ πὸ ΡῈ of

Antioch) .

. Arianism Supreme .
. Victory in sight
. Conclusion

CHAPTER V
OUR NICENE CREED

. The Council of Alexandria .

. The Revised Creed of Jerusalem

. The Council of Constantinople

. The Council of Chalcedon . :
. Later History: the Filioque Clause
. Conclusions

CHAPTER VI
THE ATHANASIAN CREED I

. Athanasian Faith in the Fifth Century
. Contemporary Professions of Faith

. The Brotherhood of Lerins

. The Internal Evidence of the Quicungue
. Priscillianism

. Date and Authorship

CHAPTER VII
THE ATHANASIAN CREED II

. The Sermons of Auitus, Cesarius, and others
. The Canons of Toledo and Autun .

. The Tréves Fragment

. Of Eighth and Ninth Century Guyatationis’

PAGE

72
74
76
81

83
91
95
96

98
101
106
110
114
120

124
129
134
137
142
145

150
158
157
160

SEC.

Υ.
"Δ
Vil.
VIll.

CONTENTS

The Early Commentaries

Rival Theories of Origin

The Later History of the Creed

The Text and a Translation of the Quicwngue

CHAPTER VIII
THE APOSTLES’ CREED IN THE FOURTH CENTURY

. The Old Roman Creed
. Aquileia

. Milan

. Africa

. Spain

. Gaul

CHAPTER IX
OUR APOSTLES’ CREED

. Gallican Creeds in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Centuries:

Salvianus, Faustus, Cesarius, rdaiacn of Toulon, eine of
Tours, Eligius

. Creeds of the British Chak Pelagius, μην γον 5 y
. Roman and Italian Creeds: Turin, Ravenna, Rome
IV.

The Origin of the Textus receptus (T)

CHAPTER X

UNSOLVED PROBLEMS

. Bratke’s Berne MS, i

. The Sermon Ausculiate expositionem

. The Creed of Damasus :
. The Rhythm of the Te Dewm and the Giceunats ;
. The Creed of Niceta of Remesiana .

CHAPTER XI
THE “ΤῈ DEUM”

. MSS. and Quotations

. The Authorship :

. The Sources upon which the κάνω may le drawn
. The Text

ΧΙ

PAGE
162
172
182
185

198
201
205
209
214
214

221
228
230
299

241
249
244
248
252

XIV CONTENTS

CHAPTER XII

OF THE USE OF CREEDS
SEC.
I. Of the Early Use of a Baptismal Creed
II. The History of the term Symbolum
iIIJ. Our Use of our Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds
IV. Our Use of the Athanasian Creed .

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTORY

§ I, Of Method.
§ II. Of Faith.

§ I. Or ΜΈΤΗΟΡ

Ir is a question whether the time has yet come when a
complete history of the Apostles’ Creed can be written. A
standard work on the subject is much needed by our genera-
tion. But, in the opinion of some thoughtful writers, the time
is not yet ripe. There is much conflicting evidence with
respect to the early years of its eventful existence which has
to be weighed in the balance. During the past few years
great progress has been made. A mass of new material has
been collected, and to some extent sifted. We may hope that
there is more tocome. The third edition of Hahn’s Bibliothek
der Symbole, to name one book only, is a standing monument
to the fruitfulness of the labours of Caspari, Heurtley, Katten-
busch, and Swainson. The notes include references to the
work of Baumer and Zahn, while Harnack contributes a
valuable appendix in the shape of a revised edition of his
treatise on the materials for the history and exposition of
the Old Roman Creed from the literature of the two first
centuries. Thus this single volume is in itself a vast store-
house of information, tabulated and ready to the hand of the
future historian. The task will not be easy, for the mere
physical labour of reading the literature on the subject will
be appalling. In this respect future students will owe a debt
of gratitude to Kattenbusch, whose history of the creed will

1 Breslau, 1897.
I

2 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

be, when completed, a full introduction to the literature, in
addition to its merits as the most elaborate and learned work
on the subject. While the main propositions of that book
are still sub iudice, there is room left for work of a lighter
kind. In the following history of the creeds I propose to
take a brief survey of the subject. I hope it may be useful
to theological students both as a companion to larger works
and as a supplement in regard of some sections in which I am
able to publish new materials.

Hitherto writers on the Apostles’ Creed may have been
well advised to begin from the period of its final development,
and trace its history backwards from a clearly defined outline
to a shadowy image. This method is eminently scientific.
We do not want to imagine our facts. But since facts are
sometimes stranger than fiction, we ought not to distrust facts
merely because they are strange. It is to be feared that |
some students have an almost unconscious bias against the
acknowledging of anything strange which verges on the
supernatural. Either miracles are possible or they are not.
If not, all vain imaginings to the contrary must be explained
away as fast as we find them, picking our way back through
the tangled web of Church history. In that case, is it worth
while to pursue the study of any creed which contains
mention of the resurrection of our Lord? It is well to be
candid in these matters. As soon as one begins to thread
the mazes of speculation on this subject, it becomes evident
that all investigations into the origins of Christian doctrine
are motived either by a secret hope or a secret despair.

Neutrality on a matter of such moment to all human
souls seems to be impossible. One cannot help being thank-
ful for this. Stormy seas under a darkened sky are better
to face than the uncertain perils of calmer waters in a fog.
Only in the thick haze of uncertainty is it possible to call
darkness light and light darkness, when out of simple con-
fusion of mind we may be led to call all men liars, and find
our hope of a credible history vanish like an empty dream.
Let us at all costs, if we cannot determine our course, disclose
our destination.

OF FAITH 3

As professed scholars of the Eternal Word, incarnate,
risen, ascended, it will not be less our duty to present
evidence plainly and honestly, nor will it be less obvious if
that duty is shirked. While we are collecting our facts, the
more scientific method is, doubtless, to proceed from the
known to the unknown. But when we come to explain them
a theory is necessary, and with any theory an element of
uncertainty is introduced. Why then should we not, in pre-
senting our theory, retrace our steps, from the obscure to the
obvious, from the days when the currents of Christian life
and thought lay unseen beneath the surface of social life, to
the days when the persecuted Church of the Catacombs,
preserved through that mighty upheaval of ideas which has
made our religion dominant in the world’s history, found
kings to be her nursing fathers and their queens her nursing
mothers? I will therefore venture to begin from the beginning,
passing from the evidence of the New Testament down to the
final and polished forms of our Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds,
hoping by resolved restraint of language and imagination to
commend my theory of their growth. To borrow an illustra-
tion from photography. In a clear light the exposure of a
plate need only last a moment. In a dull light exposure
must be prolonged, and we must be content with less definite
outlines. Yet with patience we may hope to reproduce both
distance and foreground. By patience we may hope to obtain
in our study of “the faith” in apostolic times what above
all we need, a sense of perspective, a standard of the relatively
great and little thoughts which stirred in the minds of the
first Christians. What was the secret of their persistency ?
What enabled an apostle to write: “This is the victory that
overcometh the world, even our faith ” ?

§ II. Or Fartu

Faith, according to a modern definition, is “thought
illuminated by emotion and concentrated by will.”! It is
pre-eminently a personal act, and its proper object is a person.

1 Bishop Westcott, The Historic Faith, p. 7.

4 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

Heroes of faith “ endure as seeing Him who is invisible.” It
is an amazing paradox, but it may be illustrated from many
records of human friendships. “ Seeing is believing” in the
sense that to see a friend arrive to our rescue in the moment
of peril is the fulfilment of our hope and the justification of
our trust in him. But “not seeing is believing ” too, if that
friend is deemed worthy of our affection. We are ready to
say with the Hebrew poet, “ Though he slay me, yet will I
trust in him.” Unforeseen delays, inexperience, overwhelm-
ing opposition may combine to frustrate his efforts to bring
succour and comfort, yet will we carry our confidence, our
love—in one word, our faith in him—down into the grave.

This may seem an extreme test of faith, yet common
sense will tell us that it is not unreasonable. And we are
concerned to make reasoning an element in the whole act of
faith. Without reason, faith degenerates into superstition or
credulity ; nor are we constrained to contend for it except in
its purest type. 3

The Christian religion differs from all others in this
characteristic, that it stands or falls solely according to the
measure of faith in its Founder. Buddhism, Confucianism,
Mohammedanism, derive their initial influence from the
teaching of a man whose whole energy was concentrated
upon a form of teaching which he wished to impress on
the minds of others. Principles of self-discipline, a code of
laws, a burden of prophecy, were the legacies left by the
founders of these other religions to their followers. In the
religion of Christ all these elements of teaching are indeed
combined, but as superstructure, not as the foundation, which
is faith in His person.

To support this statement it is not necessary to refer to
documents which may be considered of doubtful authenticity.
In the admitted epistles of S. Paul, faith in the Christ of
the gospel is the starting-point of all his teaching. “ Other
foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus
Christ.” 1

The argument may be confirmed by study of the Gospels,

11 Cor, iii, 11.

OF FAITH 5

but is independent of them, as it is independent of changes
in criticism of their dates and authorship. Yet the following
expression of opinion is welcome, in witness to the substan-
tial accuracy of the history which their authors relate.
“There was a time—the great mass of the public is still
living in such a time—in which people felt obliged to regard
the oldest Christian literature, including the New Testament,
as a tissue of deceptions and falsifications. That time is
passed.” Again: “ A time will come, and it is already drawing
near, in which men will not trouble themselves much more
about the working out of problems of literary history in the
region of primitive Christianity, because whatever can be
made out about them will have acquired general assent,
namely, the essential accuracy of tradition, with but few
important exceptions.” 4

It will be readily admitted that our Lord is represented
in the Gospel history as concentrating His attention upon a
method not, as we might have expected, of reaching the many,
but of training the few. Conversations, sermons, parables, the
working of signs, the very journeys which they undertook
for Him and with Him, were all made use of for the training
of the apostles, till at last they could make the supreme
venture of faith and confess Him as the Christ. From the
lower level of human friendship they were raised to the plane
of worship. Thus it may be truly said that Christ came not
so much to preach the gospel, as that there might be a gospel
to preach, a gospel of faith in Him.

From these reflections follows an important conclusion.
Faith founded on experience must always precede faith
formulated. We live first and think afterwards. Christian
life must be organised before Christian theology can be
thought out. This alone can save theology from becoming a
barren system of dogmatic teaching, which, appealing only to
the intellectual faculties, would increase knowledge at the
expense of faith and love.

This is not a mere axiom of an antiquated type of his-
torical student. We may follow the method of those anthro-

1 Harnack, Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, i. p. viii.

6 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

pologists who study the implements of the Stone Age, and
when they find themselves baffled by the question how some
of these shaped stones were used, seek until in some obscure
corner of the globe they find a tribe using such implements
to this day, preserving the last relics of a living tradition.
We have the records of Christian tradition gathering fulness
as the centuries pass; we have the experience of living
Christians at our doors. It has been well said that “the
Christian religion is one phenomenon—a totality, a whole,
of which the New Testament is only a part. We of to-day
are in actual contact with a living Christianity, which has
persisted through nineteen centuries of human chance and
change; and though hindered, now as ever, by schism,
treachery, hate, flattery, contempt, presents the same essential
features which it presented nineteen centuries ago,—miracles
of penitence, miracles of purity, miracles of spiritual power ;
weakness strengthened, fierceness chastened, passion calmed
and pride subdued; plain men and philosophers, cottagers
and courtiers, living a new life through the faith that Jesus
Christ is God.” }

From this point of view the position of creeds in the
scheme of Christian teaching is easily defined. Some sort of
an historic faith, a summary of the Lord’s life and teach-
ing, must be included in the training of every catechumen.
The ripened believer will ask more — questions must be
raised about the relation of the Lord Jesus to the Father
and the Holy Spirit. This is the province of reverent
theology using metaphysical or psychological terms to aid
accurate thinking. Its definitions are useful as a means to
detect mistakes, to distinguish, as it were, artificial from
natural flowers of Christian thought. That any heresy is an
artificial product is only proved by analysis, by argument,
not by mere assertion. Christian metaphysic is no more an
end in itself than the analysis of good drinking-water. It
supports our conviction, that if we drink of the stream when
it reaches us, we shall find it not less pure than at the
fountainhead. By itself it leaves us thirsty.

1 Tllingworth, Personality Human and Divine, pp. 196 f.

OF FAITH ᾿

It is a mistake to contrast the Sermon on the Mount
with the Nicene Creed, to say that the pure Christianity of
the one has been overlaid with human inventions in the
other. They ought rather to be compared as the description
and analysis of the same river of the water of life, flowing on
from age to age, an inexhaustible, refreshing stream, freely
offered to the thirsty souls of men.

My aim, therefore, is to trace the progress in Christian
thought from the simple confession of Jesus as the Lord in
the New Testament, to its necessary expansion in the Apostles’
Creed and its justification in creeds of the fourth and fifth
centuries.

There is great truth in these words of Kattenbusch:
“He who brings no questions to the subject will often
scarcely mark how fertile it is; he who asks too much
easily believes that he receives an answer where in reality
silence reigns.” I venture to apply them with a somewhat
different reference, because I do not believe that we can
approach this question from a purely literary standpoint.
And what is true of the discussion of a literary question
taken alone is equally true of a question in which literary
and theological interests are combined. There is some danger
lest we should invent explanations of events in past history
to correspond to the facts of modern life. But there is far
more danger in an attempt to reconstruct the beliefs of the
early Christian Church without reference to the fact that
the Church exists to-day, and believes that the life of her
ascended Lord is still brought near to her in creeds and
communicated in sacraments.

1 Das ap. Symbol. ii. p. 25.

CHAPTER II

“THE FAITH” IN APOSTOLIC TIMES

§ I. What we look for in the Epistles of the New Testament.
§ II. Four admitted Epistles of 5. Paul.
§ III. The Epistles of his Captivity.
§ IV. The Acts, the Pastoral Epistles.
§ V. S. John’s Epistles,
§ VI. The Baptismal Formula.
§ VII. Types of Preaching.

§ VIII. The Apostolic Fathers: Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp (the
Didaché ).

§ IX. Conclusion.

§ I. WHAT WE LOOK FOR IN THE EPISTLES OF THE
New TESTAMENT

Many attempts have been made to extract a formal Apostles’
Creed from the New Testament by comparison and combina-
tion of various passages. However ingenious, they always
fail to prove more than this—that there was an outline of
teaching {τύπος διδαχῆς, Rom. vi. 17) upon which apostolic
preachers and writers were agreed. Their message was of
Jesus crucified and risen from the dead, of repentance, of
baptism for the remission of sins, of faith in His name as the
motive power of moral conduct, of confession of that faith as
the condition of spiritual health. “For with the heart man
believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession
is made unto salvation.”! This was their gospel for the man.
in the street. Those who followed them, and desired to
know more of the mystery of Christ, found that all future

1 Rom. x. 10.
8

EPISTLES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 9

instruction was based upon this foundation. All that could
be told of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, who went about
doing good, led up to the supreme act of self-sacrifice on the
cross as the highest revelation of Divine love. In this sense
it is true that “the cross is the best compendium of the
gospel history.” It is the keynote of the sermons of S. Peter
and §. Paul. When 8. Luke wrote for Theophilus “of the
things most surely believed among us,” he could appeal to
his friend’s remembrance of catechetical instruction as
carrying on echoes of the same deep tone. Through the
centuries to come this must be the vantage ground of
faith—

*“ And thou must love me who have died for thee!”

There is no lack of historical illustrations outside the
beaten track. The rude caricature of a figure with an ass’s
head crucified, which was discovered some years ago on the
Palatine Hill at Rome, with the rudely traced inscription,
“ Alexamenos worships his God,” witnesses more eloquently
than many words to the faith which to the world seemed
foolishness, but has outlived the memory of its persecutors.

To Christians the cross was not the symbol of defeat
but of victory. They believed that the power of Christ’s
resurrection gave them courage to seek the fellowship of
His sufferings.

I will endeavour to prove that this teaching was summed
up in an act of confession of faith which was required from
all the baptized, and possessed the character of an historic
faith even in its most primitive and simple form, “Jesus is
the Lord.” Faith in the person of Christ alone leads to
belief of His words in the Baptismal Formula: “Go ye there-
fore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them
into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost” (Matt. xxviii. 19). These simplest elements
of apostolic preaching are the seed-thoughts out of which
grew the later creeds.

1 Zahn, Das ap. Symbol., 1893, p. 101.

10 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

δ II. ΤῊΝ EvipENCcE OF ADMITTED PAULINE EPISTLES

Our task is in some ways made easier by the intense
glare of criticism which, like a brilliant searchlight, has been
cast over every line in early Christian documents. But it
is also made more responsible. No chain is stronger than
its weakest link. It is therefore advisable to discuss first
the evidence of documents of recognised authenticity.

In the four admitted epistles of S. Paul we find stated
the whole series of doctrines to which we have referred as
the groundwork of apostolic preaching. They would suffice
as the basis of all future discussion in this chapter. Their
dates are known. They link the generation of Paul of
Tarsus to the generation of Ignatius of Antioch. They link
the thoughts of men who were contemporaries of the Lord
Jesus, with the new thoughts of men who had grown up
since the destruction of Jerusalem; when “the sect every-
where spoken against” had made converts even in Cesar’s
palace, and planned the evangelisation of the world. These
are the Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians, written, as
is generally held, in the year A.D. 57, and the Epistle to the
Romans, written in the spring of the following year.

In the words, “No man can say that Jesus is the Lord,
save in the Holy Ghost” (1 Cor. xii. 3), faith is traced to its
source, and its proper object is stated as a personal act of
trust in a Divine person. Yet more clearly is the high aim
of faith stated in the earnest exhortation: “If thou shalt
confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in
thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou
shalt be saved” (Rom. x. 9). There is no limitation here to
the fulness of the apostle’s Messianic hope. He traces back
the prediction of “ this word of faith,” + which is the staple of
his preaching, to the lips of the prophet Joel (chap. ii. 32).
He implies that the Lord Jesus is one with the Lord Jehovah,
on whose name the prophet bade men call. We may
compare the teaching in 1 Cor. i. 2, where he tries to stop

1 Dr. Robertson, Athanasius, p. xxii, shows that in this remarkable
passage Κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν ΞΞ αὐτὸν = ἸΚ ύριον =mn’ (Joel ii. 32).

ADMITTED EPISTLES OF S. PAUL II

THE EARLIEST CONFESSION

1 Cor. xii. 3. Rom. x. 9. 1 Joun iv. 15.
A.D, 57, A.D. 58. A.D. 80-90.
οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃς ὃς ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃ
εἰπεῖν ὅτι ὅτι
II. 31 Κύριος Ἰησος 11. 8 Κύριος Ἰησοῦς καὶ Ἰησοῦς Χριστός]έστιν
πιστεύσῃς ἐν τῇ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁ Θεὸς
καρδίᾳ σου ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ μένει καὶ αὐτὸς
5 ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ἤγει- ἐν τῷ Θεῷ.
ρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν.
εἰ μ
11.9 ἐν πνεύματι
ἁγίῳ.

1 The numerals refer to the numbering of the divisions and clauses of the
Apostles’ Creed adopted throughout.

12 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

factious disputes by reminding the Corinthians of the larger
life of Christendom among those who “ call upon the name of
our Lord Jesus Christ in every place.”

Well might he turn upon his foes, found even in “the
household of faith,’ Judaisers among his Galatian converts,
with the declaration that his one theme of boasting is “the
cross of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Gal. vi. 14). “The rule”
by which he exhorted the Galatians to walk (ibid. 16) was
the confession of faith in Christ crucified, in whom there is
neither circumcision nor uncircumcision.

The only formal statement in these passages is the
simple confession that “Jesus is the Lord.” But the teaching
about the life of holiness which He had lived, the institution
of the Holy Communion “the same night that He was
betrayed,” His death and resurrection, leaves out no essential
element in the story of the Gospels’ evidence, and as such is
more valuable, because it assumes that these Churches in
Galatia and Corinth and Rome were in possession of the
traditional story of the life of Christ. Inferences are drawn
which would be utterly unintelligible to us were we not in
possession of the key to their explanation.!

From these foreshadowings of an historic faith, which give a
summary of the teaching about the Lord Jesus, we turn to the
theological arguments which the apostle connects with them.

“To us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all
things, . . . and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all
things” (1 Cor. viii. 6). Our thoughts are led by “the same
Spirit,’ who teaches us to confess “the same Lord,” up to
faith in “the same God,” who worketh all in all (1 Cor.
xii. 4-6). The final benediction expresses a similar train of
thought: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of
God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with you all”
(2 Cor, xiii. 13).

Thus we find blended in the teaching of 8. Paul the
thoughts, which are unfolded in the later Apostles’ Creed,
of the mystery of Divine life, and of the life which Jesus,

Thus Zahn, op. cit. p. 64, suggests that Gal. iv. 4, ‘‘born of a woman,”
in that context implies a reference to the miraculous birth.

EPISTLES OF S: PAUL'S CAPTIVITY 13

the Son of God, lived under human conditions. If all the
rest of the New Testament had perished, we might still have
pointed to these Epistles to explain alike its Trinitarian
framework and its Christological tradition.

§ II. Toe EPISTLES OF HIS CAPTIVITY

The Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and Ephesians,
which were written during 8. Paul’s imprisonment at Rome,
cannot be said to add much to our information as to a form
of creed which the apostle can be said to have used. There
is the constant repetition of the title Lord Jesus Christ
to confirm the supposition that this was his one formula.
There is the evidence of several Trinitarian sentences, which
may be compared with the benediction (2 Cor. xiii. 13), and
as clearly point to the words of the Lord in the Baptismal
Formula for their origin. As before, he leads the thoughts
of his readers up from the “one Spirit,” in whom they are
united, to the “one Lord” and “one God” and Father of all
(Eph. iv. 4—6). Conversely, he gives thanks to “God, the
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” having heard of the
“faith” of the Colossians “in Christ Jesus,” and their “love
in the Spirit” (Col. 1. 3, 4, 8). The importance of these
epistles consists in the development of 8S. Paul’s Christo-
logical teaching, but this belongs to the sphere of dogmatic
theology, and we cannot discuss it. Our profound interest is
aroused by his teaching of the Gospel of Creation, as we
might call it, the eternal purpose of the incarnation, in Col.
i, 15-18. That teaching is developed when he writes to the
Philippians of the humiliation to which the Son of God must
stoop in taking our nature upon Him, his Gospel of the
Incarnation (Phil. 11, 5-11). And it is completed in His
Gospel of the Ascension, when he writes to the Ephesians
(i. 20-23) that He who was nailed to the cross had
raised our manhood to the throne of heaven.

“Stone walls do not a prison make, nor iron bars a cage.”

The active mind of the apostle had not been warped by

14 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

imprisonment, and the justification of the great thoughts
which crowded upon him may be found in the moral influence
which his epistles exert to this day.

§ IV. Taz Acts AND THE PASTORAL EPISTLES

The same keynote is struck in the sermons of S. Peter in
the Acts. On the day of Pentecost he assumes that the gift
of the Holy Spirit is the fulfilment of the word of the Lord
by the same prophet Joel, whose words S. Paul used to
emphasise the mystery of Divine life in Christ. He asserts
in the same way that Jesus is the Lord, the Christ, whom
the Jews crucified, of whose resurrection the apostles are
witnesses, who has ascended (Acts ii. 33). On these historical
facts he bases an appeal that his hearers should repent and be
baptized for the remission of sins. In chapter iil, having
laid stress on the same points, the crucifixion and re-
surrection of Jesus, God’s Son, he adds that He will come
again. In chapter xiii, S. Paul’s sermon at Antioch in
Pisidia covers the same ground. A Saviour, Jesus, the Son of
God, was crucified, raised, through whom is preached forgive-
ness of sins. It is interesting to note here the reference to
Pilate (ver. 28: “Though they found no cause of death in
Him, yet desired they Pilate that He should be slain”), which
occurs in one of the four sermons of S. Peter. Apart from
the question of the formula used in baptism, which can be
discussed separately on its own merits, there can be no doubt
as to the Trinitarian belief of the author of the Acts. The
whole book has been called “ the Gospel of the Holy Spirit.”

The Pastoral Epistles add personal touches to this general
exhortation of large crowds. S. Paul reminds Timothy
(1 Tim. vi. 12) of the confession before many witnesses which
he had made, presumably at his baptism. He calls it the
beautiful confession (καλὴν ὁμολογίαν) to which Christ
Jesus has borne witness before Pontius Pilate, and charges
him before God, who quickeneth all things, to keep this
commandment undefiled, irreproachable, until the appearing
of our Lord Jesus Christ.

THE ACTS AND PASTORAL EPISTLES 15

This is one of the most important passages in the New
Testament, certainly the one most often commented on. Per-
haps the simplest explanation of the confession (ὁμολογία)
which the Lord witnessed, is to say that it consisted in the
avowal that He was a King (John xviii. 36). It may be con-
trasted with the Baptist’s declaration that he himself was not
the Christ. The word confession here, as elsewhere, points
attention to the fact that He confessed rather than any form
of words. The root-idea is that of a transaction.!

It is connected by Justin Martyr with the idea of
worship (προσκύνησις). This is exactly parallel to the use
of S. Paul in Rom. x. 9, when the prophecy quoted leads on to
the thought of prayer. In the Martyrium S. Ignati, which is
dependent on 1 Tim. vi. 12, ἡ καλὴ ὁμολογία is referred not
to the creed, but to the martyrdom of one who witnesses
by bloodshedding. It does not seem possible to extract more
from the words than that Timothy was to make a similar
confession of Christ as King and Lord. Mention of Pilate was
included in S. Paul’s teaching, not necessarily in his creed.

Again, in the Second Epistle he reminds Timothy (i. 13)
of “the form of sound words” which he had taught him.
His thoughts seem to pass back from the time of Timothy’s
ordination to be a herald and teacher of the gospel, and from
the perils of present warfare (ii. 3), to the equally troublous
times when he himself had been driven from Antioch and
Iconium and had come to Lystra (iii. 11), to find this apt
pupil so ready to receive instruction. “Hold the pattern
of healthful words, which thou hast heard from me, in faith
and love which is in Christ Jesus” (i. 13). ‘“ Remember
(μνημόνευε) Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, of the seed
of David, according to my gospel” (ii. 8). He bids him pass
on this teaching heard among many witnesses (11. 2) to faith-
ful men, whom he is to put in remembrance (ὑπομίμνησκε)
in his turn (ii. 14). These are explicit references to an
outline of teaching which (as we have gathered from the
context) had been taught by 8. Paul from the beginning of
his first missionary journey. It included faith in God, who

1 Kattenbusch, ii, p, 343, n. 12,

16 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

1 Tim. vi. 13. 2 TIM. ii. 8. 2 Tim. iv. 1.

A.D. 67. A.D. 68. A.D. 68.
Παραγγέλλω σοι Διαμαρτύρομαι ἐνώπιον
ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ

I. 1. τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ Cwo-
ποιοῦντοςτὰ πάντα Μνημόνευε
II. 2. καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν καὶ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ

4. τοῦ μαρτυρήσαντος
ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πι-
λάτου τὴν καλὴν
ς rv , > , 3 ae
ὁμολογίαν. .. ὅ. ἐγηγερμένον ἐκ νεκρῶν
, “ > /
7. μέχρι τῆς ἐπι- ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυείδ.
φανείας τοῦ Κυρίου
ς “ 3 a
ἡμῶν Inoov Xpio- poner, :
A . τοῦ μέλλοντος κρίνειν
τοῦ } a Γ ᾿ P \
ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς,
‘ \ > ,
καὶ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν
3 a 1 A
αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν βασιλ-
εἰαν αὐτοῦ.

1Cf. vi. 3: Et τις ἑτεροδιδασκαλεῖ, καὶ μὴ προσέρχεται ὑγιαίνουσι λόγοις τοῖς
τοῦ Kuplov ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

S. JOHN’S EPISTLES 17

quickeneth all things, in Christ Jesus, of the seed of David,
who suffered under Pontius Pilate, and is coming again
to judge the quick and dead.

It is indeed natural that these hints of a form of teaching
should be more explicit in letters which refer to Timothy’s
personal history.

The Epistle to Titus has more general references to “ God
the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour” (i. 4), the
glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus
Christ, who gave Himself for us (ii. 13, 14). The Holy
Spirit is mentioned in connection with baptism (i. 5), but
this passage does not lead to any conclusion as to a Trini-
tarian form of creed, because the characteristic contrast of
the Persons “of God... and of Christ Jesus,’ found in
1 Tim. vi. 13, is lacking

From these passages it may be gathered that 8. Paul’s
teaching always followed certain lines, but the only trace of
a fixed form of confession is the bare “ Jesus is the Lord.”

§ V. S. Joun’s EPISTLES

To this primitive form, however, we have testimony from
an unexpected quarter, the Eunuch’s Confession: “I believe
that Jesus is the Son of God,” which has been interpolated in
the text of Acts viii. 37. It was known to Irenzus in this
form. Apparently it represents the form of Baptismal Con-
fession in the Church of Asia Minor, whence Irenzeus drew
his tradition. And this suggestion is confirmed by the evi-
dence of the Johannine Epistles: “ Whosoever confesses that
Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God”

1 Zahn, op. cit., p. 40, begging to be excused for the anachronism, calls the
former passage traditio, the latter vedditio, of the faith. Undeniably we see
here the germ of the later practice, but we must guard against including in 8,
Paul’s Creed all that he desired to teach by way of explanation.

2 Haussleiter, Zur Vorgeschichte des ap. Glawbensbekenntnisses, p. 85, n. 65.

8 Tren. iii, 12. 8(p. 485, ed. Stieren): ‘‘ Credo Filium Dei esse Jesum.” The
Cod. Laudianus (sec. vii.) has ‘‘ Credo in Christum, Filium Dei” = πιστεύω εἰς τὸν
Χριστὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, a catena of the twelfth century: πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τὸυ
Θεοῦ εἶναι Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.

2

18 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

(1 John iv. 15). “Who is he that overcometh the world,
but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 John
v. 5). Haussleiter’ points out that in the first of these
quotations the expression ὃς ἂν ὁμολογήσῃ is to be dis-
tinguished from the much more common expression ὃς ὁμολογεῖ
(cf. 1 John iy. 2). The aorist tense points to a single definite
act, to the confession from which the divine indwelling is
dated.

In the second case the context shows the drift of thought.
Jesus has been proved to be the Christ historically by (διὰ)
water and blood, His baptism and crucifixion. He now works
in the Church, not only in (ev) the water of baptism, but
also by cleansing in His blood. Thus the writer leads up to
the thought of the Baptismal Confession : “ This is the victory
that overcame (ἡ νικήσασα) the world, even our faith. Who
is he that overcometh (νικῶν) the world, but he that be-
lieveth that Jesus is the Son of God?” The aorist again
points to the single moment of baptism.”

The evidence of the Epistle to the Hebrews is of a similar
kind. “ Having therefore a great high priest, who is passed
into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our
confession” (iv. 14). The other passages in which the author
speaks of a confession (ὁμολογία) are less definite. Jesus is
called “the Apostle and High Priest of our confession ” (iii. 1).
This at all events implies confession of Him by this name.
And in another passage, where the main thought is still the
lifting up of their thoughts to Jesus “within the veil,” he
bids his hearers hold fast “the confession of their hope”
(x. 23).

It seems strange that Kattenbusch*® should quote these
verses to illustrate the use of ὁμολογία in cases where no
form was implied. He seems to have in his mind only the
form of teaching given to Timothy, which, of course, differs
from that before us. It is the parallelism to the Johannine
Epistles which redeems it from vagueness.

This simple creed: “I believe that Jesus is the Lord (or

.P. 20. 2 Cf. Westcott, Epistles of S. John, ad Loe.
3 ii, p. 348, τ, 12

S. JOHN’S EPISTLES 19

1 Joun iv. 15.

ὃς ἐὰν ὁμολογήσῃ ὅτι

Ἰησοῦς [Χριστός] ἐστιν
ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ Θεὸς
» >

ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, καὶ αὐτὸς

ἐν τῷ Θες.

1 JouN v. 5.

ς

τίς ἐστιν [δὲ] ὁ νικῶν
τὸν κόσμον, εἰ μὴ ὁ πισ-

, [ > “ ? \
τευων τι Ἰησοῦς ἐστὶν

ε «ιν “ a
ὃ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ;

Hes. iv. 14.

Ἔχοντες οὖν ἀρχιερέα
μέγαν, διεληλυθότα τοὺς
οὐρανοὺς, ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν
υἱὸν Tov Θεοῦ, κρατῶμεν

τῆς ὁμολογίας.

20 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

the Son of God)” is the first historic faith of the Church,
but it does not stand alone. It leads on our thoughts to the
Baptismal Formula.

§ VI. THe BaprisMAL Formvuta (5. Matt. xxviii. 19)

The early history of the Baptismal Formula is obscure and
needs fuller investigation. Some critics have dealt with it
capriciously, asserting offhand that it is not a word of the
Lord, and that the primitive formula was Christological rather
than Trinitarian—‘“in the name of Jesus (or the Lord Jesus).”
They appeal to the following passages: Acts 11, 38, viii. 16,
x. 48, xix.5; Rom. vi. 3; Gal. 111. 27. Further, they maintain
that this more primitive formula lasted on till the days of
Cyprian (Zp. 73), though it was eventually superseded.

We are free to discuss this as a question of literary
history without dogmatic bias, because theologians of unim-
peachable repute, from 8. Ambrose to Thomas Aquinas, have
maintained that the two formule were equally orthodox.
Trenzeus himself has said: “ In Christi enim nomine subauditur
qui unxit et ipse qui unctus est et ipsa unctio in qua unctus
est.” And Ambrose? follows on the same lines. On the
other hand, critics writing from a Unitarian standpoint have
interpreted the Trinitarian formula as expressing faith in
God, in Jesus, and the gift of an impersonal Spirit.

It seems strange that the text of 8. Matthew does not
show any unsettlement in MSS. or Versions if xxviii. 19
did not form part of primitive oral teaching. It has been
suggested * that “into the name of the Son” stood at first
alone, and has been added to in the same way as the form of
the Lord’s prayer given in its shortest form in S. Luke has
been enlarged. As regards some of the added words in the
Lord’s prayer, there is no difficulty in supposing that the Lord
Himself gave it in a longer and shorter form, the outline
remaining unchanged. As regards the doxology, which is
traced to the liturgical use of the prayer, and was added to

1 Adv, heres. iii. 18, 3 (p. 519, ed. Stieren). 2 De Spu. Sco. i, 4. 48,
ὃ Haussleiter, op. cit.

THE BAPTISMAL FORMULA 21

be as it were the Church’s thanksgiving for the prayer, there
is marked unsettlement in the texts of both Gospels. Per-
haps the earliest witness to it outside the New Testament is
the Old Roman Creed itself, which, as we shall see, may be
dated with some confidence from the year A.D. 100.

The Didaché shows dependence on the Gospel of S.
Matthew at other points,so that it is not worth while in this
connection to contend for an earlier date than A.D. 120. It
has in ce. 7: “ Now concerning baptism, baptize thus: Having
first taught all these things, baptize ye into the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, in living
water, And if thou hast not living water, baptize into other
water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm (water).
But if thou hast neither, pour (water) thrice upon the head
into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost.” In ec. 9 we find the direction: “Let none eat or
drink of your Eucharist, except those baptized into the name
of the Lord.” Here the writer seems to think rather of the
new relationship into which the baptized is brought than of
any form of words used.

The evidence of Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 61) is no less
definite, to the effect that the act of baptism was done “ in
the name of the Father of all things and our Lord God, and
our Saviour Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.”

On the other hand, all the references to baptism in (or
into) the name of the Lord Jesus might refer either to the
confession made by the baptized or to the new relationship
to Christ into which they were brought on becoming His
members.

There are two prepositions used. “In” (ἐν) refers to
the sphere of remission of sins wrought by the power of
the name of Christ, as the sick were healed by His
name, This is S. Peter’s word in Acts 11. 38 and x. 48.
“Into” (εἰς) denotes purpose, the desire to bring the
baptized within the range of that power. The disciples of
John, whom 5. Paul met at Ephesus (Acts xix. 3), told him
that they had been baptized “into (es) the baptism of
John.” This does not mean that John used the formula,

22 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

“T baptize into the name of John.” We gather from S.
Paul’s reply that he said “ for repentance.” The disciples of
John seem to have confessed themselves such, just as Corin-
thian partisans labelled themselves disciples of Cephas or
another. We do not need to suppose that 8. Paul’s words
to them (1 Cor. i. 12—15) imply that they baptized into the
name of Cephas or Apollos, or Christ or Paul. Why should
not the words which follow, “they were baptized into the
name of the Lord Jesus,” refer to their confession that they
would now be Jesus’s disciples? The fact that S. Paul took
pains to instruct them about the Holy Spirit seems to imply
some mention of His work in the form used (ae. the Trinitarian
formula ?).

The other passages generally quoted in this connexion
refer obviously to the benefit of baptism, the death unto sin
in Rom. vi. 3: “Know ye not, that as many of us as were
baptized into Christ [Jesus] were baptized into His death ?”
and the life into righteousness in Gal. iii. 27: “As many of
you as were baptized into Christ put on Christ.”

Such arguments by themselves would appear inconclusive,
if we could not appeal to an unbroken traditional use of the
Trinitarian formula, witnessed to by Justin Martyr, Irenzeus,
and Tertullian.

Attention has been called to the sevenfold vow of renun-
ciation of various kinds of sin which a conservative sect, the
Elchasaites, made the candidate promise.! It does not follow
that they did not, like ourselves, add a vow of faith, We
know so little about them that we may well be cautious in
arguing from their practice as to the practice of the Catholic
Church, which it might resemble as little as the peculiar
ceremonies of the Salvation Army.

This brings us to the letter of Cyprian to Jubaianus (Lp. 73)
on the rebaptism of heretics in the year A.D. 256. This is
made the court of final appeal in this question, because it is
argued that we have here proof that the practice of baptizing
“in the name of the Lord” still lasted on in the Church.
The question has been discussed most thoroughly by the late

1 Ap. Hippolytus, ix. 15, Hatch, Hibbert Lectwres, p. 337.

THE BAPTISMAL FORMULA 23

Archbishop Benson in his book on Cyprian. He writes:
“There seem to have been in Africa some who understood
baptism ‘in the name of Christ’ to be sufficient without the
Trinal Invocation. This was evidently very rare, if ever it
was more than an exception.” ὦ

There is an important document to be read with Cyprian’s
letter, the anonymous tract “On Rebaptism,”? an able state-
ment of the Catholic case against Cyprian. This was possibly
the actual enclosure sent by Jubaianus to which Cyprian
replies. The author does not say a word about any section
of the Church as using any but the Trinal Invocation, which
is not only “ true and right, and by all means to be observed
in the Church,” but is “also wont to be observed.” It is for
heretical, not orthodox, baptism “in the name of Jesus” that
he pleads that “it might have a sort of initial virtue capable
of subsequent completion.”

The same view was maintained by Stephen, Bishop of
Rome, in the “one harped-on quotation,” which we find in
the letter of Cyprian to Jubaianus (Zp. 73), and in the letter
of Firmilian (Zp. 75). “Those who are wheresoever and
howsoever baptized in the name of Jesus Christ obtain grace
of baptism.” “Stephen uses ‘ baptized in the Name of Christ’
in the New Testament sense as equivalent to Christian bap-
tism.” He illustrates the use from the passage of Origen
quoted above, and asserts that Firmilian expressly assumes
(Hp. 75. 11) that Stephen would require the Symbolum
Trimtatis, even though his principles would (as he supposes)
allow, if it were correct in that point and in the interroga-
tions, a baptism by a demoniac or a demon.

It is quite clear that the question at issue between
Stephen and Cyprian was not one of comparing the value of
two forms, but rather whether a schismatic person can bap-
tize. The less is included in the greater. Since Cyprian
denied the validity of heretical baptism under any circum-
stances, it was useless to discuss any question of forms. But

1P. 405.
2 Printed by Routh, Rel. Sacr. v. 291. The only MS. known, formerly at
Rheims, has now disappeared. I spent some time looking for it in May 1897.

24 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

the latter appears as a subordinate question of exegesis.
Cyprian admits that the apostles baptized “in the name of
Christ” only. But he assumes that this was only practised
in the case of Jews who already confessed the Father. For
the Gentiles, the Lord ordained that they should be baptized
in plena et adunata Trinitate (Ep. 73.18). Therefore it is
too much to say that, “had he conceived ‘ baptism in Christ’s
name’ to imply the disregard of Christ’s ‘form,’ he would
have been armed with an argument against Stephen which
he could not have failed to use.”

Who, then, were the heretics whom the author of the
tract “On Rebaptism,’ and possibly Stephen also, had in
mind as baptizing “in the name of Christ,” whose baptism
Cyprian would reject (to use a modern term) on the ground
of “intention” rather than of form? Obviously the Mar-
cionites. Cyprian (Hp. 73. 4) says that the epistle sent him
by Jubaianus made mention of Marcion, “saying that not even
such as came from him were to be baptized, as appearing to
have been already baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.”
Indignantly he denies that the faith with Marcion is the
same as with the Church. If Marcion baptized with the
Lord’s own words, he would not hold the same Trinity as
we (c. 6). The case of those baptized in Samaria is quite
different, since they were baptized within the Church (c. 8).
It appears from these words that Marcion and his followers
used the form “in the name of Christ.” This was quite in
accord with the special variations which Marcion thought
fit to introduce into his system. Above all, in his interpreta-
tion of Scripture was he a literalist, and in such parts of
S. Paul’s writings as he accepted he would find. support of
texts, like Rom. vi. 3, for his new form. Neither Cyprian
nor the Roman theologians had a better exegesis to offer.
They could only point to the common practice of the Church,
and explain the apostles’ divergent practice as due to special
circumstances.

It is not claimed that this explanation solves all diffi-
culties, and it is not likely that much fresh light will ever be

1 Benson, p. 407.

TYPES OF PREACHING 25

thrown upon the question. The “charity which hopeth all
things” leads theologians to accept baptism “in the name
of Christ,’ but they do not thereby commit themselves
to the position that it must be considered the primitive
form, or that its use must be supposed to have been of
more than sporadic growth, beginning and ending with the
Marcionites at this period, as with the Bulgarians in the
ninth century.

In the Acts of Barnabas—a Gnostic document of the
second century—occurs the phrase, βαπτίζομαι εἰς τὸ ὄνομα
τοῦ κυρίου. This seems to be the earliest witness to the
Gnostic practice. It derives some confirmation from the
elaborate description of the ceremonies of initiation among
the Gnostics, which is given by Irenzeus.

§ VII. Types oF PREACHING

Before leaving the New Testament, it may be well to
turn for a moment to some set types of teaching and preach-
ing which may be distinguished from those quoted above.
We may conveniently follow Harnack’s methodical classifica-
tion.1 Thus we find teaching cast (a) in the form of a
chronicle (Mark xvi. 9 ff.), or (Ὁ) in the form of a chronicle
with short proofs (1 Cor. xv.). (6) Sometimes the writer
represents his teaching as the fulfilment of prophecy (2 Pet.
i. 19). Again, we find the scheme moulded (d) on the anti-
thesis κατὰ odpxa—xata πνεῦμα (1 Pet. iii. 18), where the
apostle has instruction of candidates for baptism in his
mind. After speaking of Christ’s suffering for sins, the Just
for the unjust, thus founding his message on the cross, he
contrasts the death in the flesh with the quickening in the
spirit, speaks of the preaching to the spirits in prison and
of the salvation of Noah’s family in the ark as a type of
baptism, leading up to the mention of “the question and
answer (ἐπερώτημα) of a good conscience toward God through
the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is on the right hand of
God, having gone into heaven.” (6) Another setting is

1 Hahn,? p. 364; and PRE,® Art. ‘‘ap. Symbolum.”

26 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

moulded on the thoughts of the First and the Second Coming
(2 Tim. iv. 1), when the apostle charges Timothy thus:
“TI testify in the sight of God, and of Jesus Christ, who shall
judge the quick and dead, both of His appearing and His
kingdom.” (/) Lastly, a passage like Eph. iv. 9 is moulded
on the scheme xataBas—avaBas: “Now this, He ascended,
what is it but that He also descended (first 2) into the lower
parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that
ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all
things.”

With these quotations we may fairly be said to have
exhausted the list of New Testament passages which are in
any way parallel to a formal creed. Looked at all round,
they show how unsafe it is to classify scriptural names for
creeds, which are purely general—“ the form of teaching,”
“the faith,” “the deposit.” They might be applied to any of
these schemes. There are two in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
which we have not noted. Heb. vi. 1, “the word of the
beginning of Christ,” explains the fulfilment of the Messianic
prophecies in Jesus of Nazareth. It is to be compared with
the phrase in Heb. v. 12, “the beginning of the oracles of
God,” which refers to the records in which the Messiah is
foreshown.t These might serve as titles for a Christian
apology, but not for a creed.

§ VIII. THe ApostToLtic FATHERS

We turn now to the writings of the so-called Apostolic
Fathers, pupils and successors of the apostles.

Clement, Bishop of Rome, wrote an Epistle to the
Corinthians, which gives a charming impression of the
writer's character, his sweet reasonableness (ἐπιείκεια), but
does not throw much light on our subject. There is no
reference to a confession or creed, but there are two explicit
statements of faith in the Trinity which express his conscious-
ness of the distinctions between the Divine Persons. “Have
we not one God and one Christ and one Spirit of grace,

1 Westcott, ad loc.

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 27

which was poured out upon us?” (1 Cor. xlvi. 6). “As
God lives, and the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy
Spirit, the faith and hope of the elect” (2d. 1ν111. 2). “Is
it not fair to say that he claims for the Son and the
Spirit a personal life, which is not absolutely identified with
the life of the Father, and yet is understood to be Divine?” +

A more important witness is Ignatius, the martyr-bishop
of Antioch, whose letters, while they breathe a fiery en-
thusiasm, a passion to dare and suffer, teach “a theology
wonderfully mature in spite of its immaturity,’ and an
outline of historic faith exactly parallel to the teaching of
S. Paul, who started from this same Antioch on his first
missionary journey sixty years before.

To the Ephesians, c. 18: “ For our God, Jesus the Christ,
was conceived in the womb by Mary, according to a dispensa-
tion, of the seed of David, but also of the Holy Ghost; and
He was born and was baptized, that by His passion He might
cleanse water.”

To the Trallians, c. 9: “ Be ye deaf therefore, when any
man speaketh to you apart from Jesus Christ, who was of
the race of David, who was the Son of Mary, who was truly
born and ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius
Pilate, was truly crucified and died in the sight of those in
heaven and those on earth and those under the earth; who,
moreover, was truly raised from the dead, His Father having
raised Him, who in the like fashion will so raise us also who
believe on Him—His Father, I say, will raise us—in Christ
Jesus, apart from whom we have not true life.”

To the Smyrneans, Ο. 1: “ I have perceived that ye are
established in faith immovable, being as it were nailed on the
cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, in flesh and in spirit, and
firmly grounded in love in the blood of Christ, fully persuaded
as touching our Lord that He is truly of the race of David
according to the flesh, but Son of God by the Divine will and
power, truly born of a virgin and baptized by John, that all
righteousness might be fulfilled by Him, truly nailed up in the
flesh for our sakes under Pontius Pilate and Herod the

1Swete, Zhe Apostles’ Creed, pp. 31 f.

28 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

tetrarch (of which fruit are we—that is, of His most blessed
passion); that He might set up an ensign unto all the ages
through His resurrection, for His saints and faithful people,
whether among Jews or among Gentiles, in one body of His
Church.” :

An interesting point is his use of the Pauline phrase “ of
the seed of David.” It would be a necessary element in the
first preaching to the Jews, but in the next generation
dropped out of the creed of the Church, which was pre-
dominatingly Gentile.

I have not attempted to piece together a complete creed
on the model of the later historic faith from all the passages
in the Ignatian Epistles! There is no need to strain the
evidence. It concerns us only to know that Ignatius ex-
pressed his faith in the Trinity, in the Son and in the
Father and in the Spirit (ad Magn. 13), in the same order as
S. Paul uses 2 Cor. xiii. 13, which is, as Lightfoot shows, “a
natural sequence. Through the Son is the way to the Father
(John xiv. 6): this union with the Father through the Son
is a communion in the Spirit.”?

For the same reason we will not linger over the Christo-
logical teaching, in which Ignatius seems almost to anticipate
Athanasius by his clear-cut antitheses (ad Eph. 7): “There
is one only physician, of flesh and of spirit, begotten and
unbegotten, God in man, true Life in death, Son of Mary and
Son of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ
our Lord.”

These are ante-Nicene phrases, and there is no advantage
in trying to read into them the precise meanings of post-
Nicene statements. It is, after all, natural to leave room for
growth and development.

From Ignatius we turn to his friend and pupil, Polycarp,
the pupil also in earlier days of the Apostle John. Polycarp

1 Kattenbusch has expressed his conclusion clearly (ii. p. 318), where he says
that Ignatius is formally dependent on himself alone, and that the parallels to
the Old Roman Creed are accidental, except so far as they are in content un-
avoidable. See the note 81. |

2 Apost, Fathers, τι. ii, 187 n.

THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS

29

IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 110)

To THE EPHESIANS,
6. XVill.
¢e ‘ A ¢
o yap Θεὸς μων
Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς ἐκυο-
, ¢ A , >
φορήθη ὑπὸ Μαρίας κατ
οἰκονομίαν, ἐκ σπέρματος
μὲν Δαυεὶδ πνεύματος
δὲ ἁγίου" ὃς ἐγεννήθη καὶ
» , “ “ [4
ἐβαπτίσθη ἵνα τῷ πάθει
τὸ ὕδωρ καθαρίσῃ.

To THE TRALLIANS,
Οὐ 1x.

Κωφώθητε οὖν, ὅταν
ὑμῖν χωρὶς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
λαλῇ τις, τοῦ ἐκ γένους
Δαυείδ, τοῦ ἐκ Μαρίας,
ὃς ἀληθῶς ἐγεννήθη,
” , em
epayév τε καὶ ἔπιεν,
ἀληθῶς
Ποντίου Πιλάτου,ἀληθῶς
b U , UE ,
ἐσταυρώθη καὶ ἀπέθανεν
βλεπόντων[τῶν] ἐπου-
ρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ
ς , a ΝΣ
ὑποχθονίων, ὃς καὶ ἀλη-
θῶς ἠγέρθη ἀπὸ νεκρῶν,

- ga
επὶι

ἐδιώχθη

ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν τοῦ
πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὸ
ὁμοίωμα ὃς καὶ ἡμᾶς τοὺς
πιστεύοντας αὐτῷ οὕτως
ἐγερεῖ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ ἐν
Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, οὗ χωρὶς
τὸ ἀληθινὸν ζὴν
ἔχομεν.

>
OUK

To THE SMYRNZANS,
¢, i.

ἐνόησα yap ὑμᾶς κατ-
ηρτισμένους ἐν ἀκινήτῳ
πίστει, ὥσπερ καθηλω-
μένους ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ
Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
σαρκί τε καὶ πνεύματι,
καὶ ἡδρασμένους ἐν
ἀγάπῃ ἐν τῷ αἵματι
Χριστοῦ, πεπληροφορη-
, ,
μένους eis τὸν Κύριον
«ς ΄σ 3 A δ >
ἡμῶν ἀληθῶς ὄντα ἐκ
, \
γένους Δαυεὶδ
, «" “ ‘
σάρκα, υἱὸν Θεοῦ κατὰ
θέλημα
, > lal >
γεγεννημένον ἀληθῶς ἐκ
παρθένου, βεβαπτισ-
΄ GER ἧς , “
μένον ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου iva
TAHPWOH πδοὰ
fs
AIKAIOCYNH = Um
αὐτοῦ, ἀληθῶς ἐπὶ Tlov-
τίου Πιλάτου καὶ Ἡρώδου
τετράρχου καθηλωμένον
Cee eee ΡΝ τὴς δὼ 4 ἢ
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐν σαρκί" ἀφ
οὗ καρποῦ ἡμεῖς ἀπὸ

κατὰ

. ’
καὶ δύναμιν,

τοῦ θεομακαρίστου αὐτοῦ
e a ν
πάθους" ἵνα APH CYC-
CHMON εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας
διὰ τῆς ἀναστάσεως εἰς
A

τοὺς ἁγίους καὶ πιστοὺς
» A ” > > ,
αὐτοῦ, εἴτε ἐν ᾿Ἰουδαίοις
Ε 3 "») > ¢ 4
εἴτε ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐν ἑνὶ
σώματι τῆς ἐκκλησίας
αὐτοῦ.

30 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

was a man of very different mould, unoriginal in the extreme,
but on that very account a better witness to the tradition,
which it was his to pass on from the first generation of
Christian hearers to the third. He is the link between
S. John and the young generation of Christian apologists,
Justin Martyr, Melito, Aristides, who were coming to the
front when he paid his historic visit to Rome and celebrated
the Holy Communion for Bishop Anicetus. At that time
Ireneus, his old pupil in Asia Minor, was beginning to
attract attention by his lectures on heresies in this capital
of the Old World, the centre of its commerce and of its
speculations. Writing to the Philippians, Polycarp lays stress
(c. 2) on the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, in
words taken from the First Epistle of S. Peter. This was
part of his teaching, but there is no proof that his confession
included more than we have gleaned from the First Epistle
of S. John. In ec. 7 he urges confession of Jesus Christ
come in the flesh, and the witness of the cross, in words
which are an echo of 1 John iv. 2—4.

Polycarp’s death in AD. 155 marks the close of the
apostolic age. He had lived on past the day of small things,
to see the Catholic Church exerting a world-wide influence,
and to testify that this influence stands or falls with loyalty
to the faith of Christ.

Something remains to be said about the Didaché, to which
reference has been made more than once. Without attempt-
ing to review the reviews of the many theories as to its
origin and history, I will only claim for it the date defended
by Lightfoot! and Zahn ?—a.p. 80-130. It seems to bea
Jewish manual of advice on conduct worked up by a Christian
writer, who records details of value as to the administration
of Holy Baptism. It belongs to a period of undeveloped
Church organisation, and the only trace of a formal creed
contained in the reference to those baptized into the name
of the Lord (c. 9) agrees with the early Pauline confession.

The prayer (c. x. 2): “We thank thee, Holy Father,
. . . for the knowledge and faith and immortality which

1 5. Ignatius, i. 739. 2 Forschungen, iii. 278.

CONCLUSIONS 31

Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy servant,”
seems to contain a reminiscence of 8. Peter’s sermon (Acts
iii. 13, 26) or the prayer (Acts iv. 27, 30).

δ IX. CoNncLUsIONS

We arrive at the conclusion that the so-called Apostles’
Creed did not exist in apostolic times. At the same time,
we are free to admit that the substance of its teaching was
primitive. The Ignatian Epistles, which form the connecting-
link between the Pastoral Epistles and the apologists of the
second century, prove that instruction was given in Antioch
on all the points characteristic of the teaching of the
developed creed, the miraculous birth, the crucifixion, the
resurrection. The following reconstruction of an Apostolic
Creed,1 while it represents the general teaching of the first
decade of the second century, is obtained by arbitrary
selection of phrases :—

For JEwIsH CHRISTIANS. For GENTILE CHRISTIANS.

I. Πιστεύω eis (πρὸς) Θεὸν (πατέρα) 1. Πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν παντο-
παντοκράτορα. κράτορα

II. Καὶ εἰς τὸν υἱὸν Θεοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦν II. Καὶ (or πιστεύω) εἰς ἕνα υἱὸν Θεοῦ
Χριστὸν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν, κατὰ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, κύριον ἡμῶν,
σάρκα ἐκ γένους (σπέρματος)
Δαβίδ, κατ᾽ οἰκονομίαν (or
θέλημα οΥ δύναμιν) Θεοῦ γεννη-

θέντα (Or γεγεννημένον) ἐκ γεννητὸν ἐκ (or διὰ) παρθένου
(ὑπὸ) Μαρίας τὴς παρθένου, καὶ Θεοῦ (or ἁγίου πνέυματος)
βεβαπτισμένον ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου,

ἀληθῶς ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου τὸν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου σταυρω-
(παθόντα) σταυρωθέντα καὶ θέντα, κιτ.λ,

ἀποθανόντα' Ὃς ἀληθῶς ἠγέρθη
ἀπὸ νεκρῶν, ἀνέβη (ἀνελήφθη)
2 » \ 2 4 > n
eis οὐρανοὺς, ἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾷ
τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὃς ἔρχεται κρῖναι (OF
κριτής) ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς
(ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν)

1 Baumer, p. 156.

32 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

For Jewish Curistians—contd. For GENTILE CHRISTIANS—contd.
111. Kat (πιστεύω) εἰς τὸ (or ἕν) III.

πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν

(καθολικὴν) ἄφεσιν (λύτρωσιν)

ἁμαρτιῶν, σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν

(ζωὴν αἰώνιον).

It is interesting to contrast Harnack’s reconstruction of
“an oldest creed,” which he is careful to explain “is not a
creed that was ever used or ever likely to be used.” ?

Πιστεύω εἰς (ἕνα) Θεὸν παντοκράτορα, καὶ eis Χριστὸν
᾿ἸΙησοῦν, τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν, τὸν γεννηθέντα διὰ
(ἐκ) παρθένου, τὸν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου παθόντα (σταυρωθέντα)
καὶ ἀναστάντα (ἐκ νεκρῶν), καθήμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅθεν
(ἐν δόξῃ) ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς, καὶ εἰς τὸ
πνεῦμα ἅγιον [sic].

The utter uncertainty of all such speculations may leave
us content with the moderate anticipations with which we
approached the evidence, expecting only to find seed-thoughts,
and finding them in the Baptismal Formula and the simple
confession, “Jesus is the Lord.” At first hearing, such con-
clusions may sound thin and poor, but we may well ask
seriously whether we have any right to expect more. If the
growth of the kingdom is compared by Christ to the growth
of a seed growing secretly, we must expect to find the early
history of creeds obscure. The seed of a garden plant
contains in it the promise of bud and flower, but it is only
through the hidden working and secret chemistry of nature
that it is transformed. To look, then, for the twelve articles
of the Apostles’ Creed in the New Testament, is like looking
for the sprouting of a seed while we keep it in a paper
packet.

1 Hahn,’ p. 390.

CHAPTER III

THE HISTORIC FAITH IN THE SECOND AND
THIRD CENTURIES

§ I. A Theory of Growth.
§ II. The Apologists :
1. Justin Martyr.
2. Aristides.
3. Irenzus.

$ III. Witnesses to the Old Roman Creed :
1. Marcellus and Rufinus.
2. Novatian, Dionysius, Cyprian.
3. Tertullian.
§ IV. Was the Old Roman Creed ever revised ?
§ V. The Date of the Old Roman Creed.
§ VI. The Old Creed of Jerusalem.
§ VII. Conclusions.

§ I. A THrory or GROWTH

Tuus far we have watched only what we might call the
planting of the creed. The faith of the gospel was preached
by the apostles in outlines of teaching, which were like seeds,
buried that they might spring up and bear fruit.

The preaching of S. Paul to the Churches of Corinth and
Rome was echoed by Clement. The solemn charge in the
Epistles to Timothy rang also in the ears of Ignatius. We
shall trace the influence of this Pauline form of sound words
in the history of the venerable Old Roman Creed (R).

This creed of the future was of composite structure.
The Baptismal Formula was its framework, but it gained from
the added confession of Jesus as the Lord, born, suffering,
dying—thoughts which from the first craved for utterance and
fired enthusiasm. By a natural sequence of thought, mention

3

34 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

was also added of the work of the Holy Spirit alike in the
Holy Church and for the individual believer.

Side by side with it must be set the most ancient short
Creed of Jerusalem, the origin of which may possibly be
sought in the preaching of S. Peter on the day of Pentecost.
To the Baptismal Formula were added only the words, “one
baptism for the remission of sins.” At a later period it too
was enlarged on similar lines, either from current teaching or
from the Roman Creed. |

Thus we shall trace the growth of its usefulness, first as
an historic faith, the rule of a catechist’s teaching; then as a
theological faith, the watchword of a Church militant against
error. The chief difficulty in tracing out a history of develop-
ment after this kind is to avoid an ὦ priori and mechanical
theory of two parallel types in East and West, or of one arche-
type from which all forms are to be derived, as if it was a mould
into which they could be pressed. We expect to find frequent
variations in the creeds of Churches successively organised,
and we have no right to suppose that they can all be explained
in one way. When we come to the most difficult stage of our
inquiry, the transition from the testimony of individual writers
to the acknowledged creed of a Church, it is so easy to strain
the evidence, and compile, by a too arbitrary critical process, a
Creed of Antioch gleaned from Ignatius, or a Creed of Ephesus
from Justin Martyr, or a Creed of Gaul from Irenzus.

I have endeavoured to approach the testimony of the
writers of the second century with an open mind. The
period is obscure, because so many documents have perished.
This is the result of devastating wars and of persecutions in
which Christian books were destroyed.

- Hence arose the fear of committing precious beliefs to
writing, which lasted on, as we shall see, to the fourth
century. So it comes to pass that the earliest forms of com-
plete Church creeds which we can identify with certainty are
only found in writings of the fourth century, when Chris-
tianity became a permitted religion, and Christian books were
brought out freely to the light of day. It may be questioned
whether the reserve which, in the course of the era of

JUSTIN MARTYR 35

persecution, Christian teachers were constrained to maintain,
was felt to be as important in the second century. Justin
Martyr does not seem to speak so cautiously as Cyril of
Jerusalem. Yet he wrote at a time when the coarse hatred
of the world had already raised fierce persecutions against
the new religion, with its unbending morality and unflinching
protest against wickedness in all places. Even a tolerant
philosopher like Marcus Aurelius might fear social dangers
from the rapid increase of close guilds of Christians, acting as
a solvent upon a corrupt civilisation which despised itself
and suspected others.

δ II]. ΤῊΝ Apotocists: 1. Justin MARTYR

Justin Martyr, a native of Palestine, was the son of
heathen parents, and in his early manhood an ardent student
of the Platonic philosophy. When “the gates of light,” to
use his own beautiful phrase, “ were opened to him,” and he
became a scholar of Christ, he devoted himself to the work
of presenting, in a form which might attract thoughtful men,
the truth which had brought him peace and joy. He taught
in Ephesus, where he was probably baptized, and also in
Rome, where he suffered martyrdom (6. 165).

The evidence of his writings is suggestive. It cannot be
called complete. In fact, it is very puzzling to any who try
to make too much of it. We may classify the passages
quoted under two heads: (a) Expansions of the Baptismal
Formula; (@) Specimens of Christological teaching.

When Justin speaks of baptism, he states definitely that
instruction was given to the candidates, and that a promise
was required from them (Apol. 1. 61): “ΑΒ many as are per-
suaded and believe that these things are true which are taught
and said by us, and promise that they can live thus, are
taught both to pray, and to ask from God with fasting for-
giveness of their former sins.” The teaching may have varied,
as in Justin’s varying expansions of the Baptismal Formula.
But the substance of the teaching plainly included two points
which it is well to emphasise. The Lord Jesus was wor-

36 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

shipped (Dial. 38): εἶτα ἄνθρωπον γενόμενον, σταυρωθῆναι, καὶ
ἀναβεβηκέναι εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν, καὶ πάλιν παραγίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς
γῆς, καὶ προσκυνητὸν εἶναι. This is a charge put into the
mouth of Trypho, but it is at once accepted by the apologist.
And the Holy Spirit was asserted to possess a distinct
individuality (Dial. 36): καὶ ἀποκρίνεται αὐτοῖς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ
ἅγιον ἢ ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ πατρὸς ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἰδίου.

JUSTIN MARTYR
(a) Expansions of the Baptismal Formula
Apol. i. 61. ab. ad fin.

Ὅσοι ἂν πεισθῶσι καὶ πιστεύωσιν
ἀληθῆ ταῦτα τὰ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν διδασκόμενα
καὶ λεγόμενα εἶναι, καὶ βιοῦν οὕτως
δύνασθαι ὑπισχνῶνται, εὔχεσθαί τε
καὶ αἰτεῖν νηστεύοντες παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ
τῶν προημαρτημένων ἄφεσιν διδάσ-
ἡμῶν συνευχομένων καὶ
συννηστευόντων αὐτοῖς. ..

κονται,

Τὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς τῶν ὅλων
% , ~ W
καὶ Δεσπότου Θεοῦ ὄνομα...

3 3 3 , A an 4 “
Ex ὀνόματος yap τοῦ Πατρὸς τῶν

ὅλων καὶ Δεσπότου Θεοῦ, καὶ τοῦ Mae

Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ
Πνεύματος ἁγίου, τὸ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι τότε
λουτρὸν ποιοῦνται.

pe we ΤΣ a9 a a a
ἐπ᾽ ὀνόματος δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ
>
σταυρωθέντος ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου,
>
καὶ ἐπ᾽ ὀνόματος Πνεύματος ἁγίου...

ὁ φωτιζόμενος λούεται.

Justin’s Christological teaching is found in some five
different references to (a) general teaching on the Incarna-
tion, (Ὁ) the fulfilment of prophecy, (6) (d) the history of the
Lord Jesus, (6) a prayer of exorcism, (f/f) an Old Testament
type. These passages show marked variations from the text
of R. The order “Jesus Christ” might be explained as the
accidental alteration of a copyist, were it not for the fact that
in (Ὁ) the order is approved by the addition of the word
“our ”—“ Jesus our Christ.” And in (/) emphatic prominence
is given to the name “Jesus, whom we also knew fully as
Christ, God’s Son.”

Again, in five out of these six passages some reference is
found to the Lord’s death This had been an element in the

1 Zahn quotes four others, Apol. i. 63; Dial. 63, 74, 95.

37

JUSTIN MARTYR

tee ‘alisid > aoaan
-oolashndvu aNd
1D ‘saoandao $Q0L
$13 p1ogayliysap 1»
DLADLODAD IDX DLAI

é ς Ἁ ΄
-©0ADLO 3039 A01X
aotoidy = aanlmahs ua
‘ ΄ ς
sian wx ao ‘anooly
- 2 .% ν - ς
4ρ. spa 10 43100.0

sino 3? wy OL
sod στή, ms3admaag
“CEL °92

(f)

‘M1L30.0DL0L0
ἸΌΝ WivpNId aAodAdT
-o51xdoFa aoraonme

ADL agavdao aon $19
SoLapgoap ἸῸΝ ‘awd
4 «ς 7 »"
τοϑα NI SOLADLODAD
ἸῸΝ ‘soLdoang0.un
Ἁ . ς
wy ‘aora AODY 20L
\ » > . »
OLQ ΔΟ.ΟΥΊΤ] 207LA0TT
1.1.3 SoLa2godav1o
Ἁ ς ΄
10% ‘noxmdgap aoaarl
‘\ 4 ς ΄
-oaahk aoLligns wx
soLarglaarr Δ043ρ
΄ ΄
re ‘
doy] 21g 1D ‘sm3.0144
shovu
1D 4036 (0. 201K 204

novoLoLOd 2

a0LNOL 2O0LAD δο.ΌΥ
-o10 aot dvhk vivy
‘ ς Ww ‘ λ
C8 ἽΡΊΩ
(a)

ee . ᾿Δ042
-dao $13 arsgayliyaap
‘u.103ap

“Dg0Lp

1D» aoa
$199@davDL0
\
1% ‘ugonroamus
‘ ΄ ©
Saooly, 10. lighaxaup
»ν ον 4 ς
Sou@dgay ΠΟΛΞΡΘΟΌΤ]
‘
n1Q ‘aliyaog) 203 απο.
-0OL03Y IDX AMLADL
‘ \ ΄
δΟΟ ΌΤΙ aot als viv»
\ - ‘ λ

** *AOLDYITT 2074407]
(42 qysne} pur ‘aoza
-uday 143 UIOG SBM
qty 4817 {0891
OM Jel} WpopMouy
-oe syuouoddo ang

‘OF "Qe
(p)

*aoandao 519 49
-\32ap 43.023\).0D¢)3
‘ [4
wr “ἰμο9αρ ‘amang
-O1D 1D 5129@danL0

Ss. \

‘soso1dX saoolty,
δ eee ον ὁ,
"GP “9%

(9)

ἘΠ *“aoarnliyxan ID»
΄ Ἁ
DLAQ 203Q 401K 10.
‘aoaasnoXdaap sao
-pdao 519 19» ‘aoaarl
-od1ahaap Ww “DLA0N.0
-Lagoup ἸῸΝ “0.
‘ ς Ἁ ‘
-0dx ποῦσϑ.5γυ1 aor
anooly, aoasrinodanso

20 aoasdaocakn
1D aoastlaoaop
10 ‘psaodiah3aap

Sa0dx3za ἸΌΣ ‘aDINDY
\ Ἁ é

-pr avovu 1D¥ 20.004
ADODL p1aonsundrp

Dy ‘aoa anaodgan

Ἁ ΄ ς
¢

wy aoargdnu 219

aoasnoaash ‘aoaanl

-oarkndv ‘aoaatlo.o
-oadlinodu

sioygg

AOL SsIDL

aatlodas
amslcbod x
ᾧρ aq.
‘TE “Qe
(9)

hrnyonay, yoorbopojswyy (0) “YALIVIN NLLSOL

* + + ‘aQgandao
aoL 512 i mwargay
-ly2ap DLapLovan Dx

© ΄ σὺν
Ὁ ΠΟΛΌΡΟ "10 Ὁ.1130
é . «vr ΄
τοσαῦθ... πο. 0.ν 10
«
που. aoyoxongiy
aoL aorordx anooliy
‘ \ - «
wpolashahr ΌΤΙ
aaxonp δΌὈΊΞΊΥ]1.:9
asap 0390 aos Ὀγΐ κα
ie — ~~
rah aosods 1103 0
‘aohoy 402 10. 30 OF
OV A 3Q gt

"IZ τ yody
(p)

38 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

teaching of Ignatius to the Trallians (c. 9). At a later
time it was stated in the declaration of the elders of Smyrna
against Noetus, and Tertullian found reason to insist on it,
in connection with 1 Cor. xv. 4, writing against the error of
Praxeas. But it is never found in R.

The variety of context in which these parallels to the
Apostles’ Creed are found is an argument against the sup-
position that Justin professed one such form in a Baptismal
Creed. It is interesting to note that the most complete
specimen (6) is a formula of exorcism, and that Irenzus at
the end of the century spoke of the power of “the name of
Jesus Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate” in a similar
connection.! But the wording might just as easily have been
borrowed from a fixed formal creed as from current modes
of teaching.

There is no proof that Justin’s personal creed contained
more than “Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.” His use of
the words ὁμολογία and ὁμολογεῖν is varied. In the first
Apology they are naturally referred to confession before a
ruler. In Dial. 64, the Jew Trypho is represented as con-
necting the thought with prayer to Christ: οὐ δεόμεθα τῆς
ὁμολογίας αὐτοῦ οὐδὲ τῆς προσκυνήσεως. Justin’s own use
implies that the preaching of Jesus crucified is to lead up to
confession of Him as Lord and Christ (Dial. 35): ὁμολογοῦντας
ἑαυτοὺς εἶναι Χριστιανοὺς καὶ τὸν σταυρωθέντα ᾿Ιησοῦν
ὁμολογεῖν καὶ Κύριον καὶ Χριστὸν. Again, he writes of
guarding such a confession (Dial. 47): μετὰ τοῦ φυλάσσειν τὴν
eis τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁμολογίαν. In the second Apology
the word is used in the sense of teaching.? Apparently he
laid stress on the act of confessing, rather than any special
elaboration of the form.

By an elaborate argument, Kattenbusch*® seeks to prove
Justin’s acquaintance with R. Since he had taught in Rome,
this is quite possible, and even probable, if R was composed
ὁ. 100. The most interesting coincidences of language are:

1 We find traces of such a form in Egypt in the third century. Palladius,
Hist. Lousiaca, c. 29. Cf. Kattenbusch, ii. p. 291 ἢ.
2 Kattenbusch, ii. p. 289 n. 5.10, 279-298.

JUSTIN MARTYR 39

(i.) Justin’s use of σταυρωθῆναι (Dial. 51, 76, 100) in his
quotation of Matt. xvi. 21 = Mark viii. 31 = Luke ix. 22, in
place of the word ἀποκτανθῆναι of our Textus receptus. This
is followed by τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστῆναι, where Mark
(Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort) has καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας
ἀναστῆναι ; Matthew, Luke, καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐγερθῆναι (some
MSS. of Luke, ἀναστῆναι).

(ii.) He speaks confidently of the resurrection of the flesh
(Dial. 80): ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ εἴ τινές εἰσιν ὀρθογνώμονες κατὰ πάντα
Χριστιανοὶ, καὶ σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν γενήσεσθαι ἐπιστάμεθα.
We may give such coincidences their full value, and yet remain
unconvinced that the creed was then used in Ephesus.?

In any case, the testimony of Justin is valuable for the
interpretation of the language of R. He believed in the
pre-existence of Christ before the incarnation. Thus he
writes (Dial. 105): “ He was the Only-begotten of the Father
of the universe, inasmuch as He was, after a peculiar manner,
produced from the Father as His Word and Power.” If the
word “only-begotten” had come into R, we may fairly ex-
plain it in the sense which Justin vindicates. If not (p. 62,
infra), there still remains the question how to interpret the
Divine Sonship taught in R. And from Justin we learn
that it is not to be limited to the human life of Jesus in
which it was manifested, though Justin connected it specially
with that life? The Church as yet thought vaguely® about
Christ’s pre-existent life, but the main point is the fact that
it was believed.

The elaborate inquiry contributed to the Zeiischrift fir
Kirchengeschichte* by Bornemann offers an interesting summary
of his teaching, formed by extracting all the creed-phrases
which are most frequently used.

Πιστεύομεν εἰς (ἐπὶ) τὸν πατέρα τῶν ὅλων καὶ δεσπότην

1On the other hand, the only test of an Eastern type besides the words
‘* Jesus Christ”’ and ‘‘dead,” mentioned above, is the word πάλιν with refer-
ence tothe Return. Apart from μετὰ δόξης this cannot be said to be conclusive.

2 Dial. 88.

8 Cf. Ps. Clem., 2 Cor. 9: Χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος. . . ὧν μὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦμα

ἐγένετο σάρξ.
4TII. 1879.

40 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

Ocov' καὶ eis (ἐπὶ) τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν, Tov πρω-
τότοκον αὐτοῦ υἱὸν, τὸν (κατὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς βουλὴν) διὰ
παρθένου γεννηθέντα καὶ παθητὸν γενόμενον ἄνθρωπον καὶ
σταυρωθέντα ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου καὶ ἀποθανόντα καὶ ἀνασ-
τάντα ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ ἀναβάντα εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ μετὰ δόξης
πάλιν παραγενησόμενον (κριτὴν πάντων ἀνθρώπων). Kai εἰς
(ἐπὶ) τὸ ἅγιον προφητικὸν πνεῦμα.

This arithmetical method is too mechanical. It puts
before us an artificial form which was certainly never used
either in Ephesus or Rome. Creeds are not made by such
processes, nor are they to be rediscovered. As a mere digest,
like modern gleanings from the sermons of a distinguished
preacher, the result is instructive, but withal dull.

2. ARISTIDES, A.D. 140-148

The Apology of Aristides, a philosopher of Athens, was
formerly known to us only by the notices in Eusebius and
Jerome. In 1878 the Mechitarists of San Lazzaro published
a portion of an Armenian version. In 1889, Professor Rendel
Harris found a fragment of the Syriac text in the library of
the monastery of S. Catherine at Sinai. This enabled Pro-
fessor Robinson to discover part of the Greek original in the
Life of Barlaam and Joasaph.

The following passage suggests the inference that
Aristides, like Justin, confessed Jesus Christ as the Son of
God, that he also taught that He was pre-existent and mani-
fested by the Holy Spirit, born of a Hebrew virgin. All the
words which are doubly attested are printed in spaced type or
italics. It would be easy to prove that he also believed in
one God, Creator of heaven and earth, but this was not part
of his confession.

ARISTIDES!
GREEK. SYRIAC. ARMENIAN,
oi dé χριστιανοὶ ye The Christians then But the Christiansare
γενεαλογοῦνται ἀπὸ reckon the beginning of race-reckoned from the
τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ theirreligionfromJesus Lord Jesus Christ. He

1 Texts and Studies, i. 1. 78 (2nd ed.).

GrEEK—contd.
Χριστοῦ. οὗτος δὲ δυϊὸς
τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου
ra a > 7
ὁμολογεῖται ἐν πνεύ-

’ 3 ᾽ 3 [οὶ
ματιἁγίῳ am οὐρανοῦ
‘ ‘ \
καταβὰς διὰ τὴν σωτη-
ρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων"

ἯΙ, , [2 ,
καὶ ἐκ παρθένου ἁγιάς
γεννηθεὶς, ἀσπόρως τε
καὶ ἀφθόρως, σάρκα
ἀνέλαβε,

’ > ,
φάνη ἀνθρώποις.

‘ >
Kal ave-

Irenzeus was a native of Asia Minor.

IRENAZUS

SyR1aAc—contd.
Christ, Who is named the
Son of God Most High ;
and it is said that God
came down from heaven,
and from a Hebrew
virgin took and clad
Himself with (flesh;
and there dwelt in a
daughter of man the Son
of God.

3. IRENZAUS

41

ARMENIAN—contd.
as Son of God on high,
Who was manifested by
the Holy Spirit: from
heaven having come
down ; and from a Heb-
rew virgin having been
born: having taken His
jiesh from the virgin,
and having been mani-
fested by the nature
of this humanity [as]
the Son of God.

In his youth he

had been a pupil of Polycarp, and of others who had been
While he was still a young man he

disciples of 8S. John.
migrated to Gaul, and was ordained priest at Lyons.

The

first missionaries who came to Gaul seem to have come from
Asia Minor, following a great trade route. The sympathy
which existed between the Churches was fostered by the
letter in which the Christians of Lyons and Vienna described
their sufferings during the persecution of A.D. 177 to their
brethren in Asia. Before this Ireneus had been sent on an
important mission to Rome, and had lectured against heresies.
On his return he was chosen as bishop.

IRENAUS
c. Her. i. 10. ab. 11. 4. ab. il. 16.
ἡ μὲν γὰρ ἐκκλησία
. παραλαβοῦσα
τὴν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν πατέ- in unum Deum cre-
pa παντοκράτορα,τὸν dentes
πεποιηκότα τὸν οὐρανὸν Non ergo alterum
kal τὴν γῆν καὶ τὰς Filium hominis nouit
θαλάσσας καὶ πάντα τὰ euangelium nisi hunc,
ἐν αὐτοῖς, πίστιν. καὶ qui ez Maria,
ες ἕνα Χριστὸν per Christum Jesum

Ἰησοῦν, τὸν viov τοῦ Deri Filium

42

c. Her. i. 10—contd.

Θεοῦ, τὸν σαρκωθέν-
τα ὑπὲρ τῆς ἡμετ-
ἐρας σωτηρίας"
εἰς πνεῦμα

4
καὶ
[ὦ
ἅγιον,

εν κὰι τὴν ἐκ παρ-
θένου γέννησιν, καὶ
\ , \ \
τὸ wdOos, καὶ τὴν

» “
ἔγερσιν ἐκ νεκρῶν
καὶ τὴν ἔνσαρκον
εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς

ἀνάληψιν τοῦ ἠγαπη-
μένου Χριστοῦ
τοῦ κυρίου
καὶ τὴν ἐκ τῶν οὐρ-
δόξῃ

παρου-

Ἰησοῦ
ἡμῶν

ανῶν ἐν τῇ
τοῦ πατρὸς
σίαν αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ
ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι τὰ
πάντα καὶ ἀναστῆσαι
πᾶσαν σάρκα πάσης
ἀνθρωπότητος.. ..

καὶ κρίσιν δικαίαν ἐν
τοῖς πᾶσι ποιήσηται"...
τοῖς δὲ ἐκ μετανοίας,
ζωὴν χαρισάμενος ἀφ-
θαρσίαν δωρήσεται...

cp. 1. 1. 6.

᾿] Ὁ»
εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν
παντοκράτορα.

πατέρα

iv. 43. 1,

> Ψ \ 4
εἰς €va Θεὸν παντοκρά-
Topa ... kal eis rov
εκ “A A > a
υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ Ἰησοῦν
Χριστὸν (Lat. Christum
Tesum)

ἡμῶν.

΄
τὸν κύριον

ab, ii. 4—contd.

ex wirgine generation-
em sustinuit θέ passus
sub Pontio Pilato et
resurgens et in claritate
receptus,

in gloria uenturus

cudex eorum qui iudi-
cantur

cp. 11. 49. 3.

Where the context
suggests reference to
a form of solemn
oath.

’ » ‘ > ~ r
ἐν ὀνόματι ἴησου Xpic-

τοῦ τοῦ σταυροθέντος

ἐπὶ Llovriov Πιλάτου.

ap. Euseb. Π.Ε.
v. 20. 2.

ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζῶντας
’ὔ
καὶ νεκροὺς. ...

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

ab. ii. 16—contd.

qui et passus est; sed
hune qui natus est
Tesum Christum nouit
Dei Filium et eundem
hunce passum resur-
Ce eee

Ipse est Lesus Christus
Dominus noster qui et
passus est pro nobis et
surreait propter nos et
rursus wenturus est im
gloria Patris

cp. ui. 17. 3.
sedentem ad dexteram
Patris.

iv. 37. 2.
Christum Iesum, qui
sub Pontio Pilato

crucifixus est et passus
est.

IREN.ZUS 43

The testimony of Irenzeus is the more valuable because,
as we have seen, it was not moulded by one strain of Christian
influence only. The Rule of Faith which he teaches is not
unlike that of Justin Martyr. But it is more complete, since
it starts from teaching about the Father, which Justin gave
only in connection with the Baptismal Formula.

In the Christological part we note the phrase “Son of
God,” which was found in Ignatius and Justin. Seeing that
Irenzus is the earliest witness for the Eunuch’s Creed in Acts
ix., there is some ground here for the hypothesis that the only
ὁμολογία or formal confession, which he had been taught
from his youth, was of the same simple kind, “I believe that
Jesus is the Son of God.” ‘The fact that the Holy Ghost is
not mentioned in his Rule of Faith makes it appear improb-
able that he is reproducing the creed of his Church in Gaul
in a stage of development parallel to that of the Old Roman
Creed. At the same time, there are many phrases which
seem to point to acquaintance with the latter, eg. the exact
wording, “One God the Father Almighty,” the order of the
names “Christ Jesus,” eg. iv. 37. 2: “Christum Jesum qui
sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus est,’ and the use of “ex” with
“ Maria uirgine,” as in R.

The note of suffering, which is common in Justin, is
connected with the name of Pontius Pilate two or three
times. This represents, in the later Western Creeds of Milan
and Gaul, a distinct variation from the Roman type, under
the influence, no doubt, of the teaching of the apologists.

Treneus lived and wrote during a most critical period.
The spread of Gnosticism threatened to effect what has
been called in a clever phrase “the acute Hellenising. of
Christendom.”! It was an anti-Judaistic movement, which
took shape among Gentile Christians. In its origin it was
not Christian but heathen. Its fundamental problem, the
origin of evil, was solved, not on Christian lines, by the
suggestion of a Demiurge. The founders of Gnostic systems
have been classed among “ the first Christian theologians.’ ?

1 Harnack, D.G.? i. p, 186.
2 Ib. p. 191. For the other view, see Seeberg, D.G. p. 62.

44 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

But this is a mistake, though the first beginnings of formal
theology are found to date from that period. Opposition had
a stimulating effect upon the minds of Christian teachers.
They picked their words more carefully; they were led in
time to question more thoroughly the validity of their argu-
ments and of their conclusions. This is the good side of all
controversy seen in its human aspect. The historian of the
creeds, if he still believes in the Holy Ghost, finds here
evidence of His working. In proportion as a Christian
theologian in any age does not enter upon controversy with
a light heart, seeking less to win advantage over his adver-
saries than to witness to the truths which are for him “ the
master light of all his seeing,” he will in all humility gain
for himself guidance in dark paths of perilous speculation,
and that growth in grace which enables him to win moral
influence to stir wills as to move minds.

These considerations explain the method while they
suggest the wisdom of the appeal of Ireneus to the Scriptures
as the ultimate rule of faith, the touchstone of the teaching
of the living Church.

With Irvenzus we leave behind the age of the apologists,
and look forward to the fruit of their labours. The Church
was strongly organised, and increasing everywhere. Irenzus
speaks of many countries — Germany, Iberia, the Celts,
Egypt, Libya—as receiving one faith. This is not mere
exaggeration in view of the multiplicity of faiths in current
use at the beginning of the fourth century. While they were
many in outward expression, they were one in their common
outline and the substance of their teaching. We hear of no
difficulties raised by travelling Christians, like Marcion or
Marcellus, as to differences which they found in the Old
Roman Creed compared with other summaries of the faith.
Augustine, as we shall see, used indifferently the Creeds of
Milan and Africa. The fires of controversy were already
kindled, and would blaze for many years to come, but the last
of the apologists, when he passed to his rest, might thank
God and take courage, because he had not laboured in vain
nor spent his toil for nought.

THE OLD ROMAN CREED 45

§ ILI. THe OLp ROMAN CREED

At this point, where we pass from the indirect testimony
of possible quotations to the definite evidence of an established
form of Church creed, it seems wise to reverse our method
and pass on to the period when the whole of the Old Roman
Creed was quoted openly. There is no doubt that Tertullian
and Cyprian quoted from fixed forms. But it will be easier
to combine such quotations with the less determinate testi-
mony of Novatian, and to work back to a decision as to the
parallels or quotations found in Irenzus and Justin, if we
start from an undisputed position. Kattenbusch has done
this on a large scale, and it is open to anyone to reap the
benefit of his researches.

The Old Roman Creed is quoted in full by two writers
of the fourth century, Marcellus and Rufinus.

1. Marcellus and Rufinus

Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra, in Galatia, having been
exiled from his diocese through Arian intriguers, spent the
ereater part of the years A.D. 340, 341 in Rome. On his
departure he left with Bishop Julius a statement of his
belief on the main outline of the faith and on some disputed
points, to be used by his friends in his defence.

It is to the credit of an English theologian, Archbishop
Ussher, that he was the first to discover that this document,
which has been preserved by the historian Epiphanius (Har.
Ixxii.), did not contain the Creed of Ancyra, but the Creed of
the Church in Rome, which Marcellus adopted and made his
own. There are two small variations, the omission of the
word “ Father” in the first article and the addition of the
words “eternal life” in the last. Probably these were not
intentional. They do not seem to bear any relation to the
private speculations of Marcellus, which will occupy our atten-
tion presently. The three MSS. in which this part of the
text of Epiphanius is preserved come from the same source,

46

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

*prlasau «ογήρ 9. 613 Ἰ0Ὴ
~~ ς Ἁ

“ΛΟ. ΔΌ ποΊα
» ς Vo
aor anooly aozoidy 513 DH
\ a < \ ς ‘

‘pdospd YOLADL nd>41p
A039 539

69 ‘A°V ‘9 ‘SOISANOICT

‘yeonpoad vajsou Βχοά100
* + + ΤΠΟΓΟΤΊΟΘ ΤΙ Β91 pe

‘aqeqiyoues
ULBISOTIVO
‘uInyoureg

wnywidg ul wre asapeso

syyeqyiion °° 2

: WNIMWO XepNt
51.704

TWB.10}XIP pe SNANSSIS

‘snqlOUl Ὁ SsnanqzooIINsad

‘elle Xo

Wnty tod pos
“ΠΧ 7501 Uwna Ty VUNUTULOCy

unsere wnyslyg ‘aq
un Ul ways asepaso
£ ταϑητιϑηοάτιπαο
wnuimog jo woai4yeg
wine] UL snuVpery
“UUNYUULO OWE
qr supper pbrxa vynbary
ὍΘ ᾿ΑὙ 9 ‘NVILVAON

[01am alo]
‘a1.0D1.0D aD soxdn.o
‘
amsdonp arorapy

‘apioliy9 > anikp
é c ͵ 2

‘pnaaau aorkp OL 519 1D

*snod >a
wm SpLaw> ΛΊΞΛΊΟΥ m13Xd2 A390
‘sodsvyy]
AOL 1339 43 aoaanlignx ἸῸΝ

snoandao 560. 519 DLavgpap
‘ ς \ ς ΄ ς
‘amdxaa AML
3. DLADLODAD ddarll lisrds lit wx
‘pLarpos wy pLazgodavio
΄ \ ΄

AOLDYITT ΔΟΊΛΟΤΤ

1.39. = AOL
‘aoarpdpu sls svidvyy wr
΄ » ͵ Ἁ.

aorky δΟ ΌΤΙ 94. 43 piarglaarh 40.»

Saonl
aondax aoe ‘iashoaon a0L 20100
aoa aot Sanooly aosoidy 513 wx
vo \ » « ῚῚ ς Ἁ

‘pdospd yoLan uo
409 $73 ON3LONT

(8 ἼΧΧ] vay “ydidg)
105 ‘av Ὃ ‘SO TIBOUV IY

Guayo NVWOU GIO FHL

“MOUOTJOOIINGOI STUIVO “ZT
*‘uin1078000d WISMOISSTUIOI 17

‘WIBISO]INO UTBJOURS “OT

TUnjours ταπητατάςι τὶ 17 6 “TIT
"sOnJIOUL 29 SONI ΘαθῸ
-IpNt 4so sninjuen spur 8

9117 841 UIRIO}XOP PV JOpos */,

SO[CO UI JIpusose *g
‘stny.1oul

@ JIXoLIMsel Ip ἘΠ1192 Ὃ
‘snqindos 19 ΟΠ

ouog qns snxytonio ‘p
‘QUIBILA BIIVT XO OJFOURG

πητατάς op 189 snjyeu me) ᾿ς

‘uIn14sou τατος
‘nto wnt twnormn
‘nso UNSWYH Ul IAS ‘IT .

£ ureyuejodrum0
woayeg Wn UlIOpealy Ἵ 1

‘OOP ‘a’v Ὃ ‘SONTANY

MARCELLUS AND RUFINUS 47

and are full of errors.1 It seems likely enough that these
variations are due to a copyist.

Sixty years later (A.D. 400), Rufinus, a priest of Aquileia,
wrote a commentary on the creed of his native city, and to
our advantage compared with it the Old Roman Creed. He.
was a man who had travelled much, and had lived for some
time in or near Jerusalem, besides visiting Alexandria and
Rome. He had read sermons preached in other Churches
by famous men, and, as we should expect from a man of such
wide culture, wrote an interesting book.

Rufinus believed that the Old Roman Creed was the
Apostles’ Creed, composed as a rule of faith by the Twelve in
solemn conclave before departing from Jerusalem. In other
Churches additions had been made to meet certain heresies,
but the Church of Rome had remained free from heresy, and
had kept up the ancient custom that candidates for baptism
should repeat the creed publicly, so that no additions could
be permitted.

An interesting question may be at once raised. Which
is the original form, the Greek of Marcellus or the Latin of
Rufinus? Probably the former. 8S. Paul wrote to his
Roman converts in Greek, and there is abundant evidence to
prove that the early Church in Rome used Greek in her
Liturgy. Yet she must always have been bilingual, and the
Latin version is probably almost as old. Some of the later
MSS. show a more slavish rendering of the Greek, using
participles, natwm, crucifixum, etc., in place of the free
relative sentence, but it is possible that these might point
to later translations from a standard Greek text. We
can reserve them for consideration when we compare the
Old Roman Creed with its derivative African and Italian
forms.

2. Novatian, Dionysius, and Cyprian

We must now follow back the history of the creed, and
we may take as our first witness Novatian (¢ 260). He
was a priest of the Church of Rome, who held strict views

1 Caspari, iii. 105 f,

48 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

against the restoration of the lapsed to Church privileges.
In consequence he obtained schismatical consecration in
opposition to Bishop Cornelius. His book, de Trinitate, is
founded on the teaching of Tertullian, whose phrase regula
veritatis, rule of truth, he uses with obvious reference to the
creed. I have quoted the closer parallels on p. 46, supra.
Since the creed was transmitted orally, it is less important to
mark the exact words used than to note how exactly Novatian
teaches the substance of the creed on Creation, Redemption,
Sanctification.

The order Christ Jesus, which appears regularly in
nearly all forms of the Roman Creed, was used both by
Novatian and by a contemporary, Bishop Dionysius, who
wrote a _ treatise against the Sabellians, from which
Athanasius? quotes an extract in his “Defence of the
Nicene Definition.”

In the letters of S. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, 6. A.D.
255, we find the following quotations :—

Ep. 69: “Credis in remissionem peccatorum et uitam
ceternam per sanctam ecclesiam ?”

Ep. 70: “Credis in uitam eternam et remissionem
peceatorum per sanctam ecclesiam ?”

3. Tertullian

In the writings of Tertullian® we find a bridge which
spans the gulf between the formal quotations of R in the
fourth century and the parallels in the writings of Irenzus
and Justin Martyr. The quotation made by Cyprian, and
the less definite testimony of Novatian and Dionysius, offer
independent support.

Though a native of Carthage, Tertullian, before his lapse
into Montanism, had been ordained priest in Rome. His
varied training, both in the school of Stoic philosophy and at

1 Caspari, iii. 462 n. * Ath. de Decretis, 26.

8 Kattenbusch, ii. pp. 53-101, has made a careful study of all the passages
in his writings which have any reference to the creed, and has left little or
nothing for other students to do,

TERTULLIAN 49

the bar, enabled him to plead for Christian thought and life
in the spirit of a true apologist.

In plain words, Tertullian expresses the agreement of the
African Church with the Church of Rome in matters of faith.
All who believe have the testimony of truth, which rests on
apostolic tradition. He represents all Churches as turning
for guidance to apostolic sees—Achaia to Corinth, Macedonia
to Philippi and Thessalonica, Asia to Ephesus, the neighbour-
hood of Italy to Rome (de Prescr. 36): “Si autem Italic
adiaces, habes Romam, unde nobis quoque auctoritas presto
est. Quam felix ecclesia cui totam doctrinam apostoli cum
sanguine suo profuderunt, ubi Petrus passioni dominice
adequatur, ubi Paulus Ioannis exitu coronatur, ubi apostolus
Toannes, posteaquam in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus
est, in insulam relegatur. Videamus, quid didicerit, quid
docuerit, quid cum Africanis quoque ecclesiis contesserawit.
Unum Deum nouit creatorem uniuersitatis et Christum Iesum
ex uirgine Maria Filium Dei creatoris et carnis resurrectionem.”

It is clear from this passage that the creed of the African
Church, here called watchword (Tessera), agreed with that of
Rome, from which he quotes the first and last words, and the
exact order Christum Iesum. He regarded it as a summary
of apostolic teaching, and in the general Church tradition
recognised the influence of 8. John with S. Peter and S. Paul.

His use of words for the creed is very varied. “Rule of
Faith” is a common term, as in later writers. He explains
that it contains what the Lord ordained (instituit), so that
speculation is concerned only with thoughts which lie outside
it (de Preser. 12): “Quod salua regula fidei potest in ques-
tionem uenire.” He traces its origin in the teaching of
Christ, without showing any acquaintance with the later
legend of its composition by the apostles (7b. c. 37): “In
ea regula quam ecclesia ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo,
Christus a Deo tradidit.” Again, he calls it the oath of
allegiance (sacramentum) imposed on the Christian soldier at
the font.

Ad Mart. 3: “Vocati sumus ad militiam Dei uiui iam
tune, cum in sacramenti uerba respondemus.”

4

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

50°

twnydumsed 0709 Ur 20

oe

* UNPSPDSNSIT Jo

"+ + umgndes
49 wunqwou ounq wnssed

‘umnyeu (WeUTSIIM) vo ΧΟ

wing
-Β11 {0 WInseT * * * Taq] WNT LT

τ * snuitpeto tineqd ΤΠ ΟΤΤΠῚ

Ὃ Ὃ “ρους “apy

(005

*$110980.10
Taq WNIT] vlaeyY ouisim xo

wUNsey UNYSTAY 29

‘sIzeqisrontun
{π9 102 8910 ἽΤΠΟΤΙ wnedq uMun

: JINV1ISS9]MO STIS
-afo09 enbonb stuvowyy umo
"+ + (euvUIOY) vIseTo09 pm?

‘9¢ Ὃ Ἢ

tanjdora 507000 Ut

ISSTXOLINGOL 910 ὉΠῚ1Θ7

ΤΠ ΧΌ ΤΠΉΧΤΕ

Ὁ) unyeu 89 xo" * *
WLIVPY WOULSIM UT 92 711} 29
Tay stayeg nyaidg xo umyeRep

7° snte τη ΠΤ ἢ

‘+ + ΤῊ πθχο110
-οῦ Ipunw χϑγο χα τῆ} 178 90u
9589 ἴπΠῸΠ wun 1ΠΉΤΡ09.0

eub °°
"EL Ὃ ‘LISI 91

τ Lopy 159 ἘΠΙΩΘῊ

‘sIja0o0 ut ταηἄθοθα *

‘SINJIOUL Ὁ
{ΠῚ 811Ό5 7591 IIp Ὁ12192

* O98
oOTyuOg qns tWuxYytonto

‘ous
-IM Vey xo wnyeu

‘UN Βα [0

WNsey 519 wit 4°

ἀπθαοήτρποῦ Tpunuw
‘urequejodiumio wine
umMormn

UL Tpuepedo °

οὗ

"+ + 499 OUTUUO
eun tapy wepmb vpnsay

Ἵ Ὃ Ἴ2ηὴ “Ὅμιῃ ag

Ὃ) NVITINLYAL ΔῈ απ ΟΠ GATUO NVWOU GIO AHL

‘TI

TERTULLIAN

‘assTLIMonoep T1pas
-UBND OT}IUT Gv UreTNBeI OUT
‘TunjouRg wnytuidg yo ται
19 woerlyeg Ul gunpeio mb
πῆ 109. Tapy woeloyeoyTjoURs

‘wnyourg wnytdidg

Ὁ * gonjzour
79. son olvoIput twunanquen

“5117201 WI9}xXep pe adapos

“UO THOTJIOLINGII STUIVS 79

Be

ἹΠῸΡ +l “puny ‘seuiey =

‘tunqeypodde

snia WNL wnqian pr: - -

tmnns tinqgton ted yraexnpoad
o[TyM ap vsronrun (mb) ,

᾿ΘΙΓΟΤΊ 1159. STUIKD UND

sopuvorpni
sourjord pe - * * tnanquen

“ΤΠ SLIQVg UWvle}Xep pe adopes |

“MIUOT}V0I

“AINSI {{ΠῸ0Ὸ179 STULBO rod

pe

‘sonqz1our 29 sont
a1BOIpNI

taninjuen

‘SlIJWg UlvIe}Xep

ounud

twayuepes

GL

aa!

‘6 ‘III

8

Δ

52 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

De Spect. 4: “Cum aquam ingressi christianam fidem in
legis sue uerba profitemur, renuntiasse nos diabolo et
pompe et angelis eius ore nostro contestamur.”

De Cor. Mil. 3: “ Dehine ter mergitamur, amplius aliquid
respondentes quam Dominus in euangelio determinauit.”

De Bapt. 13: “ Fuerit salus retro per fidem nudam ante
Domini passionem et resurrectionem. At ubi fides aucta est
credendi in natiuitatem, passionem resurrectionemque eius,
addita est ampliatio sacramento, obsignatio baptismi uesti-
mentum quodam modo fidei, que retro erat nuda, nec
potentiam habuit sine sua lege. Lex enim tinguendi
imposita est, et forma prescripta. ‘Ite, inquit, ‘ docete
nationes, tinguentes eas in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus
Sancti.’ ἢ

It would be useless to discuss at this point the many
shades of meaning which have been observed in Tertullian’s
use of the word “sacramentum.” In the last passage quoted
it seems to me to correspond closely with the meaning given
to it in our Catechism, ‘‘ an outward sign of an inward grace.”
The creed is the sign; faith enlarged by knowledge of the.
whole scheme of redemption is the grace which clothes the
soul. The Baptismal Formula supplies the framework, and
the birth, passion, and resurrection of the Lord are included
in it.

The construction “in sacramenti uerba” (not “uerbis ”),
“in legis uerba” (not “ uerbis ”), seems to imply, further, that
the baptizer recited the whole creed, to which the baptized
only replied with “credo.” Last, and not least important, is
this use of the term “symbolum” in his treatise against
Marcion (adv. Mare. v. 1): “Quamobrem, Pontice nauclere,
nunquam furtiuas merces uel illicitas in acatos tuos recepisti,
si nullum omnino onus auertisti uel adulterasti, cautior
utique et fidelior in Dei rebus, edas uelim nobis, quo symbolo
susceperis apostolum Paulum, quis illum tituli charactere
percusserit, quis transmiserit tibi, quis imposuerit, ut possis
cum constanter exponere.” Kattenbusch points out that
Tertullian is using metaphors from trade, referring to
Marcion’s former occupation, and that one meaning of the

TERTULLIAN 53

word symbolum was “an agreement.” A passage in Harpo-
crates (vid. Pape’s Lexicon) proves that the Greek word in
the plural (τὰ σύμβολα) was used in commercial language for
the pleadings which were laid before a court of law in any
suit. Such an explanation might be given in this case.
The creed was the Church’s agreement by which her children
were bound to faith in one God. Marcion’s teaching of two
Gods, for which he claimed the sanction of S. Paul, must be
derived from some other source, so Tertullian asks him to
show the agreement.

In general, Tertullian thinks of the creed as a great act
of worship which every Christian knows and uses. His
teaching represents a great advance from the position of
Treneeus, who regarded Holy Scripture as the rule of faith
side by side with the rule of Church doctrine, to whom the
creed was the sum of Scripture and the minimum of what is
worth knowing. Tertullian never calls Holy Scripture “ the
rule.” He has new difficulties to contend with. Heretics
had by this time their own canon of Scripture. So he is the
first to explain why the creed stands above Scripture. He is
a thorough lawyer, and couples his apologetic explanations
with the law of faith, in which he finds what is most safe,
most positive, and highest, appealing to the Roman Creed as
raised into a rule to meet Gnostic error.

What made reply to the Gnostics so difficult, was the fact
that they still held to the Roman Creed. Ireneus seems to
imply this when he writes that Valentinus imitated “ nostrum
tractatum” (111. 15. 2). It is more distinctly stated by
Tertullian (adv. Valent. 1): “Si subtiliter temptes (eos) per
ambiguitates bilingues communem fidem adfirmant.” This
embittered his opposition to Marcion (adv. Mare. i. 20):
“Marcionem non tam innouasse regulam separatione legis et
euangelii, quam retro adulteratam recurasse; ... (δ. 21):
post apostolorum tempera adulterium ueritas passa est circa
Dei regulam.”

In the latter passage he refers in the context to the
teaching of God as Creator, from which Kattenbusch con-
cludes: (i.) that his creed contained no definite statement as

54 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

to the creation ; (ii.) that it contained some expression which
Marcion could interpret of his good God; and (iii.) that he
was in no way hindered by the creed from believing in two
Gods. This argument deserves careful consideration. It raises
the two most debatable questions about the creed of Tertullian :
Did it contain wawm and patrem in the first article ?

((.) It is quite true that Tertullian lays stress on the
work of God in creation with a variety of phrases, which
seems to imply that this thought had no fixed form in the
creed. In all four of the passages which I have quoted
in parallel columns there is some such reference. It is
interesting to note that, in writing against Praxeas, he quoted
S. John’s words of the office of the Word of God “through
whom all things were made,” whereas in his controversy with
Gnostics it was always the Father to whom he referred.
No one would argue from these passages that the creation
was mentioned in the Old Roman Creed, but they offer the
obvious explanation of the clause in the later African Creed :
uniwersorum creatorem (Aug. Ps.-Aug. Fulg.), though it is not
certain how soon after Tertullian’s time it was introduced.

(ii.) The next question is much more important. Katten-
busch infers, and I think rightly, that Marcion found in the
first article of the creed, which he deceitfully held, some
word which he could interpret of his good God. This
must have been “Father.” There is sufficient corroborative
evidence to prove that Tertullian possessed this word in
the first article of his creed. Zahn, indeed, suggests that
Tertullian would have been glad to use it against Praxeas,
but was obliged to infer it from the second article before he
could distinguish God the Father from the Son. As Harnack
points out, there was no need of a lengthy argument; the
word stood already in the clause relating to the ascension.
An insuperable objection to Zahn’s theory is the fact that
Tertullian regarded the creed as based on the Baptismal
Formula. In the passage quoted from his work against
Praxeas he leads up to that formula. Is it then conceivable
that Father did not stand in the front of his creed ?

1 Kattenbusch, i. p. 144, ἢ, 3.

TERTULLIAN 55

In the second passage the phrase delatwm ex Spiritu
Patris Det points back to the first article. Again, in his
treatise “On Baptism” he writes of a confession in which
the Church is mentioned, and the three heavenly witnesses
are involved (de Lapt. 6): “Cum autem sub tribus et testatio
fidei et sponsio salutis pignerentur, necessario adicitur ecclesiz
mentio, quoniam ubi tres, id est Pater et Filius et Spiritus
Sanctus, ibi ecclesia, quia trium corpus est.” We may com-
pare a sentence in his treatise “On Prayer,’ where he passes
from the thought of “our Father” in the Lord’s Prayer to
the creed (de Orat. 2): “Dicendo autem ‘ Patrem’ ‘ Deum’
quoque cognominamus item in Patre Filius inuocatur ... ne
mater quidem ecclesia preteritur, siquidem in Filio et Patre
mater recognoscitur, de qua constat et Patris et Filii nomen.”
The combination “ Patrem Deum” looks like a reminiscence.

(111.) The third question is the most difficult to answer.
Did Marcion find anything in the creed which would forbid
his doctrine of two Gods? Kattenbusch argues that he did
not, and that the creed cannot have contained the word
“one,” though “unicum” and “unum” appear in all
Tertullian’s reproductions of the Rule of Faith. It must be
remembered, however, that some Gnostics, to a certain extent
Marcion, and more plainly his pupil Apelles, taught the unity
of God, their good God. The phrase “ one God” would not
come into conflict with their teaching, and this argument falls
to the ground.

Again, it has been suggested that in the second passage
given Tertullian is quoting a sentence from Hermas (Mand. 1.)
combined with S. John i. 1f., as Irenaeus before him had
done. There is no doubt that the earliest compound phrase,
so to speak, about the Being of God was “ one God Almighty,”
which is found in the Apocalypse of 8. John, Clement,
Hermas, etc., and that the introduction of the word “ Father”
into it involved the abandonment of merely Jewish Mono-
theism. But there is no intelligible reason why Christian
writers should not continue to use this biblical expression

1T owe these references to Harnack’s article, Zeit. fiir Theol. uw. Kirche,
1894, pp. 155 ἢ,

56 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

side by side with their confession of the Father; why
Tertullian, in the case before us, should not be supposed to
use the words of his own accord. There is no proof that he .
quoted Hermas, and there is no need for it. We shall return
to this question again, when we have to make our final
decision as to the original wording of the Old Roman Creed ;
but in the meantime, so far as Tertullian is concerned, we
must consider it probable that “one” stood in the first
article of his creed.

Zahn asks whether “ only ” was found in the second article.
It is true that it is nowhere found as a predicate of Son. And
there is little doubt that it failed in some later provincial
creeds. We shall return to this question also from a larger
point of view. All that can be said at present is simply
this, that it would be very dangerous to apply the principle
that words apparently omitted by Tertullian were omitted in
his creed. This would lead us to exclude “our Lord” as
well as “only” from the second article.

The participial construction so marked in the passages
quoted, e.g. in the first-quoted natum, crucifixum, resuscitatum,
makes it probable that Tertullian was most familiar with the
Greek form of the Roman Creed. But when we compare his
text with that of Marcellus, it seems as if resuscitatum would
answer to ἐγερθέντα rather than to ἀναστάντα, receptum to
ἀναληφθέντα rather than to ἀναβάντα Perhaps Tertullian
deliberately veiled his allusions to the creed, and this is
another proof of the early and deep-rooted fear of writing the
creed, which contributed to the awe and reverence in which
it was held.

These results may sound somewhat tentative, and so they
are. But the three words of the creed about which all this
discussion is raised form a very small fraction of the total
number. We may readily satisfy ourselves that Tertullian is
a trustworthy witness to the great bulk of an Old Roman
Creed substantially the same in form as that which was
quoted in full by Marcellus. And in his argument against
Marcion he brings us back in thought to a very early date,

1 Caspari, iii. pp. 458 ff Cf. Kattenbusch, i. p. 144,

WAS THE OLD ROMAN CREED REVISED? 57

the first half of the second century, since Marcion’s breach
with the Roman Church took place ὁ. a.p. 146.

We may conclude with a most interesting conjecture
made by Zahn, which belongs rather to the literary history
of Marcion than of Tertullian. In one passage of the New
Testament, as revised by Marcion, we find the mysterious
passage, Gal. iv. 24, remodelled by the addition of words
from Eph. i. 21 and others. We read there about the two
covenants: “The one, from Mount Sinai, which is the syna-
gogue of the Jews after the law, begotten into bondage; the
other, which is exalted above all might, majesty, and power,
and over every name that is named not only in this world,
but also in that which is to come; which (covenant) is the
mother of us all, which begets us in the holy Church, which
we have acknowledged (or to which we have vowed allegi-
ance). Marcion does not say, or rather does not allow the
apostle to say, ‘which we acknowledge, but he looks back to
the confession and the oath taken once for all with reference
to the ‘holy Church.” The word used here, ‘ repromittere,’
“ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι, describes such an oath, and had been used
earlier by Ignatius of the oath taken on the confession of the
Christian faith. . . . Marcion thought much of the Church as
he understood her, and considered the Christian relation to
her a very close one. . . . As far as I can see, it follows from
the passage quoted from his Epistle to the Galatians that the
words ‘a holy Church’ were contained in Marcion’s Baptismal
Confession, and therefore in the Roman Creed of A.p, 145,” 1

§ IV. Was THE OLD ROMAN CREED EVER REVISED ?

An important question must be considered in the light
of this evidence. Was the Old Roman Creed revised during
the third century? There is no special reason why we should
believe that what Rufinus says about its immutability was
true at every stage of its history. When he compared it
with other forms of Baptismal Confession, with the Aquileian
and Eastern Creeds, some of which bore the marks of recent

1 Zahn, pp. 82 f,

58 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

alteration, it was natural to come to this conclusion. The
comparative freedom from the assaults of heresy which the
Roman Church enjoyed during the fourth century, when
Rome was the refuge of Athanasius and Marcellus, tended to
obscure the fact that during the second and third centuries
the city was the favoured resort of false teachers. Naturally
enough, they sought to win adherents in what was then the
capital of the empire. Thus one reason which he gives to
explain his assertion falls to the ground, and with it the
probability that he had any better proof of the fact. He
also praises the Church of Rome for carefulness about the
exact repetition of the creed by catechumens in the presence
of the congregation, but this does not prove that similar care
had been taken throughout the centuries past. Christian
common sense looks for continuity of thought rather than of
words. Otherwise, as Zahn shrewdly remarks, there would
have been no history of the development of the creed.

The problem may be stated briefly. From the evidence
of Tertullian and Irenzeus, we have concluded that the earliest
form of the Old Roman Creed was, “I believe in one God
the Father Almighty.” How is the omission of “ one” from
the time of Novatian to be explained ?

The treatise of Tertullian against Praxeas introduces us
to the central controversy which at that time disturbed the
peace of the Church. The simple-minded Christians of the
second century had been, so to speak, “ naively Monarchian.” ?
They had professed their belief in the divinity of Christ and
the unity of God. They had been taught by the apologists
that the Father and the Son were distinct, but they had not
attempted to reconcile the necessary inference that the Son
was in some sense subordinate to the Father, with their true
Monarchian conviction of the unity of God. Reflection led
to varying attempts to solve the problem. Some teachers
identified the one God with the Christ of the Gospels. They
assumed that the Father became incarnate in Christ, whom
they therefore regarded as personally Divine. The inevitable
inference from such teaching, as their opponents at once

1 Robertson, Athanasius, p. xxiv.

WAS THE OLD ROMAN CREED REVISED? 59

pointed out, was that the Father suffered, a doctrine abhorrent
to Christian common sense. Praxeas was the first of these
modalist Monarchians. He arrived in Rome early in the
century. Tertullian says of him: “ unicum Dominum uindicat,
omnipotentem mundi creatorem.” He combined with such
teaching strong opposition to Montanism, which was itself the
exaggerated expression of another current of Christian thought.

Belief in the Holy Spirit as the Guide of individual souls,
was torn from its place in the teaching of Christ to explain
and approve the enthusiasm of fanatics who regarded them-
selves as specially possessed and inspired. Tertullian, as a
Montanist, thus tersely describes the teaching of Praxeas:
“ He expelled prophecy and brought in heresy; he routed the
Paraclete, and crucified the Father.”

There was, however, another set of opinions which pre-
vailed in some circles at Rome. Men who believed in the
continual personal distinction of the Son from the Father,
were led to explain Christ’s divinity by the assumption that
it was communicated, that the influence or energy of Divine
life was given to Him as a chosen man, personally human
but by adoption deified. Hence they have been called
dynamic Monarchians or Adoptionists. This heresy was
introduced by Theodotus, a tanner from Byzantium, who was
excommunicated by Bishop Victor. His namesake, another
Theodotus, some time a peripatetic philosopher, continued to
teach under Bishop Zephyrinus.

From Tertullian we learn that the leaders of thought in
Rome were strongly influenced by the former of these trains
of thought. Zephyrinus is reported to have used the formula :
“ T believe in one God, Jesus Christ.” His successor, Callistus,
attempted some form of compromise: “ Christ the Divine was
distinguished from Jesus the human.” He was thereupon
deserted by the teacher Sabellius, who reproached him as
inconsistent, and defined further the position of modalist
Monarchians, asserting that the Trinity represented successive
aspects (πρόσωπα) of the one God. Tertullian’s statements
are confirmed by Hippolytus, a learned Roman theologian,
who probably became a rival bishop to Callistus.

60 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

This being the position of parties at the beginning of the
second century, we are prepared to discuss Zahn’s acute
suggestion that the word “one” was omitted from the Roman
Creed to counteract Monarchian teaching. He quotes a
passage from Eusebius! in which heretics are said to have
accused the Roman Church of recoining (παραχαράττειν) the
truth like forgers. What is meant by the word is shown by
a countercharge that the heretics had tampered with the text
of the Scriptures.

Harnack in reply ® suggests that the change complained
of was only the addition to the rule of some words like
Θεὸν or λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ as a predicate of Christ. By the
time of Cyprian and Novatian the formula Deus et Dominus
noster had passed into the iron mould of Latin ecclesiastical
language.* At a later time it is found in Spanish symbols
(Martin of Bracara), and the creed at the end of the Gallican
Sacramentary. The creed of the Bangor Antiphonary has
the strong form, Dominus noster, Deus omnipotens. Yet no one
would argue that these words ever found a place in the
Old Roman Creed. We should therefore conclude that the
accusation which was brought by the dynamic Monarchians
did not apply to the corruption of a creed-text, but to the
corruption of the preaching, which was regarded as an ex-
position of the Baptismal Confession. Such teaching as that
of Hippolytus in a favourite phrase (6. Noet. 8), “Son of God
and God,” seemed to them a forsaking of the old tradition,
the thought (φρόνημα) of the earliest times. And the error
was made worse by the still more precise form of Novatian’s
teaching in his “ Rule of Faith” (ce. 9): “Credo in Filium Dei
Christum Jesum, Dominum Deum nostrum, sed Dei Filium.”

This would be a valid objection if Zahn’s theory referred
to the opinions of these dynamic Monarchians only or chiefly.
So far as the omission of ἕνα is concerned, they would be
neutral in their teaching, because they were secure in their
belief in the Divine unity, whereas they called the represent-
atives of the Logos Christology (Hipp., Tert.), Ditheists.

1 ALE. v. 28. 3, 13. 2 Ib. v. 28. 19.
* Zeit. fiir Theol. u. Kirche, iv. 2. 18 f. 47d, p. 137.

WAS THE OLD ROMAN CREED REVISED? 61

From this point of view it would seem to be against the
interests of the latter to object to the assertion “one God.”

But it was one thing for the orthodox party to assert
this in their own teaching, and quite another to submit to it
when forced upon them by Zephyrinus, or by Callistus when
he was in that mood. MHarnack himself suggests! that the
minority may have proposed to strike out éva, and that they
eventually gained the day, though the history of their move-
ment remains utterly obscure. Such an attempt, in opposition
to modalist Monarchianism, would not be regarded as an
alteration so much as a simplification of the sense to guard
against error. No new doctrine was to be propagated thereby,
but the old faith preserved.

We have yet to consider whether this change further
included the addition of πάτερα, or whether that word was
already found in the creed. Though the word does not come
into the formal quotations made by Tertullian, we have seen
reason to suppose that it was implied. In the one definite
passage found in Irenus it is unmistakably included.

Zahn raises the objection that if πάτερα had stood in the
creed, Hippolytus and Tertullian would have been glad enough
to quote it. As a matter of fact, they might have quoted it
just as well from the later article, “at the right hand of the
Father.” But the following passage from Hippolytus reads like
a quotation of R (c. Noet. 8): ὁμολογεῖν πατέρα Θεὸν παντοκρα-
τόρα καὶ Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν υἱὸν Θεοῦ Θεὸν ἄνθρωπον γενόμενον.

A far more important point is raised by Zahn when he
proves that “God Almighty” without “ Father” is a biblical
and natural phrase, which is found frequently in the oldest
literature in the Apocalypse of S. John, 1 Ep. Clement,
Hermas, and Polycarp. We may even admit that it would
come more readily to the lips of the earliest preachers of
Christianity than any mention of the Divine Fatherhood when
they spoke of His Being. Harnack points out four passages
in which Irenzeus, desiring to state the doctrine of God the
Creator (and the Logos) by itself, eg. iv. 20. 2, combines the
phrase of Hermas (Mand. 1) with S. John 1. 1 ἢ,

ae oy Pa ae =

62 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

Similar dependence on Hermas is said to be found in
Tertullian, de Prescr. 13 (see p. 51, supra), but is very uncer-
tain. Irenzus, however, often quotes πάτηρ with Θεύς (e.g.
iii. 6. 5): “ Distinxit enim et separauit eos qui dicuntur
quidem, non sunt autem dii, ab uno Deo Patre, ex quo omnia,
et unum Dominum Jesum Christum ex sua persona firmissime
confessus est.”

All such evidence is inconclusive. The final decision as
to the insertion of the word “Father” in the creed must
turn upon the question whether or not it was based upon
the Baptismal Formula. This is generally admitted with
respect to the Old Roman Creed. Can we doubt, then, that
the word Father was from the first taken into the creed?
The evidence of Justin Martyr in his expansions of the
Formula gives support to the theory, though it is doubtful
whether his “ Father of all and Lord God” can be considered
a synonym of “ Almighty.” The following is definite enough
(Dial. 139): ὁ Χριστὸς κατὰ τὴν τοῦ παντοκράτορος πατρὸς
δύναμιν δοθεῖσαν αὐτῷ παρεγένετο.

There is yet another question to be raised about the
earliest form of the Old Roman Creed. Did it contain
μονογενῆ (unicum)? There is no positive proof on either
side. There is no trace of it in the Rules of Faith in
Ireneus, Tertullian, or Novatian. It is wanting in some
later African Creeds (Ps. Aug. Serm. 258; Ps. Ambrose), as
in the Creeds of Niceta and Faustus. Yet it cannot be said
that. this means much. These African Creeds are not so
important as the African form used by Augustine himself,
which contained the word. The Creeds of Niceta and
Faustus are isolated specimens in this respect, in neither of
which is the form quite certain. Nor is there any special
reason why the word should have been introduced into the
Roman Creed at this period. It was used in the Septuagint
(Ps. xxii. 21, xxxv. 17) and by S. John, from whose Gospel
it probably came into the creed at its making.

Kattenbusch offers an interesting suggestion, that it was
connected in the earliest form of the creed with “our Lord”
---τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ [τὸν] μονογενῆ κύριον ἡμῶν. In this case

WAS THE OLD ROMAN CREED REVISED? 63

it might have been brought into the creed independently of
S. John’s Gospel, though he does not think it improbable
that that book was received in Rome by the year 100. Ata
later period the phrase was connected with the teaching of
S. John, and the article was added before κύριον.

This theory has the support of three texts of R in
which wnicum is plainly to be construed with Dominum, i.e. in
Bratke’s Berne MS., a Munich MS. Cod. lat. 14,508, and in
Cod. Sessorianus 52, as in the texts of the Teaxtus receptus
found in the Book of Deer and some old English Creeds.
But there is not a single instance in which the Greek text
supports it, and the cases quoted from the Latin text might
be derived from independent mistakes so easy in the Latin
form, where no article guards us from connecting the word
unicum with Dominum.

It is true that the sub-apostolic writers did not use the
term, whereas the Valentinians appropriated the name Jfono-
genes for the Aeon Nous. “The Catholic writers,” says
Swete,! “ began, although slowly, to reclaim it; Justin uses it
sparingly ; it occurs once in the Smyrnean circular on the
martyrdom of Polycarp; in Ireneus at length it becomes
frequent. Thus it is not unlikely that the word took its
place in the vocabulary of the Church by way of protest
against the Valentinian misuse of St. John; and the same
cause may have gained for it admission to the creed.” Such
an explanation would not account for its insertion during the
Monarchian controversy, but may suggest the reason why it
was not referred to in the Rules of Faith quoted by Ireneus,
Tertullian, and Novatian. Gnostic errors survived, and they
would be afraid to refer to it openly, lest they should give
some handle to their opponents.

We conclude, therefore, that ἕνα, πάτερα, and μονογενῆ
were found in the original text of the Old Roman Creed, and
that ἕνα was dropped out during the controversy with the
modalist Monarchians. This conclusion is supported by the
evidence of an inscription on a tombstone” which is supposed
to belong to the second or beginning of the third century

1 The Apostles’ Creed, Ὁ. 25. 2 Baumer, p. 122.

64 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

“Cassius Vitalio qui in unu Deu credidit.” It corresponds
to the teaching in the Shepherd of Hermas, which was written
in Rome at all events before A.D. 150: “First of all, believe
that God is one.” So Clement of Rome wrote in his first
Epistle, 6. A.D. 100: “Have we not one God?” It would be
absurd to lay much stress on such testimony, but one may
fairly say that it confirms the argument.

V. Tue DATE OF THE OLD ROMAN CREED

Though the evidence is scanty, it is generally agreed that
a very early date may be assigned to the Old Roman Creed.
We have traced it back through Tertullian to the date of
Marcion’s arrival in Rome, A.D. 145. This fact, that it was
in use as a Rule of Faith, enables us to argue with some
confidence that the parallels in the writings of Irenzeus and
Justin Martyr show acquaintance with it. We may not be
able to prove how far actual quotations of its words extend,
but this matters little. It may be taken for granted that the
form came into existence from A.D. 100-120. Beyond this
date it is not safe to go, because of the silence of the Shepherd
of Hermas, and of Clement’s first Epistle. Caspari,} indeed,
quotes the oath found in that epistle (c. 58. 2): ζῇ yap ὁ
Θεὸς καὶ ζῇ ὁ κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον
ἥ τε πίστις καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς τῶν ἐκλεκτῶν, Where the words
ἡ πίστις stand in apposition to the preceding sentence. He
compares with it Jerome against John of Jerusalem (c. 28):
“in symbolo fidei et spei nostree . . . omne dogmatis christiani
sacramentum carnis resurrectione concluditur.” Then he
asks whether these words do not point to the neighbourhood
where the Old Roman Creed was composed. This is quite
probable. The words prove that theological thought in Rome
had been focussed, so to speak, on an expansion of the
Baptismal Formula through the addition of words confessing
Jesus Christ as Lord, who in the words of S. Paul, 1 Tim. i,
“is our hope.” But there is no need to search for the name-

1 Der Glaube an die Trinitdt Gottes, sein Vorhandensein im ersten christl.
Jahrhundert, 1894,

DATE OF THE OLD ROMAN CREED 65

less author among the immediate successors of Clement, there
is no need to inquire whether he had any colleagues in the
task or a model upon which to plan his work.!

The internal evidence may be relied on to confirm such
a view. The simplicity and the monumental terseness of the
style, if I may attempt a free rendering of Caspari’s phrase
“ Lapidarstyl,” points to the sub-apostolic age. There is no
mention of God’s work in creation, which became an in-
separable part of outlines of Christian doctrine after the
rise of Gnostic heresies. On the other hand, the words
“resurrection of the flesh” are not to be considered anti-
Gnostic, as some writers have supposed. Justin Martyr
quotes the words (Dial. 80) with a reference to the chiliastic
hope,? which still lasted on as a part of orthodox belief
though the bright dreams of early Christians, of which
1 Thessalonians is so vivid an example, were fast fading away.
Clement, too, in his first Epistle, c. 26, quotes the words of
Job xix. 26: καὶ ἀναστήσεις THY σάρκα μου ταύτην, where the
MSS. of the LXX. give τὸ δέρμα or τὸ σῶμα. This, at all
events, shows that the phrase was in current use.

We learn from these inquiries that the creed was com-
posed during a time of peace, and became a rule of faith
without dispute. From Tertullian’s description we are led to
call it simply “the Faith,” a short and intelligible summary
of the teaching which Christianity offered. Its terse and
rhythmical sentences were not unworthy of the great apostles,
S. Peter and S. Paul, who had laboured and suffered in the
imperial city. We may even conjecture that they helped not
a little to mould the noble traditions of faith and learning
which through centuries to come enhanced the reputation of
the holy Roman Church. It may fitly be called an Apostolic
Creed, because it contains the substance of apostolic teaching,
and is the work of a mind separated only by one generation
from the apostles.

It may seem tempting to try to set the date further back
still. Zahn conjectures the existence of an apostolic arche-
type, distinguished from the sister forms found ὁ. A.D. 120 at

1 Kattenbusch, ii. pp. 329 f, 2 Ib. ii. p. 335; ef. p. 297.

5

66 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

Rome and Ephesus by the addition! of the phrase of “the
seed of David,” which we noted in the teaching of Ignatius.
He brings together all the evidence which can be obtained
from the Epistles to Timothy to support the conjecture that
an Apostolic Creed was actually drawn up before 5. Paul
started on his famous missionary journey. But the difficulties
in the way of such a theory are very great. We saw that
the New Testament evidence, considered apart from any
question of later formulated creeds, led us to conclude that the
Baptismal Formula and the simple Christological Confession
existed side by side, but were not fused into a creed in
apostolic times. The inference that the teaching about the
Lord’s confession before Pilate, and His return to judge, did
not stand in a Trinitarian scheme, is very strongly confirmed
by the teaching of S. John’s First Epistle. If the thought of
the Only-begotten is 8. John’s contribution under the Holy
Spirit’s guiding to the creed, which was to be the root of all
reverent speculation in the future, we must allow time for
the development of such reflection, and for the transport of
Johannine books to Rome. We are therefore confined to the
date A.D. + 100, and in this way freed from the obligation of
facing the final and most formidable objection. If the creed
was literally written by the apostles, how could the next
generation have presumed to alter its wording? In every
Church, not excepting the Church of Rome, later generations
still permitted further alterations, consistently if they need
only desire to maintain a continuity of sense, impiously if
they were really bound by the letter of their law of believing.

§ VI. THE OLD CREED OF JERUSALEM

Two early Creeds of Jerusalem are found in the cate-
chetical lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem. As a young man he
was priest in charge of the catechumens in the great church
which Constantine had built on Golgotha. When he speaks
of the cross, he reminds his hearers that they stand on holy
ground. His addresses are very earnest and practical. He

1 Ignatius, possibly also of some reference to the baptism by John.

THE OLD CREED OF JERUSALEM 67

keeps constantly in view the moral training of his hearers, ex-
posed to many temptations. He scarcely glances at the great
dogmatic controversy of the day within the Church. But he
recognises fully the influence of faith on conduct, and is careful
to instruct them according to the proportion of faith preserved
in their Baptismal Creeds. At the same time, he warns them
against the strange doctrines of Gnostics, Jews, and Samaritans,
which would cut away their historic faith by the roots.

THE OLD CREED OF JERUSALEM

CyriL, Cat. xix.

I, 1. Πιστεύω εἰς. . . πατέρα

11. 2. Kai eis

ι a)
TOV VLOV

ITI. 9. Kai εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα
τὸ ἅγιον

11. καὶ εἰς ἕν βάπτισμα μετανοίας
εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν

The first form is very short.

the very moment of baptism.

i.

IT. 2.

ab. Vi.—XVill.

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν
πατέρα παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν
οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς ὁρατῶν τε
πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων

Καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν
Χριστὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν
μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς
γεννηθέντα Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν
πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων δι᾿
οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο,

, ‘ ’
«σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐνανθρω-

πήσαντα
, A ,
σταυρωθέντα καὶ ταφέντα
ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ
A > , > A
καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς
οὐρανοὺς

7. καὶ καθίσαντα ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ
πατρός
8, καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐν δόξῃ κρῖναι

ITT. 9.

It is

ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς ov τὴς
΄ > » »
βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος.
Καὶ εἰς ἕν ἅγιον πνεῦμα τὸν
, 4 ”~ >
παράκλητον τὸ λαλῆσαν ἐν
τοῖς προφήταις

\ > a 4 ,
. καὶ εἰς ἕν βάπτισμα μετανοίας

εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν

. καὶ εἰς μίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν

3 ,

ἐκκλησίαν

καὶ εἰς σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν καὶ
εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

It was used apparently at

found in a lecture ad-

68 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

dressed to the newly baptized (Cat. xix.). He reminds them
how they renounced Satan and all his works, turning to the
West, the land of darkness. Then turning to the East, as the
land of light, they said: “I believe in the Father and in the
Son and in the Holy Spirit, and in one baptism of repentance
for the remission of sins.” They were then baptized and
anointed.

But it is not difficult to trace in these lectures the out-
line of a longer confession. Its relation to the shorter form
is made obvious by the order of the clauses 10, 11, in which
the words “ one baptism of repentance for remission of sins”
precede the words “and in one holy Catholic Church.”

The first form takes us back, we might almost imagine, to
the days when δ. Peter preached his first sermon at Jerusalem.
The other, like a map of geological strata, shows the history
of its gradual formation. The term “ Only-begotten Son of
God,” and the title Paraclete given to the Holy Spirit, point
to the teaching of 8S. John, the word “ catholic” to the times
of Ignatius; whereas the words “ whose kingdom shall have
no end” seem to be a recent addition against Marcellus.

The chief characteristic of this longer form, thus restored
by Hort, is the absence of any precise reference to the
miraculous birth or to Pontius Pilate. Kattenbusch, who
thinks that it was derived from the Old Roman Creed,
proposes to restore to it the readings ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ
Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου and ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου. These are
found in the later revised Jerusalem Creed, better known as
the Constantinopolitan Creed, which (as we shall see in
Chap. V.) is to be regarded as Cyril’s own revision. This is
a most ingenious theory, and there can be no doubt that Cyril
taught these facts. But there is no parallel in his writings
to the exact form of the sentence on the incarnation, and
when he mentions Pilate in his lecture on the crucifixion
there is no emphasis on the name which would give us a
hint that he found it in the creed. Beside inserting Nicene
terms, he altered the form by transposing the order of clauses
10, 11, and by substituting “resurrection of the dead” for
“ resurrection of the flesh.” There is therefore no reason to

THE OLD CREED OF JERUSALEM 69

think that he would scruple to add these words under the
influence of another creed, or simply because they were
found in the common tradition of other Churches.

Cyril did not speak of the creed as a watchword (σύμ-
Borov). His name for it was “the Faith.” He regarded it
as a summary of doctrine, but did not suggest that it was
unalterable.

We are led to the conclusion that the Old Jerusalem
Creed, which in its short form may be older than R, has
had an independent history. Originally founded on the
Baptismal Formula, apart from the Christological Confession,
it needed expansion, and received it from current Church
teaching. But we are utterly ignorant of the process of
development.

With this short Creed of Jerusalem it is interesting to
compare a short creed found in the last book of the
work “On the Trinity,” ascribed to Vigilius of Thapsus.
Montfaucon,! followed by Caspari,? claimed that the whole
passage was a translation® from Athanasius. The writer
distinguishes between the Baptismal Formula (Fide: sacra-
mentum) and the Baptismal Confession (Confessio fidei) :
“Confessio fidei immo ipsa fides sanctorum et testamentum
quod disposuimus ad Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum,
ad sacrum laverum regenerationis uenientes, confessi sic:
Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem et in Iesum Christum
Filium eius unigenitum et Spiritum Sanctum.”

A similar form is found in the Egyptian Church Order,
which may be translated from the Coptic as follows: “J
believe in the true God alone, the Father, the Almighty ;
and His Only-begotten Son Jesus Christ our Lord and
Saviour; and in His Holy Spirit the all-lifegiving.”

All that can be said about them is that they show a
similar process of development at work.

1 Opp. Athanasii, ii. 601. 3 iii, 51.
3 Possibly by Vigilius ; Kattenbusch, ii. 259.

70 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

§ VII. ConcLusIOoNns

To sum up. Eastern creeds are generally supposed to
deal with ideas, and Western creeds with facts. This is
true rather of the history of their development than of the
simple skeleton form with which they began. The distinction
will be obvious enough when we come to the controversies of
the fourth century, and find the Western Churches maintain-
ing their simple historic faith side by side with the elaborate
theological confessions of Councils. Augustine in his sermons
to catechumens uses the baptismal faith which he had learnt
from Ambrose at Milan at the very time when our Nicene
Creed, the revised Creed of Jerusalem, having obtained some
sort of recognition at the Council of Constantinople, was
starting on that path of progress which has made it the
common heritage of Eucharistic worship in Kast and West.
Again at Chalcedon it represented the triumph of Athanasian
principles to a Council which were yet willing to receive the
Old Roman Creed of Leo as quoted in his letter to Flavian.

Throughout the second century the Church of Rome was
assailed by all manner of speculative heresies. It is a marvel
that her creed came out of the ordeal so simple and so little
changed. And it is an inspiring thought that, within two
generations from the apostles, the doctrines of the incarna-
tion, the resurrection, and the ascension were taught in the
words of that creed, the very words which rise to our lips as
the faith of our baptism. Not less distinctly than the Old
Creed of Jerusalem, it points us back to the Baptismal
Formula as the earliest creed of the Christian Church.

This is the stock from which have grown, following the
same general laws of development, many and diverse flowers,
whose hardy growth bears strong testimony to the vitality of
the thought from which they sprang. The historian of the
creeds is like a botanist among flowers. To other eyes they
look a bewildering medley of varying shapes and colours.
To his trained eye this heap of specimens is no medley. He
can sort and classify, and then, taking one by one, he can
dissect. Let the historian only remember that the deadness

CONCLUSIONS | 71

of the dried botanical specimen is to the grace and beauty of
the living flower as a specimen creed analysed in a book to
a creed in daily use as the watchword of a living Church.
The creed is not for the student tempted to pedantry, but
for the soldier of the Cross whose faith fires him on the
battlefield of life with a noble resolve, as if his ears had
heard his Master’s voice, “In this sign thou shalt conquer.”

CHAPTER IV

THE THEOLOGICAL FAITH OF THE FOURTH CENTURY

§ I. Of Theological Creeds.
§ II. Arius and Arianism.
§ III. The Council of Nicea in 325.
§ IV. “ The Fight in the Dark.”

§ V. The Council of the Dedication (the second and fourth Creeds
of Antioch).

§ VI. Arianism supreme.
§ VII. Victory in sight.
§ VIII. Conclusion.

§ I. Or THEOLOGICAL CREEDS

A THEOLOGICAL creed is the strong meat of Christian teaching,
not the milk of the word. ‘This is its primary use, and it is
easy to see how the need for such instruction would arise in
the ordinary course of catechising, particularly when the
candidates for baptism were men of culture and ability.
The Creed of Gregory Thaumaturgus ‘ may be cited as show-
ing a type which does not merely state the facts of Christian
experience, but also attempts to supply the interpretation.
Thus Gregory uses the word “ Trinity,’ which is not found in
Scripture. And some Churches had by this time introduced
into their creeds the word “catholic.” The explanations
given of such terms were hardly as yet scientific. Theological
science, like any other, has to make its way slowly and forge
its definitions as best it can, hindered by the limited resources
of human language. We can trace development in the

1 Hahn,’ iii. p. 253. Since Caspari has investigated the question, the authen-

ticity of this creed has been generally accepted.
72

OF THEOLOGICAL CREEDS VK.

dogmatic standards taught by individual teachers in their
rules of faith from Ignatius to Irenzus, and from I[renzus
to Origen. All subsequent Latin writers owe a debt to
Tertullian, who gave a great impetus to the moulding of
theological terms in a language far less delicate than Greek
as an instrument of human thought. We must therefore
remember that theological debates did not begin with the
fourth century, and that the Creed of the Council of Nicea
was not the first theological creed used as the watchword of
a Church militant against error. In Christ a new type of
character had appeared in the world, and must be explained
in relation to God and men. The very failures of specula-
tion in regard to the Divine nature in Christ prepared men’s
minds to appreciate more fully the mystery of human nature
in themselves, the mystery of personality, which is the gate-
way of all knowledge.

The Council of Niczea, indeed, marks the beginning of a
new era. Christianity had become a permitted religion. So
far the Church had triumphed over the world, only to find
that in success temptations must be faced more subtle than
those which she had encountered in her recent humble and
despised station. It was not heresy alone, but heresy arrayed
in all the pomp of place and power, which she had now to
combat. Foes in her own household tried to introduce heathen
speculations under the cloak of Christian philosophy, or by a
vehement reaction to stiffen distinctive Christian teaching
into a series of barren dogmas, properly so called, rigid
formularies, which would cramp the mind and leave no room
for the exercise of loving faith. It is true to say that many
formularies of this creed-making epoch added to the con-
tents of the historic faith mere negations, closing misleading
avenues of thought without aiding faith’s advance. The first
Nicene Creed, with its anathemas, is a typical instance. But
this is not the form which has been finally adopted for
liturgical use. There was a silver lining to the cloud of
controversy which loomed so darkly over the horizon of
Church life. In our Nicene Creed is set forth the positive

1 Illingworth, Personality, p. 18.

74 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

result reached; we are shown how dogmatic definition was
made subordinate to worship of Christ as the “Light of
Light.”

§ II. Arrus AND ARIANISM

Arius was a clever and influential priest in a district of
Alexandria called Baucalis. He was also a teacher of
exegesis, and sure enough of his opinions to criticise loudly
a sermon preached by his bishop as favouring the Sabellian
heresy. He had studied at Antioch in the school of Lucian
the Martyr, and had brought away a theological method
which, to say the least, minimised the Divine glory of Christ.
He found in Alexandria a circle of admirers who dreaded
Sabellianism, and were easily persuaded by a parade of
argument that the idea of an eternal Sonship is unthinkable.
“ Arius started from the idea of God and the predicate ‘ Son.’
God is above all things uncreated, or unoriginate, ἀγέν[ν]ητος.
. . . Everything else is created, γενητόν. The name ‘Son’
implies an act of procreation. Therefore before such act
there was no Son, nor was God, properly speaking, a Father.
The Son is not co-eternal with Him. He was originated by
the Father’s will, as indeed were all things. He is, then, τῶν
γενητῶν, He came into being from non-existence (ἐξ οὐκ
ὄντων), and before that did not exist (οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γένηται).
But His relation to God differs from that of the universe
generally. Created nature cannot bear the awful touch of
bare Deity. God therefore created the Son that He in turn
might be the agent in the creation of the universe—‘ created
Him as the beginning of His ways’ (Prov. vu. 22, LXX.).
This being so, the nature of the Son was in the essential
point of ἀγεννησία unlike that of the Father; (ξένος τοῦ υἱοῦ
κατ᾽ οὐσίαν ὁ Πατὴρ ὅτι dvapxos): their substances (ὑπο-
στάσεις) are daveripixto.—have nothing in common. The
Son therefore does not possess the fundamental property of
Sonship, identity of nature with the Father. He is a Son by
adoption, not by nature; He has advanced by moral pro-
bation to be Son, even to be μονογενὴς Θεός (John i. 14).
He is not the eternal Adyos, reason, of God, but « Word

ARIUS AND ARIANISM 75

(and God has spoken many): but yet He is the Word by
grace; is no longer what He is by nature, subject to change.
He cannot know the Father, much less make Him known to
others. Lastly, He dwells in flesh, not in full human nature.
The doctrine of Arius as to the Holy Spirit is not recorded ;
but probably He was placed between the Son and the other
κτίσματα." The worst of it was, that in his shortsightedness
he insisted on translating his theories into verses, which were
sung to the tunes of licentious and comic songs, “ jesting on
such matters as on a stage.”? Α tree is known by its fruits.
It was this want of humility and reverence in dealing with
sacred things which throughout the subsequent controversy
betrayed the defect of Arian theology. Gregory of Nyssa
thus describes the pass to which idle gossip on deep subjects
had brought men in his time: “Men of yesterday and the
day before, mere mechanics, off-hand dogmatists in theology,
servants, too, and slaves that have been flogged, runaways
from servile work, are solemn with us, and philosophise about
things incomprehensible. Ask about pence, and the trades-
man will discuss the generate and the ingenerate; inquire
the price of bread, and he will say, ‘Greater is the Father,
and the Son is subject’; say that a bath would suit you,
and he defines that ‘ the Son is out of nothing.’ ”

A Synod was held of the bishops of Egypt and Libya.
Arius and his allies were deposed. But he entered into
correspondence with bishops abroad, Eusebius of Cesarea
and Eusebius of Nicomedia. The latter, a fellow-Lucianist,
consulted other bishops on his behalf. In Egypt the new
movement spread rapidly, and news of the disturbance of
religious peace reached the emperor’s ears. He sent Hosius,
Bishop of Cordova, with a letter to Alexandria, and, after
receiving his report, determined to summon a Council of
Bishops from the whole world to settle the doctrinal questions
raised.

1 Robertson, Athanasius, p. xxviii. 5 Athanasius, 6. Av. i. 2.

76 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

δ III. THe Councit or Nica#a IN 325

The place which Constantine selected for the Council was
admirably adapted for such a gathering. It could be easily
approached by sea or land. The posting arrangements of the
empire were excellent, and the emperor ordered that the
bishops and their attendants should travel at public expense.
The magnificent gathering of some three hundred bishops,
which met thus at the invitation of the first Christian
emperor, has been often described. The imagination of their
contemporaries was chiefly stirred by the marks of suffering
which so many bore on their faces and limbs, endured during
the time of persecution recently ended. It was this which
gave their decision so much weight. As a matter of fact,
they were almost unanimous in condemning the new heresy,
but wide divergences of opinion prevailed as to the reasons
for their judgment.

It seems to have been understood from the first that
some formula should be drawn up to express the teaching of
the Church. But the scriptural arguments which were
brought up in the preliminary discussions were all received
with suspicious readiness by the Arians, who suggested to
each other methods of evasion. Athanasius describes the
scene vividly (de Decretis, 20): “They were caught whisper-
ing to each other, and winking with their eyes, that ‘like’
and ‘always’ and ‘power’ and ‘in Him’ were, as_ before,
common to us and the Son, and that it was no difficulty to
agree to these. As to ‘like, they said, it is written of us,
‘Man is the image and glory of God’; ‘always, that it was
written, ‘For we which live are alway’; ‘in Him,’ ‘In
Him we live and move and have our being’; ... as to
‘power, that the caterpillar and the locust are called
‘power’ and ‘great power.” The bishops were therefore
“compelled, on their part, to collect the sense of the Scrip-
tures, and to re-say and re-write what they had said before
more distinctly still, namely, that the Son is ‘one in essence’
with the Father.”

The term ὁμοούσιος, “one in essence,” had probably been

CREED OF EUSEBIUS >

suggested by Hosius on his visit to Alexandria, for it was a
word which had been used by teachers of repute, especially
in the West. But it had been disclaimed by Arius and by
Eusebius of Nicomedia. §. Ambrose (de Fid. 111. n. 125)
quotes a letter in which Eusebius wrote: “If we call Him
true Son of the Father and uncreate, then are we granting
that He is ‘one in essence.” Thus it was a phrase, so to
speak, held in reserve.

The Arian party boldly presented a creed which stated
their theories concisely. It was received with indignation
and torn to pieces.

Then Eusebius of Cesarea, venerable for age and learn-
ing, came forward with a creed as follows :—

“ As we have received from the bishops who preceded us,
and in our first catechisings, and when we received the Holy
Laver, and as we have learned from the Divine Scriptures,
and as we have believed and taught in the presbytery and in
the episcopate itself, so believing also at the time present,
we report to you our faith, and it is this :-—

‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the Maker
of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus
Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light,
Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, firstborn of every creature,
before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by whom also all
things were made; who for our salvation was made flesh, and
lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day,
and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to
judge the quick and dead. And we believe also in one Holy
Ghost: believing each of these to be and to exist, the
Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy
Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth
His disciples for the preaching, said, ‘Go teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost.’ Concerning whom we confidently
affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held
aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathe-
matising every godless heresy. That this we have ever
thought from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect

78 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

ourselves, and now think and say in truth, before God
Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ do we witness, being
able by proofs to show and to convince you, that, even in times
past, such has been our belief and our preaching.”

Opinions are divided on the question whether Eusebius
composed this document for the occasion,! or whether his
second paragraph was a verbatim quotation of the creed of
his native Church.2 His words imply that it was a summary
of teaching, of the kind usually given to catechumens, con-
structed on the lines of the creed, and explaining it. It is
not likely that a baptismal creed of this date would have
ended with mere mention of the Holy Spirit, and no refer-
ence to His work. The Creeds of Jerusalem and Antioch
alone prove this. Nor is it likely that Eusebius, if he
intended to quote the creed exactly, would stop short in it.
We must conclude that he added to a free quotation of suit-
able phrases the warning against Sabellianism with which he
leads up to the Baptismal Formula, thus ending the document
which he wished the council to accept and endorse.

The Creed of Eusebius was read. So far as it went it
was above criticism. But it did not contain the term
ὁμοούσιος, which was felt to guard against all evasions of
scriptural words. The emperor himself, prompted by Hosius,
proposed its insertion. Finally, this was agreed on, and the
creed was thoroughly revised under the direction of Hosius,
Marcellus, Eustathius of Antioch, and perhaps Macarius of
Jerusalem, for in its final shape it contains phrases which
remind us of the Creed of Jerusalem as well as that of
Antioch? For the anti-Sabellian phrases of Eusebius were
substituted anti-Arian anathemas.

The principal changes were as follows:—(i) The term
“Word” (λόγος) was cut out, and “Son” (υἱός) was moved
up into its place. This was an improvement on the vague
Christology of the Creed of Eusebius. The central problem
of Divine Sonship was set before the consideration of the
Son’s work in our creation and redemption. (11) “ Only-

1 Harnack, art. ‘‘ Apostolisches Symbolum,” RZ.*
5 Robertson, Athanasius, p. xix., following Hort. 5 Hort.

CREEDS OF EUSEBIUS AND NICENE COUNCIL 79

begotten ” (μονογενής) was explained by the words “ of the
essence of the Father” (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας tod πατρός). Thus
the argument used by Eusebius of Nicomedia in his letter to
Paulinus of Tyre was contradicted! (111) Further, it was
guarded by the emphatic assertion begotten, not made (γεννη-
θέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα), in reply to Arius and Asterius, leading
up to “of one essence with the Father” (ὁμοούσιος τῷ
matpi). (iv) The word “incarnate” (σαρκωθέντα) was ex-
plained by the addition “was made man” (évav@pwrijcarta),

CREED OF EUSEBIUS
(Ep. ad Ces. ap. Ath. de Decretis)

Πιστεύομεν eis ἕνα Θεὸν πατέρα παν-

CREED OF NICENE COUNCIL
(ib.)

,
Πιστεύομεν eis ἕνα Θεὸν πατέρα παν-

~ , ε ΄“
τοκράτορα τὸν τῶν ἁπάντων ὁρατῶν

τοκράτορα πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ

AAA RAN

,
τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητὴν

’ 2 a \
Καὶ εἰς €vax vpiov ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστόν, Tov

τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγον,

Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς,

ζωὴν ἐκ ζωῆς, υἱὸν μονογενῆ, πρωτό-
τοκον πάσης κτίσεως, πρὸ πάντων
τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ πατρὸς γεγεν-
νημένον, Ov οὗ καὶ ἐγένετο τὰ πάντα

LP

ι
τον

διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν σαρκω-

, \ > > , ,ὔ
θέντα καὶ ἐν ἀνθρώποις πολιτευσά-

μενον καὶ παθόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ

ἀοράτων ποιητήν

ao ’ ca
Καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν,

4A ev “~ ΄-Ἀ , >
τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, γεννηθέντα ἐκ Tov
Α -“ ΄“
πατρὸς μονογενῆ, τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς
’ὔ ΄“ “- ΄-“
οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς, Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς

2 A > “a
ἐκ φωτὸς, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ

> =
ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα,
ξ ’ “ ἈΝ
ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ
3 = A , > ,
δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο,
, > ~ Per eae Ἀ A > CEE sae
Ta TE ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν TH γῇ,
A ὃ >. “a ‘ > θ , A A
τὸν Ov ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ
«ς , , PR
ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα

,
σαρκωθέντα

‘
την

\ ’ ,
καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα,

, > ~ ΄“
παθόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τριτῇ

δι. ὁ. ς , \ > rAd A ‘
τριτῇ ἡμέρᾳ Kat ἀνελθόντα πρὸς τὸν

πατέρα καὶ ἥξοντα πάλιν ἐν δόξῃ

~ “ ’
κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς.

’ a a
Πιστεύομεν καὶ εἰς ἕν πνεῦμα ἅγιον,

3

τούτων ἕκαστον εἶναι καὶ ὑπάρχειν
πιστεύοντες, πατέρα ἀληθῶς πατέρα,

‘ [21 > “ ει ‘ be eo
καὶ υἱὸν ἀληθῶς υἱὸν, καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον
IX θῶ ee ΄- θὰ \ «
ἀληθῶς ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καθὼς καὶ ὁ

,ὔ ie > > \ ,
κύριος ἡμῶν ἀποστέλλων εἰς τὸ κή-

a 7 ὁ

ρυγμα τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ μαθητὰς εἶπε᾽ πορ-
ευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη,
K.T.A.

¢ >
ἡμέρᾳ, ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς,

> ~ “
ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς.

\ > \ *
Kai εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. Τοὺς δὲ

ΤΣ [᾿
λέγοντας" ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, ἢ οὐκ
Φ » | δὰ By >
ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῆναι, ἢ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων
ἢ x > δι. ¢ , aA
ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ
ee , >
οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, ἢ κτιστὸν ἢ
4 x > \ A «κι “aA
τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ
- ’ »
Θεοῦ, τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ
... 2 A A ᾿ς, ἌΓ ’
καὶ ἀποστολικὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκλησία.

1 Theodoret, i. 5.

80 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

in place of the less definite “lived as a citizen amongst men.”
That beautiful phrase was found in the Creed of Eusebius,’
and it is to be regretted that it was dropped. But it did not
answer the fundamental question, “How is Christ the ideal
citizen?” The fate of all Christian socialism depends on
the answer.

We do not know how long the debates lasted, but when
the final moment came for decision the defeat of the Arian
party was crushing. All signed except two, Eusebius of
Nicomedia with a reservation exposing himself to the scorn
of the stalwart Secundus and Theonas.

The explanation of his action which Eusebius of Cesarea
thought fit to send to his flock, laid stress on the emperor’s
influence and denial of false ways in which the term “of one
essence” could be interpreted. In the same strain he inter-
preted “of the essence” negatively, “of the Father, but not
as a part,” without attempting to say what it does mean.

Thus the original Nicene Creed was the work of a
minority, a form proposed and carried through by the sheer
force of clearer conviction and foresight. Those who best
understood Arianism were most active in opposing it. We
do not know what influence Athanasius the deacon actually
obtained at the Council. He is said to have spoken,? and was
already Alexander’s trusted adviser. But the identification
of ὑπόστασις and οὐσία in the fourth anathema was foreign
to the prevailing tone of thought at Alexandria, where men
spoke of τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις. Loofs says truly of Athanasius,
“He was moulded by the Nicene Creed; did not mould it
himself.” 8

The creed thus proposed to the whole Church by the
Council, with the emperor’s approval, was intended as a
standard of doctrine, an authoritative exposition of the “one
faith” contained in the varying baptismal creeds and the
rules of faith held in reverence by the different Churches,
which no one wished to disturb.

1 Of. the fourth Creed of Antioch. 2 Apol. c. Ar. 6.
3 DG.? p. 151.

‘‘THE FIGHT IN THE DARK.” 81

§ IV. “THe Ficut IN THE Dark”

Truth conquers only when it stimulates conviction. Men
constrained to believe or to act would fain rebel against the
logic of their position or the commands laid upon them.
Most of the bishops, when they returned from Nica to their
homes, were agreed that Arius should be condemned, but were
doubtful whether the new watchword of orthodoxy was a
true interpretation of their faith in Christ. “A reaction was
inevitable.” Feelings were embittered by the harsh punish-
ment dealt to the Arians by the will of the emperor, with
the consent of the Nicene leaders. In this respect time
brought revenge. During his exile in Illyria, Arius made
good use of his opportunities to spread his opinions. Two
of the ablest of the next generation of Arian leaders— Ursacius,
Bishop of Singidunum (Belgrade), and Valens, Bishop of
Mursa (Mitrowitz)—came under his personal influence.

Within five years, Eusebius of Nicomedia, who soon
followed into exile, was recalled. Constantine was loyal to
the Council, but had missed his ready adviser, and was easily
persuaded to pardon Arius also when assured that they
accepted the Council’s Creed. Thenceforward the Imperial
Court became the headquarters from which a series of
intrigues were planned against all orthodox bishops, especially
Athanasius. The original strength of the Arian party con-
sisted in the fact that they had a definite plan of dogmatic
teaching as fellow-Lucianists. They were now reinforced by
politicians, place-hunters, and found it easy to make an
alliance with the schismatic Meletians in Egypt. Society
also was on their side among the heathen, and the clever
sophist Asterius roused much interest on their behalf by his
lectures.

In Asia Minor the Nicene party were outnumbered from
the first. The traditional theology there was realistic, out of
sympathy with Origen. Their hatred of the speculations of
Paul of Samosata led them by a true instinct to condemn
Arianism, but it was soon balanced by an equal hatred of the
teaching of Marcellus. They were jealous of the triumph of

6

82 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

Western theologians, and their discontent was kept alive by
the intriguers at court, where the political importance of
those provinces was highly esteemed.

In Syria, Eusebius of Cesarea had a large following.
He was “neither a great man nor a clear thinker,’! but
signed the creed honestly, putting his own interpretation on
it, and sympathising with Arius rather than with Arianism.
His age and learning made him the leader of the conservat-
ives, whose chief dread was Sabellianism.

In 329 he joined with Arian and reactionary bishops in
a Synod at Antioch, which deposed Eustathius on the double
charge of Sabellianism and immorality. Other bishops were
then attacked, and trouble was fomented in Egypt with the
aim of deposing Athanasius and restoring Arius to communion
in Alexandria. At Tyre in 335 the Arians met in force, and
Athanasius had to escape to Constantinople. The emperor
was annoyed by the continuance of strife, and when an
entirely new charge of treason was fabricated, banished him
to Tréves.

In 336 the storm broke which had been gathering over
the head of Marcellus. His treatise against Asterius had
laid him open to the charge of Sabellianism, and he was
attacked by Eusebius of Cesarea. He taught that the Divine
Unity, for the work of creation and redemption, extended
itself into a Trinity (πλατυνομένη eis τριάδα). The incarna-
tion was therefore the manifestation of supreme Divine
energy (€vepyeta δραστική) under conditions of time and
space which would come to an end. Then the Divine Word,
proceeding from the eternal silence, having delivered up the
Kingdom to the Father “that God may be all in all” (1 Cor.
xv. 28), would relapse into repose. Thus he ascribed to the
Divine Word only a potential personal existence.

He was defended by the Nicene party. Athanasius, who
met him again at Rome after the death of Constantine, to
the end of his life refused to condemn him, though compelled
to reject some of his speculations. 7

1 Gwatkin.

SECOND CREED OF ANTIOCH 83
§ V. THE CoUNCIL OF THE DEDICATION (SECOND AND
FOURTH CREEDS OF ANTIOCH)

When the Council of the Dedication of Constantine’s
golden church at Antioch met in 341, the controversy passed
into a new phase. Its members were mostly conservatives
who were prepared to go some way in the direction of recon-
ciliation with the Nicene leaders. Hilary calls it a “Synod
of Saints,” and its canons have passed into the general body
of Church law. But the Arians present formed a compact
party under the leadership of the veteran Eusebius, who had
been translated from Nicomedia to Constantinople, and the
see of Caesarea was now held by the unprincipled Acacius.

The first business was to frame a reply to a letter received
from Julius, Bishop of Rome, a masterly summary of matters
in dispute, which rather irritated them. Then the work of
creed-making was begun by the Arians. While professing to
accept the Nicene Creed, they brought forward a formulary
suspiciously like the deceptive profession of Arius, though it
began with an absurd protest that they should not be con-
sidered his followers, because bishops would not follow a
priest. This was rejected, and the second Creed of Antioch,
often called the Lucianic Creed, was proposed and passed.

SECOND CREED OF ANTIOCH

Πιστεύομεν ἀκολούθως τῇ evay- We believe, conformably to the evan-

γελικῇ καὶ ἀποστολικῇ παραδόσει
εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν, πατέρα παντο-
κράτορα, τὸν τῶν ὅλων δημι-
5 ουργόν τε καὶ ποιητὴν καὶ

mpovontnv. Kat ets eva
’ -“

κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν

υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῇ;

Θεόν, δι᾽ οὗ τὰ πάντα, τὸν
γεννηθέντα πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων
ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ,
ὅλον ἐξ ὅλου, μόνον ἐκ μόνου,
τέλειον ἐκ τελείου, βασιλέα ἐκ
βασιλέως, κύριον ἀπὸ κυρίου, λόγον
15 ζῶντα, σοφίαν ζῶσαν, φῶς ἀλη-

θινόν, ὁδόν, ἀλήθειαν, ἀνάστασιν,

10

gelical and apostolical tradition, in
one God, the Father Almighty, the
Framer, and Maker, and Provider
of the universe, from whom are
all things. And in one Lord Jesus
Christ, His Son, Only-begotten God
(John i. 18), by whom are all things,
who was begotten before all ages
from the Father, God from God,
whole from whole, sole from sole,
perfect from perfect, King from
King, Lord from Lord, Living
Word, Living Wisdom, true Light,
Way, Truth, Resurrection, Shep-
herd, Door, both unalterable and

84

’
ποιμένα, θύραν, ἄτρεπτόν τε καὶ
> , a , > ,
ἀναλλοίωτον, τῆς θεότητος, οὐσίας
Α 4, \ 4, \
τε καὶ βουλῆς καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ
“a 3
20 δόξης τοῦ πατρὸς ἀπαράλλακτον
εἰκόνα, τὸν πρωτότοκον πάσης
κτίσεως, τὸν ὄντα ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς
x / A , \ \
τὸν Θεόν, Θεὸν λόγον, κατὰ TO
> , > δ τς ‘ RE:
εἰρημένον εὐαγγελίῳ" καὶ Θεὸς ἦν
€ , » ig A , 3 ,
ὁ λόγος, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο
καὶ ἐν ᾧ τὰ πάντα συνέστηκε" τὸν
ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν κατελ-
, a A , >
θόντα ἄνωθεν καὶ γεννηθέντα ἐκ
παρθένου, κατὰ τὰς γραφάς καὶ
ἄνθρωπον γενόμενον, μεσίτην
“a A > U > ,
Θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, ἀποστολόν
- ς κ >
TE τῆς πίστεως ἡμῶν, Kal ἀρχηγὸν
-~ . e
ζωῆς, ὥς φησι" ὅτι καταβέβηκα
ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, οὐχ ἵνα ποιῶ τὸ
θέλημα τὸ ἐμόν, ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα
τοῦ πέμψαντός pe’ τὸν πάθοντα
καὶ ἀναστάντα ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τῇ
, € , ιν , ,
τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ kal ἀνελθόντα eis
οὐρανοὺς καὶ καθεσθέντα ἐν

90

40 δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός, καὶ πάλιν
ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δόξης καὶ
δυνάμεως κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ

4 \ > \ a
νεκρούς. Kal eis τὸ πνεῦμα
τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ εἰς παράκλησιν καὶ

5 ἁγιασμὸν καὶ τελείωσιν τοῖς πισ-
’ , \ Ν 4
τεύουσι διδόμενον καθὼς καὶ ὁ
’ « “ > “ ‘
κύριος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς διε-
τάξατο τοῖς μαθηταῖς, λέγων"
πορευθέντες μαθητέυσατε πάντα
4 » , » ‘\ >
τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς eis
τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ
καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος" δηλονότι
“ wy “-
πατρὸς ἀληθῶς πατρὸς ὄντος, υἱοῦ
ee “ ca a eee. HO
δὲ ἀληθῶς υἱοῦ ὄντος, τοῦ δὲ ἁγίου
“ ,
πνεύματος ἀληθῶς ἁγίου πνεύματος
ὄντος, τῶν ὀνομάτων οὐχ ἁπλῶς
> Siow A“ | “ > ‘
οὐδὲ ἀργῶς κειμένῶν ἀλλὰ σημαιν-
όντων ἀκριβῶς τὴν οἰκείαν ἑκάστου
τῶν ὀνομαζομένων ὑπόστασιν καὶ
e εκ a“ ‘
τάξιν καὶ δόξαν" ὡς εἶναι τῇ μὲν
ol ‘ ,
ὑποστάσει τρία, τῇ δὲ συμφωνίᾳ
‘
ἕν. Ταύτην οὖν ἔχοντες τὴν πίστιν,

>
a

60

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

unchangeable ; exact image of the
Godhead, Essence, Will, Power, and
Glory of the Father ; the first-born
of every creature, who was in the
beginning with God, God the Word,
as it is written in the Gospel, “and
the Word was God” (John i. 1);
by whom all things were made,
and in whom all things consist
(Col. i. 17); who in the last days
descended from above, and was
born of a virgin according to the
Scriptures, and was made man,
Mediator between God and man,
and Apostle of our faith, and Prince
of life, as He says, “I came down
from heaven, not to do Mine own
will, but the will of Him that sent
Me” (John vi. 38); who suffered
for us and rose again on the third
day, and ascended into heaven, and
sat down on the right hand of the
Father, and is coming again with
glory and power, to judge quick
and dead. And in the Holy Ghost,
who is given to those who believe
for comfort, and sanctification, and
initiation, as also our Lord Jesus
Christ enjoined His disciples, say-
ing, “Go ye, teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and the Son, and the Holy
Ghost” (Matt. xxviii. 19); namely,
of a Father who is truly Father,
and a Son who is truly Son, and of
the Holy Ghost who is truly Holy
Ghost, the names not being given
without meaning of effect, but
denoting accurately the peculiar
subsistence, rank, and glory of each
that is named, so that they are
three in subsistence, and in agree-
ment one. Holding then this faith,
and holding it in the presence of
God and Christ, from beginning to
end, we anathematise every heretical

SECOND CREED OF ANTIOCH

‘ > > “ ‘ , ,

kat ἐξ ἀρχῆς καὶ μέχρι τέλους

ἔχοντες ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ
Ὁ Χριστοῦ πᾶσαν αἱρετικὴν κακο-

’ > , ‘ 7

δοξίαν ἀναθεματίζομεν. καὶ εἴ τις
παρὰ τὴν ὑγιῆ τῶν γραφῶν ὀρθὴν
πίστιν διδάσκει, λέγων, ἢ χρόνον
ἢ καιρὸν ἢ αἰῶνα ἢ εἶναι ἢ γεγο-
νέναι πρὸ τοῦ γέννηθηναι τὸν
cy » Pee » ‘ »
υἱόν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. Καὶ εἴ τις
λέγει τὸν υἱὸν κτίσμα ὡς ἕν τῶν
κτισμάτων, ἢ γέννημα ὡς ἕν τῶν
γεννημάτων ποίημα ὡς ἕν τῶν ποι-
ἡμάτων, καὶ μὴ ὡς ai θεῖαι γραφαὶ
παραδέδωκαν τῶν προειρημένων
4 » > € , Δ »
ἕκαστον ἀφ᾽ ἑκάστου, ἢ εἴ τις
ἄλλο διδάσκει ἢ εὐαγγελίζεται παρ᾽
a , LS ς »,
ὃ παρελάβομεν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.
ς a a a a
ἡμεῖς yap πᾶσι τοῖς ἐκ τῶν θείων
γραφῶν παραδεδομένοις ὑπό τε
τῶν προφητῶν καὶ ἀποστόλων
> ΄“
ἀληθινῶς καὶ ἐμφόβως καὶ πιστεύ-
ομεν καὶ ἀκολουθοῦμεν.

σι

=I

80

85

heterodoxy. And if any teaches
beside the sound and right faith of
the Scriptures, that time, or season,
or age, either is or has been before
the generation of the Son, be he
anathema. Or if anyone says that
the Son is a creature as one of the
creatures, or an offspring as one of
the offsprings, or a work as one of
the works, and not the aforesaid
articles one after another, as the
Divine Scriptures have delivered, or
if he teaches or preaches beside what
we have received, be he anathema.
For all that has been delivered in ᾿
the Divine Scriptures, whether by
prophets or apostles, do we truly and
reverently both believe and follow.

LINE 5. om. καὶ προνοητήν, S.}
S. 14. ἀπὸ] ἐκ, H.

θείας, SH. 18. τῆς] pr. τὴν, S.

24, κατὰ τὸ eip, εὐαΎΥ.} ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ, S.
36. παθόντα] + ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, 8.

fons] pr. τῆς, S.
auit discipulos, H.

ἀργῶν, 5.
om. καὶ ἐξ, , ἔχοντες, S.
69, αἰῶνα εἶναι, S.
om. ἢ ποιήμα. ..

SH. 88. ἀληθινῶς τε καὶ ἐμφανῶς, S,

9, πάντα] + ἐγένετο, S.
15. om. ζῶντα, Ἡ.
19. om. καὶ βουλῆς, SH.

10, προ] + πάντων,
15. ζῶσαν] ζωήν, SH. 16. ὁδὸν ἀλη-
23. > λόγον Θεοῦ, S.
30. ἄνθρωπον] aguus, H. 383.
48, καὶ] + εἰς, 5. 48. ordin-

52. δηλονότι πατρὸς ἀληθινῶς ὄντος πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ ἀληθινῶς
υἱοῦ ὄντος καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου ἀληθῶς ὄντος πνεύματος ἁγίου, S.
58. οἰκείαν] ἰδίαν, 35. 60, ὑπόστασίν τε καὶ δόξαν καὶ τάξιν, 35. 64,
66. > ἀναθεμ. κακοδ, ὃ,

71, πρὸ τοῦ γενν. τὸν υἱὸν] πρὸ τοῦ τὸν vidy τοῦ Θεοῦ, S. 78.
ποιημάτων, ὃ. 76, παραδεδώκασι, SH. 77. ἕκαστον ἕκαστα,

57. ἀργῶς]

68. om. ἢ χρόνον, ὃ.

Athanasius? says sarcastically that they wanted some-

thing newer and fuller, but, after all, it represents some

extent of concession on the Arian 5166. In it are

heaped up all the scriptural phrases by which disciples of

Origen thought to defend the Lord’s divinity. It is catholic

in the assertion of “the exact likeness of the Son to the

Father’s essence.” The word “essence” honestly accepted
1 Socrates (5), Hilary (H). 2 De Synod, 23,

86 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

would confute any attempt to explain it away by the mental
reservation that this had not always been true. Catholic
also is the phrase “mediator between God and men.” But
it marks the beginning of a doctrinal reaction. The term
ὁμοούσιος is omitted. The phrases which Eusebius of Cesarea
had proposed against Sabellianism reappear. A further declara-
tion follows against Marcellus, ending with the phrase, τῇ μὲν
ὑποστάσει τρία τῇ δὲ συμφωνίᾳ ἕν, which is “an artfully
chosen point of contact between Origen on the one hand, and
Asterius, Lucian, and Paul of Samosata on the other.”? In
the anathemas the phrases condemned at Niceea are proscribed,
but in a way which might admit of an Arian interpretation.
Athanasius points out that they condemn every heretical
heterodoxy, not naming the Arian. The mention of Scripture
is dubious, because each party fancied themselves the best
interpreters.

Thus completed, the creed was not much use against
Marcellus, who admitted both the pretemporal generation
and the true Sonship. But it was often quoted, and became
at a later time a stepping-stone by which semi-Arians were
able to climb to a more orthodox standpoint. . According
to Sozomen,? the bishops declared that they had found the
entire form in the writing of Lucian. But he adds that he
cannot say whether they spoke truly or desired to obtain
respect for their own writing. He also says that the Synod
which met in Caria in 367 acknowledged it as Lucianic,
supposing that it had been so called at Seleucia in 357.
Kattenbusch ὃ points out that Sozomen is here dependent on
Socrates,* who says nothing about any such declaration of
semi-Arians or Homceans at Seleucia. If anything of the
kind was said in 357, we must remember that eighteen years
had passed, giving time for such a fable to grow up. Possibly
Sozomen confused the second with the fourth Creed of Antioch,
which is more probably Lucianic.®

There may be in the second a kernel of Lucianic teaching,
but if so it is strange that Athanasius and Hilary are silent

1 Robertson, Athanasius, p. xliv. .. * AZ. iii. 5. πα pe Eh.
4 Hist. ii, 89. 5 Kattenbusch, i. pp. 261,

FOURTH CREED OF ANTIOCH 87

about it. Athanasius remarks that the Nicene party have
no monopoly of unbiblical phrases: “In the so-called
Dedication, Acacius and Eusebius and their fellows used
expressions not in Scripture, and said that ‘ the first-born of
the creation’ was the exact image of the essence and power
and will and glory.”4 From Epiphanius we learn that
Acacius, in his book against Marcellus, quoted the sophist
Asterius as the author of the whole of this set of phrases in
the creed, from ἄλλος μὲν... etxova.2 Now, Asterius, who
had died some ten years before, was a pupil of Lucian, and
might of course have simply quoted his master. On the
other hand, Philostorgius? says that Asterius had changed
Lucian’s teaching, implying that he had come nearer to the
Nicene position. Since this was the attitude of the majority
at this Council, it seems reasonable to accept Kattenbusch’s
argument, and assume that they quoted Asterius rather than
Lucian.

The third Creed of Antioch was a personal profession of
faith presented by Theophronius, Bishop of Tyana. It was
rabidly anti-Marcellian.

The fourth Creed was the work of a few bishops who
reassembled in Antioch a few months later. Constans had
requested Constantius to send him a deputation on the affairs
of Athanasius, and this creed was constructed for the deputies
to take. It is based on the creed found in the sixth book of
the Apostolic Constitutions, which is a revised form of the
creed found in the Didascalia. (See Appendix F.)

FOURTH CREED OF ANTIOCH

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator and Maker of
all things; from whom all fatherhood in heaven and earth is named
(Eph. iii. 15).

And in His Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who before all
ages was begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light,
by whom all things were made in the heavens and on the earth, visible
and invisible, being Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and Life, and True

1 De Synod. 36. 2 Her, 72. 6. 3 ii. 14, 15, quoted by Photius.

88 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

Light ; who in the last days was made man for us, and was born of the
Holy Virgin; who was crucified, and dead, and buried, and rose again
from the dead the third day, and was taken up into heaven, and sat
down on the right hand of the Father; and is coming at the consumma-
tion of the age, to judge quick and dead, and to render to everyone
according to his works; whose kingdom endures indissolubly into the
infinite ages ; for He shall be seated on the right hand of the Father, not
only in this age but in that which is to come.

And in the Holy Ghost; that is the Paraclete; which having
promised to the apostles, He sent forth after His ascension into heaven,
to teach them and to remind of all things ; through whom also shall be
sanctified the souls of those who sincerely believe in Him.

But those who say that the Son was from nothing, or from some other
substance and not from God, and there was time when He was not, the
Catholic Church regards as aliens.

FOURTH CREED OF ANTIOCH

Apostolic Constitutions, vii. 41. ap. Athanasius, de Synod. 25.

’ ’ A
Πιστεύω καὶ βαπτίζομαι eis ἕνα Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν πατέρα
SAARAAN seen ee ee ee ee
Ἂν τ , > A 5 ,
ἀγέννητον, μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεὸν παντοκράτορα
παντοκράτορα

τὸν πατέρα τοῦ Χριστοῦ

“ n /
κτιστὴν καὶ δημιουργὸν τῶν ἁπάντων κτιστὴν Kal ποιητὴν τῶν πάντων
_——————————— TLALA WAAR POI ‘3

> = 5) ΄ > = a iY Σ > “ \
ἐξ οὗ Ta πάντα ἐξ οὗ πᾶσα πατριὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς καὶ

δ᾽" “ > /
ἐπὶ γῆς ὀνομάζεται.

Ν 5 A ? > “a v
Καὶ εἰς τὸν κύριον ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν
— ““—n"eees «NAILS

Χριστόν, τὸν μονογενῆ αὐτοῦ υἱόν,

κτίσεως
. A » > ,ὔ “~ 4
“ov πρὸ αἰώνων εὐδοκίᾳ τοῦ πατρὸς

τὸν πρωτότοκον πάσης

Ν . A no > “ cr
Καὶ εἰς τὸν μονογενὴ αὑτοῦ υἱόν,

Α ,ὔ « “ > a ,
τὸν κυριον ἡμῶν ἴησοῦν Χριστὸν

- >
τὸν πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ

γεννηθέντα

3 - A , ΕῚ , 4 3
δι οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο τὰ ἐν

οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς

ὁρατά τε καὶ ἀόρατα,

\ δ. "Ὁ > an an
τὸν ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν κατελ-

θόντα ἐξ οὐρανῶν
\ , 3 ,
καὶ σάρκα ἀναλαβόντα
καὶ ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου Μαρίας
γεννηθέντα
BPO

τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα

> “ lo > ,
Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός,
δι οὗ ἐγένετο τὰ πάντα
_oeror.f054"re"””Y”Y PY YY

οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς

ἐν τοῖς

, ς AY \ A 27
τά (re) ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα

A
λόγον ὄντα καὶ σοφίαν καὶ δύναμιν
καὶ ζωὴν καὶ φῶς ἀληθινόν,
τὸν ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν

Β “ > 6 ’
δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ἐνανθρωπήσαντα
\

καὶ γεννηθέντα ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου
ποσ ae!

FOURTH CREED OF ANTIOCH

Apostolic Constitutions—contd.

καὶ πολιτευσάμενον ὁσίως κατὰ τοὺς
νόμους τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ
καὶ σταυρωθέντα ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλ-
άτου

Ἁ 3 , ς ‘ « -
καὶ ἀποθανόντα ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν

> 4, -
καὶ ἀναστάντα ἐκ νεκρῶν μετὰ τὸ

παθεῖν τῇ τρίτη ἡμερᾳ

4. > , > A > ‘
καὶ ἀνελθόντα eis τοὺς οὐρανοὺς

89

ap. Athanasius, de Synod.—contd.

᾿ ,
TOV σταυρωθέντα

A > ,ὕὔ
καὶ ἀποθανόντα

XN ,
καὶ ταφέντα
᾽ lad lod ,
καὶ ἀναστάντα ἐκ νεκρῶν τῇ τρίτῃ
¢ ,
ἡμέρᾳ
καὶ ἀναληφθέντα εἰς οὐρανὸν

(Soer. καὶ ἀνεληλυθότα εἰς τοὺς οὐρα-

POO

vous)
καὶ καθεσθέντα ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ καθεσθέντα ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρὸς
γ , 3 , ΒΝ , Ny ’ , as a, , ἘΝῚ
καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τοῦ

“A vA 4 , ~ “
τοῦ αἰῶνος μετὰ δόξης κρῖναι ζῶντας

καὶ νεκροὺς

. ῦθις,,, ,
οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος.
RPO" PPO

Barrifoua καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ

a ΄ cal \ A
αἰῶνος κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς

‘ > “A < , \ \ Od
καὶ ἀποδοῦναι ἑκάστῳ κατὰ Ta ἔργα
αὐτοῦ
οὗ ἡ βασιλεία ἀκατάλυτος
(Socr. ἀκατάπαυστος) οὖσα διαμεν εἴ
εἰς τοὺς ἀπείρους αἰῶνας" ἔσται γὰρ

, > na a A »
καθεζόμενος ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐ
΄“΄ -“ 4 > \ A
μόνον ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ ἀλλὰ καὶ
» ~
ἐν τῶ μέλλοντι
καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα
PAD ὧν δ. δ Ἦν ὧν ἂν ἤν

ε!
αγιον

τουτέστι τὸν παράκλητον

. ene “ 3 “ - 5 a
TO ἐνεργῆσαν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος
, A a
ἁγιόις, ὕστερον δὲ ἀποσταλὲν καὶ τοῖς
ween Sw , mememeed

> ~
ἀποστόλοις παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς κατὰ
———— . Of

‘ “ -“ ΄
τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν

> ~ “a Ἁ A ‘ >
Ingov ee καὶ μετὰ τοὺς ἅποσ-

τόλους δὲ πᾶσι τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἐν τῇ

LAAABAWNWWI AN
ἁγίᾳ καθολικῇ
‘ Ἁ > ~ Ε] , > \
kal ἀποστολικῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, εἰς σαρκὸς
ἀνάστασιν καὶ εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν
ΜΕ , > a ἢν ‘
καὶ εἰς βασιλείαν οὐρανῶν καὶ εἰς ζωὴν
τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος."
2
Professor Kattenbusch

(Socr. ro πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον)

τουτέστι τὸν παράκλητον

(Socr. τὸ παράκλητον)

“ >
ὅπερ ἐπαγγειλάμενος τοῖς ἀποσ-

vv BemrORG wyvee

τόλοις μετὰ τὴν εἰς οὐρανοὺς αὐτοῦ
ἄνοδον ἀπέστειλε διδάξαι αὐτοὺς καὶ
Sree Gein prin
ὑπομνῆσαι πάντα, δι’ οὗ καὶ ἁγιασθή-
ΓΑ ὦ Κῶ Ἀν ἐς ΥΩ
an “ > >

σονται ai τῶν εἰλικρινῶς εἰς αὐτὸν
ῇᾳΦῸὉΦΦΟΙ ΝΜ, ‘

,
πεπιστευκότων ψυχαί.
PAP eee

(Add. anathema)

rounds off his theory that this

was the true Lucianic Creed, which Sozomen confused with

1 καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν ταύτην Kar’ ἀκολουθίαν ἔρχεται καὶ els τὴν τοῦ ἐλαίου

χρίσιν.

2i, p, 994,

go AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

the second Creed, by suggesting that Lucian was possibly the
compiler of the Didascalia. But he has not proved it, nor
are the Lucianic characteristics which he finds in the Creed
of the Apostolic Constitutions very definite. There is no
reference to the Logos-teaching which Lucian introduced in
his Christology. The creed must therefore belong to the
earlier period of his life. The simple biblical phrase “ Father
of Christ” comes naturally from the lips of an exegetist.
The unique phrase “ begotten by the goodwill of the Father ”
(Matt. iii. 17, xvii. 5; Eph. 1. 5), if Lucianic, shows that he
approached Christology from the point of view of redemption.
The phrase “took flesh” indeed fits in with the statement of
Epiphanius,' that Lucian taught that the Son of God had flesh,
not a soul. And the expression “lived as a citizen holily”
might be taken to express Lucian’s teaching of the patience
of Christ and progress by moral effort. But all this reason-
ing is inconclusive.

It only remains to say that the assertion of the eternal
kingdom, originally anti-Sabellian, is expanded in the fourth
Creed against Marcellus, though he is not named. The
Nicene anathemas are skilfully altered to discredit him, and
in favour of Arian teaching. The creed thus substituted
for the second Creed (the true creed of the Council) by the
deputation which went to wait on Constans, became the
pattern of later Arian confessions at Philippopolis in 343,
at Antioch in 344 (the so-called Machrostich), and Sirmium
in 351.

The deputation found that Constans had left Milan.
They followed him to Tréves, but he would not receive them.
He admired the character of Athanasius, whom he had ad-
mitted to an audience, and was determined to call another
General Council to end the strife. So a Council was called at
Sardica (now Sophia, in Bulgaria) in the year 344. After
some preliminaries had been discussed, the Eastern bishops,
finding themselves in a minority, decamped by night. At
Philippopolis they stopped to draw up a long angry statement.
They proposed that all their opponents should be deposed,

1 Ancorat, 33.

ARIANISM SUPREME gi

and professed the fourth Creed of Antioch, with a new
anathema against Marcellus. All hope of a true peace was
now lost, but the Western bishops considered at length all
the charges brought against the exiled Nicene leaders and
acquitted them. Athanasius returned in triumph to his
diocese amid public rejoicings, and began what has been
called in a picturesque phrase “the golden decade” of his
episcopate, his longest period of uninterrupted ministry.

The armed truce preserved by the might of Constans
came to an end at his death. When Constantius obtained
sole power, he was false to his pledges, and ordered the arrest
of Athanasius, who, however, escaped into the desert.

§ VI. ARIANISM SUPREME

At court Arianism was supreme under the new leaders,
Valens, a pupil of Arius, and an Arian by conviction, and
Acacius, a politician without convictions. They were de-
termined to substitute an Arian Creed for the Nicene, and
the emperor was willing to impose it on all his subjects.
But “the coalition fell to pieces the moment Arianism
ventured to have a policy of its own.”! We must distinguish
three groups, ultra-Arians, political Arians, and conservatives.
The political Arians were willing to unite with the con-
servatives in confession of “ the Essential Likeness” (ὁμοιούσια)
of the Son. This was a word with a good history, which
had been freely used by Athanasius. But the ultra-Arians,
‘arguing from the point of view that likeness is a relative
term, and may imply some degree of unlikeness, were ready
to twist it into conformity with their tenets, and by their
cunning over-reached themselves. Valens, by astute diplomacy,
united these Anomceans (ie. those confessing the Essential
Unlikeness) with the political Arians. A small Synod met at
Sirmium in 357, and drew up a Latin Creed which asserted
the unique Godhead of the Father, the subjection of the Son,
and proscribed the terms ὁμοούσιος and ὁμοιούσιος, with all
discussion of the term “ being,” οὐσία, as applied to God.

1 Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, p. 158.

92 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

This was a trumpet-blast of defiance which defeated its
own end. A new party was formed among the conservatives,
who have received through Epiphanius the misleading nick-
name semi-Arians. They were men who held at heart the
Nicene doctrine, though the scandal caused by the speculations
of Marcellus and the defection of his pupil Photinus led
them to look with suspicion at the term ὁμοούσιος. Basil
of Ancyra was their leader, and communications were opened
with the orthodox bishops in Gaul through Hilary, who was
in exile. The emperor had some regard for Basil, and
was willing to listen to him till a deputation in favour of
Anomoean tenets arrived from Syria. Valens seized the op-
portunity to suggest that a double Council should be held.
He proposed to preside himself over a meeting of the Western
leaders at Ariminum, while Acacius presided over the Eastern
leaders at Seleucia. ΤῸ secure agreement, he began to
negotiate with Basil of Ancyra and others. On Whitsun
Eve a creed was drawn up by Mark of Arethusa, which is
known as the Dated Creed. It is only known to us in a
Greek text and a late Latin translation, though originally
written in Latin.

_ THE DATED CREED OF SIRMIUM
Ath. de Syn. 8; Socr. ii. 37; Epiph. Scholast. p. 264.

4
Πιστεύομεν eis Eva τὸν μόνον καὶ

ἀληθινὸν Θεόν, πατέρα παντο-
κράτορα, κτίστην καὶ δημιουργὸν
τῶν πάντων. Καὶ εἰς ἕνα μονογενῆ
5 υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸν πρὸ πάντων
τῶν αἰώνων καὶ πρὸ πάσης ἀρχῆς
πρὸ παντὸς ἐπινοουμένου
χρόνου καὶ πρὸ πάσης καταληπτῆς

a 3
οὐσίας γεγεννημένον ἀπαθῶς ἐκ

N
Και

10 τοῦ Θεοῦ, δι’ οὗ οἵ τε αἰῶνες
κατηρτίσθησαν καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐγέ-
veto’ γεγεννημένον δὲ μονογενῆ
μόνον ἐκ μόνου τοῦ πατρός, Θεὸν
ἐκ Θεοῦ, ὅμοιον τῷ γεννήσαντι
αὐτὸν πατρί, κατὰ τὰς γραφάς" οὗ

τὴν γέννησιν οὐδεὶς ἐπίσταται εἰ

We believe in one Only and True
God, the Father Almighty, Creator
and Framer of all things. And in
one Only-begotten Son of God, who,
before all ages, and before all origin,
and before all conceivable time, and
before all comprehensible essence,
was begotten impassibly from God :
through whom the ages were dis-
posed and all things were made ;
and Him begotten as the Only-
begotten, Only from the Only
Father, God from God, like to the
Father who begat Him, according to
the Scriptures ; whose origin no one
knoweth save the Father alone who

THE DATED CREED OF SIRMIUM

μὴ μόνος ὁ γεννήσας αὐτὸν πατήρ.

Τοῦτον ἴσμεν τοῦ Θεοῦ μονογενῆ

υἱὸν νεύματι πατρικῷ παραγενό-
20 μενον ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν εἰς ἀθέτησιν
τῆς ἁμαρτίας, καὶ γεννηθέντα ἐκ
Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου, καὶ ἀναστρα-
φέντα μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν, καὶ
πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκονομίαν
25 σαντα κατὰ τὴν πατρικὴν βούλησιν"
σταυρωθέντα καὶ ἀποθανόντα, καὶ
εἰς τὰ καταχθόνια κατελθόντα καὶ
ὃν πυ-
λωροὶ ἅδου ἴδοντες ἔφριξαν"
ἀναστάντα ἐκ νεκρῶν τῇ τρίτῃ
ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἀναστραφέντα μετὰ τῶν

“ ,
Ta ἐκεῖσε οἰκονομήσαντα᾽
καὶ

30

΄ “ ‘
μαθητῶν καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκονομίαν

πληρώσαντα καὶ τεσσαράκοντα
« “ > , >
ἡμερῶν ἀναπληρουμένων ἀναληφ-
35 θέντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ καθεζύό-
μενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ πατρός, καὶ
, > ane , ae
ἐλευσόμενον ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ
τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῇ δόξῃ τῇ πατρικῇ
> , c , ‘ , »~
ἀποδιδόντα ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα
40

> a ‘ > \ e be
αὑτοῦ. Kat els τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα,
«

ὃ αὐτὸς ὁ
Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐπήγγειλε πέμ-

μονογενὴς τοῦ Θεοῦ

ψαι τῷ γένει τῶν ἀνθρώπων, τὸν
παράκλητον κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον"
ἀπέρχομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα
μου καὶ
πατέρα,
κλητον

45
, ‘
παρακαλέσω τὸν
καὶ ἄλλον παρά-
, ς .
πέμψει ὑμῖν,
a a > , > *
πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ἐκεῖνος
> aA > fal ,
ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήψεται
διδάξει καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς
, ‘ .-2 A ἀν).
πάντα. Τὸ δὲ ὄνομα τῆς οὐσίας
διὰ τὸ ἁπλούστερον ὑπὸ τῶν
πατέρων τεθεῖσθαι, ἀγνοούμενον
δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν σκάνδαλον
΄, A A , Ἁ A
φέρειν, διὰ τὸ μήτε τὰς γραφὰς
τοῦτο περιέχειν, ἤρεσε τοῦτο περι-
αἱρεθῆναι καὶ παντελῶς μηδεμίαν
μνήμην οὐσίας ἐπὶ Θεοῦ εἶναι τοῦ
60 λοιποῦ, διὰ τὸ τὰς θείας γραφὰς
μηδαμοῦ περὶ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ

\
TO

50

‘
Kat

55

λαῶν

> , “a μέ \ ,
οὐσίας μεμνῆσθαι. ὅμοιον δὲ λέγο-

πληρώ-

93

begat Him. We know that He, the
Only-begotten Son of God, at the
Father’s bidding came from the
heavens for the abolishment of sin,
and was born of the Virgin Mary,
and conversed with the disciples,
and fulfilled all the Economy accord-
ing to the Father’s will, was
crucified and died and descended
into the parts beneath the earth,
and regulated the things there,
whom the gate-keepers of hell saw
(Job xxxviii. 17, LXX.) and shud-
dered ; and He rose from the dead
the third day, and conversed with
the disciples, and fulfilled all the
Economy, and when the forty days
were full, ascended into the heavens,
and sitteth on the right hand of the
Father, and is coming in the last day
of the resurrection in the glory of
the Father, to render to everyone
according to his works. And in
the Holy Ghost, whom the Only-
begotten of God Himself, Jesus
Christ, had promised to send to the
race of men, the Paraclete, as it is
written: “I go to My Father, and
I will ask the Father, and He shall
send you another Paraclete, even the
Spiritof Truth, He shall take of Mine
and shall teach and bring to your
remembrance all things” (John xiv.
16, 17, 26, xvi. 14). But whereas
the term “ essence” has been adopted
by the Fathers in simplicity, and
gives offence as being misconceived
by the people, because it is not con-
tained in the Scriptures, it has
seemed good to remove it, that no
mention of “essence” with regard
to God should be made at all in the
future, because the Divine Scriptures
nowhere mention “essence” of the
Father and Son. But we say the
Son is like the Father in all things,

94 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

μεν τὸν υἱὸν τῷ marpi κατὰ as also the Holy Scriptures say and
, e A € a A
πάντα, ὡς καὶ ai ἅγιαι γραφαὶ teach.
65 λέγουσί τε καὶ διδάσκουσιν.

LINE 9. οὐσίας] ἐπίνοίας, S; et ante omnem comprehensibilem substantiam,
E. 16, γέννησιν] γένεσιν, A; generationem, Εἰ ; μόνος] pr. ἢ, S. 19. τὸν povo-
γενῇ αὐτοῦ υἱὸν, S; unigenitum Dei Filium, E. 26. σταυρωθέντα] + καὶ
παθόντα, ὃ. 380. om. ἐκ νεκρῶν, ὃ. 84, 0m. καὶ πᾶσαν -- πληρ. 8. τεσσαράκοντα]
πεντήκοντα, A}; quinquaginta, E. 34. dvamdp.] πλησώσαντα, S. 88, om. τῆς
ἀναστάσεως, ὃ. 41. Θεοῦ] + vids, S; quem unigenitus promisit, E. 45. John
xvi. 7,13 f., xiv. 16 f., xv. 26. 59. Θεοῦ, pr. rot, S, ed. Walch. 61. rod
πατρὸς] πνεύματος, S, ed. Walch. 64. om. καὶ, SE.

Basil must have felt that in signing this he was sacri-
ficing principles, for he added a memorandum in which he
defended the use of the term “ essence,” asserted the “ Essen-
tial Likeness,” and denied that “ unoriginate” (ἀγεννησία) is
the primary idea of God.

At Ariminum it was rejected with scorn. The feeling
of the Synod may be illustrated from a sentence in the
treatise of Athanasius “On the Synods” (c. 3): “ After put-
ting into writing what it pleased them to believe, they prefix
to it the Consulate, and the month and the day of the current
year ; thereby to show all sensible men that their faith dates,
not from of old, but now from the reign of Constantius.”

At Seleucia, Acacius proposed an altered form, but was
defeated. Getting angry, his friends declared openly against
the Nicene formula. It was, however, defended by a majority,
though they complained (so Athanasius tells us) of the word
“of one essence” as being obscure, and therefore open to
suspicion. They then proceeded to confirm the second Creed
of Antioch, and rejected a rival formulary drawn up by the
Acacians. Having excommunicated the Arians, their dele-
gates proceeded to Constantinople. Then they were persuaded
to accept the Arian Creed of Niké, which was also thrust
upon the Council at Ariminum. It is not to our purpose
to pursue their history further.

VICTORY IN SIGHT 95

§ VII. Victory IN SIGHT

In the year 359, Athanasius wrote his “noble work” de
Synodis, with a double object—to expose all these pitiable
intrigues, and to win the confidence of the semi-Arians.
He wrote hopefully, and his hopeful tone was justified by the
event. In fact, after the fiasco of “the Dated Creed,” the
victory was really won. The ill-treatment which the bishops
received at Ariminum and Niké widened the breach between
the Anomoeans and the semi-Arians, who in less than three
years were reconciled to the Nicene party. The rise of the
Anomcean leaders to supremacy at court, through the acces-
sion of another Arian Emperor Valens (A.D. 363), could not
break this alliance. A new generation of young theologians
was growing up, who were full of a genuine admiration for
Athanasius, and responded readily to his appeal. The fore-
most among them—Basil of Cesarea, in Cappadocia—had
accompanied his bishop, Basil of Ancyra, to Constantinople,
and recoiled from the spirit of intrigue which was manifested
there. A short time later he adopted the words of Athan-
asius (Hp. viii. 9): “One God we confess—one in nature, not
in number, for number belongs to the category of quantity,

. neither like nor unlike, for these terms belong to the
category of quality. . . . He that is essentially God is
co-essential with Him, that is, essentially God... . If Iam
to state my own opinion, I accept “like in essence,”
with the addition of “exactly,” as identical in sense with
“ eo-essential,” . . . but “exactly like” [without “ essence ”
I suspect. . . . Accordingly, since “co-essential” is the term
less open to abuse on this ground, I too adopt it.”

“Basil the Great is not, indeed, the only, but the
conspicuous and abundant justification of the insight of
Athanasius in the de Synodis.”' This personal triumph of
Athanasius was not valued by him as a triumph of policy so
much as of principle. When Sulpicius Severus speaks of
him as Episcopus iurisconsultus, we are not to think of a mere
special pleader. He was a statesmen with large ideas, and

1 Robertson, Athanasius, p. 449.

96 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

he was persuaded that truth would prevail. Not dismayed,
like lesser men, by frequent failures, he held that “we fall
to rise, are baffled to fight better.” Through the long turmoil
he never lost heart, praying, as at the end of the de Synodis
he begs others to do, that now at length “all strife and rivalry
may cease, and the futile questions of the heretics may be
condemned, and all logomachy; and the guilty and mur-
derous heresy of the Arians may disappear, and the truth
may shine again in the hearts of all.”

§ VIII. ConcLusion

The Arian heresy represents a mode of thought which
will always prove attractive to some minds. Its appeal is
to the present, to pressing intellectual difficulties in justifica-
tion of a compromise, an illogical compromise, between faith
and reason. It permits a worship of Christ which on its
own showing is little better than idolatry.

Dr. Bright * recalls an incident of its revival in the last
century. “An Arian teacher, Clarke, was maintaining his
case in a royal drawing-room against an orthodox divine,
who condensed the whole matter into one tremendous
crucial question, ‘Can the Father, on your hypothesis, anni-
hilate the Son?’ There was silence, and then Clarke
helplessly muttered that it was a point which he had never
considered. It was a point on which all might be said to
turn.”

The case breaks down. From the position, we will call
Christ good though we cannot call him God, extremists are
led on to deny that He is like the Father, to deny His
goodness, to denounce worship of Him as hypocrisy. History
repeats itself: the Arian becomes the Anomeean. And the
warning which history gives is this—that to cut a knot
which he cannot untie is for every man a confession of
failure. Worshippers of Christ are not all hypocrites, and
the main object of Nicene opposition to Arianism was
religious rather than theological, to ensure that prayers

1 Waymarks in Church History, p. 70.

CONCLUSION 97

might be offered to Christ not with hope only, but with
certainty.

In the writings of Athanasius the primary interest is
certainly religious. Even Gibbon lays aside, as someone has
said, “his solemn sneer” to do honour to the memory of
this champion of the faith, who never lost heart, but could
make of failure “a triumph’s evidence for the fulness of the
days.” It has been suggested that he left the people out
of account, that his appeal is always to theologians and the
professionally religious... But a very different impression
may be derived from the references to the faith and hope of
all Christian people in his Festal Letters. And in the famous
letter to Dracontius,” on the duty of a bishop, he says plainly :
“The laity expect you to bring them food, namely, instruc-
tion from the Scriptures. When, then, they expect and
sutfer hunger, and you are feeding yourself only,? and our
Lord Jesus Christ comes, and we stand before Him, what
defence will you offer when He sees His own sheep hunger-
ing?” Such a passage—and many more might be quoted—
proves also that theological learning and the demands of
controversy did not make the idea of the historical Christ
unintelligible to Athanasius. It rather grew more clear
before his imagination. About a.D. 371 he wrote to the
philosopher Maximus in the simplest scriptural words, teach-
ing worship of the Crucified, and with this aim urges, “ Let
what was confessed by the Fathers at Niczea prevail.” 4

1 Harnack, D.G. ii. 275. 2 Ep. 49.

8.7.6. by shutting himself up in a monastery, and caring only for his own
spiritual life.

4 Ep. 61.

CHAPTER V

OUR NICENE CREED

§ I. The Council of Alexandria.
§ II. The Revised Creed of Jerusalem.
§ III. The Council of Constantinople.
§ IV. The Council of Chalcedon.
§ V. Later History: the Filioque clause.
§ VI. Conclusions.

§ I. THe CounctL oF ALEXANDRIA

«THe Faitu” of the Nicene Council is related to our Nicene
Creed as a bud from a garden rose to the wild-rose stock
into which it is grafted. The rose-grower with cunning hand
unites the beauty of colour and form which he has cultivated
to the hardy nature and vigorous growth of the wild plant.
Our Nicene Creed is the old Baptismal Creed of Jerusalem,
revised by the insertion of Nicene theological terms. Thus
the improved theology was grafted into the stock of the old
historic faith. It was not the only attempt that was made
in this direction, but it was by far the most successful. It
was fitted, alike by its rhythm and by the preservation of
proportion in its theological teaching, to become hereafter a
liturgical treasure for all Christendom.

The Creed of the Nicene Council was an elaborate dog-
matic formulary constructed to meet a particular crisis, to
be read with its anathemas. During thirty years it had
held its own, and the tenacity and loyalty of its defenders
through this long period of doubtful conflict won for it a
sanction which no Council of Bishops, however learned, or

spiritually minded, or unanimous, could bestow on a new
£8

THE COUNCIL OF ALEXANDRIA 99

confession. Leaders of Christian thought, who most dreaded
this new advance in theological analysis, had come round to
the opinion that its phrases, though not scriptural, conveyed
the meaning of Scripture. Men who had been reared in a
very different climate of thought, whose faculties had been
trained to a high level of discernment in the best schools of
Greek philosophy, fully recognised its value as a bulwark
against the assaults of heathenising theology, a sign-post
warning the traveller against the errors of a false logic.
Such were Basil and the Gregories. Nor was it only accepted
in the interests of the higher theology. A hard-working
parish priest like Cyril of Jerusalem, whose mind was set on
the teaching of a practical religion, a preacher of the gospel in
all simplicity, came to find in it a remedy for the present dis-
tress, a clue to escape from the long labyrinth of competing
creeds in which he unwillingly found himself turned adrift.

The triumph of Athanasius and his great Western ally
Hilary was assured. But in the hour of victory they showed
a wise moderation. They did not make of their creed a
mere Shibboleth to be thrust upon a new generation anyhow.
They cared more for deeds than words. The grace which
enabled so-called semi-Arians to suffer for their faith and
hope in Christ was precious in their sight. They feared to
break the bruised reed or quench the smoking flax. With
rare insight into the bearing of differences in theological
expression, and tender sympathy for all fellow-seekers after
truth, Hilary in Asia Minor, Athanasius from his hiding-
places in the Egyptian desert, laboured in the work of con-
ciliation. Is there not pathos, is there not power, in these
words of Hilary de Synodis? They form the conclusion of
his appeal (c. 91) to first principles of theology as an
eirenicon: “I have never heard the faith of Nicsa save on
the eve of exile. The Gospels and Apostles have instilled
into me the meaning of same in substance and like in sub-
stance.” For the former term he had suffered exile, but he
was not hardened into a bigot; he was ready to accept like
in substance as a stepping-stone of faith from men whom he
regarded as honest.

100 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

The same magnanimity was shown by Athanasius in his
treatise de Synodis, in which “even Athanasius rises above
himself.” “No sooner is he cheered by the news of hope
than the importunate jealousies of forty years are hushed in
a moment, as though the Lord had spoken peace to the
tumult of the grey old exile’s troubled soul.” 1

He turned to the semi-Arians with a careful defence of
the ὁμοούσιον. He was successful in his appeal. “ Not only
did many of the semi-Arians (eg. the fifty-nine in 365)
accept the ὁμοούσιον, but it was from the ranks of the semi-
Arians that the men arose who led the cause of Nica to its
ultimate victory in the East.” ?

The death of Constantius in A.D. 361 became a turning-
point in the history of the controversy, because the way had
been paved for a new alliance and an immediate advance.
Exiled bishops were everywhere recalled to their sees.
Athanasius was back at his post in twelve days, and in a
few months had summoned, early in 362 at Alexandria, “a
Synod of Saints and Confessors,” which, though small in num-
bers, had exceptional influence. Jerome writes enthusiastically
that “it recovered the world from the jaws of Satan.”* An
interesting record of their discussions is preserved in the
tome, or concise statement, which they sent to the divided
Church in Antioch. Guided by Athanasius, they took a
wide outlook on ecclesiastical affairs. Thus they advocated
acceptance of the Nicene formula as the terms of reunion.
They denounced Sabellianism as the trend of thought in some
quarters towards the heresy afterwards connected with the
name of Apollinaris of Laodicea, whose legates were present
at the Council. But they were careful to explain in what
way the terms ὑπόστασις and οὔσια might be distinguished,
so that those who clung to the term μία ὑπόστασις ( = ovata)
might not be offended when they heard others say τρεὶς
ὑποστάσεις, meaning not three substances but three sub-
sistences. Their chief concern, however, was the state of
affairs in Antioch, where a band of irreconcilable Eustathians
under their priest Paulinus, who sent legates to the Council,
1 Gwatkin, Studies, p.176. * Robertson, Athanasius, p. 449. 5 Adv, Lucif. 20.

THE REVISED CREED OF JERUSALEM 101i

refused to communicate with the Bishop Meletius. They
urged reconciliation. Meletius had been in exile for the
true faith, and was returning to take charge of the con-
gregation in the Old Church, which had been infected with
heresy, but should now be restored to communion with the
faithful remnant under Paulinus.

Their efforts failed. The firebrand Lucifer of Cagliari
had in the meantime perpetuated the schism by the con-
secration of Paulinus as bishop. But their wise counsels
had far-reaching influence. The new alliance with the semi-
Arians, who were willing to range themselves under the
standard of the Homoousians, survived misunderstandings
about Paulinus. Athanasius had before this given offence
by communicating with Paulinus, whom he now refused to
excommunicate. He distressed Basil, but he was willing to
make common cause in the higher interests of the faith with
its veteran defenders. During the reign of the Arian Valens
which followed the brief reign of Julian, Arian leaders
regained court influence, but their cause was doomed to fail.
From this time on many local creeds were reconstructed by
admission of Nicene phrases, or the Nicene Creed was intro-
duced in their place.

Basil, who had been convinced by the words of Athanasius
in his de Synodis that “ co-essential” was the term less open
to abuse than others, led the way in Cappadocia, where he
seems to have introduced the Nicene Creed. He wrote in
A.D. 373: τοὺς ἢ προληφθέντας ἑτέρᾳ πίστεως ὁμολογίᾳ καὶ
μετατίθεσθαι πρὸς τὴν τῶν ὀρθῶν συνάφειαν βουλομένους.
ἢ καὶ νῦν πρῶτον ἐν τῇ κατηχήσει τοῦ λόγου τῆς
ἀληθείας ἐπιθυμοῦντας γενέσθαι, διδάσκεσθαι χρὴ τὴν
ὑπὸ τῶν μακαρίων πατέρων ἐν τῇ κατὰ Νίκαιάν ποτε
συγκροτηθείσῃ συνόδῳ γραφεῖσαν πίστιν.1

§ If. Taz ReEvis—ED CREED OF JERUSALEM

By far the most important was the revision of the Creed
of Jerusalem, which in a former chapter we gleaned from the
1 Ep. 125. 1; cf. 140. 2, quoted by Kattenbusch, i. pp. 346 f.

102 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

Catecheses of Cyril. It is found in a treatise called “The
Anchored One” (Ancoratus), which was written by Epiphanius,
Bishop of Salamis, about the year A.D. 374. He wrote for
those who had been tossed on a sea of doubts and fears, but
had found an anchor of the soul. He was a travelled man,
and learned; in pedantry a contrast to Athanasius; in temper
violent, but a friend of good men. He introduced into his
book two creeds.

The former of these is our Nicene Creed, commonly
called the Constantinopolitan Creed, which I will print side
by side with the Creed of Jerusalem, all common words being
underlined, with a straight line if they are repeated exactly,
with a wavy line if they are not. All the words which are
found in the original Nicene Creed are pointed out by
means of underlying dotted lines, so that it is possible to see
at a glance to what extent it has been quoted. I have not
thought it worth while to include small variations found in
the text of Epiphanius, which are as likely as not due to an
interpolator... They are—Art. 1, οὐρανοῦ + τε; Art. 2,
αἰώνιων + τουτέστιν ἐκ THs οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός ; ἐγένετο + τά
τε ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ.

OUR NICENE CREED.

CREED OF JERUSALEM REVISED CREED OF JERUSALEM

Cyril, Catech. vi.-xviii. Epiphanius, Ancoratus.
Πιστεύομεν eis ἕνα Θεὸν πατέρα 1. Πιστεύομεν eis ἕνα Θεὸν πατέρα
παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ παντοκράτορα a ποιητὴν Re οὐρανοῦ
καὶ γῆς ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ καὶ γῆς ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ
ρος ων τ

ste τοςςτ---τ---

, ~ “a
Kai eis ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χρισ- 2. Kal eis ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χρισ-

Α a “-. “- “
τὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν τὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν

μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς

ὌΧ αν Seer eee eee eee ee ee ree eres)

γεννηθέντα Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν πρὸ γεννηθέντα

’ ΄“ a
πάντων τῶν αἰώνων. πρὸ πάντων τῶν

"}
αἰώνων.

φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ

1 Kattenbusch, i, p. 288.

OUR NICENE CREED 103

CREED OF JERUSALEM—cont.

> = A , AY ὦ
δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο,

,
σαρκωθέντα

\ 3 ,
καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα,

REVISED CREED OF JERUSALEM—cont.

Θεοῦ͵ ree ied A οὐ

ΠΟΎΣ ΤΣ)

ΠΣ

ΠΣ. ...
ΞΟ Terre rT irs)

πνεύματος

ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου

τ» ἢ ,
Kal ἐνανθρωπήσαντα,

,
σταυρωθέντα

» , A > , a
Και ταφέντα Kat αναστανταὰα Τῇ

τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ

‘ > , > \ > \
καὶ ἀνελθόντα eis τοὺς οὐρανοὺς

καὶ καθίσαντα ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ
--- wv - -
πατρὸς

καὶ ἐρχόμενον ἐν δόξῃ κρῖναι

ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, οὗ τῆς βασιλ-

, > + ,
elas οὐκ ἔσται τέλος.

“ \
Καὶ εἰς ἕν ἅγιον πνεῦμα τὸν

παράκλητον

τὸ λαλῆσαν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις
Eee OLR ὐδς Λδὼ ΤἷΝ ὦ Ὁ ΝὉ. ἯΩ ΝΩ ἤδὼ ἡδὼ ἡ

11. καὶ εἰς ἕν βάπτισμα μετανοίας

wy an
eis ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν

10. καὶ εἰς μίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν

> ,
ἐκκλησίαν
Ν > A > ,
kal εἰς σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν
RRR τ. .-----᾿------ρ-...

‘ 5 A oF
καὶ eis ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
----- ---- ΠΟ ΔΑ. Ὧν. Δ. Ὧν δὦ

11, ὁμολογοῦμεν ἕν

, ¢ \ iq "»“" > A
4 σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ

Ποντίου Πιλάτου καὶ παθόντα

7. καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ

πατρὸς

8. καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον. μετὰ δός δόξης

κρῖναι. ζῶντας ᾿ καὶ νεκρούς, οὗ

τῆς i clietan οὐκ ἔσται τέλος.

a “
9. Καὶ εἰς τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον,

aaa PEN nee SN

TO κύριον Kat TO ζωοποιὸν, TO ἐκ

τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ
\ ‘ “-“

σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ συνπροσκυ-

’ \ ,
νούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον,

\ a \ ‘ a
τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τὼν προφητῶν
a -- - σ-- LPI Iw

10. εἰς μίαν ἁγίαν καθολικὴν καὶ

> \ > fe SS
ἀποστολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν
ἁ
βάπτισμα εἰς

ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν"

12. προσδοκῶμεν ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν

καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος.

᾿Αμήν.

104 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

In this form quoted by Epiphanius, beside the variations,
which have been noted as due to interpolation, we find other
variations from the text of our Nicene Creed. The words
“both which are in the heavens and in the earth” are added
after “through whom all things were made”; the words “ God
of God,” and in Art. 8 “and of the Son,’ are omitted. The
first two are unimportant,—the one implied and the other
expressed in the text of the original Nicene Creed. The
third must be discussed later on.

We gather from Epiphanius that the creed had been
introduced into his diocese as a Baptismal Creed before his
consecration, and that he recognised in it the Apostolic Creed
as explained by the Nicene Council. He adds to it their
anathemas with variations; 6.9., ἢ κτιστὸν ἢ τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλ-
λοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀναθεματίξει ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία
he reads ῥευστὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ υἱὸν τούτους
ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία.

The longer creed which follows is a free paraphrase of
the original Nicene Creed. It seems to have been his own
composition for the use of catechumens who had held heret-
ical opinions. It is introduced with the words: “We and
all orthodox bishops, in a word, the whole holy Catholic
Church, offer to candidates for baptism in accordance with
the faith quoted of these holy Fathers,” etc. It is verbose
and wearisome. As it is printed in Hahn; p. 135, it need
not be reprinted here, but a word may be added about a
form closely related to it, the so-called “Interpretation of
the Creed” formerly ascribed to Athanasius. This is prob-
ably an adaptation by some followers of Epiphanius.t The
Armenian scholar Catergian suggests that it was introduced
into Armenia in the sixth century, and formed the ground-
work of the later Armenian Creed.

It is to the credit of an English scholar, Professor Hort,
that he was the first to point out that our Nicene Creed,
which was transcribed by Epiphanius in A.D. 374, was not
the work of the Council of Constantinople. His theory
connecting it with Cyril of Jerusalem has been accepted

1 Kattenbusch, i. 303 ff.

THE REVISED CREED OF JERUSALEM 105

widely by German and English critics, with some differences
as to detail. Kattenbusch writes of it: “The only wonder
is that it was not discovered before.”

Hort’s theory may be summarised as follows. Epipha-
nius had lived for some time in Palestine, and shows a know-
ledge of circumstances relating to Jerusalem, Eleutheropolis
in Judea, near to his birthplace, and Cesarea. He gives a
list of Bishops of Jerusalem who lived through the troublous
times. In A.D. 377 he corresponded with Basil about dis-
sensions among the brethren on the Mount of Olives. It is
therefore easy to understand how the revised Creed came
into his hands.

It is also possible to connect it with Cyril, who, on his
return to his diocese in A.D. 362—364, would find “a natural
occasion for the revision of the public creed by the skilful
insertion of some of the conciliar language, including the
term which proclaimed the restoration of full communion
with the champions of Nicza, and other phrases and clauses
adapted for impressing on the people positive truth.”

The change from καθίσαντα to καθεζόμενον agrees with
the teaching in his lectures, that the Son was from all
eternity sitting on the right hand of the Father, not only
from the ascension (Cat. xi. 17, xiv. 27-30).

The change from ἐν δόξῃ to μετὰ δόξης is parallel to the
teaching in Cat. xv. 3, where Cyril uses his own words.

The most remarkable change, however, is the substitution
of νεκρῶν for σάρκος, in accordance with his constant practice
(xviii. 1-21), and his interpretation εἰς σάρκος ἀνάστασιν
TOOT ἐστι τὴν τῶν νεκρῶν.

Other changes may be traced to the following sources :
ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ ἀποστολικὴν, ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος
αἰῶνος to the Creed of the Apostolic Constitutions, together
with ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, παθόντα, πάλιν (μετὰ
δόξης 2); the omission of μετανοίας has a parallel in the
Mesopotamian Creed; the omission of παράκλητον seems to
be “necessitated by the accompanying enlargement.”

Kattenbusch’s proposal to restore the text of the Old
Jerusalem Creed from the text of the revised form has been

106 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

discussed above (Chap. III. p. 68). It is most ingenious, but
does not explain the facts so simply as Hort’s theory. This
is particularly the case with the phrase σαρκωθέντα ἐκ mvev-
ματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου. “In extant creeds,”
according to Hort, “this combination is unique.” The revised
Mesopotamian Creed has σαρκωθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου.
In Cat. iv. 9, Cyril wrote γεννηθέντα ἐξ ἁγίας παρθένου καὶ
ἁγίου πνεύματος, followed after two lines by σαρκωθέντα ἐξ
αὐτῆς ἀληθῶς. So we see how the thought shaped itself in
his mind. The form γεννηθέντα ἐκ... kat... , from
which he advanced to the other, is frequently found He
seems to have wished to guard in the new combination either
against Docetic teaching, or against the theory, put forward
at this time in the name of Apollinaris, that our Lord’s
body had a heavenly origin. The phrase σαρκωθεὶς (σάρ-
κωσις) ἐξ ay. παρθένου Μαρίας occurs often in epistles
bearing the name of Julius of Rome, which show an Apolli-
narian tendency.

We have yet to discover how Cyril’s revised Creed came
to be attributed to the Council of Constantinople.

δ III. THE CouNCcIL oF CONSTANTINOPLE

The events which led up to the Council are many of
them obscure, and the loss of its Acts, with the exception of
some Canons of doubtful meaning, is irreparable. It is
possible that future research may clear up some points.
We are no longer limited to the printed works on the great
Councils of Mansi, Labbé, Hardouin, and others. Maassen’s
researches have made possible for the future historian a closer
study of early collections of Canons in many MSS., particu-
larly at the Vatican, which would richly repay labour spent
on them. Hort laments that the Canons of Chalcedon have
not been critically edited, and until that is done many

1 Hort quotes Origen’s Rule of Faith, Marcellus, Athelstan’s Psalter, Creed of
Niké, 359; Julianus of Eclanum; Paulinus of Antioch, in his assent to the
tome of the Council of Alexandria, 362; Athanasius, c. Apol. i. 20, p. 938 E,
etc.

THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE 107

points of interest with relation to the Council of Constanti-
nople must remain doubtful.

The revival of Arianism under Valens had not proved
serious. It was the work of courtiers, and had no root.
Nicene principles spread quietly on all sides. An important
series of Synods was held at Rome under Damasus in the
course of the years A.D. 369-376. Their discussions did not
merely cover old ground, but included the new questions
raised by Apollinaris and Macedonius. Their interest in
Church affairs was far-reaching. The second Synod addressed
a letter to the bishops in Illyria respecting an outbreak of
Arianism, of which they had been informed by brethren among
the Gauls and Bessi1 Zahn? suggests that their information
may have been derived from Niceta, Bishop of Remesiana, who
worked among the Bessi. He also infers that the spreading
of Arian principles south of the Danube may have been the
result of the devoted labours of Ulphilas. This is likely.
In 378 an influential Synod was held at Antioch on the
Orontes, which failed to end the schism between the followers
of Meletius and Paulinus, but agreed to sign the tome of the
Roman Synod of 369. Now, it is an interesting fact that
the name Niceta Macedonius is found among the names of
the bishops present at that Synod.* And it fits in very well
with Zahn’s theory to suppose that, as he brought informa-
tion to the Roman Synod in 369, so he supported its Acts at
Antioch in 378. It is quite true that such lists are often
unreliable, but we have the positive testimony of his writings
to prove acquaintance with the discussions of this Roman
Synod on the one hand, and with the writings of Cyril of
Jerusalem on the other. This gives some confirmation of the
suggestion, which is only offered because we so greatly need
new light on the negotiations carried on by Damasus with
Eastern bishops, and must follow up every possible clue.

1 The old reading in Mansi, III. 443, made no sense, ‘‘ the brethren in Gaul
and Venice.” The Benedictines of Monte Cassino have found the new reading
Spicilegium Casinense.

2 Neue Kirchl. Zeit. vii. 102.

ὃ The full list of names has never been published, but I have found it in
Codd. lat. Paris, 3836 and 4279.

108 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

On the accession of Theodosius in 380, a new impetus was
given to the hopes of all who were true to the Nicene faith.

He convened a great Council at Constantinople, to which
he invited Damasus with other Western bishops. It has
been suggested that Damasus was badly advised as to the
course of events in the East. If it were true, it would not
be surprising. We hardly know to what extent the emperor
was influenced by the political aim of attaching to himself
the powerful support of orthodox Eastern bishops! It is
certainly remarkable that when the Council met in the
autumn of 381 he received Meletius, who was made pre-
sident, with special favour.

The triumph of Meletius brought with it the signal vin-
dication of Cyril of Jerusalem, whose orthodoxy was formally
recognised by the Council. Hort conjectures that charges
were laid against him by envoys from Jerusalem, or by
Egyptian bishops, and that Gregory of Nyssa? defended him,
while the Council giving judgment in his favour may have
expressed approval of his creed. This would explain how
the creed came to be attributed to Gregory,? and how it
could have been copied into the Acts of the Council, from
which it was afterwards extracted by Aétius at the Council of
Chalcedon. We know that the Council of Constantinople, on
its own account, only ratified the original Nicene Creed.

We cannot linger over the discussions of the Council
prolonged by the death of Meletius. He was succeeded by
Gregory Nazianzen, who has left in his famous discourse a
vivid picture of the dissensions which led to his resignation.
The pride of Eastern prelates, who boasted that the sun rose
in the East as the home of light and learning, was rebuked
by the reminder that Christ was crucified in the East. This
is a commentary on the refusal of Western bishops to attend
this Council. There is little doubt that a complete rupture

1 Duchesne, Autonomies Ecclésiastiques, Kgl. sep. p. 176.

* Gregory of Nyssa, in a letter written about this time, dissuaded his
brethren in Cappadocia from undertaking a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, where, he
said, affairs were in confusion. ©

8 Niceph.-Callistus, Hist. Eccl. xii. 18.

THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE 109

was threatening between East and West. The Meletian
schism was perpetuated by the consecration of Flavianus for
the see of Antioch; and the letter which was sent to the
Synod of Rome, asking for the recognition of Flavianus,
together with Cyril and Nectarius the new Bishop of Con-
stantinople, arrived after the reception of his rival Paulinus.

Paulinus was accompanied to Rome by Epiphanius and
Jerome (Hp. 68), who had been staying in Constantinople.
They travelled by way of Thessalonica, where Paulinus
received the famous letter from Damasus, Dilectissimo fratri
Paulino Damasus, which is often quoted in Collections of
Canons, and is also to be found in the history of Theodoret.!
The greater part consists of a series of anathemas, which
express very accurately the dogmatic standpoint reached by
the Western Synods, especially in regard to the Incarnation
and the Holy Spirit.”

During the following spring Synods were again held at
Rome and at Constantinople. The Eastern bishops refused
to go to Rome, on account of the distance and the shortness
of the invitation, so that they were unable to communicate
with their brethren.

Rade ὃ makes the interesting suggestion that the so-called
5th Canon of the Council of 381 really belongs to this
second Synod of Constantinople, and represents some con-
cession to the followers of Paulinus. “The tome of the
Westerns” might refer to this letter from Damasus. The
Canon is as follows: Περὶ τοῦ τόμου τῶν Δυστικῶν καὶ τοὺς
ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ ἀπεδεξάμεθα τοὺς μιὰν ὁμολογοῦντας πατρὸς καὶ
υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος Θεότητα.

Hefele thinks that “ the tome of the Westerns ” refers to
the Roman treatise of 369 or 380. He calls attention to
the fact that the Synodical letter sent to Damasus by the
bishops in 382 is connected in thought with this Canon.
This is true, but tends to prove that they were referring
rather to a recent document than to the treatise of 369,
which had been accepted at Antioch in 378.

Lye li. ? Of. Harnack, D.G@. ii. p. 271, n. 1.
3 Damasus, pp. 107, 116 f., 183,

110 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

At least, it is an important fact that Epiphanius travelled
to Rome on the morrow of the Council. We are sure that
he would carry with him the praises of Cyril’s Creed regarded
as an uncontroversial document. This fact, which seems to
have escaped notice, would account for its subsequent accept-
ance at Rome.

One thing is clear. Our Nicene Creed does not repre-
sent a mere compromise between the new theologians of the
East, Basil, the Gregories, and Cyril on the one side, and the
Macedonians, representing the latest advance of Arian heresy,
on the other. The letter of Damasus urged that the
ὁμοουσία of the Holy Spirit should be asserted against them.
This was a logical deduction from the confession of the
ὁμοουσία of the Son, which had been made by Cyril and his
friends. It is true that the Macedonians could sign Cyril’s
Creed so far as the teaching on the Holy Spirit is concerned.
But the fact remains, that their heresy is of a later date than
the creed itself, which cannot be expected to condemn them
any more than it might be expected to condemn Nestorius.
It is therefore a mistake to talk of any surrender of Athanasian
principles. The creed cannot have been brought up as a
formula for union (Unionsformel) between the orthodox semi-
Arians and Pneumatomachi,’ because the latter were definitely
condemned.

§ IV. THe Council, OF CHALCEDON

We must pause to consider what was the Baptismal
Creed of Constantinople at this time. Kattenbusch? has
suggested that Gregory Nazianzen introduced the original
Nicene Creed. It will be convenient to call this Creed N,
reserving the letter C for the so-called Constantinopolitan
Creed. This would be natural under the circumstances of
Gregory’s call to rule the small company of the orthodox in
Arian times. And there are some probable quotations, e.g.
Orat. xl.: Πιστεύε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Oc od, τὸν προαιώνιον λόγον,
τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀχρόνως καὶ ἀσωμάτως, τοῦτον

1 Harnack, D.G. ii. 267. * Kattenbusch, i, p. 366.

THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 111

ἐπ᾿ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν γεγενῆσθαι διά σε καὶ υἱὸν
ἀνθρώπου, ἐκ τῆς παρθένου προελθόντα Μαρίας ἀρρήτως
καὶ ἀρυπάρως... ὅλον ἄνθρωπον τὸν αὐτὸν καὶ Θεὸν. ..
τοσοῦτον ἄνθρωπον διά σε ὅσον σὺ γίνῃ δι’ ἐκεῖνον Θεός.
Τοῦτον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀνομιῶν ἡμῶν ἦχθαι εἰς θάνατον, σταυρω-
θέντα τε καὶ Tapévta ... καὶ ἀναστάντα τριήμερον,
ἀνεληλυθέναι εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς... ἥξειν τε πάλιν
μετὰ τῆς ἐνδόξου αὐτοῦ παρουσίας, κρίνοντα ζῶντας καὶ
νεκροὺς... Aéyov πρὸς τούτοις ἀνάστασιν, κρίσιν,
ἀνταπόδοσιν.

It is true that there is a passage in Chrysostom’s sixth
Homily on the Epistle to the Colossians (6. A.D. 399), in
which he seems to quote the words “eternal life” from a
creed. But he might quote these from the revised Creed of
Antioch.

In A.D. 430, Nestorius, at the Council of Ephesus, quoted
the words σαρκωθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς
παρθένου as from N, to the amazement of Cyril of Alexandria,
who quoted the correct form (adv. Nest. i. 8). It does not
follow that Nestorius was here quoting C. Variations soon
crept into copies of N. MHort points out that the copy of
N quoted at the fifth session of the Council of Chalcedon
was “encrusted with Constantinopolitan variations, including
this.” At all events, it is certain that Nestorius intended
to quote N, for in his letter to Pope Celestine he quoted the
same sentence “from the words of the holy Fathers of Nicza.”

A new argument has been advanced by Kunze? to prove
that C had been introduced into Constantinople by Nectarius.
He shows that a certain Galatian called Nilus, perhaps from
Ancyra, who had held high office in Constantinople, and after-
wards went to live as a monk on Mount Sinai, quoted C
as his creed. He might just as likely have come across it on
his travels.

Kunze* also quotes the evidence of Proclus, Bishop of

* He quotes a MS. in the Cambridge University Library which does not
- contain this particular phrase, nor four of the other interpolations, but retains
as Many more.

* Marcus Eremita, p. 161 ff. 3p, 169,

112 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

Constantinople 434-446, and of Marcus the hermit, who
had lived in Ancyra, and was a pupil of Chrysostom. The
facts of the life of Marcus are so uncertain that it is not safe
to speculate much about his creed, and one sentence, τὸν ἐκ
Μαρίας γεννηθέντα, certainly points to N rather than C. Theo-
dotus of Ancyra (430-440) speaks of N as the current creed.

The historian Socrates (111. 25) appears to quote N as
the Creed of Constantinople. He refers to the letter of the
Macedonians to Jovian, which contained N. But he quotes
only the first words, καὶ τὰ Nowra τοῦ μαθήματος.

Thus it appears that we have only the doubtful quota-
tion from Chrysostom, ard the uncertain evidence of Nilus,
Proclus, and Marcus, to weigh against the probable quotations
in Gregory’s treatise, the negative evidence of Nestorius
and the testimony of Socrates. The balance is decidedly in
favour of Kattenbusch’s theory that N was the Baptismal
Creed of Constantinople down to the date of the Council of
Chalcedon, when it was received with enthusiasm as the
Baptismal Creed of a large majority.

When we reach the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, the
history of C comes out into clearer light. We come upon
a reference to it in the minutes of the first meeting.
Diogenes, Bishop of Cyzicus, accused Eutyches of falsehood
in denying that the faith of the Nicene Council could receive
any additions. “It received an addition from the holy
Fathers because of the perversities of Apollinarius and Valen-
tinius and Macedonius, and men like them; and there have
been added to the symbol of the Fathers the words, ‘ who came
down and was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin
Mary... . The holy Fathers at Niczea had only the words,
‘He was incarnate,’ but those that followed explained it by
saying, ‘of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary.’”?

Diogenes appears to quote C, not a revised text of N,
because he says it was enlarged by holy Fathers, and the
reference to Macedonius seems to imply that he included
in the text further teaching on the Holy Spirit. The
Egyptian bishops contradicted him, on the ground that

1 Mansi, vi. 632,

THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 113

Eutyches had correctly quoted the creed, which to them
meant N, and that no addition could be made.

At the close of the debate, the president desired the
bishops each one to set forth his faith in writing, and
referred to both the creeds which had been quoted as the
expositions of the 318 and the 150.

At the next session, Eunomius, Bishop of Nicomedia,
recited N. It was received with much enthusiasm. A
chorus of voices exclaimed: “This we all believe, in this
we were baptized, in this we baptize, this taught the blessed .
Cyril, this is the true faith. . . . Pope Leo so believes.”

Then Aetius, Archdeacon of Constantinople, read C as
“the holy faith which the 150 holy Fathers set forth in
harmony with the holy and great Synod at Nicea.” This also
was greeted by some voices with: “This is the faith of all,
this is the faith of the orthodox, so we all believe.” There
does not seem to be any special reason why we should expect
it to be received with the same enthusiasm as N. Reference
had been made to the archives, and it was generally agreed
that it was “the exposition of the 150.” There is no need
to impute dishonest motives to Aetius as if he had hatched
a plot for palming off a new Constantinopolitan Creed upon
the Church by forging minutes of the former Council. The
facts are plain. Constantinopolitan churchmen had naturally
a greater interest in the Council of A.D. 381 than the repre-
sentatives of other Churches. So they pressed for recognition
of the creed which they had somehow come to regard as its
work. In their definition the two creeds were not identified,
but C was treated as an instruction, while the faith of the
318 Fathers was to remain inviolate. Thus the way was
prepared for subsequent confusion of the two creeds, but the
approval stamped upon C was not the result of mere
ignorance or political chicanery. Aetius knew what he was
about, and most probably the Pope’s legates had some reason
for their consent. Either the Council of a.p. 381 had sent
it to Damasus with their vindication of Cyril of Jerusalem,
or he had learnt to value it through Epiphanius.

1 Swainson, p. 121.

8

[14 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

Some eighty-five years pass before we hear of C again,
at the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 535, when it was
said that the 150 Fathers confirmed the symbol of the 318.
After another eighteen years, at the Council of 553, it was
finally identified with N, and regarded, to quote Hort’s words,
“as an improved recension of it.”

Two centuries had passed since it was first compiled.
The times had changed, but the truth for which Athanasius
and Cyril both suffered had endured. The true divinity
of our Lord was confessed both in N and C; but while in
N the thought was connected with special circumstances and
stern anathemas, in C it was connected with the continuous
life of the mother Church of Christendom enduring from
generation to generation.

§ V. Later History: THE “ FILIOQUE” CLAUSE

The liturgical use of the Nicene Creed can be traced
back to the fifth century. Peter Fullo, Bishop of Antioch,
introduced it at every service. Some years later the custom
spread to Alexandria. In A.D. 511, Timothy, Bishop of Con-
stantinople, introduced a more frequent use in his diocese,
where it was the custom only to recite it on the Thursday in
Holy Week. In this case it was certainly N which was meant
under the title “the faith of the 318,” but the text might
have been corrupted by those additions which made the
subsequent identification of N and C so easy.

In A.D. 568 the Emperor Justinian directed that in every
Catholic church the faith should be sung by the people
before the Lord’s Prayer, though in subsequent practice it
preceded the consecration.

The first mention of its introduction into the liturgy of a
Western Church is found in the records of the famous Third
Council of Toledo, A.D. 589, when the Visigothic King
Reccared, in the name of his nation, renounced Arianism.
The Canon is worth quoting in full.

“For the reverence of the faith and to strengthen the

1 ἐν πάσῃ συνάξει, Theodorus Lector, ii. p. 566, ed. Valerius.

_ LATER HISTORY: THE ‘ FILIOQUE” CLAUSE 115

minds of men, it is ordered by the Synod, at the advice of
Reccared, that in all the churches of Spain and Galicia,
following the form of the Oriental churches, the symbol of
the faith of the Council of Constantinople, that is, of the
150 bishops, shall be recited; so that before the Lord’s
Prayer is said the creed shall be chanted with a clear voice
by the people; that testimony may thus be borne to the
true faith, and that the hearts of the people may come
purified by the faith to taste the body and blood of Christ.”

It has been pointed out that John, Abbot of Biclaro,! who
was highly esteemed by Reccared, and was made Bishop of
Gerona shortly after the Council, had recently returned from
Constantinople, where he had resided for seventeen years. In
his Chronicle John notes that this custom had been introduced
into Eastern Churches by the younger Justinian. It seems
probable that the Canon was passed under his influence, and
a very important question is raised: ‘‘Could he have been
ignorant of the true text?” It is generally supposed that
this Council promulgated the additional words “and the Son ”
in the clause dealing with the Procession of the Holy Spirit.
There can be no doubt that they believed in the doctrine
involved, because they stated it plainly in their 3rd Canon,
in which they anathematised all who did not believe that the
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or that
He is co-eternal with the Father and the Son, and co-equal.

Two early editions of the Councils, however—Cologne
(1530) and Paris (1535)—omit the words in the text of
the creed quoted by the Council, and D’Aguirre admits that
some MSS. do not contain them. In the light of subsequent
history, it seems far less probable that they would be inten-
tionally omitted by a copyist than that they would be added.
But we must be content to leave the point doubtful until the
evidence of the MSS. has been collected and sifted.

Even if the interpolation was not made at that time, it
must have been made very soon after, and that in good
faith, in direct dependence on the Canon, which asserted the
immemorial belief of the Western Church.

1 Pusey, ‘‘On the clause ‘and the Son,’” p, 184,

116 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

The mysterious question of the relationship of the Holy
Spirit to the Father and the Son necessarily followed discus-
sion of His claim to be worshipped.

Eastern theologians expressed it in the phrase, “ Who pro-
ceedeth from the Father and receiveth from the Son” (Ex τοῦ
Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ λαμβανόμενον), which
is first found in the longer Creed of Epiphanius. The
Cappadocian Fathers expressed it under the metaphor of
“successive dependence,” ὥσπερ ἐξ ἁλύσεως, using the words
of John xiv. 11, but arguing that the Godhead of the Father
was the one primary source of the derived Godhead of the
Son and the Spirit.

Western theologians approached the problem from another
point of view. Hilary, starting from the thought of Divine
self-consciousness as the explanation of the co-inherence of
the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father, says dis-
tinctly that the Spirit receives of both.?

Augustine teaches that the Father and the Son are the
one principle of the Being of the Holy Spirit. Thus he
brought men to the threshold of the later controversy. But
it was not merely his own private speculation. The same
teaching had been given in Gaul years before the publica-
tion of his work on the Trinity.

Victricius of Rouen, by birth a Briton, had taught, before
A.D. 400, that “the Holy Spirit is truly of the Father and
the Son, and thus the Father and the Son are in the Holy
Spirit.” 4

The unknown author of the Quicwnque uult, if he lived
in the first half of the fifth century, accurately summed up
the teaching of the Western theology in a sentence which was
soon found useful by Auitus of Vienne in his controversy
with Burgundian Arians: “The Holy Spirit is of the Father
and of the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but pro-
ceeding.” 7

A Spanish bishop, Pastor, whose confession was quoted

1 Basil, Zp. 38, p. 118 D., quoted by Robertson, Athanasius, p. xxxii.

2 Op. hist. frag. 2. 3 De Trin. v. 18.
* De Laude Sanctorum, ο. iv., ed. Tougard, Paris, 1895.

LATER HISTORY: THE ‘ FILIOQUE” CLAUSE 117

by a Spanish Council of Toledo in A.D. 447 against the Pris-
cillianists, seems to have taught the same doctrine.

It is quite possible that the Council of 589 were influ-
enced by the teaching of the Quicunque wult, since the words
of their 3rd Canon suggest a reminiscence of clause 24. In
any case the teaching was widespread, and it was inevit-
able that the additional words should be inserted in the
creed. It is possible that this was done by more than one
copyist independently, in Gaul as well as in Spain.

A century later the English Synod of Heathfield, in
A.D. 680, upheld the doctrine, “glorifying the Holy Ghost
proceeding in an inexpressible manner from the Father and
the Son, as those holy apostles and prophets and doctors
taught whom we have above mentioned.” Thus the English
Church has been, as it were, cradled in this faith, though it
does not follow that the interpolation had yet been made in
the creed. The earliest Anglo-Saxon version of the creed,
which is found in an eleventh-century MS. of Ailfric’s
Homilies, contains it.

Nearly another century had passed before the question
was disputed. We are told in the Chronicle of Ado of
Vienne that a controversy between the Greeks and the
Romans arose at the Synod of Gentilly in A.D. 767. Ambas-
sadors from Constantine Copronymus were present, and
reproached the Westerns with adding to the creed. After
this the matter was not suffered to rest, At the Council of
Friuli, Paulinus, Bishop of Aquileia, drew up a clear state-
ment justifying the insertion of the words. He maintained
that the 150 holy Fathers had made additions to the faith,
“as if expounding the meaning of their predecessors. .. .
But afterwards too, on account, forsooth, of these heretics,
who whisper that the Holy Ghost is of the Father alone,
and proceeds from the Father alone, there was added, ‘ who
proceedeth from the Father and the Son.’ And yet those

1 Hahn,? p. 209, ‘‘a Patre Filioque procedens.” Some MSS. omit Filioque.
The reading is defended by Florez, Espana sagrada theatro geogr. hist. de la
iglesia de Espana, vi. 77, against Quesnel, Opp. Leonis M. Diss. xiv.

2 Bede, Hist. eccl. iv. 17.

118 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

holy Fathers are not to be blamed, as if they had added
anything to or taken anything away from the faith of the
318 Fathers, who had no thought on Divine subjects contrary
to their meaning, but in an honest manner studied to com-
plete their sense without spoiling it.” He justifies the addi-
tion by quoting John xiv. 11, with the explanation: “If,
therefore, as He Himself testifies, the Father is inseparably
and substantially in the Son, and the Son in the Father, how
can it be believed that the Holy Ghost, who is consubstan-
tial with the Father and the Son, does not always proceed
essentially and inseparably from the Father and the Son?”

But the view so ably defended by Paulinus, one of the
leading theologians of the brilliant circle which Charles the
Great had gathered round him, was not yet held in Rome.
In fact, some years previously, Pope Hadrian had been taken
to task by the king for expressing approval of a confession
put forth by Tarasius, Bishop of Constantinople, in which the
words occur, “ who proceedeth from the Father by the Son.”
The Pope in reply quoted passages from Athanasius, Eusebius,
and Hilary, in defence of Tarasius. It may seem strange
that the Pope did not quote the Nicene Creed in his reply,
less probably in fear of the king than in despair of explain-
ing the interpolation. His successor, Pope Leo IL, was quite
consistent in admitting the truth of the doctrine of the
Double Procession, which he called “one of the more
abstruse mysteries of the faith,” while he refused to admit
the words into the creed. We can understand why his
legatees were authorised, at the Council of Frankfort in
A.D. 794, to accept the strong statements of the doctrine put
forward both in the libellus of the Italian bishops against
Elipandus, the Adoptionist, and in the Synodical letter of the
bishops of Gaul and Germany.

A more critical discussion followed at the Council of
Aachen in A.D. 809. The Latin monks of the monastery
on Mount Olivet had been called heretics because they
interpolated the words in their creed, and sang it as they
had heard it sung in the royal chapel. They sent to Rome
for advice, and asked that the emperor might be informed,

LATER HISTORY: THE ‘‘ FILIOQUE” CLAUSE στο

since they had received from him two works in which the
clause was found, a homily of 8. Gregory and the rule of S.
Benedict. They also quoted, as containing it, the Quicunque
vult, and a dialogue of 5. Benedict which the Pope had given
them. The Pope duly informed the emperor, who thereupon
summoned the Council, which supported the monks and sent
an embassy to the Pope. But Leo took the bold line of
urging that the clause should be expunged from the creed,
though the doctrine might be taught. His biographer says
that he set up two silver shields in the Basilica of S. Peter,
on which the creed was inscribed in Greek and Ταῦ. We
can readily understand that the object was to perpetuate the
pure text.

His successors were less firm. Within sixty years Pope
Nicholas 1. had been excommunicated by Photius, Bishop of
Constantinople, on the ground that he had corrupted the
creed by the addition of these words. He wrote to Hincmar
of Rheims and other archbishops about the question, and the
book of Ratramn of Corbey seems to have been written in
response to his appeal.

Two other alterations, which are found in the text of our
Nicene Creed, may be passed over with a few words.

These are the addition of the words “God of God” and
the omission of the word “ Holy” in the clause referring to
the Church. They are both found in the text quoted at the
Synod of Toledo in AD. 589. The former was obviously
derived from the text of the first Nicene Creed. From the
first it had been implied in the words which follow: “ Very
God of Very God.” The latter was certainly an accidental
alteration, since the word stood in the original Creed of
Jerusalem, and there could be no reason for its omission in
the revised Creed.

- Σ Anastasius, in Vita Leonis; Migne, Patrol. lat. 128,1238. Lumby proves
from the testimony of S. Peter Damian that this was the Constantinopolitan
Creed.—Hist, Creeds, ed. ii. p. 98.

120 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

§ VI. CoNCLUSIONS

This is the history of our Nicene Creed, like a long and
tangled skein, only to be unravelled and transformed into a
straight length by care and patience. Among many thoughts
which the story unfolded suggests for reflection, two may be
singled out as most important.

We cannot be too thankful that the creed of our Euchar-
istic worship owes its final form to the earnest zeal of a great
catechist. The Filioqgue clause may be left out of considera-
tion for the moment, because it may be regarded as an inter-
pretation of the doctrine of God taught in the creed rather
than an addition. It is true that the theological terms
inserted in the old historic faith of Jerusalem are the fruit of
controversy. As students we are reminded of the long trials
and doubtful conflicts and long-delayed triumph of Athan-
asius. But they convey a different impression to the mind
when removed from their original context, from associations
of prolonged controversy and heated debate. As worshippers
we are able to let our minds rest in meditation on the
positive truths taught, without hindrance from negative
warnings against error. In his earlier days Cyril would have
thought himself the last person likely to adopt in a profession
of faith dogmatic utterances from the Nicene Creed, which he
never names, but seems to have in mind when he contrasts
the Scriptures as a rule of truth with the teaching of fallible
men. ‘Time proves all things. In the evening of life he
found that these novel phrases were the only successful
method of defending the central truth of the Lord’s divinity
against subtle misinterpretations of the very Scriptures to
which he had taught men to look for guidance. So he
adopted them, and his action was no retrograde movement.
On the contrary, it was an advance, and it was made, as we
have seen, not by Cyril only, but all along the line from
Jerusalem to Antioch and Salamis.

Too much has been made of the omission of the words ἐκ
τῆς οὐσίας, which Athanasius is supposed to have thought
quite as important as ὁμοούσιος, Harnack goes so far as to

CONCLUSIONS 121

say that ἃ kind of semi-Arianism, under the title of Homousian-
ism (= confession of ὁμοιούσιος), has been made orthodox in all
Churches.! This, if true, would be, as he suggests, a biting satire
on the churchman’s confidence in the victory of faith formu-
lated. But we have found no reason to suppose that the creed
was a concordat between orthodox, semi-Arians, and those who
doubted the divinity of the Holy Spirit at the Council of
Constantinople or before. We must not confuse the issues.
Athanasius accepted the semi-Arian alliance on the basis of
the confession of ὁμοούσιος. It stood on record that the
Council had added ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας against the original Arians.?
If the same difficulties arose again, let them be met in the
old way. As to the future, which was unknown, the wisdom
of Athanasius was justified by the use of the term “consub-
stantial” to guard the Godhead of the Holy Ghost.
Objections are often raised to the importation of Greek
metaphysics into the creed of the Christian religion. There
would be some reason to object if the Church had stopped
there. This was not the case. Athanasius and his allies
had safeguarded belief in the divinity of our Lord. Their
use of the metaphysical term “substance” was a means to an
end. “The theology of Athanasius and of the West is that
of the Nicene formula in its original sense. The inseparable
unity of the God of revelation is its pivot. The conception
of personality in the Godhead is its difficulty. The distinct-
ness of the Father, Son, and Spirit is felt (ἄλλος ὁ Πατήρ,
ἄλλος ὁ vids), but cannot be formulated so as to satisfy our
full idea of personality. For this Athanasius had no word ;
πρόσωπον meant too little (implying, as it did, no more than
an aspect possibly worn but for a special period or purpose),
ὑπόστασις (implying such personality as separates Peter from
Paul) too much.”* On this mysterious subject there were
profound thoughts latent in the writings of Hilary, who had
been led to faith in the Blessed Trinity by meditation on the
idea of Divine self-consciousness. He had neither time nor
means to work them out, hampered as he was by controversy,

1 D.G. ii. 269. * Specially against Eusebius of Nicomedia,
5 Robertson, Athanasius, p. xxxii,

122 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

and, to some extent, dependent on Origen. Where Greek
metaphysics failed, the strong intellect of Augustine took up
the task, and in his great work On the Trinity made his
contribution to the development of the doctrine of Divine
Personality from the new vantage ground of Christian
psychology.

The second thought, which needs emphasising, relates to
the future use of this creed as a bond between divided
Churches. Duchesne? has a most interesting passage on the
difference between the theologies of East and West, which can
be traced back to the fourth century, and even to the third.
In the West, consubstantiality is regarded as the essence of
the mystery of the Trinity. The idea of Divine Unity is culti-
vated above all, the idea of Triune Personality being subor-
dinated to it. Western theologians think of the Trinity as a
necessity of Divine life-—to use a technical term, as immanent,
an abiding reality. On the other hand, Eastern theologians
start from the thought of the eternal distinctions (hypostases),
reconciling them as best they can with their idea of Divine
Unity. They think of the doctrine of the Trinity as an
explanation of the creation, as ceconomic, manifested in the
work of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. To this
day they cling to the point of view attained by the Cappa-
docian Fathers, and reject the Filiogue, which, apart from
controversy as to its introduction into the creed, is a watch-
word of Western theology. Duchesne suggests that some
taint of semi-Arianism is the cause of their opposition.
Surely this is to erect a barrier which Athanasius refused to
build. The eloquent words of Duchesne, “Faith unites,
theology sometimes separates us,” express the whole gist of
Athanasius’s dealing with the semi-Arians. We must be
careful not to read the present into the past. The shadow
of the Filiogue controversy had not yet passed over the
Church. We may fully agree as to the importance of the
truth which those words teach, and yet shrink from branding
with the reproach of semi-Arianism a Church which refuses
to use them. Logically, we should have to extend our

1 Autonomies Ecclésiastiques, Lgl. sep. p. 83.

CONCLUSIONS 123

suspicion to the whole creed, which we all use, since it
originated in a semi-Arian circle. The fact is, however, that
in it and through it the semi-Arians became Catholics.
From this Catholic standpoint began, it is true, a divergence
of views, represented in the teaching of Augustine and
John Damascene. These are the really antagonistic
theologies which are confronted to-day, and which need
closer study than they have received, by contrast as well as
by comparison. It is no use to explain away words. The
ideas, which they express more or less imperfectly, are
imperishable, and will reappear in a new dress. It would
be disastrous to cut out the Piliogue, for in so doing we
should be disloyal to the truths which our fathers have been at
pains to learn. What is needed is statement, frank explana-
tions on both sides. The report of the Bonn Conference of
1872 showed that agreement of interpretation is at least
possible. We do not teach that there are two founts of
Deity, confessing with S. Paul, “One God the Father, of
whom are all things.” In regard to the manifestation of
God in creation and revelation, we confess with the Eastern
Church, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father
through the Son. This is their distinctive line of thought,
and the conclusion is valid. Only, we note that, along
another line of thought, uplifted to the contemplation of the
mystery of Divine life, they should acknowledge the proces-
sion of the Spirit from the Son as a true inference from belief
in the Divine Coinherence. In the words of the great Cyprian
let us agree: “Saluo iure communionis diuersa sentire.”

CHAPTER VI

THE ATHANASIAN CREED I

§ I. Athanasian Faith in the Fifth Century.
§ II. Contemporary Professions of Faith.
§ III. The Brotherhood of Lerins.
§ IV. The Internal Evidence of the Quicunque.
§ V. Priscillianism.
§ VI. The Date and Authorship.

THE history of the Athanasian Creed is one of the most
difficult subjects in Patristic literature. It is agreed that it
was not written by 8. Athanasius, and that it was written in
Latin. All the Greek MSS. are plainly translations from a
Latin text. Beyond this limit of agreement nothing is settled.
Having collected my facts, I propose to follow the method
which I have used above, and arrange them, proceeding from
the obscure to the obvious; treating first of the modes of
thought in the period in which its origin should be sought, of
its internal evidence, and of the evidence of some possible
quotations in the fifth century, with the light which these
throw on the question of authorship. We shall then be pre-
pared to trace the diverging lines of external evidence, broad-
ening out from the sixth to the ninth century, and to discuss
the merits of rival theories as to the origin of the creed.

§ I. ATHANASIAN ἙΆΙΤΗ IN THE FirtH CENTURY

Between the death of S. Athanasius in 373, and the death
of S. Augustine in 430, which marks the close of the great creed-
making epoch in early Church history, theological thinking

had not come to a standstill. On the one hand, Macedonianism,
124

ATHANASIAN FAITH IN FIFTH CENTURY © 125

the following of Macedonius, semi-Arian Bishop of Constanti-
nople, had spread to some extent. His denial of the divinity
of the Holy Spirit was a necessary corollary to Arian proposi-
tions, and reappeared whenever Arianism took hold of a people.
Thus Niceta of Remesiana found it an active heresy at the end
of the fourth century along the banks of the Danube, probably
through the influence of the Gothic Arian Bishop Ulphilas.
But this heresy never attained an independent existence, and
with the decline of Arianism its fate was sealed. On the other
hand, Apollinarianism, the denial of the Lord’s human soul,
had found expression in statements more crude than any
which the learned Apollinaris, himself an aged confessor, had
ventured to formulate. It was with great pain that his old
allies in the Arian controversy felt constrained to attack and
condemn his error. ὃ. Athanasius never mentions him by
name in the treatise which he is said to have written against
his teaching. The strong point in the new heresy was its
pleading for reverence, what 8. Hilary called “an irreligious
solicitude about God.” Apollinaris thought that the consub-
stantial Word, taking the place of the human mind in the
Incarnate Christ, would alike preserve the unity of His Divine
personality, and the truth that He was impeccable, since the
human mind, being changeable and moved by impulse, is
therefore capable of sinning. A wide propaganda was estab-
lished, and a large supply of tracts and hymns were put into
circulation, which were read and sung by people of devout
minds with a tendency to mysticism, who could not detect the
drift of such teaching. Later adherents to the theory denied
that the Lord had even an animal as distinguished from a
reasoning soul. They conjectured the conversion of the God-
head into flesh, even more thoroughly destroying the idea of
His true Manhood to preserve His Divinity from taint of
fleshly sinfulness. The answer to this phase of error was
given unhesitatingly by the teachers who followed 5. Athan-
asius. They affirmed the perfectness of both natures, Man-
hood and Godhead, in Christ. Thus only can we believe in
Him as the Redeemer of our whole nature, though we agree
that He was impeccable, for in His Divine personality He

126 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

could not sin. This thread of argument, taken up in the East
by the Cappadocian Fathers, in the West by S. Ambrose and
S. Augustine, is stated with precision in the second part of
the Quicunque. The perfectness of the human nature which
Christ assumed consists in the possession of a reasoning soul
and human flesh. It was a truly human life which He con-
secrated in suffering and death. At the same time, in the
mystery of His Divine nature He was “God of the substance
of His Father, begotten before all worlds.” Thus Arianism
was for ever excluded from the domain of Christian thought.
As a confession in these words of the main truth for which Κ΄.
Athanasius contended, the Quicungue deserves to be dignified
by his name, which has been attached to it certainly from the
seventh century. The Quicwnque introduces, however, a new
word, “person” (persona), to express the eternal distinction
(ὑπόστασις) of the Son from the Father and the Holy Spirit,
which represents a definite advance from the position gained for
thought by 8. Athanasius, confirming rather than contradict-
ing his speculation, and helping to explain it. He had affirmed
that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit were distinct
in working (ἀλλὸς Kai ἀλλὸς Kai ἀλλός), but how to express
this Trinity in Unity as consisting in Triune Personality he
knew not, because he had no word for Personality.

The first part of the Quiewnque, which develops such a
theory of Divine Personality, owes nearly as much to 8S.
Augustine as the second part to 8. Athanasius. But there is
one marked exception, which tends to prove the Gallican .
rather than African origin of the formulary, the use of the
term “substantia.” Augustine preferred to use “ essentia,”
and in his book On the Trinity actually condemned it. He
says (de Trin.), vii. 5. 1: “In Deo substantia proprie non
dicitur,” but admitted it in some of his later writings, e., 6.
Maz. ii. 1. He would even use “substantia” as a synonym
for “persona” (= ὑπόστασις). This was to revive the old
misunderstandings between Eastern and Western theologians,
which came to a head at the Council of Alexandria in 362,
when, as we have seen,! 5. Athanasius mediated between them,

1P. 100, supra,

ATHANASIAN FAITH IN FIFTH CENTURY 127

showing that the Western use, una substantia (= μία οὐσία),
was not Sabellian, and that the Greek use, τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις
( = tres persone), was not Tritheistic.

The acute mind of 8. Hilary of Poitiers had also been
exercised on the problem. It is not surprising that such
difficulties should arise while theological language was in the
making. His use of persona was indeed occasional and some-
what tentative, but his use of substantia = essentia = οὐσία
was consistently maintained in Gaul, and may be regarded as
a Gallican contribution to the Quicunque.

S. Hilary’s explanation of these terms was an appeal to
the philosophy of common sense. “A person” is one who
acts.1 “Substance” is that in which a thing subsists.”
Readers of the English Psalter cannot fail so to understand
the words “a wicked person” (Ps. ci. 4), or “ Thine eyes did
see my substance, yet being imperfect ” (Ps. cxxxix. 16).

This explanation is quite distinct from that suggested by
Tertullian in the third century, and by Faustus of Riez in
the fifth. Both of them had been trained as lawyers, and
not unnaturally carried legal ideas into theology. Toa lawyer
a “person” is a theoretical owner of rights and property ;
“substance ” is the aggregate of rights and property. In the
legal sense, a slave, who has no rights, has no personality,
while a corporation has both “ personality ” and “ substance.”
Thus we understand the words (Luke xv. 13) “he wasted
his substance,” or the phrase “a substantial farmer.”

Thus Tertullian (adv. Prax. 7): “ Filius ex sua persona
profitetur patrem”; (7.): “Non ius eum substantiuum
habere in re per substantiz proprietatem, ut res et persona
queedam uidere possit (sez. Logos).”

These passages show how his legal training coloured his
conception of the term persona in his Latin Bible.* By them-

1 De Trin. iv. 21.

* De Synodis, 12 : ‘‘ Essentia est res que est, uel ex quibus est et que in eo
quod maneat subsistit. Dici autem essentia, et natura, et genus, et substantia
uniuscuiusque rei poterit. Proprie autem essentia idcirco est dicta, quia
semper est. Que idcirco etiam substantia est, quia res que est, necesse est,
subsistat in sese.”

3 Adv. Prax. 6 (Prov. viii. 30): ‘‘ Cottidie oblectabar in persona eius ”; adv.

128 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

selves they might be used to show that Tertullian’s method
in speaking of distinctions between the Divine Persons was
“the method of Juristic fictions.”* But there are others
which might point to a simpler explanation of the terms :?—
adv. Hermog. 3: “ Deus substantize ipsius (Christi) nomen est
diuinitatis.” Apol. 21: “ Hunc ex Deo prolatum didicimus et
prolatione generatum et idcirco Filiium Dei et Deum dictum
ex unitate substantie.”

Faustus, in his book On the Holy Spirit, explains that
“to persons it belongs to subsist each one properly by him-
self,’ though not unnaturally he afterwards reverts to the
legal phrase, persona res vuris.

This question of definition has a wider range than the
mere historical problem, whether the use made of these
terms in the Quicwngue points to a Gallican or African origin.
Before we can discuss in the sequel the usefulness of this
creed, we must make out what these terms meant at the
time of their introduction into Christian formularies. We
inherit them also in the Collect and Special Preface for
Trinity Sunday, as in the first of the Thirty-nine Articles.
Our theology would not be simplified by rejection of this
creed. Too much has been made sometimes of 8S. Augustine's
caution that we should use the term “ person” to express
distinctions in the Godhead, not as a satisfactory explanation,
but only that we should not remain altogether silent. It is
only of the term that he is shy, and that probably because of
the danger of taking it in a bold legal sense. He does not
shrink from following out the train of thought to which a
philosophical explanation of it leads, from a most elaborate
analysis of self-consciousness, or from explaining the doctrine
of the Trinity by such analogies. As Mr. Illingworth has
so clearly shown in his lectures on the doctrine of Person-
ality, men can only obtain more accurate knowledge of the
mysteries of Divine Being by more accurate analysis of the
mystery of their own being. S. Augustine followed out a

Prax. 14 (Lam. iv. 20): ‘Spiritus persone eius Christus Dominus.” In both
cases the LXX. has πρόσωπον.
1 Harnack, D.G. ii. p. 307. 2 Seeberg, D.G. i. p. 87.

CONTEMPORARY PROFESSIONS OF FAITH 129

train of thought already suggested by S. Hilary, and those
writers who condemn Augustinian speculation most loudly,
ignore the theological preparation made for them, which
proves them to be the crown of a long series, and not merely
the rash deductions of an isolated thinker.

δ II. CONTEMPORARY PROFESSIONS OF FAITH

At the beginning of the fifth century there were in exist-
ence in Gaul a number of private professions of faith, relics
of a time of restless unsettlement when heresies abounded.
Some of them were written in self-defence, some of them
simply in the ordinary course of teaching. The history of
the Church in Gaul at that period is at many points obscure,
and it is difficult to estimate how widely they were used
or even known. But it is important to take account of
them before discussing the history of the Quicunque, since
some of them are found grouped with it in many collec-
tions of canons and expositions. Their relation to its history
has never been fully investigated, because until recently
they have not been critically edited. Their importance
consists in the fact that they show the same trend of
thought towards fuller teaching on the Trinity and Incar-
nation. |

The most important is the so-called “Faith of the
Romans,” which will come again under our notice as con-
taining a quotation from the Apostles’ Creed. It is attributed
to Pheebadius, Bishop of Agen, during the last half of the
fourth century. Its further interest for us consists in its
clear teaching that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not
three Gods, but one God; that the Son is not created, but
begotten ; that we venerate the Holy Spirit as God, not
unbegotten nor begotten, not created nor made, but of the
Father and the Son always in the Father and the Son
co-eternal. The Father begetting the Son did not diminish
or lose the fulness of His Deity. In dealing with the
incarnation, the author states clearly the facts against
Apollinarianism. It was incorporated in a book On the

9

130 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS
Trinity, which became widely popular under the name of
Athanasius, and in this way the profession got the name “Libel-
lus Fidei 5. Athanasii,” by which Hinemar of Rheims called it
in the ninth century. Probably it was by association with it
in MSS. containing this book that the Quicwnque also got the
name “ Faith of 5. Athanasius.” In collections of creeds the
most common name is “The Faith of the Romans, or the
Roman Church.” This name points to early use in Rome,
and the opinion is confirmed by the fact that a long quota-
tion from it is found in the apocryphal Acts of Liberius
(p. 215 infra). It is worth while to dwell on these points,
because they throw light on the history of a kindred form
known as the Creed of Damasus, a full account of which I
must reserve for Chapter X. At this moment I will only point
out that it belongs to this period, and is found in a MS. of
the sixth century. It is partly dependent on the ides
Romanorum, and deals in the same way with the doctrines of
the Trinity and the Incarnation.

Another confession of great interest was presented by
Victricius, Bishop of Rouen, to Pope Innocent 1I.in 403. We
know it only from the references in a letter written to him by
his intimate friend, Paulinus of Nola. He was accused, it
would seem unjustly, of a leaning to Arian or Apollinarian
heresy, and wrote to the Pope to defend himself, expressing
his faith in a co-eternal Trinity, of one divinity and substance,
and in the incarnation as the assuming of full manhood in
body and soul.2 There is a parallel passage in his book, de
Laude Sanctorum, which I will print with it.

PavULINus, Ep. 37.

Cum ergo fides et confessio tua, ut
credimus atque confidimus cozter-
nam Trinitatem, unius diuinitatis
et substantiz et operis et regni esse
testetur ; cumque Patrem Deum et

Vicrricius, de Laude Sanctorum,c.iv.

Confitemur Deum Patrem, confite-
mur Deum Filium, confitemur Spir-
itum Sanctum Deum. Confitemur
quia tres unum sunt. Unum dixi;
quia ex uno, sicut Filius de Patre

1 This work, formerly ascribed to Vigilius of Thapsus, is now ascribed by
Morin to an unknown theologian of the fourth century.—Ben, Rév. 1898.

2 Paulinus, Zp. 37. 5.

CONTEMPORARY PROFESSIONS OF FAITH

PavULInus—contd.

Filium Deum et Spiritum Sanctum
Deum, ut est qui est et erat et uen-
turusest . . . quod ita ut ipse a Deo
doctus es, doces unitatem Trinitatis
sine confusione iungens, et Trinita-
tem ipsius unitatis sine separatione
distinguens, ita ut nulla alteri per-
sona conueniat, et in omni persona
trium Deus unus eluceat ; et tantus

131

Victricius—contd.

ita Pater in Filio; Sanctus Spiritus
uero de Patre et Filio: ita et Pater
et Filius in Spiritu Sancto. Una
Deitas, una substantia... . quia
ut tres ex uno, ita unitas in tribus.
Sic confitemur quia sic credimus
indiuiduam Trinitatem, ante quam
nihil potest attingi nec mente con-
cipi.

quidem Filius quantus et Pater, quantus et Spiritus Sanctus ; sed semper
quisque nominis sui proprietate distinctus, indiuiduam retinet in uirtutis
et gloriz equalitate concordiam.

Certi autem sumus, quod et Filium tei ita preedicas, ut eundem et
Filium hominis confiteri non erubescas; tam uere hominem in nostra
natura quam uere Deum in sua; sed Filium Dei ante seecula, quia ipse est
Dei Uerbum Deus, qui erat in principio apud Deum, zque Deus coomni-
potens et cooperator Patris.... Et hoc Uerbum, pietatis immensz
mysterio, caro factum est et habitauit in nobis. Non autem caro
tantum corporis nostri, sed homo totus, et corporis nostri et anime
assumptione, anime autem rationalis, quae iuxta naturale opificium
Dei habet insitam mentem ; alioquin in tenebris Apollinaris errabimus,
si hominem assumptum a Deo animam mentis human uacuam,
qualis est pecorum et iumentorum, dicamus habuisse ; et eum hominem,
quem suscepit Dei Filius, necesse est ea ueritate, quae ueritas est et qua
creauit hominem, totum susceperit, ut opus suum plena salute renouaret.

The so-called “ Creed of Bacchiarius” deals with precisely
the same problems, and shows how eagerly they were discussed
at the beginning of the fifth century. Bacchiarius was prob-
ably a Spanish monk who had come into Gaul while there was
widespread suspicion of Priscillianism, and was made to defend
himself before some Gallican bishops from complicity in such
heresy. He too asserts the eternal distinctions in the Divine
relationships of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, their unity in
substance, power, and will. In words which resemble the
parallel clauses of the Quicunque, he elaborates the teaching of
the scriptural terms, “begotten ” and “ proceeding.”

FIDES BACCHIARII, Cod. Ambros. O. 212 sup.

Pater Deus et Filius Deus, sed non idem Pater, qui Filius, sed idem
creditur esse Pater, quod Filius. Et Spiritus Sanctus non Pater ingenitus,
sed Spiritus ingeniti Patris, Filius genitus . . . Pater enim unus ingen-

132 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

itus, Filius unus est genitus, Spiritus Sanctus a Patre procedens Patri et
Filio cozeternus. ...

Itaque Spiritus Sanctus nec Pater esse ingenitus nec Filius genitus
eestimetur, sed Spiritus Sanctus, qui a Patre procedit ; sed non est aliud,
quod procedit, quam quod unde procedit. Si persona queritur, Deus est.
Hee per hoe tripertita coniunctio et coniuncta diuisio et in personis ex-
cludit unionem et in personarum distinctione obtinet Unitatem. Sicque
credimus beatissimam Trinitatem, quod unius naturee est, unius deitatis,
unius eiusdemque uirtutis atque substantie, ne inter Patrem et Filium et
Spiritum Sanctum sit ulla diuersitas, nisi quod ille Pater est et hic Filius
et ille Spiritus Sanctus, Trinitas in subsistentibus personis, Unitas in
natura atque substantia.

He confesses the truth of the incarnation in the taking of
human flesh and soul, and the dependent truth of the future
resurrection of men in their bodies. He concludes with
statements on the origin of the soul, the nature of the devil,
marriage, and the canon of Holy Scripture.

To these professions we must also add the creed of the
heretic Pelagius, which, with the exception of one passage on
free will, is a document of great dogmatic value, and so fully
orthodox that it has been ascribed both to Jerome and
Augustine.

He explains the Greek terms ὁμοούσιον and ὑπόστασις,
asserting the equality of the Divine Persons in the Trinity of
one substance and eternity, in which there are no grades,
“nihil quod inferius superiusue dici possit.”

“ Atque ut, confundentes Arium, unam eandemque dicimus
Trinitatis esse substantiam et unum in tribus personis fatemur
Deum, ita, impietatem Sabellii declinantes, tres personas ex-
pressas sub proprietate distinguimus, non ipsum sibi Patrem,
ipsum sibi Filium, ipsum sibi Spiritum Sanctum esse dicentes,
sed aliam Patris aliam Filii aliam Spiritus Sancti esse personam.

“Sic autem confitemur in Christo unam Filii esse per-
sonam, ut dicamus, duas esse perfectas atque integras substan-
tias, id est, deitatis et humanitatis, que ex anima continetur
et corpore.”

Leporius, a native of Tréves,) who became a priest at

1One MS, of Cassian, de Incarnatione, i. 2 (ed. Petschenig), {.6., Cod. lat.
Paris, 14,860, preserves the reading ex maxima Belgarum urbe.

LEPORII LIBELLUS EMENDATIONIS 133

Marseilles, fell at this time into a heresy something like the
error of Nestorius regarding the two natures in Christ. He
was, however, converted by S. Augustine, with whom he stayed
for a time at Hippo. On his return to Gaul he presented a
confession to the Bishops of Marseilles and Aix, in which he
made full amends for his error by a precise statement.

LEPORII LIBELLUS EMENDATIONIS (ed. Hahn,? p. 299)

Confitemur Dominum ac Deum nostrum Iesum Christum, unicum
Filium Dei, qui ante seecula natus ex Patre est, nouissimo tempore de
Spiritu Sancto et Maria semper uirgine factum hominem, Deum natum ;
et confitentes utramque substantiam, carnis et uerbi, unum eundemque
Deum atque hominem inseparabilem pia fidei credulitate suscepimus, et ex
tempore suscepte carnis sic omnia dicimus, que erant Dei, transiisse in
hominem, ut omnia que erant hominis, in Deum uenirent, ut hac intelli-
gentia Uerbum factum sit caro, non ut conuersione aut mutabilitate
aliqua coeperit esse, quod non erat, sed ut potentia diuine dispensationis
Uerbum Patris, nunquam a Patre discedens, homo propre fieri dignaretur,
incarnatusque sit unigenitus secreto illo mysterio, quod ipse nouit
(nostrum namque est credere, illius nosse), ac sicut ipse Deus Uerbum
totum suscipiens, quod est hominis, homo sit, et adsumptus homo totum
accipiendo, quod est Dei, aliud quam Deus esse non possit. . . .

Caro igitur proficit in Uerbum, non Uerbum proficit in carnem, et
tamen uerissime Uerbum caro factum est ; sed, ut diximus, solum proprie
personaliter, non cum Patre aut Spiritu Sancto naturaliter, quia unigen-
itus Deus, Deus uerus, quicum Patre et Spiritu Sancto unus est in natura
alter est in persona. Non enim ipsum Patrem dicimus esse, quem Filium ;
nec iterum eundem Filium dicimus esse, quem Patrem'}; aut rursus
Spiritum Sanctum Patrem uel Filium nuncupamus ; sed distinguentes
personas in suis proprietatibus Patrem Deum Patrem proprie nominamus,
et Filium Deum Filium proprie dicimus, et Spiritum Sanctum Deum
Spiritum Sanctum proprie confitemur. Et cum ter numero dicimus
Deum et Deum et Deum, non tres credimus Deos sed unum omnipoten-
ti sue trinitate perfectum. Nascitur ergo nobis proprie de Spiritu
Sancto et Maria, semper uirgine, Deus homo Iesus Christus Filius Dei,
ac sic in alterutrum unum fit uerbum et caro, ut manente in sua perfec-
tione naturaliter utraque substantia sine sui preiudicio et humanitati
diuina communicent et diuinitati humana participent ; nec alter Deus,
alter homo, sed idem ipse Deus, qui et homo, et uicissim idem ipse homo,
qui et Deus, Iesus Christus unus Dei Filius et nuncupetur et uere sit. Et
ideo agendum nobis semper est et credendum, ut Dominum Iesum Christum
Filium Dei, Deum uerum, quem cum Patre semper, et equalem Patri
ante secula confitemur, eundem a tempore suscepte carnis factum Deum
hominem non negemus, nec quasi per gradus et tempora proficientem

134 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

in Deum, alterius status ante resurrectionem, alterius post resurrectionem,
eum fuisse credamus, sed eiusdem semper plenitudinis atque uirtutis....

Sed quia Uerbum Deus in hominem dignanter hominem suscipiendo
descendit, et per susceptionem Dei homo ascendit in Deum Uerbum, totus
Deus Uerbum factus est totus homo. Non enim Deus Pater homo factus
est nec Spiritus Sanctus, sed unigenitus Patris; ideoque una persona
accipienda est carnis et Uerbi, ut fideliter sine aliqua dubitatione
credamus, unum eundemque Dei Filium inseparabilem semper gemins
substantie etiam gigantem nominatum. .. .

By the study of these confessions we are brought into
contact with fresh and vigorous minds working out for them-
selves formule in which to express new aspects of the central
truth guarded by the Nicene Creed. From that vantage
ground they discerned new aspects of the doctrine of God, and
felt constrained to use them. If it is true to say that we
know only in part, and therefore wrongly, it is also true that
the very knowledge of our imperfection makes us eager to
correct, to improve. We may paraphrase the words of the great
Gallican teacher, 8. Hilary: “ We are compelled to attempt
what is unattainable, to climb where we cannot reach, to speak
what we cannot utter; instead of the mere adoration of faith,
we are compelled to entrust the deep things of religion to the
perils of human understanding.” 1

§ III. ΤῊΝ BrorHernoop or LERINS

The opening years of the fifth century were indeed a
time of trouble and rebuke to all citizens of the old Roman
Empire. That the fair provinces of Gaul should be overrun
by barbarian armies almost without resistance, seemed a
direct judgment of God upon the deep-seated sores of mis-
government and foul licentiousness, which crushed the spirit
and drained the strength of the provincials. The famous
treatise On the Government of God, written by Salvianus,
priest of Marseilles, lays bare the real root of widespread
misery in social corruption, and preaches faith in the one
living God as the only hope. Together with many other
thoughtful and religious men, Salvianus sought rest in retire-

1 De Trin, ii. 2.

THE BROTHERHOOD OF LERINS 135

ment from the world, and seems to have entered for a time
the famous monastery of Lerins.

At the beginning of the fifth century (c. 426), Honoratus,
the founder of this monastery, had gathered round him a
remarkable band of men; Hilary, who became his successor
as abbot, and afterwards as Bishop of Arles; Vincentius,
author of the famous Commonitorium; Lupus, who became
the saintly Bishop of Troyes, and with Germanus of Auxerre,
preached so successful a mission against the Pelagian error in
Britain; Faustus, who in his turn became abbot, and finally
Bishop of Riez, one of the ablest theologians of the day.

On a neighbouring island lived Eucherius, sometime high
in the civil service of the empire, with his wife and sons,
who became in their time bishops. He himself became
Bishop of Lyons, and it was no empty compliment when
Claudianus Mamertinus called him “by far the greatest of
the great bishops of his age.”

In Appendix A I have reprinted, with some slight altera-
tions, the parallels to the Quicungue in the writings of
Vincentius and Faustus, which I collected for my former
book.

The parallels in the Commonitorium of Vincentius have
been held by many writers to be quotations of the creed.
Some, from Antelmi (1693) to Ommanney (1897), hold that
they prove that he was the author. I prefer to discuss them
in connection with the internal evidence of the creed, because
there is no positive proof that they are quotations or he the ©
author. But, regarded as parallels, they are close enough to
warrant the conjecture that there is some relation between
them and the creed, and it is easier to believe that Vincentius
used the creed, than that anyone in a subsequent generation
or century, of less exact scholarship, picked out his phrases
and wove them into a document of this kind. It has been
argued that “there is no appearance that Vincentius was
quoting any particular document.”? This is true, but it does
not exclude the supposition that he quoted phrases of the

1 Hil. Arelat., Vita S. Honor. c. 4. 2 The Ath. Creed, p. xcii.
3 Swainson, Hist. Creeds, p. 224.

136 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

Quicunque by memory. If he had seen it written out, he
would not think of it as an important document, in the sense
in which he regarded the letter of S. Capreolus read at the
Council of Ephesus, of which he speaks (6. 42), as important.
The intrinsic merits of the creed, regarded as a sermon or
private profession of faith, not Synodical sanction or connec-
tion with the name of Athanasius, would give it authority.
He would only receive it as approved by his judgment, and
possibly as recommended by his regard for the author.

Again, it is important to note the differences which
distinguish these Vincentian parallels from the Quicunque.
They are strongly anti-Nestorian. Vincentius says (c. 12)
that Nestorius wished to make “two Sons of God,’ and
quotes the title “Mother of God,’ which became a test
phrase in the controversy, but is not found in the Quicunque,
where we find unus est Christus, not Filius. He uses the
term humanitas freely, and in ὁ. 20 writes Deus Uerbum
assumendo et habendo carnem, but seems to shrink from the
compound phrase assumptio humantatis. I think we may
trace this to his fear of a Nestorian interpretation of the
words. Inc. 17 he argues against the theory that “ postea
in eum (the Man Christ) assumentis Uerbi persona descend-
erit; et licet nunc in Dei gloria maneat assumptus, aliquam-
diu tamen nihil inter illum et ceteros homines interfuisse
uideatur.”

The idem, idem in the following parallel (c. 13) to clause 29
shows a train of thought foreign to the Quicunque, though it
is found in the context of the parallel passage in Augustine,
Enchiridion, 35:

(a) Aug.: “Deus ante omnia secula.”
Quic.: “Deus est ex substantia Patris ante secula
genitus.”
Vine.: “idem ex Patre ante seecula genitus.”
(Ὁ) Aug.: “homo in nostro seculo.”
Quic.: “homo ex substantia matris in seeculo genitus.”
Vine.: “idem ex matre in seculo generatus.”

The greater part of this ὁ. 13 is taken up with confuta-

INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE ‘“‘QUICUNQUE” 137

tion of Nestorian statements. In the same way I would
explain the variation in the following parallel to clause 34:

Aug.: “non confusione nature sed unitate persone.”

Quie.: “non confusione substantiz sed unitate persone.”

Vine.: “non corruptibili nescio qua diuinitatis et humani-
tatis confusione sed integra et singulari qua-
dam unitate persone.”

The word substantia (=natura) was used freely by
Augustine (dn Joh. Tract. 78), as in the well-known
Ambrosian hymn, “Procede de thalamo tuo gemine gigas
substantize.” Elsewhere it is used freely by Vincentius, but
he seems to substitute diwinitatis e¢ humanitatis in this
sentence as if he would prefer the plural substantiaruwm to
the singular of the Quicunque form, and adds the epithet
singulart to sharpen his sentence against Nestorianism.

The parallels in writings of Faustus show the same trend
of thought. The epithet simplicem (personam) in Ep. 7
corresponds to Vincentius’s use of singularis. And his use of
pariter in the parallels to clause 28, which is found also in Vin-
centius, though it is doubtful whether it stood in the original
text of the Quicunque (see p. 187), corresponds to S. Cyril’s
phrase Θεὸς ὁμοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπος in anti-Nestorian sentences.

§ IV. ΤῊΝ INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE “ QUICUNQUE”

We are now in a position to discuss the internal evidence
of the Quicunque from a wider point of view than has
hitherto been attained. It is not enough to pick out certain
test phrases and argue that they were inserted against this
or that heresy, or that certain modifications would have been
introduced if the creed had been written after a certain date.
Such reflections are useful as affording, so to speak, a key to
the problem of date; but we ought also to examine the
wards of the lock in which the key turns, to be sure that

1Ommanney, Diss, p. 411, quotes a sentence from the contemporary Latin
translation of S. Cyril’s Apology for the Twelve Chapters, in which pariter is
used with a similar purpose.

138 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

they correspond. We obtain this wider knowledge by com-
paring the creed with these other professions of faith which
we have traced to the beginning of the fifth century. Stand-
ing as they do, midway between the teaching of Augustine
and the parallels in Vincentius, they afford valuable corro-
boration of Waterland’s opinion, that the Quicungue belongs
to Apollinarian times, ie before the condemnation of
Nestorius in 431.

In regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, these professions
are less Augustinian than the Quicunque. They offer no
parallels to the characteristic method of ascribing to each of
the three persons in the Trinity the same attributes, “un-
create, eternal, omnipotent,” while asserting in each case that
they are one uncreate, one eternal, one omnipotent. Though
S. Ambrose had written cautiously on these lines, it was only
in the fifth book of Augustine On the Trinity that they
were fully developed. Since then such balanced antitheses
have become a commonplace of Christian thought, though
sometimes weakened by a writer like Fulgentius, who adds
the word God, “one eternal God.” This is, as Waterland 3
says, “a very insipid and dull way of expressing it.”

On the other hand, these professions agree closely with
the Quieunque in carefully distinguishing the persons, while
they retain the Gallican terminology, wna substantia. Pelagius
and Bacchiarius lay similar stress on the scriptural terms for
the Divine relationships, “ begotten,” “proceeding,” and main-
tain their coequality as excluding grades of superiority in the
Godhead.

In regard to the doctrine of the Incarnation, there is
even more marked agreement of phraseology in opposition to
Apollinarianism. The main thesis of the Quwicunque in its
second part (cl. 30) is the perfectness of the two natures in
Christ, and the unity of His Divine-Human person is taught
in relation to the Apollinarian error respecting the natures
rather than the Nestorian puzzle respecting the mystery of
their union.

The phrase perfectus Deus perfectus homo comes from a

1 Appendix Ὁ. 2Pp, 214.

INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE ‘‘QUICUNQUE” 139

doubtful treatise of Athanasius, ὁ. Apol. i. 16; οὗ Orat. 111.
41. The nearest parallel in Augustine is Serm. 238:
“ Aduersus Arium, ueram et perfectam Uerbi diuinitatem ;
aduersus Apollinarem, perfectam hominis in Christo defend-
imus ueritatem.” Leporius writes: “ Manente in sua per-
fectione naturaliter utraque substantia.” Pelagius sums up
in a sentence the argument of the Quicunque (cll. 24-35):
“Sic autem confitemur in Christo unam ΕἾ] esse personam,
ut dicamus, duas esse perfectas atque integras substantias, id
est, deitatis et humanitatis, que ex anima continetur et
corpore.” And not only does Pelagius proceed to condemn
Apollinaris by name, but he also condemns other unnamed
teachers who had recently introduced a fresh development of
that error teaching a confusion of Godhead and Manhood
(Hahn’, p. 290).

Thus it is plain that the author of the Quicunque used
both phrases and arguments which were in current use before
the rise of Nestorianism.

The mere repetition of such phrases in documents of the
Nestorian period, such as the Union Creed of the Antiochenes,
proves nothing against the priority of the Quicungue, unless
it can be proved that its teaching on the “ Unity of Person”
is either the main point in the argument or distinctly directed
against Nestorian denial of such unity. In the section clauses
32-35 the subject that Christ is “God and man” is ex-
plained to refute the theory of confusion of substance, and
illustrated by the analogy of the union of soul and flesh in
one man. Both in the explanation and in the illustration
the “unity of His person” is postulated, but it is not put
forward as if it was specially endangered. Nor is it guarded
by the test phrases which were found so useful against
Nestorius. “There is not a word of the Mother of God, or
of one Son only, in opposition to two sons, or of God’s being
born, suffering, dying: which kind of expressions the creeds
are full of after Nestorius’s times, and after the Council of
Ephesus.”* It has been suggested that the error of Leporius
was of a similar kind, and we certainly find in his confession

1 Waterland, p. 149.

140 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

the statement: “Nec alter Deus, alter homo, sed idem ipse
Deus, qui et homo, et uicissim idem ipse homo, qui et Deus.”
How easy it would have been to insert a clause of this kind
in the Quicunque if it had been desired to labour this point.
It is just this turn which we find given to the parallels in
Vincentius and Faustus.

The illustration from the constitution of man (cl. 35)
was used by 8. Ambrose, and more freely by S. Augustine,
before Nestorianism was thought of. It threw no light on
the problem of personality, either suggesting the true view
that the manhood assumed was impersonal, or that its
personality was annihilated, according to the dangerous logic
of Faustus, “ persona personam consumere potest.”

The teaching on the two nativities “ante seecula ... in
hoe seculo” finds a parallel in Augustine’s Hnchiridion
(420), c 35, in a chapter which certainly anticipates the
arguments against Nestorianism, insisting on the unity of
person with denial of two Sons. But this fact points the
contrast to the Quicunque. Augustine may have had Le-
porius in his mind, who in his recantation quoted the two
nativities to lead up to “unum eundemque Deum atque
hominem.” Pelagius, however, quotes the nativities with
reference only to the perfectness of the natures. And this is
the natural conclusion from clause 29 of the Quicunque,
which leads up to the same point, “ perfectus Deus perfectus
homo,” and lacks the “idem” “idem” so often inserted by
Vincentius.

While the doctrine of the Two Natures is thus clearly
defined for practical purposes, it is not elaborated in the way
which became necessary after the rise of Eutychianism.
Eutyches, whose difficulty may have been accentuated by the
poverty of the Syriac language, was unable to distinguish
accurately between “nature” and “person,” and felt driven
to deny the duality of the natures, after their union in Christ.
He confessed that He, who was born of the Virgin Mary, was
perfect God and perfect man, but had not flesh consubstantial
with ours. Thus he virtually denied the true manhood, and
it became necessary to enlarge dogmatic statements to

INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE ‘“‘QUICUNQUE” 141

exclude his theory of One Nature. There is no indication
that such need was felt by the author of the Quzcwnque, who
might so easily have inserted teaching that Christ is consub-
stantial with us in one nature, as He is consubstantial with
the Father in the other. Such phrases were used in Gaul by
Cassian? in 430, before the rise of Eutychianism. They did
not need to be invented, only to be applied. Another argu-
ment to prove that the Quicunque is pre-EKutychian has been
founded on the change of reading in clause 33, from ac-
cusatives carnem, Deum, to ablatives carne, Deo. Thus the
creed would be made to condemn Eutychian teaching of a
change of Godhead in the flesh, and that the manhood was
assumed into God in such a sense as to be absorbed into the
Divine nature, teaching which would be to some extent
favoured by the accusatives.? And it is also an acknowledged
fact that Catholic writers, after the rise of this heresy, shrank
from using the illustration of clause 35, “as the reason-
able soul,” ete., which the Eutychians misused, pleading for one
nature in Christ, as soul and body make one nature in man.
On these grounds it seems to me reasonable to support
Waterland’s opinion that the Quicunque was written before
the condemnation of Nestorius in 431. And I am glad to
claim the support of Kattenbusch,3 who has studied minutely
the whole question, and lays stress on the fact that beside
the phrase of Leporius, “Jesus Christus unus Dei Filius,”
clause 33 of the creed is, so to speak, unbiased, express-
ing a mode of thought which was disturbed by Nestorius,
and had to be defended against him with new phrases. Om-
manney’s arguments, in his careful chapter on the date of the
creed,* are defensible against Waterland only on the assump-
tion that the main argument of clauses 32-35 is to uphold
the unity of Christ’s person against the Nestorian denial,
which I venture to think is mistaken. And I am confident

1 De Incarn. vi. 18.

2 Waterland, p. 144. I take this opportunity of withdrawing the mistake in
this connexion on p. Ixxiv. of my book, The Athanasian Creed, pointed out
by a kind critic in the Tablet.

3 Theol. Lit. Z. March 6, 1897, 4 Diss. pp. 350-374.

142 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

that further consideration of the evidence of contemporary
Gallican Creeds will finally establish the soundness of Water-
land’s judgment.

There is one more point in the internal evidence which
deserves special mention, the reference to the descent into
hell. This was rare in forms of the Apostles’ Creed at
that time, but was common in the writings of Catholic
teachers (Hilary, de Trin.; Aug. Hp. 164, etc.) before 431,
and supplied a useful argument against the Apollinarian
denial that the Lord had a human soul.

§ V. PRISCILLIANISM

These conclusions from the internal evidence of the creed
may be confirmed by the suggestion that it was written with
the special object of meeting the errors of Priscillianism.

Priscillian was a wealthy Spanish layman, who was unques-
tionably devout, and was well read in the Scriptures. But he
had had no theological training, and was not, to say the least,
a clear thinker. He quotes Hilary of Poitiers again and
again without understanding his argument. With the best
intentions such a man might fall into heretical modes of
expression. We may charitably trace to this cause the
Sabellian and Apollinarian teaching which he gives so con-
fidently as gospel truth. He professed all the time to use
and interpret in their primitive sense Church formularies,
such as the Baptismal Formula and the Apostles’ Creed.
When we find him, however, making “ Holy Church ” precede
“ Holy Spirit” in the creed, we cannot but doubt his belief in
the personality of the Holy Spirit. This doubt is not removed
by the following passage from the same treatise, Tract II.
ὃ 45: “In nomine Patris et Fil et Spiritus Sancti, non
dicit autem ‘in nominibus’ tamguam in multis, sed in uno,
quia unus Deus trina potestate uenerabilis omnia et in
omnibus Christus est sicut scribtum est: Abrahe dicte sunt
repromissiones et semini eius; non dicit ‘et seminilus’ tan-
quam im multis, sed quasi in uno ‘et semini tuo’ quod est
Christus, . . . Nobis enim Christus Deus Dei Filius passus in

PRISCILLIANISM 143

carne secundum fidem symboli baptizatis et electis ad sacer-
dotium in nomine Patris et Fili et Spiritus Sancti tota fides,
tota uita, tota ueneratio est.”

With this passage we may compare a fragment of esoteric
teaching, his Benedictio super fideles, which begins with a
quotation from Hilary’s prayer, “Sancte Pater, omnipotens
Deus,” but falls away from the lines of his thought in the
following sentence: “ Tu enim es Deus, qui... unus Deus
crederis, inuisibilis in Patre, uisibilis in Filio et unitus in
opus duorum Sanctus Spiritus inueniris.”

The accusation of Orosius in his Commonitorium} that
Priscillian omitted the e¢ in the Baptismal Formula, is true
as to the substance of his teaching, if not in the letter. He
never uses the word Trinity, and it does not appear that he
acknowledges the distinction of persons in the Godhead
behind the manifestation of threefold power (¢rina potestas).

The same mist of vagueness obscures the outlines of his
Christological teaching. The following passage is plainly
Apollinarian. Tract VI. ὃ 99: “ Denique Deus noster adsu-
mens carnem, formam in se Dei et hominis, id est diuine
anime et terrense carnis adsignans, dum aliud ex his peccati
formam, aliud diuinam ostendit esse naturam, illudque arma
iniquitatis peccato, hoc tustitie arma demonstrat in salutem
nostram uerbum caro factus.”

We are not concerned here with the events of his life, his
consecration as bishop, the controversies which followed upon
the propagation of his teaching, his appeal to the Bishops of
Rome and Milan, Damasus and Ambrose, the final tragedy
of his appeal to the usurper Maxentius, a suicidal step which
led to his condemnation on political rather than religious
grounds. He was, however, executed on the charge of heresy,
being the first to suffer this fate which he had proposed for
others,and many saintly minds were grieved. Certainly it
brought no gain of peace to the Church, for he was venerated
as a martyr, and the sect increased everywhere. We have

1 Orosius, ad Aug.: “Trinitatem autem solo uerbo loquebatur, nam unionem
absque ulla existentia aut proprietate adserens sublato ‘et’ Patrem, Filium
Spiritum Sanctum hune esse unum Christum docebat,”

144 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

seen, in the case of Bacchiarius, how great was the suspicion of
all monks coming from Spain. When language so inaccurate
as the passages quoted above was declared with vehemence to
be Catholic teaching, there was need for vigilance. And there
was need of a summary of Catholic belief on the Trinity and
the incarnation, which should lay due stress on the responsi-
bility of the intellect in matters of faith, and at the same time
do justice to the moral aspect of these problems, and prove that
faith worketh by love, only “they that have done good shall go
into life eternal.” The Quicungue exactly meets these require-
ments. May it not have been written for the purpose ?

There is another side to Priscillian’s teaching on which it
is not possible to speak with any confidence, but it must be
mentioned in justice to his opponents. I refer to his leaning
towards Manicheism and Gnosticism. Against his emphatic
denial of such heresies must be set the plain proofs of his
acquaintance with many recondite forms of such errors, and
with apocryphal literature in which they are taught. His
doctrine of the elect throws light on his setting Holy Church
before Holy Spirit in the creed, and suggests his connection
with some theosophic sect. The prominence which he gives
to the sufferings of Christ may be explained away, if, like
Mani, he attributed to them only a symbolical meaning.t It
must be remembered that the Western Manicheans of the
fourth and fifth centuries made much more parade of Christian
teaching than those of the East.

Orosius charges him with explaining S. Paul’s words,
Col. 1. 14, “the handwriting of the ordinances,” as “the bond
in virtue of which the soul was imprisoned in the body, and
made subject to sidereal influences.” It seems to have been
supposed that the powers brought the different parts of the
body into relation to the signs of the zodiac, while the soul
was influenced by the twelve heavenly powers, represented
under the names of the twelve patriarchs. There are vague
hints in Tracts VI., VIII., X. of these doctrines.

Tract VI. § 111: “Inter duodecim milia signatorum
patriarchum numeris mancipati.”

1 Neander, Hist. iv. p. 509 (Trans.).

DATE AND AUTHORSHIP 145

Tract VII. § 117: “ Perpetua luce contecti peccatorum
supplicia respuere et requiem possimus habere iustorum per
Tesum Christum.”

Such words seem simply to imply that the soul is
mystically purged by fellowship with the higher world, and
enabled to defy (respuere) the punishments of sins. This is
the sort of teaching which would encourage secret immorality
among those who imagined themselves safe by election. It
was the suspicion of evil-doing which ruined Priscillian and
his cause, however far he may have been from countenancing
such conclusions. The only remedy is to proclaim, as is
done with no uncertain sound both by the Creed of Damasus
and the Quicunque, the doctrine of a Future Judgment, when
“all shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account
for their own works.”

§ VI. DATE AND AUTHORSHIP

My conclusions from all these considerations differ but
little from those of Waterland. They seem to point to the
decade 420-430 as the period when the creed must have
been written.

Kattenbusch ! would push the date ten years further back.

1 Theol. Lit. Z. 1897, p. 144: ‘* Das Charakteristische an der Formel ist ihre
eigenthiimlich kunstmiissige Gestalt. Man kann sie eine “‘ Dichtung ” heissen.
In feierlich bemessener, gravitatischer Form prizisirt sie die ‘ catholica fides.’ Sie
hat kein Metrum, wohl aber einen unverkennbaren Rhythmus. In ihrer rhetor-
isch plerophorischen Art spricht sie speciell den trinitarischen Gedanken
vielleicht kiihner und consequenter aus, als es der Theologie noch geliufig war.
Man sieht sich ja nothwendigerweise an die Gedanken erinnert, die Augustin
ausgefiihrt hat. Es kann aber ein Vorurtheil sein, wenn man meint, das Quic.
setze die augustinische Trinitatsconstruktion als solche voraus. Die Formel
lasst sich fiiglich auch begreifen als eine Vorlauferin der Spekulation des
Augustin. Mir scheint, in der That, als ob Augustin sie bereits kenne. Nicht
als ob er sie irgendwie als eine ‘Autoritiit, betrachte. Aber wenn sie in Lerinum
entstanden sein sollte, kann sie bald auch in afrikanischen mdénchischen
Kreisen bekannt geworden sein. Es hat fiir mich mehr Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass
dem Augustin einzelne ihrer Ausdriicke oder Sitze im Gedichtniss gehaftet
haben und ihm gelegentlich in die Feder geflossen sind, als dass der Autor der
Formel aus den Stellen, die u. a. Burn nachweist, seine iiberraschend Ahnlichen
oder geradezu gleichlautenden Wendungen geschopft haben sollte.”

Io

146 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

He does not consider that its relationship to the theology of
Augustine stands in the way. He would even regard it as
antecedent to Augustine’s speculations. It seems to him
possible that Augustine knew it, and that the parallel passages
scattered over his works represent reminiscences. It does not
follow that he would regard it as an authority.

I have often wondered whether the following sentence in
Augustine, de Trin. I. v. 5, referred to a formal profession :
“But in this matter (ze. the Catholic faith) some are dis-
turbed when they hear that the Father is God, and the Son is
God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet that they are not
three Gods but one God.” I do not know of any other pas-
sages which would bear out Kattenbusch’s suggestion, and the
reference in this case seems to me too weak to bear the
weight of so important an argument. It comes to this. If
the main portion of part i. clauses 7-19, which one has been
accustomed to think of as pre-eminently Augustinian, and
which (as I have shown, p. 138) distinguishes the Quicunque
from the other professions of faith quoted in this chapter, is
not the fruit of Augustine’s influence upon the author, but
exercised, on the contrary, a constraining influence upon
Augustine, the Church owes an unacknowledged debt of grati-
tude to a mind superior to that of the great African thinker.
Surely this is an incredible hypothesis, since we find no trace
of such influence on Victricius or Vincentius. Vincentius
was possibly prejudiced against Augustine, and we find no
parallels to these clauses in the Commonitorium ; but no pre-
judice, as far as we know, would exist in his mind against a
Gallican writer, and he desired to set forth the fulness of the
Trinity (Trinitatis plenitudo), which is just what these clauses
do. The genius of Augustine had no rivals, and we may be
thankful, for the advance which he made in the interpretation
of the doctrine of Divine Personality was only won at the cost
of bitter pains, revealed to us in his heart-searching Con-
Jessions.

The supposed dependence of the author of the Quicunque
on Augustine leads us to set the date of the publication of his
Enchiridion, c. 420, as the earliest possible date of the Qui-

DATE AND AUTHORSHIP 147

cunque. ‘The parallels to the second book “against Maximinus,”
published c. 427, are of less importance. His lectures on 8.
John were written in 416, and in the same year he finished
his work On the Trinity.

The absence of any reference to Nestorianism gives us the
lower limit 6. 430. ‘There is a good deal of truth in Katten-
busch’s observation, that expositions of faith must usually be
assumed to be up to date, whereas commentaries on creeds
and expositions of faith tend to stop with the latest heresy
against which their authors find arguments in the creed of
their subject.

The question of authorship is not so easy to define. There
are three modern claimants,—vVictricius, Vincentius, and
Honoratus. I consider Vigilius of Thapsus,! or his double, out
of court.

The chief claim put forward for Victricius by Harvey?
was the fact that he was accused of Apollinarianism or some-
thing like it, and that he wrote a Confessio, which has been
lost. Yet we gather from the full account given by Paulinus,
and the parallel passage in the de Laude Sanctorum, that it
only partially corresponded to the Quicungue ; roughly speak-
ing, to clauses 4, 6, 15, 28, 29, 30. We have no right to
dogmatise on the omission of parellels to other clauses. We
do not know for certain what else it contained. But on the
whole we seem to be justified in rejecting the theory of his
authorship, unless some MS. should be found connecting the
creed with him in any more definite way.

The theory that Vincentius was the author has been ably
advocated by Ommanney. Nothing that I have written about
the priority of the creed to the Commonitortwm need hinder one
from regarding the creed as an earlier work of Vincentius.
There is no question of his knowledge or of his ability. But
these general considerations do not amount to proof, and there
are others which may be said to counterbalance them. “He
was a poet-theologian, and the Quicunque represents rather
the grammar than the poetry of theology. His intellect was
imaginative rather than analytical, and there is true poetry

1See Appendix B, 2 On the Creeds, ii. p. 577.

148 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

in his illustrations. But his promise to treat of matters of
faith in another work can only refer to a more elaborate form
of the Commonitoriwm, equally diffuse in style, not to the terse
clearly-cut sentences of the creed.”

We come, lastly, to the theory of authorship which I
advocated in my book on Zhe Athanasian Creed, and to
which I still cling with some fondness, though it has not been
received with any favour. All the available evidence, both
internal and external, points to the south of France as the
home of the creed, and the parallels, not to say quotations, in
writings of Vincentius, Faustus, and hereafter Cesarius of
Arles, point to Lerins. Nor can there be any question that
the first brothers in that famous retreat of piety and learning
were men of more than average calibre, and made their mark
on their generation. There is no reason to suppose that
their enthusiasm for their leader, so beautifully expressed in
the funeral sermon written by Hilary of Arles, was in any way
misplaced or mistaken. And it is certain that a preacher is
to some degree influenced by his congregation, that he would
be encouraged to give his best thoughts and choose his words
when addressing disciples so able and so devout as the con-
gregation which met in that happy island-home. I would
therefore suggest that Honoratus was worthy to be the author
of the creed, regarded as an instruction in the faith. And I
maintain that there is some support for the theory in the
references’ which Hilary of Arles and Faustus make to his
dogmatic teaching.

Hilarius, Vita Honorati, c. 38: “Quotidianus siquidem in
sincerissimis tractatibus confessionis Patris ac Filii ac Spiritus
Sancti testis fuisti: nec facile tam exerte tam lucide quisquam
de diuinitatis Trinitate disseruit, cum eam personis distingueres,
et glorie eternitate ac maiestate sociares.”

Faustus, In depositione S. Honorati: “Sed et modo minus
potest gaudere is... qui patriam uel parentes illius feruore
contempserit... qui fideliter sanctam regulam custodierit ab illo
allatam et per illum a Christo ad confirmationem loci istius con-
stitutam. ... Ergo carissimi, ut adipisci possimus illa que obtinuit
sequamur illa prius que docuit; teneamus in primis fidem rec-

DATE AND AUTHORSHIP 149

tam, credamus Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum unum
Deum. Ubi enim est unitas esse non potest inequalitas, et cum
Filius quia Deus est perfectus consummatus et plenus sit,
prorsus minor dici non potest plenitudo.”

Only the first of these sermons was known to Waterland,
who recognised an allusion to the Quicunque, but inferred that
Hilary was quoting his own composition. Hilary’s biographer
speaks of his “admirable exposition of the symbol,” but this, in
the language of the day, usually meant a detailed exposition
of the Apostles’ Creed. The Quicunque cannot be called an
exposition of that creed, for it does not comment on the
articles which it quotes.

This theory of the authorship is at least not more specu-
lative than others, and harmonises with my suggestion, that the
creed was written to warn men against the loose pietism of
the Priscillianists. “In such a case we are content with a prob-
ability.” We do not receive the creed as the faith of any
individual teacher, but as a form of faith sanctioned by the
usage of the Catholic Church. We are content to trace it to
the island-home which sent forth into the world so noble a
band of confessors and martyrs. ‘ Peace also has its martyrs,”
wrote Hilary of Honoratus. These men were ready to die
and suffer, as Faustus had to suffer, for the truths they taught,
because the creed on their lips was no mere assertion of
formal orthodoxy, because they desired with true devotion “to
acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity, and in the
power of the Divine Majesty to worship the Unity.”!

1Cf. my The Ath. Creed, Ὁ. xevii.

CHAPTER VII

THE ATHANASIAN CREED II

§ I. The Sermons of Auitus, Cesarius, and others.
§ II. The Canons of Toledo and Autun.
§ III. The Treves Fragment.
§ IV. Of Eighth and Ninth Century Quotations.
§ V. Early Commentaries.
§ VI. Rival Theories of Origin.
§ VII. The Later History.
§ VIII. The Text and a Translation.

WE must now proceed to review the external evidence which
may be shown for the use of the Quieunque from the fifth
century. There is a certain advantage in considering it by
itself, since we come to it in a detached frame of mind.
And it is only fair that we should endeavour to meet rival
theories, which are built up on the support of such evidence
only, on their own ground.

§ I. THe SERMONS OF AUITUS, CASARIUS, AND OTHERS

The external evidence may be said to begin with the
quotations found in the writings of Auitus and Ceesarius.

(i.) Auitus, Bishop of Vienne 490—523, in a work on the
Divinity of the Holy Spirit, quotes clause 22: “Quem nec
factum legimus, nec genitum nec creatum”; and again:
“Sicut est proprium Spiritui Sancto a Patre Filioque pro-
cedere istud fides catholica, etiamsi renuentibus non _per-
suaserit, In suze tamen discipline regula non excedit.” Also,
in Frag. xii. of A Dialogue against Gundobad; first the negative
and then the positive statement of clause 22 comes to light.

1 Ed. Peiper, Mon. Germ. Auct. vi. 2.
150

SERMONS OF AUITUS, CAESARIUS, ETC. 151

And in Frag. xviii. are found parallels to clauses 3,4. In
another Fragment against the Arians there is a parallel to
clause 32: “In Christo Deus et homo non alter sed ipse, non
duo ex diuersis sed unus ex utroque mediator. Gemina
quidem substantia sed una persona est.”

(ii.) Cesarius, Bishop of Arles 503-543, one of the
leading theologians of Southern Gaul, quotes from both parts
of the Quicunque in a sermon, Ps.-Aug. 244, which is now
unanimously assigned by critics to his pen. I will print that
portion of the sermon from the Benedictine text, which I
have collated with Cod. Sangallensis 150, seee. ix. in. :—

1. “Rogo et admoneo nos fratres carissimi ut quicunque }
(40.) walt saluus esse fidem rectam? catholicam discat, firmiter *
teneat inwiolatamque conseruet.* Ita ergo oportet uni-
15. cuique obseruare ut credat Patrem credat Filium credat
16. Spiritum Sanctum. Deus Pater Deus Filius Deus et
7. Spiritus Sanctus sed tamen non tres Dw sed unus Deus.
Qualis Pater talis Filius talis et Spiritus Sanctus.
Attamen® credat unusquisque fidelis quod Filius °
31. equalis’ est Patri secundum diuinitatem et minor est ὃ
Patre® secundum humanitatem 19 carnis quam de nostro 17
assumpsit ;" Spiritus uero Sanctus ab utroque pro-
cedens.”

1 Quicumque, G. 3 + et, α, %+ que,G. ‘conseruat,G. ὅ Et tamen, G.
6 om. Filius, G. 7 equalis, G. 8. om. est, G. 9 Patri, G. 1 ma, supra lin, G.
1 nostra, G. 13 ads—, G.

About the beginning of the seventh century this sermon
was combined with another, the authorship of which is by no
means so certain. I will reserve discussion of it for Chapter
X., and only note here that it contains parallels to phrases in
clauses 6, 13, 15, 16, 29, 38.

There is an “Address to Clergy,” which in one MS. is
ascribed to Ceesarius (Cod. lat. Monacensis 5515, see. xil.,
xil.): Sermo beati Cesarwi episcopi in presentia clert; also in
the index: Item sermo beati Cesari episcopi ad clerum. It
became very popular in the eighth and ninth centuries, and
is found in several recensions, being incorporated in the Ordo

152 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

ad Synodum of the Roman Pontifical. But in spite of the
number of Cesarian expressions which abound in it, and
which seem to prove that portions of it came originally from
the pen of Ceesarius, it is impossible to claim any recension
as wholly free from interpolation. We cannot therefore
claim as his the following reference, f. 119: “ Sermonem
Athanasii episcopi de fide trinitatis cuius inicium est Quicunque
uult memoriter teneat.” 4

At this point I may refer to the evidence of a Tractatus
de Trinitate printed among the works of Ambrose. Katten-
busch? calls it pre-Chalcedonian, and this date seems prob-
able. But other critics are not likely to admit that the
parallel sentences to the Quicungue, which it contains, are
really quotations, unless they receive support from other
sources. It includes a commentary on a form of the
Apostles’ Creed not distinguishable from R, expanding the
doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. In c« 2
the phrase rectwm et catholicum is used with regard to faith
in God. In ο. 5 we find wenerart Unitatem in Trinitate
and Trinitatem in Unitate. Kattenbusch points out that it
is the formal connexion of these phrases which is noticeable,
since the latter phrase by itself can be traced to Epiphanius,
Ancorat. 118, τριάδα ἐν ἑνότητι. The procession of the Spirit
is spoken of as a Patre.

Kattenbusch 8 also calls attention to a sermon published
by Elmenhorst, probably of the sixth century, which contains
an exact quotation of clause 3.

We may connect also with the sermon of Cesarius the
following quotation in the Jnstructio of Columban (+ 615),
the founder of the monasteries of Luxeuil and Bobbio:
“Credat itaque primum omnis gut wult saluus esse in primum
et in nouissimum Deum unum ac trinum, unum subsistentem
trinum substantia, unum potentia, trinum persona... ubi

1 Malnory, S. Césaire, Paris, 1894, p. 285. Morin, Rev. Bén. Sept. 1895,
p. 390.

2 Theol. Lit. Ζ. 1897, p. 144; cf. i. p. 98, where Kattenbusch proves con-
clusively that it is not a work of Ambrose.

® Gennadti liber de eccl. dogm. homilia sacra, Hamburg, 1614.

CANONS OF TOLEDO AND AUTUN 153

habes in ueritate 7rinitatem in Unitate et Unitatem in Trim-
tate.”

Columban used the Rule of Cesarius, and the words
which I have italicised certainly look like quotations of clauses
1 and 25. Moreover, Columban’s disciple and successor,
Attalus, had been trained at Lerins.

§ II. THe Canons oF TOLEDO AND AUTUN

(i.) The Fourth Council of Toledo, which met in 633, is
perhaps the most important of a series of Spanish Councils
which at this period embodied quotations from the Quacungue
in their canons. The wording of the earlier parallels is quite
as exact as that of the later, but the special characteristic
of the Canon of 633 is the fact that the Creed of Damasus is
quoted with the Quicungue.1 I will print these quotations in
italics, those of the Quzcunque in small capitals. In both
cases the authors of the canon seem to have quoted written
documents :—

Canon 1 (Cod. Nov. see. x., Sprcilegium Casinense, 1.

p. 300): “Secundum diuinas scripturas et doctrinam
quam a sanctis patribus accepimus Patrem et Filium et
Spiritum Sanctum unius deitatis atque substantiz con-
fitemur in personarum diuersitate Trinitatem credentes,

4. in diuinitate unitatem predicantes NEC PERSONAS CON-
20. FUNDIMUS NEC SUBSTANTIAM SEPARAMUS. PATREM A
21. NULLO FACTUM uel GENITUM dicimus: FILIUM A PATRE NON
22. FACTUM SED GENITUM asserimus ; SPIRITUM UERO SANCTUM
NEC CREATUM NEC GENITUM SED PROCEDENTEM ex PATRE

28. ET Fiuio profitemur. Ipsum autem DoMINUM NOSTRUM
IEsUM CHRISTUM DEI FILIUM et creatorem omnium, EX

29. SUBSTANTIA PATRIS ANTE SACULA GENITUM, descendisse
ultimo tempore pro redemptione mundi a Patre, qui
nunguam dest esse cum Patre. Incarnatus est enim ex
Spiritu Sancto et sancta gloriosa Dei genetrice uirgine
Maria, et natus ex ipsa, solus autem Dominus Iesus

1T owe this suggestion to Prof. J, A. Robinson.

154 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

Christus; unus de sancta Trinitate, anima et carne
(33.) perfectum, sine peccato, suscipiens hominem manens quod
31. erat assumens quod non erat: MQUALIS PATRI SECUNDUM
DIUINITATEM, MINOR PATRE SECUNDUM HUMANITATEM ;
habens in una persona duarum naturarum proprietates ;
35. nature enim in illo due, DEUS ET HOMO, non autem duo
Fili et Dei duo, sed idem una persona in utraque
36. natura, preferens passionem et mortem PRO SALUTE
NOSTRA: non in uirtute diuinitatis sed infirmitate
humanitatis. DESCENDIT AD INFEROS, ut sanctos qui
101 tenebantur erueret: deutctogue mortis imperio re-
37. surrecit, assumptus deinde in celum UENTURUS est in
futurum ad iudicium uiuorum et mortuorum: cuius
nos morte et sanguine mundati remissionem peccatorum
consecuti sumus, resuscitand: ab eo in die nowissimo, in ea
qua nune uiuimus carne et in ea qua resurrexit idem
(39.) Dominus forma, percepturi αὖ ipso alii pro iustitic meritis
witam eeternam, alii pro peccatis supplicii eterni senten-
40. tiam. Hac Est catholice ecclesie FIDES; hance confes-
sionem conseruamus atque tenemus: QUAM QUISquis
FIRMissime custodierit perpetuam salutem habebit.”

It will be noticed that the clauses of the Quicunque are
quoted in their proper sequence of numbers. We cannot
argue as to the form of text beyond what is quoted, but it
is obvious that it contained both parts. We can account
for the apparent omission of clause 33, with the charac-
teristic phrase asswmpsit humanitatem: the phrase of the
“Creed of Damasus,” which is also the phrase of the 76
Deum, was preferred, suscipiens hominem.

The only argument which has been brought forward
against this series of quotations, to prove that they are mere
coincidences of diction, is the argument from the silence of
Isidore, Archbishop of Seville, who presided over this Council.
He wrote a book On the Offices of the Church, in which,
especially in the section On the Rule of Faith, Swainson!
searched in vain for quotations of the Quicungue, concluding

1P, 235,

ee ae αν δ... :

".-.ν.1: λα σὰν ΦᾺΣ,

CANONS OF TOLEDO AND AUTUN 155

“that it was not known to him, or, if known, it had no
authority.” Loofs+ also thinks that it is perhaps more prob-
able that the Toledan Councils did not use the Quicunque
than the opposite. He argues that a reference to the Qu-
cungue uult saluus esse would have had a stronger effect than
Isidore’s efforts to state in his own words what, according
to tradition, was “the most certain faith after the Apostles’
Creed.” 3
“ Heee est autem post apostolorum symbolum certissima
fides, . . . ut profiteamur Patrem et Filium et Spiritum
Sanctum unius essentiz, eiusdem potestatis et sempiternitatis
. Patrem quoque confiteri ingenitum, Filium genitum,
Spiritum Sanctum uero nec genitum nec ingenitum, sed de
Patre et Filio procedentem. . . . Ipsum quoque Filium per-
fectum ex uirgine sine peccato hominem suscepisse. ... Et
quod diuinam humanamque substantiam, in utraque perfectus,
una Christus persona gestauerit. . . . Hee est Catholic
traditionis fidei uera integritas de qua si unum quodlibet
respuatur, tota fidei credulitas amittitur.” 5
It is obvious from this passage that Isidore wished to
restate the substance of the general belief in his own words.
A good illustration of the way in which similar theological
statements have been borrowed and adapted to express faith
in the Trinity and the incarnation may be taken from the
first of our Thirty-nine Articles:

De Fide in Sacrosanctam Trinitatem
“Unus est uiuus et uerus Deus, eternus, incorporeus, im-
partibilis impassibilis immense potenti, sapientie ac bonitatis :
creator et conseruator omnium tum wisibilium tum inuisibilium.
Kt in unitate huius diuine nature tres sunt persone, etusdem
essentie potentic ac eternitatis, Pater Filius et Spiritus Sanctus.”

The words in italics are quoted in the first Article of the
Confession of Augsburg, in which the latter sentence runs as
follows: “Et tamen tres sint persone eiusdem essentiz
potenti et costerne Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus.”

1 R.E.* art. ““ Athanasianum,” p. 192; cf. 189.
? De Eccles. Offic. ii, 24, M.S.L. 88, 817,

156 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

We see in these Articles how theologians of another age
have tried to condense a summary of their faith exactly as
Isidore and his contemporaries desired to do. We note that
in one Article two reminiscences of the Quicunque, et tamen
(used conversely to emphasise the Trinity) and coeterne, have
dropped out. Yet it would be absurd to argue that they did
not know and did not value that creed.

Is it not just as absurd to argue from Isidore’s silence, in
his own private teaching on the Rule of Faith, that he was
ignorant of a creed manifestly quoted by the Council over
which he presided ?

(11.) The Canon of Autun.—The famous Canon of Autun
was passed by a Synod held at Autun, under Bishop Leodgar,
some time between 663 and 680. It is usual to date it in a
round number, 670. The earliest collection in which it is
found is called the Collection of Angers, and was made at the
beginning of the eighth century. Three out of the seven
MSS. extant contain, in addition to disciplinary canons, a
Canon on the Faith, which is called the first (hira prima). It
seems reasonable to suppose that it was made at the same
time, and that there has been some mistake in the numbering
of the disciplinary canons which follow, and which are
numbered from 1. The MSS. are as follows :—

P—Cod. lat. Paris. 1603, fol. 11, see. ix.
E—Cod. Phillippsit nunc Berolinensis, 1763, fol. 3, seec. 1χ.}
X—Cod. Vindob. 2171, fol. 1", sec. ix.

CANONES AGUSTODINENSIS HIRA PRIMA (a)

“Si quis presbyter aut diaconus subdiaconus (0) cleri-
cus (6) symbolum (4) quod Sancto inspirante (6) Spiritu apos-
toli tradiderunt, et fidem sancti Athanasii (7) presulis (0)
irreprehensibiliter (2) non recensuerit (7) ab episcopo con-
damnetur (x).”

(a) Agustodinensis, P; Agustudunensis, X. (0) om. subdiaconus, E. (c)
clericus, pr. aut, E. (d) symbulum, P*. (6) inspirante 8. supra lin. Ῥ, (7)

1 My collations of E and X are taken from Mon. Germ, Hist., Legum sectio
iii.; Cone. tom. i. p. 220.

THE TREVES FRAGMENT 157

Athanasi, P. (g) presolis, P*, u. supra lin. Ῥ corr. (h) inr—, P. (Ὁ) recen-
siuerit, P. (k) condempnetur, X.

The only real difficulty connected with the Canon les in
the question whether the Faith referred to was the Quicunque
or some other, eg. the Fides Romanorum, which Ratramn of
Corbey quoted, as he quoted the Quzcungue under the title
Tibellus de Fide Athanasit. Hinemar also, following Ratramn,
ascribed the Fides Romanorum to Athanasius. But there is
not a single MS. in which it is so described, independent of
the work of Vigilius of Thapsus On the Trinity, through
which Ratramn and Hinemar came to ascribe it to Athan-
asius. On the other hand, there are at least twenty MSS. of
the ninth century which describe the Quicunque as the Faith
of Athanasius, and prove that it had obtained that title by
common consent.

δ III. ΤῊΣ Trives FRAGMENT

The Treves fragment is part of a sermon in which clauses
27’-40 of the Quicunque (with the exception of clause 35)
have been incorporated. It is found in a MS. in Paris (B.N.
Cod. lat. 3836), which contains the S. Blasien Collection of
Canons. The MS. is of the eighth century, and is written in
Lombardic characters. The scribe seems to have been a
travelled man who had visited Rome, for he gives a list of
books of Scripture which were read in the Church of ΒΚ.
Peter. He uses the fragment, which he says he found at
Tréves, to illustrate the Definition of Faith of the Council of
Chalcedon. He does not appear to know the Quicunque, for
he uses the first words of the fragment as a title. Such
ignorance on the part of an Italian scribe is not surprising.
The use of the creed was as yet confined to Gaul. All trace
of the original fragment has been lost. Tréves was sacked
by the Normans in 882, and it probably perished. The
present librarian of the town, Herr M. Keuffer, has only been
able to find one MS., a copy of Prosper, written in a similar
hand, c. 719.

158 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

Cod. lat. 3856, ἢ 89. :—

“HAC INVINI TREVERIS IN UNO LIBRO SCRIPTUM SIC INCIPIENTE
27. DoMINI NOSTRI IHESU CHRISTI, ET RELIQUA. DOMINI NOSTRI
28. IHESU CHRISTI FIDELITER CREDAT. st ergo fides recta ut
credamus et confitemur quia dominus ihesus christus dei
29. filius deus pariter et homo est. deus est de substantia
patris ante szcula genitus, e¢ homo de substantia matris in
30. seculo natus. perfectus deus perfectus homo ex anima
31. rationabili et humana carne subsistens. squalis patri
secundum diuinitatem minor patri secundum humani-
32. tatem. qui licet deus sit homo non duo tamen sed unus est
33. christus. unus autem non ex 60 quod sit in carne conuersa
diuinitas, sed quia est in deo adsumpta dignanter humanitas.
34. unus Christus est non confusione substantize sed unitatem
36. persone qui secundum’ jfidem nostram passus et mortuos
37. ad inferna discendens, et die tertia resurrexit, adque ad celos
ascendit, ad dexteram dei patris sedet, sicut wobis in
simbulo tradutum est; Inde ad iudicandos uiuos et mortuos
38. credimus (f. 8 97) οὐ speramus eum esse uenturum. ad cuius
aduentum evwnt omnes homines sine dubio wm suis corporibus
39. resurrecturt et reddituri de factis propriis rationem, wf
qui bona egerunt eant in uitam eternam, qui mala in
40. ignem eternum. Hec est fides sanecta et catholica,
quam omnes homo qui ad wtam eternam peruenire desid-
erat scire integra debet, et fideliter custodire.”

We have here about a third of the creed, and it is possible
that the other two-thirds were contained on the preceding
page of the original Tréves MS., particularly since the frag-
ment begins in the middle of a sentence. The variations
from the usual text, which I have italicised, are all easy to
explain, on the supposition that they represent free quotation,
and not a first draft, which was afterwards polished. The
preacher turns the precise antithesis of clause 33 into flowing
relatival sentences. He adds from his Baptismal Creed, et
mortuus and die tertia. He alters the form of clause 370,

1In the MS. the ὦ of secundum has been erased, and a second m in humana.

THE TREVES FRAGMENT 159

and of 38, altering “ resurgere habent ” into “ erunt resurrec-
turi,” naturally enough in parallelism to “ reddituri,’ and
weights his phrase with “sine dubio.” The use of “habeo”
with the infinitive for the synthetic future has been much
discussed. It was often used in African Latin from the third
century, and by Gallican writers in the fifth, so that it does
not disprove the early date of a text containing it. A more
important fact is the omission of clause 35, which seems to
have been intentional, and to have led to a slight alteration
of clause 36, where “omnino” is omitted, and “ Christus est”
is supplied in clause 34 from the omitted clause as antecedent
to the relative “qui.” The reason of the omission is not far to
seek. The illustration from the constitution of man, in clause
35, was misused by the Eutychians, and came therefore to be
regarded with disfavour by Catholic writers. The preacher
probably omitted it for thisreason. If we suppose the sermon
to be some fifty or sixty years older than the date when the
fragment was copied at Tréves, we are brought to a date at
which Eutychianism was widely prevalent. Heurtley* has
shown that “ Bede mentions this [heresy] as the occasion of
the assembling of the great Synod of Hethfield [in 680], and
mentions it in such terms as to imply that it was one of the
pressing dangers of the day to which the Church generally—
not merely the English branch of it—was exposed.” The
danger was of long continuance. More than a century earlier,
Nicetus, Archbishop of Treves 527-566, wrote a letter
remonstrating with Justinian on his lapse into a form of
EKutychianism. He bade him remember his baptismal vow:
“Unum Filium manentem in duabus substantiis cum Patre et
Spiritu Sancto non duos Christos testatus es ... talis Pater
qualis et Filius.”? There is another parallel to the wording
of the Qutewngue in his letter to Queen Chlodosinda on her
husband’s Arianism: “ In die resurrectionis nec manere nec
apparere potuit qui Trinitatem in Unitate non crediderit.”

It is possible that we have in the Tréves Fragment a
sermon of Nicetus. He was a friend of Venantius Fortunatus,
and was brought into touch with the school of Lerins through

1 Hist. Earlier Form. 1892, p. 126. 2 Galland, iii. 776.

160 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

a friend Florianus, Abbot of Romanus (diocese of Milan), a
pupil of Cesarius. Indeed, he quotes Germanus, Hilary, and
Lupus in his letter to the queen.

& IV. Or Eragutu AND NINTH CENTURY QUOTATIONS

The most important of the eighth century testimonies to
the creed is a Libellus de Trinitate found by Caspari in a
Milan MS., which formerly belonged to Bobbio (Cod. Ambros.
D. 268 inf. see. vill, ix.). It contains, both in form and
words, reminiscences of the Quicunque, since it combines teach-
ing on the Trinity with teaching on the Incarnation.

Another testimony belonging to this period, or an earlier,
is Ps.-Gennadius, de Fide, which contains a form of creed
parallel in form to the Quwiewnque, and such sentences as
the following: “Spiritum Sanctum dicimus et credimus eo,
quod est ex Patre et Filio equaliter procedens, non factus
nec creatus nec genitus, sed costernus et cozqualis per
omnia Patri et Filio. Hane uero Trinitatem, id est Patrem
et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum, non tres Deos sed unum esse
Deum certissime confitemur. ... non tamen tres dii, sed
unus Deus.”

A sermon, which I have found in a MS. at Munich (Cod.
lat. 14,508, sec. x.), and published in the Zertschrift fiir
Kirchengeschichte, July 1898, contains a form of R, and is
therefore probably older than the ninth century, when R
had been superseded almost universally by our Teztus
receptus. It appears to quote the Quicungue as follows:
“Sicut aliquis auctor dixit Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus et
Spiritus Sanctus.”

Another such testimony is in a sermon, which 1 found
at 5. Gallen (Cod. 230, sec. ix. in.). After a quotation
from the Fortunatus Commentary follows: “In hac Trinitate
unum Deum colimus et adoramus et confitemur, nihil prius
aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus, sed tote tres person
coeterne sibi sunt et coequales. Quia semper fuit Spiritus
Sanctus in una diuinitate, cequalis gloria, cozterna maiestas.”
That this is more than a quotation from a shortened form of

EIGHTH—NINTH CENTURY QUOTATIONS 161

text found in the Fortunatus Commentary, is proved by the
fact that the whole of clause 24 is here quoted, only half of
which appears in that Commentary.

In Cod. Sessorian. 52 (see p. 232 wmfra), Morin? has
found a very interesting profession of faith, such as was
made by bishops at their consecration. The collection in
which it is found was made in the ninth century, and it
follows a sermon containing R, so we are fairly justified in
assigning it to the eighth century, and in comparing it with
the Profession of Denebert (p. 175 infra), made in 798.
The last words, seculwm per ignem, are a quotation from the
form in which the Fides Romanorum appears in the Cesta
Inberit (p. 215 infra):

“Fides autem catholica quam me secundum sanctorum patrum
doctrinam retinere profiteor ac firmiter credere, hec est. Confiteor
itaque sanctam perfectam ueramque Trinitatem, id est Patrem et Filium
et Spiritum Sanctum unum esse Deum omnium uisibilium et inuisibilium
conditorem ; propter inseparabilem substantiam deitatis Unitatem, propter
distinctionem uero personarum Trinitatem ueneramur. Neque personas
confundimus nec substantium separamus. Alia est enim persona Patris,
alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti. Sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti una
est diuinitas, equalis gloria, coseterna maiestas. Pater Deus, Filius
Deus, Spiritus Sanctus Deus. Non tamen tres Dii sed unus est Deus.
Idcirco in personis discretio est sed in diuinitate nulla distinctio. Pater
a nullo est factus nec creatus nec genitus. Filius a Patre solo non
factus nec creatus sed absque initio genitus. Spiritus autem Sanctus non
factus nec creatus nec genitus sed ex Patre Filioque procedens est. Pater
enim proprie Pater est et non est Filius. Filius uero proprie Filius est
et non est Pater. Spiritus autem Sanctus proprie Spiritus Sanctus est
et non est Pater uel Filius. Pater quidem semper est et erat et erit et
nunquam fuit Pater siue Filio, uel Filius sine Pater, nec Spiritus
Sanctus sine Patre uel Filio. In hac autem sancta Trinitate nihil prius
aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus, sed tote tres persone costernz
sibi sunt et cozquales. Omnis namque sancta Trinitas, inuisibilis,
incorporalis, impalpabilis, infinita, immensa, sempiterna credenda est.
De hac autem ineffabili Trinitate sola Uerbi Dei persona, id est Dominus
noster Iesus Christus Dei Filius in ultimis diebus propter nos redimendos
descendit de clis, unde nunquam recesserat. Incarnatus est de Spiritu
Sancto et Maria uirgine. Natus ex ipsa solus et homo uerus factus per
omnia similis nobis absque peccato. Uerusque permanet Deus equalis

1 Rev, Bén. 1897, p. 487.
I!

162 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

Patri in diuina natura, minor Patre in humana. Perfectus Deus
secundum diuinitatem, perfectus homo secundum humanitatem. Qui
licet Deus sit et homo non duo tamen sed in utraque natura, diuina
scilicet et humana, unus uerus et proprius est Dei Filius Dominus noster
Iesus Christus. In diuina ergo natura in qua Deus noster impassibilis
est et immutabilis est. Sed in humana substantia quam assumpsit ex
uirgine dignatus est pati pro nobis, crucifigi, sepeliri, et die tertia
resurgere et cum eadem glorificata carne ad clos ascendit, sedetque
nunc ad dexteram Patris cum qua etiam uenturus est iudicare uiuos et
mortuos et seculum per ignem. Amen.”

Another document, which may be assigned to this date,
is a sermon de fide, found among the works of Boniface,
Archbishop of Mainz (f. 755). It contains the following
parallels: ‘“ Necessarium est patres carissimi ... fidem
rectam et catholicam siue dubitatione firmiter tenere ...
Ista est fides catholica, ut credamus in unum Deum Patrem
omnipotentem ... Filium Spiritum Sanctum ex Patre
procedentem et Filio... Pater eternus, Filius eternus,
Spiritus Sanctus eternus ... sicut Christus tertia die
resurrexit a mortuis sic omnes homines boni et mali in
nouissime die cum propriis corporibus resurgere debent.” *

§ V. THE EARLY COMMENTARIES

An important argument, to prove the existence of the
entire text of the Quicungue in the eighth century or
earlier, may be founded on the early commentaries, and is
independent of others. There are some seven which come
into consideration here. Four of them (Bouhier, Oratorian,
Paris, Troyes) have been published by Ommanney,? who has
made this subject specially his own, and for whose work as a
pioneer all students must be grateful. The others (Orleans,
Stavelot, Fortunatus) I have edited (in part from new MSS.)
in my book on The Athanasian Creed and its Commen-
taries.® ΑΒ I shall quote the readings of the texts of the
creed embedded in them in my apparatus eriticus, it will

1 Kd. Giles, Oxford, 1844. * Karly History, pp. 1-39, 311-886.
3 Texts and Studies, iv. 1.

THE EARLY COMMENTARIES 163

suffice here to give a short summary of the facts known
about each :—

1. The Orleans Commentary.—The Orleans Commentary !
has been found by Cuissard in a MS. (No. 94) which
formerly belonged to the Abbey of Fleury, with some scraps
of Theodulf's treatise against Adoptianism, and an exposition
of the Mass. It is probably the MS. which the authors of
the Histoire Lntiéraire de la France*® found at Fleury with
such a commentary on the first page. But it seems very
doubtful whether they were right in ascribing it to Theodulf,
as Cuissard has also done. It does not exhibit the learning
shown in Theodulf’s known writings. No doubt the copyist
is to blame for many clerical errors and grammatical mis-
takes, but the laboured explanations and the loose use of
terms like “percipere,” “apprehendere,’ “accipere,” are
unworthy of the author of the De Ordine Baptismi, and his
use of “suscipere,” “assumere (humanitatem).” The quota-
tions from the Gospels show no dependence on the Theo-
dulfian recension of the Vulgate. The author quotes from
other commentaries—Fortunatus, Troyes, Stavelot, Paris—
but does not improve their sentences by alterations. Lastly,
the title Hxplanatio Fidei Catholice does not agree with the
title given to the Commentary of Theodulf in the list of the
Abbots of Fleury, Eepl. Symbolt s. Athanasti, which is the
title used in his book, De Spiritu Saneto.

2. The Stavelut Commentary—The Stavelot Commentary
is the original text of a commentary widely popular in the
Middle Ages, and usually connected with the name of Bishop
Bruno of Wiirzburg, who edited it in the eleventh century.
The earliest MS. (B.M., Add. MSS. 18,043) of the tenth
century comes from Stavelot Abbey, in the Forest of Ardennes,
It is a glossed Psalter from the school of Notker, a teacher
from S. Gall, whom Abbot Odilo summoned to help him
when he restored the abbey after the Norman invasion. The
internal evidence points to the ninth century as the date of
its composition. The wording of the note on clause 27, “Non
adoptiuum sed proprium Dei Filium,” corresponds with the

1 Théodulfe LBvéque d’ Orléans, Orléans, 1892. ἵν, 478.

164 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

wording of the letter of the Council of Frankfort. Perhaps
it is one of the commentaries referred to by the synod held
in the Diocese of Liege, c. 840--8 ὅδ, in their second canon:
“Fidem enim §S. Athanasii episcopi in hoc opere censuimus
obseruandum, et simbolum apostolorum cum tradicionibus et
exposicionibus sanctorum patrum in his sermonibus.” Stavelot
was attached to Liége from the ninth century. It has been
suggested! that this is the missing commentary of Theodulf,
but there is nothing to connect any of the MSS. with Fleury,
or the text with Theodulf. The subject-matter is well thought
out, and, together with the Fortunatus and Oratorian Com-
mentaries, it was used as the foundation of several composite
commentaries. One of these, under the name of the hermit,
Rolle of Hampole, was widely used in England in the four-
teenth century.”

3. The Paris Commentary.—The Paris Commentary is
found in a MS. of the tenth century (B.N., Paris, Cod. lat.
1012) from the Abbey of S. Martial at Limoges. Some
portions of it are found also in a Psalter of the tenth century,
now in the British Museum (Reg. 2 B. v.), though the latter
show traces of polish. It contains quotations from Gregory
the Great and Gennadius, but no definite evidence as to the
date of its composition. The readings in the Paris MS. are
old, but this only proves that the author used the older text,
omitting the second half of clause 4, and paraphrasing clause
27.

4, The Bouhier Commentary.—The Bouhier Commentary is
found in some four MSS., the earliest of which is of the tenth
century (Troyes, 1979), and belonged formerly to the Bouhier
familyof Dijon. The other MSS. also seem to have been written
in France. The text of the creed cited in it shows late readings,
and I cannot assign to it an earlier date than the beginning
of the ninth century. It is mainly founded on the Oratorian
Commentary, and was constructed with some literary skill.
The personal statements of the preface are omitted or changed,

1Ommanney, Diss. Ὁ. 211.
2 Another form of the commentary is found in a Psalter at Boulogne (Cod.
20) from the Abbey of S. Bertin at S. Omer, written c. 1000.

THE EARLY COMMENTARIES 165

eg. “in ueteribus codicibus inuenitur pretitulatum ” for “eum
uidi pret. etiam in uet. cod.”

5. The Oratorian Commentary.—The Oratorian Com-
mentary is by far the most learned, if not the most original,
of all the early commentaries. At present there are only two
MSS.! known. The earliest, Cod. Vat. Reg. 231, see. ix., x.,
contains works of Cassiodorus, Prosper, Alcuin, Isidore, with
expositions of the Lord’s Prayer and Apostles’ Creed. The
other, Troyes, 804, 5:0. x., contains works of Theodulf, the
Creed of Pelagius, Augustine on the Lord’s Prayer and
Apostles’ Creed, followed by two other expositions of that
creed and another of the Quicunqgue, to which I shall refer
again as the Troyes Commentary. The Vatican MS. only
contains a preface, which reappears in a condensed form in
all MSS. of the Bouhier Commentary. The writer, apparently
addressing a synod, states that he has carried out their
instructions to provide an exposition of this work on the
Faith, “which is here and there (passim) recited in our churches,
and continually made the subject of meditation by our priests.”
He complains of the ignorance prevailing among the clergy,
of the difficulty which they find in getting books for their
sacred offices—a Psalter, or a Lectionary, or a Missal.
“Since some have no desire to read or learn, it is the will of
the synod that at least they should be compelled to meditate
on this exposition of the Faith ” which he has illustrated from
the Fathers. Ignorance of God in a priest should be ac-
counted sacrilege, like blasphemy ina layman. He goes on
to speak of the tradition that this work had been composed
by the blessed Athanasius,” Bishop of the Alexandrian Church,
“for I have always seen it entitled thus, even in old MSS.”
He had come to the conclusion that it was composed to meet
the Arian heresy. The exposition contains extracts from
Augustine, Prosper, Leo, the translation by Dionysius Exiguus
of Cyril’s Synodical Epistle, Fulgentius, Pelagius 1, Vigilius
of Thapsus, the Creed of Pelagius, and the Definition of the
Sixth General Council (681).

‘A third MS., mentioned by Swainson, p. 379, as Turin Ixvi. see. xiii,
contains a composite text in which notes from the Stavelot Com, are added.

166 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

From this last extract Ommanney concluded that the
commentary was written while some fear of Monothelitism,
the heresy condemned by that Council, still existed, ze. about
the end of the seventh century.1. But there is no other
such reference, and the words of the Definition are quoted
rather as a statement of positive truth than a weapon against
error. We may note, however, that there is very distinct
emphasis laid on the Lord’s unity of person, as if in fear of
a revived Nestorianism. The phrase, singularitas persone,
found useful by Vincentius to define the wnitas persone, is
quoted again and again, as in the Troyes Commentary. No
doubt it is found in uncontroversial passages, 6... the Gelasian
Sacramentary, “unus es Deus, unus es Dominus, non in unius
singularitate persone.”* But the question is not so much of
the phrase as of its use. It seems to me to point to the
Adoptianist period, and to confirm Swainson’s suggestion that
this might be the lost commentary of Theodulf.

The whole tone of the preface is worthy of Theodulf, and
the situation is exactly that which he found in his diocese at
the beginning of the Carlovingian revival of learning. The
same series of authors are quoted in his book On the Holy
Spirit, in which he speaks of the Symbolum Athanasii3 Is it
fanciful to connect the remarks on clerical ignorance with a
canon of the Sixth Council of Toledo, “Ignorantia mater
cunctorum errorum maxime in sacerdotibus Dei uitanda est,”
which the author of the preface would know in his copy of
Dionysius Exiguus, and with the fact that Theodulf was of
Spanish extraction ?

The Vatican MS. belongs to Queen Christina’s collection,
and came probably from Fleury. The Troyes MS. may be
connected with Fleury, both by the fact that it contains works
of Theodulf and through the Troyes Commentary, which is
quoted by the Orleans Commentary itself in a Fleury MS,

1 Diss. p. 189.

* Ed. Wilson. I owe this reference to Dr. Mercati’s review of my book,
Revista Bibliog., 1896, p. 149, but disagree with his argument.

* The title given to his Commentary in the catalogue of the Abbots of Fleury

was Huplanatio symbolis Athanasii. The Vatican MS. of the Commentary has
no title, but is preceded by Hxplanatio sy nboli Apostolict.

THE EARLY COMMENTARIES 167

Besides its use with the Stavelot Commentary, in Rolle of
Hampole’s edition, it was also combined with other notes in
a Commentary found in an Oxford MS. (Bodleian ΡΤ
Cod. Canonict Bibl. 30).

6. The Troyes Commentary.—The Troyes Commentary pre-
cedes the Oratorian in the Troyes MS. (Cod. 804) of the
tenth century. It is based in the first part on the Fortunatus
Commentary, but in the second deviates from it widely. The
author deals fairly with the text of the creed.

The date is not easy to determine. Ommanney notes
“the entire omission of the terminology of the Preedestinarian
and Adoptianist controversies,” and “ the distinct employment
of that in use when Monothelitism was the great subject of
discussion,” and would date it from the middle of the seventh
century.

We do not find any precise technical terms such as “ non
adoptiuus,” but it seems to me that there are several indica-
tions of opposition to Adoptianism, which would bring the
earliest possible date down to the end of the eighth century.
“Felix of Urgel was at one with his orthodox opponents in
admitting the whole doctrine of the two natures and two
wills. But he spoke of our Lord in His human nature as
Adopted Son, and therefore incurred the suspicion of intro-
ducing a double personality. This danger would account for
the strong assertion in clause 33 of the singularity of His
person, and a more emphatic condemnation of Nestorianism
than is found in Fortunatus. Felix also held that our Lord
assumed human nature in the state to which Adam’s fall
reduced it, not indeed as tainted by original sin, but as
subject to mortality and other consequences of sin, a view
which is clearly condemned in the note on clause 30: “ Per-
fectum hominem absque peccato de uirgine suscipere dignatus
est, ut per eandem naturam, que in paradiso decepta mortem
incurrerat, rursum eundem diabolum non potentia diuinitatis
sed ratione iustitiee uincerit.”

“ As the process of adoption was not held to be completed
till the resurrection, the emphatic iteration in this and the

1 ELH. p. 33; Diss. p. 187.

“168 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

Stavelot Commentary (as in the ninth century recensions of
the Fides Romanorum and the Fortunatus Commentary), that
the Lord rose in the same flesh in which He died, may be
supposed to guard against Adoptianist error. Paulinus made
the same point in his speech at the Council of Friuli.”?

“ Another hint of the date is found in the reference to the
genealogy in S. Matthew’s Gospel, which was distinguished by
Felix from that recorded by S. Luke as giving Christ’s descent
according to the flesh, while 8. Luke gave the descent ac-
cording to the spirit? The commentary confutes this view,
by pointing to the true contrast between the Divine genera-
tion and the fleshly, just as Paulinus, in the speech to which
I have referred, contrasts the human birth in time with the
Divine birth, irrespective of time.” On these grounds we may
assign the Commentary to the period when Adoptianism was
an active heresy, c. 780-820.

7. The Fortunatus Commentary.—The Fortunatus Com-
mentary is the earliest known, and must be allowed to take
an important place in the argument for determining the date
and earliest text of the creed. Waterland was only
acquainted with two MSS., but we now hear of some twenty,
nine of which at least belong to the ninth century.

By a curious clue I have been able to find and identify
the lost S. Gall. MS., known hitherto only through the
editions of Goldast in his Manuale Biblicum, Frankfurt, 1610,
and of Card. Pitra in his <Analecta sacra et classica. Having
looked for it in vain at 8S. Gallen and Frankfurt, I went to
Leiden to see Goldast’s MS. copy, which had drifted thither
in the collection of MSS. formed by the celebrated Voss.
Finding in it no clue, I was turning over the pages of a
written catalogue of MSS., when I came on a note, to the
effect that certain Latin verses had been found in a MS. at
Ziirich (Cod, Misc. c. 78, sec. ix.), which formerly belonged
to S. Gallen. I recognised them at once as having been
printed by Goldast from the lost MS. Through the kind
offices of the librarian, Dr. Fih, the MS. was sent to ὃ
Gallen for inspection. There could be no doubt as to the

1 Ath. Creed, p. lv. f. * Dorner, Hist, Person of Christ, ii. p. 256.

i ah aed Soe
eee gs F071

THE EARLY COMMENTARIES 169

identification. But, alas! there was no trace of the name
Euphronius, which Goldast had invented as the name of the
author. The title was simply Lxpositio Fidei Catholice, to
which Goldast had added in the margin, Athanasit usque hue.
It would seem that anonymous treatises did not interest his
reading public. One can appreciate the caustic complaint in
the catalogue of MSS. at 8S. Gallen, that by giving false
names to documents he has wrought confusion, but that it is
hard to prove this, because the MSS. which he possessed,
lawfully or unlawfully, are scattered over the world.?

Besides these ninth century MSS. of the full Commentary,
we have also a ninth century MS. of an adaptation of the
Commentary in the margin of a Psalter (Cod. Sangall. 27).?
This, at any rate, would seem to throw back the archetype of
all these MSS. at least as far as the eighth century.

The internal evidence points back to an earlier date.
Apollinarianism is the latest heresy mentioned by name.
Eutychianism, which revived in the sixth and _ seventh
centuries, is ignored, and only a mild warning is given against
the error of Nestorius: “Ne propter adsumptionem humans
carnis dicatur esse quaternitas, quod absit a fidelium cordibus
uel sensibus dici aut cogitari.” “There is no reference to the
Procession controversy of the eighth century, nor to the
Monothelete controversy, which, in the seventh century, was
a struggle for life or death.” On the other hand, Sabellius,
Arius, and Apollinaris are in turn branded as false teachers,
and the warnings which the Quicunque contains against their
errors are noted.* These facts incline us to suppose that the
Commentary was written not long after the creed itself, since
many sentences afforded, as we have seen in the case of other
commentaries, the opportunity of saying something about

1 This discovery confirms my argument, The Ath. Creed, p. Ixxi., that the
lost MS. was not to be identified with Cod. Sangall, 241, as Pitra
suggests,

2 The adaptation is also found in Cod, Jat. Monacensis, 8729 sec. x., and
C.L. M., 14,501, sec. xii. I have described it fully on p. 1x. of my book, The
Ath. Creed,

3 In the Troyes Commentary founded on this, apparently when the Adoptian-
ists had revived his heresy, Nestorius is mentioned by name.

170 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

later controversies. Kattenbusch* urges with some force,
that expositions of a creed tend to stop in their review of
heresies with the latest heresy opposed therein, whether they
were written a long or a short time after. This argument is
not always borne out by the facts, eg. the references to
other heresies in the Oratorian and Bouhier Commentaries.

“ Another indication of time has been found in the note
on clause 29, ‘In seculo, id est in isto sexto miliario in quo
nune sumus. This ‘sixth milliary’ must mean the sixth
period of a thousand years from the creation, with the close
of which men expected the end of the world.” During the
fifth century the dread of barbarian invasion, with gloomy
forebodings of disaster to the Roman arms, led to anxious
anticipations of the last judgment. S. Augustine, while he
taught that the exact date of the Second Advent must
remain unknown, believed that the last years of the sixth
milliary were passing. Speaking of the binding of Satan, in
his book On the City of God (413-426), he says, xx. 7: “ Aut
quia in ultimis annis mille ista res agitur, id est, sexto
annorum miliario, tanquam sexto die, cuius nunc spatia
posteriora uoluuntur.”? He seems to have used the chrono-
logical system of Julius Africanus, according to which Christ
was born in the year 5500 from the creation of the world.
Thus the “sixth milliary” would end in A.D. 499.2 In the
fourth century, Eusebius of Czesarea, while accepting most of
the conclusions of his predecessor, found reason to postpone
the date three hundred years, bringing it to aD. 799.
Since my discovery of Goldast’s literary dishonesty, and the
consequent collapse of speculations as to another Euphronius,
I cannot contend for so early a date as the fifth century,
and must therefore suppose that the author used the Eusebian
chronology.* He does not suggest that the close of the

1 Theol. Ltz., 1897, see p. 147. 2 Cf, Sulpicius Severus, Hist. ii.

5 Epiphanius seems to have made an independent calculation, which would
bring it to a.p. 478.

4 This system was used by Bede, de Temporibus, ο. 22, and in Paris, B.N.,
Cod. lat. 1451, written c. 796; cf. the chronological notes in Cod. Wirceburg,
M.P., th. f. 28, fol. 68, sec. viii., and Cod. Bodl. 6. Mus. 118 (olim. 94), fol.
114¥ and 115, sec. vii. I owe the latter references to Dom. Morin.

THE EARLY COMMENTARIES _ 171

milliary was at hand. We may fairly conclude that he
wrote at least a century before the date 799.

We have yet to consider the abridged form of text found
in this Commentary, and may compare it with that found in
the Troyes Commentary. Both omit clauses 2, 12, 20-22,
26, 27; Fortunatus alone omits also clauses 14, 24.2 As
regards clauses 12, 14, the leading ideas, “ uncreate, incom-
prehensible, omnipotent,” have been explained with reference
to clauses 8, 9, 13; and it does not fall within the scope of
the author’s argument to enlarge on the guarding clauses.
There is no term in clauses 26, 27, which appears by analogy
to need explanation. The author of the recension in Cod.
Sangall. 27 inserts a new note on clause 2, as on clause
20—22, but he does not find it necessary to explain any of
the terms in clause 2. It forms properly one sentence with
clause 1, and was probably so regarded by the author of the
Commentary. But when the creed was inserted in Psalters,
and its clauses were pointed for singing as a canticle, it was
detached from clause 1. This seems to have led the author
of the recension to say something about it. As to clauses
20—22, the latter portions of which are found in the note on
clause 5, it may be argued that he had already explained the
terms gignens, genitus, procedens, and found nothing more to say.
The author of the recension has nothing of importance to add.

As to authorship, we are once again dependent on the
Milan MS. 79, see. xi., which ascribes the exposition to a
Fortunatus. He has not unreasonably been identified with
Venantius Fortunatus, some time Bishop of Poitiers, and a
friend of Gregory of Tours, whose exposition of the Apostles’
Creed is contained in this MS. at fol. 26 νυ. Waterland
traced in the two commentaries “great similitude of style,
thought, and expressions,” and found in his poems phrases
which seemed like poetical renderings of phrases in the
Quicunque. “But the biographer of Fortunatus does not
include such a commentary among his works ; and the special
case, founded on mere similitude of style and scraps of poetry,
is much weaker than Waterland’s sound general conclusion,
that “the tenour of the whole comment, and the simplicity

172 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

of the style and thoughts, are very suitable to that age, and
more so than to the times following.”

Thus it appears that the text embedded in these com-
mentaries is simply an abridged form of the ordinary text
current in MSS. of the eighth century.!

§ VI. Riva, THEORIES OF ORIGIN

1. Lhe Two-Portion Theory.—At this point it will be con-
venient to discuss a theory of the origin of the Quicunque
which was first put forward by Swainson. From the sugges-
tion that the Tréves fragment contains the earliest version of
the part relating to the incarnation, he was led on to the
conclusion that the Profession of Denebert, containing clauses
1, 3-6, 20-22, 24 f, and this Tréves fragment (clauses 28-40)
represent the component parts of the creed in their earliest
form. He argued that they were not brought together
and moulded into their present form till the ninth century, and
that the final shaping took place in the diocese of Rheims
between the years 860-870.

He was followed by Lumby,” who stated the case succinctly
as follows: “(i.) Before A.p. 809, there is no trustworthy
evidence of any confession called by the name of S. Athan-
asius. (il.) Before that date two separate compositions existed,
which form the groundwork of the present Quicungue. (111.)
That for some time after that date all quotations are made
only from the former of these compositions. (iv.) That the
Quicungue was not known down to A.D. 813, to those who
were most likely to have heard of it, had it been in existence.
(v.) That it is found nearly as we use it in A.D. 870. (vi) A
comparison of the various MSS. shows that after the combina-
tion of the two parts, the text was for some time in an unsettled
or transition state. On every ground, therefore, both of
internal and external evidence, it seems to be a sound con-
clusion that somewhere between A.D. 813~850 the creed was
brought nearly into the form in which we use it.”

1 This argument is accepted by Loofs, R.#.°, Art, ‘ Athanasianum.”
* Hist. of the Creeds, ed..3, p. 259.

SP eee re ΤῊΣ

RIVAL THEORIES OF ORIGIN 173

In Germany this two-portion theory has been supported in
a slightly modified form by Harnack,* who regards the first
part as a Gallican Rule of Faith, based on the teaching of
Augustine and Vincentius, written in the fifth century, and
probably polished into its present artistic form in South
Gaul in the course of the sixth century. It obtained popu-
larity as an instruction for clergy, and was learnt by heart
with the Psalms. Synods began to quote it, and it came into
general use as a creed of the Frankish Church in the eighth
and ninth centuries, when the second Christological part was
added to it, the origin of which is lost in obscurity, though it
was certainly not finished in the ninth century.

At first this theory appears spectral and intangible. It
seems only too probable that when the evidence proving the
existence of the entire text, and its continuous use from the
eighth century on, has been collected and classified, and when
the assumptions, which were adduced to prove that the com-
pleted form was only moulded in the ninth century, have been
shown to have been unjustifiable, the theory will only betake
itself a century further back, where there is less evidence
available, and more scope for unverifiable assumptions, and
thus continue to defy its enemies. Such fears are groundless.
The evidence as to the separate existence of the two parts is
incomplete, and the theory having gained a fictitious strength
from mistaken assumptions, when they are exposed, vanishes.

Reference to Appendix D, a table of testimonies to the
ereed in the eighth and ninth centuries, which can be supported
by entire texts, copied (so far as we can tell with any certainty)
in the same localities, will show at a glance that these testi-
monies, 6.5. quotations by Hincmar, or Ratramn, or Alcuin,
were not from a mere fragment. Since the publication of
my book, The Athanasian Creed, I have been able to find
and collate some eight new MSS. of the eighth and ninth
centuries, containing the entire text, to add to the lists there
given. And there are others waiting for collation. Thus M.
L. Delisle has lately published notes on a MS., which was
given to the Church of Lyons by Archbishop Leidrad, 798—

1D, 6.3 ii, p. 299%

174. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

814, now in the “ Bibl. des Peres Maristes de Sainte-Foi-les-
Lyon.”* He regards such a MS., whose date is approximately
fixed by the autograph inscription “ Leidrat . . . eps istum
librum tradidi ad altare sti Stephani,’ as of great value for the
clearing up of paleographical difficulties. The light which it
throws on the history of handwriting is not more illuminating
than the light which the list of its contents, including the
Quicungue, throws on our present subject. For it appears to
contain a collection of creeds, which Leidrad had compiled in
preparation for his journey to Spain, to contend against
Adoptianism. This proves that he not only knew of the
creed, but valued it—a most important conclusion, as we shall
see in the sequel.

The authors of the two-portion theory took advantage
of the uncertainties attaching to paleographical arguments
twenty years ago, which in respect of Quicungue MSS. have
been minimised by the publications of the Palographical
Society. They were sceptical about the dates of MSS, ey.
B.N., Paris, Cod. lat. 13, 159, the date of which is fixed by
some Litanies as 795-800.

Nowadays there is no question as to accepting that date,—
in fact there is no question, from a paleographical point of
view, that there is documentary proof that the Quicunque was
read, as we have it, in the eighth century.

Apart from the eighth century MSS., the evidence was
liable to collapse. It was argued that Hincmar with others
_of his contemporaries only quoted the first part. Yet all the
time a quotation of clause 38, with the old idiom “ resurgere
habent,” as from “ the Catholic Faith,’ was overlooked in the
second of Hincmar’s treatises on Predestination.

The three fragments which were the stronghold of the
theory were a twelfth century sermon at Vienna, the Ἐγοίεδε
sion of Denebert, and the Tréves fragment.

1. The Vienna sermon (Cod. 1261) is a collection of
writings ascribed to Augustine, which, though copied in the
twelfth century, contains materials of an earlier date. There
are two references to the Quwicungue, under the title Fidis

1 Notices et Extraits des manuscrits, 1898,

RIVAL THEORIES OF ORIGIN 175

Catholica. In the first, the preacher quotes clause 3; in the
second, clauses 1-6, 24, 26a, with variations, which find no
support in other MSS. Since the preacher quoted S. Paul
freely, it is probable that he intended to quote the creed
freely, and the fragment may be safely ignored in any recon-
struction of the earliest text. :

2. The profession of Denebert, Bishop-elect of Worcester,
was made to Ethelhard, Archbishop of Canterbury, in the
year 798. It is found in a MS. in the British Museum
(Cleopatra E. 1) of the twelfth century. It consisted of a
promise of obedience, with a short exposition of the Catholic
and apostolic faith, as Denebert had received it. He quoted
from a written original (Seriptwm est), clauses 1, 3-6, 20-22,
24, 25 of the Quicunque; and promised further to observe
the decrees of the Popes, and the six Catholic synods and
their Rule of Faith. Since he undertook to be brief, and
would find the Incarnation fully expounded by those synods,
it cannot be safely said that he knew no more of the creed
than he quoted. I will quote the variants of Denebert’s
text on p. 192. Morin has found a MS. of the eighth
century written in an Anglo-Saxon hand (Cod. lat. Monacensis,
6298), containing the whole creed, and agreeing in one
variant (clause 5 > enim est) with Denebert against all other
MSS. This is a small point, but it is interesting, and the
text as a whole strongly confirms the argument that Denebert
was likely to know more than he cared to quote! Some
clergy from England attended the Council of Frankfurt in
794. Perhaps they brought back some such MS. with them.
The creeds of other English bishops of this century, preserved
in the same collection, have, as Swainson ? suggests, a Sabellian
sound. They run as follows: “Credo in Deum Patrem et
Filium et Spiritum Sanctum natum et passum,” ete? Such

1 Denebert’s readings of clauses 22, 25 correspond to those of another eighth
century MS., B.N., Paris, Cod. Jat. 1451, which contains a list of Popes, with a
notice of the first six Councils. He may have quoted from a MS. of this
collection.

2P, 286.

8 The creeds referred to are those of Heabert, 822; Humbert, 828; Herefrith,
825; Ceolfrith, 839.

176 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

erroneous teaching might have been given ignorantly, but it
is an interesting fact that Denebert quotes the same clauses
as Benedict d’Aniane and Hincemar, when in the following
century they reasoned against the heretical tendency of the
phrase trina deitas.!

3. The Tréves fragment in B.N., Paris, Cod. lat. 3836, has
already been sufficiently described (p. 157), and reasons have
been stated which make it improbable that the original
document contained no more than the copyist found at Tréves
in 730.

The two-portion theory further depended on three ques-
tionable assumptions—(i.) That the silence of such men as
Paulinus and Alcuin, and Alcuin’s pupil, Rabanus Maurus,
showed their ignorance of the Quicungue; (11.) that the
authority of the document from the hand (as was supposed)
of Athanasius would constrain anyone, who knew anything of
it, to use and quote it; (111.) that the completed creed would
be a useful weapon against Adoptianism, but was not
discovered in time.

i. It must be admitted that Rabanus Maurus and Megin-—
hard of Fulda are strangely silent at a time when, with the
multiplication of copies, the creed was coming more and more
into use, and was known to their contemporary Haito, Abbot
of Reichenau.2 Haito’s successor, Walafrid Strabo, came
from Reichenau to Fulda, and went back in 838. But the
use of the creed was local as yet. None of the episcopal
charges recorded would be binding on Rabanus. And his
knowledge of some phrases at least of the creed may be
attested by the following parallels: (a) “ Oportebat ita in-
sinuari Trinitatem ut, quamuis nulla esset diuersitas substan-
tie, singillatim tamen commendaretur distinctio personarum” ;
(Ὁ) “Una substantia una natura una maiestas una gloria
seternitas et Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.”

1 This quotation from Swainson was strongly objected to by some ‘critics of
my former book, e.g. Dr. Mercati in the Revista Bibl. Ital. 1896, p. 149, but
without giving any reasons.

2 We have now the testimony of the Karlsruhe MS., Cod. Augiensis, ecxxix. ,

of the year 821.
3 Rabani, Opp. MSL. 110, p. 210. Cf. my Ath. Creed, p. xxxviii. f.

RIVAL THEORIES OF ORIGIN 174

When we turn to Alcuin we find it impossible to believe
that he really was silent on the subject. There is the evidence
of a work on the Procession of the Holy Spirit, which may, with
some confidence, be ascribed to him.t It is found in a MS.
of the early part of the ninth century, which was presented
by Bishop Dido, who died in 891, to the Church at Laon.
In this are quoted clauses 7, 20-22, 24-26. Swainson
admits that his thoughts, in a letter to Charlemagne (Ep. 33)
“run curiously enough into the channel of the Qutcunque,” ὃ
and “that the order of everything in the Quicunque, as
well as many of its words and phrases,* are found in his
book on the Trinity. Surely, in the light of accumulated
evidence, Swainson would have abandoned the hopeless task
of proving that Alcuin knew nothing of the creed.

The fact is that both Alcuin’s quotations, and also those
of Paulinus in his speech at Friuli in 796, show a tendency
to paraphrase the creed, in order to meet the Nestorian ten-
dency of the Adoptianists. Thus Alcuin writes, adv. lip.
i. 9: “Ut unus sit Christus et unus Deus et unus Dei
Filius . . . diuinitate consubstantialis Patri, humanitate con-
substantialis matri”; and Paulinus: “ Naturaliter Patri
secundum diuinitatem, naturaliter matri secundum humani-
tatem: proprius tamen Patri in utroque, quoniam sicut
dictum est non sunt duo Fil, alter Dei et alter hominis, sed unus
Christus Iesus propter unam personam, Dei et hominis Filius,
Deus uerus et homo uerus in anima rationali et uera carne.”

ii. “The supposed authority of the document is the second
assumption with which we have to deal.”

We can distinguish between two phases of the influence
which the Qwicunque might win in the ninthcentury. In the
first it would be known as a sermon or treatise on the Faith,
whether recommended by the name of Athanasius or not, on the
same level of interest and importance as the /ides Romanorum.
We may compare the degree of authoritativeness which the
Te Deum possessed for Ceesarius of Arles, or Theodulf’s hymn

1 The differences in style which distinguish it from other of his works are
unimportant. Cf. D.C.B. Art. ‘‘Alcuin.”
* MSL. 101, §§ 750 756. 3 Ὁ, 405, 4P, 412,
12

178 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

for Palm Sunday, “ Gloria laus et honor,” for ourselves. But
when the Quccwngue had been taken up by the bishops as an
accredited expansion of the creed, and the clergy had been
commanded to learn it, it would obtain the same measure of
authority as the first of our Thirty-nine Articles. It does not
follow that a teacher would feel constrained to mention its
name when he quoted its phrases.

iii. To what extent could it be used as a weapon against
Adoptianism ? We can now give a precise answer to this
question. It was included in the collection of creeds which
Leidrad had in his possession when he went on his expedition
to Spain. It was quoted by Agobard, his successor in the
see of Lyons, 6. 820: “ Beatus Athanasius ait Fidem Catholi-
cam nisi quis integram inuiolatamque seruauerit, absque dubio
in eternum peribit.” But the orthodox theologians in this
controversy found that its phrases were useless against
heretics, who could take them up and give them a different
turn, unless they were paraphrased as we have found them in
sentences from Alcuin and Paulinus. All depended on the
way in which they were applied. It never was, it never
could be, “looked upon as a most satisfactory exposition of
the doctrines in debate at Friuli.”

Thus it has been shown that these three assumptions
have no foundation in fact. Deprived of their support, the
two-portion theory completely breaks down. To use the
words of Loofs,” “it is shattered on its best proof (the
Tréves fragment). or all the arguments formerly brought
forward for it are very weak.”

2. A Theory of Growth by Accretion—Another theory as
to the origin of the Quicuwnque has been built up by Loofs ὃ
on the ruins of the two-portion theory.

He supposes that the original Quicungue was a sermon on
the Apostles’ Creed, like the sermons of Augustine at the
giving of the creed (Nos. 212, 213, 214), containing an
expansion of its teaching on the Trinity and the Incarnation.
The Tréves fragment represents the original text of the latter

Lumby, Hist. of the Creeds, p. 244. Cf. my Ath. Creed, Ὁ. xliv.
2 In his able article ‘‘ Athanasianum” in 2. Z.%. ὃ Tb,

αὐ κε A en ὧν ΝΣ Ἢ a iia eS 5 on tl Sig:
ee Pe eee Se, Cee νιν as are ae, QC Ewe Ae arg) Se Seat Cn

RIVAL THEORIES OF ORIGIN 179

portion, which has been polished into its present state by
unknown hands. The quotations in the Ps.-Awg., Serm. 244
(Cesarius) and in the less polished form combined with it
(Auscultate expositionem) are from its original form in which
the Apostles’ Creed was still the faith which was to be held.
By an unexplained process it was then transformed into an
exposition of faith like the ides Romanorum. In this stage,
the reference or references to the Apostles’ Creed having been
removed, it became an authority on its own account, claim-
ing belief in itself rather than the faith of which it was an
exposition. The Milan MS., O. 212 sup., preserves a trace of
its yet unfinished state in clause 22, where “ patri et filio
cozternus” cannot be understood as an addition by some
copyist. These words must be regarded as a relic from its
first stage of existence before clause 10, “ Aternus pater
ete.,” had been inserted. The relation of the forms thus
quoted in Ps.-Aug., Serm. 244, the Treves fragment, and the
Milan MS., to the final Qutcwngue, revealed in MSS. and
commentaries of the eighth century, is like the relation of rock
boulders in a mountain glen to a boulder which was detached
from the mountain at the same period, but has been carried
down the valley by a stream, and polished and rounded by
its waters.

When the process was completed, the form obtained
greater celebrity by its connection with the name of Athanas-
ius, without any intention to deceive. This point in the
history of its development must have been reached before the
date of the Canon of Autun, c. 630.

This theory is open to serious objections. It is very
doubtful whether the Tréves fragment is part of a sermon
preached at the giving of the creed. Kattenbusch’ points
out that it is just as likely that it was a document like Ps.-
Aug., Serm. 236, the author of which wished to deliver “ the
right faith” to his brethren, so made use of a great part of
the Creed of Pelagius. )

It is still more doubtful whether we can think of the
original text of the Quicungue as intended to be an exposition

1 Theol, Litz. 1897, p. 145 f.

180 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

of the creed. Such expositions in the fifth century were
not so formal, and explained the articles of the creed
consecutively. There is not a trace of this in the Tréves
fragment. Words are quoted from the creed, but no ex-
planation is attempted of those particular words, though we
know from many instances that they were considered to need
explanation.

This theory also depends upon questionable assumptions,
viz. the supposed late date of the Fortunatus Commentary, the
silence of Isidore, and the theory that the Milan MS. contains
a survival of an unpolished primitive text.

The date of the Fortunatus Commentary is, as we have
seen, uncertain. It is probable that it belongs to the sixth
century, if not an earlier. Certainly there is not a shred of
positive evidence pointing to the eighth century as the date
of its composition, A theory built on negations is built on sand.
The silence of Isidore is not much less questionable beside
the evidence of the Canon of 633, than the silence of Alcuin
and Paulinus beside the quotations of Denebert. The ques-
tion has been considered carefully above, and it only remains
to point out that when Loofs asserts that a reference to the
Quicunque would have had stronger effect than Isidore’s own
collaborations, he is arguing from a mistaken idea of the
authority which the Quicungue would have had for the Church
of that time. It could only have been regarded as an exposi-
tion of the faith side by side with others, eg. the Creed of
Damasus. This explains why it did not receive a name at an
earlier date,’ and why Isidore, even if he knew it, was as free
to expound the faith in his own way as the authors of our
First Article.

The Milan MS. contains another variation, which must be
considered in relation to this theory, besides the addition,
“patri et filio coeternus”; eg. the repetition of “ persona”
in clause 5. This is an addition which was made by Hinemar
when he was paraphrasing sentences from the creed (de Una
non Trina Deitate; cf. Aleuin, de Trin. iii. 22). It is easy to
understand that it would approve itself to an early copyist.

1 Kattenbusch, art. cit.

RIVAL THEORIES OF ORIGIN 181

On the other hand, it is not clear that the omission would
really smooth the rhythm. This addition in clause 5 thus
supports the theory of an addition in clause 22. Loofs says
that they were implied in clause 10: “The Father is eternal,”
etc. He omits to add that the expression of certainty
was not only implied but stated in clause 24°: “ All three
persons are coeternal.” The latter words are not quoted in
the Fortunatus Commentary, and it would have been safer to
suggest that they, rather than clause 10, were only inserted
in a recension of the original text. It is inconceivable that
clause 10 did not belong to the original text, and early
copyists of the sixth or seventh century were not likely to
spend much time considering what it implied. The actual
phrase, “Patri et Fillo coeternus,’ was familiar, being
found four times in “this MS., twice in the Faith of
Bacchiarus,” and once in Gennadius’s Book of Dogma-and
the Creed of Damasus, which is added in a slightly later
hand.

This theory must go the way of its predecessor, but it
will not have been put forward in vain if it rouses students
to renewed efforts to find some new sixth century testimony,
which shall patch up the threadbare controversy over the
Sermon of Cresarius and the Canon of 633. Loofs admits
the weakness of his argument from negative conclusions, when
he allows that such a discovery would link the early parallels
to the later quotations, and prove the early date of the present
text of the creed. He atones for it by the vigour of his
criticism of weak points in the rival theory, and thereby earns
our gratitude.

We may now retrace our steps to the fifth century, and
maintain that none of the external evidence quoted, from the
Sermon of Auitus onwards, has in any degree injured the
theory that the creed was written in the early years of the
fifth century, ec. 425-430, by some one trained in the school
of Lerins.

It is of no great importance that we should succeed in
attributing it to any individual author. We do not receive
it on one man’s authority, but as the expression of the

182 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

common faith which (as we gladly recognise) he had the git
to express in rhythmical language.

As I have said before, “the chief interest of thas
researches is centred in the hypothesis that the Quicungue
belongs to the fifth century; that is to say, to an age of
original thought, the age of S. Augustine himself, and not to
an age which could only make a patchwork theology out of
his writings. The author seems to have adapted phrases
which he had borrowed from 8. Augustine as current terms,
not confining himself to slavish reiteration like later writers.
But, as we have seen, he was not tongue-tied by that phraseo-
logy, and took his own line. “Auitus and Cesarius, the
inheritors of lofty traditions, might be expected to quote the
Quicunque with appreciation,” as the work of a teacher in
Christ of a former generation, more formally than Faustus or
Vincentius were likely to do. “The sixth and seventh cen-
turies were for Gaul an age of failing culture, of weakened
and often crude theology, an age in which the composition of
the Quzcunque is unimaginable; in which, as a matter of
fact, the very faculty of appreciating its terse, incisive style,
and the accuracy of its definitions, had failed” in many
quarters. We may contrast Gregory of Tours with Cesarius,
from whose time he was separated by one generation, and we
find him bewailing his bad grammar, and that he had equal
reason, though earnest and orthodox, to bewail his lack of
theological training. Here we must leave the question, not
despairing of a more satisfactory solution in the future by the
help of the new evidence which will surely be brought to
light.

§ VII. Tue Later History or THE CREED.

From the ninth century the history of the creed is well
known. Its use in the office of Prime, of which we hear first
at Fleury, spread rapidly over the Frankish Empire. At the
end of the tenth century, Abbo of Fleury writes that it was
sung antiphonally in England, as well as in France. An
Anglo-Saxon homily, “On the Catholic Faith,” written about

1 The Ath. Creed, p. xcix,

THE LATER HISTORY OF THE CREED 183

the middle of the tenth century by a monk, A#lfric,) quoted
it for the instruction of the people. And from this time on
we find many versions in Anglo-Saxon, Old French, Old
German, and finally Greek.

The date of its reception at Rome is uncertain. Ama-
larius of Tréves, in his account of the Roman Office of Prime,
written ὁ. 820, made no mention of it, but it was quoted in
this connection two centuries later by Honorius of Autun, as
used in the four regions of the world, therefore probably in
Rome. This fact is confirmed by the evidence of Abelard,
who complained to S. Bernard, 6. 1130, that the Cistercian
Order had given up the ancient custom of daily recitation.?
In the same letter, Abelard shows minute knowledge of
Roman customs, and speaks of the fidelity with which the old
offices were preserved in the Church of the Lateran. It is
probable, therefore, that the creed had found its way into use
in Rome at that date.

Its monastic use can be proved ‘by the evidence of Cod.
Vat. 84, of the tenth century, and by the oldest MS. Breviary
(Cod. Mazarin. 364), written at Monte Cassino in 1099.
But we may conjecture that it was used in sermons long
before this.

Its earliest and only proper title is Fides Catholica, a
Catholic Faith, clearly expressed in the ninth century by
those writers who described it as sermo, an instruction,
whether it was connected with the name of Athanasius or
not. The name symbolum was not attached to it till the end
of that century, first by Regino of Prum (6. 892). This
marks the fact that it had been finally distinguished from
other formularies of the same kind, and, by association with
the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds in an increasing number of
Psalters, was acquiring a new and, in the first instance,
reflected authority as a creed authorised by the Catholic
Church. By one MS. of that period (H) it was called a
Hymn concerning Faith of the Trinity ; and in the Constitu-
tions of English Bishops of the thirteenth century it was
called a Psalm. But, in the latter case, it does not follow

1Ommanney, Diss. Ὁ. 29. 2 Ep, x., M.S.L. 178, p. 835,

184 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

that it was merely regarded as a Canticle. Waterland points
out that a MS. of the twelfth century, called Rhythmus
Anglicus,' gives this title also to the Apostles’ Creed and the
Lord’s Prayer, like old German writings.2 At the Reforma-
tion, popular translations (one by Wyclif?) were available in
Old and Middle English, and in the recent Primer of Bishop
Hilsey, 1539. In the first Prayer-book of Edward v1. it
was “to be sung or said” after the Benedictus on the greater
feasts. In the second Prayer-book seven other festivals
were added, and in 1662 the rubric was altered to “ at
Morning Prayer, instead of the Apostles’ Creed.”

Thus in the English Church alone has it been made a
popular creed, the Roman Church continuing to use it in the
office of Prime on Sundays only. Some restriction of that
use has resulted from “the gradual encroachment of the
Sanctorale upon the Temporale, (1) through the multiplication
of saints’ days, and (2) to a less extent by the raising of the
“ritus” or dignity of individual festivals. According to the
general rubrics, if a “festum duplex” fall on an ordinary
Sunday, “fit officium de festo, commemoratio de Dominica.”
How often this occurs depends largely on the particular
calendar in use; eg. English Jesuits use the Roman calendar
supplemented by the Propriwm Soc. Jesu and by the Proprium
Anglve, with the result that hardly a Sunday in the year
escapes “occurrence.” But occurrence—even with a
“duplex ’—does not crowd out the Sunday office in the case
of the Sundays in Advent and Lent, or of Septuagesima, Sexa-
gesima, and Quinquagesima, so the Quicunqgue (with the rest of
the Sunday office) survives on these, and (as regards the
Quicunque) on Trinity Sunday. In the case of the secular
clergy there will be fewer cases of occurrence, and the
Sunday office is more frequently, or less infrequently, recited.Ӥ

In the Eastern Orthodox Church it is not used in any
office, though it has found its way into the Appendix of the
modern Greek Horologium, without the words “and the

1 Trin. Coll. Camb. ¢. 1180. 2 Lambec. Catal. ii. 760.
51 am indebted for this clear statement of the modern use by the Roman
Church to Father H. Lucas, S.J., Professor at S. Beuno’s College.

Αγ af eee

TEXT OF THE ‘ QUICUNQUE” 185

2)

Son.” Thus Eastern theologians regard it (with that excep-
tion) as containing sound doctrine.

ὃ VIII. Tue Text AND A TRANSLATION OF THE “ QUICUNQUE”

With reference to the following text of the Quicunque, a
few words may be said about the new MSS. of which full
collations are here printed for the first time, and about the
light which they throw on disputed readings. Full descrip-
tions of the others may be found in the works of Swainson
and Ommanney.

K,—At Karlsruhe, in the Grand Ducal leat.) in the fine
μολτωκείσι of MSS., from Reichenau, Cod. Augiensis, cexxix. It
ean be dated before 821 a.D., by a marginal note on f. 58v.
It contains works of Isidore and Martin of Bracara, with
expositions of the Lord’s Prayer and Apostles’ Creed.

Κι.
was unfortunately out on loan when I visited Karlsruhe. It
contains a collection of creeds and commentaries. I am
indebted to the librarian, Dr. A. Holder, for collations of the
Quicunque and the Creed of Damasus.

L,.—At Leiden, in the University Library, Cod. lat. xvii.
67. F. sec. viii, ix. This is a collection of creeds, including
the Creed of Damasus, and the second form of the Fides
fomanorum. It contains also a Latin glossary, which. has
attracted some interest.

L,.—The Psalter of Lothaire? is now in a private collection,
but I am indebted to the owner for the following collation.

M,.—At Munich, in the Royal Library, Cod. lat. 6298,
written in an Anglo-Saxon hand, see. viii., is a mixed collection.
I am indebted for the collation to Dom. G. Morin.

M,.—In the same library, Cod. lat. 6330%, see. viil., ix.
from Freisinggzf, is a collection of so-called Doctrine diwersorum

1 For further information on the whole question of Reception and Use, see
Ommanney, Diss. pt. ii. chap. vi.

* A description of this MS. has been published by the Palsographica
Society, with three facsimiles, vol. ii. 69, 98, 94.

5 Since I collated it, I have found a description of the MS. in Arnold’s
Cxsarius von Arelate, p. 452,

186 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

patrum. I was attracted by the names, Athanasius, Effrem,
Cesarius, and found the Quicungue preceding ides Roman-
orum 11.

N.—In the Cathedral Library at Vercelli, a collection of
creeds, including also the two Nicene Creeds, Cod. clxxv.
sec, 1x. :

R.—At Rheims, in the Town Library, Cod. 20, see. ix.
A Psalter with creeds and canticles.

T.—At Troyes, in the Treasury of the Cathedral, the so-
called Psalter of Count Henry, sxe. ix. It formerly belonged
to the Chapter of the Church of 5. Etienne.’

V..—In the Vatican Library, Cod. Vat. Pal. 1127, see.
ix., is a collection of creeds and canons.

W.—In the University Library at Wiirzburg, an interest-
ing Psalter from Ebrach, Cod. Mp. th., f. 109, in a Lombardie
hand, sec. ix. It contains the Fortunatus Commentary in the
margin (see p. 168).

I may add that I have verified collations of other MSS.
at Paris, Rome, Milan, and can testify to the great importance
of two in particular. Paris, B.N., Cod. lat. 13,159, and Milan,
Cod. Ambros. Ο. 212, sup. P,.—Paris, B.N., 13,159, is a Gallican
Psalter, which was written before 800 a.p. The date is fixed
by the evidence of two Litanies, in which petitions are offered
for a Pope Leo and a King Charles. These must have been
written before Charlemagne’s coronation as Emperor by Leo
mr. After f. 160, two folios have been torn out, one of which
was “remade in the eleventh century,’? including clause 1—12a,
of the Quicunque.

B.—Milan, Cod. Ambros., O. 212 sup., is a small collection
containing the Book of Ecclesiastical Dogmas (ascribed to
Gennadius), the Faith of Bacchiarius, a Sermon on the
Ascension, and (in a slightly later hand) the Creed of
Damasus. It has often been described and discussed. Dr.

1 This MS. is difficult of access, since it is kept in a glass case under three
locks, the keys to which are in the possession of different officials. I am
indebted to them, and in particular to M. L’Abbé Chaudron, Arch-priest of
the Cathedral, for permission to examine it.

* Delisle, Le Cabinet des Manuscrits, iii. p. 289 ; cf. Ommanney, Diss. Ὁ. 107.

TEXT OF THE *‘ QUICUNQUE” 187

Ceriani thinks that it was written in Ireland, and pointed
out to me the great similarity between it and the Bangor
Antiphonary.| He thinks that it may even be of the end of
the seventh century. — |

The number of readings which are really doubtful is not
large. ,

Clause 22.—All the new MSS., with the exception of N,
omit est. This gives a better rhythmical ending, cursus uelox,
génitus sed procédens. On the Rhythm, see p. 248.

Clause 28.—-Om. pariter, K, L, M,N RU,W; + pariter,
K, L,M,T. In this case the MSS., taken altogether, are almost
equally divided, but in five of those which originally contained
it, it has been erased. I have seen similar erasures in many
other MSS., of later dates, showing that the feeling against it
was widespread. The fact that it was found in ABM,L,P,
is strongly in its favour. But if is not found in the first
quotation of the verse in the Fortunatus Commentary, though
it appears when the latter half is repeated in the exposition.
This shows how easy it would be for anyone to insert it in
the text, to sharpen a sentence against Nestorianism. By
omitting it, we obtain a good rhythmical ending, Déus et hémo
est (pl.), but this is no argument by which to prove its omission
from the original text, since it might only explain the reason
why it became unpopular, after the use of the creed as
a canticle had become general.

Clause 33.—A majority of MSS., including the earliest,
are in favour of the ablatives, carne . . . Deo, with the earliest
MSS. of the Fortunatus Commentary. But Ommanney ? has
argued strongly against this reading, on the ground that “ it
is difficult to perceive what doctrine precisely, what phase of
thought, the readings in carne and in Deo, in their literal
interpretation, symbolise ; they jar like a discordant note upon
our sense of the fitting and appropriate.” He quotes Water-
land’s opinion that they were not the original readings, and
shows that it would be very easy for a copyist to omit the
contractions over “e” and “m” thus—CARNE-DM, after which
“another copyist would be tempted to substitute ‘o’ for ‘m’ in

1 May, 1898. * Diss. p. 416,

188 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

the latter word, in order to make it harmonise with the former,
adding the mark of contraction (manifestly omitted) over it.”

It is perfectly true that the parallels in Augustine and
Vincentius support the readings carnem . . . Deum, and that,
from the point of view of the internal evidence, these are
likely to be the original readings. The Eutychians admitted
a change of the Godhead in the flesh, and taught that the
manhood was assumed into God, so that the change to the
ablatives may have been, as Waterland! has shown, a direct
confutation of their principles. But this would be to give to
the ablatives, regarded as an emendation, a strong dogmatic
meaning, which is just what Ommanney refuses to them.

The corrupt Latinity of the sixth and seventh centuries
extended further than Ommanney suggests; it included utter
confusion about cases. The copyists were indifferent to such
distinctions. Under these circumstances it seems to me
remarkable that so many of the earlier MSS., A B Mj, », Py, 4
should agree on ablatives, and I prefer to follow them with-
out further argument. The meaning, as I have shown from
Waterland, is clearly antagonistic to Eutychian confusion of
the two natures in Christ, and as such appropriate for our
present use.

Clause 36.—There is an overwhelming majority of MSS.
against ad inferna, and yet I think that one is justified in
adopting it, for the following reasons :—

It is found in A, W, Fort, Or, Stav. It is one of the cases
in which copyists would be influenced by their reading of the
Apostles’ Creed; and, on the other hand, the author, presuming
him to have lived in Gaul, at all events before 500 A.D., when he
was obviously quoting his Baptismal Creed, would surely quote
it exactly, even if he, like 5. Augustine, preferred ad inferos as
an improvement on the teaching ad infernum or ad inferna.
Now, the reading ad inferos had not come into the Gallican
creeds in the time of Cesarius, Gregory of Tours, or Eligius
of Noyon, z.e. before 600 a.p. And it became common with
the appearance and spreading of the Textus receptus from
ὁ. 700 AD. Thus there is a strong presumption against the

1 P. 146,

TEXT OF THE ‘*QUICUNQUE” 189

change from inferna to iferos before 700, and in favour of it
after that date. The reading of B may be accounted for by the
reading of the Apostles’ Creed in the Bangor Antiphonary.

Clause 37.—The readings Dei and Omanipotentis in the
later MSS. have been plainly inserted, to make the creed
correspond to the Texius receptus of the Apostles’ Creed, in
which they formed a very natural accretion.

The translation in the Book of Common Prayer needs
several slight amendments. In clauses 9, 12, for “incompre-
hensible” read “infinite.” In this case the translators were
influenced by the Greek version, which they imagined to be the
original, and which has ἀκατάληπτος. In clause 27 “ believe
rightly ” is obviously a translation of ὀρθῶς πιστεύσῃ, where
the Latin text has “fideliter credat.” In clause 28 they
quoted the Greek yap not the Latin e7go, and for the same
reason omitted to translate firmiterque in clause 40, which has
no place in the Greek text.!

The word “must” in clause 26 represents an Old English
idiomatic use of the word, which still survives in the North
of England = may, shall. “Must I give you some tea?”

The other changes in my translation are unimportant, with
the exception of the rendering of saluus, “in a state of
salvation.” The word is used in Holy Scripture with three
references, to past, present, and future, according to the
point of view, redemption, grace, or glory. It is obvious
that it is the second of these which the author had in mind.
It may be paraphrased in the words “ spiritually healthy.”

THE TEXT OF THE QUICUNQUE, FROM MSS. OF THE
EIGHTH AND NINTH CENTURIES.

SYMBOLS.* | Sac. | TITLE.
A (a) | Paris, B.N.3836,(Tréves fragment) | viii.
B (Ὁ) | Milan, O.212 sup. : viii.
C (9) | A lost Paris MS.,S. Germains 257 viii. | F.S.A. Epi.
Dt) | Paris, B.N., 1152. Psalter of

| Charles the Bald. . ix. F.S.A.
E (x) | Utrecht Psalter (formerly Brit.
' Mus., Claudius, C. vii.) . it ix F.C.

1 The other instances quoted by Ommanney, p, 312, are doubtful, since they
might be explained by variants in the Latin text.

190

SYMBOLS.*
Κη

G, (ὦ)
Ge (ἢ

Υ̓ (y)

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

ι SAC.
B.M., Galba, A. xviii. Psalter : ix.
S. Gallen, Cod. 20 » | 1X. on
. 15 7 ix.
3 23 ἐξ | ix.
27 τ | ix.
B.M., Reg: 2. BY: ᾿ ἢ πτὸ oy ὦ
Karlsruhe, Cod. Aug. cexxix. ix. 42.
‘3 Vii 's ix,
ἐδούκ τῆ Palace, Cod. 427. Pintier << s:
Leiden, Cod. xviii. 67. F -| Vili. ix.
Psalter of Lothaire ix.
Munich, cod. lat. 6298 . viii.
ἐλ ds 6330 . Vili. ix,
Vercelli, Cod. clxxv. ix.
Paris, B.N.,13,159. Psalter, clauses
12b-40 Viil.
a 4858, clauses 1-11 Vili.
ἷ 1461. ; viii.
” 3848, B ix.
C.C.C. Cambridge, 272.0.5. Psalter +.
Rheims, 20. Psalter i ;
C.C.C. Cambridge, 411 N. 10,
Psalter . XL. ?
Troyes (Psalter of Gount Henry) | ix.
Rome, Cod. Vat. Pal. 574 a
5, Cod. Vat. Reg. 1127 . ix.
Vienna, 1032 | 1X
Wiirzburg, Cod. Mp. th. f. 109.
Psalter ΐ | ix,
Vienna, 1861 (Golden Psalter) ix.

* A-F and H are so designated by Lumby.
in brackets (a) etc.

SYMBOLS.

Fort

Tr
Or,

TITLE.
F.S.A.A.
F.C.S.A. epi.
F.C. edita a 5.4.4.
epo.
F.C.8.A. epi.
F.S.A. epi.
Hymnus A. de fide
Trinitatis.

F.C.S.A. epi.
F.S. Athanasii epi.
B.C. traditaaS. A.A.

F.C.S, Athasii(+na
corr.) epi.
F.S. Athanasiaepi A.

Inc. exemplar fidei
cht. sci. atanasii
epi alex. ecclesiz.

F.S.A. epi.
F.C.
F.S.A. epi.

F.S. Anasthasii epi.

F.C. δ. Atanasi epi.

Inc.exemplar F.C.S.
Atanasi epi. Alex.
ecclesia.

F.C.S, Atanasi epi.

F.C. trad. a §.S.A.
epo.

I have given Swainson’s symbols

COMMENTARIES.

| | Fortunatus, in Oxford Bodl. Junius
be
_ Troyes, in Troyes, 804.

| Oratorian in Troyes, 804

54 0.

τ
x.
of

TITLE.

‘TEXT OF THE ‘“QUICUNQUE” 191

SYMBOLS. 52:0. TITLE.
Or, Oratorian, Cod. Vat. Reg. 231 1} ix. |
Bou, | Bouhier in Troyes,1979 . . x. F.C.S.A, epi.
Bou, ie B.M. Add. MSS. 24,902 | x. xi. F.C.
Orl Orleans, in Orleans, 94 : ΕΊΣ, IF.C.
Paris | Paris,in B.N.1012 . 2 x. ἘΠ.
Stav | Stavelotin B.M. Add. MSS. 18, 043 xX. F.C.8. A.
Den | Denebert,798 a.p. (B.M. ees
E. 1) Sic A)
Tol Cone. Toletanun, 633, A.D. Cod |
Novar.) . ρα

To these add MSS. uncollated.

Seee. viii. ixi—The MS. given by Leidrad to the Church of
Lyons, 798-814 (p. 173 supra).

See. ix—A MS. among the Archives of the Miinster
Kirche at Essen,! containing the Latin text of most of the
Psalms in three versions, with the Greek text in a fourth
column in Latin letters. Also the usual canticles, including
the Quicunque. It is assigned to the Carolingian period,
c. 850.?

Sec. ix. x—A MS. at Ivrea (Cod, xli.), f. 59°, “ Fides
sti Athanasi epi alexandrini.”

Sec. ix—A MS. at Paris, B.N., Nouv. acq. lat. 442
(Libri 94), a Psalter written in Tironian notes or shorthand
signs.

The Text of the “Quicunque” from MSS. of the Eighth and Ninth
Centuries, and Commentaries

1Quicunque uult saluus esse ante omnia opus est ut
teneat cathélicam fidem,' 2quam nisi quisque integram
inuiolatamque seruauerit, absque dubio in etérnum
per{bit.*

I. i. (a2) * Fides autem Catholica hee est, ut unum Deum
in Trinitate et Trinitatem in Unitaté uénéreémur; ‘neque
confundentes personas neque substantiam separantes.”
6 Alia est enim persona Patris, alia Filii, alia Spfritus

1 Theol. Literaturblatt, 14th Dec. 1894, p. 600.
2 Hitherto the oldest MS. of the kind known has been Cod. Bambergensis, of
909,

192 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

Sancti! ®sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti una est
diuinitas, equalis gloria, coetérna maiéstas.”

(0) 7 Qualis Pater talis Filius talis et Spiritus Sanctus”
8 Increatus Pater increatus Filius increatus et Spfritus
Sanctus.’ 9. Immensus Pater immensus Filius immensus et
Spiritus Sanctus” Aternus Pater, eternus Filius,
seternus et Spiritus Sanctus! ™ et tamen non tres eterni
sed linus aetérnus:” gicut non tres increati nec tres
immensi, sed unus increatus et inus imménsus?! 138 Simi-
liter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omnipotens et
Spiritus Sanctus! 16 οὐ tamen non tres omnipotentes
sed unus omn{potens."

(c) © Ita Deus Pater Deus Filius Deus et Spiritus
Sanctus?! 1% et tamen non tres Dei sed inus est Déus.”
Tta Dominus Pater Dominus Filius Dominus et Spiritus
Sanctus.” 18 et tamen non tres Domini sed inus est Démi-
nus. Quia sicut singillatim unamquamque personam et
Deum et Dominum confiteri christiana ueritate compél-
limur’ ita tres Deos aut Dominos dicere catholica religioné
prohibémir.

ii. 329 Pater a nullo est factus nec credtus nec génitus.*
21 Filius a Patre solo est, non factus nec creatus sed
génitus. ™ Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio, non factus nec
creatus nec génitus, sed procédens.” 7 Unus ergo Pater
non tres Patres, unus Filius non tres Filii, unus Spiritus Sanctus
non tres Spiritus Sincti™ * Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius
aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus, sed tote tres persone
costerne sibi sunt ét coequdles:” 35 ita ut per omnia
sicut iam supradictum est, et Trinitas in Unitate et Unitas in
Trinitaté uénéranda sit. “6 Qui uult ergo saluus esse ita de
Trinitate sentiat.

II. 2 Sed necessarium est ad eeternam salutem, ut incar-
nationem quoque Domini nostri Iesu Christi fidéliter crédat.”
8 Est ergo fides recta, ut credamus et confiteamur, quia Domi-
nus noster Iesus Christus Dei Filius Déus et hémo est.?!

i. 39 Deus est ex substantia Patris ante secula genitus, et
homo est ex substantia matris in sdeculo ndtus.” 39 Perfec-
tus Deus, perfectus homo, ex anima rationali et humana carne

TEXT OF THE ‘ QUICUNQUE” 193

subsistens.” 51: Aqualis Patri secundum diuinitatem, minor
Patri secundum humanitatem”.

1. 9? Qui licet Deus sit et homo non duo tamen sed unus
est Christus?! 38 Unus autem, non conuersione diuinitatis
in carne, sed assumptione humanitdtis in Déo.”™ 34 Unus
omnino non confusione substantie sed unitate perséne”
35 Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo, ita Deus
et homo tinus est Christus”:

111, qui passus est pro salute nostra, descendit ad
inferna, resurréxit a moértuis,’ *’ascendit ad czelos, sedet
ad dexteram Patris: inde uenturus iudicare ufuos et mortuos,’
38 ad cuius aduentum omnes homines resurgere habent cum cor-
poribus suis et reddituri sunt de factis prdépriis ratidnem.”
39 Ht qui bona egerunt ibunt in uitam eternam, qui uero mala
in ignem etérnum.”

Hee est fides catholica quam nisi quisque fideliter
firmiterque crediderit, saluus ésse non péterit.'

1-27. deest in A. 1. Quicumque, BFHK,,.L,NP,RTUj,.. ult, Ly.
> esse saluus, B. est] + enim, H. tenead, U,. fidemcath. Den. chatolicam,
F P,,, Paris. 2. nisi] ni, supra lin. Ly. quisque] quis, B. intigram, B.
inuiolatamque, B. om. absque dubio, P, ad fin. Incipit de fide, H. 8.
hec, U,. Trinitatem] Trinitate, K, M,P;. 4. confudentes, B; confundantes,
HP;. substanciam, L,] substantia, M,N P,U,. seperantes, W*. 5. > enim
est, M, Den. om. est, P;. alia persona Filii alia persona Spiritus Sancti, B. alia,
2°] —a, supra ras. sec. man. (?) N. personam, K,*. Spiritus, pr. et, Gy, 9 3, 4
K,. 6. sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, supra lin. e recentiori manu,
B. Spiritus] spu, R. diuinitas] diuitas, P,. equalis, P, R. cozterna, pr. et,
Or. ; quoeterna, P,; quoxt—, P.,; Orl. Paris. magestas, P;. 7, 8, 9, 10, 18,
15, 17. om. et, K,L, R S corr. W corr. Bou. Orl. 7, 9, 10, 15, 17. om.
et, Stav. 13,15, 17. om. et, B. 8. et, supra lin. sec. man. (ἢ) N. om. et, BP,
Or, 8, 9,10 > 10, 8, 9. esternus... increatus. . . immensus, P, Uj (φῦ,
11, 12). 9. inmensus (semper), BD F HG, G,* Ky,.1,,.M,N P,, ,QRSTU,,,
Fort. Tr. Or. Bou. Paris Stav. om. et, BOr, Paris. 10. eternus, 1°. . . et. 3°]
et—...et—, P}. om.et, BG, Py, 11. om. et, EF. tres] 111. B. unus
eeternus] def. P,. eterni... eternus, P,. 12. >unus inmensus et unus increatus,
B. 14. om. tamen, B. nec tamen, Bou. tres] III. M,. omnipotentis, P, T.
unus] + + P,ras. N. 16,17 >17,16, Or. 16. tres].III. B. Dii, DF H K,
LioN Ps4QRSTUj,>. om. est, BL, P;. 18. tres].1[I. B. om. est, B. 19.
om. sicut, P,. singulatim, L;. unaquamque persona, Κι. et, 1°]ad, Mj. om. et,
1° CEFG,,.,3,4H K, ly,3 N corr. P},,Q RS TU, corr. U, Or. Bou. Orl.
Stay. et, 2°] ac, Or. Orl. Stav. ; hac, K,. confitere, L, Py. christiane, P).
ueritate trinitate, L,. conpellimur, ΒΒ H K,L.M,N Py, 3,4 QS Ὁ Uj.
tris, P,. aut] ac, Bou, Dominos] Deos, ras. U,, pr. tres, D E K, M, P; T Or,

¥3

194 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

Bou,. dicere] dici, N P,; dicire, U,. catholicam religionem, K,; relegione,
M,N U, corr. (?) Paris. prohibimur, M., h supra lin. N corr. Py; proibemur,
Q Paris ; ita tres... prohibemur, in marg. Gy. 20. >factus est, Den. 21. solus,
Κι. om. est, Κι. non] nec, Κι. nec] aut, Or. 22. non] nec, Κι. nec, 1°] aut,
Or. genitus]+est,C EF M,N V. procidens P,]+ Patri et Filio comternus
est, B (ef. Symb. Damasi). 28. unus, 1°] + est, K,M,; unus, 2°] + cst, Kj. om.
Sanctus, P,. non, 3°] pr. sed, Or,; tris, P,, ¢e7; .111. B(ter). Sancti] Sanctos, P,.
24. et, 1°] supra lin. M,; sed, Or. K,; om. et in hac, C. hac] ac, P;*; a, Paris;
+ enim, M,. maius, pr. est, M,. tote, K,L,Ps,,RTU,. persone, L, Ἐς Ὁ W.
coeterne, Κα; coeterne, L,; quoeterne, Κι P,; quoheterne, P;; quoext—,
Or. Orl. Paris. quoseq. K, Q U, Or. Or]. Paris; quosqualis, Τὸ (co—,U)).
25. om. supra, Bou.; superius dictum, supra lin. P*,. om. et, 1° Kj. et, 1°] ut,
NP, om. et Trinitas in Unitate, M,. > Unitas in Trinitate et Trinitas in
Unitate, CD ΕΝ P, Reorr. S* Y (Fort.?) Bou, Orl.; + et Trinitas in Unitate,
in marg. D; Unitatem ... Trinitatem, U,*. ueneranda sit] ueneremur, K,.
26. Qui] Quicumque, K, P, U*. ergo] supra lin. N corr. U, ; om. K, Py. senciat,
Κι M, Paris. 27. om. est, P;. incarnatione, Κι. quoque, supra lin. Uj.
Domini] hic inc. A. Jesujihu, B D ΕΗ K, Ly. M. N Py,3,4 QRS T Uj,. W.
fideliter] pr. unusquisque, in marg. 6 recentiori manu Q. credat] +s. qui
uult saluus esse, supra lin. S. 28. est] pr. hec, Κι. Dei] Deus, L,. > Filius
est Dei. Deus, K,. om. Dei Filius, Or. Deus] pr. et, BC G,M, Ps Paris ;
+ pariter, A BC DG*, H K'L,* L, M, P,* S* T U,* Fort. (Ὁ) Tr. Or. Paris, Stav.,
in marg. Q corr. 29. om. est, 1° K, Bou,, supra lin. W corr. ex]de, A D dis.
substantia, 1°] substancia, L,. ante secula genitus est, in marg. e recentiori
manu B. om. et, BOF P, Tr. Or. Bou, om. est, 2 ACDFH K, W Tr.
Bou,. in] a, Y. seculo, R, supra lin. W corr.; secula, H P,; W* ; seeculum,
Κι U,. 30. rationale, M, N P*),, (efere eras. R) U, corr.; rationabili, A BC D M,
Q* Tr. ; racionabili, Fort. umana, P;. carne] carnis, Τρ, 31. Equalis,
M, P,,, W; + est, Οὐ. Patri] Patris, K,* U, covv. secundum] sedum, P,,
Patri, 2°] Patre, BC D Gy, , 3,4 HL, N corr. Py QRS U, W corr.; Patris, K,* (2)
L, M,* U, cory. 33. unus autem] una, Κι. conuers x x ione (at wé wid. eras.),
B. diuinitates, K*,; —is, K, cory. in carne. . . Deo, ABCDEFG,HIL,,,
M,, 2 Pi, 3,4 (carne, Ὁ) RS TV Fort. Or, Paris; carne... diuinitate, Tr.;
carnem ... Deum, G, K, L, Or, Bou. Orl.; carnem... Deu x (m eras.),
ας U, (Deo, U, corv.); carne . . . Deum, K, W Bou, Stav.; carne x (πὶ eras.)
. . . Deum, G,; carnem... Deo, Y. adsumptione, BE FH K,,.N Pz 6077.
T Stav.;—ni, P,*;—nem; U*,,,.; adsumtione, L,; adsuptione, P, ; adsump-
sione, Paris. humanitatis] h eras. P3; a, 1° supra lin. B. 34. unitatis, Ps.
persone, K, L, NP3,,U,. 85. rationabilis, BM, Tr.; racionabilis, Paris. om.
hune vers, A. 86. saluta, V. salutem nostram, K,L,. >pro sal. ἢ. passus
est, Or,. discendit, BM, N U,; descendet, P;. adinferna, A W Fort. Or. Stav.]
ad infernum, Tr. Paris ; ad inferos, B (—nos, C) Ὁ E F Gy, », 3, 4 H K, K, Ly, 5 My
NP, 3,,QRSTU,,.VY Bou. Orl. Tol.; inferus, L,. resurrexit] surrexit,
B K, P; Uz Fort. Tr. Bou, re—ras. supra lin. Up; pr. tertia die, E (cum lin,
G,) HK, L, Q corr. RS corr. T (supra lin. see man. W) Or. Bou. Orl.; pr. die
tertia, A Tr.; pr. et, M, (ascéndit ad inferds et resurréxit in celos, M,). cuelos,
F. sedit, BEHP,,;,,TU,;. adja, P;. dexteram]+ Dei, DEF ΘΟ o, 3,4
H K,,. L, M. N Pi,34QR ST VU, corr. U. Y W Orl. Stav. Patris}
+ omnipotentis, CD E F Gy, », 3,4 H Ky,.1y,,3,M,NP),3,,QRSTU,WY

TEXT OF THE ‘‘QUICUNQUE ” 195

Orl. Stav.; omnipotentis. Inde... mortuos, in marg. U, corr. 37. uenturus]
+est, HK, et] ac, BK, 38. ad] A, K,; ad... et] om a...e, F.
> habent resurgere (D) omnes homines, M,; resurgere\ \ (nt e7'as?) habent, supra
din. R. cumjin, AB. racionem, M,. 39. om. Et, NP, Et procedunt qui bona
fecerunt in resurrectionem uite, U,. egerunt hibunt, U,. uitam et.]+ fecerunt
in res. uite, P;. sxternam, a eras bis L,. qui, 2°] pr. et, DEF HNP, T (supra
lin. U,) ({ see. man. W) Paris; pr. nam, M, ; qui uero m. sec. man. ut wid. Q.
uero] autem, K;. om. 1610, ABEFM,NP,,,T, Paris; αὐτὸ, U;. mala]
+ egerunt, Or. eternum, K,. 40. Hee] pr. hec eras. K,; a 6768. L,. est]
+ ergo, Κι. fides]+ fides, P;. chatolica, P;U,. quisque] quis, M,. fidiliter
hac, Uj. firmiterque, P;; om. que, G3. crediderit] credederit, U, (?);+atque
seruauerit, Gj, poterrit, Ly.

The paraphrases in A and the Paris Commentary are not
included in this apparatus. See above, p. 157. I have used
Swainson’s collations of the following MSS. C VY, and they
are not represented in their completeness.

A NEW TRANSLATION OF THE ATHAN-
ASIAN CREED

1 Whosoever willeth to be in a state of salvation, 18. John vii. 17.
before all things it is necessary that he hold the a ek ἧς ᾿

Catholic Faith, *which Faith except everyone 22 Thess. ii, 10-12,
shall have kept whole and undefiled without doubt 7 Pet #21
he will perish eternally.

I. i. (a) ® Now the Catholic Faith is this that we worship One #8, Mark xii, 29. 8.
Divine God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, ‘neither con- 4 (ω) 5, σοβη xiv. 16,
Personality founding the Persons nor dividing the substance. 1”... ey Alte
is Triune. 5 For there is one Person of the Father, another of 8, 4, 9.

the Son, another of the Holy Ghost. ° But the God- ὁ a) Ex. iii. 14. ()
head of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy ©) ΡΝ

Ghost, is One, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-
eternal.

(b) 7 Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is

; the Holy Ghost ; §the Father uncreate, the Son un- 8Gen.i.1. 5. John
Attributes of 9 i,1. Gen. i. 2
the Godhead create, and the Holy Ghost uncreate; the Father 9 ἐς ς AGN" 4. ‘Jer.

Sbeidiney * infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Ghost xxiii. 24.
antitheses, infinite ; }°the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and 10 ps, xc. 2. Col. i.
the Holy Ghost eternal. 4? And yet they are not a - Heb. ix. 14,
three eternals but one eternal, 12 85 also they are not 12 Isa. lvii. 15.
three infinites, nor three uncreated, but one un-
created, and one infinite. 15 So, likewise, the Father 15 Rev. xxi. 22. 5.
‘ John v. 19. 8Β,
is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost Luke i. 35.

196

(c

in which
Christian
Truth ac-

knowledges
the Trinity.

4

11,

Divine Re-

lationships
in scriptural

terms are
unique,
coeternal,
coequal,

II.

The In-

carnation.
We confess
that Christ

in Two
Natures

is One
Person

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

almighty; 14and yet they are not three almighties
but one almighty.

15 So the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy » @ §. John vi, 27.
Ghost God; 1%and yet they are not three Gods but ale 28, "ae ae
one God. 17 So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, Ω «ΟΝ δ
and the Holy Ghost Lord; 18 ηᾶ yet they are ποὺ cf.1Johnv. 4. 1
three Lords but one Lord. 1° For like as we are 11(a) 8. Math "x8,
compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every ) Pcs Υ i τι
Person by Himself to be both God and Lord ; so are 1g Οον. Hii. 17.

we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there ΜῈΝ AS

be three Gods or three Lords.

20 The Father is made of none, neither created nor 39 5, John ν. 26,
begotten. 21 ΤῊ Son is of the Father alone, not ἡ ν᾿ ie iit ioe
made nor created but begotten. 33 The Holy Ghost a Beh “a 7
is of the Father and the Son, not made nor created οἵ, xvi. 7,14, 15, xx.
nor begotten but proceeding. %%So there is one St oe
Father not three Fathers, one Son not three Sons,

one Holy Ghost not three Holy Ghosts, 2: And in

this Trinity there is nothing afore or after, nothing

greater or less, but the whole three Persons are co-

eternal together and coequal.

35 So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Trinity
in Unity and the Unity in Trinity is to be wor-
shipped. He therefore who willeth to be in a 30 3. John iii. 33-36.
state of salvation, let him thus think of the Trinity.

27 But it is necessary to eternal salvation that he 271 Tim. ii. 16, 1
also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord 9} ἵν. 3, 8.
Jesus Christ. 8 The right Faith therefore is that 38 5. John xiv. 2.
we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ,

the Son of God, is God and Man.

. 29 He is God of the substance of the Father begotten 99 gal, iy. 4,

11.

before the worlds, and He is Man of the substance

of His Mother born in the world ; 80 perfect God, 30 (1) Col. i. 15; ef.
perfect Man of a reasoning soul and human flesh μὸν: 4,3 Pe:

subsisting ; 31 equal to the Father as touching His Mark bgt tae
Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His _ ii. 14, 16¢.
Manhood. mn Qs. es Ὁ ;
(2) 5. John xiv. 28.
82 Who although He be God and Man yet He is not 221 Tim. ii. 5; ef.

two but one Christ ; *% one however not by conver- 3 a Me re

sion of the Godhead in the flesh, but by taking of

TEXT AND TRANSLATION OF “QUICUNQUE” 107

111.

The
Redecmer,

The Judge.

the Manhood in God; * one altogether not by con-
fusion of Substance but by unity of Person, * For
as the reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God
and Man is one Christ.

36 Who suffered for our salvation, descended into
hell, rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of the Father, 87 from
whence He shall come to judge the quick and the
dead. 38. At whose coming all men shall rise again
with their bodies and shall give account for their
own works. 939 And they who have done good shall

go into life eternal, and they who indeed have done :

evil into eternal fire.

40 This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man
shall have believed faithfully and firmly he cannot
be in a state of salvation.

34 cf. Heb. i. 2f.
35Gen. ii. 7.
Matt. xvi. 15f.

36 Rom. iii. 24f3; cf.
8S. Luke xxiii. 43.
1 Pet. iii. 18f. 5.
Luke xxiv. 46, 51.
Acts i. 11. Rom.
viii. 84. Col. iii.
1; cf. Acts vii, 56.

37 Acts x. 42.

38 Rom. xiv. 12. S.
Matt. xvi. 27; cf.
2 Cor. v. 10.

CHAPTER VIII

THE APOSTLES’ CREED IN THE FOURTH CENTURY

§ I. Rome. § IV. Africa.
§ II. Aquileia. § V. Spain.
§ III. Milan. § VI. Gaul.

THE path along which we may trace the growth of the ancient
historic faith, dignified from the fourth century by the
name of “the Apostles’ Creed,” now widens out considerably.
Many forms demand attention, and it is difficult to compress
within the limits of a single chapter all that may be said
about them. A line of cleavage begins from the middle of
the century between Eastern and Western forms. The
Kastern Churches began to adapt their forms of Baptismal
Creed, as we have seen in the case of our Nicene Creed, by
the insertion of Nicene terms. Eventually it obtained uni-
versal currency as the Creed of the Fathers.

Beginning with the Creeds of Rome and Aquileia, upon
which Rufinus commented, we may extend our survey to the
Creeds of Milan, Africa, Spain, and Gaul.

§ I. THE OLD ROMAN CREED

We must pick up again the thread of the history of the
Old Roman Creed at the point where we dropped it. We dis-
cussed the text quoted in Greek by Marcellus, and in Latin
by Rufinus. We were in search of a complete form from
which to look back. Now we seek to reverse the process, and

trace the stages by which this normal type of historic faith
was enlarged.
198

THE OLD ROMAN CREED 199

In Rome itself the type was most carefully preserved,
and remained unaltered possibly for two centuries to come.
Rufinus gives two reasons for this: (i.) that no heresy had
its origin there; (ii.) that the candidates for baptism were
made to rehearse their creed publicly, and no alterations
were allowed. The author of the Lxplanatio ad initiandos
writes to the same effect: “ Where faith is whole, the precepts
of the apostles suffice.”

We may now bring forward some corroborative evidence,
gleaned from MSS. of a later date than the fourth century,
which preserve the ancient text most correctly.

For the Greek text we may use the so-called Psalter of
fEthelstan (B.M., Galba, A. xviii.), which was written by an
Anglo-Saxon hand in Latin letters of the ninth century.
Here the creed is found, with collects, a litany, the Lord’s
Prayer, and the Sanctus, also in Greek. It probably repre-
sents the Greek text of the Old Roman Creed brought to
England by Roman missionaries. I will denote its variant
readings by A, those of Marcellus by M.

For the Latin text we may use: (i.) The celebrated Cod.
Laudianus, 35 (L), in the Bodleian Library, best known as
Cod. E of the Acts of the Apostles. Of the story of its
wanderings it must suffice to say that it was written most
probably in Italy at the end of the sixth century, was
brought to Sardinia, and thence to England, where it came
into the hands of the Venerable Bede by the beginning of
the eighth century.

(ii.) A MS. in the British Museum (2 A xx.), called by
Kattenbusch! Cod. Swainson (S), of the eighth century,
contains sections from the Gospels, the Lord’s Prayer, and
the creed, with Saxon versions, canticles, and prayers. The
title, Symbolum Apostolorum, has been added in a later hand ;
and in the margin the names of Jesus Christ and eleven
apostles (excluding Andrew) have been assigned to the
Twelve Articles.

(iii.) An interesting form has been published by Dom.
Morin? from a sermon in Cod. Sessorian. 52 (V), of the

li, pp. 741 2 Rev. Bén., Nov. 1897, p. 486.

200 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

eleventh or twelfth century, now in the Victor Emmanuel
Library at Rome. ‘The collection in which it is found will
come under our notice again (p. 232), and was made probably
in Rome. The sermon begins: “Simbolum enim in greca
lingua”; and ends: “ psenas corporis et anime.”

These MSS. enable us to check the text, which may be
gleaned from Rufinus (R). It is true that they are of a later
date, and that they are not free from interpolations, 6.0.
catholicam, SV; witam eternam, V. Their general agreement,
however, is decisive in favour of Dewm Patrem omnipotentem,
in place of the ablatives quoted by Rufinus from the Creed of
Aquileia, and implicitly suggested for that of Rome; also in
favour of οὐ in Art. 3, and gua in Art. 4.

THE OLD ROMAN CREED

I. 1. Πιστεύω εἰς Θεὸν πατέρα παν- I. 1.Credo in Deum Patrem
τοκράτορα, omnipotentem,

IT. 2. Καὶ εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, τν [1]. 2. Et in Christum Jesum,
υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ TOV Filium eius unicum, Do-
κύριον ἡμῶν, minum nostrum,

3. τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος 3. qui natus est de Spiritu
ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρ- Sancto et Maria uirgine,
θένου,

4. τὸν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου σταυ- 4. qui sub Pontio Pilato cruci-
ρωθέντα καὶ ταφέντα, fixus est et sepultus,

5. καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα ὅ. tertia die resurrexit ἃ
ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, mortuis,

6. ἀναβάντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς 6. ascendit in czelos,

7. καὶ καθήμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ 7. sedet ad dexteram Patris,
πατρός,

8, ὅθεν ἔρχεται κρίνειν ζῶντας 8. unde uenturus est indicare
καὶ νεκρούς. uiuos et mortuos.

111. 9. Kai εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, 111. 9. Et in Spiritum Sanctum,

10. ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν, 10. sanctam ecclesiam,

11. ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτίων, 11. remissionem peccatorum,

12. σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν. 12. carnis resurrectionem.

1, om, πατέρα, M. 1. Deo Patre omnipotente, R.

2. τὸν υἱὸν] om. τὸν, A. 2. Christo Iesu, RL, > Ihesum Chris-

tum, SV, > unico Filio eius, R.
Domino nostro, R.
3. et] ex, R.

AQUILEIA 3 201

4. om. qui, R, > cruc. sub P. P., RB.
om, Kai, A. om. est, R.
τῶν νεκρῶν] om, τῶν, A,

or

6. ad celos, Υ ; in celis, L.

7. om. kal, A, 7. sedit, S. dextera, L. Patris] pr.
Dei, S*; Déi, S. corr.
8, κρίνειν] κρῖναι, A. 8. inde, RV. et] ac, 5,
9. τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα] πνεῦμα ἅγιον, A, 9, Spiritu Sancto, RL.
10, ἁγί[αν ἐκκλησίαν], A. 10. sancta ecclesia, L] + catholicam
SV.
11. remissione, ἴω,
12. ἀνάστα[σιν], A. 12, resurrectionis, L,
+ ζωὴν αἰώνιον, M. + uitam eternam, V,

§ II. AQUILEIA

The creed which Rufinus quotes as the creed of his native
town is distinguished by some important additions. For
convenience of comparison, I will print with it the Creeds
of Milan and Africa, to be discussed in succeeding sections.

The other Aquileian Creeds, printed in Hahn,’ pp. 48 ff,
cannot be used to confirm this text, since their testimony is
doubtful, and they lack its chief characteristics. The first is
ascribed to a patriarch Lupo of the ninth or tenth century.
The second is the Creed of Venantius Fortunatus, who came
from Aquileia, and ended his days as Bishop of Poitiers, at
the beginning of the seventh century. In Art. 6 they both
read in celum. Lupo adds, in Art. δ, uiuens;* in Art. 10,
catholicam; and at the end, et uitam weternam. Fortunatus
records the descent into hell, but in the form ad infernum ;
and in Art. 8 reads tudicaturus. It is quite plain that these
are not forms derived from the Aquileian Creed.

The town of Aquileia was destroyed by Attila in 452,
and it is possible that when it was rebuilt much that belonged
to its old life was altered.?

Rufinus was careful to explain that the preposition i is
reserved to distinguish belief in the Three Divine Persons
from belief in created beings and mysteries. He does not

1 Cf. the Creeds of Niceta, the Spanish Church from the sixth century, Theodulf
of Orleans, and some old English translations which add ad uitam.
35 Kattenbusch, i. p. 107,

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

202

‘UIBISOTIIG UIBOUVS Wad “OL

WIVUIOJL τα 21 WIWOT}OOLINSAI

49 stureo ‘tanr0zvo0ed UeUOTssTUIOI
‘unjourg ταπμητατάς ul 29 opay
"sonjour

9 SONIN VIVOIPUT 459 ShANquON apur "

(ΒΙΑΊΩΙ Ulvlo}xXep pe Jopas
“ΠῚ 7690 UT JIPMIOSe

‘sMAOUL B 4IXILINSOI OIp Ἐ17192 *

289 snqyndoes

49 OFV[IG OUOg qns snxyronss mb

9 BLIV]T

oUuLsSIM xa oyouRG nyWIdg ep wHnyLvu

‘InsUyY) WUnsey uNIysouU UNUTUI

-Ο( WMOTUN snte WHITL,T Url 29 ope19

"UWAVUQUSINUD 49 WapD,LOULUD SULN.LO

~jnams wabas ‘wasozna1d WNLOs.LanwUn
“ιἰπογπογοάταιπο

τΠΘ 1784 Wed UI Opely

‘GIS “Weg ‘ny

‘VOIAV

“GI

ri

“UOTOTJOIIANSAI SIUIVI “ZT
‘um.ioye00ed ταϑποιθθιταθα 17
‘UIBISO[IND UIVIOURS “OT

‘Tunourg ταπητατάς uty 6
9 sonjioutr
42 SONIN IIBOIPUI 459 SHANJUON spur *g
‘st1yeg Weloyxep pv Jopes ἡ,
*‘WUN [829 UL JIPUdDSe Ὃ
‘sInJ1OUL Ὁ JIXOLINSOL 910 Ἐ1Π1191 “GC

‘snqindes 429 snxy

-1ONID ΟἹ ΒΩ OTFUOG qus 7159 snssvd Ἢ
‘ele OUTST

qa ojourg nyidg ep 259 snyeu τὴ Ὁ “6
‘UNIysou TMUIUIOp τι ἸτΠῚ

snle WNI[LT WnystIyH wWuser uly *Z

¢ ταϑητιοηοάτττηο
WoIyeg WN] UI opel”) ‘T

‘PIS ‘ELS “12 “Weg “Sny
‘yur po yday ‘ssorqury

“NV TW

“UIOUOTJOOLAINSOL STULBD ΒΗ}
‘n10}R000d WATOTSSTUTOT
‘UreISe[N00 ΤΠ ΟΤΙΈΒ

‘oyoung nyaidg ut 2107

‘ sonqzour

19 SONIN IVOIPUL 289 Shanquen apur
‘sl1jeq Τὰ ΒΘ. ΧῸΡ pe yopes
*‘s0]009 UL JIpusose

‘sINJIOUL Ὁ JIXOIINSI 910 1119
“‘puULafur WL qupuaosap

‘snqind

-98 29 OJVI[IG OMUOg qns snxytonso °

‘elle, OUISIIN

xa ojoueg nywidg sp 459 snyeu nb *

‘oljsou OUTULOp

Snto OIL oormn ‘nso oystAyO Ul yy °

Syuussnduin ya yuqusenur
94τιθφοάταθιο
91.784 096 UL Opa

‘snuyny

‘VIETINOV

éL
ga:
‘OL

ΟἹ

AQUILEIA 203

seem to attach any importance to the use of the ablative case.
In fact, from this time onwards ablatives and accusatives
seem to have been used indifferently, and in the early Middle
Ages no consciousness seemed to remain of any difference of
case. But in Latin translations of our Nicene Creed, which
had im repeated before unam .. . ecclesiam, the distinction
required by Rufinus was kept up by the use of the Ablative
to denote the Divine Persons.

The words inwisibili οἱ impassibili were an unfortunate
addition, intended to guard against Sabellianism, but made
use of by the Arians to their own purpose. This objection
was clearly pointed out by S. Ambrose.’ The clause descendit
in inferna is not found in any earlier Baptismal Creed, though
it occurs in the manifestoes of three Arian Synods during
this century. Rufinus calls attention to the fact that it is
not in the Roman or any Eastern Creed.

SIRMIUM, 359. Νική, 359. CONSTANTINOPLE, 360.
Kai eis τὰ καταχθόνια Kal rapévra καὶ eis ra Kal ταφέντα καὶ εἰς
, ee as >a , , a \ ,
κατελθόντα, καὶ τὰ ἐκεῖσε καταχθόνια κατελθόντα᾽' τὰ καταχθόνια κατελη-
> , οἃ a δὲν. ¢ q > , , . 5 Ν απ"
οἰκονομήσαντα" ὃνπυλω- ὃν αὐτὸς 6 ἄδης ἐτρό- λυθότα᾽ ὅντινα καὶ αὐτὸς
ροὶ ἅδου ἰδόντες ἔφριξαν. μασε. ὁ ἅδης ἔπτηξεν.

The first of these, the famous Dated Creed of Sirmium,
was drawn up by Mark of Arethusa. It is based on the
fourth Creed of Antioch, which he and a few other bishops
had drawn up to take to Constans in 340. It is said to
have been translated rather freely from a Latin original now
lost.2 But this has not been actually proved, and the connec-
tion with the fourth Creed of Antioch tends, on the contrary,
to confirm the suggestion that it was Mark’s composition.
The reference to the descent into hell, coupled with the
quotation of Job xxxviii. 17 (LXX. πυλωροὶ δὲ ἄδου ἰδόντες
σε ἔπτηξαν), seems to have been introduced as equivalent to
“buried,” which is here omitted. This is exactly in harmony
with the teaching of Cyril of Jerusalem, “ whose influence is

1 Kxplanatio ad initiandos, quoted on p. 207 infra. Rufinus is careful to
guard against the Arian inference.
*Kattenbusch, i. p. 261, n. 16; Zahn, p. 72.

204 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

seen in other features of the Sirmian ecthesis.”* Cyril refers
to the descent in several of his lectures, but in his list of ten
dogmata it appears as subordinate to the burial, or rather as
an explanation of it.2 Thus he says (Cat. iv. 11): Κατῆλθεν
εἰς τὰ καταχθόνια, ἵνα κἀκεῖθεν λυτρώσηται τοὺς δικαίους ; and
at the beginning of the following section on the Resurrection
(ib. 12): AX’ ὁ καταβὰς εἰς τὰ καταχθόνια πάλιν ἀνῆλθε, καὶ
ὁ ταφεὶς ᾿Ιησοῦς πάλιν ἀνέστη τὸ τριήμερον ἀληθῶς.

Zahn suggests that the Sirmian Creed was drawn up
with some reference to the Creed of the Church in that part
of Pannonia, and that we may conclude that this clause
has already found a place in it. It is true that Martin,
Bishop of Bracara, a native of Pannonia, who came into
Spain in the seventh century, had these words in his creed.
But it is easy to account for them at that date as derived
from a Gallican or Spanish source, and it must be remembered
that they are only found in one of Caspari’s three MSS. (Cod.
Toletanus). This suggestion cannot be regarded as yet proved.

The Creeds of Niké and Constantinople are dependent upon
the Dated Creed, and need not be considered apart from it.
Indeed, it is doubtful whether the reference to these Synods
throws any light on the history of the Aquileian Creed, in which
the clause had probably stood for two centuries when Rufinus
wrote. “At any rate” (says Dr. Swete), “ Rufinus had lost the
clue.” He regards it merely as a gloss on sepultus: “ uis tamen
uerbi eadem uidetur esse in eo quod sepultus dicitur.” Com-
pared with the dramatic descriptions common in the fourth
century, the clause seems severely simple; but it is scriptural,
for descendit in infernum (ad infernum, ad inferna) are old Latin
and Vulgate renderings of LXX., εἰς ἅδου κατέβη ; e.g. Ps. liv.
(lv.) 16, and xvi. (xv.) 10, quoted by S. Peter (Acts ii. 27).

It may therefore have been added in protest against
docetic denials of the Lord’s true death at the end of the
second century, for the Church of Aquileia claimed a high
antiquity, or it may have been added, without reference to

1Swete, pp. 56f.
*Swete goes too far in saying that he made it ‘‘one of his ten primary
credenda,” 3 Swete, p. 59.

MILAN 205

false teaching, to express what reverent Christian imagination
has always held, that the Lord by sharing sanctified the con-
dition of departed souls.

One more variation in the Creed of Aquileia needs
mention, hwius carnis resurrectionem, “ possibly a relic of some
early struggle of the Aquileian Church with docetic Gnosti-
cism. Rufinus interprets huius carnis as teaching the absolute
identity of the future with the present body.” This was the
popular teaching of the time of Jerome and the latter writ-
ings of Augustine, and it is emphasised in several creeds, eg.
of Phoebadius, Niceta, and others. It ministers, however, to a
materialistic view which is opposed, as Origen had pointed
out long before, to δ. Paul’s teaching ; for the apostle’s illustra-
tion from the growth of a seed points to continuity of life
under changed and glorified conditions: “ First that which is
natural, and afterwards that which is spiritual.”

§ ITI. Minan

We look instinctively to the writings of the great bishop
and statesman Ambrose for information about the Creed of
Milan. Caspari* has restored to a place among them a very
interesting sermon, Lxplanatio symboli ad initiandos. It is
found in three MSS., and he has analysed their mutual rela-
tions with great care. The best, in which the authorship is
ascribed to Ambrose, has come from Bobbio to the Vatican
(Cod. Vat. 5760, sec. ix., x.) It is a copy of what might be
called rough notes taken down by a hearer. The other MSS.
(Cod. Lamb. sec. xiii, from the monastery of Lambach, and
Cod. S. Gall. 188, sec. vii, viii.) depend upon a common
archetype, and represent a more polished recension of the text.
They ascribe the authorship to Maximus of Turin and
Augustine. The claims of Maximus are easily set aside by
reference to a sermon which he preached on the delivery of
the creed, and which contains the Old Roman Creed.* Nor is
the style in the least like that of Augustine, of whose sermons
on the creed several specimens survive.

1 Swete, pp. 95f, 2 TI. 48 ; III. 196. ° Hahn,? p. 40,

206 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

On the other hand, the authorship of Ambrose is confirmed
by a number of small points:—(1) The preacher argues
against alterations of the text of the creed, which he affirms
is identical with that of the Church in Rome: “ Hoc autem
est symbolum quod Romana ecclesia tenet.” In a letter of
Ambrose to Pope Siricius the same opinion is expressed:
“Oredatur symbolo Apostolorum, quod ecclesia Romana
intemeratum semper custodit et seruat.”* As a matter of
fact, when we compare his creed with the Roman, the only
variation of any importance” is the addition of the word
passus, which is in any case implied in erucifizus. (2) Arian-
ism, when the sermon was preached, was still a power to be
combated. (3) The author shows acquaintance with the Creed
of Aquileia, and argues that it was a mistake to add in it the
words inwisibilis et impassibilis, because the Arians argue there-
from that the Son, on the contrary, is visible and passible.
When we remember that Ambrose presided over a Council at
Aquileia in 382 which deposed the Arian Bishops Palladius
and Secundianus, we see at once how natural the references to
Arianism and to the Aquileian Creed would be from his mouth.
(4) Some of the phrases repeated in this short discourse may
be proved to be favourite words of Ambrose in the anti-Arian
treatises, de Fide, de Spiritu Sancto, de Incarnationis Domine
Sacramento, e.g. the use of derogare, accipere, videre, and denique.®

These arguments have been opposed by Kattenbusch,*
who admits that the rhetorical style is like that of Ambrose,
but thinks that it would be easy to imitate. This is true,
and no doubt it was a common thing to attach the name of
a great man to any anonymous writing, but the fact remains
that it is the oldest text in this case which preserves the
name Ambrose. The reference to Arianism as a present
power which is fatal to the claims of Maximus, who wrote
before and after 450, when, as Kattenbusch admits, “ Arian-
ism had long been conquered in the Church of the Roman

1 Bp. 42.
2The order Iesus Christus, and the repetition of in before ecclesiam and
remissionem (Cod. Vat.), might be due to copyists.
> Caspari, ii. pp. 82 ff. 41, pp. 84-91.

MILAN 207
Empire,” * would seem to be equally fatal to the claims of the
unknown Italian prelate of the beginning of the fifth century
whom he postulates as the author. His strongest point is
the assertion that the author quoted the Commentary of
Rufinus. He goes so far as to say that the preacher first
understood his position when he had read Rufinus, and found
a creed which contained the additions to be forced upon his
Church that the door might be opened to Arianism. But he
at once admits in a note ἢ that this may be to read too much
into the words of the sermon. And it is difficult to under-
stand how, if the author was dependent upon Rufinus, he
failed to quote the written words more exactly, eg. the
emphatic and repeated “ Constat.” The passages are of in-
terest in themselves, and I will therefore quote them in full :-—

Explanatio symbole.

Sed dicis mihi, postea emerserunt
heereses. Quid ergo? uide simplici-
tatem, uide puritatem. Patripas-
siani cum emersissent, putauerunt
etiam catholici in hac parte adden-
dum inutsibilem et invpassibilem, quasi
Filius Dei uisibilis et passibilis
fuerit. Si fuit uisibilis in carne,
caro illa fuit uisibilis non diuinitas.
Denique quid dicat audi: “ Deus,
Deus respice in me: quare me de-
reliquisti?” In passione hoc dicit ;
dominus noster Iesus Christus hoc
secundum hominem locutus est,
quasi caro dicat ad diuinitatem,
“quare me dereliquisti?” Ergo
esto medici fuerint maiores nostri ;
uoluerint addere egritudini sanita-
tem ; medicina non queritur. Ergo
si medicina non fuit eo tempore
necessaria, quo erat hereticorum
quorundam grauis egritudo ani-
morum; et si fuit tune temporis
querenda, nunc non est. Qua ra-
tione? Fides integra aduersus Sa-

RUFINI Commentarius.

His additur, tnwisibild et impassi-
bilt, Sciendum quod duo isti
sermones in KEcclesie Romane
symbolo non habentur. Constat
autem apud nos additos, hereseos
causa Sabellii, illius profecto que ἃ
nostris “ Patripassiana ” appellatur ;
id est, que et Patrem ipsum uel ex
Virgine natum dicit, et uisibilem
factum esse, uel passum affirmat in
carne. Utergo excluderetur talis
impietas de Patre, uidentur hec
addidisse maiores, et “ inuisibilem ”
Patrem atque “impassibilem” dix-
isse. Constat enim Filium non
Patrem, incarnatum et ex carne
natum, et ex natiuitate carnis
Filium uisibilem et passibilem
factum. Quantum autem spectat
ad illam deitatis immortalem sub-
stantiam, que una ei eademque
cum Patre est, ibi neque Pater,
neque Filius, neque Spiritus Sanc-
tus uisibilis aut passibilis creditur.
Secundum dignationem uero carnis

TP. 86.

RP 87 Re Ty

208 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

Explanatio symboli—contd. RvuFINI Commentarius—contd.
bellianos. Exclusi sunt Sabelliani assumtz Filius et uisus et passus
maxime de partibus occidentis. Ex est in carne.
illo remedio Arriani inuenerunt sibi
genus calumniz: et quoniam sym-
bolum Romane ecclesie nos tenemus,
ideo uisibilem et passibilem Patrem
omnipotentem illi «stimarent et
dicerent : uides quia symbolum sic
habent, ut uisibilem Filium et passi-
bilem designarent. Quid ergo?
Ubi fides integra est, sufficiunt
precepta apostolorum. Cautiones
licet sacerdotum non requirantur.
Quare? quia tritico immixta zizania
sunt.

Sic dicite: Filiwm eius unicum.
Non unicus dominus? Unus Deus
est, unus et dominus: sed ne calum-

Hic est ergo Christus Iesus, Filius
unicus Dei, qui est et dominus
noster. Unicus et ad Filium referri
Unicus est

nientur et dicant, quia una persona ;
dicamus Filium etiam unicum dom-
inum nostrum.

et ad dominum potest.
enim et uere Filius et unus dominus
Tesus Christus.

It is surely impossible to prove a “ literary relationship ”
from such parallels. In the second case, as Kattenbusch
admits, the point of view is different, though both writers
maintain that in the text of the creed wnicus is to be con-
nected with Filius. But the author of the Haplanatio permits
the teaching of wnicus dominus against Sabellianism, while
Rufinus connects it with the Lord’s work of redemption. On
the other hand, it is easy to explain how Rufinus, an admirer
of Ambrose, might have quoted what had been handed down
as the teaching of Ambrose, though not in the exact words.

Another authority for the Creed of Milan is Augustine,
the disciple of Ambrose, who in his writings quotes two Creeds
of Milan and Africa, the former in Sermons 212, 213, 214.

The authorship of 213, denied by Pearson and suspected
by Heurtley, has been confirmed by Caspari’s discovery of the
only known MS. in the University Library at Breslau (Cod.
I. Q. 344, see. xv.). The three sermons contain a creed-
text practically identical with that of the Zxplanatio. It
is true that in 212 the words “inuisibilem, immortalem,

AFRICA 209

regem seculorum, uisibilium et inuisibilium creatorem,” follow
the first article, but not in the correct order of the African
Creed, as in Sermon 215, and the phrases passus and in
celum show that he is quoting the Creed of Milan.!

From a dogmatic point of view the creed is chiefly
interesting as the Baptismal Creed of Augustine. It only
differs from the Roman Creed by the addition of the word
passus, Which is so plainly included in the idea of the word
crucifiaus following, that no one would regard it as a departure
from the teaching there set forth. In many short Inter-
rogative Creeds (see p. 232) passus is used to sum up all
the teaching of the Lord’s passion and burial. Possibly it
came into the Milanese Creed under the influence of the
writings of Irenzus, in whose Rule of Faith it had a promi-
nent place. Once established in that form, it may, in return,
have influenced the later Gallican Creed. In his researches,
the Abbé Duchesne has tried to prove that the Church of
Milan had considerable influence in the development of
liturgical forms in Gaul. It is possible that passus came
into the Gallican Creeds of the fourth century from the
Milanese, but it is more probable the writings of Irenzus
were the source in both cases.

§ IV. AFRICA

The following passages from the letters of S. Cyprian,
Bishop of Carthage, 6. A.D. 255, witness to the use of an African
form, though only a fragment is quoted.? The varying order
of articles 10-12, which was stereotyped in the later African
form, may have come through the interrogatories used at
baptism.’

Ep. 69. 7, ad Magnum: “ Quodsi aliquis illud opponit ut

1 For 213 Cod. Breslau has ‘‘et uirgine Maria”; cf. Biumer, p. 63, n. 2,
and Cod. lat. Monac., 8826 f. 326 f.

* Lumby, Hist, Creeds,? p. 115, ἢ. 1, remarks with reason that ‘‘we cannot
suppose that Cyprian’s Creed was shorter than that of his ‘ Master,’ Tertullian,”
and proposes to combine the forms in restoring the Creed of Carthage (p. 28).
Elsewhere, pp. 18, 115, he argues that the form as quoted is complete.

3 Kattenbusch, i. p. 136.

14

210 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

dicat, eandem Novatianum legem tenere, quam catholica
ecclesia teneat, eodem symbolo quo et nos baptizare, eundem
nosse Deum Patrem, eundem Filtum Christum, eundem
Spiritum Sanctum, ac propter hoe usurpare eum potestatem
baptizandi posse, quod uideatur in interrogatione baptismi
a nobis non discrepare, sciat quisquis hoc opponendum putat,
primum non esse unam nobis et schismaticis symboli legem,
neque eandem interrogationem. Nam cum dicunt: Credis
in remissionem peccatorum et uitam eternam per sanctam
ecclesiam ? mentiuntur in interrogatione, quando non habeant
ecclesiam. Tunc deinde uoce sua ipsi confitentur, remissionem
peccatorum non dari nisi per sanctam ecclesiam posse; quam
non habentes ostendunt, remitti illic peccata non posse.”

Ep. 70. 2, ad Januariam: “Sed et ipsa interrogatio, que
fit in baptismo, testis est ueritatis, Nam cum dicimus:
Credis in uitam ceternam et remissionem peccatorum per sanctam
ecclesiam ? intelligimus, remissionem peccatorum non nisi in
ecclesia dari.”

S. Augustine’s writings form a connecting link at this
period between the Churches of Milan and Africa. There
is some uncertainty about the form or forms of creed em-
bedded in them. In the Sermons 212, 213, 214, which
have been quoted above, he used the Creed of the Church of
Milan, where he had been baptized. On the whole he seems
to have kept closely to it. But there is one sermon (215)
which manifestly contains an African text, and some small
variations in other passages point to the influence of this
African type. Surely this is what might be expected.
Anyone who is familiar with two forms will find words
come into his mind which do not belong to the form which
he is expounding. We must keep- before our minds the
possibility of subsequent alteration of the text by copyists,
and the strong objection which S. Augustine expresses to
any writing out of the creed with ink and pen.!_ Indeed,
in his book de Fide et Symbolo, an address originally delivered
as a presbyter to the Council of Hippo Regius in 393, he
says distinctly that the exact form given to the catechumens

1 Serm, 212, see p. 281 infra. 3

AFRICA 211

is not repeated. This address was afterwards, as he tells us
in his Retractatins (i. 17), published by request. But it
would be unwise to lean much on the text found in this
book. Heurtley reads unigenitum, which is indeed found in
a corresponding passage of de Genest ad Literam. In this
passage it is immediately explained by wnicwm, and appears
to be due to the context, possibly to a reminiscence of the
Nicene Creed: “Filium Dei Patris unigenitum id est
unicum.” In Sermon 57 there is the following definite
quotation: “ Filius Dei Dominus noster Iesus Christus docuit
nos orationem, et cum ipse sit dominus sicut in symbolo
accepistis et reddidistis filius Dei unicus tamen uoluit esse
unus.”

Perhaps it would be simplest to exhibit the variations in
the de Fide ct Symbolo, de Genesi, Sermo ad catechumenos,
and Enchiridion (written within the last ten years of his life),
by means of a table:

De F, et 8. De Genesi. | Serm. ad catech. Enchir.
2. unigenitum, i.e. | unigenitum, unicum, unigenitus, i.e.
unicum. unicus.
3. per Spiritum | de... et. GOs « Pt de... et.
Sancto ex uir-

. hd |
gine Maria.

4, sub. P.P. cruci- | ae passus sub. P,P.
fixus.
12. carnis res. | cee | res. carnis. res, carnis,

The preposition per in Art. 3 is a unique use; ex showing
an approximation to African usage like the omission of
passus. But the fact that in none of these cases does he quote
the last three articles in the African order, shows that the
Milanese type was dominant in his mind.

When we come to Sermon 215, we find the African
type shown by the addition of words in Art. 1 and by the
altered order of the concluding articles familiar to us from
the time of Cyprian.

This type may be tested by comparison with some Ps.-
Augustinian sermons,! which, from the strong language used

1 Ed. Hahn,? p. 60, from Aug., ed. Bened. viii. 1609-1648,

212 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

against. the Arians, appear to belong to the period of the
Vandal persecutions at the end of the fifth century. We
may also use the creed proposed by Fulgentius, Bishop of
Ruspe, at the beginning of the sixth century. It is
preserved in a fragment of his treatise against the Arian
Fabianus.

Aua. Serm. 215 (A); Ps.-Auc. Serm. (B); Fuia. c. Fab. Ar.
Frag. xxxvi. (F).

I. 1. Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem,
universorum creatorem, regem seculorum,
immortalem et inuisibilem.

II. 2. Credo et in Filium eius unicum Dominum
nostrum Iesum Christum,
3. natum de Spiritu Sancto ex uirgine Maria ;
4, qui crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato et sepultus est,
5. tertia die resurrexit a mortuis,
6. ascendit in celum,
7. sedet ad dexteram Patris,
8. inde uenturus est iudicare
uluos et mortuos.
III. 9. Credo et in Spiritum Sanctum,
11. remissionem peccatorum,
12. carnis resurrectionem et uitam eternam
10. ver sanctam ecclesiam.

1. Credo (ter)]; Credimus (fer), AB; seculorum] celorum, B. 2. om.
et F; om. unicum, AB; om. Dominum nostrum, B; >Iesum Christum,
Filium eius unicum, F. 3. Caspari, iii. p. 92, n. 174, suggests for B the
readings natum... crucifixum... sepultum. Qui natus est, F. 4. om.

est, B. 5. >a mortuis resurrexit, B. 6. >ascendit] assumptus, B. ad
ceelos,? A. 7. Patris] pr. Dei, A. 9. om. et F, 12. >resurrectionem carnis, A.

There are several readings in this restored African type
which need explanation. Did 8. Augustine himself use the
plural Credimus, which is found in Sermon 215? His
ordinary use was undoubtedly the singular, and in the

1 Fragm, xxxvi., Hahn,? p. 61.
* Ad calos and Dei in the following articles are plainly due to copyist’s
elror.

AFRICA 213

repeated use of Crede in this sermon, where eredite would be
more natural, if it stood in the text, I find a hint of this:
“Crede ergo Filium Dei crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato et
sepultum.”

Upon this quotation I rely also for the exclusion of
mortuus, which has been inserted by Lumby! in his text of
the creed extracted from this sermon. In this passage,
mortwus, if not a copyist’s addition, may be said to belong to
the comment. The insuper introduced precludes the idea of
exact quotation. Some lines below in the transition to
resurrexit we read “crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato et sepultus
est,” and mortuus again follows in a comment. Here I have
the support of Kattenbusch.?

Both Lumby and Heurtley add mortuus to the text of
the creed quoted in Sermo ad Catechumenos. There, also, it
seems to belong rather to the exposition. After the definite
quotation, “ passus sub Pontio Pilato,” follows in the com-
ment, “passus est, crucifixus mortuus et sepultus,’ the last
four words being repeated.

As to the order resurrectionem carnis, it may be pointed
out that the form of the sentence is artificial: “per ipsam
remissionem ... per ipsam resurrectionem ... per ipsam
uitam.” This would explain the repetition of the words in
that order in §9, though it must be admitted that it would
not explain the order in the Sermo ad Catechumenos and the
Enchiridion.

The addition witam ceternam had been in use in the
African Church since the third century, and it is interesting
to note how frequently S. Augustine introduces it in his
comment when the Milan type of creed is before his eyes.

P. 155,
21, p. 137, n. 4, ** Dass das Symbol nicht etwa ein ‘mortuus’ aufgenom-

men habe, darf ohne Umstand prisumiet worden.”

214 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

§ V. SPAIN

The type of creed used at this time in Spain may be
partially restored from the quotation found in the writings
of Priscillian :

I. 1. (Credimus) wrxum Deum Patrem omnipotentem,

IT. 2. et wnwm Dominum Iesum Christum,.. .

3. natum ex Maria uirgine ez Spiritu Sancto,.. .

4. passum sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixum
sepultum ;

5. tertia die resurrexisse . .

6. ascendisse in czelos,

7. sedere ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis .. .

8. inde uenturum et iudicaturwm de uiuis et mortuis.

0. (Credimus) im sanctam ecclesiam,

Ill. 9. Sanctum Spiritum (baptismum salutare); .. .
11. (Credimus) im remissionem peccatorum;.. .
12. (Credimus) im resurrectionem carnis.

The peculiar tenets of Priscillian are manifested in this
version of the creed. His Sabellianism is shown by the
position of the words Holy Spirit after the Virgin Mary, and
as subordinate to the idea of Holy Church.

We gather that the Spanish Creed was almost identical
with that of Milan, though it seems that Dei and Patris had
already been added in Art. 7. Judicaturus is confirmed by
the reading of the Mozarabic Liturgy.

§ VI. GaAuL

The Creed of the Church in Gaul at this period is of great
importance, in view of the development of its form in the
following century, when it attained almost the full form of our
Textus receptus. It may be conjecturally restored from the
writings of Phcebadius and Victricius.

i. Phoebadius (+ after 392), Bishop of Agen in the
Church province of Bordeaux, was the author of a vigorous
polemical treatise against the Arian Second Creed of Sirmium.
He was one of the most stalwart Orthodox bishops at Ariminum

GAUL 215

in 359, and is supposed! to have written the formulary issued
by them, which is quoted by Jerome.? The following extract
is interesting, as it contains the earliest appearance of the
phrase “conceived of the Holy Ghost.” But it is not to be
depended on as quoting a Gallican form of creed, since it does
not contain the word “suffered,” for which there is other evidence:

Credimus ὧν unum uerum Deum Patrem omnipotentem.
Credimus in unigenitum Dei Filiwm, qui ante omnia secula et
ante omne principium natus est ex Deo, natum autem unigeni-
tum solum ex solo Patre, Deum ex Deo, similem genitori suo
Patri secundum scripturas, cuius natiuitatem nullus nouit nisi
qui solus eum genuit Pater. Qui de ccelo descendit, conceptus
est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ew Maria wirgine, crucifixus a Pontio
Pilato, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis ascendit in celum, sedet ad
dexteram Dei Patris, uenturus iudicare uiuos et mortuos.

A more important form of confession, also attributed to
Pheebadius, subsequently obtained a wide popularity, under the
title, “ The Faith of the Romans.” This theory of authorship
was first suggested by the Benedictines of S. Maur, and has
been confirmed by Kattenbusch,? who quotes the following
words from the writing of Pheebadius, de Fide Orth. c. 8: “Quem
etsi passum credimus et sepultum ... tertia quoque die resur-
rexit ... ascendit in ccelos .. . consedit ad dextram Patris.”

The confession is found in the 50th oration of Gregory
Nazianzen, where it is called de Fide Nicena Rufino presbytero
interprete tractatus. Also among the writings of Vigilius of
Thapsus, in the 7th Book, “On the Trinity” attributed in the
Middle Ages to 8. Athanasius. In this way it came to be
quoted by Hincmar as “The Faith of 3. Athanasius.” It is
also found in no less than eight collections of canons, com-
prising a very large number of MSS., in some of which it is
divided into two parts, the second having the title of Sermo.
The greater part was quoted in the apocryphal Acts of Liberius,
which were written not later than the fifth century.* They are

! By the Benedictines of 5, Maur, Hahn,* p. 208.

5 Dial. adv. Lucif. ο. 17. Si, p. 171 ff.

40, Marucchi, Le memorie dei SS. apostoli, p. 108, Rome, 1894. I owe this
reference to Dom. G. Morin,

216 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

contained in six collections of canons, the earliest of which,
that of S. Blasien, was completed in the sixth century.’ It is
also quoted in a composite document, known as the Creed of
Damasus (p. 244 infra), and in a mixed text in which the two
creeds are combined. ‘Thus we have striking testimony to its
popularity.

IT am able to print a critical text from the following MSS :—

A Paris, B.N., Cod. 3836 in the Gesta Liberti . 8. Vill.

L Leiden, Cod. xviii. 67 F : : ; j 8: Vili., ix.
M, Munich, Cod. lat. 6330 ; ὶ Σ : 8. ΕΠ ix.
M, Munich, Cod. lat. 14,008

ἜΣ Φ

P Paris, B.N., Cod. 1451 S. Vill. ex.
Q Paris, B.N., Cod. 3848 A ἃ, Viil., ix.
R Paris, B.N., Cod. 2341 δ Ἃς

Ὗ Rome, Cod. Vatic. 1342 3, ᾧ

FIDES ROMANORUM.

Credimus in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem et in unum unigenttum
Filium eius lhesum Christum, Deum et Dominum saluatorem nostrum
et Spiritum Sanctum Deum. Non tres Deos, sed Patrem et Filium
et Spiritum Sanctum unum Deum esse confitemur: non sic Deum
5 quasi solitarium, nec eundem, qui ipse sibi Pater sit, ipse et Filius,
sed Patrem uerum, qui genuit Filium uerum, id est, Deus de Deo,
lumen de lumine, uita ex uita, perfectum ex perfecto, totum a toto,
plenum a pleno, non creatum sed genitum, non ex nihilo, sed ex
Patre, unius substantize cum Patre. Spiritum uero Sanctum Deum,
10 non ingenitum neque genitum, non creatum nec factum, sed Patris et
Filii, semper in Patre et Filio coeternum ueneramur: unum tamen
Deum, quia ex uno Patre totum quod Patris est, Deus natus est
Filius, et in Patre totum quod inest, totum genuit Filium. Pater
Filium generans non minuit nec amisit plenitudinis sue Deitatem.
15 Totum autem quod est Deus Pater id esse et Filium ab eo natum
certissime tenentes cum Spiritu Sancto unum Deum plissime confi-
temur. Credimus Ihesum Christum domanum nostrum Dei Filiwm per
quem omnia facta sunt, que in celis et que in terra, uisibilia et
inuisibilia propter nostram salutem descendisse de clo, qui nunquam
20 desierit esse in celo, et natum de Spiritu Sancto ex Virgine Maria.
Uerbum caro factum non amisit quod erat, sed ccepit esse quod non
erat, non demutatum sed Deum permanentem etiam hominem
natum, non putatiue sed uere, non rium sed corporeum, non
phantasium sed carneum, ossa, sanguinem, sensum et animam
25 habentem. Ita uerum hominem ut uerum Deum unum eundemque
uero hcminem et uerum Deum intelligimus, ita ut uerum Deum

' Maassen, p. 504.

FIDES ROMANORUM 217

uerum hominem fuisse nullo modo ambigimus confitendum. Hunce
eundem Ihesum Christum adimpleuisse legem et prophetas, pas-
sum sub Pontio Pilato, cructficwm secundum scripturas, mortuwm
30 et sepultwm secundum scripturas tertia die a mortuis resurrexisse,
adsumptum in celum, sedere ad dexteram Patris, inde uenturum
cudicare uiuos et mortuos. Expectamus in huius morte et sanguine
mundatos remissionem peccatorwm consecutos resuscitandos nos in his
corporibus et in eadem carne, qua nunc sumus, sicut et ipse in eadem
35 carne, qua natus passus et mortuus est et resurrexit, et animas cum
hac carne uel corpora nostra accepturos ab eo aut uitam eeternam
premium boni meriti, aut sententiam pro peccatis seterni supplicii.

LINE 1. om. in, Q. om. patrem, LM,,., PQR. om. in, 2° M,PQ corr. om.
unum, P. 2, Filium]+ Dei, L. om. Ihesum Christum, Q. om. Dominum, P.
Salbatorem, M,. 3. et]+ in, R. om. Deum, R. om. Non... Sanctum, R.
Non... unum, LM,. om. sed, Q. 4. om. Deum, 1°LM,PR. sic] si, P.
5. om. quasi, P. om. et, P. 6. uerum, 1°] uero, L. om. uerum, 2° M,, id]
et, L; ut, M,,.Q.V hic ine. A. Deum de Deum, A. 7. lumen] pr. et, A. om.
uita... toto, A. uitam, V. perfecto de perfectum totus a totum plenus, Mj.
ex 2°] de, M,QRV. 8. creatum] creaturam, Q. sed, 1°] set, V. 9. substantie,
V,; substancie, L. Spiritum] pr. et, Q. om. Spiritum... 10. genitum, M,.
Deum] + nostrum, A. 10. nec] neque, ALM,R. sed] + de patre procedentem,
A M, (procedente, R). Patris] Patri, M,. 11. Filii] fi supra lin. A. in] cum,
AM,R. quoeternum, R,. coxt—, V. 12. Patre? V. Deus Natus, LV. 18.
Filius] + est Filius, M,. om. et, P. Patre] Patrem, Μη. in est] Deus est, P ;
dm. supra lin. Q. om. Deus, M,. totam, P. genuit] ingenitum, M,, _filium]
filio, LR, pr. in, LM,RV. 14. non] no n supra lin. My. sug, V. 15. om.
est, LR. om. Deus, L. > Deus Pater est, AM,,.QV. id esse] idem se, ΝΜ.
ab eo] a Deo, PQ. 16. Certissime, L. tenentis, APV; confitentes, A, ;
credentes, V+ una, M,. credimus, M,. om. Deum, M,. om. piissime, M, V.
17. om. Credimus, Q. Ihesum] pr. dominum, V. > Christum Ihesum, Q. 18.
om. omnia,Q. que, 1°] que,L,. pr.et, Μ9. celis, V. om. que, 2?AQRV. celo
(bis) V. discendisse, P,. descendit, AQ. 19. propter] py. et M,; propter nos
homines et, R. numquam, ALPR, desiit, LR. om. qui... nunquam...
20. clo, M,; celum, A. ex]et,M,,.V. uirginem maria, M,. > mariauirgine,
M,V. 21. caro]carne, M,; —em,V. erat, fuerat, M,QRV. om, sed... erat, MV.
cepit, QR. 22. demutabile, LR. sed]se,M,. Deum]qm, V.; 0m. Deum. Q,
etiam, V. 23. putatinum, A,; potaui, LL; putatiue, Q; potatiue,R. uere) uiri, L.
erium] ereum, ALM,; ereum, M,; hereum, R,; ereum,V. 24. phantaseum, A, ;
fantasia, V, ; fantasiam, L ; —ium, M,QR; fatasiam, P. carneum]carnium, L;
carnem, M,V. om. et, Q. 25. Ita] Iterum, M,. om. hominem ut uerum, LR,
om. unum... Deum, 1°M,V. 26. uero] uerum, AL. om. et... hominem,
A. intellegimus, LM,,.. —amus, Q. αἰ] οὗ, M,. om. ut, LQ. 27. uerum]
pr. et, M, modo] nodo, P. ambigamus, P; —emus, R; ambiguimus, Μο.
confitendum] confitendo, L. hunc] nunc, M,V. 28. eundem] + que, M, P.
Thesum] pr. dominum, AM,,.QRV. pr. nostrum, QR. adimplesse, AR V,
adimples se, Q; adimplesset, M,; adimplisse, P. legem] leges V; legimus, et]
uel, A. passus, M,V. 29. crucefixum, A. om. secundum scripturas, R. scrib-

218 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

turas, A. om. mortuum... 29. scripturas, A. mortuum] + esse, P.
30. om. sec. scripturas, M,. tercia, LQ. resurrexit, R.; resurrexisset, M,.
31. assumptum, Q. celum, M, V]; celis, AL M,PQR. uenturus, LM). 82.
uius, L, mortuus, L. spectamus] + et seeculum per ignem, A. hic. def. A.
mortem et sanguinem emundatus, L. 33. emundatos, M,R + nos, L. remis-
sione, M,. peccatorum] + ὃ, V. consecutus, Q; consuetus, L; consequuturos,
M,; consec—, V. + nos, M,. resuscitandu, L M,; resuscitando, V. s. eras.
ut ind. M, nos] om. nos, L. + abeo, LM,,,. QV. his] is, L*. 84. cor-
poribus] cordibus, M,. om. et, LM, carne] carnem, M,R. qua] que, Mo.
om. qua... carne, LV. eandem, Q. om. in eadem carne, M,. 35. qua]
qui, M,. natus] + est, LQ. passus] pr. et LM,,,QRV. om. et, 1°M,P. om.
et, 2° Q. mortuos, PV. om. est, Q. 386. om. hoc, L. hance carnem, M,.
vel] et L. om. accepturas, Q. accepturas, LPM,. eo] + accepturos, M,. aut]
ad, P. eternam, V. 387. premium] pro premio, M,. eterni, et— V] eternis,
M,. om. eterni, M,. supplicii] eternam, M, ; recepturos, Ὁ.

ii, Another confession of great interest is found in the
treatise by Victricius, Bishop of Rouen (+409), On the
Praise of Saints. He was probably by birth a Briton, and
an enthusiastic missionary among the neighbouring tribes. It
may be compared with the Creed of Pelagius. His quotation
of the Apostles’ Creed was first notified by Kattenbusch.’

We may compare the forms to be extracted from these
writings, thus :

PHCBADIUS. VICTRICIUS.
I. 1, (Credimus) in Deum Patrem (Confitemur Deum Patrem
omnipotentem,

ἘΙ. 2. Bé-in (unigenttum 2) Filium Confitemur Deum Filium)
eius Ihesum Christum
Dominum nostrum,
3. natum de Spiritu Sancto ex

uirgine Maria, (de) Maria uirgine.. .
4. passum sub Pontio Pilato passus est,

(mortuum et ?) crucifixum crucifixus,

et sepultum ; sepultus ;

5. tertia die resurrexisse, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis,
6. adsumptum in ceelum, ascendit in cselum,
7. sedere ad dexteram Patris, — sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris,
8, inde uenturum iudicare inde uenturus iudicare

uiuos et mortuos uiuos et mortuos ;

9.(.... Spiritum Sanctum) Et in Spiritu Sancto

11. remissionem peccatorum
12. (carnis resurrectionem)

1, p. 174. I have quoted more of this confession on p. 180,

FIDES ROMANORUM 219

The net result is a creed almost identical with that of
Milan. It is doubtful whether the phrase wnigenitum of Art.
2 belonged to the underlying Baptismal Creed of Phcebadius.
The influence of Nicene phraseology is apparent throughout,
and would suffice to account for it. Or it may be a transla-
tion from a Greek text of the Apostles’ Creed. Certainly it
reappears in the Creed of Cyprian of Toulon in the sixth
century. The participial accusatives (natwm, passwm, etc.)
also look like a translation from a Greek text. In Art. 3
ee reminds us of the African Creed. In Art. 4 mortwum et
is, as Kattenbusch says, uncertain. In Article 6 the reading
celum is preserved by the MSS. V and M, only, but confirmed
by the text of Victricius. The Vatican MS. alone preserves
Patrem in the first line, which, with the evidence of Irenzeus
in the background, we are constrained to insert in Art. 1.

The only variations to be noticed in the Creed of Vic-
tricius are the addition of Dei in Art. 7 (cf. the Creed of the
Orthodox at Ariminum, quoted by Jerome), and the Ablative
Spiritu Sancto. The probable fact that Victricius was a
Briton suggests that this may have been a variation adopted
by the Church in Britain as in Spain (cf. the Creed of
Pelagius). In any case, communications were frequent
between the Gallican and British Churches. Victricius went
on a mission to Britain in 393, probably of the same kind as
that of Germanus and Lupus twenty years later. Their
creeds were probably identical. Victricius addressed his
treatise, de Laude Sanctorum, to S. Ambrose, and the remark-
able agreement which I have pointed out between the Creeds
of Pheebadius and Victricius and that of Milan offers further
confirmation of the theory of the Abbé Duchesne, as to the
influence of the Church of Milan in liturgical matters over
the Church in Gaul.

The conclusions to be drawn from these six Western
creeds are not in themselves very important. At least we
have met with three of the additions to the Old Roman Creed,
familiar to us in our own Baptismal Creed, the words “suffered,”
“ descended into hell,” “ eternal life.” Of a fourth, the word
“dead,” we cannot speak so confidently, though we have

220 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

found it in the expositions of Phebadius and Augustine.
Without hesitation we may express our indebtedness to the
Churches of Milan, Spain, and Gaul for the word, which
reminds us of the moral aspect of the crucifixion of our
blessed Lord, who “suffered for our sins,” as He “rose again
for our justification.” To the Church of Aquileia belongs the
merit of preserving in a creed the simple primitive teaching
of the descent into hell, though we shall find reason to doubt
whether this was the source from which the clause ultimately
passed into our creed. The words “ eternal life” had stood
from the days of Cyprian in the Creed of Africa, and it may
be as long in the Creed of Jerusalem. They come down to us
from the days of the great persecutions, to explain the secret
of the courage and the constancy with which Christians faced
death. In the words of Cyril*: “Ours is no trifling aim ;
eternal life is the object of our pursuit.”
1 Cat. iv. 28.

CHAPTER IX

OUR APOSTLES’ CREED

$ I. Gallican Creeds in the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries. Salvi-
anus, Faustus, Cesarius, Cyprian, Gregory of Tours, Eligius.
§ II. Creeds of the British Church. Pelagius, Bangor Antiphonary.
§ III. Roman and Italian Creeds. Turin, Ravenna, Rome.
IV. The origin of the Textus receptus.

THE archetype of our Apostles’ Creed is usually sought in
Gaul. The completed form is found in the writings of
Pirminius, a Frank missionary of the eighth century; and
forms which approximate to it are found in Ps.-Aug., Serm.
241, as in the so-called Missale Gallicanum and Sacramentarium
Gallicanum, which were used in Gaul about that time.
There seemed to be good reason for supposing that our
Textus receptus (T) was a Gallican recension, which obtained
widespread use, and was finally adopted in Rome. But a
fatal objection to this view may be raised in the fact that
the phrase creatorem coeli et terre is not found in any purely
Gallican Creed till the twelfth century.’ There is also some
new evidence that the Roman Church, while sanctioning the
additional use of the Nicene Creed (C) at baptism, never
really dropped the use of her old Baptismal Creed. In the
following Chapter I shall endeavour to prove that R was
transformed into T in Rome itself, by the gradual absorption
of clauses, and that Rome was the centre from which its use
spread. Some of the new clauses were distinctly of Gallican
origin ; there is this amount of truth in the old theory.

‘Moreover, the Gallican Creeds generally repeat credo in Art. 2, and read in

in Art. 6.
921

222 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

§ I. GALLICAN CREEDS IN THE FIFTH, SIXTH, AND SEVENTH
CENTURIES

Salvianus supplies the following fragment: De gub. Det, vi.
6: “Credo, inquis, in Deum Patrem omnipotentem et in Iesum
Christum Filium eius.” There is a less exact quotation in
the profession of Leporius. “Nascitur . . . de Spiritu Sancto
et Maria semper uirgine, Deus homo Iesus Christus Filius
Dei... crucifixus est, mortuus, resurrexit.”

Bacchiarius, whose treatise, as we have seen, was probably
written in Gaul, quotes a form which may be compared with
the Creed of Victricius of Rouen, though the mention of the
Blessed Virgin before the Holy Spirit reminds us of Pris-
cillian. He writes: “ Natum esse de uirgine et Spiritu Sancto
. . . passum et sepultum, resurrexisse a mortuis . . . ascend-
isse in ccelum, indeuenturum expectamus ad iudicium uiuorum
et mortuorum. Carnem quoque nostre resurrectionis fatemur
integram.” ἢ

A more important witness of the Creed of Gaul in this
century is Faustus, Bishop of Riez. In acknowledged writ-
ings we find the following: i. “ Credo et in Filium Dei Iesum
Christum qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto natus ex
Maria uirgine.” ii. (Credo et) in Spiritum Sanctum, sanctam
ecclesiam, sanctorum communionem, abremissa peccatorum,
carnis resurrectionem, uitam eternam.”

With these agrees fairly well the creed form embedded in
the two sermons of the Eusebian collection, which have been
edited by Caspari, and are now generally attributed to
Faustus. But the difficulty of deciding what is part of the
creed quoted from, and what is explanation, leaves one with
a sense of insecurity about any argument based only on these
homilies, to which I will refer as H, H,.

There is a third source of information, but of a more
doubtful kind, in a sermon found by Caspari in a MS. at
Albi, Cod. 38. 5. ix., and published under the title, 77vactatus
8. Faustini de symbolo (T).2 The in of Faustini has been

1 Bp. ad Fratrem Greewm diaconum, ed. Engelbrecht, p. 205.
2 De Spiritu Sancto, i. 2. 3 A. u. N. Quellen, 1879, p. 250.

GALLICAN CREEDS 223

erased, and there can be little doubt that the sermon is a
compilation from the works of Faustus. The title Sanctus
points to the beginning of the sixth century as the date
when it was made, before the Synod of Orange (529) con-
demned his semi-Pelagian teaching, probably in his own
diocese. Caspari was prepared to accept the evidence of this
sermon without reserve, but this confidence is not shared by
Engelbrecht. Here again we are dealing with a somewhat
intangible argument, but it seems clear that the creed quoted
in this sermon can be relied on as the Creed of the Diocese.

The differences in the Creed of the Homilies lead one
to suppose that Faustus is quoting his personal creed, which
was possibly British. It is remarkable for the omission of
unicum, of passus sub Pontio Pilato, though this is not certain,
of mortuus and omnipotentis, and for the form abremissio
peccatorum, which occurs in the Creed of the Antiphonary
of Bangor. But it lacks other marks of relationship to the
latter creed.

CREED OF FAUSTUS

I. 1, Credo in Deum Patrem
omnipotentem ;
II. 2. Credo et in Filium eius
Dominum nostrum om. Dom. n., H,
Tesum Christum, pd ΟΣ ey
3. qui conceptus est
de Spiritu Sancto,
natus ex Maria uirgine,

4, passus sub Pontio Pilato, Τ᾿,
crucifixus et sepultus,! +mortuus H, (a,), T.
5. tertia die resurrexit,
6. ascendit in ceelum,? ad czelos, H, Hs.
7. sedet ad dexteram Dei
Patris, +omnipotentis, H,.

1 Kattenbusch reads (qui?) sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus est. He quotes for
pussus, mortwus, the doubtful support of Ps.-Aug., Serm. 248, which contains
quotations from Faustus.

3 The singular, preserved by T, is remarkable (cf. Phcebadius, Victricius).
The Homilies have ad celos in their text, but the Second Homily has the
singular ad celwm in the exposition.

224 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

8. inde uenturus iudicare }
uiuos et mortuos ;

111. 9. Credo et in Spiritum om. et, T.
Sanctum,
10. sanctam ecclesiam catholicam,
sanctorum communionem,
11. abremissa ? peccatorum,
12. carnis resurrectionem uitam eternam.

We turn next to the sermon of Cesarius of Arles (Ps.-
Aug., 244), which has already come under our notice as con-
taining quotations of the Quicunque. The first sentence
and the latter part, which is hortatory, have been found
combined with another sermon in two Paris MSS. (B. N., daz.
3848 B and 2123). Caspari came to the conclusion that
the composite expositio fider thus formed was compiled in
Gaul at the end of the sixth or beginning of the seventh
century. I have been fortunate enough to find three MSS.
of the other sermon, with its proper beginning, Auscultate
expositionem, but must reserve discussion of its creed-form
for my chapter on “ Unsolved Problems” I have also found
the first sentence and hortatory part of Ps-Aug., 244, as a
Sermo ad neophytos in a Rouen MS. (A. 214).

I will print the whole passage containing the creed from
the Benedictine edition, with the variants of Cod. Sangallensis,
150, see. ix. in (G) and Cod, lat. Monacensis, 14, 470, sec.
vili., ix. (M.):

“Credite ergo, carissimi,in Deum Patrem omnipotentem,
credite et in lesum Christum Filium eius unicum Dominum
nostrum, credite eum conceptum esse de Spiritu Sancto,
natum ex Maria uirgine, que uirgo ante partum et uirgo
post partum semper fuit, et absque contagione uel macula
peccati perdurauit. Credite eum pro nostris peccatis
passum sub Pontio Pilato, credite crucifixum, credite

Or

1 Hom. 2 (89) has wenturus iudicaturus de wiwis et mortuis, This variant is
found in Priscillian. Aug. Serm. 213; Cyprian of Toulon, Venantius Fortunatus,
Mozarabic Liturgy have iudicaturus.

2 Abremissa is the reading of three MSS. of de Spiritu Sancto, i. 1, and
must be quoted as neuter plural, cf. ii. 4: ‘‘In baptismo peccatorum abremissa
donantur.” In H, (Cod, Madrit.) it is used as feminine singular, followed
by abrenvissio in the Commentary, which is the reading of Tr.

GALLICAN CREEDS 225

mortuum et sepultum, credite eum ad inferna descendisse,
diabolum obligasse, et animos sanctorum, que sub custodia

10 detinebantur liberasse secumque ad celestem patriam
perduxisse. Credite eum tertia die resurrexisse et nobis
exemplum resurrectionis ostendisse. Credite eum in celis
cum carne quam de nostro adsumpsit ascendisse. Credite
quod in dextera sedit Patris. Credite quod uenturus sit

15 iudicare uiuos et mortuos. Credite in Spiritum
Sanctum, credite sanctam ecclesiam catholicam, credite
communionem sanctorum, credite resurrectionem carnis,
credite remissionem peccatorum, credite et uitam «ternam.”
LINE 1. car.] pr. fratres,G. 2. om. et, G. 4. pr. et, BG. om. etu. p. p. M.

5. fuit] fidelis, G. 7. cruc.]pr. eum, G. 8. disc.,G. 9. diabulum, M. alligasse,
G. anima, M;+que, M. 10. detine-] ne, supra lin. man. 2, M. 10, eumque,

M. celestem, GM. tercia, G. pr. a mortuis, BG. 12. celis,G. 18. nostra, G.
14. sed // duo litt. ras. G. sedet, B. 17. ΞΕ ἃ B. >c. vr. B. 18. om. et, G.

Closely parallel to this Creed of Ceesarius is the following
Creed of Cyprian, Bishop of Toulon, recently recovered from a
letter * to Maximus, Bishop of Geneva, in which he makes a
respectful reference to Cesarius. The whole passage is as
follows :—

“Certe symbolum, quod et tenemus et credimus, hoc
continet: Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, credo et
in Iesum Christum, Filium eius unigenitum dominum nos-
trum—ecce explicitze sunt personze Patris et Filii secundum

5 deitatem. Quid uero pro redemptione nostra Filius uni-
genitus Deus egerit, audi quod sequitur. Qui conceptus
de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria uirgine—utique sub-
audis unigenitus Deus, quia non aliam nominasti per-
sonam—passus, inquit, sub Pontio Pilato—qui utique

10 Filius unigenitus Deus —crucifixus et sepultus— qui

nihilominus unigenitus Deus—tertia die resurrexit a

mortuis ascendit in clos, sedet ad dexteram Patris, inde

uenturus iudicaturus uiuos ac mortuos—qui utique quem
superius es confessus Filius unigenitus est.”
ΤΙΝῈ 4. Cod. persone, 8. Cod. nomen—. 9. Cod. inquid sup. 13. Cod. uiuis.

1 Monumenta Germ. Hist., Epp. iii., ed. W. Gundlach, from Cod. Colon.
212 (Darmstad, 2326), sec. vii.

15

226

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

From these passages we may extract the following creeds,
and say with confidence that they were used in Southern
Gaul at the end of the fifth century :-—

CSARIUS.

I. 1. Credo in Deum Patrem
omnipotentem ;

Credo et in Iesum Christum,
filium eius unicum,
Dominum nostrum,

3. conceptum de Spiritu Sancto,

natum ex Maria uirgine,

4, passum sub Pontio Pilato,

crucifixum mortuum et
sepultum ; ad inferna de-
scendit,

5. tertia die resurrexit,

ΤΙ, 2.

6. ascendit in ceelis ;
7. sedit in dextera Patris,
8. inde uenturus iudicare
uiuos et mortuos.
9. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum,
10, sanctam ecclesiam catholicam,
communionem sanctorum,
11. remissionem peccatorum,
12. resurrectionam carnis
et uitam eeternam.

CYPRIAN OF TOULON.

Credo in Deum Patrem
omnipotentem ;

Credo et in lesum Christum
filium eius unigenitum,
Dominum nostrum,

qui conceptus de Spiritu

Sancto, natus ex Maria uirgine,

Passus sub Pontio Pilato,
crucifixus et sepultus.

Tertia die resurrexit a
mortuis,

ascendit in ccelos,

sedet ad dexteram Patris,

inde uenturus iudicaturus

uiuos ac mortuos.

Some years ago I attempted to combine the evidence of
these creeds with the Creed of Faustus and others, and so
reconstruct the average Gallican Creed of the fifth century.’

The result was a purely artificial form, and was criticised as
such by Morin? But he admitted that the threefold repeti-
tion of credo was proved to be common Gallican usage.
This adds to the artistic character of the form and improves |
the rhythm. Faustus gives us a hint that this was con- :

sidered when he speaks of symboli salutare carmen, or perfecto
My object might just as well be gained by quoting
the Creed of Czsarius alone, to prove that nearly the whole

symbolr.®

1 Art. in Guardian of 18th March 1895.

ὃ Ed. Engelbrecht, p. 102 f.

ee

? Rev. Bén., 1895, p. 199.

GALLICAN CREEDS 227

of our Zextus receptus was current in Gaul at the end of
the fifth century.

Our next witness, Gregory of Tours (+ 594), does not
add much to our knowledge in the following sentences,
which he incorporates in the prologue to his History:
“Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem. Credo in Iesum
Christum Filium eius unicum, dominum Dewm nostrum... .
Credo eum die tertia resurrexisse . . . ascendisse in ccelos,
sedere ad dexteram Patris, uenturum ac iudicaturum uluos
et mortuos. Credo Sanctum Spiritum a Patre et Filio pro-
cessisse.” But the mention of the procession from the Son
is interesting, and the participle iwdicaturus agrees with the
Creed of Cyprian. |

Much the same creed was used by Eligius of Noyon
(+659) in his de Rectitudine Catholice Conversationis Tract-
atus. I will quote the passage from Cod. lat. Monacensis, 6430,
seec. ix., which gives a slightly different and probably purer
form of text :— :

Fou. 57. “ Promisistis e contra credere uos Deum Patrem
omnipotentem et in Ihesum Christum Filium eius unicum
Dominum nostrum, conceptum de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria
uirgine, passum sub Pontio Pilato, tertia die resurrexisse a
mortuis, ascendisse in celis. Promisistis deinde credere uos
et in Spiritum Sanctum sanctam ecclesiam catholicam, re-
missionem peccatorum, carnis resurrectionem et uitam
eeternam.”

The form is plainly shortened, not imperfect, since it
would be inconceivable that this preacher on the Last Judg-
ment did not confess Christ as Judge in his creed.

Exactly the same form is contained in the sermon
following, which I cannot trace to any author. It begins
(f. 59 r.): “Rogo uos et admoneo fratres carissimi ut diem
iudicii semper pertimescatis. . . .”

228 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

δ II. CREEDS OF THE BRITISH CHURCH.

The Creed of the heretic Pelagius contains the following :—

i Beh #

ΤΕ 2.

STs δι μὲ 9

10.

1

12.

This form

Credimus in Deum Patrem, omnipotentem
cunctorum wisibilium et inuisibilium
conditorem.

Credimus et in Dominum nostrum

Iesum Christum .. . (unigenitum

et uerum Dei) Filium.. .

passus est . . . mortuus est
. resurrexit tertia die,

. ascendit in ccelum,

sedet ad dexteram Dei
Patris .

. uenturus est ...ad iudiclum uiluorum

mortuorum.

. Credimus et in Spiritum Sanctum ;*

resurrectionem carnis. _

is to be compared with the creed in the

Bangor Antiphonary, which preserves the creed of the Irish
Church in the seventh century:

I. 1. Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, inuisibilem
omnium creaturarum uisibilium et
inuisibilium conditorem.

II. 2. Credo in Iesum Christum, Filium eius
unicum Dominum nostrum, Deum
omnipotentem,

3. conceptum de Spiritu Sancto,
natum de Maria uirgine,

4, passum sub Pontio Pilato,”
qui crucifixus et sepultus
descendit ad inferos,

11 have transferred these words from their place following the confession of

the Son.

2 Cod. Pylato.

CREEDS OF THE BRITISH CHURCH 229

tertia die resurrexit a mortuis,

ascendit in ccelis,

seditque ad dexteram Dei

Patris omnipotentis,

8. exinde uenturus iudicare
uluos ac mortuos.

III. 9. Credo et in Spiritum Sanctum,
Deum omnipotentem, unam
habentem substantiam cum
Patre et Filio;

10. sanctam esse ecclesiam *
catholicam,
11. abremissa” peccatorum,
(10). sanctorum communionem,”
12. carnis resurrectionem.

Credo uitam post mortem et

uitam eternam in gloria Christi.

Th Se

The repetition of Deum omnipotentem and the emphatic
assertion of the one substance of the Deity are marks of
teaching which was current in Gaul from the fifth century.
This is shown in a crystallised form in the Quicungue. Its
influence on the Irish Church is easy to explain, since δ.
Patrick had visited Lerins. The creed seems to be Gallican,
omitting creatorem celi et terre, the place of which is supplied
from the Nicene Creed or from Cassian.* But there are
several peculiarities for which it is less easy to account: de
Maria, cf. Victricius, Gall. Miss. A, Gall Sacr. C, etc.; ad
inferos, cf. Lambeth, 427, Bratke’s Berne MS.

It is most closely related to the sermon, Avwscultate
expositionem (p. 243), which appears to be Gallican of the
fifth century. I therefore agree with Hahn ὅ (p. 85, n. 222)
that it is neither founded on the Zeatus receptus nor an inde-
pendent recension of the Old Roman Creed. But I do not
think that it is possible at present to prove anything more.

1 Acclesiam. 2 Abremisa. 3 Commonionem.
4 Hahn,* p. 84, n. 207, compares the so-called Creed of Palmatius found in

Martyriwm Sancti Calixti Pape et Sociorwm eius, but this reference is of very
doubtful value.

230 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

§ III. Roman AND ITALIAN CREEDS

Before we attempt to discuss the evidence of documents
containing our Textus receptus, it will be well to review the
history of the creed in Italian Churches, especially in Rome,
up to the end of the seventh century.

The Creed of Turin, found in a sermon of Maximus, who
was Bishop of Turin in the middle of the fifth century, shows
that the Old Roman Creed was preserved unaltered, with the
exception of the order Jeswm Christum and the reading in ceelum.

The sermons of Peter Chrysologus, who was Bishop of
Ravenna at the same period, show an even closer adherence to
the form, though there is some doubt whether witam eternam,
which appears in the exposition of lxi., and in the other
sermons, had not crept (as we have seen happen in other
cases) into the text of the creed.

The lack of information on the creeds of Milan and
Aquileia at this period is at once explained by the fact of
their sufferings under barbarian invasion.

Of Rome there is more to say, for the letters of some of
the Popes, though they do not prove that the form of creed
had yet been altered, show unmistakably that the modifica-
tions, which are characteristic of T, were already valued and
used. Leo’s famous letter to Flavian (449), while it quotes
the old type, natus de Spiritu Sancto et Maria Uirgine,
contains the explanation, conceptus de Spiritu Sancto. The
statement is made (c. 5): “unigenitum Filium Dei crucifixum
et sepultum omnes etiam in symbolo confitemur,” but the word
“dead ” soon follows, and the mention of the Lord’s words to
the penitent thief in the preceding chapter shows that Leo
had also in his mind the descent into hell.

In the following century Pelagius 1. wrote a letter to King
Childebert 1, to prove his loyalty to the old faith of the
Church defined at Chalcedon. His language about the
crucifixion seems to be influenced by the Nicene Creed, but
it shows the same turn of thought towards a fuller expression
of the central fact of our redemption: “Quem sub Pontio

1 Hahn,’ p. 42, n. 58. Catholicam is certainly an interpolation.

ROMAN AND ITALIAN CREEDS 231

Pilato sponte pro solute nostra passum esse carne confit-
emur, crucifixum carne, mortuum carne, resurrexisse tertia
αἰ

The Creed of Gregory the Great, printed in the appendix
to his letters, is extant in many MSS.,’ and there seems to be
no reason to doubt its authenticity. It begins with a confes-
sion of the Trinity, in terms like those of the Quicunque, and,
with some phrases borrowed from the Nicene Creed, proceeds
to the following: “Conceptus et natus ex Spiritu Sancto et
Maria uirgine; qui naturam nostram suscepit absque peccato,
et sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus est et sepultus tertia die
resurrexit a mortuis, die autem quadragesimo ascendit in
celum, sedet ad dexteram patris, unde uenturus est iudicare
uiuos et mortuos.”

Need we hesitate to conclude that R was still in use in
the Roman Church, a fact which is confirmed by the
discovery of the Old Roman form (with witam eternam) side
by side with T, in a collection of liturgical documents made
in Rome in the ninth century? It appears to have been the
form brought to England in the sixth century by Gregory's
mission (see p. 243 infra), and it survives in several sermons,
which cannot be referred to an earlier date than this, nor to
any other Church.

There is some evidence to prove that the Nicene Creed
had been added to it in the service of baptism. Both the
Gelasian Sacramentary and the seventh Ordo Romanus (as
printed in Migne, 78, 993) quote the Nicene Creed only in
this connection. The priest asked in what language the pro-
fession of faith for the children should be made. The acolyte
answered, in Latin, and sang: “ Credo in unum Deum Patrem
omnipotentem.”

The Gelasian Sacramentary, in its present form, is clearly
a compilation, which was introduced into France about the
end of the seventh century.” It is based on a Roman liturgi-

1 B.g. Rouen, Cod. 516 (0. 16), from Jumidges, sec. xi., which I have collated
with the Benedictine text given in Hahn,* p. 337. There is no variation.

2 Duchesne, Origines, p. 123: ‘‘ Par sacramentaire gélasien il faut entendre
un recueil liturgique romain,”

232 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

cal collection, and has been enlarged from Gallican sources.
In the service of baptism there are two creeds mentioned at
the Traditio symboli, the Nicene (C); at the time of baptism
the questions asked manifestly represent a shortened form of R.

“Interr.: Credis in Deum Patrem omnipotentem?—Resp.:
Credo.—Interr.: Credis in Iesum Christum, Filium eius
unicum, Dominum nostrum, natum et passum ?—Resp.: Credo.
—lInterr.: Credis et in Spiritum Sanctum, sanctam ecclesiam,
remissionem peccatorum, carnis resurrectionem ?—Resp. :
Credo.”

Kattenbusch’ lays stress on the marks of antiquity
which distinguish the preface and concluding words that form
the setting of the Zraditio symboli, and argues that R not ὁ
was obviously the original form employed in the service.
But the highest antiquity allowed to the preface would not
guarantee it against interpolation, and the question is simply
this, To what extent was the use of the interpolated creed (C)
carried on ?

It was too readily assumed that this was the only
form used, and the conclusion was drawn that it had
been substituted for the old creed, to meet the constant
pressure of Gothic Arianism during the reign of Odoacer,
476-4932 Biumer indeed pointed out a discrepancy, in the
fact that the creed was said to have been sung dicit symbolum
decantando, whereas Leo 111. wrote to Charles the Great that
the Nicene Creed was not sung in Rome. But he was unable
to explain the problem except by suggesting that some
enlarged form of the Apostles’ Creed, like the Bangor Anti-
phonary, might have been used.®

The mystery has now been cleared up by Morin’s publica-
tion * of another text of the seventh Ordo Romanus from Cod.
Sessorianus 52, sec. xi., xii. This interesting MS. comes
from the Abbey of Nonantula, and is now in the Victor
Kmmanuel library at Rome. The collection in which the
Ordo is found comprises fol. 104-177 ἢ, and includes solemn
acclamations for use on festivals characteristic of the Carlov-
ingian epoch, and containing the names of a Pope Nicholas

ii, p. 206. *Caspari, ii, 114. °P.46. ‘4 Rev. Bén., 1897, p. 481,

THE ORIGIN OF T 233

and an Emperor Louis. These must be Nicholas 1. (858-867)
and Louis 1. (855-875). We may therefore assume with
some confidence that the collection was made in the ninth
century.

Now in this text of the Ordo it is the Zextus receptus
which the acolyte sings at the baptism of an infant. On the
other hand, in the account of the redditio symboli on Thursday
in Holy Week it is the form, Credo in unum deum Patrem
omnipotentem, etc., which the priest recites over the catechumens.
The custom of the recitation of the Nicene Creed on that day
is an evident importation from the East, but we see clearly
that it did not involve the disuse of the Old Roman Creed
transformed into our Apostles’ Creed. We cannot on this
evidence alone argue that the completed form was found in
Rome before the ninth century, when the collection was
made.

δ IV. THe ORIGIN or T

It remains to pass in review the earliest documents in
which T is found. We may begin with the Psalter of Pope
Gregory in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge
(N. 468). The MS. is of the fifteenth century, and was
probably written in England. But there seems no reason
to doubt the evidence of the title, Psalteriwm Latinum et
Grecum, Pape Gregortit, which implies that the archetype
came from Rome. Caspari’s judgment on a point of this
kind is always weighty, and he decided to refer it to Pope
Gregory m1. (731-741). The text of the creed only varies
from T by the omission of est in Art. 8 and οὐ in Art. 12.
This would be an insecure foundation for a theory by
itself, but it may be supported by a number of small
details.

It is usual to quote Pirminius, a celebrated Benedictine
monk and missionary of the eighth century, as the first
writer who quoted the modern form of the creed. But no
sufficient answer has been given to the question, How did
it come to him? He belonged to the kingdom of Neustria,

1 jii, pp. 11, 215,

234 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

and came into Southern Germany ὁ. 720, where he founded
the Abbey of Reichenau, and many others. His creed is
found in an interesting treatise called Dicta Abbatis Pirminit
de singulis libris canonicis scarapsus; carefully edited by
Caspari.2. There is an interesting detail in it which seems
to have escaped notice. Pirminius speaks of the delivery
of the creed to the catechumens immediately after their
renunciation of the devil and his works. This was a
distinctly Roman custom, whereas in Gallican οὐ τὰς
interval elapsed before the giving of the creed.* This at
once establishes a presumption that it was from Rome
that he obtained the form of creed. His contemporary
Boniface was most enthusiastic in extending the influence
of the Apostolic See, and there is every reason to believe
that they worked on similar lines, though the references to
the creed in the epistles of Boniface* do not decide the
question of the form used. Before the days of Boniface,
the Roman liturgy had begun to exercise influence in Gaul.
Duchesne ® points out how the country had been traversed
continually during the seventh century by Roman missionaries
on their way to England. The mixture of Roman and
Gallican rites and prayers which we find in the Gelasian
Sacramentary, Miss. Gallic., Sacr. Gallic., is not surprising.

The so-called Miss, Gallic. (Cod. Vat. Pal. 493, sec. vill.
in.) is not a missal, but a sacramentary, and was written
most probably in France. It contains, however, a large
proportion of Roman elements. The ceremonies of the
Traditio symboli follow Gallican usage. There are three
forms of creed quoted, to which I will refer as A, E, B, since
it is possible to distinguish a second creed (E) in the exposi-
tion of the first (A).

The Sacr. Gallic., which is really a missal, is in the
Bibliothéque Nationale at Paris (Cod. lat. 13,246, see. vii.).
It presents a peculiar mixture of Gallican and Roman rites

1 Scarapsus, from scarpsus = excarpsus, excerpt, Hahn,? p. 96, n. 247.
* Anecdota, p. 151.

3 Duchesne,” Origenes du Culte Chrétien, p. 308, n. 3.

4 Epp. 6. 8. 5 Op. cit. Ὁ. 94.

THE ORIGIN OF T 235

so that it is hardly possible to decide from internal evidence
where it was compiled. The MS. itself was probably copied
at Bobbio, where Mabillon found it, and the archetype may
have belonged to Luxeuil, “the monastic metropolis of the
Italian convent.” ἢ .

In it there are four forms of creed, which I will call
A, E, B, C, distinguishing the creed of the exposition (I)
from the first form quoted (A). With these documents
should be compared one of the most important of the Ps.-
Augustinian Sermons, No. 242. It is known to exist in
many MSS. and it is a pity that it has not been critically
edited. At present there are questions regarding it which
cannot be answered with any certainty. It is a compilation
drawn chiefly from the sermons of Faustus, in the Eusebian
collection, but including quotations from Augustine, Serm.
212, and from the exposition of the first sermon in the
Sacr. Gallic., the latter passage containing also a reminiscence
of Serm. 241.3 It is fully reproduced in the Miss. Gallte.

As printed in the appendix to 8S. Augustine, it manifestly
contains two forms of creed, the first (A) being interpolated.
Kattenbusch points out that the preacher at that point only
proposes to quote the first words: “Iam ad... symboli
professionis sacramentum textumque ueniamus, quod in hune
modum incipit.”. The true creed of the preacher, to be
extracted from the exposition, agrees with the Creed of
Faustus in the threefold repetition of eredo, and in omitting
unicum, mortuus, a morturs.

Of the date, it is only possible to say that it was in
existence at the date of the formation of the Miss. Gallic.,
ὁ. 700, and was probably compiled in France. It was found
in two MSS. of the Herovall Collection of Canons (Paris,
2123, 3848, B). Perhaps the most practical way of pre-
senting the evidence in these documents will be to draw up
a table of their principal variations from the normal type of
T, quoting the different creeds in each case as A, B, C, and
the expositions as E.

1 Duchesne, Origines,? p. 151. 2 Caspari, iv., xviii. ἢ, 1.
5 Kattenbusch, i. p. 210, n, 16.

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

236

q ‘e1ed.nsel TYStIYO
eos πι ταϑηχοῖαπ q “ty
9 ‘ur ud ureym|qsod ‘areqey weym stureo fw ‘sTuIvd snINY ‘ZT
Q ‘uinqjours ‘
tanurstyydeq sod ‘ud 4 ‘WOUOISSTUTAI 9B Ἢ “oood ‘urea “το ‘IL
Ω “Ὁ 5 “wo Ἢ “0s UINTOJOURS "wo || gq “ἼΠ780 BISETOID. Β7ΟΤΙΒ ‘OL
0 ‘opery + 4 ‘opourg nyraidg 4 29 + opamp *6
(a
a V 964 “wo q 964 “wo 1961 *wo|! ‘stayeg tog ut ‘sodxa ur)
a V¥ “stpes “pes Ἢ “opes ‘vy rpes|; 4 “Ὁ “ἃ Ῥ pe “pes “wo “ἡ
0 “ur ἐᾷ ‘ur Ἢ ul ‘9
q ‘soja#o pe 10jor1n q ‘stmq1oul 8 “wo “Gg
q “Fur “pe ὍΒΟΡ “wo Ἢ “JU ‘pe ‘osep “wo qi “JUL pe ‘osep “wo
(snqindes
49 SNNJIOW Θ7ΊΤΑΘΥΙ UL
4 ‘wmnytout ‘wo ‘sodaa ur) g ‘sunyzroUr wo
4 259 ‘wo Ἢ 89 “wo V ‘480 ὁ ‘pF
Υ͂ q “xo a V “elweyy op
‘unyeu *** tanjdaouoo mV 4159 + snyeu |! (gq “τι snuruog ‘sodxa ut)
9 439 wnsg wd [τὰ] vy “ysou ‘u0g ‘wo mV ‘*ysou “wog “wo 4 “qsou ‘wo “wo
y ‘wnu WV ταῦτ
-ἀϑγτάταθϑ tanyImestun -loyidures §= wn4rTuestun q ‘wumorun "wo Ὁ
7 (πῃ τ
Ω ‘yo wo £9 g ὍΡθαρ - |v 9 μοὸ fyoperg+ |} ut opearg “δοἄχο we) WAV ‘opeg + gq ‘opalg + ὁ
4 “3 40 Ὁ We10zee10 + | TW “1 29 Ὃ τπθαοηθθα0 + iV “4 40 Ὃ ULaIOJVAID ++ Ἵ
Od adv d 7 av GPG
DITTVS “HOVS ‘DITTVS ‘SSI ὍΩΥ- 84

THE ORIGIN OF T 237

The other creed forms from Ps.-Augustinian Sermons,
240, 241, joined with this by Hahn®, p. 50, cannot be the work
of the same pen. He suggests that they belong to Italy, but
does not give any reasons. Having rightly pointed out the
objections raised above (p. 221), that no pure Gallican Creed
contains Creatorem cali et terre till the twelfth century, he
founds on these sermons a theory that T had its origin in
North Italy. It seems to me useless to speculate about their
origin till we find some further clue. They deserve to be
critically edited from new MSS., paying regard to the sources
of the collections in which they are found.

I may add here a short section on the evidence, so i as
it goes, of the various lists of apostles’ names attached to
particular clauses of the creed, whether R or T. It is diffi-
cult to arrange it clearly, but the following may suffice :—

I. Sermons founded on k.—I have come across two sermons
in which the clauses of R are assigned to apostles, follow-
ing the order of Matt. x. 2-4, Cod. Sangallensis, 40,
see. viii, ix. and Cod. Vat. Pal. 220. I will print all the

Samo. VILE, FX. 4 ΒΟ TX, Sac. XI. XII. Sac. X.
ἰ : :
Cod. a alo Cod. "ἴοι Pal. | Cod. hv ai Cod. Vésoul, 73
ἢ; +creatorem c, et., t.
2. om. Filium eius| >I. C. »1.6. >I. ἘΝ
3. et] ex - | quiconc.estdeS.S,
natus ex
4, om. est > cruc, et sep. est PassussubP. P.cruc.
mortuus
5. >res-t.d.a mort.
6. celum uictor ad celos | ad celos uictor ad czelos
7. +Dei + Dei
-+-omnipotentis +omnipotentis
8. Inde Inde Inde Inde
om. est om. est om. est
9. +catholicam | +catholicam
10. + sanct. com.
11.
+uitam futuri | +uit. et. +uit. et.
12. seeculi

1 Another MS. is found in Cod. Vat. Pal, 212, seec. ix., x.

238 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

variations from the pure text of R, given p. 200 supra, in
a table. Another sermon, which is partly dependent on
Sangallensis, 40, is found in Cod. Sessorian (B). Another
version of it with many phrases of T is in Cod. Vésoul, 73,1
but without names of apostles.

II. Sermons founded on T.—Some of the sermons contain-
ing T follow the order given in Acts i. 13, with two slight
variations, 1.6., John James for James John, and Matthias for
Judas Iscariot. These are Ps-Aug. 241, the sermon of
Pirminius (though this by an obvious error repeats Thomas
for Matthias), and the third sermon in Sacr. Gallic (C).

The first sermon in Cod. Sessorian, 52 (A) follows the
order of the Roman Canon, the names being added in the
margin. In this case it is impossible to say whether they
belonged to the original sermon before it was copied into this
collection. Two other sermons, Cod. Augiensis, ccxxix.
(Karlsruhe) of the year 821, and Ps.-Aug. 240, omit 5. Paul’s
name after S. Peter’s, and add Matthias at the end. It is
true that the Karlsruhe MS. also omits Simon the Cananzan,
but a blank space proves that this was an oversight.

Mart. x. 2. Acts i. 13. RoMAN CANon.
Cod. Sangallensis, 40 Ps.-Aug. 241 (1) Cod. Sessorian, 52 (A)
Cod. Vat. Pal. 220 Pirminius (2) Cod. Augiensis, ccxxix.
Cod. Sessorian 52(B) δαον. Gallic. (C) (3) Ps.-Aug. 240
Peter Peter Peter
Andrew John (1) Paulor(2)(3) Andrew
James James 3 Andrew
4 John Andrew James
Philip Philip John
Bartholomew Thomas Thomas
Thomas Bartholomew James
8 Matthew Matthew Philip
James of Alpheus James of Alphzus Bartholomew
Thaddeus Simon Zelotes Matthew
Simon the Cananean Judas of James Simon (1)the Cananzean
12 Matthias Matthias 8 Thaddeeus
(2) (3) Matthias

1Cf. also Cod. Sangallensis, 732, sec. ix. Order in R.V., A.V.—James, John.
3 Pirminius repeats Thomas.

THE ORIGIN OF T 239

I do not think that these lists lead to any certain conclu-
sion at the present time. But I am confident that future
research on these lines will throw light on the origin of the
Ps.-Augustinian sermons, which are so puzzling an element
in the problem. At least the comparison shows up, so to
speak, in a clearer light the important evidence of the two
sermons in Cod. Sessorian, 52, in which a text of R survives
almost untouched, while the sermon based on T supports the
evidence of the order of baptism.

For the present we must fall back on the hypothesis
with which we began this chapter, that the Old Roman Creed
was revised in Rome itself before 700. All the details which
have been brought forward converge upon this conclusion.
The Psalter of Gregory 11, the witness of Pirminius, as an
exponent of Roman customs, the similar witness of the Miss.
Gallic. and Sacr. Gallic., the short Creed of the Gelasian
Sacramentary—above all, the new evidence of Cod. Sessorian,
52, proving that R had been used consecutively though the
Nicene Creed was used. It is impossible to believe that the
Church, which in the ninth century refused to insert the
Filioquve in N to please an emperor, should during that very
period have accepted from outside a brand new recension.
All analogy points to a process of gradual growth.

Everyone of the additions made had stood the test of
time, and was recommended by the usage of teachers held in
honour at Rome. The phrases passum, mortuum, catholicam,
sanctorum communionem, et witam ceternam were found com-
bined in the Creeds of Niceta* (see p. 252) and Cesarius,
who visited Rome, and were received with distinction.
Niceta’s sermon may also be the source from which Creatorem
celt et terre was taken, though it is perhaps more probable
that it was taken from the Nicene Creed. Cvzsarius has
both the remaining phrases, conceptus and descendit ad inferna.

Kattenbusch suggests that T is not, as a matter of fact,
the richest or most circumstantial (wevtlaiifigste) form.2 He
quotes “ Deum et Dominum, resurrexit wiwus, omnium pecca-

1For my present quotation it does not matter whether Niceta was a Gallican
or a Dacian Bishop. 21. p. 196,

240 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

torum” from the Spanish Creeds, “ascendit wictor” from
Miss. Gallic. (and elsewhere), “ per baptismum remissionem ”
from Sacr. Gallic., the peculiarities of the form in the Bangor
Antiphonary, and “huius carnis” from the creed of Aquileia,
as specimens of phrases by which T might have been
enriched, had it included everything in the way of rhetorical
embellishment. But this is a matter of opinion. We may
well rest content with the form which has survived, and with
the conclusion that the present Baptismal Creed of Western
Christendom is not the effect of chance causes combining to
thrust an obscure provincial creed into the place once
occupied by the venerable archetype of many varied forms.
Our Apostles’ Creed is the Old Roman Creed of the second
century, sanctified by continuous usage of eighteen hundred
years in its Mother Church, like a precious jewel which in
the new generation has been recut and polished, that it
may reflect new beauties of incommunicable light.

OUR APOSTLES’ CREED 1

πεν μων a 1. Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, creatorem cali
et terre.
2. Et in Iesum Christum Filium eius unicum dominum
nostrum,
ata voi (2) 3. qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto natus ex Maria
uirgine,

ee ee 4, passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus mortwus et sepultus
Aquileia descendit ad inferna,
5. tertia die resurrexit a mortuis,
Augustine 6. ascendit ad ceelos,
oan 7. sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis,
Cesarius, Faustus 8. inde uenturus est iudicare uiuos et mortuos
9. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum,
0. Sanctam ecclesiam catholicam, sanctorum communt-
onem, :
Cxsarius, Faustus 11. remissionem peccatorum
Cesarius, Faustus 12. carnis resurrectionem et uztam weternam.

Cesarius, Faustus
Cesarius, Faustus 10,

1This text with slight variations of spelling is found in Cod. Sessorian, 52,
the Ordo Romanus (O), the first sermon (A); in the Psalter of Gregory 111. (Ὁ),
and Cod. Sangallensis, 27 (G). Art. 4. mortuus]+est, A. ad infernum, A.
Art. 8. om. est, ACG. Art. 12. om. et, ACG.

CHAPTER X

UNSOLVED PROBLEMS

§ I. Bratke’s Berne MS.
§ II. The Sermon Auscultate expositionem.
§ III. The Creed of Damasus.
§ IV. The Rhythm of the Te Dewm and the Quicunque.
§ V. The Creed of Niceta of Remesiana,

THE following chapter is designed to relieve former chapters
of unwieldy sections which would hinder the progress of the
argument. In each of the cases now proposed for discussion
it is desirable to enter into details, which would be out of
place if these creeds were introduced in their proper chrono-
logical order. And it will be convenient to take them in the
reverse of such order, in order to connect the section on Niceta
with the following Chapter on the Ze Deum.

§ I. Toe CREED IN BRATKE’S BERNE MS.

The following creed was published in 1895 by Professor
Bratke,' from a MS. at Berne (Cod. NV. 645) of the seventh
or eighth century.2, Most of the other contents are of a
geographical or chronological character ; eg. it is preceded by
the Easter cycle of Victorius of Aquitaine, and a catalogue of
Church provinces made in Gaul, and it is followed by the
forged Acts of a supposed Synod of Cesarea, which were
written in Britain during the controversies about the keeping
of Easter in the seventh century.

1 Theol. Stud. u. Krit. i. pp. 153 ff.
? Bratke compares the specimen of Merovingian writing in Sir E, M.
Thompson’s Manual of Palxography, p. 230.

16

242 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

Bratke concludes that it is a copy made in Gaul of an
ancient form of Gallican Creed as it existed before 400, which
was brought to England and used in the British Church in
the seventh century.

Hahn 8 (p. 95, n. 237) classes it as a South German Creed,
having regard to the place where the MS. is now found.
There is little to be said for this view, since the whole collec-
tion in which it is found was clearly put together in England,
and there is nothing else to connect it with Germany. I agree
with him in calling it a mixed creed, and have printed the
interpolated words in italics.

I. 1. Credo in Deo Patrem omnipotentem,
II. 2. Et in Iesum Christum Filium eius,
unicum dominum nostrum,
3. natum de Spiritu Sancto et
Maria uirgine,
4, Passus sub Pontio Pilato
crucefixum et sepultum,
descendtt ad inferos,
5. tertia die resurrexit a mortuos,
6. ascendit ad ceelos,
7. sedit ad dexteram Patris,
8. inde uenturus iudicare
wluos ac mortuos.
III. 9. Credo in Spiritu Sancto,
10. sancta ecclesia chatholica,
11. remissionem peccatorum,
12. carnis resurrectionis,
in witam ceternam.

Thus the creed appears to be a recension of the Old
Roman Creed, formed by adding the words passus, descendit
ad inferos, in uitam eternam. I do not attach any import-
ance to the ablatives Deo, Spiritu Sancto, etc., which remind
one of the Aquileian Creed. They are unevenly distributed,
and are more probably due to an illiterate copyist. If they
had belonged to the original type, surely one ablative would
have survived in the second Article.

SERMON ‘*‘AUSCULTATE EXPOSITIONEM” 243

There are very interesting points of resemblance to the
creed in Cod. Laudianus, which was brought into Britain
before the beginning of the eighth century, and represents the
normal type used by Augustine of Canterbury and other
Roman missionaries.1 It is easy to understand how such a
copy of the Old Roman Creed might have been altered under
the influence of creeds brought from Ireland by Celtic
missionaries, such as that of the Bangor Antiphonary, from
which might have come passus, descendit ad inferos, uitam
ceternam.

§ Il. THe Sermon “ AUSCULTATE EXPOSITIONEM ”

The sermon Ausculiate expositionem has been edited by
Caspari and Ommanney from the Paris MSS. (B.N. lat. 3848
B and 2123), in which it is combined with the sermon of
Cesarius (Ps.-Aug. 244). I have found three MSS. in which
it occurs alone: (i.) Bodleian Library, Oxford, Cod. Junius 25,
from Murbach Abbey ; (ii.) Munich, Cod. lat. 14,508, from the
Abbey of S. Emmeran at Ratisbon; (iii.) Wolfenbiittel, Cod.
91, from the Abbey of Weissenburg, all of the ninth century.
Having published the text of the whole sermon in the
Zertschryft fiir Kirchengeschichte, July 1898, I will now only
quote the creed form :—

I. 1. Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem,
inuisibilem, uisibilium et inutsibilium
(omnium)* rerum conditorem.

II. 2. Et in Iesum Christum, Filium eius unicum,

dominum nostrum,

3. conceptum de Spiritu Sancto, natum
ex Maria uirgine,

4, crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato
et sepultum,

5. tertia die resurgentem ex mortuis,

6. Victor (ascendit ad czlos),

1 See p. 199 supra. Art. 9. spu sto; 10. sancta ecclesia, om. catholica; 12.
carnis resurrectionis.
* The words in brackets are added by Hahn® from the later recension,

244 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

7. sedit in dexteram Dei Patris,
8. inde uenturus iudicare wiuos ac mortuos.
9. Et in Spiritum Sanctum Deum omnipotentem,
unam habentem substantiam cum
Patre et Filto,
10. ecclesiam catholicam,
11. remissionem peccatorum,
12. communem omnium corporum resurrectionem
post mortem (et uitam eternam).

This form is apparently Gallican, and of an earlier date
than the Creed of Ceesarius in Ps.-Aug. Serm. 244, with which
it has been associated from the sixth century. It lacks the
additions passum, mortuum, ad inferna descendisse, communi-
onem sanctorum. Nor does the sermon contain the character-
istics of Czesarius’s style, which have been pointed out in the
other. If it is still conceivable, as Morin thinks, that Ceesarius
wrote it, we must suppose that he used differing forms of one
creed, one belonging to his birthplace Chalons, the other to
Arles, his diocese. We have no data by which to connect it
with any locality. The Creed of the Bangor Antiphonary has
the words inuisibilem . . . conditorem in the first Article, and
the words Deum omnipotentem unam habentem substantiam cum
Patre et Filio in the eighth. It was evidently founded on some
such form, though it contains the latter additions found in the
Creed of Ceesarius. Victor ascendit ad celos recurs in Miss.
Gallic. B, Cod. Vat. Pal. 220, Ps.-Aug. Serm. 238, and a sermon
ina Vésoul MS., Cod. 73. (see p. 238). The present participle
resurgentem is unique, and so are in dexteram (cf. Fulgentius
de fide ad Petrum, c. 20) and the turn of the sentence com-
munem omnium corporum resurrectionem post mortem.*

§ III. ΤῊΣ Creep ΟΕ DAMASUS

The Creed of Damasus? in its original form is always
ascribed to Jerome, and in some MSS. is called a Letter or

1 Cf. the additionin Art. 12, post mortem, in the Bangor Antiphonary.
3 It is called in Hahn,? ‘“‘ The Second Creed” ; in Hahn,? ‘‘ The First Creed,”
ascribed to Damasus. The change is somewhat misleading,

THE CREED OF DAMASUS 245

Faith addressed by him to Damasus. It is generally found
in collections of creeds, and in one MS. (Cod. Augiensis xviii.,
sec. ix., at Karlsruhe) it follows two Rules of Faith ascribed
to Councils of Toledo. Its history is important in con-
nection with the Qwicungue, since it was quoted by the
Fourth Council of Toledo in 633 with that creed.

I am able to edit the text from the following MSS. :—-—

G, Cod. Sangallensts 125 . ; : ; ; 5860, Vlil.

G, Cod. Sangallensis 159 . : , ; sec. X.

K Cod. Augiensis (Karlsruhe) XViil. ; : 8880. 1X.

L Cod. Leidensis xviii. 67 Ἐς. ; ; seec. Vill., ix.
M Cod. Mediolan. Ambros. O. 212 sup. . ἷ seec. Viil.

P Cod. Paris, B.N. 1684 ! ‘ ‘ é sec. Xl. ex.

Fides Hieronimi ad Damasum Papam, G, ; Epistola Hieronimi ad Papam
Damasum de symbulo, G,; Fides beati Hieronimt presbytert ad Damasum
Papam, K; Exemplar fidet chatolice sancti Hieronimi presbitert, L;
Hieronimi incipit fides, M ; (Hieronimt) de Fide apud Bethleem, P.

THE CREED OF DAMASUS

CrEeDIMUS? IN UNUM DEUM PATREM OMNIPOTENTEM ET in unum
Dominum nostrum Inzsum CHRistuM Finium Dei ET in SPIRITUM
Sanctum Deum. Non tres Dos sep ParREM ET FILIUM ET
Sprritum Sanctum uNuM Deum colimus et CONFITEMUR: NON SIC
5 UNUM DEUM QUASI SOLITARIUM, NEC EUNDEM, QUI IPSE SIBI PATER
SIT, IPSE et Finius, SED PATREM esse QUI GENUIT, FILIUM esse qui
genitus sit, SPIRITUM UERO SANCTUM, NON GENITUM NEQUE IN-
GENITUM, NON CREATUM NEQUE FACTUM, SED de Patre procedentem,
Patri et Filio comreRNuM et coequalem et cooperatorem, quia
10 scriptum est: werbo Domini celi firmati sunt, id est, a Filio Dei,
et Spiritu orts eius omnis uirtus ecorum, et alibi: Emitte Spiritum
tuum et creabuntur et renouabis faciem terre. Ideoque in nomine
Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti unum confitemur Deum, quia Deus
nomen est potestatis non proprietatis. Proprium nomen est Patri
15 Pater, et proprium nomen est Filio Filius, et proprium nomen est
Spiritui Sancto Spiritus Sanctus. In hac trinitate unum Deum
credimus, quia ex uno Patre, quod est unius cum Patre nature
uniusque substantie et unius potestatis. Pater Filium genuit, non
uoluntate, nec necessitate, sed natura. Filius ultimo tempore ad
20 nos saluandos et ad implendas scripturas descendit a Patri, QuI
NUNQUAM DESIIT ESSE cum Patre, et conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto,
et NATUS EX UIRGINE, CARNEM ANIMAM ET SENSUM, hoc est perfectum

1 Collated by Ommanney.
2 The words in capitals are found in the Fides Romanorum.,

246 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

suscepit hominem, NEC AMISIT QUOD ERAT, SED COEPIT ESSE QUOD NON
ERAT; ita tamen ut perfectus in suis sit et uerus in nostris. Nam
25 qui Deus erat homo natus est, et qui homo natus est operatur ut
Deus; et qui operatur ut Deus ut homo moritur; et qui ut homo
moritur ut Deus surgit. Qui deuicto mortis imperio cum EA CARNE
QUA NATUS ET PASSUS ET MORTUUS fuerat, RESURREXIT, ascendit ad
Patrem, sedetque ad dexteram eius in gloriam, quam semper habuit
30 habetque. IN HUIUS MORTE ET SANGUINE credimus EMUNDATOS NOS
ab eo RESUSCITANDOS die nouissima IN HAC CARNE QUA NUNC uiuimus
et habemus, consecuturos ab ipso AUT UITAM ATERNAM PREMIUM BONI
MERITI aut pcenam PRO PECCATIS ZTERNI SUPPLICII. Hee lege, hee
retine, huic fidei animam tuam subiuga, a Christo Domino et uitam
35 consequeris preemia.

LINE 2. om. nostrum, LP. om.in, M. 3. om. Sanctum... 4. Sanctum,
G, om. Deum, M. 5. om. Deum, LP. ipse, supra lin. Gy. 6. qui]
quem, G,. genuit]+ Filium, G,. Filium] pr. et, ας (K, supra lin.). 7. sit]
est (sit, supra lin.), K. 8. Patre] + et Filio, G,L(K*). 9. coequalem, K;
quoequalem, M. 10. scribtum, M*. celi,G,. om. id... Dei, M; a, supra
lin. K; om. a, L. 11. emittes, G,, 5. 12. innouabis, G,. terre, LP. 13.
quia] quod, G, corr. om. Deus, G,> nomen est potestatis Deus, KLM.
14. om. Proprium, L. om. est, 2° G,. 15. proprium 1°] proprio, L. 16.
Spiritu, P. In] pr. Et, K. hac]+ autem, G,. Deum] + colimus, supra

u

lin. K. 17. uno] no, L. nature] nature, G,; natura, L,; + est, G,M; ei,
K; esse, 7, 18. uniusque substancie, L. genuit, supra lin. G, corr. om. et
unius, G,. 19. uoluptate, P. 20. saluandus, L. implendos, G,._ scribturas,
M; scriptura, G,. discendit, K* LM. 21. numquam, KM. desiuit, M. om.
et, G,. om. est, M. 22. et, 1° supra din. M. uirgine, pr. Maria, G, KLM.
carnem] CARNEUM, G,*L. ANIMAM, eras G,; pr. et, Go. 23. suscipit, M.
nec] non, L. 24. nostris] + sit, G, 25. om. Deus... (26) qui, 1° M.
om. est... est, G, L, hee uerba supra lin. K. 26. moritur] moreretur,
L bis. 27. surgit, G,P] resurgit, G, KL. Qui] pr. et, L. om. Qui, M.
mortis imperio] mortis, supra lin. K; imperio diabuli, K*M (diaboli, L).
28. om. et passus, M. mortuus] mortus, G,. resurrexit] surrexit, G,, pr. et,
G1, 2 Καὶ Mj, + ter(c)ia die, KL. 29. sedit, KM; om. que, Cy. gloria, 6. Μ.
30. huius] cuius, G, emundatos] 6, supra lin. K; MuNDATOS, LM. 105]
+ esse, αἱ; + et, Gj,9. 381. ab eo] habeo, L. nouissimo, G,. IN hac CARNE
QUA NUNC uiuimus] IN QUA NUNC uluimus CARNE, P. 82. habemus] + spem,
G, corr. supra lin. consecuturos] + nos, G,, pr. nos, Gy. om. ab ipso, Gy.
uitam] pr. ad, G,. om. aut uitam eternam, G,K corr. premium, KL, 34.
om, Domino, Gg. 35, premia] premium, G, KM,, pr. et, G, M.

In the Cod. Sangallensis 125 is added the following :—
“ Spiritus uero Sanctus Patris et Filii communiter Spiritus.
Sicut generare solius Patris et nasci solius Filii et procedere

de ambobus solius confitemur Spiritus Sancti. Credimus in
Spiritum Sanctum, Spiritum Sanctum Deum dicimus, nec

THE CREED OF DAMASUS 247

tamen dicimus Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum tres
Deos sed unum quia una est eternitas una maiestas una
potestas. Pater non est Filius sed Pater est. Filius non
est Pater sed Filius est Patris. Spiritus Sanctus nec Pater
est nec Filius sed Spiritus est Patris et Fuilii, tres persone
sed unus Deus est. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum. Spiritus
Sanctus Deus est a Patre Filiogue non minor sed una
maiestas una potestas inseparabilis trinitas, inuisibilis
sanctitas, simulque Deus Pater Deus Filius Deus Spiritus
Sanctus. Non tres Dii sed trinitas unus Deus est. Quo
modo procedit Spiritus ex Patre ita procedit ex Filio.”

The fact that it was quoted by the Council of Toledo
has led me to the suggestion that it was the reply of
Damasus to the treatise addressed to him by Priscillian.
There are two or three sentences which reply directly to
statements in that treatise, and cut away the roots of his
error. Thus (1) “Deus nomen est potestatis non pro-
prietatis” is a sentence which afterwards found its way
into the Fortunatus commentary on the Quwieuwnque, and
with good reason. It explains why Priscillian’s frequent
and loose use of the term wotestas was wrong. Power is
an attribute of the Godhead, not a proper name like
Father or Son or Holy Ghost. In this treatise Priscillian
uses the term twice—§ 41: “unita unius Dei potestate ”;1 and
§ 45 (where he is speaking of the Baptismal Formula): “in
uno (nomine) quia unus Deus trina potestate uenerabilis
omnia et in omnibus Christus est.” As I have shown above
(p. 142), the tendency of all such untheological argument is
Sabellian.

Again, in his Christological teaching, the author of the
creed defines the perfect Manhood which the Lord took upon
Him as including flesh, soul, and feeling: ut perfectus in suis
sit et uerus in nostris . . . gui ut homo moritur ut Deus surgit.
Thus he replies to the vague teaching, leaning, as it seems, to
the Apollinarian error, in the passage quoted above (p. 143)
from Tract. VI. 99, where Priscillian himself uses the words

1 Cf. V. 8 88: ‘‘Christum nulli nomini uel potestati parte concessa unum
Deum crederet.”

248 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

dum moritur homo resurgit ut Deus, though in the context
he seems to deny that the Lord had a human soul.

This conclusion is borne out by the following passage
from the same treatise (§ 95), though it is only fair to add
two other references in which a tripartite division of human
nature is given, the first a quotation from Wisdom ix. 15.
But they do not throw light on his Christology.

Tract. VI. § 95: “Dum in utrisque testamentis corpore et
spiritu, sicut fuit Christus in carne, uelut in duobus perfectus
homo queritur, uetus testamentum castificandi corporis Deo
et nouum anime institutione mancipatur et non dissentaneum
sibi sed ratione diuisum est, ut sicut hec duo testamenta
Deus unus est, sic in nobis perfectio boni gloria sit.” ...

Ib. § 97, Sap. 9,15: “Corpus ... anima .. . sensus.”

Ib. § 105: “ Post sapientiz szcularis institutione reiecta
corpore anima et spiritu in quibus homo uincitur triformi
decalogi in nobis lege reparata mensis fiat domini.”.. .

I have already pointed out (p. 145) that the teaching on
eternal rewards and punishments is a complete answer to the
Antinomian theory, which might be deduced from his mystical
teaching. Tract. VII. ὃ 117: “ Perpetua luce contecti pecca-
torum supplicia respuere et requiem possimus habere iustorum
per Iesum Christum.”

Lastly, the appeal, “Hee lege, hee retine, huic fidei
animam tuam subiuga,” fits in well with my theory of
authorship. The connexion with 8. Jerome suggested by
the MSS. may be explained by the fact that he was at this
time in Rome, and in constant communication with Damasus.

§ IV. Tue ΒΗΥΤῊΜ or tHe “TE DEUM” AND THE
“ QUICUNQUE ”

The researches of Meyer’ prove that the work of
8. Cyprian, de Mortalitate, in which we have found an
important parallel to verses 7, 8, 9 of the Ze Deum, was
written in metrical prose; that is to say, prose which had

1 Géttingsche gel. Anzeigen, 1898, p. 1. I owe my introduction to this
interesting subject to Mr. J. Shelly. Cf. article in Guardian, March 10, 1897.

RHYTHM OF “ΤΕ DEUM” AND ‘*QUICUNQUE” 249

strictly regulated metrical endings to its sentences. These
were used by many rhetoricians of the Silver Latin period,
and were known as clausule rhetorice (cf. Terentianus
Maurus V. 1439). The passage may be scanned as
follows :—

“Tlic apdstdlorim | glorids|iis chdriis*||, lic prdphétarum éxilt|ain-
titim | nimérfis®||, illic mart¥Yrum inntimér|abilis | pdptilfs®|| ob cér-
taminis δῦ passidnis gloriam ét uictoriam cdrdnatis %||”

At the end of the fourth century these metrical endings
were superseded by less artificial, though not less musical,
endings or cadences, in which the rhythm was marked by
accent. Sometimes, though this shows a further decadence
of style, the new rhythmical endings were combined with
rhymes. At a later period the new method was dignified
by grammarians with the name of the Cursus Leoninus.
There were three ordinary forms of endings, which were
known as—

cursus planus at gare (pl)
cursus tardus ~~~ ~~ ~ (t)
cursus δα ~~~ ~~ ~~ (v)

These cadences are found throughout the writings of
Cassian, Pomerius, his pupil Ceesarius, Cassiodorus, and other
writers of the fifth and sixth centuries. After two centuries
the method fell into disuse, and was restored by the Chancellor
John Cajetan, the future Gelasius Π., under Pope Urban 11.
(1088). Definite rules were drawn up by another chancellor,
Albert de Mora, the future Gregory vitt,’ according to which
the beginning of the sentence should contain spondees
(rhythmical, not metrical), the middle spondees and dactyls
mixed.

The results of such ruling were what might be expected.
All the freshness of the early method evaporated, and in the
sixteenth century, though Dante used it effectively in his
letters, it died a natural death.

We are not now concerned with later developments of

1 Chevalier, Poésie liturgique du moyen age, p. 36.

250 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

the system, but with its use in liturgical books. The
Gelasian Sacramentary is full of these cadences, and they
are found in all the most beautiful of Latin collects. Thus
the collect of the Angelus contains three typical specimens.

The ears of the translators of our Prayer Book were so
tuned to them, that they have reproduced these cadences in
many most familiar and most musical prayers.’

The importance of the subject is not confined to the
esthetic valuing of harmonious phrases. The date when the
method came into use being known, the very fact of its use
may in some cases help to determine the date of documents.
We must, of course, be on our guard against fanciful exten-
sions of the theory to support doubtful theories of date.
But it is to be hoped that the rhythms will be marked in
future editions of writings known to be written according to
these rules. Thus in Arnold’s great work on Cesarius, the
treatise on Humility is, for the first time, printed in such
a way as to show the rhythms.

The application of the method to the 7 Deum? revealed
the fact that the rhythmical endings stopped with verse 21,
the Psalm verses which follow being, as we know from other
sources, not part of the original composition. I have en-

1 Mr. Shelly writes: ‘‘Taking the collects for the Sundays and those for
Christmas Day, Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, Easter Eve, and Ascension Day,
I find they contain one hundred and seventy-one distinct clauses, of which at
least seventy have endings that correspond with one or other of the usual forms
of the cursus. I do not think this can be accidental. Anyway, it is very
curious, because, though I do find similar cadences in other portions of English
literature, they are nothing like so frequent nor so regular in their occurrence.”
Thus—

Planus—hélp and défend us.
man’s understanding.
able to pléase thee.

Tardus—hélp and deliver us.

continual gddliness.
worship the Unity.

Velox—nourish us with all gdéodness.
sérvice is perfect fréedom.
glory of His resurréction.

7 In the first instance by Lejay. |

RHYTHM OF “TE DEUM” AND ‘“QUICUNQUE” 251

deavoured to mark them independently. It must be admitted
that there are several very doubtful endings, which may be
explained by the fact that they illustrate the transition from
the metrical to the rhythmical style. Thus we find the fifth
of the metrical endings classified by Meyer both in the
Te Deum and the Quicunque—

Verse 2.—Te eternum Patrem omnis térra uénératur.
Clause 3.— Trinitatem in Unitaté uénérémur.

Meyer’ shows that this was allowed as a sixth form of
the cursus, but not, it would seem, till a much later time.

Among the Quicwnque endings there are several which do
not conform to the usual rules of the cursus, 1.6. clauses 3,
20, 25, 26. Mr. Shelly suggests that “a slight alteration
of the words in each case would form a recognised cadence.”
Thus—

Clause 3.—ueneremur et Trinitatem | in Uni|tate.?!
», 20.—religione Cathdlica | prohib|jémur.’
» 25.—in Unitate | sit uene|randa.?!
5» 26.—ita sentiat | dé Trinitate.P!

In three of these cases, clauses 3, 20, 27, such a proposal
is not necessary, since they are covered by the suggestion
that the metrical ending ~~~ ~~~ passed into the cursus,
though it was only formally recognised at a late period. In
the fourth case there is no such explanation available, but
I am still unwilling to resort to so violent a rectification of
the text with no MS. authority.

There is one other case in which the cursus may be used
to decide between doubtful readings. In clause 22 there is
little doubt that est should be omitted, giving a good specimen
of the cursus velox, génitus | sed procédens.” This reading
is of small consequence in itself, but the argument for it
lends some additional probability to Mr. Shelly’s theory.

The fact that the creed was thus written in rhythmical
prose does not prove that it was written for singing. The
address of Cesarius on Humility was not intended for sing-
ing. At the same time, we must note that it was just
because it was written in this style that it was found so

EP 2b

252 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

suitable for singing at a later time. In an interesting
lecture on “ Art in Liturgical Melodies, Ancient and Modern,”
by the Abbé A. Bourdon} director of the cathedral music
at Rouen, some stress is laid on the fact that there is a
musical ewrsus which corresponds to the literary cwrsus, and
is founded on it.

He quotes the following words of Dom. Mocquereau:
“ Dans les répertoires liturgiques des trois principaux dialectes
du plain-chant (ambrosien, grégorien, mozarabe), ou trouve,
reproduites des malliers de fois, plus de cent cadences imitant
les ondulations rhythmiques du cursus planus littéraire, sur
lesquelles on les a évidemment calquées.” |

§ V. ΝΊΟΕΤΑ oF REMESIANA

Niceta was Bishop of Remesiana? in Dacia, the modern
Bela-Palanka on the Servian railway from Nisch to Pirot.
In 398 and 402 he visited Paulinus of Nola, the friend of
many leading churchmen in Italy and Gaul, among others of
S. Ambrose, Sulpicius Severus, and Eucherius of Lyons.
Paulinus wrote enthusiastically of his character and ability,
and used terms such as holy Father, Father, and teacher,
which seem to imply that he was the older, 2.e. born before
353. This date agrees with the chronological setting of the
short reference in Gennadius, who seems to date his life 6.
370-420. Paulinus wrote in 398 of the success of his
missionary work among the wild tribe of the Bessi. Shortly
before this S. Jerome mentions the fact that even the wild
Bessi had given up their inhuman customs to make heard
the sweet songs of the Cross. Work so successful must
have been going on for some time, and there is a possible
reference to it in a decree of the Second Roman Synod held
under Pope Damasus 6. 369-371, which they sent to the
Bishops of Illyria. Reports of the revival of Arianism had
been sent them by brethren among the Gauls and Bessi.*

1 Mémoires sur la Musique Sacrée en Normandie.
5 Gennadius, c. 22 in B.N. Paris, Cod. lat, 12,161.
3 Spicilegium Casinense, i, 98.

NICETA OF REMESIANA 253

Possibly Niceta was the messenger, for his treatise on the
titles of our Lord shows acquaintance with the Decretwm
Gelasit, which was discussed at a Synod held under Damasus.
Paulinus implies that his activity was not confined to the
Bessi in the Balkans (Carm. xvii. 321: non unius populi
magistrum), but that it extended to the Scythians in the
Dobrudscha, and even to the Gets north of the Danube.
He taught also among the gold-diggers of the neighbour-
hood."

Latin seems to have been his native tongue, but he was
probably acquainted also with Greek, since he quotes the
Catecheses of Cyril of Jerusalem, and in some cases appears
to give his own translation from the Greek Testament.

At Rome his learning made a great impression. Paulinus

wrote of it to Sulpicius Severus: “Quo genere te et
uenerabili episcopo atque doctissimo Nicete, qui ex Dacia
Romanis merito admirandus aduenerat .. . reuelaui.” 3

Paulinus also delighted in his gifts as a hymn-writer,
beside whom he felt himself poor.

Kattenbusch * makes the interesting suggestion that he
was the Bishop Niche referred to in the letter of Germinius
of Sirmium in 367. He quotes the form Niceas as found
in the MSS. of Gennadius. It is more probably a corrup-
tion of Nicete, since the specimens of handwriting from
Dacian wax tablets given by Maunde Thompson ὅ show that
et could easily be corrupted into h.

Niceta is mentioned with another Bishop of Sirmium in
a letter of Pope Innocent I. to Marcianus, Bishop of Nisch,
in the year 409; and in another letter of 414 is referred to
with Marcianus among bishops of Macedonia and the sur-
rounding district.

Gennadius (c. 22) informs us that he wrote in simple
and clear language six books of instruction for neophytes,
of which the fifth was On the Creed. By the evidence of
some fragments found by Morin® in a MS. at Rouen, in an

1 Paulinus, Carm. xviii. 213, 269, 2 Ep. 29.
3 Carm. xxvii. 193-199. : 4 Theol. Lit. Zeit. 1896, p. 808.
5 Greek and Latin Paleography, p, 216. 5 Rev, Bén, 1897, p. 97,

254 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

Ordo de catechizandis rudibus, cod. A, 214, sec. xi., xii, this
fifth book may be identified with the Hxplanatio symboli
attributed to Nicetas of Aquileia." On fol. 123 v. an extract
from that sermon is called de Immortalitate Anime Nicetee in
libro quinto ad competentes.* This evidence seems completely
to remove the doubt expressed by Hahn? (p. 47, n. 72), who
argued reasonably that if the author was not Nicetas of
Aquileia, some further evidence was required to prove that
he was a Nicetas. The sermon is an eloquent one, addressed
to a cultured congregation, and specially interesting as con-
taining the first mention of sanctorum communionem in a
creed form. The appeal to renounce theatres and pomps is
not out of place, since the Roman colonies in that district
were probably wealthy and luxurious. If further investiga-
tion should confirm Kattenbusch’s* doubts upon this point,
another explanation could easily be found, in the suggestion
that this was a sermon preached to an Italian congregation
at Rome or Nola.

The form of creed is not easy to extract from the
sermon. I have therefore shown in notes how my recon-
struction differs from those of Caspari (C), Hiimpel (H’),
Hahn? (H*), and Kattenbusch (K). It seems to be a pro-
vincial form of R, and the accusatives natum, crucifixum
seem to point to independent translation from a Greek text.*
I have somewhat doubtfully included cali et terre creatorem,
because the note following Awne confitere Dewm in connexion
with the use of confessio after the first words of Art. 1, and
of conjiteberis after the first words of Art. 2, seem to me to
imply that he is quoting the creed. The words were found
in the Jerusalem Creed, which he would know through Cyril,
and it may have been through Niceta that they found their
way into our Apostles’ Creed.2 The words wiuus a mortuis
are found in the Creeds of Martin of Bracara, a native of

1 M.S.L. 52, 865.

ὁ Morin, Art. cit., points out that the third and fifth fragments, edited by
Denis from another MS. (Cod. Vindob. 1370, seec. x.), are said to have been
taken from the fifth book of Niceta, and are not found in the Explanatio. Ido

not see that this affects the evidence of the Rouen MS.
> Das ap. Symbol. i. p. 406. 4 Cf. p. 200 supra. 5 P, 240 supra.

NICETA OF REMESIANA 255

Pannonia, and in Spanish Creeds, Ildefonsus, Etherius,
Beatus, Mozarabic Liturgy, possibly dependent on Martin;
also in Theodulf’s Creed, which is explained by the fact of
his Spanish extraction.

ILL. Ὁ,
10.

1.
12.

NICETA

. Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem

cali et terre creatorem:

. Et in Filium eius Iesum Christum,
. natum ex Spiritu Sancto et ex

uirgine Maria,

. passum sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixum,

mortuum ;

. Tertia die resurrexit wiwus a

mortuis,

6. ascendit in ccelos,
if
8. inde uenturus iudicare

sedet ad dexteram Patyris,

uluos et mortuos:

Et in Spiritum Sanctum,
sanctam ecclesiam catholicam,
communionem sanctorum,
remissionem peccatorum,
carnis resurrectionem

et witam ceternam.

1. om. cceli et terre creatorem, CH! H? K. 2. + Dominum nostrum, K.

3. natum .. . uirgine, inexpos.C. 4. >sub Pontio Pilato passus est (passum

᾽

H*), ΟΗδ' mortuum, pr. et, H®; mortuus, in eapos. C. 7. Patris, pr.
Dei, Ηϑδ, 10. sancte ecclesia catholice, C. 11. remissionem, pr. in Η8,
12, carnis, yr. huius, H®. uitam, pr. in Ηδδ,

CHAPTER XI

THE “TE DEUM”

§ I. MSS. and Quotations.
§ II. The Authorship.
§ III. The Sources upon which the Author may have drawn.
§IV. The Text.

Tux history of the Ze Deum touches the history of the Apostles’
Creed at so many points, that it is scarcely necessary to apolo-
gise for the addition of the following Chapter. Since the pub-
lication of the Bishop of Salisbury’s exhaustive article in the
Dictionary of Hymnology, an entirely new turn has been given
to the discussion of the subject by Dom. G. Morin’s brilliant
discovery of the probable author in Niceta of Remesiana,
whose commentary on the creed has already interested us.
His suggestion has been accepted as a probable solution of a
very puzzling problem by leading critics at home and abroad.
It may therefore be of interest to collect the principal argu-
ments for the new theory in a concise form. The materials
are not yet available for a critical edition of the text of the
hymn in all the three versions known to us. But I have
compiled a provisional list of the earliest MSS.,1 and have
attempted to reconstruct the original text in the light of the
new theory. The result is only tentative, but may serve to
illustrate the progress of modern criticism in this subject.
At least, it is comforting to find that, with the exception of some
Psalm verses, which for some time have been recognised as
additions to the hymn, the whole of the text dear to us is
original.

1 Appendix Ἐν
256

MANUSCRIPTS AND QUOTATIONS 257

§ I. MSS. AND QUOTATIONS

The hymn Ze Dewm laudamus is found in a large number
of MSS., most of them psalters and collections of hymns.
The earliest known are a Vatican Psalter (Cod. Vatic. Alex.
xi.) of the seventh century, or earlier, and the Bangor Anti-
phonary, which may be dated A.D. 680-691. These contain
the forms of text known as the Milan and Irish versions. A
third form, the version of the Prayer Book, is probably the
most ancient, but apart from the question of the antiphons,
or psalm verses, added to the original hymn, the differences
between the versions are of small importance.

The evidence of quotations carries us back to the fifth
century. The Rule of Benedict of Nursia, which was written
6. AD. 530, contains the following \direction: ¢. xi. “ Post
quartum responsorium incipit Abbas Ze Deum laudamus, quo
preedicto legat Abbas lectionem de Euangelio cum honore et
tremore, stantis omnibus, qua perlecta respondeant omnes
Amen, et subsequatur mox Abbas hymnum Te decet laus.”

To this we may add the Rule of Aurelian: “Omni
Sabbato ad Matutinos Cantemus Domino et 76 Deum
laudamus.”

The Rule of Cesarius, who was consecrated Bishop of
Arles in 502, is said to have been written while he was still
Abbot of Lerins. He directs: ο. xxi. “ Perfectis missis dicite
matutinos directaneo: Exaltabo te Deus meus et rex meus.
Deinde Confitemini. Inde Cantemus Domino, Lauda anima
mea Dominum, Benedictionem, Laudate Dominum de celis.
Te Deum laudamus. Gloria in excelsis Deo: et capitellum.”

To this testimony of Czesarius may be added an important
- quotation in the letter of Cyprian, Bishop of Toulon, which
has been quoted as a new authority for the Creed of Gaul.

He mentions Cesarius by name, and his use of the Ze
Deum seems to have been exactly parallel to the directions
given in his friend’s rule. He writes thus to Maximus,
Bishop of Geneva :

“Sed in hymno quem omnes ecclesia toto orbe receptum canit, cot-
tidie dicemus: ‘Tu es rex gloria, Christus, tu patri sempiternus es filius’ ;

17

258 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

et consequenter subiungit: ‘Tu ad liberandum subcepturus hominem
non orruisti uirgines uterum ; te ergo quesumus tuis famulis subueni,
quos pretioso sanguine redimisti.” 1

Two quotations of a more doubtful kind may be added,
which will appear worthy of consideration in the light of the
new evidence as to the authorship. It has been suggested °
that Prudentius in his Apotheosis, 1. 1019, uses the three
words, suscipere, liberare, tenere, just as they are used in verse
16 of the hymn. He may have become acquainted with it
during his long stay in Rome, a.p. 400-405.

The other is a passage in the Commonitortwm of Vincen-
tius of Lerins: ὁ. xvi. ad jin. “Beata igitur ac ueneranda,
benedicta et sacrosancta, et omnino superne ille angelorum
laudationi comparanda confessio, que unum Dominum Deum
trina sanctificatione glorificat.”

I do not know if it has ever been suggested that Vincen-
tius refers here to the Ze Dewm, but the words imply more
than a mere reference to the Sanctus. They imply that it was
set in a Confessio Trinitatis, which was worthy to be called
Laus angelorum, and acknowledged one Lord God. The title
Laus angelica is found in a MS. at Cambridge (S. John’s
Ο 15), and Laus angelorum in a MS. at Rouen, Cod. 227
(A. 367), seec. ΧΙ].

δ II. THE AUTHORSHIP

In the ninth century there were two conflicting traditions
held as to the authorship. Hinemar of Rheims believed the
beautiful story, that it was composed by 8. Ambrose and S.
Augustine on the eventful day of S. Augustine’s baptism.
In his treatise on Predestination (A.D. 856) he writes: “ Ut a
maioribus nostris audiuimus, tempore baptismatis sancti
Augustini hunec hymnum beatus Ambrosius fecit, et idem
Augustinus cum eo.” This tradition is confirmed by the
title which is given to the canticle in a S. Gall. Psalter of the
beginning of the century (Cod. 23): “Hymnus quem S.

1 Cod. Colon. 212 (Darmstad. 2326) f. 113 f., quoted by Morin, Rev. Bén.
2M. Ὁ. Weymann in a letter to Dom. Morin.
3 Zahn, Neuere Beitrédge, p. 119, n. 1.

THE AUTHORSHIP 239

Ambrosius et 8. Augustinus inuicem condiderunt.” It is also
found in the titles of the Vienna Psalter, S. Gall. 27, and
B. M., Add. MSS. 9046.

The Irish Book of Hymns of the tenth, B. M., Vitellius, E.
xviil., and Bodleian Laud, 96, both of the eleventh century,
show the tradition continued. In the eleventh century the
whole story was reported in the Chronicle of Milan, erroneously
called by the name of Dacius, who was bishop ¢. A.D. 527.

On the other hand, Abbo of Fleury, in a letter to some
English monks (A.D. 985), attributed the hymn to 8. Hilary
of Poitiers: “Dei palinodia quam composuit Hilarius Pictau-
ensis Episcopus.” This tradition is the more interesting,
because Fleury Abbey possessed one of the greatest monastic
libraries, and Abbo, even if he seems pedantic, was a real
student. Moreover, it is carried back probably to the pre-
ceding century by the title in one of Daniel’s Munich MSS.,*
which belonged to the Abbey of S. Emmeran.

From the tenth century, however, there is evidence of a
third tradition, which has been preserved in some ten MSS.
It was first noticed by Archbishop Ussher, who wrote to
Voss about a collection of Latin and Irish hymns in which
he had found the Ze Dewm attributed to a Niceta. This MS.
has at last been identified with the Irish Book of Hymns
(seec. xi.), belonging to the Franciscan Convent at Dublin,
by Prof. J. H. Bernard of Dublin, who has edited it with a
most interesting introduction. There is a curious preface to
the Ze Dewm written in Latin and Old Irish, which may be
translated as follows”: “ Neceta, coarb [2.e. successor] of
Peter, made this canticle. In Rome, now, it was made.
Incertum autem quo tempore et ob quam causam factum,
nisi Necetam Deum laudare uoluisse diceremus, dicens
Laudate puert Dominum, Laudate nomen Domini, Te Deum
laudamus,” ete.

Ussher found in the Cotton Library another MS., which
ascribed the Ze Deum to a Nicetius, 1.6. a Gallican Psalter,
which he supposed to have been written in the reign of
Henry 1. (1120-1134). This is missing, but with inde-

1 Thesaurus Hymnologicus, ii. 288. ? Bradshaw Society vol. xiii. 59.

260 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

fatigable labour Dom. Morin has collected references to nine
others.

- The earliest is—(1) A Roman Psalter from the Abbey of 8.
Aubin, at Angers (Cod. xv.), of the tenth century. The others
are (2) B. M., Harleian, 863, sec. xi.; (3) B. M., Arundel, 60,
seec. xi., in which Vicetius is obviously a mistake for Nicetius;
(4) Bibl. Laurent. Florence, Plut. xvii. Cod. 111. sec. xi.; (5) 10.
Cod. ix., sec, xi.; (6) 2b. Cod. vili. seec. xiii.; (7), Munich, Cod. lat.
13067, see. xi., xii., in a Scotch or Irish hand, from the Belgian
monastery of Hastiere on the Meuse; (8) Bibl. Vatican.,
Cod. Palat. lat. 35, sec. xiv., xv.; (9) an early printed Psalter,
ad usum ecclesie Sarisburiensis, London, 1555, in which is “the
rubric, Canticum beat Nicetr,” and a note stating that the
traditional account respecting S. Augustine’s baptism is
untrue: “Quod non est uerum sed decantauerunt usum
prius compositum per beatum Nicetum episcopum Vien(n)-
ensem quod innuit Cassiodorus de institutione sanctorum
scripturarum.”

In a few MSS. the names of Sisebut and Abundius are
connected with the hymn. They are coupled together in the
Breviary of the Collegium Anicianum at Rome, Bibl.
Vatican. Cod. Basil. Vat. n. xi. Cod. Vat. 4928, see. xii.
Sisebut alone is mentioned in a Breviary at Monte Casino,
which was written under Abbot Oderisius, Paris, Bibl.
Mazarin, Cod. 364 (759), Bibl. Vatican. Cod. xi. They
were probably monks, who either introduced it into some
new district of Italy, or composed the musical setting.
Sisebut, a Goth, is mentioned among early -disciples of
Benedict. §. Gregory, who narrates, Dial. 11. 6, how a Goth
was received by Benedict, mentions also a clerk, Abundius,
who was mansionarius at S. Peter’s in the sixth century.

The natural inclination to assign popular creeds or hymns
to great men will account for the first and second of these
traditions, neither of which can be traced back beyond the
ninth century. And it may be worth while to point out that
the MS. which ascribes the hymn to Hilary was not written
in France, that the MS. which ascribes it to Ambrose and
Augustine was not written in Italy, and that no MS. of the

THE “ΤῈ DEUM” 261

Milan version, where we should expect the latter tradition to
survive, if anywhere, has any such title.

There remains the interesting series of MSS. which con-
nect it with the name Niceta or Nicetius. Most of them
belong to Great Britain, and there is some likelihood that such
a tradition would be longer preserved in these isles, which were
often cut off from much communication with the Continent.

There are strong reasons for identifying him with Niceta
of Remesiana. Since Professor Bernard has found the missing
MS. which alone preserved the Greek form of the name, the
claims of Western writers like Nicetius of Tréves, or Nicesius
of Vienne, to be regarded as possible authors, become void. It
is easy to understand how the Greek name was Latinised in
the other MSS. Another point of interest in the MS. is the
statement that Niceta was Bishop of Rome. Evidently the
scribe had seen the inscription, Civitatis Romane episcopus.
Now Romane is one of the forms in which Remesiana is found
in the MSS. of Gennadius.

The internal evidence of the treatises On the Good of
Psalmody and On Vigils points quite away from the times
and circumstances of Nicetius of Tréves, or of his name-
sake of Vienne. The writer defends the practice of keeping
vigils with psalm-singing and hymns as something new, to
which older Church-folk object, and at which the heathen
mock. He speaks of Saturday and Sunday as observed with
these night watches. This fact points decisively to some
Church influenced by Eastern usage, and to the latter part of the
fourth century, a description which would suit Remesiana in
the time of Niceta. A reference to the Song of Moses and
Miriam shows that the congregation were divided into two
choirs, by sex. The whole congregation sang, and did not
merely respond “ Amen” or “ Hallelujah” to a singer or choir.

Antiphonal psalm-singing by the whole congregation began
in Antioch about the year 350, when two Orthodox laymen,
Flavianus and Diodorus, afterwards Bishops of Antioch and
Tarsus, gathered a congregation and taught them to sing
hymns, in opposition to the influence of an Arian bishop,

1M. S. Berger, Hist. of Vulgate, Paris, 1898, pref. p. 12.

262 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

Leontius. 8. Basil introduced the practice into Cesarea
(Cappadocia) in 375, and was heavily reproached for 10.1 It
soon spread to Upper Egypt and Mesopotamia, but Basil does
not mention one town of Europe where it was found. Oppo-
sition did not come so much from conservative congregations
as from bishops. A synod held at Laodicea, 360, decreed:
“Besides the canonical psalm-singers, who climb into the
gallery and sing from the book, shall none sing in the church.”

Dom. Morin? has found in the Vatican Library a new MS.
of the tract, On the Good of Psalmody, Cod. Vat. 5729, con-
taining several passages which are not found in the printed
editions, but seem to belong to the original text. In one of
these, the author answers the objection that S$. Paul (Eph. v.
9) intended congregations to sing silently, when he wrote, “in
gratia cantantes et psallentes Deo in cordibus uestris.” In
another he quotes a treatise of Cyprian.? This throws light
on the extent of his reading, and is an interesting parallel to
the quotation of Cyprian “On Mortality,” in the Ze Deum.

Though the writer distinguishes his people from Easterns,
his list of the canticles sung at their services exactly corre-
sponds with Eastern usage. Dom. Morin shows this by an
interesting list :

NICETA. CONSTANTINOPLE. MILAN. GAUL,
Moses, Exodus Moses, Exodus Isaiah xxvi. 9 Benedicite
» Deut. » Deut. Anna Moses, Exodus
Anna Anna Habbakuk » Deut.
Isaiah xxvi.9 Habbakuk Jonah Isaiah lx. 1-14
Habbakuk Isaiah xxvi.9 Moses, Deut. " 1xi, 10-]x11.7
Jonah Jonah » Exodus Anna
Jeremiah, (Ὁ) Benedicite, i. Zachariah, Luke Mary
Benedicite Μ᾿ li. i. 68 Isaiah xxvi. 9
Elizabeth, Luke Mary, Luke i. Mary, Luke i. 46 Judith
i. 46 46 Benedicite Ezechiel
Jeremiah, Lam. v.
1-22

4 Esdras vili. 20-36
Azarias, Dan. ili. 26-
44

1 Kp, 207. 2 Revue Bénédictine, 1897, p. 385,
3 Hp. ad Donat. c. 16, ed. Hartel.

THE “TE DEUM” 263

It will be seen that the list of Niceta agrees with that
of Constantinople with two exceptions, the inversion of the
order Isaiah, Habbakuk, and the addition of Jeremiah, which
is possibly a point of connection with the Gallican list.

In fact, the internal evidence of these tracts exactly fits
in with the words which Paulinus of Nola used about his
friend. He anticipated much pleasure from the enjoyment of
Niceta’s gifts as a hymn writer, beside whom he felt himself
poor.t He hoped to gain inspiration,? and that Niceta would
visit the church of his patron-saint Felix, with psalm-singing
and hymns? He imagined the sailors on the ship, which
would carry Niceta over the Adriatic, taught to sing hymns
in chorus, as in “the silent land”; the barbarians had already
learnt to hymn Christ :—

“ Navite leti solitum celeusma
Concinent uersis modulis in hymnos

Et piis ducent comites in equor
Vocibus auras.

Preecinet cunctis, tuba ceu resultans,

Lingua Nicete modulata Christum :

Psallet eeternus citharista toto
fEquore Dauid.

Audient Amen tremefacta cete,

Et sacerdotem Domino canentem

Leta lasciuo procul admeabunt
Monstra natatu.” 4

Gennadius and Cassiodorus praise the writings of Niceta
for their brevity, and the clearness and simplicity of their
style. The same characteristics are certainly found in the 76
Deum to a marked degree. The effect which the whole com-
position has on the mind is felt to be strong. But this is
through the grandeur and rapidity of the thoughts which are
expressed, rather than from mere brilliancy of expression.®

The parallels to the 7e Deum scattered in the writings of
Niceta are not perhaps so striking as one could wish, but they
show that his mind was working on similar lines.

1 Carm. xxvii. 193-199, 2 ib, 243-272, 3 ib, 500-510.
4 Carm. xvii. 109. > Morin, Rev. Bén. 1894, p. 75.

264 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

Ver. 7. In the Zxplanatio he writes: In cuius gloriam etiam
angeli prospicere concupiscunt ; qui et sedes et dominationes
uniuersasque ccoelorum uirtutes sua mavestate sanctificat.

Ver. 8. In the same sermon he writes of patriarchs,
prophets, apostles, martyrs, and the just, as united with angels
in one church. And in what seems to be the best text? of
his letter, de lapsu Susanne, if that can be attributed to him,
we find mention made of apostles, an army of prophets
(exercitus), and the holy angels.

Vers. 11-13. Gennadius gives one title, de fide unicw mai-
estatis, for the treatises on the faith, and on the Holy Spirit, in
which maiestas is repeatedly used of the Godhead. The
immensitas of God’s works is spoken of in a way which implies
that the writer would argue back to the immensitas of His
Being. He speaks of Christ as werus (dev) filius (Mai, p. 315).
He uses the title spiritum sanctum paraclitum (Mai, p. 322).

Ver. 16. Hupl. symboli.—Carnem suscepit humanam (cf.
Mai, p. 314, corpus suscepisse).

Ver. 20. Cf. sanguinis sui pretio nos redemit (Mai, p. 331).

Ver. 21. Cf. de remuneratione iustitie, de ccelestis glorie
expectatione (Mai, p. 332).

For the thoughts worked out in the whole of this section
of the hymn, we may compare de Psalmodie Bono. “ Kt
quod his est omnibus excelsius Christi sacramenta cantantur.
Nam et generatio eius exprimitur, et rejectio plebis impize et
gentium credulitas nominatur. Ulirtutes domini cantantur,
passio ueneranda depingitur, resurrectio gloriosa monstratur,
sedisse quoque ad dexteram non tacetur. Tunc deinde igneus
domina manifestatur aduentus, terribile de uiuis ac mortuis
iudicium panditur. Quid plura? Etiam Spiritus*® creantis
emissio et terre renouatio reuelatur. Post que erit in gloriam
domini sempiternam iustorum regnum impiorum perenne
supplicium.”

This theory of the authorship has also the merit that
it offers an explanation of the fragment of an original Greek
version, which has been preserved in four MSS.

1 Epistula Nicete Episcopi, in the MS, d’Epinal, sec. vii., viii.
2 Zahn, Art. cit. 3 Cod, Vat. Xvs.

THE SOURCES 265

Niceta must have been competent to translate it himself,
and we may even hope some day to find the rest of the
version.

. Σὲ Θεὸν aivotpev σὲ κύριον ἐξομολογοῦμεν'

. Σὲ αἰώνιον πατέρα πᾶσα ἡ γῆ... ..

. Σοὶ πάντες ἄγγελοι, σοὶ οὐρανοὶ καὶ πᾶσαι ἐξουσίαι,

. Σοὶ χερουβὶμ καὶ σεραφὶμ ἀκαταπαύστῳ φωνῇ ἀνακ-
ράζουσιν'

5, “Ἅγιος “Ἅγιος “Αγιος κύριος ὁ Θεὸς σαβαώθ'

6. πλήρεις οὐρανοὶ καὶ ἡ γῆ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης τῆς δόξης

σοῦ.

7. Σὲ δεδοξασμένος ἀποστόλων χορός"

8. Σὲ προφητῶν αἰνετὸς ἀριθμός"

9

0

HB G2 bo et

a /
. Σὲ μαρτύρων ἔκλαμπρος αἰνεῖ στρατός"
. Σὲ κατὰ πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην ἡ ἁγία ἐξομολογεῖ
ἐκκλησία.

The absence of a verb in verse 2 should be noted.
Hither the MS. from which the scribe copied was mutilated,
or, more probably, if the Greek version was written as an
interlinear gloss, some word like σέβέται was forgotten.’
These ten verses are all that remain at present of the
original. The attempts made in some MSS. to continue the
translation are very unsuccessful.

§ III. THz Sources

The word “sources” is a convenient term, which we
may use generally to include any parallel passages in Chris-
tian literature of the period to which we have traced the
Te Dewm. If they were not the actual source of the author’s
thoughts, they at all events represent the current teaching of
his age.

1. THE GLoRIA IN ExceLsis.—First among them we may
set the Gloria in excelsis, which in its earliest form can be
traced back to the fourth century. The earliest Greek MS.
is the famous Codeaw Alewandrinus of the fifth century. But

1 Wordsworth, Art. cit.

266 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

it is also found in part in the treatise de Virginitate* wrongly
ascribed to Athanasius, which must have been written in
Syria in the fourth century. In the Apostolic Constitutions,
vil. 47, a somewhat different version of the hymn is found
in a collection of hymns and prayers, which was made in or
near Antioch in the latter half of the century. This version
of the text offers an illustration of the way in which the

59 or Pp

. Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ
᾿ oe \ - » , :
. Καί €77L γῆς εἰρηνῇ

. αἰνοῦμέν σε,

. εὐλογοῦμέν σε,

. προσκυνοῦμέν σε,
. δοξολογοῦμέν σε,

THE GLORIA IN EXCELSIS

Codex Alexandrinus.

? > t > ,
ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία.

Bangor Antiphonary.
Gloria in excelsis Deo,
et in terra pax
hominibus bone uoluntatis.
Laudamus te,
benedicimus te,
adoramus te,
glorificamus te,
magnificanus te,

7. εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι gratias agimus tibi
8. διὰ τὴν μεγάλην σου δόξαν. propter magnam imisericordiam
tuam.
9. κύριε βασιλεῦ Domine rex
10. ἐπουράνιε, ccelestis,

. Θεὲ πατὴρ παντοκράτωρ,
. κύριε υἱὲ μονογενῆ

. Ἰησοῦ χριστὲ

. καί ἅγιον πνεῦμα.

Deus Pater omnipotens,
Domine Fili unigenite
Ihesu Christe,

Sancte Spiritus Dei,

et omnes dicumus, Amen.

15. κύριε ὁ Θεὸς Domine

16. ὁ ἀμνὸς του Θεοῦ, ἘΠῚ Dei Patris,

17. ὁ vids τοῦ πατρὸς, agne Dei

18. ὁ αἴρων τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ κόσμου qui tollis peccata mundi,
19. ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς. miserere nobis.

20. 6 αἴρων τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ κόσμου

21. ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς.

22. πρόσδεξαι τὴν δέησιν ἡμῶν Suscipe orationem nostram,

23.
24,

ὁ καθήμενος ἐν δεξιᾷ

τοῦ πατρὸς ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς.
ὅτι σὺ εἶ μόνος ἅγιος.

σὺ εἶ μόνος KUPIOC.

"1HCOOC χριοτόὸο
εἰς λόζὰν θεοῦ TraTpdc.”

qui sedes ad dexteram Dei
Patris, miserere nobis.
Quoniam tu solus sanctus.
tu solus Dominus.

tu solus gloriosus.

cum Spiritu Sancto.

in gloria Dei Patris. Amen.

1 Robertson, Athanasius, p. lxv.

* Pau. ii. 31.

THE SOURCE 267

writer, known as Ps. Ignatius, “has taken and simply
manipulated it to square with his curious views and termin-
ology.” 1

The following is the form found in the Apostolic Con-
stitutions. As it really depends on one MS. (X), 1 will
quote it separately from Lagarde’s edition :—

X. Cod. Vindobonensis gr. 46, sec. xiv. Y. Cod. Vindo-
bonensis gr. 47, sec. xvi. Z. Cod. Parisinus gr. 931, sec. xvi.

προσευχὴ ἐωθινή X Y. [é Z].

δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις Θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη, ἐν ἀνθρώποις
εὐδοκία' αἰνοῦμέν σε, ὑμνοῦμέν σε, εὐλογοῦμέν σε,
εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, δοξολογοῦμέν σε, προσκυνοῦμέν σε,
διὰ τοῦ μεγάλου ἀρχιερέως, σὲ τὸν ὄντα Θεὸν ἀγέννητον

5 ἕνα ἀπρόσιτον μόνον διὰ τὴν μεγάλην σου δόξαν, κύριε
βασιλεῦ ἐπουράνιε Θεὲ πατὴρ παντοκράτωρ, κύριε υἱέ
μονογενῆ Ιησοῦ Χριστέ, καὶ ἅγιον πνεῦμα: κύριε ὁ Θεὸς ὁ
ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ πατρός, ὁ αἴρων τὰς ἁμαρτίας
τοῦ κόσμου ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς" ὁ αἴρων τὰς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ
10 κόσμου, πρόσδεξαι τὴν δέησιν ἡμῶν" ὃ καθήμενος ἐν δεξιᾷ
τοῦ πατρός, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς" ὅτι σὺ εἶ μόνος ἅγιος, σὺ εἶ
μόνος κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ πατρός. ἀμήν.

3. om. 2 σε, YZ. 6. πάτερ παντοκράτορ, Υ. wé... 8. ἁμαρτίας, Χ.
ὁ Θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἀμώμου ἀμνοῦ ὃς αἴρει τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, Y.
9. om. ἐλέησον κόσμου, Y. 10. ἐν... 11. ἡμᾶς, X. ἐπὶ τῶν Χερουβείμ,
Y. om. εἰ bis, Υ. 12. Χριστὸς + τοῦ Θεοῦ πάσης γεννητῆς φύσεως τοῦ
βασιλέως ἡμῶν εἰς. .. ἀμήν, X. di οὗ σοι δόξα τιμὴ καὶ σέβας, Y.

The following parallels show that “in all but two details
the language of the version is thoroughly characteristic of
Ps. Ignatius, and in those two details, since they are quota-
tions from Holy Scripture, he is quite himself, since he
quotes Holy Scripture on every possible occasion ” : >—

1 Rev. F. E. Brightman, to whom I am indebted for a list of parallels in
the work of this person, which I will quote after the version.

2 This seems to be a ‘‘conflate” of the ordinary text with that in de UVirgi-
nitate.

5 Brightman.

268

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

Διὰ τοῦ μεγάλου ἀρχιερέως. Ap. Const. ii. 25, ὃ 5, v. 6,

Σὲ

§ 7: διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου ἀρχιερίως ; vii. 38:
διὰ τοῦ μεγάλου ἀρχιερέως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ; viii. 16 : ἥτις
μίμησιν περιέχει τοῦ μεγάλου ἀρχιερέως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ.
Cf. viii. 46: τῇ φύσει ἀρχιερεὺς ὁ μονογενὴς Χριστός.
Snyrn. 9: τῇ φύσει τοῦ Πατρὸς ἀρχιερέα. Ap. Const.
viii. 46: τοῦ Πατρὸς ἀρχιερέα Χριστὸν ᾿Ιησοῦ τὸν κύριον
ἡμῶν; 6: ἀρχιερέα σόν. Magn. 7: ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν
ἀρχιερέα τοῦ ἀγεννήτου Θεοῦ.

τὸν ὄντα Θεόν. Ap. Const. v. 12, ὃ 3: περὶ τοῦ ὄντος
Θεοῦ; vill. 12: ἀνυμνεῖν σε τὸν ὄντως ὄντα Θεόν.

2 , . e /
ἀγέννητον ἕνα ampocitov μόνον. Eph. 7: ὁ μόνος

ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς ὁ ἀγέννητος καὶ ἀπρόσιτος. Ap. Const.
Vili. 6: ὁ ἀγέννητος καὶ ἀπρόσιτος ὁ μόνος ἀληθινὸς Θεός.
Antioch, 14: ὁ ὧν μόνος ἀγέννητος. 2: τὸν ἕνα καὶ μόνον
Θεόν; 4: τὸν ἕνα πατέρα μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεόν.

Θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἀμώμου ἀμνοῦ.
Smyrn. 1, Ap. Const. viii. 6, etc.: ὁ Θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ τοῦ
κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ (a favourite quotation: notice
change from original of Smyrn. 1). vii. 42: τὸν πατέρα
τοῦ Χριστοῦ, and 41.

The rest does not seem to occur elsewhere (cf. 1 Pet. i. 19).

‘O καθήμενος ἐπὶ τῶν χερουβείμ. Ps. Ixxix. 2, xeviii. 1.
Τοῦ Θεοῦ πάσης γεννητῆς φύσεως τοῦ βασιλέως ἡμῶν.

At

»

Philip. 5: ὁ πάλαι μὲν πᾶσαν αἰσθητὴν καὶ νοητὴν φύσιν
κατασκευάσας. Smyrn. 8: διανομεῖ πάσης νοητῆς φύσεως.
Ap. Const. viii. 12: βασιλέα δὲ καὶ μύριον πάσης νοητῆς καὶ
αἰσθητῆς φύσεως ib.: τοῦ Θεοῦ πάσης αἰσθητῆς καὶ
νοητῆς φύσεως τοῦ βασιλέως ἡμῶν ; vii. 46: τὸν βασιλέα
, > na \ A 7 eee
πάσης αἰσθητῆς Kat νοητῆς φύσεως. Cf. viii. 12:
προσφέρομέν cor τῷ βασιλεὶ καὶ Θεῷ; 46: ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ
τοῦ βασιλέως ἡμῶν.
οὗ σοὶ δόξα τιμὴ καὶ σέβας. ἀμήν. Ap. Const. vii. 38:
Ν ¢ / \ \ / \ na \ 4
σοὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ σέβας μετὰ Χριστοῦ καὶ πνεύματος
φ na A eee 3
ἁγίου νῦν καὶ ἐις τους αἰῶνας" ἀμήν; viii. 5: μεθ᾽ οὗ καὶ δι
ia \ f \ \ / ας ES ‘A a Ge Ἃς
ov σοὶ δόξα τιμὴ καὶ σέβας ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι νῦν Kal αεὶ
καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων" ἀμήν. Cf. 6, 7, 8, 11.

THE AUTHORSHIP 269

After the Gloria in the Apostolic Constitutions follows
another hymn, the latter part of which, oot πρέπει αἶνος, still
accompanies it in the offices of the Eastern Church : ἢ

Αἰνεῖτε, παῖδες, κύριον, αἰνεῖτε τὸ ὄνομα Κυρίου, αἰνοῦμέν
σε, ὑμνοῦμέν σε, εὐχλογοῦμέν σε διὰ τὴν μεγάλην σου δόξαν,
κύριε βασιλεῦ ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἀμώμου ἀμνοῦ, ὃς
αἴρει τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμον" σοὶ πρέπει αἶνος, σοὶ πρέπει᾽
ὕμνος, σοὶ δόξα πρέπει τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ υἱῷ καὶ τῷ ἁγίῳ
πνεύματι εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνάς τῶν αἰώνων" ἀμήν.

It is beside my purpose to enter into a full discussion of
the earlier history of the Gloria. Having shown that there
is reason to believe that it was used in Antioch in 378, when
Niceta probably visited that city, there seems to be no
incongruity in the suggestion that he may have taken it as
the model of his hymn. The Angels’ Hymn of the New
Testament, which led the author of the Gloria to his
triumphant “We praise Thee,’ may have led Niceta to the
thought of the Angels’ Hymn of the Old Testament, the
Sanctus of the Liturgy. Then follows in the Gloria, as in the
Te Deum, the enumeration of worshippers, leading up to a
short creed. It is important to note that in the earliest text
of the Gloria, in both versions, mention of the Holy Spirit is
inserted here instead of the last sentence. It is possible that
the double insertion found in the Bangor Antiphonary implies
that the original text had neither, that mention of the Holy
Spirit was only thought of after the Macedonian controversy.
But in that case it is difficult to believe that the interpolator
would have been content with the simple words, “and the
Holy Spirit,’ without adding the epithets familiar in the
teaching of the fourth century, such as “ Paraclete,’ which
was indeed used by Niceta in his hymn. I regard the first
mention, therefore, as primitive, and the second as an inter-
polation, which is the more marked because it obscures the
fact that the last words are a quotation from Phil.u.11. It
is by a mere accident that the first mention has dropped out

1 In”OpOpos ( Horolog. 1870, p. 72) and ᾿Αποδεῖπνον (ib. pp. 108, 179). 1 owe
this information also to Mr. Brightman,

270 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

of our text. Then follows an address to Christ, ending with
a threefold prayer for mercy. This finds a parallel in the
modern text of the Ze Deum, but in the present uncertainty
about the original text, to which these antiphons may not
have belonged, this point cannot be pressed.

If this theory, that the structure of the Ze Deum was
moulded on the lines of the Gloria, be accepted, some con-
firmation is given to the opinion that the first words are
addressed to God the Father. And it fits in with a
suggestion made by Zahn,! that the setting of the hymn
following the Gloria in the Apostolic Constitutions was used
by Niceta for his hymn. This hymn begins with the Psalm
verse, Laudate puert dominum, familiar to us in the so-called
Trish text of the 76 Dewm. And it ends with some words of
praise, Ze decet lavs. In MSS. of the modern text of the
Te Deum, in which the Gospel is appointed to be read after
it, these words follow. But, unfortunately, no MS. has both
the psalm verse and the 76 decet laus.

2. GOTHIC AND GALLIGAN “ CONTESTATIONES ”

Another source of the Ze Dewm may be sought in the
Sanctus and Contestationes, or Prefaces of the so-called Gallican
and Gothic Missals, and the Gallican Sacramentary. The
parallels are indeed so close that Dr. Gibson was able to
argue with much force that, “whoever he was, the compiler
of the hymn moved naturally and easily in the circle of
phrases and expressions found in the fragments that remain
to us of the Gallican Liturgy, but not found in that of the
Church of Rome; and that the source on which he drew
must have been the Eucharistic service of his Church, and
more especially the variable Contestatio or Preface.”? Our
knowledge of these ancient liturgies is still very imperfect.
We can only say that it is probable that these prayers are
as old or older than the Ze Dewm, and with reference to the
new theory of authorship it may be pointed out that there

1 Art. cit., p. 119. 2 ¢.g. Oxford Bodl. Lib, Canon 88.
8.0, Q. R., April 1884, p. 19.

GOTHIC AND GALLICAN ‘‘CONTESTATIONES” 271

are more parallels to the Gothic Missal than to either of the
Gallican books. Does that represent the Liturgy used in

Dacia ?
1.

2,3, 4.

Dignum et iustum est... ut Ze Dominum ac Deum
totis uisceribus humana conditio weneretur, Miss. Goth.,
p. 604; Miss. Gall., p. 753.

Omnis terra adorat te, et confitetur tibi: sed et cali
celorum et angelicse potestates non cessant laudare
dicentes, Sanctus, Miss. Goth., p. 518.

Quem angeli et archangeli, quem throni et domina-
tiones, quem Cherubin et Seraphin ineessabilt uoce
proclamant dicentes,’ Sanctus, Mone ii.

Cui omnes angel atque archangeli incessabili uoce
proclamant dicentes, Sanctus, Miss, Gall., p. 151.
Totus in orbe terrarum mundus exultat: sed et
superne concinnunt potestates hymnum glorie sine
fine dicentes, 2b., pp. 478, 750.

Cui merito omnes angeli atque archangeli sine
cessatione proclamant dicentes, Sanctus, Miss. Goth.,
Ρ. 525.

Omnes angeli atque archangeli, Cherubin quoque et
Seraphin sine intermissione proclamant dicentes,
Sanctus, 1b., p. 5577.

Cuius regnum .. . wneessabilr uoce proclamabant
dicentes, Sacr. Gall., p. 925.

. Apostolorum chorus, Miss. Goth., p. 528.

. Tam copioso prophetarum numero, Mone v.

. Spiritus Sanctus Twus Paraclitus, Sacer. Gall., p. 873.

. Tu rex glorve Christus, rb., p. 919.

. Tu Patris sempiternus es Filius, Mone ix.

. Secundum humanam conditionem liberawt hominem,

Mone v.

. Aculeo mortis extincto, Miss. Goth., p. 532; mortis

uicit aculewm, b., p. 6233; aculeus mortis obtritus,
Sacr. Gall., p. 858; celorum regna, Miss. Goth., p.
543; ianuam regni celestis aperiat, ib., p. 540.

1 The Irish and Milan versions in most MSS, add dicentes, probably a
reminiscence of some such liturgical form.

272 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

19. Quem credimus et fatemur ad iudicandos uiuos et
mortuos in gloria esse uenturum, Sacr. Gall., p. 857 ;
quem omnes gentes expectant uenturum wudicem ad
iudicandum, Miss. Goth., p. 752.

20. Quos sanguinis tui effusione redemisti, Miss. Goth., pp.
601, 607; Sacer. Gall., p. 858; oues, guas pretioso
sanguine Filii tui redemisti Miss. Gall., p. 706.

Another parallel to the Ze Deum may be found in the
Preface of the Liturgy of 8. James, where mention is made
of “the heavens,” “ prophets,” “martyrs and apostles,” with
“angels,” “ Cherubim and Seraphim.”

ATTEMPTED

Antiphon, Ps. cxii.

a

To God the Father,
a hymn of praise
from things visible
and invisible.

Founded on
Apostles, Prophets,
Martyrs, the
Church ;

confesses the
Trinity,

the glory and

§ IV. THe TExt

RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT

14,

OF THE “TE DEUM”

YMNUS MATUTINALIS
Laudate pueri Dominum laudate nomen Domini

. Te Deum laudamus, te Dominum cénfitémur.”

. Te xternum Patrem omnis térra ueneratur.®

. Tibi omnes angeli, tibi celi et uniuérse potestates.®
. Tibi cherubim et seraphim incessabili udce pro-

clamant:?!

. SANCTUS, SANCTUS, SANCTUS, DOMINUS

DEUS SABAOTH?!

. PLENI SUNT CALI ET TERRA MAIESTATIS

GLORIA TUA?!

. Te gloriosus 4postolorum chorus.’

. Te prophetarum laudabilis nimerus.*

. Te martyrum candidatus laudat exércitus.t

. Te per orbem terrarum sancta confitétur ecclésia:
. PATREM iMMENS# MAIESTATIS.Y

. UENERANDUM TUUM UERUM UNIGHNITUM Finium.t
. SANCTUM QUOQUE PaRACLYTUM SpfritvumM.t

Tu rex glérie Christe?!

1 The prayer in which these words occur is also found in Sacer. Leon. ὁ. 304;
Sacr. Gelas. ec. 581, 554, 699 (Invocation),

mystery of the
Incarnation,

echoing the creed

as the ground of
her petition to be
granted

grace now and
glory hereafter.

Capitelluin, Ps.
Xxviii, 9.

Pg, cxlv. 2.

_—

8, CXXili, 3.

—

es XXL SE,

Ve, MExh By

TEXT OF THE-"“TE DEUM” 273

15. Tu Patris sempitérnus es Filius.*

16. Tu ad liberandum suscépturus hominem, non
horruisti uirginis uterum.*

17. Tu deuicto mértis actleo,* aperuisti credentibus
régna celérum.?!

18. Tu ad dexteram Dei sedes in gloria Patris.pl

19. Iudex crederis ésse uenturus.?!

20. Te ergo, quesumus, tuis famulis stibueni,’ quos
pretioso singuine rédemisti.”

21. Alterna fac cum sanctis gléria munerari.’

22, 23. Saluum fac populum tuum Domine et benedic
hereditati tue, et rege eos et extolle illos usque in
eeternum.

Capitellum of the Gloria in excelsis.

24, 25. Per singulos dies benedicimus te, et laudamus
nomen tuum in seculum et in seculum seculi.
Amen.

Prayers after the 706 Dewm—

(i.) From antiphons of the Gloria in excelsis or Preces
in the Daily Office.

26. Dignare Domine die isto sine peccato nos custodire.

27. Miserere nobis, Domine, miserere nobis.

(ii.) In the Irish version, suggested by its use twice
during the Fraction in the Celtic Liturgy ?

28, Fiat misericordia tua Domine super nos, quemad-
modum sperauimus in te.

(iii.) Found in the Bangor Antiphonary as the opening
clause of a prayer after Gloria in excelsis.

29. In te, Domine, speraui non confundar in eternum.

A prayer of the Celtic Church after the Ze Dewm from
the Bangor Antiphonary—

“Te Patrem adoramus eternum: te sempiternum Filium
inuocamus: teque Spiritum Sanctum in una diuinitatis sub-
stantia manentem confitemur. Tibi uni Deo in Trinitate
debitas laudes et gratias referamus ut te incessabili uoce
laudare mereamur per eterna secula.”

A few words may be said about the analysis which I
have printed in the margin.
Verses 1—7.—“ To God the Father a hymn of praise from

18

274 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

things visible and invisible.” This interpretation alone gives
a plain meaning to the words wternum patrem in verse 2. It
is rendered necessary by the twwm of verse 12. And it is
confirmed by the analogy of the train of thought in the
Gloria in excelsis, the first part of which is addressed to the
Father. Since both canticles may be said to have been
composed in the same age, this argument from analogy is
quite independent of the theory that a closer relationship
existed between them. Dr. Gibson has indeed pointed atten-
tion to a remarkable parallel in the first quotation from the
Missale Gothicum given above (p. 271), in a special preface,
which is the only one addressed to God the Son, and contains
accusatives instead of the usual vocatives :—

Dignum et iustum est... ut Te Dominum ac Dewm totis uiscer-
ibus humana conditio weneretur.

If, on other grounds, it were possible to believe that the
whole is a hymn to Christ, this would be a remarkable con-
firmation of it. But no reasonable explanation has ever been
given of wternum Patrem as addressed to Christ. It was
never adopted by Latin writers as an equivalent of πατὴρ τοῦ
μέλλοντος αἰῶνος in Isaiah ix. 6, the closest parallel to it.
Another argument has been sought in the wording of an
ancient hymn to Christ, which is undeniably moulded by the
thought of the Ze Dewm throughout. It begins: “ Christe
Rex cceli.” But this argument carries its own refutation
with it in the line, “Thou Word of the Eternal Father.”

On the other hand, a curious rendering of the hymn into
Latin hexameters by Candidus, a monk of Fulda under Ratgar,
802-817, leaves no doubt as to the opinion held in the ninth
century : 3

“Te ergo Deum laudamus te dominumque fatemur
Te genitorem perpetuum terra ueneratur.”

Verses 7-13.—Founded on apostles, prophets, martyrs,
the Church comfesses the Trinity.

1 Daniel, Thesaurus, i. Ὁ. 46.
2 Mon. Hist. Poct. Lat. acui Carolini, ed. Duemmler, ii. I owe this reference
to Dr. Gibson.

TEXT OF THE “TE DEUM” 275

Verses 14-21.—(The Church confesses) the glory and
mystery of the incarnation, echoing the creed as the ground
of her petition to be granted grace now and glory hereafter.
The outline of the Apostles’ Creed is followed closely in the
references to the nativity, passion, resurrection, session, and
return to Judgment. Here the original hymn ends, a fact
which is brought out very clearly by an interesting Irish
text printed by Rev. F. E. Warren from a MS. in the British
Museum (Πανὶ, 7653, 5. vii, ix.) It was the work probably
of an Irish nun, and contains a Litany and other prayers.
Among them without title are introduced verses 1—21 of
the Te Deum.

In this attempt to reconstruct the original text of the
hymn in the light of the new theory, we assume that Niceta
sent or brought it to Italy, possibly in time to be sung by
S. Ambrose and §. Augustine in 386, or in the last decade
of the century. It may have been passed on by Paulinus to
his friends at Lerins. From Lerins it came into the posses-
sion of the Celtic Church in Ireland, possibly through S.
Patrick. Our debt to the Irish version, which has preserved
the author’s name and the opening antiphon and the tradi-
tion respecting the limits of the original hymn, must not
tempt us to regard it as necessarily the purest text. Its
corruptions, however, are easily explained.

The first important variant is found in verse 6, where
the Irish text has: “Pleni sunt celi et wniwersa terra
honore glorize tue.” The other texts omit uniuersa, and for
honore read maiestatis glorie tue! or in the Milan version
“ gloriz maiestatis tue.” The reading honore may be explained
by the presence of the word honor in the Spanish? form of
the Gloria Patri, which is found in the Bangor Antiphonary,
and was therefore known to the Irish Church. To a scribe
it might seem to introduce a familiar thought, and it was a
less unwieldy phrase than mazestatis. To fill up the line, he
or someone else would introduce wniversa. The order of the
Milan version glorie maiestatis is found in the Mozarabic
text of the Ze Deum. But the familiar idea in Christian

1 Bradshaw Society, vol. x. pp. 83 ff. * Cone. Tolet. iv. c. 15.

276 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

worship is to give giory, and it seems more natural to
predicate majesty of glory than the contrary. There is an
interesting parallel sentence in the sermon of Hilary of
Arles, which he preached after the death of Honoratus, the
founder of Lerins: “ Nec facile tam exerte tam lucide
quisquam de diuinitatis trinitate disseruit cum eam
personis distingueres et glorie ternitate ac maiestate
sociares.” We have therefore early authority for the
phrase in this order “majesty of glory” apart from the
question of the text of the hymn, and apart also from the
fact that “ maiestatis glorize tue ” ”' makes a better rhythmical
ending.

In verse 12 the Irish version in all MSS. and the
oldest MS. of the Milan version (Cod. Vat. 82) have
unigenitum filium,’ though all other MSS. have wniceum.
This is a case in which the copyists would be misled by
remembrance of the Apostles’ Creed, in which unigenitum is
rare, though found in the Creed of Cyprian of Toulon, an
early witness to the Ze Deum. Uniewm, on the other hand,
is common in the creed. The rhythm is decisive in favour
of unigenitum.

We now come to the much-disputed reading of verse 16.
New light has been thrown upon it by the publication of the
letter of Cyprian of Toulon, to which reference has been
made,! and from which we learn that the reading used in the
south-east of Gaul at the beginning of the sixth century
was, “Tu ad liberandum suscepturus hominem non horruisti
uirginis uterum.” Thus it was not a mere pedantic correc-
tion made by Abbo of Fleury in the tenth century. The
Irish text adds mundum after liberandum, with suscepiste for
suscepturus. It has been suggested that mundum may have
dropped out through homeoteleuton. This is quite possible,
but it is more probably an interpolation by an Irish copyist
who was familiar with the idea of the phrase Salwator mundi.
The word mundus recurs frequently in the collects of the
Bangor Antiphonary. Since none of the MSS. of the other
versions insert the word, it seems inadvisable to adopt it.

ΤΡ, 257 supra.

TEXT OF THE “TE DEUM” 277

In verse 20 in one MS. of the Milan version (Cod. Monae.
lat. 343), and in some six or seven MSS. of the ordinary
version, sancte has been added after evgo. In the Milan
Breviary it is added after gueswmus. This was at one time a
widely spread reading, and has been traced by Dr. Gibson to
the influence of the last stanza of an old Sunday morning
hymn, O rex eterne, which begins, 76 ergo sancte quesumus.

In the Munich MS. I found that hymn immediately after
the Ze Deum.

In verse 21 the true reading of all MSS., gloria munerari,
has been changed into gloria numerari in printed editions of
the Breviary from 1491 onwards.

Our Prayer Book translation suffers in consequence. Dr.
Gibson thinks that it originated in an attempt at textual
criticism, and was suggested by the well-known words added
by Gregory the Great to the Canon of the Mass, “in elect-
orum tuorum iubeas grege numerari.”

We come now to the problem of the antiphons or Psalm
verses with which the hymn is concluded. A simple diagram
will serve to show at a glance the relations of the different
combinations, the full text being as follows :-—

Vv. 22, 23. Saluum fac populum tuum Domine et benedic hereditati
Ps, xxviii. 9. tuze, et rege eos et extolle illos usque in eternum.

24.25. Per singulos dies benedicimus te, et laudamus nomen
Ps. cxlv, 2, tuum in seeculum et in seculum seculi.

26. Dignare Domine die isto sine peccato nos custodire.
Ps. exxiii, 3. 27, Miserere nobis, Domine, miserere nobis.

Ps, xxxiii, 22, 28. Fiat misericordia tua, Domine, super nos quemadmodum
sperauimus in te.

Ps. xxxi.1. 99, In te, Domine, speraui non confundar in eternum.

Dan. iii. 26. « Benedictus es Domine Deus patrum nostrorum et laudabile
et gloriosum nomen tuum in secula,

278 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

O Ordinary Version in our Prayer Book.

I Irish Version in the Bangor Antiphonary.

G The Gloria in excelsis (Cod, Alexandrinus and Bangor Antiphonary).
A Cod. Vat. Alex. xi.

M Milan Version in Cod. Vat. 82.

Verses 22) O I < 24)

235 ony Mt
24 22)
τ ὃ 1. aS
* *%
26
ΠῚ 0 G
*
a Oe st
29 0

Dr. Gibson’s most interesting suggestion, that some of these
antiphons were transferred from the Gloria in excelsis, has been
commonly misunderstood. It will be remembered that the
Rule of Czesarius directed the use of Ze Deum laudamus,
Gloria in excelsis, Deo et capitellum.

The Council of Agde in 506 directed in their canon that
the capitula from the Psalms should always be read after the
lessons. These capitula =capitella, or antiphons, seem to
have been in common use in the whole Church, for we find
them in a fifth-century MS. of the Gloria in excelsis (Cod.
Alexandrinus). It seems therefore natural to suppose that such
were added to the Ze Dewm from the fifth century.

The simplest explanation of the enlargement is as follows:
that Ps. xxviii. 9,10, Saluwm fac populum = verses 22, 23 of
the Ordinary Version, was the capitellwm appointed for the
Te Deum in the Gallican Church. On the other hand, Ps.
exly. 2, Per singulos dies = verses, 24, 25, was the capitellum
for the Gloria in excelsis. When the Gloria in excelsis was
transferred to the Liturgy, its capitellum, specially mentioned
by Cesarius, was attached to the Ze Deum. It is an interesting
fact that Salwum fac is not found among the capitella appended to
the Gloria in any of the three Irish texts printed by Mr. Warren,’

1 Bangor Antiphonary, ii. p. 78.

TEXT.OF THE ** TE DEUM” 279

whereas Ps. exlv. 2, Per singulos dies, with variant readings,
Cotidie or In omni tempore, heads each list.

We have yet to explain the appearance of the additional
verse, Ps. xxxilil. 22, Miat misericordia = verse 26 in the Irish
text of the Ze Deum. That it did not originally belong to it
is hinted by the Amen which precedes it in the Bangor
Antiphonary. It was prescribed for use twice during the
Fraction in the Celtic Liturgy.

The text of the antiphonsin A is plainly formed by adding
to the capitellum of the Te Deum two capitella from the
Gloria.

The text in M represents the ordinary Milan version
preserved down to the eleventh century. There is a curious
inversion of verses 22, 23 following 24, 25, and followed by
the verse from Daniel. It is not likely that this was the
original text.

The ordinary version simply consists in the addition of
26, 27, which were familiar as preces, apart from the use after
the Gloria, together with 28 found in the Irish version, and
29, Ps. xxxi. 4, which is found in the Bangor Antiphonary as
the opening clause of a prayer after the Gloria. This offers
an additional proof that our version is founded on the Irish
rather than the Milan version.

CHAPTER XII

OF THE USE OF CREEDS

§ I. Of the Early Use of a Baptismal Creed.
§ Il. The History of the term Symbolum.
S$ ILL. Our U-e of our Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds,
§ IV. The Athanasian Creed.

TuHus far my purpose has been mainly historical, to trace the
development of the chief creeds of Christendom to the point
at which each attains the form in which it is used to-day.
It remains to justify this use. With this object it will be
necessary to review briefly some of the theological statements
made by way of explanation of historical facts. ‘“Trahit sua
quemque uoluntas.” Faith still includes an act of will to
beiieve all that the Scriptures have spoken as summarised in
the creeds. Its reasonableness is found in recognition of the
continuity of thought which unites the saints of to-day with
‘the Church of the first century in one communion and fellow-
ship.

§ I. Toe Earty Use or A BAPTISMAL CREED

Our historic faith began with a simple confession of
loyalty to Christ, of belief in His Person, which carried with
it belief in His words. The Church required this as the
minimum of knowledge which a Christian ought to have and
believe to his soul’s health.

Confession of faith in Jesus as the Lord, or the Son of
God, was to a Jew or a proselyte the pledge of faith in one
living and true God, who had visited His people Israel. It

was inseparably bound up with the teaching of the Lord’s
280

EARLY USE OF A BAPTISMAL CREED 281

Prayer. The cobwebs which Scribes and Pharisees had spun
out of the law were brushed aside. They knew that they
were treading the way of life in the light of God’s presence,
having seen the light of the knowledge of the glory of God
in the face of Jesus Christ.

The heathen had more to learn, if he had nothing to
unlearn. For him, as for the Jew, it was all summed up in
the Baptismal Formula, when he was baptized “into the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.”

The Old Roman Creed, which we have traced back to the
generation immediately succeeding the apostles, is to be
regarded as containing a summary of the catechetical in-
struction given 6. 100 in the ancient Church to which both
S. Peter and §. Paul had ministered in the great capital
where they laid down their lives for their faith. It was
truly a Rule of apostolic teaching, and the strength and
simplicity of its style secured for it acceptance in other
Churches from very early times. At that time the Roman
Church was bilingual, and it is probable that its Latin and
Greek forms were composed by the same hand. With one
possible exception, this form remained unaltered to the fifth
century. Enough has been said elsewhere of the exact and
rigid fidelity with which it was preserved. It was only
given to the catechumen (7raditio symboli) when he had
been taught and tested, and he was required to repeat it
publicly before his baptism (Redditio symboli). The earliest
expositions delivered at the 7raditio which have come down
to us belong to the fourth century. Both Cyril and
Augustine? lay stress on the prohibition to commit it to
writing. It was to be written in the heart only. This
strong feeling lasted on to the fifth century. Peter
Chrysologus, Archbishop of Ravenna, taught: “Let the
mind hold and the memory guard this pledge of hope,
this decree of salvation, this symbol of life, this safeguard of
faith, lest vile paper depreciate the precious gift of the divinity,
lest black ink obscure the mystery of light, lest an unworthy
and profane hearer hold the secret of God.”* His rhetoric

Cyril Hieros. Cat, vy. 12; Aug, Serm. ad Catech, i. 2 Serm. 59,

282 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

strikes one as artificial and inflated, and marks the period
when the custom died out. It is not possible to assign a
precise date to its origin, which was probably contem-
poraneous with the first use of fixed forms in the second
century.

δ Il. THe History oF THE TERM “ SYMBOLUM ”

The use of a distinctive name for the Baptismal Creed
marks the beginning of a new stage in its history; but it
is not easy to determine when that stage was reached. As
in the New Testament, such a phrase as “ the Faith” referred
rather to the subject-matter of teaching than to any form; so,
in subsequent history, we must beware of giving too precise
a meaning to terms like Justin Martyr’s παρειλήφαμεν,
δεδιδώγμεθα, μεμαθήκαμεν, or even to phrases of Ireneus:
I. 9. 4, τὸν κανόνα τῆς ἀληθείας 1. 22. 1, regulam ueritatis ;
III. 3. 1, traditionem apostolorum. There is a controversy,
as yet unsettled, as to the meaning of the term Rule. Some
writers maintain that the creed itself, the bare form, was the
Rule of Faith; others, that the Rule was the enlarged inter-
pretation of the creed, though the creed would certainly be
the groundwork of the interpretation.

Certainly Ireneus included in his Rule of Truth some
articles not yet added to the Roman Creed, which he probably
knew. Nor are they found in the Creed of Gaul, when it
comes to light in the fourth century, eg. III. 4: “Maker
of heaven and earth,” taught with an anti-Gnostic reference.

Tertullian, however, proves a much more definite use of
a fixed form, identified with the Rule of Faith common to
the Churches of Rome and Africa, as a tessera, or token of
fellowship.

The illustration is derived from the f¢essera hospitalitatis,
an earthenware token, which two friends divided and passed
on to their descendants, making the duty of friendship
hereditary. Tertullian’s words may refer to the way in
which the creed was used as a badge of a Christian’s

1 Kattenbusch, ii. p. 81,

HISTORY OF THE TERM ‘“‘SYMBOLUM” 4283

profession, admitting him to social meals in churches where
he was a stranger.

This seems to be the root-idea of the term symbolum
also as a Christian phrase. The word is used by Tertullian
several times, but only in two passages with any reference
to baptism or the use of a formal creed. He calls baptism
symbolum mortis, where the word is easy to explain as a sign
or sacrament in our sense. And he challenges Marcion, as a
merchant in spiritual wares, to show the symbolwm or token
of their genuineness, adv. Mare. v. 1: “ Quamobrem, Pontice
nauclere, si nunquam furtiuas merces uel illicitas in acatos
tuas recepisti, si nullum omnino onus auertisti uel adulterasti,
cautior utique et fidelior in dei rebus, edas uelim nobis, guo
symbolo susceperis apostolum Paulum, quis illum tituli char-
actere percusserit, quis transmiserit tibi, quis imposuerit, ut
possis eum constanter exponere.” Kattenbusch?* points out
that the term had affinities to the terms sacramentum and
regula.

It is indeed doubtful if the term had a technical sense in
Tertullian’s time, but it is plain that it was on the point
of acquiring one. Cyprian, in his letter to Magnus, arguing
against the validity of Novatianist baptism, deals with the
objection that these “schismatics used the same symbol and
law of the symbol and questions,”? where the phrase “law of
the symbol” appears to refer to the creed. But Firmilian of
Cappadocia, in his letter to Cyprian, uses the term symbolum
Trimitatis of the Baptismal Formula, so that it is not quite
safe to appropriate the word symbolum as it stands in
Cyprian’s sentence for the complete creed.

The questions to which Cyprian refers are plainly the
short interrogative creed put to the candidates at the very
moment of baptism, which we find coexisting with the longer
declaratory form certainly from the third century. Perhaps
it is to such a form that Tertullian refers, de Cor. Mil. 3:
“ Dehine ter mergitamur amplius aliquid respondentes quam
Dominus in euangelio determinauit.”

1 ii. p. 80, n. 43.
* Ep. ad Magn. : ‘‘symbolum et lex symboli et quiestiones,”

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

284

4 WOUOTPIALINSEL STUIvO
‘uIn10jR000d UIE MOISSTUIOL
(ΠΈΤΒΘΤΟΌΘ TUNJOURS

Tanjoueg tangiuidg ut 49 stper9

ὁ unssed 49 winyeUu

“πη αΊβοτι WINUIULOp
ΤΠΠΠΌΤΙΠῚ suis WNITLT
WN4ISIIYL) UINSET UT StTpIIH

j, ταϑητιθηοατιτπο
woiyeg Woy UL stIpeDH

“AUVINGNVAOVSG NVISVTAY

¢
£ Soupr/naayy
aorky aot wy
Δι: Ὁ » \
Q01X A0L 10.
δΟΟ ΌΤΙ aos vrloao
\ -

OL 619 51943..0177

Ῥ δα 00
‘AUTIVSAUTC JO ΠΙΈΔΩ

i WISepP0e UeJoURS αϑα
TRUIEJe UTeYIN 29

wins07R000d TMWoUOISsTUloL UT STpod(y

40

‘ {ΠῸΤΘΘΤΟΌΘ τα 1185 Jod

ταπαογθοοϑά

WOUOISSIUIOI 29
1πῸΤΙ19792 WRN UL ΒΘ. Ὁ

ὁ τππηοτθῳᾳ wmngyraidg ut
“απ Ή51α 0 WNIT τ
“ἰαθαγ 84 wna τι sIpery

ὋΔ ὉΔ ‘dg ‘NVINaAO

HISTORY OF THE TERM “‘SYMBOLUM” — 285

Many more of these forms might be quoted,’ but with
the exception of the short Creed of Cyril it is impossible to
believe that any of them represent earlier forms than the
declaratory creeds to be connected with the Churches to
which they belong.”

In the fourth century the term symbolum was firmly
established in the West, and was identified by Augustine
with the Rule of Faith, though Cyril still clung to the
simpler name “the Faith.” The interpretations which began
to gather round the term, by their very variety prove its
antiquity. The most important in after times was founded
on the confusion of σύμβολον with συμβολή = collatio. The
creed was regarded as a collation or epitome of doctrine con-
tributed by the twelve apostles. This explanation, founded
on the legend of the apostolic origin of the creed, was given
by Rufinus and Cassian,*> and was most popular in later
expositions.

But Rufinus comes nearer to the truth when he explains
it as indium or signum, a token of orthodox belief, the
watchword of the Christian soldier.*

The title symbolum apostolorum was first used by 8. Am-
brose, and occurs in the letter of the Council of Milan, which
was possibly drawn up by him.’ S. Jerome also wrote of the
symbolum fidet . . . quod ab apostolis traditum.® In some old

1 Hahn,® pp. 34-36.

2 On this ground I differ from Lumby, p. 18.

3 De Incarnatione Uerbi, VI. iii. : ‘‘Collatio autem ideo, quia in unum
collata ab Apostolis Domini, totius catholice legis fide, quicquid per uniuersum
diuinorum uoluminum corpus immensa funditur copia, totum in symboli colli-
gitur breuitate perfecta.”

4 In Symb. Apost.: “Symbolum enim Greece et indicium dici potest et
collatio, hoc est, quod plures in unum conferunt. Id enim fecerunt apostoli
in his sermonibus, in unum conferendo unusquisque quod sensit: . . . Idcirco
istud indicium posuere, per quod agnosceretur is qui Christum uere secundum
apostolicas regulas predicaret. Denique et in bellis ciuilibus hoc obseruari
ferunt: quoniam et armorum habitus par, et sonus uocis idem, et mos unus est,
atque eadem instituta bellandi, ne qua doli subreptio fiat, symbolo distincta
unusquisque dux suis militibus tradit, que Latine ‘signa’ uel indicia nuncu-
pantur; ut si forte occurrerit quis de quo dubitetur, interrogatus symbolum,
prodat si sit hostis uel socius.”

5 Opera, v. p. 292.

δ Ad Pammach. δ. Joann. Hier. Opera, ii. col. 380.

286 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

MSS. the form symbolum apostolicum is found, but it is not
so common as the other (which occurs in the Bangor Anti-
phonary, seventh century).

It is more probable that the belief suggested the name.
The plain title symbolwm continued to be used for a long time
side by side with it.

Thus Niceta explains it as the covenant made with the
Lord, as a summary of Christian mysteries collected from the
Scriptures for the use of the unlearned, like a crown set with
precious stones.1 Faustus of Riez, though it is possible that
he has some sentences of Niceta in mind, gives a different
derivation from the use of the plural symbola, contributions
to a common feast, gathered by the Fathers of the Churches
for the good of souls.”

The legend of apostolic origin, attached in the first
instance to the Old Roman Creed, was naturally transferred
to its later form, and was received without question in
medieval times.

§ III. Our Use oF oUR APOSTLES’ AND NICENE CREEDS

Besides the universal use of the Apostles’ Creed as the
Baptismal Creed of Western Christendom, it has been used
in the Hour Offices since the ninth century.? Its voluntary
use at such times was very ancient. Bede reminds Egbert
that S. Ambrose exhorted the faithful to recite it at Matins

1 “ Retinete semper pactum, quod fecistis cum domino, id est hoc symbolum,
quod coram angelis et hominibus confitemini. Pauca quidem sunt uerba, sed
omnia continent sacramenta. De totis enim scripturis hee breuitatis causa
collecta sunt, tanquam gemme pretiose in una corona composite, ut, quoniam
plures credentium literas nesciunt, uel, qui sciunt, per occupationes seculi
scripturas legere non possunt, habeant sufficientem sibi scientiam salutarem.”

2 Hom. i. ed. Caspari, Anecdota, i. p. 815: ‘‘Sicut nonnullis scire permissum
est, apud ueteres symbola uocabantur, quod de substantia collecti in unum sodales
in medio conferebant ad solemnes epulas, ad ccenee communes expensas. Ita
et ecclesiarum patres, de populorum salute solliciti, ex diuersis uoluminibus
scripturarum collegerunt testimonia diuinis grauida sacramentis. Disponentes
itaque ad animarum pastum salubre conuiuium, collegerunt uerba breuia et,
certa, expedita sententiis, sed diffusa mysteriis, et hoc symbolum nomi-
nauerunt.”

ὃ Amalarius, de Eccl. Offic. iv. 2, M.S.L. 105, 1165.

USE OF APOSTLES’ AND NICENE CREEDS 287

as an antidote to the poison of the devil by night and day.
Thus it passed at our Reformation into our Daily Offices, and
was included in the Catechism put into the hand of every
child. Its value for educational use is increased by the fact
that it allows the teacher freedom of detailed exposition. It
does not attempt to narrate the whole history of the Lord
Jesus, when He went in and out among His people; nor to
furnish “a character sketch,” which would be as impossible
as painters have found it to paint His face. For frequent
liturgical use it meets our need, in that itis not crowded with
subjective impressions. The same thing is true of our Nicene
Creed, considered generally as a form of Apostles’ Creed.
Even the added theological clauses have no taint of modern
subjectivity.

The Apostles’ Creed “paints before our eyes in broad
outline the wonderful works of God, which, as long as we
cherish them in faith and apply them to ourselves, will as
little grow old and wearisome as the rising and setting of the
sun every day on which God permits us to see the beauty
of His works.” ?

In Eastern Christendom the Nicene Creed has superseded
every other form as a Baptismal Confession, and as the
Creed of Communicants in the Liturgies. From the former
point of view it is interesting to point out characteristics in
which this as an Eastern Creed differs from Western forms.
It gives reasons for facts stated, eg. Who for us men and for
our salvation came, crucified also for us, rose . . . according
to the Scriptures, One baptism for the remission of sins? It
preserves the word “One” in the first Article, which the
Western archetype (R) has lost, and it adds “Maker of
heaven and earth,” words which, amid the conflicts of Gnostic
speculations, were soon needed in the East, though they serve
a catechetical rather than controversial purpose.

From the latter point of view, since this use of a theo-
logical creed has spread into the West (Toledo 589, Rome

1 Hadden and Stubbs, iii. p. 316.
* Zahn, Das ap. Symbol., p. 101.
3 Gibson, The Thirty-nine Articles, i, p. 302.

288 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

ὁ. 1000),’ something must be said of the present day use-
fulness of theological creeds,

Such usefulness is of two kinds, negative and positive ;
the first local and transitory, the second universal and lasting.
As a sign-post in days of controversy, such a creed may be
set, like the first Nicene Creed, to repudiate partial and
rationalising explanations of Christ’s perfect Godhead or
perfect Manhood. As Mr. Balfour? has clearly stated, “the
Church held that all such partial explanations [as the great
heresiarchs attempted] inflicted irremediable impoverishment
on the idea of the Godhead which was essentially involved
in the Christian revelation. They insisted on preserving that
idea in all its inexplicable fulness; and so it has come about
that, while such simplifications as those of the Arians, for
example, are so alien and impossible to modern modes of
thought that if they had becn incorporated with Christianity
they must have destroyed it, the doctrine of Christ’s
Divinity still gives reality and life to the worship of millions
of pious souls, who are wholly ignorant both of the controversy
to which they owe its preservation, and of the technicalities
which its discussion has involved.”

This is not all. The formula which was found to exclude
the Arian hypothesis, and is at all times available for that
purpose, may also be used to aid worship, to guide the
prophets of each new generation, who see the old truths
in a new light.

We may know our way about a district fairly well, and
not be able to draw a map of it. Yet with a map how much
more definite will be the advice which we can offer to
wayfarers. A theological creed is like a map, a survey of
a certain region of thought drawn with a sense of proportion.
Our Nicene Creed witnesses to “the spiritual power of a
complete belief,” complete because it interprets the Gospel
history with due regard to the proportion of faith.

We cannot ask to be as if the old controversies had never
been, as if through 1800 years no one had ever asked a question.
If we could start as some would wish, as S. Cyril himself

1 Swainson, p. 186, * Foundations of Belief, p. 279.

OUR USE OF ATHANASIAN CREED 289

wished in his early days, with the Bible, and the Bible only,
we know, from the experience of every town parish priest,
that the old errors would reappear in the form of new
questions, and we should have to traverse again the same
dreary wilderness of controversy from implicit to explicit
dogma, from “I believe that Jesus is the Lord” to the
confession that the Only-begotten Son of the Father is of
one substance with the Father.

§ IV. Our Use OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED

It is difficult to estimate the usefulness of this creed in
the present day, without suffering from some bias of judgment
through impressions produced by study of its early history.
Yet its dogmatic value is really independent of historical
theories as to its origin. Men so unlike as Charles Kingsley
and John Henry Newman were united by a common admira-
tion of its theological teaching without reference to its history.
Neither from the Anglican nor from the Roman point of
view does it matter in what century the creed was written,
or its clauses received their final polish. They were concerned
solely with the question, “Is it a true analysis of Christian
experience?” History alone cannot decide this. Its proper
task is to show us the original home of the creed, the
changing figures and groups of the men who first voiced its
measured rhythms, whose hopes and fears changed like lights
and shadows on the landscape of their common Church life.
That task ended, it is for theology to complete the argument
and bear witness to the truth of its teaching as the common
heritage of the Church since the days when her unity was
unbroken, and, despite trial and tribulation, her cup of joy
was full.

At least, it may be hoped that the bitterness, too often
caused by extraneous considerations, which has been imported
into modern controversies, may be in some measure allayed
by the triumph of the theory that the author belonged to the
school of Lerins. For Lerins was a true home of saints and
confessors. Her sons did not prefer peace to truth. The

19

290 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

very reproach of semi-Pelagianism, which rested upon some
of her most honoured names, witnessed to the fact that they
had sought to keep on that via media which is seldom the
way of peace. ‘The revealed truths of Free Will and Grace
are rooted in what seemed to the apostles an insoluble
mystery, and the merit of Faustus and Cesarius, so far as
their teaching was anti-Augustinian, consisted in an honest
endeavour to do justice to the obscurer aspect of a difficult
problem. It is really the same problem under changed con-
ditions of thought which faces us in our present inquiry.
The responsibility of intellect in matters of faith was then
acknowledged without question. It was the responsibility of
man for conduct which was in dispute. In an interesting
letter (Zp. 5), Faustus discusses the question whether believers
in a United Trinity can be eternally lost. His correspondent
Paulinus was concerned to know, not whether those who live
a good moral life, but fall into intellectual error, should perish,
but whether those who profess a correct creed will be saved in
spite of sins against morality. Faustus replies, that “in
Divine things not only is a plan of believing required, but
also of pleasing.” A baptized person must remember that he
is the temple of God, and he quotes 1 Cor. 111. 17: “If any
man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy.” The
whole tone of the letter is sympathetic and spiritual. It
shows a mind as far removed from a barren scholastic
orthodoxy as from an undisciplined readiness to believe
“anything good.” And it enables us to guess how Faustus
would have interpreted the damnatory clauses of the
Quicunque in relation to a heresy like that of Priscillian.
In all ages the tendency of such an esoteric doctrine of
election is to encourage secret immorality, however sternly its
author may have upheld moral law. And the teaching of
the Catholic Church, to which both Faustus and the
Quicunque witness, does not subordinate moral law to
metaphysical arguments, but claims the highest truth of
the Christian religion as the strongest motive power of a
good life.
1 Rom. ix. 20; Phil. ii. 12.

OUR USE OF ATHANASIAN CREED 2091

From this point of view let us approach the question of
the so-called damnatory clauses of the creed. They do not
judge any individual case. They assert only the principle
that a man’s faith influences his conduct, and that he must
be judged by conduct. Falsity to faith must inevitably bring
blemish on his character, and his conduct will show it. This
is not a mere dogma of the Church, since Carlyle has written :
“When belief waxes uncertain, practice becomes unsound” ;
and Emerson : “A man’s action is the picture-book of his creed.”
As Dean Hook used to say, the only really damnatory clause
is the 39th: “ And they who have done good shall go into
life eternal, and they who in deed have done evil into eternal
fire.” We should be false to the stern side of the Lord’s
teaching if we said less. And the truth expressed is quite
independent of our interpretation of the words “ eternal” or
“fire.” The question is one of fact. Every Christian
believes in future punishment. Bishop Butler has shown
that it is a fundamental doctrine of natural religion. In
any age men may interpret such teaching in a more or less
_ materialistic manner, but the mistaken form in which they
receive it does not undermine the position which it holds
either in revealed or in natural religion.

The reply is sometimes urged that the second clause
goes beyond the limits thus assigned to monitory teaching:
“Which faith except everyone shall keep whole and undefiled
without doubt he shall perish eternally.” It is said that in
this clause we condemn Arius and other heretics, and all
who are prevented by conscientious scruples from using
the creed.

This is not so. The grammatical connexion of this
clause to the preceding is that of a simple relative sentence.
It is not the principal sentence. The result of printing the
creed as a canticle has been to force into prominence what
is a subordinate idea. It has been truly said that “the
Church has her long list of saints. She has never inserted
one name in any catalogue of the damned.” The clause
asserts only that disloyalty to faith must lead to spoiling of
character, and thus to the eternal perishing from which in

292 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

our Litany we pray to be delivered. As to Arius, we judge
not before the time. As to the scruples of those who cannot
accept the faith in the form here presented, we reply that it
is not the creed which is taught to all the baptized, nor the
creed which is recited by communicants. Assent to it, with
the other creeds, is required only from Church teachers on the
ground that they ought thoroughly to be received and believed,
“for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy
Scripture.”4 No one who believes every word of the Apostles’
Creed is condemned by the Athanasian Creed, which, to speak
technically, requires an implicit rather than explicit assent
to its definitions; or, to speak popularly, assent to the facts
of Christian experience rather than interpretations of those
facts, faith in Divine Persons, faith in the Divine Christ. It
is maintained that the interpretations are logical A man
may illogically refuse to accept them while he accepts the
facts. Faith, not logic, will save him. Does he believe in
the Blessed Trinity? His Catechism will teach him that out
of the Apostles’ Creed. Does he believe in the incarnation
of our Lord Jesus Christ, that Christ crucified is to us who
are being saved the power of God? This is the present
salvation spoken of in the second clause, and the point of view
15 grace, of which he is not ignorant, nor from which has he
fallen. He is at one with the author of the creed, who leads
up to his main statement in clause 3: “Now the Catholic
faith is this,” not that we define or dogmatise unduly, but
“that we worship One God in Trinity.”

Most unjustly has this creed been pilloried as containing
“man’s dogma of damnation.” The words are quoted from
an exquisite tale of Indian life called “The Old Missionary,”
by Sir Wiliam Hunter, which has been sold by thousands.
Such an expression could only be used rightly of a particular
tenet such as Calvin’s doctrine of Predestination. But the
objections are not always thus based on moral principles. To
the spirit of easy-going indifferentism, which is the besetting
sin of a self-indulgent age, morality and the creed are alike
stumbling-blocks. “Morality is so icy, so intolerant; its

1 Art. viii.

OUR USE OF ATHANASIAN CREED 293

doctrines have the ungentlemanlike rigour of the Athanasian
Creed.” 1 Such a judgment is profoundly anti-Christian, and
is contradicted by the whole tenour of the New Testament.

A more serious objection is founded on the supposed
necessity of explaining away the meaning of the author when
his words are qualified. It is said that the clergy can put
their own gloss on them, but cannot explain them in plain
English to plain people, who must regard so much qualifica-
tion as a more or less dishonest attempt to evade the literal
meaning. This objection has no real weight. “It is an
acknowledged principle in the interpretation of the damna-
tory language of Scripture regarding unbelief, that it is to be
understood with conditions: the same rule of interpretation
applies to the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed.
The omission of conditions is one of those expedients of which
language has frequently availed itself for the sake of con-
venience,—making absolute statements when that which
qualifies them is left to be understood.”? We agree that
the commands “Give to him that asketh of thee” and
“ Resist not evil” require qualification. “ And just as moral
instruction requires its liberty of speech, and has modes of
statement which must not be tied to the letter, so has judicial
and condemnatory language.” * People say, “ We will have the
Bible, and the Bible only.” It is precisely in the Bible lan-
guage that the difficulty lies; and if the letter of the grammar
gives an artificial and false sense in Scripture, it cannot give
the natural sense in the creed.

Many drastic proposals have been made for the alteration
of these clauses, for what Dean Goulburn called in a trenchant
phrase “the mutilating or muffling of the creed.” It is pro-
posed to cut them out. What assembly short of a General
Council would have the right to treat thus a formulary sanc-
tioned by use during a thousand years in the whole Church
Catholic? It would establish a new and unheard of pre-
cedent. Again, it is proposed to do away with the rubric and

1 An objection quoted by the Archbishop of Armagh, Epistles of S. John,
Ῥ. 263.
2 Mozley, Lectures and Theological Papers, p. 194. 5 Mozley, 7d.

24 ΑΝ INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

the creed, or relegate it to obscure retirement with the Thirty-
nine Articles. This has been done by the American and Irish
Churches. Of the former it has been said? that “the Amer-
ican Church shelved the creed at a time when people did not
go very accurately into the meaning of what they did, and
only aimed at a certain convenience in excluding anything
which had an explanation wanted for it.” This cannot be
said of the Irish Church, by whose General Synod the ques-
tion was fully debated. Strong disapproval of the step was
expressed by some of her foremost theologians.2, Time has
not yet justified the wisdom of these Churches, and similar
proposals in the Church of England were met and success-
fully resisted. Laymen combined with clergy to defend the
creed. They said with truth that the question concerned
them.

The proposal made by Bishop Lightfoot, that the rubric
should be altered from “shall” to “may,” leaving the use on
the appointed days to the discretion of the clergy, would give
relief in some cases where a genuine difficulty exists, because
the congregations are not prepared for it. But it is open to
the objection, which is really insuperable, that a congregation
could be denied what they regarded as a privilege at the
caprice of an individual.

No such objection could, however, be made to the pro-
posal that the clergy should be permitted by episcopal
authority to read it to their congregations rather than with
them when this was desired. This, as we have seen, was the
primitive congregational use, and such permission would
bring our practice into strict conformity with that of the
undivided Church Catholic. It sometimes offends one’s sense
of reverence to hear this solemn statement of the mysteries
of our faith chanted too sonorously by a choir, or gabbled
by Sunday-school children. Its solemn warnings need to be
received rather with silent awe than either recited or sung
in a jubilant tone.

Among the words which the late Archbishop Benson

1 Mozley, Lectures and Theological Papers, p. 191.
* #.g. the present Archbishop of Armagh.

OUR USE OF ATHANASIAN CREED 205

addressed to the last Diocesan Conference over which he
presided, were the following: “I want to know whether our
English people are really so stupid. I do not believe that
they are. . .. I have heard many sermons preached against
the Athanasian Creed by some who would be glad now to have
their utterances forgotten, but I never did hear a sermon
preached to explain in simple language to a village congrega-
tion the Athanasian Creed, except once, and that was by
Charles Kingsley, who, with tears running down his face,
explained like a man the Athanasian Creed to his poor
people at Eversley.”}

To conclude—the usefulness of this creed 15, like that of
the Nicene Creed, negative and positive. We may say with
Waterland:? “As long as there shall be any men left to
oppose the doctrines which this creed contains, so long will
it be expedient, and even necessary, to continue the use of
it in order to preserve the rest.” The expansion of the
English Church in the last fifty years aids us to confirm the
argument with such testimonies as the following. bishop
Cotton of Calcutta, who went to India prejudiced against
the creed, found that he was mistaken, “for the errors
rebuked in the Athanasian Creed resulted from tendencies
common to the human mind everywhere.”? But this negative
use is less important than the other, to use it as a subject
for devout meditation, as being in Hooker’s words “a most
Divine explication of the chiefest articles of our Christian
belief.”* He thought it worthy “to be heard sounding in
the Church of Christ, whether Arianism live or die.” And
the fact that we connect it with S. Augustine rather than S.
Athanasius, in so far as the writer uses forms of thought
which 8. Augustine had made part of the common heritage
of Christian theology, does not alter the case. The special
characteristic of the theology of the creed is in the first part,
and it is there that the influence of S. Augustine is most
clearly seen. Led on in his strivings after self-knowledge, of
which the Confessions give so vivid a record, he was enabled

1 Reported in the Guardian of July 22, 1896, p. 1161. > 3. Ras.
3 Charge, 18638. 4 Works, ed. Keble, ii. p. 187.

296 AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS

to analyse the mystery of his own triune personality, and
illustrate it with psychological images. “I exist and I am
conscious that I exist, and I love the existence and the con-
sciousness; and all this independently of any external
evidence.” He carried on a step further S. Hilary’s argu-
ment from self-consciousness, and applied it to the doctrine
of the Holy Spirit, “the first to draw out the thought of the
Holy Spirit as the bond of union, the coeternal Love, which
unites the Father and the Son.” Thus he rises to the
thought of God, “whose triunity has nothing potential or
unrealised about it; whose triune elements are eternally
actualised, by no outward influence, but from within; a
Trinity in Unity.”* This teaching embodied in the Qui-
cunque supplements the teaching of the Nicene Creed, and
we therefore value it as possessing permanent and positive
usefulness.

The history of the Ze Deum brings our subject
to a fitting close. Listening to its solemn strains, we seem
to retrace our steps from the developed doctrine of the
Blessed Trinity to the simple historical faith in Jesus as the
Lord, who has “ overcome the sharpness of death.” But no
longer with weary steps, mounting up with wings as eagles,
borne up by the power of the poet’s insight to the light of
the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus
Christ. ᾿

When we look at the sun with the naked eye, we seem
to see a dark spot. We know that it does not exist there,
because through a darkened glass we see no such thing. In
the same way we may use the creeds as the darkened glass
of thought, to assure us that if our spiritual sight were
stronger all seeming contradictions would vanish in the clear
light of truth. They help us to worship without the con-
tinual distraction of definition, to believe that we live and
work in the light of His Eternal Presence whose love can
make hard tasks light and rough paths smooth, and with the
vision of peace cause sorrow and sighing to flee away.

1 lingworth, Personality, Human and Divine, p. 74.

APPENDICES

----4.-----
AppENDIX A.—List of Parallels to the Quicunque in Augustine, Vin-
centius, Faustus, Eucherius.
si B.—Vigilius of Thapsus.
a C.—Fulgentius of Ruspe.
mA D.—Early Testimonies to the Quicunque.
a E.—MSS. of the Te Dewm.
me F.—Creed of the Didascalia.

APPENDIX A.—LIST OF PARALLELS TO “QUICUNQUE”

“ QUICUNQUE.” AUGUSTINE.

1, Quicunque uult saluus esse 1. De Util. Cred. 29.—Catholice

ante omnia opus est ut teneat discipline maiestate institutum

catholicam fidem, est, ut accedentibus ad_ re-
ligionem fides persuadeatur
ante omnia.

c. Max. ii. 23.—Heee est fides
nostra, quoniam hee fides est
recta, que fides etiam Catholica
nuncupatur.
Enarr. in Ps, x. 3.—Heretici
. simplici fide catholica con-
tenti esse nolunt; que una
paruulis salus est.
2. quam nisi quisque integram
inuiolatamque seruauerit, abs-
que dubio in sternum peribit.

3. Fides autem catholica hec est,
ut unum Deum in Trinitate,
et Trinitatem in Unitate uen-
eremur ;

4, neque confundentes personas 4. De Trin. vii. 6.—Ut neque per-

neque substantiam separantes. sonarum sit confusio, nec talis
distinctio qua sit impar aliquid.

298

VINCENTIUS.

1. c. 36.—Catholica fides.

c.4.—Inter sacraria catholics
fidei salui esse potuerunt.

2. c. 7.—Qui uiolauerunt fidem

tutos esse non posse, inuiola-
tamque illibatamque conserua.
ο. 34.—Catholicorum hoc fere
proprium, . . . damnare pro-
fanas nouitates: et sicut dixit,
atque iterum dixit apostolus: si
quis annunciauerit, preterquam
quod acceptum est, anathemate.
. © 22, 18.—Catholica ecclesia
unum Deum in Trinitatis
plenitudine, et item Trinitatis
equalitatem in una diuinitate
ueneratur ;

. [b.—ut neque singularitas sub-
stantie personarum confundat
proprietatem, neque item Trini-
tatis distinctio Unitatem se-
paret Deitatis.

299

IN AUGUSTINE, VINCENTIUS, FAUSTUS, EUCHERIUS

Faustus, EUCHERIUS,

3. Faustus, Serm. 9.—Trinitas sine

separatione distincta. Pater et
Filius et Spiritus Sanctus unus
Deus credantur tres persone et
non tres substantie.

. 1b.—Credatur a nobis Unitas

sine confusione coniuncta, Tri-
nitas sine separatione dis-
tincta.
Cf. de Spu. Sco. II. i. 12.—In-
separabilem in personis Trini-
tatem.

300

5.

10.

ai;

12.

13.

14,

15.

16.

17.

. Immensus

APPENDIX A

“QuUICUNQUE ””—contd.
Alia est enim persona Patris,
alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti,

. sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus

Sancti una est diuinitas, equalis
gloria, cozterna maiestas.

. Qualis Pater talis Filius talis

et Spiritus Sanctus.

. Increatus Pater increatus Filius

increatus et Spiritus Sanctus.
Pater immensus
Filius immensus et Spiritus
Sanctus.

Aiternus Pater eternus Filius
zternus et Spiritus Sanctus,

Et tamen non tres eterni sed
unus eternus :

sicut non tres increati nec tres
immensi, sed unus increatus
et unus immensus.

Similiter omnipotens Pater,
omnipotens Filius, omnipotens
et Spiritus Sanctus,

et tamen non tres omnipotentes
sed unus omnipotens.

Ita Deus Pater Deus Filius
Deus et Spiritus Sanctus,

et tamen non tres Dii sed unus
est Deus.

Ita dominus Pater dominus
Filius dominus et Spiritus
Sanctus,

6.

10.

13.

14.

15.

16.

τ

AUGUSTINE—contd.

Serm.126.—Trinitas est sed una
operatio, una eternitas, una
coseternitas.

Serm. 105.— ternus Pater
coeternus Filius cozternus
Spiritus Sanctus.

De Trin. v. 8.—Itaque omnipo-
tens Pater, omnipotens Filius,
omnipotens Spiritus Sanctus.

Jb.—Nec tamen tres omnipo-
tentes sed unus omnipotens.
De Trin.i.5.—Hec est catholica
fides . . . sed in ea nonnulli per-
turbantur cum audiunt Deum
Patrem et Deum Filium et
Deum Spiritum Sanctum.

Et tamen hanc Trinitatem non
tres Devs sed unum Deum.

Cf. viii. 1—Deus Pater, Deus
Filius, Deus Spiritus Sanctus,
nec tamen tres Dii.

c. Maxim. ii. 23.—Sic et domi-
num si queras, singulum quem-
que respondeo.

APPENDIX A a8

VINCENTIUS—contd. Faustus, EucHertus—contd.
5. c. 19.—Quia scilicet alia est δ, Faustus, de Spu. Sco. I.—Alter
persona Patris alia Filii alia ergo in persona est Deus Pater
Spiritus Sancti, alter Spiritus Dei Patris.

Jb.—In proprietate persons
alter est P. a. est F. ἃ. 5. Κ΄,
6. 1b.—sed tamen Patriset Filiiet 6. Faustus, Serm. 30.—Cozterni-
Spiritus Sancti non alia et alia tatem ... maiestatis.
sed una eademque natura.

7. Philastr. Her. 45.—Qualis im-
mensa est Patris persona talis
est et Filii, talis est Sancti
Spiritus,

13. Eucherius, Lib. sp. int.—Omni-
potens Deus Pater et Filius et
Spiritus Sanctus unus et trinus.
... Solus inuisibilis immensus
atque incomprehensibilis.

15. Faustus, Serm. 31.—Pater ita-
que Deus Filius Deus Spiritus
Sanctus Deus, non tres Dii sed
unus Deus est.

302

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24,

25.

26.

APPENDIX A

“QUICUNQUE ”—contd.
et tamen non tres domini sed
unus est dominus.

Quia sicut singillatim unam-
quamque personam et Deum et
dominum confiteri christiana
ueritate compellimur ; ita tres
Deos aut dominos dicere catho-
lica religione prohibemur.

Pater a nullo est factus nec
creatus nec genitus.

Filius a Patre solo est, non
factus nec creatus sed genitus.

Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et
Filio, non factus nec creatus
nec genitus, sed procedens.

Unus ergo Pater non tres
Patres, unus Filius non tres
Filii, unus Spiritus Sanctus
non tres Spiritus Sancti.

Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius
aut posterius, nihil maius aut
minus, sed tote tres persone co-
eterne sibi sunt et cosequales:

ita ut per omnia, sicut iam
supradictum est, et Trinitas in
Unitate et Unitas in Trinitate
ueneranda sit.

Qui uult ergo saluus esse ita
de Trinitate sentiat.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24,

25.

AvuGuUsTINE—contd.
Ib.—Sed simul omnes non tres
dominos Deos, sed unum domi-
num Deum.

De Civit. Dei, xi. 24.—Cum
de singulis queritur, unus-
quisque eorum et Deus et
omnipotens esse respondeatur ;
cum uero de omnibus simul,
non tres Dii, uel tres omni-
potentes, sed unus Deus omni-
potens.

De Trin. v. 14.—Nam et singil-
latim si interrogemur de Spiritu
Sancto.

Serm. 140.—Dicimus Patrem
Deum de nullo.

Ep. 170.—Filius Patris solius.
Hune quippe de sua substantia
genuit non ex nihilo fecit.

De Trin. xv. 11.—De _ Filio
Spiritus Sanctus procedere
reperitur.

10. v. 14. —Neque natus est
sicut unigenitus, neque factus.

ce. Maxim. ii. 23.—Unus est
Pater, non duo uel tres; et unus
Filius, non duo uel tres; et
unus amborum Spiritus, non
duo uel tres.

Serm. 214. In hac Trinitate
non est aliud alio maius, aut
minus.

De Trin. vii. 4.—Unitas Trini-
tatis.

25.

26.

APPENDIX A

VINCENTIUS—contd.

c. 22.—Neque item Trinitatis
distinctio unitatem separet
deitatis.

c. 34.—Trinitatis Unitatem de-
scindere . .. Unitatis Trini-
tatem confundere.

c. 18.—Recta sentiens nec in
Trinitatis mysterio, nec in
Christo incarnatione blas-
phemat.

22.

393

Faustus, EucHertus—contd.

Faustus, Zp. 3.—Genitus ergo
ingenitus et ex utroque pro-
cedens personas indigitat.

Cf. de Spu. Sco. I. 13.—Mitti a
Patre et Filio dicitur et de
ipsorum substantia procedere.

24, Faustus,Serm.31.—Maiusautem

25.

aut minus ignorat Trinitatem.
. . . Nam etsi distinctionem
recipit Trinitas gradum tamen
nescit sequalitas.

Faustus. . . . Trinitatem in
Unitate subsistere.

304

27.

28.

29.

30.

3l.

32.

33.

APPENDIX A

“QuIcUNQUE ”—contd.
Sed necessarium est ad eternam
salutem, ut incarnationem quo-
que domini nostri Iesu Christi
fideliter credat.

Est ergo fides recta, ut credamus
et confiteamur, quia dominus
noster lesus Christus, Dei
Filius, Deus et homo est.

Deus est ex substantia Patris
ante sscula genitus, et homo
est ex substantia matris in
seeculo natus.

Perfectus Deus, perfectus homo
ex anima rationali et humana
carne subsistens,

AAqualis Patri secundum diui-
nitatem, minor Patri secundum
humanitatem.

Qui licet Deus sit et homo
non duo tamen sed unus est
Christus.

Unus autem, non conuersione
diuinitatis in carne, sed as-
sumptione humanitatis in Deo.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

AUGUSTINE—contd.
Serm. 264.—Necessariam fidem
incarnationis Christi.
Ib. 264.—Necessariam fidem
incarnationis fidei Christi.

Enchirid.35.—Proinde Christus
Iesus Dei Filius est et Deus et
homo.

Jb.—Deus ante omnia secula :
homo in nostro seculo, unus
Dei Filius idemque hominis
Filius.

Serm. 238.—Aduersus Arium,
ueram et perfectam Uerbi
diuinitatem ; aduersus Apol-
linarem, perfectam hominis in
Christo defendimus ueritatem.

Ep. 137.—Equalem Patri se-
cundum diuinitatem, minorem
autem Patre secundum carnem,
hoc est secundum hominem.

In Ioh. Tract. 78.--Agnoscamus
geminam substantiam Christi ;
diuinam scilicet qua equalis est
Patri, humanam qua maior est
Patri... utrumque autemsimul
non duo sed unus est Christus.
Enchirid. 34.— Uerbum caro
factum est, a diuinitate caro
suscepta, non in carnem diui-
nitate mutata.

28.

29.

30.

31,

32.

33.

APPENDIX A

VINCENTIUS—contd.

ο. 19.—Unus idemque Christus,
unus idemque Filius Dei...
unus idemque Christus Deus et
homo.

JIb,—Idem ex Patre ante secula
genitus, idem in seculo ex
matre generatus.

c.20.—Perfectus Deus, perfectus
homo; in Deo summa diuinitas,
in homo plena humanitas, .. .
quippe que animam simul
habeat et carnem.

c.19.—Duee substantice sunt...
una ex Patre Deo, altera ex
matre uirgine ; una cozterna et
eequalis Patri, altera ex tempore
et minor Patre.

Idem Patri et eequalis et minor.

ο. 18.—Unum Christum Iesum,
non duos, eundemque Deum
pariter atque hominem...
et hoc totum unus est Christus.

Jb.—Unam personam....
quia mutabile non est Uerbum
Dei ut ipsum uerteretur in
carnem.

20

28.

30.

91,

92.

33.

395

Faustus, EucHERIus—contd.
27.

Faustus, de Spu. Sco. 11. 25.—
Hoc loco necessarium uidetur
ut in Christo Deo pariter et
homine unam personam et duas
substantias testimoniis adser-
amus.

Ib, ii. 4.—Si in Christo Deo
pariter et homine duas_ sub-
stantias dicimus.

Eucherius, ad. Joh. 2.—Quia
licet assumpserit hominem,
tamen homo et Deus, hoc est
Christus, una persona est.

Faustus (Euseb.), de Nat. Dom.
ii. — Perfectus Deus et uerus
homo, unus Christus . . . sed
tamen Dei et hominis una
persona: ita coniunctus Deus
homini sicut anima corpori...
assumpta est enim humanitas :
non absumpta diuinitas.
Faustus, Serm. 2.—Secundum
diuinitatem eequalis Patri, se-
cundum humanitatem minor
etiam angelis.

Eucherius, ad. Ioh. 10.—Iuxta
quam rationem diuinitatis atque
humanitatis, etiam in reliquis
quee aut equalitatem cum Patre,
aut humilitatem eius sonant,
facile intellectus patebit.

10. 2.—Quia licet assumpserit
hominem, tamen homo et Deus,
hoc est Christus, una persona
est.

Faustus (Euseb.), Hom. de Lat-
rone beato—In una eademque
persona quam bene manifestan-
tur humana pariter et diuina ?

306

APPENDIX A

“ QUICUNQUE ”—contd.

34. Unus omnino non confusione

35.

37

substantiz sed unitate persone.

Nam sicut anima rationalis et
caro unus est homo, ita Deus et
homo unus est Christus :

. qui passus est pro salute nostra,

38.

39.

40.

descendit ad inferna, resurrexit
a mortuis,

ascendit ad celos, sedet ad dex-
teram Patris: inde uenturus
indicare uiuos et mortuos,

ad cuius aduentum omnes
homines resurgere habent cum
corporibus suis et reddituri sunt
de factis propriis rationem.

Et qui bona egerunt ibunt in
uitam eternam, qui uero mala
in ignem eternam.

Heec est fides catholica, quam
nisi quisque fideliter firmi-
terque crediderit, saluus esse
non poterit.

34,

35.

36.

AUGUSTINE—contd.
Cf. Serm. 187.—Adsumpta hu-
mana substantia.

Serm. 186.—Idem Deus qui
homo, et qui Deus idem homo,
non confusione nature sed
unitate personee.

In Ioh. Tract. '78.—Sicut enim
unus est homo anima rationalis
et caro sic unus est Christus
Deus et homo.

Ey. 164.—Quis ergo, nisi in-
fidelis negauerit fuisse apud
inferos Christum? ... ante-
quam dominus in inferna de-
scenderet.

40. Serm.205.—Cauete,dilectissimi,

ne quis uos ab ecclesiz catho-
licee fide ac unitate seducat.
Qui enim uobis aliter euangeliz-
auerit preter quam quod ac-
cepistis, anathema sit.

34,

35.

APPENDIX A

VINCENTIUS—contd.
c. 20.—Uerbum Deus absque
ulla sui conuersione . . . non
confundendo, non imitando
factus est homo, sed subsis-
tendo . . . in se perfecti hom-
inis suscipiendo naturam.
6. 19.—Unus autem non.
diuinitatis et humanitatis con-
fusione sed . . . unitate per-
sone.
ce. 20.—(Igitur) sicut anima con-
nexa carni nec in carnem uersa,
non imitatur hominem, sed est
homo, . . . ita etiam Uerbum
Deus . . . uniendo se homini

. factus est homo, . .. et
ex duabus substantiis unus est
Christus.

397

Faustts, EucoEerrus—contd.

35. Faustus, Zp. 7.—Nos uero...

37

38.

in Christum ita perfecta et
inseparabili distinctione cred-
amus ut Dei et hominis sim-
plicem. personam et duplicem
nouerimus esse substantiam,
sicut anima et corpus hominem
facit, ita diuinitas et humanitas
unus est Christus.

Cf. Claudianus Mamercus, de
Statu Anime, i. 3.

Eucherius, Lib. Formul.—Se-
cundum corpus sepultus est,
secundum uero animam in in-
ferna descendit.

Faustus (Euseb.), Hom. I., de
Ascensione.—(Anima) resumere
proprii corporis desideret in-
dumentum.

APPENDIX B
VIGILIUS OF THAPSUS

THERE is some hope that the mist of obscurity which has
hung round the life of Vigilius of Thapsus, and rendered
doubtful the authenticity of the works attributed to him,
will soon vanish. I have already referred to the article in
which Morin! has endeavoured to trace the books on the
Trinity to an Italian theologian. And the excellent mono-
graph by Ficker? has begun the work of collecting new MSS.,
and of sifting the materials already gathered by Chifflet.
Under these circumstances, it seems best to collect the
parallels to the Quicunque in an additional Appendix, and
await further developments of criticism before attempting to
analyse them fully.

At the same time, it must be pointed out that the internal
evidence of these Vigilian writings is against the theory that
their author, or one of their authors, could have written the
Quicungue. In the books against Eutyches the phrase wnitas
persone is not found, though the writer speaks of wnio.2 The
descent into hell is expressed in the form, “ Descendit ad (in)
infernum.”

The Double Procession is not clearly asserted, cf. de
Trin. xi.: “Ut ipse idem sit Spiritus Sanctus procedens a
Patre qui est et Filii”” To use Waterland’s words, “there
does not appear in Vigilius’s pieces anything of that strength,
closeness, and acuteness which we find in the Athanasian
Creed.”

It is probable that the creed obtained its connexion

1 Rev. Bén, 1898. 2 Halle, 1897.

8. Le Quien, Dissert. Damasce. p. 10,
308

APPENDIX B 309

with the name of Athanasius through association in some MS.,
e.g. the Codex Thuaneus, quoted by Waterland? from Quesnel,
with a Vigilian treatise written under that name. I may
note the following parallels :—

Clause 3,¢. Arr. Sabell. Phot. 111. 11: “ Probabilis igitur et
omni ueritatis adsertione subnixa, utpote apostolicis tradition-
ibus communita, ex eorum ueniens regulis Athanasii fides
apparuit. Euidentius namque nobis secundum normam fidei
catholice unum Deum ostendit, non tripertitum, non singu-
larem, non confusum, non divisum, ... sed ita Patrem et
Filium et Spiritum Sanctum propriis exstare atque distingui
personis, ut tamen secundum communis nature unionem
unus sit Deus.”

10. 11. 9: “Ac si Trinitas unus Deus est secundum
natures unionem, et unus Deus Trinitas est secundum person-
arum distinctionem.”

6. Pallad.: “ Perfecta Trinitas in Unitate consistens.”

5. De Trin. u.: “ Alius est Pater in persona qui uere
genuit, et in hoc alter est Filius.”

+P. 82,

APPENDIX C
FULGENTIUS OF RUSPE

THE writings of Fulgentius of Ruspe (+533), Bishop of
Ruspe in North Africa, contain many parallels to the
Quicunque. There is no distinct evidence of quotation, unless
we accept Kattenbusch’s! suggestion that the forty chapters
in which Fulgentius treats of the parts of true faith in his
de Fide ad Petrum are moulded on the forty clauses of the
creed. This seems very far-fetched, and the way in which
the phraseology of Augustine is weakened is unlike the
language of the creed.

Thus ad Ferr. Ep. xiv.: “Cum una sit naturaliter
sempiterna uirtus ac diuinitas Patris et Filii et Spiritus
Sancti. . . . Nec tamen tres Dii sed unus naturaliter Deus
est Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus. Omnipotens est
Pater sed omnipotens est Filius omnipotens est Spiritus
Sanctus; nec tamen tres Dil omnipotentes sed unus Deus
omnipotens est Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus. Atternus
est sine initio Pater, eternus est sine initio Filius, eternus
est sine initio Spiritus Sanctus; nec tamen tres Dii eterni
sed unus Deus eternus est Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus.
Immensus est Pater sed immensus est Filius et immensus est
Spiritus Sanctus: nec tamen tres Dii immensi sed unus
Deus immensus est Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus.”
In this passage there are obvious parallels to clauses 15, 14,
13, 9, but the reversed order seems to imply that the writer
was quoting current theological phrases rather than the
creed. It is true that he deserts his teacher Augustine in
the matter of the term substantia,—Obj. Arr.: “nec personas

1 Theol. Lit. Zeit. 1897, p. 540.
310

APPENDIX C 311

confundere nec substantiam separare,’—thus accepting the
creed’s phrase. And we find him using the language, ad
Tras, 111.: “ (Christi) in quo perfectus homo plenus est gratie,
et in quo perfectus Deus plenus est ueritatis,’ which is
closer to clause 30 than any sentence in Augustine. But if
he knew the creed, at any rate it seemed to need further
pointing by the insertion of such words as naturaliter, 6.0.
Ep. ad Cor, 1. xii.: “Spiritus Sanctus qui naturaliter a Patre
Filioque procedit.” Cf. ad Ferr. Ep. xiv.: “Sanctam et
ineffabilem Trinitatem unum esse naturaliter Deum.”

APPENDIX D—

ENTIRE TEXTS

REF.
No.

Ho © dy ὦ

A

Orl.

TEXT. TITLE.
Cod. Corbeiensis, 8. Germain | F. 5. Ath. Epi.
257.
B.N. Paris, Cod. lat. 13,159.
B.N. Paris, 1451. F.C. 8. Ath. Epi. Alex.
Golden Psalter (Vienna). F. S. Ath. Epi. Alex.
Psalter of Fulco. F. C
Psalter of Charles the Bald. | F, 5, Ath.
Utrecht Psalter. 0:

Cod. Augiensis ccxxix.

(Karlsruhe).

Lyons MS.
Orleans Cod, 94.

Cod. Sangall. 20.
Milan Ο. 212 sup.

F.C. 8. A. Epi.

DATE.

790
795
795
867
c. 850
c. 850
c. 830

821

c. 800

c. 850

c. 820
c. 700

312

—APPENDIX D

TESTIMONIES
DATE. PROVINCE. DIOCESE. TESTIMONY. TITLE.
892 | Cologne. | Liege. Regino of Sermo Ath, de F. 8.
Prum. Trin,
889 | Rheims. Soissons. Riculfus. Sermo Εἰ, C.
880 | Rome. Tarentum ? SynodusOrien-) F. C.
tana.
870 | Rheims. Morinum. Adalbert. | Sermo b. Ath.
868 pa Rheims. Ratramn of | LibellusdeF.b, Ath.
Corbey. Alex. epi.
868 | Sens. Paris. ffineas, Ἐς. 5. Ath. Epi.
Alex.
865 | Hamburg, | Hamburg, Anskar. F. C. ab. Ath.
Bremen. Bremen.
859 | Rheims. Rheims. Hincmar—
i, De Predest. (ἢ
852 ii. Capitula, Sermo Ath, de Fide.
848 ili, De u. non t. | C.F.
deitate.
iv. Pastoral. Sermo C, F.
836 | Mainz (Mo- (?) Haito of Rei-| F. 5. Ath.
guntia). chenau.
834 | Lyons. Lyons. Florus Dia- | 5 Ὁ
conus.
821 | Sens. Orleans. Benedict d’| F.C.
Aniane.
820 | Lyons. Lyons. Agobard, adv. | F. C, (Ὁ. Ath, ait.).
Dogm. Fel.
Sens. Orleans, Theodulfi—
i, Address to] C.F.
Clergy.
- 3 ii. De Spu. Sco. Symbolum Ath.}
810 | Mainz. S. Gallen. Sermon.
800 | Milan. Bobbio. Libellus de
Trin.

1 Loofs, art. ‘‘ Athanasianum,” &.#.* p. 178, thinks the text of this passage
faulty, and calls attention to Sirmond’s note on this passage (M.S.L. 105, 247).

313

APPENDIX E

MSS. OF THE TE DEUM

THE following is a provisional list of the more important

MSS. of the Ze Deum.

which have been recently collated :—

Hot b

Mil.

Milan
Dublin
London

Dublin

Rome
Rome
Munich

Milan

Cambridge
Cambridge
Essen
London
London

Munich

I. ΤΕΙΒῊ VERSION.
Cod. Ambros. C. 5 anf.
Franciscan Convent, Lib. Hymnorwm
Brit. Mus. Harleian MS. 7653
Trin. Coll. Cod. E. 4. 2.

II. Mrinan VErsron.
Cod. Vat. Reg. 11
Cod. Vat. 82

Cod. lat. 343

Cathedral Breviary

Ii]. OnpINARY VERSION.
Univ. Lib. Ll. 1. 10

Corpus Christi Coll. 272. 0. 5
Miinster Kirche (Psalter)
Lambeth, 427

Brit. Mus. Galba A. xviii.

Cod. 5. Emmeran lxvii.
314

I have affixed symbols to those

52:0,
Vil.

xl,
Vlil., ix.

xi.

<i;

As yp"
Vill, 1x.

ix;
ix.
ix.
τς:

viii., ix.

APPENDIX E

III. Ornprnary Verston—contd.

W

ΟἹ; 9 55 4
U
ν

By

Paris
Rheims
Troyes

S. Gallen
Utrecht
Vienna

Wiirzburg

Essen

S. Gallen
Bamberg
Cologne

B.N. Cod. lat. 1152

Cod. 20

(Psalter of Count Henry)
Codd. 15, 20, 23, 27
Psalter (Claudius, C. vii.)
Cod. 1861

Cod. Mp. th. f. 109
Psalter of Lothaire

ITV. Greek VERSION.
Miinster Kirche

Cod. 17

Cod. A. i, 14

Cod. 8

315

APPENDIX F
CREED OF THE “DIDASCALIA”

It may be of interest to add the following Creed, which has
been conjecturally restored by Zahn! from the Didascalia.
The book was written in the third century, probably not far
from Antioch. Zahn calls attention,in the first place, to a
passage which follows a free reproduction of Acts xv.:
“Since danger has arisen lest the whole Church should fall
into heresy, we Twelve Apostles assembled together in
Jerusalem and discussed what should be done, and it pleased
us all to write with one accord this Catholic Didascalia,
for the confirmation of you all, and we established and
determined that you should pray to God [the Father] the
Almighty, and Jesus [His Son] Christ, and the Holy Spirit,
and use the Holy Scriptures, and believe in the resurrection
of the dead, and enjoy all creatures with thanksgiving.”
There is no trace here of Western influence, yet we find a
Trinitarian Creed traced back to an Apostolic Council. This
renders it probable that the legend of apostolic origin came
to Rufinus from the East, where he would feel more at home
than at Rome. S. Ambrose also was dependent on Greek
literature. The conjectural character of Zahn’s form makes
me unwilling to found any argument on it at present.

1 Neuere Beitriige zur Geschichte des apost. Symbolums, p. 23.

316

APPENDIX F 317

THE CREED OF THE “ DIDASCALIA ”

I. 1. Πιστεύω εἰς Θεὸν παντοκράτορα,
II. 2. Καὶ εἰς τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἴ), τὸν (δι᾽
ἡμᾶς ἐλθόντα καὶ)
. γεννηθέντα ἐκ (Μαρίας τῆς ?) παρθένου
. καὶ σταυρωθέντα ἐπὶ ἸΤοντιόυ Πιλάτου καὶ ἀποθανόντα,
. τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα ἐκ (τῶν ?) νεκρῶν
. καὶ ἀναβάντα (ἀνελθόντα 2) εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς

‘ , > a - os Ρ̓
. καὶ καθήμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν Θεοῦ τοῦ παντοκράτορος,

Ο “Ἰ δ᾽ o ὦ

. καὶ ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης, κρῖναι νεκροὺς καὶ
ζῶντας.

III. 9. Καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα. ..
10. (ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν 2)...

12. νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν. . ..

INDEX

DEY VEE

ΑΒΒΟ, 182, 259, 276.

Abelard, 183.

Abundius, 260.

Acacius, 87, 91, 94.

Ado, 117.

Adoptianism, 167 f., 177.

Ailfric, 117, 183.

Aithelstan, Psalter of, 199.

Aetius, 108, 113.

Agobard, 178.

Alcuin, 173, 176 seq.

Alexander, 80.

Amalarius, 183.

Ambrose, S., 20, 70, 77, 126, 1388, 148,
208, 205 f., 208, 219, 252, 258 ff.,
275, 285 f.

Anomeeans, The, 91 f., 96.

Antelmi, 135.

Apelles, 55.

Apollinaris, 100, 106 f., 112, 125, 139 ;
heresy of, 169, 247.

Apostles’ Creed, The, 1, 8, 12, 286f.

Apostolic Constitutions, The, 87, 266 ff.

Aquinas, 20,

Aristides, 30, 40 f.

Arius, 74 f., 77, 81 f., 169, 291; heresy
of, 96, 126, 203, 206 ff., 232, 288,
295.

Asterius, 86 f.

Athanasius, S., 48, 69, 76, 80, 82, 85f.,
87,91, 94f., 97, 99f., 101f., 104,
114, 120f.,123f., 125f., 180, 136,
139, 176f., 179, 183, 215, 266, 295.

Attalus, 153.

Attila, 201.

Augustine of Canterbury, S., 243.

Augustine of Hippo, 8., 44, 62, 70,
122, 124-128, 133, 186f., 140,
146, 170, 173, 178, 182, 188, 205,
208 f., 235, 258 ff., 275, 281, 285,
295 ἢ,

Auitus, 116, 150, 181 ἢ,

Aurelian, 257.

Autun, Canon of, 156 f.

BAumER, Dom. S., 31, 63, 232.

Balfour, Right Hon. A. J., 288.

Bangor Antiphonary, 187, 189, 257,
266, 269, 273, 275 f., 279.

Baptismal Formula, The, 9, 20-25,
89 ff., 64, 70.

Basil of Ancyra, 92, 94 f.

Basil of Cesarea, S., 95, 99, 101, 105,
110, 262.

Bede, Ven., 286.

Benedict d’Aniane, 176.

Benedict of Nursia, S., 119, 257.

Benson, Archbishop, 23, 294.

Bernard of Clairvaux, S., 183.

Bernard, Prof. T. H., 259, 261.

Boniface, 162.

Bonn Conference, The, 123.

Bornemann, Prof., 39.

Bourdon, Abbé, 252.

Bratke’s Berne MS., 63, 229, 241.

Bright, Prof., 96.

Brightman, Rev. F. E., 267, 269.

Butler, Bishop, 291.

CLESTINE, Pope, 111.

Cesarius, 148, 151-153, 160, 179,
181 f., 188, 249, 250f., 257, 290.

Cajetan, John (Gelasius 11.), 249.

Callistus, 59, 61.

Candidus, 274.

Canon of Scripture, The, 53.

Cappadocian Fathers, The, 116, 126.

Capreolus, 136.

Carlyle, Thomas, 291.

Caspari, Prof., passim.

Cassian, 229, 249, 285.

Cassiodorus, 249, 263.

Charlemagne, 177, 186.

Childebert 1., King, 230.

Chlodosinda, 159.

Chrysologus, 230, 281.

Chrysostom, S., 111.

Clarke, Dr. S., 96.

Clement of Rome, S., 26f., 61, 64.

319

320 INDEX

Columban, 8., 152 f.
Commentaries on the Quicwnque wult:
Bouhier, 164, 170.
Fortunatus, 160 f., 168, 180 f., 187.
Oratorian, 165, 170.
Orleans, 163, 166.
Paris, 164.
Rolle of Hampole, 167.
Stavelot, 163, 167 f.
Theodulf, 166.
Troyes, 166 f., 171.
Constans, Emp., 90f., 208.
Constantine, Copronymus, Emp., 117.
Constantine the Great, Emp., 66, 76.
Constantius, Emp., 91, 100.
Cotton, Bishop, 295.
Councils of Aachen in 809, 118.
et Agde in 506, 278.
Alexandria in 3862, 98-
101, 126.
Antioch in 329, 82.
ἢ Antioch in 341, 89.
ἐξ Antioch in 578, 107.
Aquileia in 382, 206.
τὰ Cesarea, Forged Acts οἵ, 241.
- Caria in 367, 86.
a Chalcedon in 451, 110-114.
a Constantinople in 381, 107,
109, 121.
mA Ephesus in 430, 111.
a Frankfort in 794, 118, 164,
175.
i Friuli in 791, 117.
τ Gentilly in 767, 117.
9 Hethfield in 680, 117, 159.
me Laodicea in 860, 262.
‘5 Milan, 285.
τ Rome in 869, 107.
ἣν Sardica in 344, 90.
τ Seleucia in 357, 80.
τ Sirmium in 867, 91.
Toledo in 447, 117.
Toledo in 589, 114, 117, 119.
Toledo in 683, 153.
Creeds :
Antioch, Second Creed of, 83-85,

86, 94.
Antioch, Third Creed of, 87.
Antioch, Fourth Creed of, 86, 87-
89, 91, 208.
Antioch in 344, Creed of, 90.
Antiochenes, Union Creed of the, 139.
Apostles’ Creed, Our, 221-240.
Apostolic Constitutions, 105.
Aquileia, 57, 201. -
Ariminum, of Orthodox at, 214f.,
219.
Athanasian Creed, The, 124-197,
289-295.

Creeds—contd.

Augsburg, fon ary of, 155.

Augustine, 209-213

Auscultate expositionem, 179, 248.

Bacchiarius, 131, 138, 144, 181,
222.

Bangor Antiphonary, 60, 228 f.,
243

Beatus, 255.

Bratke’s Berne MS., 63, 241 ff.

Cesarius, 224f., 239.

Constantinople, 203.

Constantinople in 525, 114.

Constantinople in 553, 114.

Cyprian of Carthage, 48, 209, 283 f.

Cyprian of Toulon, 225 f.

Damasus, 130, 153f., 181, 216,

244-248,

Dated Creed, 92 ff.

Didascalia, The, Appendix F.

Deer, Book of, 63.

Denebert, 161, 172, 174 ff.

Dionysius, 46.

ἡμον ἐπὶ and Western compared, 70,
287.

Egyptian Church Order, 69.

Eligius of Noyon, 227,

Etherius, 255.

Eusebius of Cesarea, ‘77-80.

Faustus, 222 ff., 226.

Fides Romanorum, 129, 161, 168,
177, 215-219.

Gelasian Sacramentary, 231 f.

Gregory Thaumaturgus, 72.

Gregory of Tours, 227.

Hincmar, 130.

LIldefonsus, 255.

Isidore, 154 f.

Jerusalem, 84, 98, 101-106, 119,
254,

Leporius, 132 f., 139 ff.

Lucianic Creed, The, 83, 86, 90.

Martin of Bracara, 60, 254 f.

Mesopotamia, 105 f.

Missale Gallicanwm, 221, 229, 234f.,
236, 239f., 244.

Mozarabie Liturgy, 214, 255.

Munich Cod. lat. 14508, 63, 160.

Nicene Council, 76-80, 99, 104,
110, 119.

Our Nicene Creed, 7, 98 seqg., 102,
103, 110, 203, 286 ff., 288.

Niceta, 62, 205, 239, 252-255.

Niké, 94, 203.

Novatian, 46.

Pelagius, 138, 189 f., 228.

Philippopolis in 348, 90.

i of Agen, 129, 205, 214-

INDEX

Creeds—contd.
Priscillian, 214.
Ps.-Augustine, Serm. 238, 62.
Old Roman Creed, 21, 38, 45, 198.
Sacramentarium Gallicanum, 60,
221, 229, 234 f., 236, 238 ff.
Salvianus, 222.
Cod. Sessorian., 52, 63, 237 ff.
Sirmium tin 351, 90.
Sirmium in 357, Second Creed af,
214.
Sirmium in 359, Dated Creed of,
92-94, 95, 203 f.
Turin, 230.
Victricius, 214, 218 f.
Cursus Leoninus, 249.
Cyprian of Carthage, S., 22, 48, 123,
209, 220, 248, 262, 283 ἢ
Cyprian of Toulon, 219, 257, 276.
Cyril of Alexandria, S., 111, 113, 187.
Cyril of Jerusalem, S., 66-69, 99,
107f., 110, 113f., 120, 208,
220, 253, 281, 284 ἢ,

Damasvs, Pope, 107 seq., 118, 143, 252.
Dante, 249.

Delisle, M. L., 173.

Didaché, The, 21, 39.

Didascalia, The, 87, 90, Appendix F.
Dido, 177.

Diodorus, 261.

Diogenes, 112.

Dionysius, 46 ff.

Docetism, 204.

Dracontius, 97.

Duchesne, Abbé, 108, 122, 209, 219.

EGBERT, 286.

Elchasaites, The, 22.

Eligius of Noyon, 188.

Elipandus, 118.

Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 291.

Epiphanius, 45, 87, 92, 102, 104f.,
109 ἐς 118, 116, 170.

Eucherius, 135, 252.

Eunomius, 113.

Euphronius, 169, 170.

Eusebius of Cesarea, 75, 82, 86, 170.

Eusebius of Nicomedia, 75,77, 79 ff., 83.

Eustathius of Antioch, 78, 100.

Eutyches, 113, 140; heresy of, 169,
188.

FAITH, 3.

Faustus, 62, 127, 135, 148f., 182,
222, 286, 290.

Felix of Urgel, 167 ἢ

Firmilian, 283.

Flavianus, 109, 261.

21

[5]
bo
ἐπ

Florianus, 160.
Fortunatus, Venantius, 159, 171, 201.
Fulgentius, 212, Appendix C.

GELASIAN Sacramentary, The, 166,
234, 250, 284.

Gennadius, 181, 253, 261, 263 f.

Germanus, 219,

Gibbon, 97.

Gibson, Dr., 274, 277 f.

Gloria in excelsis, The, 265-270, 278.

Gnostics, The, 25, 43.

Goldast, 168 seq.

Goulburn, Dean, 293.

peat! the Great, S., Pope, 119, 231,
Τῆς

Gregory 1Π1., Pope, 233, 299.

Gregory Nazianzen, S., 99, 108, 110.
Gregory of Nyssa, S. ,75, 99, 108, 110.
Gregory of Tours, 171, 182, 188.
Gwatkin, Prof., 82, 91, 100.

HADRIAN, Pope, 118.

Haito, 176.

Harnack, Prof., 5, 25f., 32, 43, 109,
121, 128, 173.

Harris, Prof. Rendel, 40.

Harvey, 147.

Haussleiter, Prof., 17 f., 20.

Hermas, 55, 61, 64.

Heurtley, Prof., 211, 213.

Hilary of Arles, 135, 148, 276.

Hilary of Poitiers, S., 83, 86, 92, 99,
116, 121, 125, 127, 129, 134, 148,
259f., 296.

Hilsey, 184.

Hinemar, 119, 157, 173 ff, 176, 215,
258.

Hippolytus, 59 ff.

Homeanism, 121.

Honoratus, 135, 147 ff., 276.

Honorius of Autun, 183.

Hook, Dean, 291.

Hooker, Richard, 295.

Hort, Prof., 104 ff., 114.

Hosius of Cordova, 75, 78.

Hunter, Sir W., 292.

Ienatius, S., 10, 28, 31, 38, 68, 73.

Illingworth, Rev. J. R., 6, 128, 296.

Innocent 1., Pope, 130, 253.

Ireneus, 5., 17 f., 25, 41-44, 538, 55,
61 ff., 73, 209, 219, 282.

JEROME, S., 64, 100, 109, 205, 215,
244, 248, 252, 285.

John, Abbot of Biclaro, 115.

John Damascene, 1238.

John of Jerusalem, 64.

322

Julian, Emp., 101.

Julius Africanus, 170.

Julius of Rome, 83, 106.

Justinian, Emp., 114f., 159.

Justin Martyr, 15, 21, 30, 35-40, 43,
62f., 65, 282.

KATTENBUSCH, Prof. F., on Jerusalem
Creed, 68 ; on Second Creed of An-
tioch, 86; on Creed of Consianti-
nople, 110 et passim.

Kingsley, Rev. Charles, 289, 295.

Kunze, Prof., 111.

LAGARDE, 267.

Leidrad, 173 f., 178, 191.

Leo 1., Pope, 8., 70, 113, 230.
Leo 111., Pope, 118 f., 186.
Leodgar, 156.

Leontius, 262.

Lerins, Monastery of, 134, 289.
Inbellus de Trinitate, 160.
Liberti Gesta, 161, 215.
Lightfoot, Bishop, 28, 30, 294.
Liturgy of S. James, 272.
Loofs, Prof., 80, 155, 178-181.
Louis 11., Emp., 233.

Lucas, Father H., 184.
Lucian, 74, 86 f.

Lucifer of Cagliari, 101.
Lumby, Prof., 172, 213.
Lupus, 135, 219.

Macarivs, 78.

Macedonius, 107, 112; heresy of, 110,
112, 269.

Marcellus, 44f., 56, 68, 78, 81 f., 86,
90 ff., 199.

Marcianus, 253.

Marcion, 24, 44, 52 ff., 283.

Marcus Aurelius, Emp., 35.

Marcus Eremita, 112.

_ Mark of Arethusa, 92, 203.

Martin of Bracara, 204.

Maxentius, 148.

Maximus of Geneva, 225, 257.

Maximus the Philosopher, 97.

Maximus of Turin, 205 f., 230.

Meletians in Egypt, The, 81.

Meletius, 101, 108.

Melito, 30.

Miracles, 2.

Missale Gallicanum, 270 ; vide Creeds.

Missale Gothicum,270, 274; vide Creeds.

Mocquéreau, Dom., 252.

Monarchianism, 58-61, 63.

Monothelitism, 166, 169.

Montanism, 59.

Mora, Albert de (Gregory vitr.), 249.

INDEX

Morin, Dom. G., on Cod. Sessor. 52,
161, 232 ; on Niceia of Remesiana,
253 ; on the authorship of the ‘‘ Te
Dewm,” 256 seq.

NEcTARIvs, 109, 111.

Nestorius, 111, 139 ff.; heresy of, 167 f.,
169.

Newman, Cardinal J. H., 289.

Niceta of Remesiana, 107, 125, 252 seq.,
259 seq., 269, 286.

| Nicetas of Aquileia, 254.

Nicetius of Tréves, 159 f., 261.
Nicholas 1., Pope, 119, 232 f.
Nilus, 111.

Notker, 163.

Novatian, 47, 60, 62f., 283.

OpILo, 168.

Odoacer, 232.

Ommanney, Preb., 135, 137, 141, 147,
162, 164, 166 f., 183, 185, 188 f.

Origen, 73, 81, 85 f., 122, 205.

Orosius, 143.

Pastor, 116.

Patrick, S., 229, 275.

Paul of Samosata, 81, 86.

Paulinus of Antioch, 100 f., 109.

Paulinusof Aquileia, 117 f.,168,176,178.

Paulinus of Nola, 180, 252 f., 263.

Paulinus of Tyre, 79.

Peter Fullo, 114.

Pelagius 1., Pope, 230.

Pelagius, heretic, 218 f.

Philostorgius, 87.

Photinus, 92.

Photius, 119.

Pirminius, 221, 233 f., 238 ἢ,

Polycarp, 28 f., 41, 61.

Pomerius, 249.

Praxeas, 54, 58 f.

Priscillian, 142-145, 247 f.

Priscillianists, The, 117.

Procession Controversy, The, 115 seq.,
169.

Proclus, 111 f.

Prudentius, 258.

Ps.-Gennadius de Fide, 160.

Ps.-Ignatius, 267 f.

RABANUS Maurus, 176.

Rade, Dr., 109.

Ratramn, 119, 157, 173.

Receared, 114 f.

Redditio symboli, 52, 281.

Regino, 183.

Rhythm of Ze Dewm and Quicunque,
248-252.

INDEX

Robertson, Dr., 10, 74, ied 86, 95, 100.

Robinson, Prof. J. f

Rufinus, "45, 46, 47, gp 200 f., 204 f.,
207 f., 285,

SABELLIUS, 59, 169, 203.

Sacramentarium Gallicanum, 270 ff.;
vide Creeds,

Salvianus, 134, 222.

Secundus, 80.

Seeberg, Prof., 43, 128.

Semi-Arians, The, 92, 95, 99f., 110,
121 ff.

Semi-Pelagianism, 290.

Shelly, Mr. J., 248 ff.

Siricius, Pope, 206.

Sisebut, 260.

Socrates, historian, 86, 112.

Sozomen, 86,

Stephen, Bishop of Rome, 23.

Sulpicius Severus, 95, 252 f.

Swainson, Prof., 113, 135, 175 ff.

Swete, Prof., 27, 63, 204.

TARASIUS, 118.

Terentianus Maurus, 249.

Tertullian, 38, 48-58, 61-65, 73, 127,
282 f.

Theodosius, Emp., 108.

Theodotus, 59.

Theodulf, 163 f., 165 f., 177.

Theological Creeds, Of, 72-74.

Theonas, 80.

Theophronius, 87.

343

Thompson, Sir E. Maunde, 241, 2538.

Timothy, 8., 14-17. -

Timothy, Bishop of Constantinople,
114

Traditio symboli, 281.
Tréives Fragment, The, 157-160, 172,
174, 178f.

ULpHILAS, 107, 125.

Urban I1., Pope, 249.
Ursacius, 81.

Ussher, Archbishop, 45, 259.

VALENS, Bishop, 81, 91 f.

Valens, Emp., 95, 101, 107,

Valentinus, 53, 63, 112.

Victor, 59.

Victorius, 241.

Victricius, 116, 180, 146 f., 229.

Vigilius of Thapsus, 69, 157, 215,

Appendix B.

Vineentius, 135 f., 137 f., 146 ff., 166,
173, 182, 188, 258.

Voss, 168, 259,

WALAFRID Strabo, 176.
Warren, Rev. F. E., 275, 278.
Waterland, Dr., 145, 149.
Westcott, Bishop, 3, 18, 26.
Wyclif, 184.

ZAHN, Prof. Theod., 7, 9, 12, 17, 80,
54, 56f., 65, 107, 204, 270.
Zephyrinus, 59, 61. .

PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED, EDINBURGH

at tia
aA aaa ‘

“-

a

oat

ya ahh Se
τος Ms pe τ

University of Toronto
Library

DO NOT
REMOVE
THE
CARD
FROM
THIS
POCKET

Acme Library Card Pocket
Under Pat. ‘‘Ref. Index File’
Made by LIBRARY BUREAU

"7

< AP
᾽
δε ρας
ἐξ τξδς
Sahat
δὴ Sa eeate

sete

ἐξ
; ἮΝ

ἣν SOG RS at
SOE
Stee cetehecctaiat

ἀν 5}
eee >
EE

7

Ἢ eats
<, 4 5
: aa
RSS

ΘΝ
ΗΝ iS
Set ἮΣ τὰς

᾿ £54 343456

>

RS

st,

LAA
Te nadine
on OR

tee
Serre

7

hate
(4)

ma?
oes
eek

ey

ses
43
5

τὲς
aes

RATE
« He j
¢ Re
eseSeSES ease ‘
SMOG DA PLANE NDS)
Sitgk aie

} Sk

eS

38

Og
prota

4

εἴ
RTATAP ATL Oa’
BEER

ἔ

να
e)

t
ἐς

eesereteks
\ 4
ERD DCO
LE REGIE
tee

&
4
SNe ‘
ξ <4
Non
$iSe

ἐκ

«$<
ΚΝ
<Sehes

<

ἢ

M0 Sy dete a Δ
TO ee

wee

EER Oe

RR κε DIOR a |
POE εἰς aD DL)

1 seeeshek ERS

δά

ee i

EES SOR KEE SE
ROU ba
hehe’ eee ς

BP Pe λι υϑόνενον
eee ἮΝ abesehekes
aes eS

‘ PAR ‘
AUR
ἀκΑνδε κε κε ἐκακ nearer neta

Seta,

Weyer
4 tI
δὲ Ἢ

ἐ
BESS
Devens
RN
EEE
aSE8C5¢ &

HERD)
cats ΣΉΝ
RSE ECG
ses gseseseeescs

SEE

ς
τς ἐξ ἐς ἀνες ror srete rn

TD
hake 4
ἐ τ εἴες

a
a a am

> "
Seek

am
re ς “5.

ἜΡΟΝ
τὰ Ψ ({ς
ΝΥΝ Safes
46

4 28
HA 454

δ ς
ease
EERE
ς Sehc§¢
RSS
ἧς iC S45

as

SNES
ἰφίφίνο
ἀκ ἀοςεζεζιζεζε
ἀν ἐς ἀν κε γι ζις

ae

δ.
SESE
᾿
€
&
res
Sore Parararar gosta
γῇ A ; δα ες
᾿ Par arararorerotarar peat ary
4 τς δάκκήκες ΗΝ
» ASS

?

Setsee 505 Sess eee
Drenenroans speune rset anne eanaha:
> ΝῊ ase SSA
PRR NIL δι
ἀξ ἐς ἐνενίςς defeat cece
EEA SAS ee CCEA
ATAPAPAPAPAP RY PAPA RPh Pa
eceas
SEE

Si
᾿ς y
ate
RS

<3
Se

CAS
ἐς
Oe
4 KS

᾿

ἀκ ες
τὸ ἐε ενεξεςς,
ἐπε ἐκεῖ ζες

ς
δἰ εἰς δε λες
ERE
sae
4eeye:

SPP bea!
Ἔν MOR
ah ahat SP Pn Pos
sea ΜΉ Νὴ
ἐκεε ἐξ κε ζε δὲ om
ὡ ais
GHA

«ἧς
εἶς
att

ς
κἀν δος
ἀξ κ κοὐ δ ζει

ἣν
εὶς
6

SE

SEM
Spb tbe ROU
Ὁ tp?) eit

4
Kah ahet
pa
δ

a6 4
Ὴ
dit

ἀπε
Px? 44
τῇ

Py
γεν“

νὰ
<4

“Zk
aah
£

4

ΩΝ

14 54
ast
“4

ake
ἐλ δε δ ελὲ
BESEEAE
ri 2

Ὁ δ᾽
¢

t
48

4
Mate

£7904,
δ δον see ἐςς
ἀκ ἐεεζεζεζς Para rads
seseteseies ὌΡΗ
PAP OP a!
STDERR OO Dy

er)

¢ sefe
KES ct > ht
€
aS Sr ar he}
ἐξέ νξας ἐς ἐπε τς ς ἐς ἐς ἐπ ες
tea

tn ee Ὁ Ὅ΄

3
SAE CAG kd
SESE
4
<4
kas

<
ase hehe aeheiad

Paro ar aPararer st mraner pear Dr arr!
ΡΟΝ {ἀπ ας

Pe ee ΦΙῸ

Hehe

£
wet
γον,

see

τ

CC
Ph) 4,4

*
4
rary

τ
Ἧς ὴ 4
᾿ ῖ 1.

ae heheSeheke€

τ ara rar al

A PorvPornhyheParoPsrp hah?
Aelee fees cseesaseies

LOSE Dr Dade λ κα τα

ἀκ ehehitotes
ΜΗ
¢ Hea ieieieetceres
ΜΗ»
σον

ἃ -

on a