Skip to main content

Full text of "An introduction to the creeds and to the Te Deum"

See other formats





















THE following Introduction to the Creeds and to the Early 
History of the Te Deum 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 
at 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, S. Gallen, Karlsruhe, Heidelberg, Wolfenbuttel ; in 



1897, Amiens, Kouen, Chartres, Orleans, Paris (Bibliotheque 
Nationale), Troyes (the Town Library and the Treasury of 
the Cathedral), Eheims ; in 1898, Kome (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 Te Deum. I have published some " Sermons on the 
Apostles Creed " and other notes on creed-forms in the 
Zeitsch/rift fur Kircliencjescliiclite, 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. 
Robinson as editor of the Texts and Studies, and to the 
Syndics of the Cambridge University Press for leave to 
reprint certain pages from my book, The Athanasian Creed 
and its Early Commentaries, on pp. 191 se%., 298-307. 
My thanks are also due to the Eev. Dr. Eobertson, editor 
of this series ; to the Eevs. E. Burn, S. C. Freer, J. A. Kernp- 
thorne, and J. E. Pyle, for help with the MS. or proofs ; and 
in particular to the Eev. W. G. Clark Maxwell, who has read 


the proofs throughout. My Chapter on the Te Deum 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 Eevs. Dr. Gibson and F. E. 

A kindly French critic l 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 quae didicisti ita doce ut cum dicas none non 
dicas noua." 2 

1 Revue Critique, 18th Oct. 1897. 

2 Vincentius, Commomtorium, xxvii. 




I. Of Method ........ 1 

II. Of Faith ........ 3 


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 . . . . .13 

IV. The Acts and Pastoral Epistles . . . . .14 

V. S. John s Epistles . . . . . . .17 

VI. The Baptismal Formula . . . . . .20 

VII. Types of Preaching ....... 25 

VIII. The Apostolic Fathers 26 

IX. Conclusions . . ... . . .31 


I. A Theory of Growth . . . . . .33 

II. The Apologists . . , . . . .35 

III. Witnesses to the Old Roman Creed . . . .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 ....... 70 





* I. Of Theological Creeds ...... 72 

II. Arius and Arianism . . . . . .74 

III. The Council of Nicsea in 325 . . . .76 

IV. " The Fight in the Dark ". . . . .81 
V. The Council of the Dedication (Second and Fourth Creeds of 

Antioch) ........ 83 

VI. Arianism Supreme ....... 91 

VII. Victory in sight ....... 95 

VIII. Conclusion 96 


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 Filioqiie Clause 

VI. Conclusions 



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

III. The Brotherhood of Lerins 

IV. The Internal Evidence of the Quicunquc . 
V. Priscillianism . 

VI. Date and Authorship . . . . 




I. The Sermons of Auitus, Cresarms, and others 
II. The Canons of Toledo and Autun . 

III. The Treves Fragment . . 

IV. Of Eighth and Ninth Century Quotations . 




V. The Early Commentaries ... .162 

VI. Rival Theories of Origin . .172 

VII. The Later History of the Creed . . . 182 

VIII. The Text and a Translation of the Quicunque . . 185 


I. The Old Roman Creed ....... 198 

II. Aquileia ...... .201 

III. Milan .205 

IV. Africa ..... .209 

V. Spain .... .214 

VI. Gaul ... , . 214 


I. Galilean Creeds in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Centuries: 

Salvianus, Faustus, Ccesarius, Cyprian of Toulon, Gregory of 

Tours, Eligius . . . . . .221 

II. Creeds of the British Church : Pelagius, Eangor Antiphonary . 228 

III. Roman and Italian Creeds : Turin, Ravenna, Rome . . 230 

IV. The Origin of the Textus receptus (T) . . . . 233 


I. Bratke s Berne MS. ... . . - . .241 

II. The Sermon Auscultate expositionem . . . % 243 

III. The Creed of Damasus . . . . .244 

IV. The Rhythm of the Te Dcum and the Quicunque . . . 248 
V. The Creed of Niceta of Remesiana ... . 252 


I. MSS. and Quotations . . . . . .257 

II. The Authorship . . . . . . .258 

III. The Sources upon which the Author may have drawn . . 265 

IV. The Text . 272 




I. Of the Early Use of a Baptismal Creed . . . .280 

II. The History of the term Symbolum . .282 

III. Our Use of our Apostles and Niceiie Creeds . . . 286 

I V. Our Use of the Atlianasiau Creed . 2S9 



I. Of Method. 
II. Of Faith. 


IT 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 to come. The third edition of Hahn s BibliotJiek 
der Symbole, 1 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. 



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. 


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 " ? 


Faith, according to a modern definition, is " thought 
illuminated by emotion and concentrated by will." 1 It is 
pre-eminently a personal act, and its proper object is a person. 

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


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. 

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, 

1 1 Cor. iii. 11. 


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." l 

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 Ilamack, Die Chronologic der aUchristlichcn Litteratur bis Euscbius, i. p. viii. 


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." l 

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 Illingwortli, Personality Human and Divine, pp. 196 f. 


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 

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." l 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. 



I. What we look for in the Epistles of the New Testament. 
II. Four admitted Epistles of S. 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 

IX. Conclusion. 


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 (TUTTO? S&axfc, Eom. 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." l 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. 


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." 1 It is the keynote of the sermons of S. Peter 
and S. Paul. When S. 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 

" And thou must love nie 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 Zalin, Das ap. Symbol., 1893, p. 101. 



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 Caesar 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 
Eomans, 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" (Eom. 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," l 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 Ki5/noi/ I-r)<rovi> = avToi> = K.vpioi>=:n\r] 1 (Joel ii. 32). 


1 1 


1 COR. xii. 3. 
A.D. 57, 

II. 3 1 Kvpios 


III. 9 ev 7rvevfj.aTi 

ROM. x. 9. 
A.D. 58. 

1 JOHN iv. 15. 
A.D. 80-90. 

os fuv o/zoAoyr/cr/7 

II. 3 Kvpios Irjo-ovs Koi 

va rjS fV Til O ViOS TOV 0o 6 &OS 

crov on fv avrq> fjLf 

5 6 Q(os avrbv rjyei- fv ro> 
pev f 

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


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 Koine 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. 1 

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 S. Paul the 
thoughts, which are unfolded in the later Apostles Creed, 
of the mystery of Divine life, and of the life which Jesus, 

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


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. 


The Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and Ephesians, 
which were written during S. Paul s imprisonment at Borne, 
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. i. 3, 4, 8). The importance of these 
epistles consists in the development of S. 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. 1518. 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. ii. 511). And it is completed in His 
Gospel of the Ascension, when he writes to the Ephesians 
(i. 2023) 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 


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. 


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 iii., 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 (/ca\r)v opoXoylav) 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. 


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 (o^,oXoy/a) 
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. 1 

It is connected by Justin Martyr with the idea of 
worship (irpoaKiivrja-i^). This is exactly parallel to the use 
of S. Paul in Eom. x. 9, when the prophecy quoted leads on to 
the thought of prayer. In the Martyrium S. Ignatii, which is 
dependent on 1 Tim. vi. 12, f) KdXrj opoXoyia 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). "Eemember 
(fjLvrjfjLoveve) 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 (ii. 2) to faith 
ful men, whom he is to put in remembrance (uTro/Lu /u^o-ffe) 
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 S. Paul from the beginning of 
his first missionary journey. It included faith in God, who 

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


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

A.D. 67. A.D. 68. A.D. 68. 


I. 1. rou Qeov TOV o>o- 

TroiovvTosTairdvTO. Mvrj/JLOvevf 
II. 2. KCU Xptorov Irjcrov lr)o~ovv Xpioroy xai Xpiorou 

Xarov TTJV Ka\r)v 
o^ioXoytctv . . . 5. cynycpLLCvov CK vKp5)v 

7. p.%pl TTJS CTTt- e/ O~TTpU.Q.TOS AflUf 5. 

(pavfias TOV Kvpt ou 

8. rov /ieXXovros tcpivfiv 
a>vTa$ Kal v<povs, 

KOL TTjV 7Tl(pdviaV 

avTov <al TTJV /SaortX- 
eiat avrov. 

1 Cf. vi. 3 : E2f TIS erepoSi5a<r/caXer, /cai /U.TJ 7rpocr^px eTai vyiaii>ov<ri \6yois roty 
rou Kvp^oi; 7/ y acDi I^a-oO X/)i<rrou. 


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. 1 

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 (iii. 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. 2 

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


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 Irenseus in this 
form. 3 Apparently it represents the form of Baptismal Con 
fession in the Church of Asia Minor, whence Irenseus 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 Zalin, op. ciL, p. 40, begging to be excused for the anachronism, calls the 
former passage traditio, the latter rcdditio, of the faith. Undeniably we see 
here the germ of the later practice, but we must guard against including in S. 
Paul s Creed all that he desired to teach by way of explanation. 

2 Hatissleiter, Zur Vorgeschichtc des ap. Glaubensbeke?mtnisses, p. 35, n. 65. 
8 Iren. iii. 12. 8 (p. 485, ed. Stieren) : "Credo Filium Dei esse Jesum." The 

Cod. Laudianus (scec. vii. ) has " Credo in Christum, Filium Dei " = irtorerfw eis rbv 
Xpiarop rbv vibv rov Geou, a catena of the twelfth century : Trio-rei/w rbv vlbv rbv 
GeoO elvcu Ii?i<rovi> X/HOTOJ/. 



(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 1 points out that in the first of these 
quotations the expression 09 av ojAoXoyijarj is to be dis 
tinguished from the much more common expression 09 o^oXo^yet 
(cf. 1 John iv. 2). The aorist tense points to a single definite 
act, to the confession from which the divine indwelling is 

In the second case the context shows the drift of thought. 
Jesus has been proved to be the Christ historically by (Sm) 
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 (rf vi/crjo-ao-a) the world, even our faith. Who 
is he that overcometh (VIKWV) the world, but he that be 
lieveth that Jesus is the Son of God ? " The aorist again 
points to the single moment of baptism. 2 

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. 1 4). The other passages in which the author 
speaks of a confession (6/10X07^) 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 3 should quote these 
verses to illustrate the use of opoXoyla 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 

1 P. 20. 2 Of. Westcott, Epistles of S. John, ad loc. 

3 ii. p. 343, n. 12 


1 JOHN iv. 15. 1 JOHN v. 5. HEB. iv. 14. 

6s fav 6p,o\oyr}0~r) OTI TLS earnv [Se] 6 VIKWV E^ovrfS ovv 

lr)o~ovs [Xp/oroy] eVnv rov Kocr/iov, et p.r] 6 TTKT- ^teyar, SteX^Xu^ora TOVS 

6 vibs TOV 9eoO, 6 Qeos revcov on lr)(rovs e oriv oiipavovs, irjcrovv TOV 

fv aura) jnevetj KCU avros 6 vlos TOV Qeov ; viov TOV 0eov, 

ev rw 0f&. r 


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 BAPTISMAL FORMULA (S. 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 ii. 38, viii. 16, 
x. 48, xix. 5 ; Rom. vi. 3 ; Gal. iii. 27. Further, they maintain 
that this more primitive formula lasted on till the days of 
Cyprian (Ep. 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 S. Ambrose to Thomas Aquinas, have 
maintained that the two formulae were equally orthodox. 
Irenteus himself has said : " In Christi enim nomine subauditur 
qui unxit et ipse qui unctus est et ipsa unctio in qua unctus 
est." 1 And Ambrose 2 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 S. 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 3 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. hares, iii. 18. 3 (p. 519. ed. Stieren). 2 De Spit. Sco. i. 4. 43. 
8 Haussleiter, op. cit. 


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 Eoman Creed itself, which, as we shall see, may be 
dated with some confidence from the year A.D. 100. 

The Didachd 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 c. 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 c. 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 

There are two prepositions used. " In " (eV) 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 ii. 38 and x. 48. 
" Into " (els:) denotes purpose, the desire to bring the 
baptized within the range of that power. The disciples of 
John, whom S. Paul met at Ephesus (Acts xix. 3), told him 
that they had been baptized "into (etY) the baptism of 
John." This does not mean that John used the formula, 


" I 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 S. 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 (i.e. the Trinitarian 
formula ?). 

The other passages generally quoted in this connexion 
refer obviously to the benefit of baptism, the death unto sin 
in Eom. 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, Irenseus, 
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. 1 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 (Ep. 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 Lectures, p. 337. 


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." 1 

There is an important document to be read with Cyprian s 
letter, the anonymous tract " On Kebaptism," 2 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 
Kome, in the " one harped-on quotation," which we find in 
the letter of Cyprian to Jubaianus (Ep. 73), and in the letter 
of Firmilian (Ep. 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 
(Ep. 75. 11) that Stephen would require the Symlolum 
Trinitatis, 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 

1 P. 405. 

2 Printed by Routh, Eel. Sacr. v. 291. The only MS. known, formerly at 
Hheims, lias now disappeared. I spent some time looking 1 or it in May 1897. 


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." I 

Who, then, were the heretics whom the author of the 
tract " On Kebaptism," 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 (Ep. 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 Eoman 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 

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. 


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, ^airTi^o^ai et9 TO ovo^a 
TOV Kvplov. 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 Irenreus. 


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 (b) in the form of a chronicle 
with short proofs (1 Cor. xv.). (c) 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 Kara crap/co, Kara irvevpa (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 (eVe/xwr^/ia) of a good conscience toward God through 
the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is on the right hand of 
God, having gone into heaven." (e) Another setting is 
1 Hahn, 8 p. 364 ; and PRE 3 3 Art. " ap. Symbolum." 


moulded on the thoughts of the First and the Second Coming 
(2 Tim. iv. 1), when the apostle charges Timothy thus : 
" I 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 Ka-rapds dvafids : " Now this, He ascended, 
what is it but that He also descended (first ?) 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 

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. 1 These might serve as titles for a Christian 
apology, but not for a creed. 


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 (&meixcta\ 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. 


which was poured out upon us?"(l Cor. xlvi. 6). "As 
God lives, and the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy 
Spirit, the faith and hope of the elect " (ib. Iviii. 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 ? " l 

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. 1 8 : " 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 Smyrngeans, c. 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 
1 Swete, The Apostles Creed, pp. 31 f. 


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 

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. 1 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." 2 

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 EpJi. 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. 

3 Apost. Fat?t*rs, n. ii. 137 n. 




c. xviii. 

6 yap Qebs r)p,(0v 

lr)0~OVS 6 XplO-TOS fKVO- 

(popfjdrj VTTO Mapia? Kar* 
, K 0-Trepp.aTOS 

be dytov* os eyevvr]0rj 
e(3a7TTio~0r) tva r<3 rr 
TO v8(op Kadapto-r], 

c. ix. 

ovv, orav 

XaX?; TIS, rov K yevovs 
Aavet S, TOU c< Mapias, 
os d\r]6>s cyfvvrjdij, 
(payfv re KOL eVtei>, 

ttovriov IIiXczrou,dX^^&J$ 

pavfov Kci f-myfav KOI 
, os KOL d\r)- 
OTTO veKpwv, 
fycipavros avruv TOV 
Trarpos" avrov, Kara TO 
6p.oi(op,a os K.OL rjp.ds rovs 
TT icrrfvovras avTa) OVTCOS 
fytpei 6 TraTrjp avrov cv 
Xpicrrw l^crov, ov %<opls 
TO dXrjQivbv r)V OVK 


c. i. 

fV 0770x1 yap vp,ds KOT- 


pevovs fv T<5 oraupw TOV 
Kvpiov Irjo-ov Xpt(rroi), 
o-apKi re *ai 7rj/eu/*art, 
KOI r)dpao-p.evovs fv 
dyaTTrj fv rw at/xari 

XplOTOl), 7TCTr\T]pO(pOp7]- 

p.fvovs els TOV Kvpiov 
f)p.<Sv d\T)65>s OVTO. ex 
yevovs AaveiS Kara 
toy 0ov Kara 

TrapQevov, j 
pevov VTTO iwaj/i/ov ti/a 
nAH pcoStf HA CA 

avroO, aXr/^ais eVi IIoj/- 
riou IltXarou Kat f Hpa>5ou 
rerpap^ov KadrjXcofjievov 
VTrep f)p.)v ev o"apKi* a<p 
ou Kapnov rj/j-fls OTTO 
roO dfop.aKapl.o~Tov avTov 
rrdBovs ?va ^Rhl cyc- 
C H M N els TOVS alwvas 
dia TTJS dvaa-Tao-ecos els 
avrov, eire eV lovSaiW 
e lTe ev e6veo~iv, ev evl 
o-cop-art TIJS eKK\r)o-ias 


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 Eome and celebrated 
the Holy Communion for Bishop Anicetus. At that time 
Irenoeus, 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 c. 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. 24. 

Polycarp s death in A.D. 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 Didache, 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 1 and Zahn 2 A.D. 80-130. It seems to be a 
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 S. Ignatius, i. 739. 2 Forscliungen, iii. 278. 


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


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 : 


I. niOTfuo) els (Trpbs) Qebv (jrarepa) 
II. Kai els TOV vibv 6fov irjvovv 


0-dpK.a CK ycvovs (a-ir f pharos) 
Aa/3t S, KOT olK.ovofj.iav (or 
6\rjp,a or dvvafiiv) Qeov ycvvrj- 
Qivra (or yyvvr)p.evov} e< 
(UTTO) Mapias TTJS irapOtvov, 
evov VTTO ladvvov, 
ri TiovTiov TliKaTov 
(jraQovTa) o-ravpadevTa KOI 
airoOavovTa "O$ aXrjdas rjyfpdrj 
OTTO vfKpaiv, di/e/3?/ (ave\T}(f)6r]) 
fls ovpavovs, K.d6io (v ev 8fia. 
TOV Qeov, os epxerai Kplvai (or 
KptTrjs) wvTas KOI 


I. IIiOTev&) fls va Qfbv iravTQ- 

II. Kai (or TTta-reva)) fls fva vlbv Qsov 

Ir]O~OVV XptOTOI , KVplOV TjfJLtoV, 

yvvr)Tov CK (or Sta) TrapOtvov 
Kai Qeov (or aylov Tri/ev/iaros 1 ) 

, K.r.X. 

1 Baumer, p. 156. 



III. Kai (TTIOTCVOJ) els TO (or li/) III. 
ayiov, dyiav fKK\rj(riav 
Tjv) a.(pf(riv Q^vrpaxnv} 
(rapKos ava<TTaariv 
(0)17 1/ al<a 

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." l 

IIio-Tevci) et? (eva) Seov TravTOKpdropa, /cal el? XpLcrrov 
Iqcrovv, TOV vlov CLVTOV, TOV Kvptov r)fjiwv, TOV fyevvrjOevTa &a 
(etc) TrapOevov, TOV eVt HOVTLOV Tlikdrov TraOovra (a-ravpcoOevTa) 
/cal avacndvra (etc vKpa)v), KaO^evov eV $et;t,a TOV @eov, oOev 
(ev &6%rj) ep%eTcu icplvca fw^ra? teal ve/cpov?, /cal els TO 
irvevpa ayiov [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 

1 Halm, 3 p. 390. 



I. A Theory of Growth. 
II. The Apologists : 

1. Justin Martyr. 

2. Aristides. 

3. Irenceus. 

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. 


THUS 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 


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 a 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 Irenseus. 

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 


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. 


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 
Eome, where he suffered martyrdom (c. 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 ; (8) 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. i. 6 1 ) : "As 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- 


shipped {Dial. 38) : elra av6 pwov yev6fj,evov, aTavpoydtjvat, teal 
ava/3e/3r)Kevai, et? TOV ovpavov, teal iraKiv TrapaylvecrOat, eVt r?;? 
7?}?, teal Trpoo-fcvvrjTbv elvai. 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) : teal aTroKpiveTai avrots TO TireO/^a TO 
ciyiov f) CITTO 7rpo(7(t)7rov TOV Trarpo? r] CLTTO TOV ISiov. 


(a) Expansions of the Baptismal Formula 
Apol i. 61. ib. ad fin. 

"Oaoi av TTfio-OSxri /cat rrrcvMrti 

0X77 Or) TO.VTO. rd v(p f)p.S>v 8ida(rK.6fj.ei>a. 
Kai \fy6fj,va eivai, KOL fttovv OVTCCS 
ftvvacrOai inricr^vSjvrai) fv^(rdai re 
K.OI aiTftv vqcrrevovrfs Trapa TOV 0cov 


ETT* ovopaTOS yap TOV HaTpus TO>V To TOV Ilarpof TWV o 

o\a>v Kai Ae(r7roTOf 0eov, *cat roO /cat AfO"7rdrou Qeov oi/o/za. . . . Kai 

2&>r/7pos f)p.u>v Ir)o~ov XpicrTov, KOL eV ovojuaroy de I^o-ov XpiaTov TOV 

TlvfvfjiaTos dyiou, TO ev rw ySart Tore oraupco^eVro? eVi HOVTIOV IltXdrot , 

\ovTpbv TTOIOVVTCH. /cai eV ovd/xaro? ni/ei /Ltaroff dytov . . . 

6 ((OTluJiVOS \OVfTdl. 

Justin s Christological teaching is found in some five 
different references to (a) general teaching on the Incarna 
tion, (&) the fulfilment of prophecy, (c) (d) the history of the 
Lord Jesus, (e) a prayer of exorcism, (/) an Old Testament 
type. These passages show marked variations from the text 
of E. The order " Jesus Christ " might be explained as the 
accidental alteration of a copyist, were it not for the fact that 
in (b) 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. 1 This had been an element in the 

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



p- b 

e a e 


o 3 ^S 

S O "3 

* ^ 



O > H 

^ ^f. ^ 






TrdvTav K.O.] 

TOV QfOV /3o 

w s* ^t> 
p cr- b 

O ^i v ^ 

^d 5 ^ 


i 1 !; 

b A a a 

<*o ,^ o 



2 t 



b "0 


<3 Q. 3 


V O 


^ ^ 

^g: X 






5& ^ 





d -5 
"t ^ 
P .5- fe ^ -^ 3 


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 I Cor. xv. 4, writing against the error of 
Praxeas. But it is never found in E. 

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 (e) is a formula of exorcism, and that Irenanis at 
the end of the century spoke of the power of " the name of 
Jesus Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate" in a similar 
connection. 1 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 6/j,o\oyla and 6/jLo\oye2v is varied. In the first 
Apology they are naturally referred to confession before a 
ruler. In Died. 64, the Jew Trypho is represented as con 
necting the thought with prayer to Christ : ov Se6/j,e6a TT}? 
ofjbo\o<yias avrov ovSe T?}? Trpoo-rcvvrja-ecos. 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) : 6fjio\oyovvTa$ 
eat/rov? elvai XpiGTiavovs Kal TOV o-TavpwOevra *Ir)aovv 
6/jLo\oyelv Kal Kvpiov KOI Xpiorrov. Again, he writes of 
guarding such a confession (Dial. 47) : f^era rov $v\dacreiv Trjv 
els TOV XpiaTov TOV @eov 6/jLo\oyiav. In the second Apology 
the word is used in the sense of teaching. 2 Apparently he 
laid stress on the act of confessing, rather than any special 
elaboration of the form. 

By an elaborate argument, Kattenbusch 3 seeks to prove 
Justin s acquaintance with K. Since he had taught in Rome, 
this is quite possible, and even probable, if Pi was composed 
c. 100. The most interesting coincidences of language are: 

1 We find traces of such a form in Egypt in the third century. Palladius. 
Hist. LoMsiaca, c. 29. Cf. Kattenbusch, ii. p. 291 n. 

2 Kattenbusch, ii. p. 289 n. 3 Ib. 279-293. 


(i.) Justin s use of o-TavpwOfjvai, (Dial. 51, 76, 100) in his 
quotation of Matt. xvi. 21 = Mark viii. 31 = Luke ix. 22, in 
place of the word a7roKrav6r)vai, of our Textus receptus. This 
is followed by rfj Tpirrj rj^epa dvao-Trjvai, where Mark 
(Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort) has KCU pera rpels rjfjiepas 
avaaTYjvat, ; Matthew, Luke, /cal rfj rpirr) rj^epa eyepBrfvai (some 
MSS. of Luke, avcurrrjvai). 

(ii.) He speaks confidently of the resurrection of the flesh 
(Dial. 80): 6700 e /cal el Tide s zlcriv opOoyv (droves Kara irdvra 
Xpiarnavol, /cal crap/cos dvdaraGiv <yevtjcrea6ai, eVtcrTa/^e^a. 
We may give such coincidences their full value, and yet remain 
unconvinced that the creed was then used in Ephesus. 1 

In any case, the testimony of Justin is valuable for the 
interpretation of the language of E. 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 E, 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 E. 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. 2 The Church as yet thought vaguely 3 about 
Christ s pre-existent life, but the main point is the fact that 
it was believed. 

The elaborate inquiry contributed to the Zeitschrift fur 
KircliengescJiiclite^ by Bornemann offers an interesting summary 
of his teaching, formed by extracting all the creed-phrases 
which are most frequently used. 

et? (eVl) TO v nrarepa, TWJ> 6\(ov KOI 

1 On the other hand, the only test of an Eastern type besides the words 
" Jesus Christ" and "dead," mentioned above, is the word ird\iv with refer 
ence to the Return. Apart from fj-era dbfys this cannot be said to be conclusive. 

2 Dial. 88. 

3 Cf. Ps. Clem., 2 Cor. 9: Xptords 6 Ki ptos . . . Giv /utV TO irp&rov 
yvTO crapi;. 

4 III. 1S79. 


&eov Kal et9 (errl) rov Kvpiov rj^wv ^lyvovv Xpicrrbv, TOV 
TOTOKOV avTov vlbv, TOV (/caTo, Trjv TOV TTaTpbs /3ov\rjv) Bia 
TrapOevov yevvrjOevTa /cal iraO^rbv <yevo/jL6vov dvOpwrrov Kal 
crTavpcoOevTa errl IIovTiov IIiXaTOV Kal diroOavovTa Kal dvaar- 
TavTa K veKpwv Kal dva/3dvTa et9 TOV ovpavbv Kal /i-era 80^779 
TCcCkiv rrrapayevrjao/jLevov (KpiTijv TrdvTWV dvOpwTrwv). Kal et? 
(evrl) TO ciytov irpo^TiKov TTvevfjia. 

This arithmetical method is too mechanical. It puts 
before us an artificial form which was certainly never used 
either in Ephesus or Eome. 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 Aris tides, 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 188 9, Professor Eendel 
Harris found a fragment of the Syriac text in the library of 
the monastery of S. Catherine at Sinai. This enabled Pro 
fessor Kobinson 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. 



oi Se xpi"riavo\ ye The CJiristians then But the Christians are 
yvea\oyovvrai dirb reckon the beginning of race-reckoned from the 
TOV Kvpiov If/o-ov their religion from Jesus Lord Jesus Christ. He 

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


GREEK contd. 
XpicrroC. OVTOS 8t ovios 


6/xoXoyeIrcu ev irvtv- 
fiaTiAyia an* ovpavov 
Kara/3at Sta TTJV O-OITTJ- 
piav T&V dvOponrcov 
KGU en Trapdevov ay LO.S 

/cat d(pQ6pa>s, (rap A: a 
dve\a(3f, KOI dvf- 
(pdvrj dv pu>7TOis. 

SYRIAC 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. 


ARMENIAN contd. 
is 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 
flesh from the virgin, 
and having been mani 
fested by the nature 
of this humanity [as] 
the Son of God. 

Ireniieus was a native of Asia Minor. In his youth he 
had been a pupil of Poly carp, and of others who had been 
disciples of S. John. While he was still a young man he 
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.I). 177 to their 
brethren in Asia. Before this Irenseus had been sent on an 
important mission to Eome, and had lectured against heresies. 
On his return he was chosen as bishop. 

c. Hcer. i. 10. 

fj p.ev ydp rxtcXiprla 
. . . TrapdXafiovo-a 
fr]v eis fva 0eoi/ Trare- 
pa TravTOKpdropa^Tov 


/cat TTJV yr/v nai TUS 
6a\d(T(ras KOI irdvra ra 
fv avroiy, rrt crrti/. KCU 
els eva Xpifrrbv 
TOV vibv TOV 

ib. ii. 4. 

in unum 

Deum cre- 

per Christum 
Dei F ilium 


ib. ii. 16. 

Non ergo alterum 
Filium hominis nouit. 
cuangelium nisi hunc, 
cjui ex Maria, 


c. HCKT. i. 10 contd. 
Geov, rbv crapKwdev- 

Td V7Tp T1S 

epas crcjTrjpids 
els Trvfvfjid ayiov, 

. . . Kdl TT)V fK TTdp- 

Bivov yevvqcriv, Kdl 
TO 7rd6o$, Kdl Tr)V 
eycpcrtv fK vtKpwv 
Kcil TTJV evcra.pK.ov 


uvaKrj^fiv TOV 
jueVov XptoroO 


Kttl TT)V K rS)V OVp- 

av)V fv rrj $orj 
TOV TrciTpbs Trapov- 
o~iav avTov eVl ro 
iiva.Ke(pa\ai<oo-ao-6ai TCI 
rravTa *cat av acrTrjcrai 
Tracrav crapua 

Kpicriv diKaiav eV 

Tos e 

a>f)v xapicrdfjievos dcf>- 

Oapcriav dcaprjcreTdi . . . 

ib. ii. 4 contd. 

ex uirgine generation- 
em sustinuit et passus 
sub Pontio Pilato et 
resurgens et in claritate 

b. ii. 16 contd. 

in gloria uenturus 

index eorum qui iudi- 

qui et passus est ; sed 
luinc qui natus est 
Tesum Christum nouit 
Dei Filium et eundem 
hunc passum resur- 
rexisse. . . . 
Ipse est lesus Christus 
Dominus noster qui et 
passus est pro nobis et 
surrexit propter nos et 
rursus uenturus est in 
gloria Patris 

cp. i. 1. 6. 
ety ci ti Qfor 


iv. 43. 1. 
eva Qebv TTdVTOKpd- 

. . . Kdl fiS TOV 

viov TOV Qfov Irjcrovv 
XpiaTov (Lat. Christum 
lesum) TOV nvpiov 

cp. ii. 49. 3. 

Where the context 
suggests reference to 
a form of solemn 

tv uvop,dTi Iijcrov XpLcr- 


l HOVTIOV IltXnrov. 

ap. Euseb. H.E. 
v. 20. 2. 


cp. iii. 17. 3. 

sedentem ad dexteram 

iv. 37. 2. 

Christum lesum, qui 
sub Pontio Pilato 
crucifixus est et passus 


The testimony of Irenseus is the more valuable because, 
as we have seen, it was not moulded by one strain of Christian 
influence only. The Eule 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 
Irenseus is the earliest witness for the Eunuch s Creed in Acts 
ix., there is some ground here for the hypothesis that the only 
6fjLo\oyia 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 Eule 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 Eoman 
Creed. At the same time, there are many phrases which 
seem to point to acquaintance with the latter, e.g. the exact 
wording, " One God the Father Almighty," the order of the 
names "Christ Jesus," e.g. iv. 37.2: "Christum Jesum qui 
sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus est," and the use of " ex " with 
" Maria uirgine," as in E. 

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 Eoman type, under 
the influence, no doubt, of the teaching of the apologists. 

Irenseus 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." 1 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/ 7 2 

1 Harnack, D.G.* i. p. 186. 

2 Ib. p. 191. For the other view, see Seeberg, D.G. p. 62. 


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 Irenseus to the Scriptures 
as the ultimate rule of faith, the touchstone of the teaching 
of the living Church. 

With Irenaaus 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. Irenaeus 
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 
Eoman 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. 



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 Eoman 
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 Irenseus 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 Eoman Creed is quoted in full by two writers 
of the fourth century, Marcellus and Kufinus. 

1. Marcellus and Rufinus 

Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra, in Galatia, having been 
exiled from his diocese through Arian intriguers, spent the 
greater part of the years A.D. 340, 341 in Eome. 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 (Hcer. 
Ixxii.), did not contain the Creed of Ancyra, but the Creed of 
the Church in Eome, 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, 





ets Ofov 
pa TravTOKpdropa, 



^o "S> 











git veritatis ut 
n Deum 
it Dominum 

potentem ; 
,m in Filium 
istum Jesum 

Deum nostrum, 

& -1 

us a niortuis, 








. . ueritatis 

tioneni . . . 
tra producat. 



Regula exi 
Credamus i 
Patrem < 

o ^ 


PR ^ 











2 , 


b 02 



ad resurrec 
corpora noe 


-o o 

<P => 

2 g 





v o. 

^ V 3 





:d C 

X o 
^ ^ 


o G 






~ *1 


g <^ ^2 

"- A 





^" ^ 

L ^" 







si .i 6 
4 *5 

~ o 


^ fc 





in VU 




,* i r " 


^ rS 

It .3 

>-> Si 



It l 

^ X 








>f (^ 

S o 
* a 



4 5 ^ 

I ps 


"O * P 


" 8 







Credo in Deum Patrem 
omnipotentem ; 

Et in Christum Jesum, 
unicum Filium eius, 

Dominum nostrum, 

Qui natus est de Spiritu 
Sancto ex Maria virgine, 
crucifixus sub Pontio 

Pilato et sepultus ; 
tertia die resurrexit a 

ascendit in ccclos 
sedet ad dexteram Patris: 









care uiuos et mortuos. 
Et in Spiritum Sanctum, 

sanctam ecclesiam, 

carnis resurrectionem. 




CO Tf 


co r- 





<-< (M 

i 1 rH 


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

Sixty years later (A.D. 400), Eufinus, a priest of Aquileia, 
wrote a commentary on the creed of his native city, and to 
our advantage compared with it the Old Koman Creed. He 
was a man who had travelled much, and had lived for some 
time in or near Jerusalem, besides visiting Alexandria and 
Eome. 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. 

Eufinus believed that the Old Eoman 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 Eome 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 
Eufinus ? Probably the former. S. Paul wrote to his 
Eoman converts in Greek, and there is abundant evidence to 
prove that the early Church in Eome 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, natum, 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 Eoman Creed with its derivative African and Italian 

2. Novatian, Dionysiiis, and Cyprian 

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

1 Caspar!, iii. 105 f, 


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. 1 
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, 

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 2 quotes an extract in his " Defence of the 
Nicene Definition." 

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

Ep. 69: " Credis in remissionem peccatorum et uitam 
seternam per sanctam ecclesiam ? " 

Ep. 70: "Credis in uitam eeternam et remissionem 
peccatorum per sanctam ecclesiam ? " 

3. Tertullian 

In the writings of Tertullian 3 we find a bridge which 
spans the gulf between the formal quotations of K in the 
fourth century and the parallels in the writings of Irenseus 
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 Caspar!, iii. 462 n. 3 Ath. de Decrees, 26. 

3 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. 


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 Eome 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 Eome (de Prcescr. 36): "Si autem Italise 
adiaces, habes Eomam, unde nobis quoque auctoritas preesto 
est. Quam felix ecclesia cui totam doctrinam apostoli cum 
sanguine suo profuderunt, ubi Petrus passioni dominicse 
adsequatur, ubi Paulus loannis exitu coronatur, ubi apostolus 
loannes, posteaquam in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus 
est, in insulam relegatur. Videamus, quid didicerit, quid 
docuerit, quid cum Africanis quoque ecclesiis contesserauit. 
Unum Deum nouit creatorem uniuersitatis et Christum lesum 
ex uirgine Maria Filium Dei creatoris et carnis resurrection em." 

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

His use of words for the creed is very varied. " Eule 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 Prcescr. 12): "Quod salua regula fidei potest in quaes- 
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 (ib. 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 militiarn Dei uiui iam 
tune, cum in sacramenti uerba respondemus." 


Adv. Praxean, c. 2. 

unicum Deum credimus . 

Filium Dei . . . lesum Ch 





passum hunc mortuum 
sepultum . . . 

et resuscitatum . . . 

et in ccelo resumptum 



Quid ecclesia (Romana) . . . 
cum Africanis quoque eccle- 
siis contesserauit : 

unuin Deum nouit, creatorem 














cr 1 






L mimdi con- 

tu Patris Dei 

Lnem Mariam 
a (I.C.), 














Regula est fid( 

creditur unu] 





ditorem, qui l 

Filium eius . 

delatum ex Sp 

et uirtute in ui 
. . . ex ea nat 




























i i 








^~* . 


















, credendi : 





, et Filium 

natum ex 


Pilato ; 

tertia die r 
a mortuis, 



W 5 








































1 o 


























-3 3 S 



j3 S 


2 + 


> ~ t 



g rt S S ^ 


^ ^ S a 



s -g a^ ^ 


ri M 

.55 s 43 J d 




f 1 

1 flsj j 




1 r l : 1 - 

S o. . 5* II .j 







1 1 


fl rt 





1 1 

s s 


i i 

fj V) 

e3 O 

i ^ 





DC Sped. 4 : " Cum aquam ingress! christianam fidem in 
legis sure uerba profitemur, renuntiasse nos diabolo et 
pompse et angelis eius ore nostro con testamur." 

De Cor. Mil. 3 : " Dehinc ter mergitamur, amplius aliquid 
rcspondentes 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 baptism! uesti- 
mentum quodam modo fidei, quae retro erat nuda, nee 
potentiam habuit sine sua lege. Lex enim tinguendi 
imposita est, et forma prcescripta. Ite, inquit, docete 
nationes, tinguentes eas in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus 
Sancti. " 

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, thai 
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. Marc. 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 symlolo 
susceperis apostolum Paulum, quis ilium tituli charactere 
percusserit, quis transmiserit tibi, quis irnposuerit, 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 


word symbolum was " an agreement." A passage in Harpo- 
crates (vid. Tape s Lexicon) proves that the Greek word in 
the plural (ra a-v^/3o\a) 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 
Irenseus, who regarded Holy Scripture as the rule of faitli 
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 Boman 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 Eoman Creed. Irenseus seems to 
imply this when lie writes that Valentinus imitated " nostrum 
tractatum" (iii. 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. Marc. i. 20): 
" Marcionem non tarn innouasse regulam separatione legis et 
euangelii, quam retro adulteratam recurasse ; . . . (ib. 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 


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 unum and patrcm in the first article ? 

(i.) 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 Boman Creed, but they offer the 
obvious explanation of the clause in the later African Creed : l 
universorum 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, n. 3. 


In the second passage the phrase delatum ex Spiritu 
Patris Dei 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 Bapt. 6) : " Cum autem sub tribus et testatio 
fidei et sponsio salutis pignerentur, necessario adicitur ecclesise 
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 prseteritur, siquidem in Filio et Patre 
mater recognoscitur, de qua constat et Patris et Filii nomen." 
The combination " Patrem Deum " looks like a reminiscence. 1 

(iii.) 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. i.) 
combined with S. John i. If., 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 S. 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 

1 I cnve these references to Harnack s article, Zeit. fur Theol. u. Kirche, 
1894, pp. 155 f. 


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 Hennas, 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. 

Zahri 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 Eoman Creed. But when we compare his 
text with that of Marcellus, it seems as if resuscitatum would 
answer to eyepOevra rather than to avaa-Tavra, receptum to 
ava\j]$6evTa rather than to avaftavTa. 1 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 Eoman 
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. Of. Kattenbusch, i. p. 144, 


the first half of the second century, since Marcion s breach 
with the Roman Church took place c. A. P. 145. 

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, 
* eirayyeXX-eadaL, 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.D. 145." 1 


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. 32 f. 


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 
Borne 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 Irensens, 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." 1 
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 witli 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, Athanasii s, p. xxiv. 


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 Eome early in the 
century. Tertullian says of him : " unicum Dominum uindicat, 
omnipotentem mimdi 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 Eome. 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 
Eome were strongly influenced by the former of these trains 
of thought. Zephyrinus is reported to have used the formula : 
" I 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 (TrpoarcoTra) of the one God. Tertullian s statements 
are confirmed by Hippolytus, a learned Eoman theologian, 
who probably became a rival bishop to Callistus. 


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 Eoman 
Creed to counteract Monarchian teaching. He quotes a 
passage from Eusebius l in which heretics are said to have 
accused the Eoman Church of recoining (Trapa^apaTrecv) 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. 2 

Harnack in reply 3 suggests that the change complained 
of was only the addition to the rule of some words like 
06ov or \6yov rov Seov 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. 4 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 omnipotent. Yet no one 
would argue that these words ever found a place in the 
Old Eoman Creed. We should therefore conclude that the 
accusation which was brought by the dynamic Monarchianfl 
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 (c. Noet. 8), " Son of God 
and God," seemed to them a forsaking of the old tradition, 
the thought (<^povr]^a} of the earliest times. And the error 
was made worse by the still more precise form of Novatian s 
teaching in his " Eule of Faith " (c. 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 eva 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 H.E. v. 28. 3, 13. 2 76. v. 28. 19. 

*ZeU.fiir Theol. u. Kirclie, iv. 2. 135 f. 4 Ib. p, 137. 


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. Harnack himself suggests l that the 
minority may have proposed to strike out eva, 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 irdrepa, 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 Irenreus it is unmistakably included. 

Zahn raises the objection that if Trdrepa 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 E. (c. Noet. 8): 6fj,o\oy6iv Trarepa Qeov TravroKpa- 
ropa Kal Xpi&Tov I?]<rovv vlbv Seov Seov civOpcoTrov <yev6jut,evov. 

A far more important point is raised by Zahii 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 Irenaeus, desiring to state the doctrine of God the 
Creator (and the Logos) by itself, e.g. iv. 20. 2, combines the 
phrase of Hermas (Aland. 1) with S. John i. 1 f. 

1 P. 137, n. 1. 


Similar dependence on Hernias is said to be found in 
Tertullian, de Prcescr. 13 (see p. 51, supra), but is very uncer 
tain. Irenseus, however, often quotes iraT^p with eo? (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 Eoman 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): 6 Xpiarbs Kara rrjv rov TravroKparopos Trarpbs 
Svva/jLiv &o6ei(7av avTat irapeyeveTo. 

There is yet another question to be raised about the 
earliest form of the Old Eoman Creed. Did it contain 
fjiovoyevfj (unicum) ? There is no positive proof on either 
side. There is no trace of it in the Eules of Faith in 
Irenaeus, Tertullian, or Novatian. It is wanting in some 
later African Creeds (Ps. Aug. Serin. 238; Ps. Ambrose), as 
in the Creeds of Mceta 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 
Eoman 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 " 
rov vlov avrov [TOI>] fjLovo^evi} Kvpiov r]^v. In this case 


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. At a 
later period the phrase was connected with the teaching of 
S. John, and the article was added before Kvpiov. 

This theory has the support of three texts of R in 
which unicum 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 Textus 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 Mono- 
genes for the Aeon Nous. " The Catholic writers," says 
Swete, 1 " began, although slowly, to reclaim it ; Justin uses it 
sparingly ; it occurs once in the Smyrnean circular on the 
martyrdom of Polycarp ; in Irenseus 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 Irenseus, 
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 eva, irdrepa, and povoyevr) 
were found in the original text of the Old Roman Creed, and 
that eva was dropped out during the controversy with the 
modalist Mouarchians. This conclusion is supported by the 
evidence of an inscription on a tombstone 2 which is supposed 
to belong to the second or beginning of the third century 

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


" 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, c. 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. 


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 Irenasus 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 Hernias, and of Clement s first Epistle. Caspari, 1 indeed, 
quotes the oath found in that epistle (c. 58. 2): 77 <yap 6 
0eo9 KOI # o /cvpios Irjaovs X/HCTTO? teal TO Trvev^a TO a<yiov 
?; re 7r/<rTt9 real r) e XTrl? rwv eic\KTc0v, where the words 
*; irlo-Tis stand in apposition to the preceding sentence. He 
compares with it Jerome against John of Jerusalem (c. 28): 
" in symbolo fidei et spei nostra3 . . . 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 Glaule OAI die, Trinitiit Gottes, sein Vorliandensein im ersten christl. 
Jakrhundert, 1894. 


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. 1 

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, 2 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. 2 6 : KOI avaarrjae^ rrjv o-dp/ca JJLOV ravrrjv, where the 
MSS. of the LXX. give TO Sep/ia or TO o-w/za. 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 Eoman 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 c. A.D. 120 at 

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



Eome and Ephesus by the addition l 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 S. 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 S. 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 Eome. 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 Eome, 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. 


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. 



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. 


Ci RiL, Cat. xix. 

fls . . . rrarepa 

I. 1. 

II. 2. Km els 

Tui> vlbv 

il. vi.-xviii. 

I. 1. Hio~Tevop.fv fls eva Qebv 
Trarepa rravTOKpaTopa, iroirjTqv 
ovpavov Km yrjs opciTtov re 
7rai>ra>j Km dopaTotv 
II. 2. Kat fls eva nvptov Irjo-ovv 
TOV vibv TOV Qeov TOV 
TOV ex TOU iraTpbs 
a Qebv d\T]6ivoi> 
Trpb irdvTQ>v T&v 
ov TO. TrdvTa eyfvfT 
3. (rapKadfVTa Kai 

4. aTavpa>dfi>Ta KCU TcKpevTa 

5. avacTTuvTa Tr} rpir// r)p.(pa 

6. KOI dv\66vTa ds TOVS 

7. Km KaOifravTo. f< $(ia)v TOV 

8. KOI 

III. 9. Km els TO 

TO fiyiov 

11. KCU els (v /3a7rrt<T/xa 
els a(pc(nv n/xaprtcof 

ev orj Kpvai 
KOL vfKpovs ov TTJS 
ftao~i\fias OVK e crrm reXoy. 
III. 9. Kai els tv ayiov irvcvpa TOI> 

7TClpdK\J]TOV TO \a\TJ(Tai> ei> 

Tols irpoCpfjTais 
11. Km els ev /SaTrrtoyza fj.eTavoias 

els u(j)e(riv dp.apTi.c5v 
10. KOI els p.iav dyiav 

12. Km fls o-apKos ai/aoracrii/ KCU 
els Ctorjv alaviov. 

The first form is very short. It was used apparently at 
the very moment of baptism. It is found in a lecture ad- 


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 

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 S. 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 S. 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 Eoman Creed, 
proposes to restore to it the readings etc irvevpaTos d<ylov Kal 
Mapias 7779 TrapOevov and eVl Tlovriov TIiKdrov. 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 


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 (o-vft- 
@o\ov). His name for it was " the Faith." He regarded it 
as a summary of doctrine, but did not suggest that it was 

We are led to the conclusion that the Old Jerusalem 
Creed, which in its short form may be older than E, 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 

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, 1 followed by Caspari, 2 claimed that the whole 
passage was a translation 3 from Athanasius. The writer 
distinguishes between the Baptismal Formula (Fidel 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 lavaerum regenerationis uenientes, confessi sic : 
Credo in Deurn Patrem omnipotentem et in lesuni 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 : " I 
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. 2 iii. 51. 

3 Possibly by Vigilius ; Kattenbusch, ii. 259. 



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 East and West. 
Again at Chalcedon it represented the triumph of Athanasian 
principles to a Council which were yet willing to receive the 
Old Eoman Creed of Leo as quoted in his letter to Flavian. 

Throughout the second century the Church of Borne 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 deadnese 


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." 



I. Of Theological Creeds. 

II. Arius and Arianism. 

III. The Council of Nicsea 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. 


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 1 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, 3 iii. p. 253. Since Caspar! has investigated the question, the authen 
ticity of this creed has been generally accepted. 



dogmatic standards taught by individual teachers in their 
rules of faith from Ignatius to Irenseus, and from Irenseus 
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 Nicaea 
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. 1 

The Council of Niceea, 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 Illingwortli, Personality, p. 13. 


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



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 Luciau 
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, ayev[v]r)To<;. 
. . . Everything else is created, jmnfritf. 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, TWV 
yevrjTwv, He came into being from non-existence (ef OVK 
ovrwv), and before that did not exist (OVK r\v nrplv y&vrirai). 
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. viii. 22, LXX.). 
This being so, the nature of the Son was in the essential 
point of d<yevvr]<rLa unlike that of the Father ; (fei/o? TOV vlov 
tear overlap 6 Uarrjp on avap xps) : their substances (VTTO- 
(TTao-eis) are foerrtfuxTM 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 powycpiTf eo9 (John i. 14). 
He is not the eternal ^0709, reason, of God, but a Word 


(and God has spoken many) : but yet He is the Word by 
grace ; is no longer what He is ly 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 
KTicrfjiaTa" l 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." 2 A 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 Csesarea 
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 

1 Robertson, Athanasius, p. xxviii. - Atlianasius, c. Ar. i. 2. 



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 Decrctis, 20): "They were caught whisper 
ing to each other, and winking with their eyes, that like 
and c 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 
1 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 O/JLOOVO-IO^, " one in essence," had probably been 


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. S. Ambrose (de Fid. iii. 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 Csesarea, venerable for age and learn 
ing, came forward with a creed as follows : 

" As we have received from the bishops who preceded us, 
arid 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 


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, 1 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 
6yLtoov<7to?, 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. 3 For the anti-Sabellian phrases of Eusebius were 
substituted anti-Arian anathemas. 

The principal changes were as follows : (i) The term 
" Word " (Xo yo?) was cut out, and " Son " (vlos) 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. (ii) " Only- 

1 Harnack, art. " Apostolisclies Syinbolum," RE* 

- Robertson, Athanasius, p. xix., following Hort. z Hort. 



els eva Qeov TraTepa Trav- 

Kai els evaK vpiov Iij(rovv Xpto-rov, TOV 
TOV Qeov \6yov, 

begotten " (fjLovoyevijs) was explained by the words " of the 
essence of the Father" (etc TT)V overlap TOV Trarpos). Thus 
the argument used by Eusebius of Nicomedia in his letter to 
Paulinus of Tyre was contradicted. 1 (iii) Further, it was 
guarded by the emphatic assertion begotten, not made (ryevvrj- 
Qkvra ov TroirjOevTo), in reply to Arius and Asterius, leading 
up to " of one essence with the Father " (oyuoouo-to? r<w 
Trarpl). (iv) The word " incarnate " (crap/ccoOevTa) was ex 
plained by the addition " was made man " 


(Ep. ad Gees. ap. Ath. de Decretis) 

Hio-revop-ev els eva Qeov irarcpa -rrav- 

TOKpciTopa TOV T<av cnrdvTtoV 6paro>i> TOK.pd.TOpa irdvTidv opareov re KO\ 

re (cat aoparcov TrotijTrjv dopaTwv TroirjTrjv 

Kat ety eva Kvptov lr)o~ovv Xpiorbv, 
TOV vlov TOV Qeov, yevvrjdevTa CK TOV 
rraTpbs p-ovoyevfj, TovTecmv e < TTJS 
ovcrias TOV Trarpoy, Qeov eK Qeov, (fxas 
C(c <pu>Tos, Qeov dXrjdivbv eK Qeov 
dXrjdtvov, yevvrjOevTa ov TroirjdevTa, 
ofjioovcriov TCO Trarpt 

5t* ov TCI TrdvTa eyeveTO, 
ra re ev TCO ovpavco (cat ra ev ri/ yfj, 
TOV Si rjpds TOVS dv6p<a7TOvs (cat dic\ 
Trjv fj/JLCTepav o-WTrjpiav KaTeXdovTa 
(cat o~apKcodevTa evavdpcoTrrjcravTa, 
TrauovTa (cai ai/acrravra TTJ rptr// 
77/Aepa, dveXdovra els TOVS ovpavovs, 
ep^opevov Kplvai {avTas (cai veKpovs. 

Kai ei? ro 7rvevp,a TO ayiov. Tovs de 
XeyovTas TJV ?rore ore OVK rjv, f} OVK 
rjv 7rp\v yevvr]6fjvai, rj e OVK OVTU>V 
eyeveTO, r) e eTepas viroo-TacretoS rj 
ovo-ias <pdo~KovTas eivai, ^ KTIOTOV rj 
TpenTov fj cxXXoicorov TOV vlov TOV 
Qeov, TOVTOVS dvade/j.aTiei rj KadoXiKj} 
(cat aTroaroXiKj) rov Qeov eKKXrjo~ia. 

K Qeov, (p>$ CK 
vlov povoyevrj, Trpcord- 
TOKOV Trdcrrjs KTifffas, Trpb TTUVTCOV 
T>V alwvutv CK TOV Qeov TraTposyeyev- 
vr)fj.{voi>, 5t* ov KCii eyevcTO TO. ITUVTO. 




devTa KOI fv dv6po)7rois TroXtrevfrtt- 
IJ.CVQV KOI TTciQovTa KCU avavravT 

KOL dve\66vTci rrpos TOV 

TraTepa KOI rj^ovTa iraKiv ev 
&VTO.S Kai veKpovs. 

KOI els ev irvev^a ayiov, 
TOVT&V e<ao~Tov elvai KOI VTrdp^eiv 
TruTTevovTes, Trare po dXrjdas rrarepa, 
(cat vlov dXrjdws vioi>, KOI 7rvevp.a ayiov 
d\rjdS)S ayiov 7rvevp.a t KO^COJ (cat 6 
Kvpios T]p.S>v a7ro(rreXXa)z/ els TO Kiy- 
pvyp.a TOVS eavTov p,aSrjTas elrre Trop- 
evOevTes /Lia^reucrare rravra ra fffvy, 

1 Theodoret, i. o. 


in place of the less definite " lived as a citizen amongst men." 
That beautiful phrase was found in the Creed of Eusebius, 1 
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 Cresarea 
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, 2 and was 
already Alexander s trusted adviser. But the identification 
of i/Trocrracrt? and ovaia in the fourth anathema was foreign 
to the prevailing tone of thought at Alexandria, where men 
spoke of T/3i9 vTToaTacrew. Loofs says truly of Athanasius, 
" He was moulded by the Nicene Creed ; did not mould it 
himself." 3 

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. " Apol. c. Ar. 6. 

3 DG* p. 151. 



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 Nicsea 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. Constantino 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 

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 


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 Qesarea had a large following. 
He was " neither a great man nor a clear thinker," 1 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 Treves. 

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 Caesarea. He taught that the Divine 
Unity, for the work of creation and redemption, extended 
itself into a Trinity (7r\aTvvofjbevrj et? rpidSa). The incarna 
tion was therefore the manifestation of supreme Divine 
energy (evepyeia Spacmtcr)) 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 Borne after the death of Constantine, to 
the end of his life refused to condemn him, though compelled 
to reject some of his speculations. 

1 Gwatkin. 



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 Csesarea was now held by the unprincipled Acacius. 

The first business was to frame a reply to a letter received 
from Julius, Bishop of Eome, 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. 


Ui(TTfvop.(v aKo\ovda>s rfi tvay- We believe, conformably to the evaii- 

ye\i<fj KGU aTrocrroXtKfl TrapaSdtm gelical and apostolical tradition, in 

(Is fva Qebv, rraTfpa TTUVTO- one God, the Father Almighty, the 

KpaTopa, TOV TUV o\a>v Sr^i- Framer, and Maker, and Provider 

5 ovpyov Tf Kal TroirjTTjv nal of the universe, from whom are 

Trpovorjrrjv. Kal els fva all things. And in one Lord Jesus 

Kvpiov y lr](To\>v Xpt&Tov, TOV Christ, His Son, Only-begotten God 

vibv avTov TOV povoyevfj, (John i. 18), by whom are all things, 

660 v, di ov TCI -rrdvTa, TOV who was begotten before all ages 

10 yevvrjQevTo. npb TUV aluwv from the Father, God from God, 

f\ TOV iraTpos, Qebv < GfoO, whole from whole, sole from sole, 

oAoy e oXou, puvov *K p.6vov, perfect from perfect, King from 

re Xftoi/ CK reAei ov, /SacrtXea e* King, Lord from Lord, Living 

jdao-tXe ws, xvpiov curb nvpiov, \6yov Word, Living Wisdom, true Light, 

15 o>i/ra, vofyiav xrav, <f>S>s a\rj- Way, Truth, Resurrection, Shep- 

ov, 6Sdv, d\j]6fiav, dvdtTTao-iv, herd, Door, both unalterable and 

8 4 


Ovpav, arpeTrrov Te KCU 
oVaXXotooroi/, rrjs GeoTijTos, ovo~ias 

Tf KOt j3oV\f]S Kttl 8wdfJieO)S KOI 

20 d6qs TOV Trarpos a7rapd\\aKTOi> 
(iK( >v(i, rov TrpWTOTOKOV rrdo rjs 
Krto-etoy, TOV ovTa cv dpxi] Trpbs 
TOV Qcov, Qebv Xdyov, Kara TO 
elprjfjievov evayyeXico KOI Qebs TJV 

25 6 Xdyoff, 6V ov ra iravra eyeveTo 
Kal ev WTO. TrdVra (rvve oTT/Ke* TOV 
fir* eV^arwi/ TO>V rjfj,epS)v KareX- 
66vTa avtodev Kal yevvrjOevTa e K 
TrapOevoVy Kara raff ypafpds Kal 

30 avQpQJTrov yevopevov, 
Qeov KOI dv6pa)7r<i)v, d 
Tf Trjs TT/oretoff f)p.5)v, KOI 
fays, &s (prjfri OTI Ka 
f< TOV ovpavov, oi>)( iva TroiS) TO 

35 0\rjp,a. TO e /idi/, aXXa ro deXij^a 
TOV TTffi^favTos p.f TOV irddovTd 
Kat arao rai ra virep r)p.5>v TIJ 
TpiTrj rjp.fpa dvf\66vTa fls 
ovpavovs Kal Ka6ecr6fVTa fv 

40 Se^ia TOV Trarpdy, KOI TraXiv 
fpXO/Jifvov /uera Sogrjs KOI 
ftwdfjifas ttplvai U>VTO.S Kal 
veKpovs. Kat els TO Trvevpa 
TO aytov, TO els 7rapdK\rjo-iv Kal 

45 aytao~fjibv KOI reXetaxrti rots TrtO"- 
TCVOVO~I dtbo-evov Ka6ms Kat 6 

Kvptos r)p.a>v *Ir)0~ovs Xpiaros Ste- 
rci^aro rots padrjTais, Xeywv 
nopfv6fVTS p,a6r)T ever are TTUVTO. 

50 ra eOvij, ftairTL^ovTes avTovs els 
TO ovofjia TOV TrciTpbs xat roG v lov 
<a\ TOV ayiov irvevftaros O~T)\OVOTI 
Trarpbs dXydcbs Trarpbs OVTOS, vlov 
$e d\rj6<!)S vlov OVTOS, TOV Se ayiov 

55 TTvevp-aros d\rj0)s ayiov Trvevp-aTos 
oi/roy, T&V ovopATcov ovx OTrXwy 
ovde dpyS>s Keip,ev)v aXXa crrj/jiaiv- 
ovTtov dKpij3S>STT]i olKeiav endo-Tov 
T>V 6vop.aofj.eva)v vrroo Tao iv KOI 

60 ratv KOI doav a>s elvai TJJ p.ev 
vtroGTdo fi rpta, Trj de <rvp,(pQ)via 
ev. TavTrjv ovv f \ovTfS TTJV TrtVrtr , 

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 tilings 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 
glorj* 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 




65 XptoroG Trdcrav aipeTiKrjv KCIKO- 
8oiav dvadefjiori^ofjiev. KOI e i TIS 
Trapa TTJV vyif) T>V ypa(pS)v 6 
7rio~Tiv dt8darK6i t Xryeo? , 
77 Kaipov T) aitova r) flvat 77 ycyo- 

70 vcvai rrpo TOV yfvvrjdrjvai TOV 
viov, dvdd(p.a eoro). Km c l TIS 
Xf y TOV vibv KTicrp-a a>s ev T>V 
ev rcoi/ 

u>s fv r<wj TTOL- 
KCII p.r) w? at 6flat ypafpcu 
TrapadeStoKCiv TWV 7rpoipr)p.eva)v 


XXo didd(TKi rj (vayyf\t(T(U nap* 

80 rjp.e is yap rraari rot? IK. TWV Oelav 
ypa(p<av 7rapadfdofj.evois vrro Tf 

TtoV TTpOfprjTOtV K(ll 

d\T]6iv<5$ KOI ep,(p6[Ba>s KOL 

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. Kal irpovo-rjT-fiv, S. 1 9. irAvra] -f ^y^ero, S. 10. trpo] 4- ira.vTuv, 
S. 14. airb] CK, H. 15. om. &VTCI, H. 15. fw<rav] fayy, SH. 16. 6$6i> &\rj- 
eelas, SH. 18. Tr}s]pr. TT]I>, S. 19. om. /cat /3ov\^s, SH. 23. > \6yov QeoD, S. 
24. Kara TO eip. euayy.] iv r(p evayye\it}>, S. 30. avOpuTrov] agnus, H. 33. 
faTjs]pr. TTJS, S. 36. iradbvTaJ] + virtp wuv, S. 43. Kal] + els, S. 48. ordin- 
auit discipulos, H. 52. ST/XOPOTI iraTpos dXydiit&s OVTOS Trarpos Kal vlov dX^^t^tDj 
i;iou 6vros Kal Trvei ^taros aylov aXyOus 6vro? irvevfj.aTos ayiov, S. 57. dpyus] 
apyw, S. 58. ot/cet ai/] Idiav, S. 60. virbeTacriv re /cat obfrv Kal Taiv, S. 64. 
om. Kal # . . . tx VTe s> S. 66. > dvadefj,. KaKod. S. 68. om. ?} XP^ V , S. 
69. aluva etj/at, S. 71. irpb TOV ywv. TOV vlov] irpo TOV TOV vibv TOV 0eoG, S. 75. 
am. f) Troika . . . Troi^dTWf, S. 76. 7rapa5ewKa<rt, SH. 77. %Ka<TTOv] ^/ 
SH. 83. d\t)0it>ws Tf Kal 4fuf>av&s t S. 

Athanasius 2 says sarcastically that they wanted some 
thing newer and fuller, but, after all, it represents some 
extent of concession on the Arian side. 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 (S), Hilary (H). * De Synod. 23. 


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 
o/^ooucrto? is omitted. The phrases which Eusebius of Caesarea 
had proposed against Sabellianism reappear. A further declara 
tion follows against Marcellus, ending with the phrase, ry IAGV 
vTTocrTacrei Tpia TTJ Se o-vfufxavia ev, which is " an artfully 
chosen point of contact between Origen on the one hand, and 
Asterius, Lucian, and Paul of Samosata on the other." l In 
the anathemas the phrases condemned at Mcaea 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 

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, 2 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 3 points out that Sozomen is here dependent on 
Socrates, 4 who says nothing about any such declaration of 
semi-Arians or Homoeans 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. 5 

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. . \H.E. iii. 5. 3 i. p. 257. 

4 Hist. ii. 39. 5 Kattenbusch, i. pp. 261 ff. 


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." 1 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 aXXo? fjiev . . . el/cova? 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 3 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 

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. Cons tans 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.) 


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 D* Synod. 36. 2 Hs&r. 72. 6. 3 ii. 14, 15, quoted by Photius. 



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. 


Apostolic Constitutions, vii. 41. 

HicrTfvo) KOI (3a7TTiofjLat (Is fva 

dyfWTjTov, p.6vov dXrjQtvbv Qfbv 


TOV iraTfpa TOV Xpiorov 

KTKTTTJV Kal drjuiovpybv TWV curavrav 

% OV TO. 

Kai fls TOV Kvpiov lr)<rovv TOV 
XptOToi>, TOV fjiovoyfvij avTov vlov, 
TOV irpcoToroKov Trdo~r)s KTLO~OiS 
~6v irpb ala>vo)v evdoKiq TOV rraTpbs 

ovpavoLS Kai CTTI yrjs 

opaTa. Tf KOI aopara, 

ran/ T]p.fp>v 

6vTa < ovpav>v 
KCU trapKo. dvaXaflovTa 
Kal fK Trjs dyias irapdevov M.apias 


ap. Athanasius, de Synod. 25. 

fls fva Qfbv iraTfpa 

KTKTTrjv Kai 7roir]Tr)v TQ>V 

f ov 7rdo~a Trarpta tv ovpavois Kal 

et yrs 

Kai els TOV fj.ovoy(vr) avTov viov, 

TOV Kvptov f)p.a)v Irjo-ovv XOICTTOV, 

TOV Trpb -rrdvTav r>v atcoi/coj/ e/c 
TOV TraTpbs 

Qfbv fK Qfov, (pas fK <pa>Tos, 

Si ov fyfVfTo ra rrdvTa fv Tols 

ovpavois Kal fnl Trjs yrjs 

TO. (re) opara Kal ra dopara 

\6yov ovTa Kal <ro<piav Kal 8vvafj.iv 

at <p)S dXrjdivov, 
f(rxdTd>v ro>j/ 

Kal yjEvvrjdfvTa fK TTJS dyias irapdfvov 


Apostolic Comtitutions contd. ap. Athanasius, de Synod. contd. 
Kal TToXiTeva-dufvov 6(nW Kara TOVS 
vofjiovs TOV Qeov /cat rrarpos avTov 

Kal crravpc^BcvTa eVt HOVTIOV IltX- TOV crravpco^eVra 

KOI dnodavovTa vrrep f)p,oi)v Kal drrodavovTa 

Kal TacpevTa 

Kal dvao-TavTa CK vcKp&v p.eTa ro KOL uVaoraVra ex. veKpwv Ttj rpiTfl 

Traddv rf) Tpirr) rjpfpa W^P? 

<al dvc\66vra els TOVS oopavovs Kal dva\rj(p6fvTa els ovpavov 

(Socr. Kal dvf\r]\v6(yra els TOVS ovpa- 

/ x - 

Kal K.a6eQ~6evTa cv det-ia TOV TraTpbs Kal KadecrdevTa eV 8eia TOV 

Kal TrdXtv epxo/jifvov eVi o-in>T\ia Kal fpxopevov eVt o-vvT\eta TOV 
TOV al>vos [AfTa dorjs Kplvat favTas aivvos Kplvai )VTas Kal veKpovs 
Kal vcKpovs Kal dfrodovvai efcaoTW Kara ra epya 

ov Trjs jSao-iXcias OVK ecrrat reXo?. o $J^-^^^5 l a aKClT( *^ VTOS 

(Socr. djcaraTravoros) ovara diap.eve i 
fls TOVS uTTfipovs alwvas ecrrat yap 
eV Se^ta TOV iraTpos ov 

P.OVOV ev TO) alwvi TOVTW aXXa 

ev rco fj.e\\ovTt 

Ba7m o/uat Kat els TO trvfVfjLa TO Kal els TO o,yiov irveiym 
(iyiov (Socr. TO TTvev/J-a TO ayiov) 


(Socr. ro 
TO cvepyijarav eV ndcri Tols OTT al&vos 6 rrep f 7rayyfi\dp.vos rot? 

, vorepov 8e OTroo-raXei/ Kal rotg rdXots peTa TTJV els ovpavovs avTov 
aTTOoroXotg Trapa rov TraTpos Kara {ivodov aTreoreiXe StSa^ai avTovs Kal 

*1 V VTTOfjLvrio-ai irdvTO, Si ov Kal ayiao-6t}- 
A 167 "" Tovs a7ro - o-ovTai al TCOI/ elXiKpivus els UVTOV 
TO\OVS 8e rrao-t roT? TriaTevovo-iv ev TTJ 7re7rt(rrevKora)j/ \^u^at. 
dyia^KadoXiK^ (Add. anathema) 

Kai aVooToXtK?/ eKKX^cria, fls crapKos 
dvdo-Tacriv Kal els ti<peo-tv 
Kal els (3aari\fiav ovpava>v Kal els 
TOV p.e\\ovTos atcoi/os 1 . 1 

Professor Kattenbusch 2 rounds off his theory that this 
was the true Lucianic Creed, which Sozomen confused with 

KO.T a.KO\ov6iav ^px erat Ka 
2 i. p. 394. 


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. i. 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, 1 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 Treves, 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. 


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. 


At court Arianism was supreme under the new leader R, 
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." l 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" (O^OLOVG-LO) 
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 (i.e. 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 o/jLoovaios and of-ioiovcrios, with all 
discussion of the term " being," ovala, as applied to God. 

1 Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism, p. 168. 


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 O/JLOOVCTLOS. 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 
Anomcean 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. To 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. 

Ath. de Syn. 8 ; Socr. ii. 37 ; Epiph. Scbolast. p. 264. 

els eva TOV IJLOVOV nal We believe in one Only and True 

uXrjdivbv Qeov, Trarepa TTCIVTO- God, the Father Almighty, Creator 

KpuTopa, KTIO-TTJV KOI drjfjuovpybv and Framer of all things. And in 

r6i)v TrdvTav. Kcu els eva fjiovoyevrj one Only-begotten Son of God, who, 

5 vibv TOV Qeov, TOV -rrpb TrdvTav before all ages, and before all origin, 

T>V altovav KOI npb Trdo-rjs upx^js and before all conceivable time, and 

/col rrpb TTCIVTOS emvoovfj-evov before all comprehensible essence, 

Xpovov KOL TTpb TT 00-77? KaTa\r)7rTr]s was begotten impassibly from God : 

ovcrtas yeyevvrjp.vov u.7rada>s en through whom the ages were dis- 

10 TOV GfoO, 8t ov ol TC ala>vs posed and all things were made ; 

KaTrjpricrQrjarav KCU ret irdvra eye- and Him begotten as the Only- 

vero ycyevvTjfjicvov de povoyevr/ begotten, Only from the Only 

fjiovov e /c fj,6vov TOV iraTpos, Qebv Father, God from God, like to the 

< Qeov, opoiov TO) yewrjo-avTt Fatlier who begat Him, according to 

15 avTov Trarpt, Kara ray y papas ov the Scriptures ; whose origin no one 

Tr)v yevvTjo-iv ovdels eVtorarat el knoweth save the Father alone who 



pr) p.ovos o ycvvrjo-as avTov 
TOVTOV Lo~fj.ev TOV Geov fj,ovoyevij 
vlov vevpart napayevo- 
20 [j,evov K TO>V ovpavav els dQeTrjo-t,v 
TTJS (tyiapria?, Kai yevvyflevTa CK 
"Mapias rrjs rrapdevov, Kal dvao~Tpa- 

(peVTU p.fTO. TOO I/ p,a6t]TO)V, KO.I 

7rdo~av TTJV olnovopiav TrX^pco- 

25 (Tavra KOTO. TTJV TrarpiKrjv j3ov\rjo~iv 

o-Tavpa>6evTa KCH drroOavovTa, Kal 

fls TO. KaTa^Qovia KareX$oz/ra Kal 

TO. eKelo-e olKOVO[Jir]0-aVTa OV 7TV- 

Xoipoi dSov idovTes e(ppiav Kal 

30 dvaoTavra K vf<pwv Ty rpirrj 

rjfjiepq Kal dva.(rTpa(pevTa fjLfra TWV 

fj.a.6r)Ta)V /cat Tracray TTJV OLK.ovop.iav 

7r\rjpu>cravTa KOI TfacrapaKovTa 

rjfjifpwv dvmr\r]pov^voiv dva\r](p- 

35 6fvra fls TOVS ovpavovs KCU 6- 

fJifVOV K 5e^to5l/ TOV TTdTpOS, Ka\ 

c\evo~6p,evov ev TTJ eo~%dTT) r]p.epa 
TTJS dvaa-Tdo-eus TTJ 86fl TTJ rrarpiK?/ 
dno^idovTa SKOffTtf Kara ra epya 

40 avTov. Kai els TO dytov 7rvevp.a, 
o avTos 6 fjLOvoyevrjS TOV Qeov 
Irjo-ovs Xptoros firi]yyei\e rrep.- 
\Jfai rco yevei T>V av^pcoTrcoi/, TOV 
7TapaK\rjTOv Kara TO yeypap.p.evov 

45 aTre p^o/xat npos TOV irarepa 
p,ov <al 7rapaK.a\eo~(o TOV 
Trare pa, Kal a AXoi/ Trapd- 

K\T)TOV 7T fJL\l/~ e t V/LUV, TO 

TTvevpa TT/S dXrjdeiaS) fKflvos 
50 f K. TOV e p.ov X^^erai KOI 

To de ovopa TTJS ovo-ias 

did TO d7T\OVO~TfpOV V7TO TO)V 

Trare pcov TeQelaQai, dyvoovp,evov 

55 <5e V7ro T>V Xacoj/ o-KavSaXov 

(pepeiv, did TO p-r)Te TUS ypacpds 

TOVTO 7repiex ftv i fjpeo~e TOVTO -rrepi- 

aipeBrjvai Kal TravTeXats p.rf^ep.iav 

p.vr)p.r)v ovo~Las eVi Qeov dvai TOV 

60 XotTrov, did TO ray 6eias ypafpds 

p,r)8ap.ov rrepl TOV Trarpos Kai vlov 

ovo~ias p.tfivr)O~6at. op.oiov tie \eyo- 

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 clays 
were full, ascended into the heavens, 
and sitteth on the right hand of the 
Father, and is coining 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 
Spirit of 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, 


ptv rov vibv TO> rrarpl Kara as also the Holy Scriptures say and 
TrdvTa, cos Kal at ayiat ypa<j)a\ teach. 
65 Xc youcrt rf KCU didd<TK.ov(nv. 

LINE 9. oiVt as] tirivoias, S ; et ante omnem coraprehensibilem substautiam, 
E. 16. 7 j ??<ni ] ytvecnv, A; generatioiiem, E; /io^os] pr. i), S. 19. rbv JAOVO- 
TJ airrov vibv, S; unigenitum Dei Filium, E. 26. ffravpud^ra,] + Kal 
, S. 30. om. K venpuv, S. 34. om. Kai Traa-av - ir\T)p. S. reo-o-a/m/coi/ra] 
, A ; quinquaginta, E. 34. dva?rX/).] TrXyffuo-avTa, S. 38. om. TTJS 
dva<rrd(rewj, S. 41. GeoC] + tt6s, S ; quern unigenitus proniisit, E. 45. John 
xvi. 7, 13 f., xiv. 16 f., xv. 26. 59. GeoG, pr. TOV, S, ed. "VValch. 61. rou 
Trarpbs] Trj/e^aroy, S, ed. "Walch. 64. om. Kal, 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 " (ayewtjaia) 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 Nike, which was also thrust 
upon the Council at Ariminum. It is not to our purpose 
to pursue their history further. 



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 Ariminuna and Nike 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 Csesarea, 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 (Ep. 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 I am 
to state my own opinion, I accept " like in essence," 
with the addition of " exactly," as identical in sense with 
" co-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. 


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." 


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 l 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 

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 Anomoean. 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 Way-marks in Church History, p. 70. 


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

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. 1 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, 2 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 
suffer hunger, and you are feeding yourself only, 3 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 Nicaea prevail." 4 

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

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

4 Ep. 61. 



I. The Council of Alexandria. 

II. The Eevised Creed of Jerusalem. 
III. The Council of Constantinople. 
IV. The Council of Chalcedon. 

V. Later History : the Filioque clause. 
VI. Conclusions. 


" THE FAITH " of the Mcene Council is related to our Mcene 
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 Mcene 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 


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 heathen ising 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 Nicaea 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. 


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." l 

He turned to the semi-Arians with a careful defence of 
the ofjLoova-iov. He was successful in his appeal. " Not only 
did many of the semi-Arians (e.g. the fifty-nine in 365) 
accept the opoovcnov, but it was from the ranks of the semi- 
Arians that the men arose who led the cause of Nicaea to its 
ultimate victory in the East." 2 

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." 3 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 viroa-Tacris and ovo-ia might be distinguished, 
so that those who clung to the term pia vTroaracri^ ( ovaia) 
might not be offended when they heard others say rpet? 
L7roo-ra<7et9, 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. a Robertson, Athanasius, p. 449. 3 Adv. Liicif. 20. 


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 : rou? r) 7rpo\7](f)6evTa<; erepa Tr/Weco? 6fjLO\oyia KOI 
per ar 16 ear at, 777)05 Trjv TWV opOwv crvvdfyeiav 
r) ical vvv irp&Tov ev rf) /caT?;%^crei rov \6yov 
a\T]9eia^ eTriOvfAovvras yevecrOai, $L$dorKa0ai, %pr) vrjv 
VTTO TWV /jLa/capitov Trarepcov ev rrj Kara NitcaLav TTOTC 
io-rj avvoftw ypa^elaav 


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. HO. 2, quoted by Kattenbusch, i. pp. 346 f. 


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. 1 They are Art. 1, ovpavov + re; Art. 2, 
aicovicov + rovreo-Tiv e/c TT)? overlap TOV Trarpos ; eyevero -}- rd 

T V T069 OVpaVOtf KOI TO, Iv TV] yf}. 



Cyril, Catech. vi.-xviii. Epiphanius, Ancoratus. 

Hia-Tevo/jLev els eva Qebv Trarepa I.TlicrTevofjiev els eva Qebv Trarepa 
7ra.vTOKpa.To pa, iroirjTrjr ovpavov TTOITJTTJV ovpavov 

Kal -yTJs opaTtov Te iravTcov Kal KOI yrjs oparutv re TTUVTODV KO.\ 

Kai fls cva Kvpiov l^croui/ Xptor- 2. Kai els eva Kvpiov lr)0~ovv Xpicr- 

TOV TOV vlov TOV Qeov TOV TOV TOV vlov TOV Qeov TOV 

TOV e< TOV irarpos povoyevfj, TOV f< TOV iraTpbs 

Qebv aXrjQivbv irpb yevvr)6evTa 

TTaVTOiV TWV at CO I/ COy. TTpb TrdvTCtiV TU)V 


<p>s CK (po)Tos, Qebv d\r]6ivbv K 

1 Kattenbusch, i. p. 235. 



6V ov TO. TrdvTO. fytvcro, 

Qfov d\r)6ivov, yevv^devra ov 
7roiT]6fVTa t 6fj.oovo~iov rw Trarpi, 
fit* ov ra 7rai/ra efvfro, 

rbv 6Y ypas TOVS dvdptoTTovs KO\ 

f\d6vra K T)V ovpavS)v 

o~apKd>6fVTa 3. Kal o~apKO)dcvTa CK trvfv^iaros 
dyiov Kal Mapias TTJS irapOevov 


Kal TacpevTa KOI dvao~Ta.vTa TTJ 

4. o~Tavpa>devTa re VTrep f]p.a)v crrl 
Hovriov IliXarov Kal iraBovra. 

5. Kal rafpevra Kal at/aqTai/ra Ty 

rjfjLtpq Kara ras ypacpas 

Kal dvf\66vTa els TOVS ovpavovs 

Kal KadivavTa e< degt&v rov 


Kal fpxop.fvov ev $6r) 

a>vras KOI vfKpovs, ov rrjs /ScunX- 
fias OVK ecrrat reXoy. 

TO \a\r;o-av eVjroi? TT pofyi 
11. Kal fls fv (3a.Tmo~p.a 

6. Kal dvf\66vra fls TOVS ovpavovs 

7. Kal Kade6ufvov fK 8fi5>v rov 

8. Kal TraXiv fp^o/Jifvov fJLfTa $6rjs 
Kplvai )VTas Kal veKpovs, ov 
TTJS /Sao-iXfi a? OVK eo-rai reXoy. 

9. Kal fls TO Trvfvaa TO ayiov, 

^*r*s^ry^r^* -vv>^^%y 

ro Kvpiov Kal TO faorroibv, TO oc 

rov TTttTpOS K7TOpfv6fJLfVOV ) TO 

o~vv Trarpt Kat via) o~vv7rpocTKV- 


TO \a\ijo~av 8ia TO>V TT/ 
10. fls [Jiiav dyiav KaOoXiKrjv Kal 

10. Koi fls fAiav ayiav 

l fls (rapKos dvdo~Tao-iv 

1 1. 6fj.o\oyovfjLfv ev jSaTrrtcr/Lta fls 

12. 7roo~8oK)Hfv vo~Tao~iv 

l far)!* rov fte XXoi/roff alavos. 


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 ; e.g., r; KTKJTOV rj Tpejrrbv rj a\- 

\OIO)TOV TOV VLOV TOV 0OV ava0/jiaTi^6l T) Ka6o\LKTj KK\r)(lia, 

he reads pevarov rj CL\\OLWTOV TOV TOV @eov vlov TOVTOVS 

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, 3 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. 1 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 Katteiibuscli, i. 303 ff. 


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 Judaea, near to his birthplace, and Csesarea. 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. 362364, 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 Nicsea, and other phrases and clauses 
adapted for impressing on the people positive truth." 

The change from Kadiaavra to Ka06jj,evov 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. 2730). 

The change from v 80^77 to fjuera 86 77? is parallel to the 
teaching in Cat. xv. 3, where Cyril uses his own words. 

The most remarkable change, however, is the substitution 
of vetcp&v for a-dpicos, in accordance with his constant practice 
(xviii. 1-21), and his interpretation eh adpKo? dvdarao-iv 
TOUT ecrrfc rrjv TO>V vzicpwv. 

Other changes may be traced to the following sources : 
7rl Uovriov IliXdrov, teal d7ro<TTO\iKT]v, ^carjv TOV yLteXXoz^ro? 
alcovos to the Creed of the Apostolic Constitutions, together 
with etc TWV ovpav&v, farep $$*>?, iraOovra, ird\iv (pera 
86^77? 1) ; the omission of peT-avoid* has a parallel in the 
Mesopotamian Creed ; the omission of 7rapdK\7jrov 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 


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 aapKcoOevra e/c irvev- 
/Ltaro? dyiov KCU Maptas rfjs TrapOevov. " In extant creeds," 
according to Hort, " this combination is unique." The revised 
Mesopotamian Creed has o-ap/ccoOevra CK irvevparos dytov. 
In Cat. iv. 9, Cyril wrote yevvrjdevra e f ay las irapOevov KOI 
dyiov TTvev/jLcnos, followed after two lines by crapKwdevra e 
avrijs a\7)0w. So we see how the thought shaped itself in 
his mind. The form yewrjOevra etc . . . Kal . . . , from 
which he advanced to the other, is frequently found. 1 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 aap/ca)0el<; (adp- 
KOMJW) e ay. TrapOevov Mapias occurs often in epistles 
bearing the name of Julius of Kome, 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. 


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, Labbe", 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 
Nike*, 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, 


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

The revival of Arianism under Yalens 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 Borne 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 Bessi. 1 Zahn 2 suggests that their information 
may have been derived from Niceta, Bishop of Kemesiana, 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 
Eoman 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. 3 And it fits in very well 
with Zahn s theory to suppose that, as he brought informa 
tion to the Eoman 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 Bomau 
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 KircliL Zcit. vii. 102. 

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


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

He convened a great Council at Constantinople, to which 
he invited Dainasus 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. 1 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 2 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, 3 and how it 
could have been copied into the Acts of the Council, from 
which it was afterwards extracted by Aetius 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 Ecclesiastiques, gL sqt. p. 176. 

2 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. 

3 Niccph. -Callistus, Hist. Ecd. xii. 13. 


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 Eome, 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 Eome by Epiphanius and 
Jerome (Ep. 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. 1 
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. 2 

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

Eade 3 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. 3 " The tome of the 
Westerns" might refer to this letter from Damasus. The 
Canon is as follows : Hepl rov TO/JLOV TWV AVGTIKWV Kal TOU? 
ev AvTio^eiq aTreSe^dueOa rou? fjitav ofjLo\o*/ovvTa<$ Trar/oo? Kal 
viov fcal aytov Trvevaaros eortjra. 

Hefele thinks that " the tome of the Westerns " refers to 
the Eoman 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. 

1 v. 11. 2 Of. Harnack, D.G. ii. p. 271, n. 1. 

3 Damasus, pp, 107, 116 f., 133. 


At least, it is an important fact that Epiphanius travelled 
to Eome 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 Eome. 

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 
ofjioovcrla of the Holy Spirit should be asserted against them. 
This was a logical deduction from the confession of the 
ofioovcria 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, 1 because the latter were definitely 


We must pause to consider what was the Baptismal 
Creed of Constantinople at this time. Kattenbusch 2 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. 
Or at. xl. : Tlia-reve rbv vlbv TOV Oeov, TOV Trpoaitaviov \6yov, 
TOV <yevvr)6evTa IK TOV TraTpbs a%p6v(i)<; KCLI aa-(D^droy^ } TOVTOV 
1 Harnack, D.G. ii. 267. 2 Kattenbusch, i. p. 366. 


67T* eV^ttTft>z> T(f)v ri/jiepcov yeyevfjaOat, Bid ae /cal vlov 
dvOpcoTTov, 6K T?}? 7rap0evov 7r/ooeX#(Wa Maptas dppiJTcos 
/cal dpVTrdpcos . . . o\ov avOpcoTrov TOV aurov KOI @ebv . . . 
ToarovTov avOpwrrov Sta <76 o&ov o~v ylvp $i e/cewov @eo?. 

ToVTOV V7Tp TWV dvO/JLlCOV T)/JLOt)V r]"^Qai 65 OdvdTOV, 

Qkvra re Kal ra(f>6vra . . . /cal dvao-rdvra 
ave\r)\v6evai et? TOU? ovpavovs . . . rjt;6iv re ira\iv 
yu-era T/}? eV^ofoi; avrov trapovaias, Kpivovra fwi^ra? Kal 
ve/cpovs . . . Ae^ov TT^O? TOUTOI? dvdcrracriv, /cptcriv, 

It is true that there is a passage in Chrysostom s sixth 
Homily on the Epistle to the Colossians (c. 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 

In A.D. 430, Nestorius, at the Council of Ephesus, quoted 
the words aap/ccoOevra etc Trvev/jbaros dylov Kal Mapias TT}<? 
Trapdevov 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 1ST. Hort points out that the copy of 
N quoted at the fifth session of the Council of Chalcedon 
was " encrusted with Constantinopolitan variations, including 
this." l At all events, it is certain that Nestorius intended 
to quote N, for in his letter to Pope Caelestine he quoted the 
same sentence " from the words of the holy Fathers of Nic^ea." 

A new argument has been advanced by Kunze 2 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 3 also quotes the evidence of Proclus, Bishop of 

1 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. 
2 Marcus EremUct, p. 161 ff. s t jgg^ 


Constantinople 434446, 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, TOP etc 
Mapia? ^evvyQevTa, certainly points to N rather than C. Theo- 
dotus of Ancyra (430440) speaks of N as the current creed. 

The historian Socrates (iii. 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, KOI ra \oi7ra TOV /juaOij/jLaro^. 

Thus it appears that we have only the doubtful quota 
tion from Chrysostom, arc! 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 Mcene 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 Nicsea had only the words, 
He was incarnate/ but those that followed explained it by 
saying, of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary. " l 

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. 


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 Nicaea." 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. Eeference 
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, 1 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.D. 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. 


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. 


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. 1 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 
Eeccared, 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 tv Tdo-Tj crwd&i, Theodoras Lector, ii. p. 566, eel. Valerius. 


minds of men, it is ordered by the Synod, at the advice of 
Eeccared, 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, 1 who 
was highly esteemed by Eeccared, 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. 


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" (Etc TOU 
Harpos eKTTopevofjievov, /cat etc rov Tlov \afji ft avofji,evov\ which 
is first found in the longer Creed of Epiphanius. The 
Cappadocian Fathers expressed it under the metaphor of 
" successive dependence," cocnrep e aXvo-eo)?, 1 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. 2 

Augustine teaches that the Father and the Son are the 
one principle of the Being of the Holy Spirit. 3 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 Eouen, 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 Quicunque unit, 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 

A Spanish bishop, Pastor, whose confession was quoted 

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

2 Op. hist. frag. 2. 3 De Trin. v. 13. 
4 De, Laude, Sanctorum, c. iv., ed. Tougard, Paris, 1895. 


by a Spanish Council of Toledo in A.D. 447 against the Pris- 
cillianists, seems to have taught the same doctrine. 1 

It is quite possible that the Council of 589 were influ 
enced by the teaching of the Quicunque unit, 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." 2 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 ^Elfric s 
Homilies, contains it. 

Nearly another century had passed before the question 
was disputed. We are told in the Chronicle of Ado of 
Yienne that a controversy between the Greeks and the 
Eomans 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, 3 p. 209, "a Patrc Filioque proceclens." Some MSS. omit Filioque. 
The reading is defended by Florez, Espana sagrada iheatro geogr. hist, de la 
ifflesia de Espana, vi. 77, against Quesnel, Opp. Leonis M. Diss. xiv. 

2 Bede, Hist. ccd. iv. 17. 


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 Eome. 
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 Mcene Creed in his reply, 
less probably in fear of the king than in despair of explain 
ing the interpolation. His successor, Pope Leo in., 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 Kome 
for advice, and asked that the emperor might be informed, 


since they had received from him two works in which the 
clause was found, a homily of S. Gregory and the rule of S. 
Benedict. They also quoted, as containing it, the Quicunque 
uult, and a dialogue of S. 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 Latin. 1 We 
can readily understand that the object was to perpetuate the 
pure text. 

His successors were less firm. Within sixty years Pope 
Nicholas I. 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 A.D. 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. 

1 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. 



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 Filioque 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 CK 
T?}? ouo-ta?, which Athanasius is supposed to have thought 
quite as important as opoovo-ios, Harnack goes so far as to 


say that a kind of semi-Arianism, under the title of Homousian- 
ism ( = confession of o/zotovo-jo?), has been made orthodox in all 
Churches. 1 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 O/JLOOVOTIOS. It stood on record that the 
Council had added etc 7% ova-la? against the original Arians. 2 
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 (aXXo? o Ilarijp, 
aXXo? o wo?), but cannot be formulated so as to satisfy our 
full idea of personality. For this Athanasius had no word; 
TrpocrtoTTov meant too little (implying, as it did, no more than 
an aspect possibly worn but for a special period or purpose), 
vTroa-raa-w (implying such personality as separates Peter from 
Paul) too much." 3 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. 2 Specially against Eusebius of Nicomedia, 

3 Robertson, Athanasius, p. xxxii. 


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 

The second thought, which needs emphasising, relates to 
the future use of this creed as a bond between divided 
Churches. Duchesne l 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 Filwque, 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 Filioque 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 EccUsiastiques, Egl. sep. p. 83. 


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 Fttwgue, 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." 



I. Athanasian Faith in the Fifth Century. 

II. Contemporary Professions of Faith. 
III. The Brotherhood of Lerins. 
IV. The Internal Evidence of the Qwcunqv*. 

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 S. 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. 


Between the death of S. Athanasius in 373, and the death 
of S. Augustine in 4 30, 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, 



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 Eemesiana 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. S. 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 S. 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 S. Athan 
asius. They affirmed the perfectness of both natures, Man 
hood and Godhead, in Christ. Thus only can we believe in 
Him as the Eedeemer of our whole nature, though we agree 
that He was impeccable, for in His Divine personality He 


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 S. 
Athanasius contended, the Quicunque deserves to be dignified 
by his name, which has been attached to it certainly from the 
seventh century. The Quicunque introduces, however, a new 
word, "person" (persona), to express the eternal distinction 
(vTroo-raa-is) of the Son from the Father and the Holy Spirit, 
which represents a definite advance from the position gained for 
thought by S. 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 (aXXo? teal a\\o9 KOI aXXo?), 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 Quicunque, which develops such a 
theory of Divine Personality, owes nearly as much to S. 
Augustine as the second part to S. 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 " substantial 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.g., c. 
Max. ii. 1. He would even use "substantia" as a synonym 
for " persona " ( = viroaTaais). 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, 1 S. Athanasius mediated between them, 

1 P. 100, supra. 


showing that the Western use, una substantia ( = fila ovala), 
was not Sabellian, and that the Greek use, rpeis vTroardaeis 
( = ires personce), was not Tritheistic. 

The acute mind of S. 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 = ovala 
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. 2 
Eeaders 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 Eiez in 
the fifth. Both of them had been trained as lawyers, and 
not unnaturally carried legal ideas into theology. To a 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 " ; (ib.) : " Non ius eum substantiuum 
habere in re per substantial proprietatem, ut res et persona 
qusedam uidere possit (soil. Logos)." 

These passages show how his legal training coloured his 
conception of the term persona in his Latin Bible. 3 By them- 

1 DC Trin. iv. 21 . 

2 De Synodis, 12 : " Essentia est res quse est, uel ex quibus est et quae 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. Quae idcirco etiam substantia est, quia res quse est, necesse est, 
subsistat in sese." 

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


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." l But there are others 
which might point to a simpler explanation of the terms : 2 
adv. Hermog. 3 : " Deus substantiae ipsius (Christi) nomen est 
diuinitatis." Apol. 21:" Hunc ex Deo prolatum didicimus et 
prolatione generatum et idcirco Filium Dei et Deum dictum 
ex unitate substantke." 

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 iuris. 

This question of definition has a wider range than the 
mere historical problem, whether the use made of these 
terms in the Quicunque 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 S. 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 person eius Christus Doiuinus." In both 
cases the LXX. has Trptxrwirov. 

1 Harnack, D.G. ii. p. 307. 2 Seeberg, D.G. i. p. 87. 


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. 


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 Quicunqiie, 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 

The most important is the so-called " Faith of the 
Komans," which will come again under our notice as con 
taining a quotation from the Apostles Creed. It is attributed 
to Phoebadius, 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 dimmish 
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 


Trinity? which became widely popular under the name of 
Athanasius, and in this way the profession got the name "Libel- 
lus Fidei S. Athanasii," by which Hincmar of Eheims called it 
in the ninth century. Probably it was by association with it 
in MSS. containing this book that the Quicunque also got the 
name " Faith of S. Athanasius." In collections of creeds the 
most common name is " The Faith of the Romans, or the 
Eoman 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 Fides 
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 I. 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. 

PAULINUS, Ep. 37. VICTRICIUS, de Laude Sanctorum^.iv. 

Cum ergo fides et confessio tua, ut Confitemur Deum Patrem, confite- 

credimus atque confidimus coaeter- mur Deum Filium, confitemur Spir- 

nam Trirdtatem, unius diuinitatis itum Sanctum Deum. Confitemur 

et substantise et operis et regni esse quia tres unum sunt. Unum dixi ; 

testetur ; cumque Patrem Deum et 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. Rfo. 1898. 

2 Paulinus, Ep. 37. 5. 



Filium Deum et Spiritum Sanctum ita Pater in Filio ; Sanctus Spiritus 
Deum, ut est qui est et erat et uen- uero de Patre et Filio : ita et Pater 
turus est . . . quod ita ut ipse a Deo et Filius in Spiritu Sancto. Una 
doctus es, doces unitatera Trinitatis Deitas, una substantia .... quia 
sine confusione iungens, et Trinita- ut tres ex uno, ita unitas in tribus. 
tern ipsius unitatis sine separatione Sic confitemur quia sic credimus 
distinguens, ita ut nulla alteri per- indiuiduam Trinitatem, ante quam 
sona conueniat, et in omni persona niliil potest attingi nee mente con- 
trium Deus unus eluceat ; et tantus cipi. 

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

Certi auteni sumus, quod et Filium Dei ita prsedicas, ut eundein et 
Filium hominis confiteri non erubescas ; tarn uere hominem in nostra 
natura quam uere Deum in sua ; sed Filium Dei ante soecula, quia ipse est 
Dei Uerbum Deus, qui erat in principio apud Deum, seque Deus coomni- 
potens et cooperator Patris. . . . Et hoc Uerbum, pietatis immensse 
mysterio, caro facturn est et liabitauit in nobis. Non autem caro 
tantum corporis nostri, sed homo totus, et corporis nostri et anima) 
assumption^ animoe auteni rationalis, quse iuxta naturale opificium 
Dei habet insitam meiitem ; alioquin in tenebris Apollinaris errabimus, 
si hominem assumptum a Deo animam mentis humanse uacuam, 
qualis est pecorum et iumentorum, dicamus habuisse ; et eum hominem, 
quem suscepit Dei Filiua, 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 BACCHIAKII, Cod. Ambros. 0. 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- 


ituSj Films unus est genitns, Spiritus Sanctus a Patre procedens Patri et 
Filio corcternus. . . . 

Itaque Spiritus Sanctus nee Pater esse ingenitus nee Filius genitus 
aestimetur, sed Spiritus Sanctus, qui a Patre procedit ; sed non est aliud, 
quod procedit, quam quod unde procedit. Si persona queeritur, Deus est. 
Haec per hoc tripertita coniunctio et coniuncta diuisio et in personis ex- 
cludit unionem et in personarum distinctione obtinet Unitatem. Sicque 
credimus beatissimam Trinitatem, quod unius naturae est, unius deitatis, 
unius eiusdemque uirtutis atque substantise, ne inter Patreni et Filium et 
Spiritum Sanctum sit ulla diuersitas, nisi quod ille Pater est eb hie 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 

He explains the Greek terms O/JLOOVO-LOV and vTroo-rao-is, 
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, conf undentes Arium, imam 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, quse ex anima continetur 
et corpore." 

Leporius, a native of Treves, 1 who became a priest at 

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


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. 


Confiteinur Dominum ac Deum nostrum lesum Christum, unicum 
Filium Dei, qui ante s^cula 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 liominem inseparabilem pia fidei credulitate suscepimus, et ex 
tempore susceptje carnis sic omnia dicimus, quse erant Dei, transiisse in 
liominem, ut omnia quse erant hominis, in Deum uenirent, ut liac intelli- 
gentia Uerbum factum sit caro, non ut conuersione aut rnutabilitate 
aliqua coeperit esse, quod non erat, sed ut potentia diuinse 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, qui cum Patre et Spiritu Sancto unus est in natura 
alter est in persona. Non enim ipsum Patrem dicimus esse, quern Filium ; 
nee iterum eundem Filium dicimus esse, quern 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 
tly suse trinitate perfectum. Nascitur ergo nobis proprie de Spiritu 
Sancto et Maria, semper uirgine, Deus homo lesus Christus Filius Dei, 
ac sic in alterutrum unum fit uerbum et caro, ut manente in sua perfec- 
tione naturaliter utraque substantia sine sui praeiudicio et humanitati 
diuina communicent et diuinitati humana participent ; nee alter Deus, 
alter homo, sed idem ipse Deus, qui et homo, et uicissim idem ipse homo, 
qui et Deus, lesus Christus unus Dei Filius et nuncupetur et uere sit. Et 
ideo agendum nobis semper est et creel endum,ut Dominum lesum Christum 
Filium Dei, Deum uerum, quern cum Patre semper, et tequalern Patri 
ante soecula confitemur, eundem a teinpore susceptse carnis factum Deum 
hominem non negemus, nee quasi per gradus et tempora proficientem 


in Deum, al terms status ante resurrectionem, alterius post resurrectionem, 
eum f uisse credamus, sed eiusdem semper plenitudinis atque uirtutis. . . . 
Sed quia Uerbum Deus in hominem dignanter hominem suscipiendo 
desceiidit, et per susceptionem Dei homo ascendit in Deum Uerbum, totus 
Deus Uerbum factus est totus homo. Non enim Deus Pater homo factus 
est nee Spiritus Sanctus, sed unigenitus Patris ; ideoque una persona 
accipienda est carnis et Uerbi, ut fideliter sine aliqua dubitatione 
credamus, unurn eundemque Dei Filium inseparabilem semper gemina3 
eubstantise etiam gigantem nominatum. . . . 

By the study of these confessions we are brought into 
contact with fresh and vigorous minds working out for them 
selves formulae 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, S. 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 


The opening years of the fifth century were indeed a 
time of trouble and rebuke to all citizens of the old Koman 
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 Q-overnment 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. 


ment from the world, and seems to have entered for a time 
the famous monastery of Lerins. 1 

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 Aries ; 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 Eiez, 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 Quicunque in the writings of 
Vincentius and Faustus, which I collected for my former 

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. 2 It has been 
argued that " there is no appearance that Vincentius was 
quoting any particular document." 3 This is true, but it does 
not exclude the supposition that he quoted phrases of the 

1 Hil. Arelat., Uita S. Honor, c. 4. a The Ath. Creed, p. xcii. 

3 Swainson, Hist. Creeds, p. 224. 


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 (c. 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 Ckristus, not Filius. He uses the 
term humanitas freely, and in c. 20 writes Deus Uerbum 
assumendo et habendo carnem, but seems to shrink from the 
compound phrase assumptio humanitatis. I think we may 
trace this to his fear of a Nestorian interpretation of the 
words. In c. 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 ilium et ceteros homines interfuisse 

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. 


(b) Aug. 

" Deus ante omnia specula." 

" Deus est ex substantia Patris ante ssecula 


" idem ex Patre ante ssecula genitus." 
" homo in nostro saeculo." 
" homo ex substantia matris in steculo genitus." 
" idem ex matre in sreculo generatus." 

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


tion of Nestorian statements. In the same way I would 
explain the variation in the following parallel to clause 3 4 : 

Aug. : " non confusione nature sed imitate persons." 
Quic. : " non confusione substantive sed imitate persona?." 
Vine. : " non corruptibili nescio qua diuinitatis et humani- 

tatis confusione sed integra et singular! qua- 

dam unitate personce." 

The word substantia ( = natura) was used freely by 
Augustine (In Joh. Tract. 78), as in the well-known 
Ambrosian hymn, " Precede de thalamo tuo geminse gigas 
substantial Elsewhere it is used freely by Vincentius, but 
he seems to substitute diuinitatis et kumanitatis in this 
sentence as if he would prefer the plural sulstantiarum to 
the singular of the Quicunque form, and adds the epithet 
singulari 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 0eo? o^ov real avdpwTros in anti-Nestorian sentences. 1 


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 

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


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 Quicunque belongs 
to Apollinarian times, i.e. 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, 1 who adds 
the word God, " one eternal God." This is, as Waterland 2 
says, " a very insipid and dull way of expressing it." 

On the other hand, these professions agree closely with 
the Quicunque in carefully distinguishing the persons, while 
they retain the Gallican terminology, una 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 

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 Quicunque 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 C. " P. 214. 


doubtful treatise of Athanasius, c. Apol. i. 16; cf. Orat. iii. 
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 substantial Pelagius sums up 
in a sentence the argument of the Quicunque (ell. 2435) : 
" Sic autem confitemur in Christo imam Filii esse personam, 
ut dicamus, duas esse perfectas atque integras substantias, id 
est, deitatis et humanitatis, quce 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 8 , 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 Antiochcnes, 
proves nothing against the priority of the Quicunque, 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. 


the statement : " Nee alter Deus, alter homo, seel 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 S. 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 ssecula ... in 
hoc sseculo " finds a parallel in Augustine s Enchiridion 
(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 Quicunq/ue. Augustine may have had Le- 
porius in his mind, who in his recantation quoted the two 
nativities to lead up to " unum eundemgue 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, " perf ectus Deus perfectus 
homo," and lacks the " idem " " idem " so often inserted by 

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 


exclude his theory of One Nature. There is no indication 
that such need was felt by the author of the Quicunque, 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 1 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-Eutychian 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. 2 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," etc., 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 
Water land 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, 4 are defensible against Waterland only on the assump 
tion that the main argument of clauses 3235 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 I/icarn. vi. 13. 

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. 

" TheoL Lit. Z. Man>h 6, 1897. 4 Diss. pp. 350-374. 


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. Ep. 164, etc.) before 431, 
and supplied a useful argument against the Apollinarian 
denial that the Lord had a human soul. 


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. 
45 : "In nomine Patris et Fili et Spiritus Sancti, non 
dicit autem in nominibus tamquam in multis, sed in uno, 
quia unus Deus trina potestate uenerabilis omnia et in 
omnibus Chris tus est sicut scribtum est : Abrahce dictce sunt 
repromissiones et semini eius ; non dicit et seminilus tan- 
quam in multis, sed quasi in uno ( et semini tuo quod est 
Christus. . . . Nobis enim Christus Deus Dei Filius passus in 


came secundum fideui symbol! baptizatis et electis ad sacer- 
dotium in nomine Patris et Fill et Spiritus Sancti tota fides, 
tota uita, tota ueneratio est." 

With this passage we may compare a fragment of esoteric 
teaching, his Beneclidio 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, 1 that 
Priscillian omitted the et 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 (trina potestas). 

The same mist of vagueness obscures the outlines of his 
Christological teaching. The following passage is plainly 
Apollinarian. Tract VI. 99: " Denique Deus noster adsu- 
mens carnem, formam in se Dei et hominis, id est diuinse 
animae et terrenae carnis adsignans, dum aliud ex his peccati 
formam, aliud diuinam ostendit esse naturam, illudque arma 
iniquitatis peccato, hoc iustitice 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 
Eome 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 Auy.: "Trinitatem autem solo uerbo loquebatur, nam unionem 
absque ulla existentia aut proprietate adserens sublato et Patrem, Filium 
Spiritum Sanctum liunc esso unum Christum docebat." 


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 Quicunque 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. 1 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. ii. 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. Jill: " Inter duodecim milia signatorum 
patriarchum numeris mancipati." 

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


Tract VII. 117: " Perpetua luce contecti peccatorum 
supplicia respuere et requiem possimus habere iustorum per 
lesum 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." 


My conclusions from all these considerations differ but 
little from those of Waterland. They seem to point to the 
decade 420430 as the period when the creed must have 
been written. 

Kattenbusch 1 would push the date ten years further back. 

1 Theol. Lit. Z. 1897, p. 144 : " Das Charakteristische an der Formel ist ihre 
eigcnthiimlich kunstmassige Gestalt. Man kann sie eine " Dichtung " heisseu. 
In feierlich bemessener, gravitatischer Form prazisirt sie die calholica fides. Sie 
hat kein Metrum, wohl aber einen unverkennbaren Rhythmus. In Hirer rhetor - 
isch plerophorischen Art spricht sie speciell den trinitarischen Gedanken 
vielleicht kiihner und consequenter aus, als es der Theologie noch gelaufig war. 
Man sieht sich ja nothwendigenveise an die Gedanken erinnert, die Augustin 
ausgefuhrt 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 Vor lauferin der Spekulation des 
Augustin. Mir scheint, in der That, als ob Augustin sie bereits kenne. Nicht 
als ob er sie irgendwie als eine Autoritat, betrachte. Aber wenn sie in Lerinum 
entstanden sein sollte, kann sie bald auch in afrikanischen monchischen 
Kreisen bekannt geworden sein. Es hat fiir mich mehr Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass 
dem Augustin einzelne ihrer Ausdriicke oder Satze im Gedachtniss 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 liberraschend ahnlichen 
oder geradezu gleichlautenden "Wendungen geschopft haben sollte." 


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 (i.e. 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 719, 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 plenitude), 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 

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- 


cunque. The parallels to the second book "against Maximinus," 
published c. 427, are of less importance. His lectures on S. 
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 c. 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, Victricius, Vincentius, and 
Honoratus. I consider Vigilius of Thapsus, 1 or his double, out 
of court. 

The chief claim put forward for Victricius by Harvey 2 
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 Quicungrue ; 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 Commonitorium 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 QuicuwpU represents rather 
the grammar than the poetry of theology. His intellect was 
imaginative rather than analytical, and there is true poetry 
1 See Appendix B. 2 On the Creeds, ii. p. 577. 


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 Commonitorium, 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 The 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 Csesarius of 
Aries, 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 Aries, 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 Aries and Faustus make to his 
dogmatic teaching. 

Hilarius, Vita Honorati, c. 3 8 : " Quotidianus siquidem in 
sincerissimis tractatibus confessionis Patris ac Filii ac Spiritus 
Sancti testis fuisti : nee facile tarn exerte tarn lucide quisquam 
de diuinitatis Trinitate disseruit, cum earn personis distingueres, 
et gloria aeternitate ac maiestate sociares." 

Faustus, In deposition* S. Honorati : " Sed et modo minus 
potest gaudere is ... qui patriani uel parentes illius feruore 
contempserit . . . qui fideliter sanctam regulam custodierit ab illo 
allatam et per ilium a Christo ad confirmationem loci istius con- 

stitutam Ergo carissimi,ut adipisci possimus ilia quse obtinuit 

sequamur ilia prius quae docuit ; teneamus in primis fidem rec- 


tarn, credamus Patrein et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum imum 
Deum. Ubi enim est unitas esse non potest insequalitas, et cum 
Filius quia Deus est perfectus consummatus et plenus sit, 
prorsus minor dici non potest plenitude." 

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." 1 

1 Cf. my The Ath. Creed, p. xcvii. 



I. The Sermons of Auitus 3 Csesarius, 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 Quicunque 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. 


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

(i.) Auitus, Bishop of Vienne 490523, in a work on the 
Divinity of the Holy Spirit, quotes clause 22:" Quern nee 
factum legimus, nee genitum nee creatum " ; and again : 
" Sicut est proprium Spiritui Sancto a Patre Filioque pro- 
cedere istud fides catholica, etiamsi renuentibus non per- 
suaserit, in suse tamen disciplinse 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, Man. Germ. Auct. vi. 2. 


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. Geinina 
quidem substantia sed una persona est." 

(ii.) Caesarius, Bishop of Aries 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, saec. ix. in.-. 

1 . " Eogo et admoneo nos f ratres carissimi ut quicunque 1 

(40.)^?^ saluus esse fidem rectam 2 catholicam discat, firmiter 3 

teneat inuiolatamque conseruet. 4 Ita ergo oportet uni- 

15. cuique obseruare ut credat Patrem credat Filium credat 

16. Spiritum Sanctum. Deus Pater Deus Films Deus et 
7. Spiritus Sanctus sed tamen non tres Dii sed unus Deus. 

Qualis Pater tails Filius talis et Spiritus Sanctus. 
Attamen 5 credat unusquisque fidelis quod Filius 6 
31. cequalis 7 est Patri secundum diuinitatem et minor est 8 
Patre 9 secundum Jiumanitatem 10 carnis quam de nostro n 
assurnpsit ; 12 Spiritus uero Sanctus ab utroque pro- 

1 Quicumque, G. 2 + et, G. 8 + quo, G. 4 conseruat, G. 6 Et tainen, G. 
6 om. Filius, G. 7 equalis, G. 8 om. est, G. 9 Patri, G. 10 ma, supra I in., G. 
11 nostra, G. 12 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 Cpesarius (Cod. lat. Monacensis 5515, ssec. xii., 
xiii.) : Sermo "beati Ccesarii episcopi in prcesentia cleri ; also in 
the index : Item sermo l)eati Ccesarii episcopi ad clerum. It 
became very popular in the eighth and ninth centuries, and 
is found in several recensions, being incorporated in the Ordo 


ad Synodum of the Koman Pontifical. But in spite of the 
number of Caesarian expressions which abound in it, and 
which seem to prove that portions of it came originally from 
the pen of Caesarius, 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 rnemoriter teneat." x 

At this point I may refer to the evidence of a Tractatus 
de Trinitate printed among the works of Ambrose. Katten- 
busch 2 calls it pre-Chalcedonian, and this date seems prob 
able. But other critics are not likely to admit that the 
parallel sentences to the Quicunque, 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 K, expanding the 
doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. In c. 2 
the phrase rectum et catholicum is used with regard to faith 
in God. In c. 5 we find uenerari 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, Tpidba eV evoTyn. The procession of the Spirit 
is spoken of as a Patre. 

Kattenbusch 3 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 Caesarius the 
following quotation in the Instructio of Coluniban (-f 615), 
the founder of the monasteries of Luxeuil and Bobbio : 
" Credat itaque primum omnis gui uult saluus esse in primum 
et in nouissimum Deum unurn ac trinum, unum subsistentem 
trinum substantia, unum potentia, trinum persona . . . ubi 

1 Malnory, S. Cdsaire, Paris, 1894, p. 285. Morin, Rev. Bin. Sept. 1895, 
p. 390. 

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

8 Gennadii liber de ecd. dogm. homilia sacra, Hamburg, 1614. 


habes in ueritate Trinitatem in Unitate et Unitatem in Trini- 

Columban used the Rule of Csesarius, 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. 


(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 Quicunque 
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 Quicunque. 1 I will print these quotations in 
italics, those of the Quicunque in small capitals. In both 
cases the authors of the canon seem to have quoted written 
documents : 

Canon 1 (Cod. Nov. SOBC. x., Spicilegium Casinense, i. 
p. 300): " Secundum diuinas scripturas et doctrinam 
quam a sanctis patribus accepimus Patrem et Filium et 
Spiritum Sanctum unius deitatis atque substantise con- 
fitemur in personarum diuersitate Trinitatem credentes, 
4. in diuinitate unitatem prsedicantes NEC PERSONAS CON- 





28. ET FILIO profitemur. Ipsum autem DOMINUM NOSTRUM 
IESUM CHRISTUM DEI FILIUM et creatorem omnium, EX 


ultimo tempore pro redemptione mundi a Patre, qui 
nunquam desiit esse cum Patre. Incarnatus est enim ex 
Spiritu Sancto et sancta gloriosa Dei genetrice uirgine 
Maria, et natus ex ipsa, solus autem Dominus lesus 

1 I owe this suggestion to Prof. J. A. Robinson. 


Chris tus ; unus de sancta Trinitate, anima et carne 

(33.) perfectum, sine peccato, suscipiens Jiominem manens quod 

31. erat assumens quod non erat: ^EQUALIS PATRI SECUNDUM 


habens in una persona duarum naturarum proprietates ; 

35. naturae enim in illo duce, DEUS ET HOMO, non autem duo 
Filii 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 
ibi tenebantur erueret : deuictoque mortis imperio re- 

37. surrexit, assumptus deinde in coelum UENTURUS est in 
futurum ad indicium uiuorum et mortuorum: cuius 
nos morte et sanguine mundati remissionem peccatorum 
consecuti sumus, resuscitandi ab eo in die nouissimo, in ea 
qua nunc uiuimus carne et in ea qua resurrexit idem 

(39.) Dominus forma, percepturi ab ipso alii pro iustitise meritis 

uitam ceternam, alii pro peccatis supplicii ceterni senten- 

40. tiam. H^:c EST catholics ecclesiae FIDES; hanc 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 assumpsit humanitatem : the phrase of the 
" Creed of Damasus," which is also the phrase of the Te 
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 Eule of Faith, Swainson 1 
searched in vain for quotations of the Quicunque, concluding 

1 P. 235, 


" that it was not known to him, or, if known, it had no 
authority." Loofs 1 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 Qui- 
cunqiie unit 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 

" Htec est autem post apostolorum symbolum certissima 
fides, ... ut profiteamur Patrem et Filium et Spiritum 
Sanctum imius essentiae, eiusdem potestatis et sempiternitatis 
. . . Patrem quoque confiteri ingenitum, Filium genitum, 
Spiritum Sanctum uero nee genitum nee 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 Christ us persona gestauerit. . . . Hcec est Catholics 
traditionis fidei uera iiitegritas de qua si unum quodlibet 
respuatur, tota fidei credulitas amittitur." 2 

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, ceternus, incorporeus, im- 
partibilis impassibilis immensce potentice, sapientice ac lonitatis : 
creator et conservator omnium turn uisibilium turn inuisibilium. 
Et in unitate huius diuinse nature tres sunt personcc, eiusdem 
essentice %)otentice ac seternitatis, Pater Films 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 tainen tres sint persons eiusdem essentise 
potentice et coseternte Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus." 

1 R.E. z vt:t. "Athanasianum," p. 192 ; cf. 189. 

2 De Ecdcs. 0/ic. ii. 24, M.S.L. 83, 817. 


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 coceternce, 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 ? 

(ii.) 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, ssec. ix. 

E Cod. Phillippsii nunc Berolinensis, 1763, fol. 3, ssec. ix. 1 

XCod. Vinddb. 2171, fol. l r , SSEC. ix. 


" Si quis presbyter aut diaconus subdiaconus (J) cleri- 
cus (c) symbolum (d) quod Sancto inspirante (e) Spiritu apos- 
toli tradiderunt, et fidem sancti Athanasii (/) presulis (g) 
irreprehensibiliter (li) non recensuerit (i) ab episcopo con- 
damnetur (&)." 

(a) Agustodinensis, P ; Agustudunensis, X. (6) om. subdiaconus, E. (c) 
clericus, pr. aut, E. (d) symbulum, P*. (e) inspirante s. supra lin. P. (/) 

1 My collations of E and X are taken from Mon. Germ. Hist., Legum sectio 
iii. ; Cone. torn. i. p. 220. 


Athanasi, P. (g) presolis, P*, \\. supra Un. P corr. (k) inr , P. (t) recen- 
siuerit, P. (k) condempnetur, X. 

The only real difficulty connected with the Canon lies in 
the question whether the Faith referred to was the Quicunque 
or some other, e.g. the Fides IZomanorum, which Eatramn of 
Corbey quoted, as he quoted the Quicunque under the title 
Lilellus de Fide AtJianasii. Hincmar also, following Eatramn, 
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 Eatramn and Hincmar 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. 


The Treves fragment is part of a sermon in which clauses 
27 6 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 Eome, for he gives a list of 
books of Scripture which were read in the Church of S. 
Peter. He uses the fragment, which he says he found at 
Treves, 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. Treves 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. 


Cod led. 3836, f. 89.: 



28. IHESU CHRISTI FIDELITER CREDAT. Est ergo fides recta ut 
credamus et confitemur quia dominus ihesus christus del 

29. filius deus pariter et homo est. deus est de substantia 
patris ante soecula genitus, et homo de substantia matris in 

30. saeculo natus. perfectus deus perfectus homo ex ariirna 

31. rationabili et humana carne subsistens. sequalis patri 
ssecundum diuinitatem minor patri scecundum hurnani- 

32. tatem. qui licet deus sit homo non duo tamen sed unus est 

33. christus. unus autem non ex eo quod sit in carne conuersa 
diuinitas, sed quia est in deo adsumpta dignanter humanitas. 

34. unus Christus est non confusione substantive sed unitatem 

36. personae qui secundum 1 fidem nostram passus et mortuos 

37. ad infer na discendens, et die tertia resurrexit, adque ad celos 
ascendit, ad dexteram dei patris sedet, sicut uobis in 
simbulo tradutum est ; Inde ad iudicandos uiuos et mortuos 

38. credimus (f. 89 V ) etsperamus eum esse uenturum. ad cuius 
aduentum erunt omnes homines sine dubio in suis corporibus 

39. resurrecturi et reddituri de factis propriis rationem, ut 
qui bona egerunt eant in uitam seternam, qui mala in 

40. ignem sternum. Hsec est fides sancta et catholica, 
quam omnes homo qui ad uitam ceternam peruenire desid- 
crat scire intcgrce 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 Treves 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, ct 
mortuus and die tertia. He alters the form of clause 37&, 

1 In the MS. the a of ssecundum has been erased, and a second m in humana. 


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 Galilean 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 3-i 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 this reason. If we suppose the sermon 
to be some fifty or sixty years older than the date when the 
fragment was copied at Treves, we are brought to a date at 
which Eutychianism was widely prevalent. Heurtley 1 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 527566, wrote a letter 
remonstrating with Justinian on his lapse into a form of 
Eutychianism. He bade him remember his baptismal vow : 
" TJnum Filium manentem in duabus substantiis cum Patre et 
Spiritu Sancto non duos Christos testatus es . . . talis Pater 
qualis et Filius." 2 There is another parallel to the wording 
of the Quicunque in his letter to Queen Chlodosinda on her 
husband s Arianism : " In die resurrectionis nee manere nee 
apparere potuit qui Trinitatem in Unitate non crediderit." 

It is possible that we have in the Treves Fragment a 
sermon of Nicetus. He was a friend of Venantius For tuna tus, 
and was brought into touch with the school of Lerins through 

1 Hist. Earlier Form. 1892, p. 126. 2 Galland, iii. 776. 


a friend Florianus, Abbot of Eomanus (diocese of Milan), a 
pupil of Caesarius. Indeed, he quotes Germanus, Hilary, and 
Lupus in his letter to the queen. 


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. scec. viii., ix.). It contains, both in form and 
words, reminiscences of the Qnicunque, 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 Quicunque, and such sentences as 
the following : " Spiritum Sanctum dicimus et credimus eo, 
quod est ex Patre et Filio sequaliter procedens, non factus 
nee creatus nee genitus, sed coseternus et coaequalis per 
omnia Patri et Filio. Hanc 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, ssec. x.), and published in the Zeitschrift fur 
Kirchengescliichte, July 1898, contains a form of R, and is 
therefore probably older than the ninth century, when E 
had been superseded almost universally by our Textus 
reccptus. It appears to quote the Quicunque as follows : 
" Sicut aliquis auctor dixit Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus et 
Spiritus Sanctus." 

Another such testimony is in a sermon, which I found 
at S. Gallen (Cod. 230, saec. ix. in.). After a quotation 
from the Fortunatus Commentary follows : " In hac Trinitate 
unum Deum colimus et adorarnus et confitemur, nihil prius 
aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus, sed totae tres persons 
coaeterna? sibi sunt et coaequales. Quia semper fuit Spiritus 
Sanctus in una diuinitate, sequalis gloria, coseterna maiestas." 
That this is more than a quotation from a shortened form of 


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. 5 2 (see p. 232 infra), Morin l 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 K, 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, seculum per ignem, are a quotation from the 
form in which the Fides Eomanorum appears in the Gesta 
Liberii (p. 215 infra) : 

"Fides autem catholica quam me secundum sanctorum patruni 
doctrinam retinere profiteer ac firmiter credere, hrcc est. Confiteor 
itaque sanctam perfectam ueramque Trinitatem, id est Patrem et Filium 
et Spiritum Sanctum unurn esse Deum omnium uisibilium et inuisibilium 
conditorem ; propter inseparabilem substantiam deitatis Unitatem, propter 
distinctionem uero personarum Trinitatem ueneramur. Neque personas 
confundimus nee substantium separamus. Alia est enim persona Patris, 
alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti. Sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti una 
est diuinitas, sequalis 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 nee creatus nee genitus. Filius a Patre solo non 
factus nee creatus sed absque initio genitus. Spiritus autem Sanctus non 
factus nee creatus nee 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 sine Filio, uel Filius sine Pater, nee Spiritus 
Sanctus sine Patre uel Filio. In hac autem sancta Trinitate nihil prius 
aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus, sed totae tres personoe cooeternso 
sibi sunt et cosequales. Omnis namque eancta Trinitas, inuisibilis, 
incorporalis, impalpability infinita, immensa, sempiterna credenda est. 
De hac autem ineffabili Trinitate sola Uerbi Dei persona, id est Dominus 
noster lesus Christus Dei Filius in ultimis diebus propter nos redimendos 
descendit de coelis, 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 eequalis 

1 fav. Bin. 1897, p. 487. 


Patri in diuina natura, minor Patre in liumana. Perfectus Deus 
secundum diuinitatem, perfectus homo secundum human! tatem. 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 
lesus Christus. In diuina ergo natura in qua Deus noster impassibilis 
est et immutabilis est. Sed in humana substantia quam assuinpsit ex 
uirgine dignatus est pati pro nobis, crucifigi, sepeliri, et die tertia 
resurgere et cum eadem glorificata came ad ctelos ascendit, sedetque 
nunc ad dexteram Patris cum qua etiam uenturus est iudicare uiuos et 
mortuos et seeculum 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 sine dubitatione firmiter tenere . . . 
Ista est fides catholica, ut credamus in unum Deum Patrem 
oninipotentem . . . Filium Spiritum Sanctum ex Patre 
procedentem et Filio . . . Pater seternus, Filius seternus, 
Spiritus Sanctus seternus . . . sicut Christus tertia die 
res urr exit a mortuis sic omnes homines boni et mali in 
nouissime die cum propriis corporibus resurgere debent." l 


An important argument, to prove the existence of the 
entire text of the Quicunque 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, 2 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? As I shall quote the readings of the texts of the 
creed embedded in them in my apparatus criticus, it will 

1 Ed. Giles, Oxford, 1841. - Early History, pp. 1-39, 311-386. 

8 Texts and Studies, iv. 1. 


suffice here to give a short summary of the facts known 
about each : 

1. The Orleans Commentary. The Orleans Commentary l 
has been found by Cuissard in a MS. (No. 94) which 
formerly belonged to the Abbey of Fleury, with some scraps 
of Theodulfs treatise against Adoptianism, and an exposition 
of the Mass. It is probably the MS. which the authors of 
the Histoire Litte raire de la France 2 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 Theodulfs 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 Explanatio Fidei Catholicce does not agree with the 
title given to the Commentary of Theodulf in the list of the 
Abbots of Fleury, Expl. Symboli s. Athanasii, which is the 
title used in his book, De Spirit n Sancto. 

2. The Stavelot 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 Th4odulfe fivtque, d Orleans, Oilcans, 1892. - iv. 473. 


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. 840-855, in their second canon: 
" Fideni 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 Liege from the ninth century. It has been 
suggested l 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 Fortimatus 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. 2 

3. The Pans 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 

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 
family of 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, 

1 Ommanney, Dlss. p. 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. 


e.g. " in ueteribus codicibus inuenitur praetitulatum " for " euni 
uidi praet. etiam in net. 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. 1 known. The earliest, Cod. Vat. Eeg. 231, saec. ix., x., 
contains works of Cassiodorus, Prosper, Alcuin, Isidore, with 
expositions of the Lord s Prayer and Apostles Creed. The 
other, Troyes, 804, saec. 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 Quicunque, 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 in a 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 I., Vigilius 
of Thapsus, the Creed of Pelagius, and the Definition of the 
Sixth General Council (681). 

1 A third MS., mentioned by Swainson, p. 379, as Turin Lxvi. ssec. xiii. 
contains a composite text in which notes from the Stavelot Com. are added. 


From this last extract Ommanney concluded that the 
commentary was written while some fear of Monothelitifim, 
the heresy condemned by that Council, still existed, i.e. 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 persona: t 
found useful by Vincentius to define the unitas personce, is 
quoted again and again, as in the Troyes Commentary. No 
doubt it is found in uncontroversial passages, e.g. the Gelasian 
Sacramentary, " unus es Deus, unus es Dominus, non in unius 
singularitate personae." 2 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 Syinbolum Athanasii? 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, 
arid 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. 

a Ed. Wilson. I owe this reference to Dr. Mrcati s review of my book, 
fiemsta Billioy,, 1896, p. 149, but disagree with his argument. 

8 The title given to his Commentary in the catalogue of the Abbots of Fleury 
was Explanatio symbol is Athanasll. The Vatican MS. of the Commentary has 
no title, but is preceded by E-rplanatw symboli Apostoliri. 


Besides its use with the Stavelot Commentary, in Eolle of 
Hampole s edition, it was also combined with other notes in 
a Commentary found in an Oxford MS. (Bodleian Library, 
Cod. Canonici Bill 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 Prsedestinarian 
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. 1 

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 eandein naturam, quse in paradise decepta mortem 
incur rerat, rursum eundern diabolum non potentia diuinitatis 
sed ratione iustitife uincerit." 

" As the process of adoption was not held to be completed 
till the resurrection, the emphatic iteration in this and the 
1 E.H. p. 33; Disj. p. 187. 


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." 1 

" 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 S. Luke gave the descent ac 
cording to the spirit. 2 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. 780820. 

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 S. 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, S3ec. 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. Fa h, the MS. was sent to S 
Gallen for inspection. There could be no doubt as to the 
1 Ath. Creed, p. Iv. f. - Burner, Hist, Person of CJirisf, ii. p. 256. 


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 Expositio Fidei Catholicw, to 
which Goldast had added in the margin, Athanasii 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 S. 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. 1 

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). 2 
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. 
Apollinarianisin 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 humame 
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 Qu-icunque contains against their 
errors are noted. 3 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 

2 The adaptation is also found in Cod. lat. Monaccnsis, 3729 srec. x. , and 
(J.L.M., 14,501, srcc. xii. I have described it fully on p. Ix. of my book, Tiic 
Atk. Creed. 

3 In the Troyes Commentary founded on this, apparently when the Adoptiari- 
ists had revived his heresy, Nestorius is mentioned by name. 


later controversies. Kattenbusch l 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, e.g. 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 
mine 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 Eoman 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." 2 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. 3 In the 
fourth century, Eusebius of Csesarea, while accepting most of 
the conclusions of his predecessor, found reason to postpone 
the date three hundred years, bringing it to A.D. 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. 4 He does not suggest that the close of the 

1 Thcol. Liz., 1897, see p. 147. 2 Cf. Sulpicius Severus, Hist. ii. 

3 Epiphauius seems to have made au independent calculation, which would 
bring it to A.D. 478. 

4 This system was used by Bede, dc Tcmporibus, c. 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, Sffic. viii., and Cod. Bodl. c. Mus. 113 (olim. 94), fol. 
114 V and 115, scec. vii. I owe the latter references to Dom. Moriii. 


niilliaiy was at band. 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, 2022, 
26, 27 ; Fortunatus alone omits also clauses 14, 24. 6 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, 2 7, 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 
2022, 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, yenitus^yrocedens, 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, sa?c. 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. 2G v. 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 01 style and scraps of poetry, 
is much weaker than Waterland s sound general conclusion, 
that " the tenour of the whole comment, and the simplicity 


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. 1 


1. The 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 Treves 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 Treves 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 Eheims 
between the years 860-870. 

He was followed by Lumby, 2 who stated the case succinctly 
as follows: " (i.) Before A.D. 809, there is no trustworthy 
evidence of any confession called by the name of S. Athau- 
asius. (ii.) Before that date two separate compositions existed, 
which form the groundwork of the present Quicunque. (iii.) 
That for some time after that date all quotations are made 
only from the former of these compositions. (iv.) That the 
Quicunque 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 hi 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. 813850 the creed was 
brought nearly into the form in which wo use it." 

1 Tliis argument is accepted by Loofs, R,E. Z , Art. " Atlianasianum." 
"If int. of the Creed*, cd. 3, p. 259. 


In Germany this two-portion theory has been supported in 
a slightly modified form by Harnack, 1 who regards the first 
part as a Gallican Rule of Faith, based on the teaching of 
Augustino 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 
creed 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, e.g. quotations by Hincmar, or Eatramn, or Alcuin, 
were not from a mere fragment. Since the publication of 
my book, The Atlianasian 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- 
*D.G.*ii. p. 299. 


814, now in the " Bibl. des Peres Maristes de Sainte-Foi-les- 
Lyon." 1 He regards such a MS., whose date is approximately 
fixed by the autograph inscription " Leidrat . . . eps istum 
librum tradidi ad altare sci Stephani," as of great value for the 
clearing up of pala30graphical 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 
Quicunqiw, 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 palaeographical arguments 
twenty years ago, which in respect of Quicunqite MSS. have 
been minimised by the publications of the Pala?ographical 
Society. They were sceptical about the dates of MSS, esj. 
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 palseographieal 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 Profes 
sion of Denebert, and the Treves 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 Quicunque, under the title Fidis 

1 Notices et Extraits des manuscrits, 1898. 


CatMica. In the first, the preacher quotes clause 3 ; in the 
second, clauses 1-6, 24, 26&, 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 (Scriptum cst), clauses 1, 3-6, 2022, 

24, 25 of the Quicunyue , and promised further to observe 

the decrees of the Popes, and the six Catholic synods and 

their Eule 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. led. 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. 1 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 2 suggests, a Sabellian 

sound. They run as follows : " Credo in Deum Patrem et 

Filium et Spiritum Sanctum natum et passum," etc. 3 Such 

1 Denebert s readings of clauses 22, 25 correspond to those of another eighth 
century MS., B.N., Paris, Cod. lai. 1451, which contains a list of Popes, with a 
notice of the first six Councils. He may have quoted from a MS. of this 

2 P. 286. 

3 The creeds referred to are those of Heabert, 822; Humbert, 828; Herefrith, 
825 ; Ceolfrith, 889. 


erroneous teaching might have been given ignorantly, but it 
is an interesting fact that Denebert quotes the same clauses 
as Benedict d Aniane and Hincmar, when in the following 
century they reasoned against the heretical tendency of the 
phrase trina deltas. 1 

3. The Treves 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 Treves 
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, Eabanus Maurus, 
showed their ignorance of the Quicunque ; (ii.) 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 ; (iii.) that the completed creed would 
be a useful weapon against Adoptianism, but was not 
discovered in time. 

i. It must be admitted that Eabanus 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 Keichenau. 2 Haito s successor, Walafrid Strabo, came 
from Eeichenau 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 Eabanus. 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- 
tiae, singillatim tamen commendaretur distinctiopersonarum"; 
(6) " Una substantia una natura una maiestas una gloria 
seternitas et Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti." 3 

1 This quotation from Swainson was strongly objected to by some critics of 
my former book, e.g. Dr. Mercati in the Reiista Bibl. Ital. 1896, p. 149, but 
without giving any reasons. 

2 We have now the testimony of the Karlsruhe MS., Cod. Augiensis, ccxxix. . 
of the year 821. 

sRabani, Opp. MSL. 110, p. 210. Cf. my Ath. Creed, p. xxxviii. f. 


When we turn to Alcuin we find it impossible to believe 
chat 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. 1 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. 2 Swainson 
admits that his thoughts, in a letter to Charlemagne (Ep. 33) 
" run curiously enough into the channel of the Quicunque" 3 
and " that the order of everything in the Quicunque, as 
well as many of its words and phrases, 4 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. Elip. 
i. 9 : " Ut unus sit Christus et unus Deus et unus Dei 
Filius . . . diuinitate con subs tan tialis 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 Filii, alter Dei et alter hominis, sed unus 
Christus lesus 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 Quicunque might win in the ninth century. 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 Fides Romanorum. 
We may compare the degree of authoritativeness which the 
Te Deum possessed for Coesarius of Aries, 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." 

2 MSL. 101, 750 756. 3 P. 405. P. 412. 



for Palm Sunday, " Gloria laus et honor," for ourselves. But 
when the Quicunque 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, c. 820 : " Beatus Athanasius ait Fidem Catholi- 
cam nisi quis integrarn inuiolatamque seruauerit, absque dubio 
in seternum 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." 1 

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, 2 " it is shattered on its best proof (the 
Treves fragment). For 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 Quicunqiie has been built up by Loofs 3 
on the ruins of the two-portion theory. 

He supposes that the original Quicunque 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 Treves fragment represents the original text of the latter 

1 Lumby, Hist, of the Creeds, p. 244. Cf. my Ath. Creed, p. xliv. 

2 In his able article " Athanasianum" in R.E.*. s Ib. 


portion, which has been polished into its present state by 
unknown hands. The quotations in the Ps.-Aug., Serm. 244 
(Caesarius) 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 Fides Romano-rum. 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., 0. 212 sup. t preserves a trace of 
its yet unfinished state in clause 22, where " patri et filio 
coceternus" 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, " ^Eternus pater 
etc.," 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 Quicunquc, 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 Treves 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 Qidcunque as intended to be an exposition 
1 ThtoL LUz. 1897, p. 145 f. 


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 Treves 
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 

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 Quicunque 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, e.g. the Creed of 
Damasus. This explains why it did not receive a name at an 
earlier date, 1 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 coreternus " ; e.g. the repetition of " persona " 
in clause 5. This is an addition which was made by Hincmar 
when he was paraphrasing sentences from the creed (de Una 
non Trina Deitate] cf. Alcuin, de Trin. iii. 22). It is easy to 
understand that it would approve itself to an early copyist. 

1 Katteulmsch, art. cit. 


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 6 : " 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 Filio coeeternus," 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 

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 Ciesarius 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, c. 425430, 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 


common faith which (as we gladly recognise) he had the gift 
to express in rhythmical language. 

As I have said before, " the chief interest of these 
researches is centred in the hypothesis that the Quicv.nque 
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 S. Augustine as current terms, 
not confining himself to slavish reiteration like later writers. 1 
But, as we have seen, he was not tongue-tied by that phraseo 
logy, and took his own line. " Auitus and Csesarius, 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 Quicunqiie 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 Csesarius, 
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 


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 middle of the tenth century by a monk, ^Elfric, 1 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 Eome is uncertain. Ama- 
larius of Treves, in his account of the Eoman Office of Prime, 
written c. 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 
Eome. This fact is confirmed by the evidence of Abelard, 
who complained to S. Bernard, c. 1130, that the Cistercian 
Order had given up the ancient custom of daily recitation. 2 
In the same letter, Abelard shows minute knowledge of 
Eoman 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 Eome 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 Catkolica, 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 Eegino of Prum (c. 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 

1 Ommanney, Diss. p. 29. 2 Ep. x., M.S.L. 178, p. 335, 


that it was merely regarded as a Canticle. Waterland points 
out that a MS. of the twelfth century, called Rhythmus 
Anylicus, 1 gives this title also to the Apostles Creed and the 
Lord s Prayer, like old German writings. 2 At the Eeforma- 
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 vi. 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 Eoman 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 Temporal*, (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 ; e.g. English Jesuits use the Eoman calendar 
supplemented by the Proprium Soc. Jesu and by the Proprium 
Anglice, 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 Quicunque (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." 8 

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. c. 1180. 2 Lambec. Catal ii. 760. 

3 I 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, 


Son." Thus Eastern theologians regard it (with that excep 
tion) as containing sound doctrine. 1 


With reference to the following text of the Qiricunque, 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. Fall descrip 
tions of the others may be found in the works of Swainson 
arid Ommanney. 

K! At Karlsruhe, in the Grand Ducal Library, in the fine 
collection of MSS., from Reichenau, Cod. Augiensis, ccxxix. It 
can be dated before 821 A.D., by a marginal note on f. oSv. 
It contains works of Isidore and Martin of Bracara, with 
expositions of the Lord s Prayer and Apostles Creed. 

Ko. Another MS., Cod. Aug. xviii. of the same collection, 
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 
Qicicunque and the Creed of Damasus. 

L 2 . At Leiden, in the University Library, Cod. lat. xviii. 
67. F. ssec. viii., ix. This is a collection of creeds, including 
the Creed of Damasus, and the second form of the Fides 
Eomanorum. It contains also a Latin glossary, which has 
attracted some interest. 

L 3 . The Psalter of Lothaire 2 is now in a private collection, 
but I am indebted to the owner for the following collation. 

M r At Munich, in the Royal Library, Cod. lat. 6298, 
written in an Anglo-Saxon hand, saec. viii., is a mixed collection. 
I am indebted for the collation to Dom. G. Morin. 

M 2 . In the same library, Cod. lat. 6330 s , soec. viii., ix. 
from Freising^rf, is a collection of so-called DoctrincK diuersorum 

1 For further information on the whole question of Reception and Use, see 
Ommanney, Diss. pt. ii. chap. vi. 

a A description of this MS. has been published by the Palreographica 
Society, with three facsimiles, vol. ii. 69, 93, 94. 

8 Since I collated it, I hare found a description of the MS. in Arnold s 
Cxsarius von Arclatc, p. 452, 


patrum. I was attracted by the names, Athanasius, Effrem, 
C&sarius, and found the Quicunque preceding Fides Eoman- 
oruwi ii. 

N. In the Cathedral Library at Vercelli, a collection of 
creeds, including also the two Nicene Creeds, Cod. clxxv. 
saec. ix. 

R At Eheims, in the Town Library, Cod. 20, ssec. ix. 
A Psalter with creeds and canticles. 

T. -At Troyes, in the Treasury of the Cathedral, the so- 
called Psalter of Count Henry, soec. ix. It formerly belonged 
to the Chapter of the Church of S. Etienne. 1 

V 2 . In the Vatican Library, Cod. Vat. Pal. 1127, seec. 
ix., is a collection of creeds and canons. 

W. In the University Library at Wurzburg, an interest 
ing Psalter from Ebrach, Cod. Mp. th., f. 109, in a Lombardic 
hand, saec. 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, Home, Milan, and can testify to the great importance 
of two in particular. Paris, B.N., Cod. lot. 13,159, and Milan, 
Cod. Amlros. 0. 2 1 2, sup. P x . Paris, B.N., 1 3,1 5 9, is a Gallican 
Psalter, which was written before 800 A.D. 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 
ill. After f. 160, two folios have been torn out, one of which 
was "remade in the eleventh century," 2 including clause 11 2a, 
of the Quicunque. 

B. Milan, Cod. Amlros., 0. 212 s^;., 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 Abbs Chaudron, Arch-priest of 
the Cathedral, for permission to examine it. 

- Pelisle, Lc Cabinet des Manuscrits, iii. p. 239 ; cf. Ommnnney, Diss. p. 107. 


Ceriani thinks that it was written in Ireland, and pointed 
out to me the great similarity between it and the Banger 
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 

Clause 22. All the new MSS., with the exception of N, 
omit est. This gives a better rhythmical ending, citrsus uelox, 
ye nitus sed procddens. On the Ehythm, see p. 248. 

Clause 28. Om. pariter, K 2 L s M 2 N R U 2 W ; + pariter, 
K! L 2 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 A B M l L 2 P x 
is strongly in its favour. But it 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, Dtus et hdmo 
est (pi.), 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, came . . . Deo, with the earliest 
MSS. of the Fortunatus Commentary. But Ommanney 2 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 came 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 CAENE-DM, after which 
" another copyist would be tempted to substitute o for m in 

1 May, 1S98. - Diss. p. 416, 


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 Water land l 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 Oinmanney refuses to them. 

The corrupt Latinity of the sixth and seventh centuries 
extended farther 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 M l5 2 , Pj, 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 S. Augustine, preferred ad inferos as 
an improvement on the teaching ad infer num or ad inferna. 
Now, the reading ad inferos had not come into the Gallican 
creeds in the time of Caesarius, Gregory of Tours, or Eligius 
of Noyon, i.e. before 600 A.D. And it became common with 
the appearance and spreading of the Text us receptus from 
tf, 700 A.D. Thus there is a strong presumption against the 

1 P. 146, 


change from inferna to inferos 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 Omnipotentis in the 
later MSS. have been plainly inserted, to make the creed 
correspond to the Texius receptm 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 aKardXijTrTos. In clause 27 "believe 
rightly " is obviously a translation of op6y$ Triarevo-rj, where 
the Latin text has " fideliter credat." In clause 28 they 
quoted the Greek yap not the Latin ergo, and for the same 
reason omitted to translate firmiterque in clause 40, which has 
no place in the Greek text. 1 

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." 



A (a) j Paris, B.N.3836,(Treves fragment); viii. 
B (6) i Milan, 0. 212 sup. . . . viii. 

C (y) A lost Paris MS., S. Gerniains 257 1 viii. 
D (*) Paris, B.N., 1152. Psalter ofi 

Charles the Bald , ix. 

F.S.A. Epi. 

E (x) Utrecht Psalter (formerly Brit. J 

Mus., Claudius, C. vii.) . .iix. ! F.C. 

1 The other instances quoted by Ommanney, p. 312, are doubtful, since they 
might be explained by variants in tho Latin text. 

1 9 o 




B.M., Galba, A. xviii. Psalter . ix. 



S. Gallen, Cod. 20 . ix. in 

F.C.S.A. epi. 

G. (0 

15 . ix. 

F.C. edita a S.A.A. 


G 3 00 

23 . ix. 

F.C.S.A. epi. 

G 4 (m) 

27 . ; ix. 

F.S.A. epi. 

H (oc) 

B.M., Reg. 2. B.Y. . ! ix. x. 

Hymnus A. de fide 



Karlsrulie, Cod. Aug. ccxxix. . ix. in. 

K 2 

xviii. . . ix. 


Lambeth Palace, Cod. 427. Psalter 

ix. x 

F.C.S.A. epi. 



Leiden, Cod. xviii. 67. F 

viii. ix. 

F. S. Athanasii epi. 


Psalter of Lothaire 




Munich, cod. M. 6298 . ... 



6330 . 

viii. ix. 


com) epi. 


Vercelli, Cod. clxxv. . 


F. S. Athanasia epi A. 

P! (&) 

Paris, B.N.,1 .3,159. Psalter, clauses 

126-40 . 


P 3 W 

4858, clauses 1-11 


P 3 (d) 

1451 .... viii. 

Inc. exemplar fidei 

clit. sci. atanasii 

epi alex. ecclesice. 

P 4 (66) 

3848, B . . . ix. 

F.S.A. epi. 


C.C.C.Cambridge,272.0.5. Psalter 




Rheims, 20. Psalter . . . ix. 

F.S.A. epi. 

S (*) 

C.C.C. Cambridge, 411 N. 10. 

Psalter xi. 1 

F.S. Anasthasii epi. 


Troyes (Psalter of Count Henry) ix. 


Rome, Cod. Vat Pal. 574 . . ix. 

F.C. 6. Atanasi epi. 

U 2 

Cod. Vat, Reg. 1127 . . ix. 



Atanasi epi. Alex. 



Vienna, 1032 . . . . ; ix 

F.C.S. Atanasi epi. 


AViirzburg, Cod. Mp. th. f. 109. 

Psalter . . . ix. 

Y (?/) 

Vienna, 1861 (Golden Psalter) . 


F.C. trad, a S.S.A. 


* A-F and H are so designated by Luniby. I have given Swainson s symbols 

in brackets (a) etc. 





Fort i Fortunatus,inOxfordBodl.Junius 




Tr ; Troyes, in Troyes, 804 



Oi i Oratorian in Troves. 804 




Bou a 





Oratorian, Cod. Vat. Reg. 231 
Bouhier in Troyes, 1979 . . x. jF.C.S.A. epi. 

B.M. Add. MSS. 24,902 x. xi. JF.C. 
Orleans, in Orleans, 94 t . j ix. !F.C. 
Paris, in B.N. 1012 . .- . x. iF.C. 
StavelotinB.M.Add.MSS.18,043| x. F.C.S.A. 
Denebert,798 A.D. (B.M. Cleopatra 


Cone. Toletanurn, 633, A.D. (Cod. 

Novar.) ..... 

To these add MSS. uncollated. 

Ssec. viii. ix. The MS. given by Leidrad to the Church of 
Lyons, 798-814 (p. 173 supra). 

Siec. ix. A MS. among the Archives of the Miinster 
Kirche at Essen, 1 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 Qmcunque. It is assigned to the Carolingian period, 
c. 850. 2 

Ssec. ix. x. A MS. at Ivrea (Cod. xlii.), f. 59", "Fides 
sci Athanasi epi alexandrini." 

Ssec. ix. A MS. at Paris, B.N., Nouv. acq. lat. 442 
(Libri 94), a Psalter written in Tironian notes or shorthand 

The Text of the "Quicunque "from MSS. of the E i/jhth and Ninth 
Centuries, and Commentaries 

1 Quicunque unit saluus esse ante omnia opus est ut 
teneat catholicam fidem, pl 2 quam nisi quisque integram 
inuiolatamque seruauerit, absque dubio in se termini 
peribit. 1 

I. i. (a) 3 Fides autem Catholica hsec est, ut unum Deum 
in Trinitate et Trinitatem in Unitate ueneremur ; 4 neque 
confundentes personas neque substantial!! separantes. v 
5 Alia est enim persona Patris, alia Filii, alia Spiritus 

1 TJieol. LiteraturUatt, Utli Dec. 1894, p. 600. 

2 Hitherto the oldest MS. of the kind known has been Cod. JBambcrgcnsis, of 


Sancti, pl G sed Patris et Filii eb Spiritus Sancti una est 
diuinitas, aequalis gloria, coaeterna maiestas. pl 

(b) 7 Qualis Pater tails Films talis et Spiritus Sanctus. pl 
8 Increatus Pater increatus Filius increatus et Spiritus 
Sanctus. pl Immensus Pater immensus Filius immensus et 
Spiritus Sanctus. pl 10 ^Eternus Pater, isternus Filius, 
reternus et Spiritus Sanctus, pl n et tamen non tres aeterni 
sed linns aete rnus : pl 12 sicut non tres increati nee tres 
immensi, sed unus increatus et unus immensus. pl 13 Simi- 
liter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omnipotens et 
Spiritus Sanctus, pl H et tamen non tres omnipotentes 
sed linus omnipotent 

(c) 15 Ita Deus Pater Deus Filius Deus et Spiritus 
Sane tus, pl 1G et tamen non tres Dei sed unus est Deus. pl 
17 Ita Doniinus Pater Dominus Filius Dominus et Spiritus 
Sanctus. pl 18 et tamen non tres Domini sed linns est Domi- 
nus.* 19 Quia sicut singillatim unamquamque personam et 
Deum et Dominmn confiteri Christiana ueritate comp^l- 
limur v ita tres Deos aut Dominos dicer e catholica religione 

ii. 20 Pater a nullo est factus nee creatus nee gen it us.* 
21 Filius a Patre solo est, non factus nee creatus sed 
geuitus. 1 22 Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio, non factus nee 
creatus nee genitus, sed procedens. v 23 Unus ergo Pater 
non tres Patres, unus Filius non tres Filii, unus Spiritus Sanctus 
non tres Spiritus Sancti. pl 24 Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius 
aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus, sed totae tres personae 
cocieternae sibi sunt et cosequales : pl 25 ita ut per omnia 
sicut iam supradictum est, et Trinitas in Unitate et Unitas in 
Trinitate ueneranda sit. 26 Qui uult ergo saluus esse ita de 
Trinitate sentiat. 

II. 27 Sed necessarium est ad seternam salutem, ut incar- 
nationem quoque Domini nostri lesu Christi f ide* liter cr^dat. pl 
28 Est ergo fides recta, ut credamus et confiteamur, quia Domi 
nus noster lesus Christus Dei Filius Dthis et homo est. pl 

i. 29 Dens est ex substantia Patris ante sascula genitus, et 
homo est ex substantia matris in saeculo natus. pl 30 Perfec- 
tus Deus, perfectus homo, ex anima rationali et humana carne 


subsistens. pl 31 Squalls Patri secundum diuinitatem, minor 
Patri secundum humanitatem v . 

ii. 32 Qui licet Deus sit et homo non duo tamen sed unus 
est Chrfstus. pl 33 Unus autem, non conuersione diuinitatis 
in carne, sed assumptione humanitatis in De*o. pl 34 Unus 
omnino non confusione substantive sed unit ate personse. pl 
35 Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo, ita Deus 
et homo linus est Christus pl : 

iii. 36 qui passus est pro salute nostra, descendit ad 
inferna, resiirrexit a mortuis,* 37 ascendit ad caelos, sedet 
ad dexteram Patris: inde uenturus iudicare uiuos et inortuos,* 

38 ad cuius aduentum omnes homines resurgere habent cum cor- 
poribus suis et reddituri sunt de factis propriis rationem. v 

39 Et qui bona egerunt ibunt in uitam seternam, qui uero mala 
in ignem 8eternum. pl 

40 Haec est fides catholica quam nisi quisque fideliter 
firmiterque crediderit, saluus esse non p6terit. t 

1-27. deest in A. 1. Quicumque, B F H Kj, 2 L 3 N P 4 R T U^ 2 . ult, Lj. 
> esse saluus, B. est] + enim, H. tenead, U 2 . fidem cath. Den. chatolicam, 
F P x , 3 Paris. 2. nisi] ni, supra lin. L 2 . quisque] quis, B. intigram, B. 
inuiolatamque, B. om. absque dubio, P 2 ad fin. Incipit de fide, H. 3. 
hec, U... Trinitatem] Trinitate, Kj M 2 P!. 4. confudentes, B ; confundantes, 
H P 3 . substanciam, L 2 ] substantia, M 2 N P 2 U a . seperantes, W*. 5. > enim 
est, Mj Den. om. est, P x . alia persona Filii alia persona Spiritus Sancti, B. alia, 
2] a, supra ras. sec. man. (?) N. personam, Kj*. Spiritus, pr. et, G x , 2 , 3 , 4 
K 2 . 6. sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, supra lin. e recentiori manu, 
B. Spiritus] spu, R. diuinitas] diuitas, P x . equalis, P x R. coseterna, pr. et, 
Or. ; quoeterna, P x ; quoset , P 2 , 3 Orl. Paris, magestas, P 3 . 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 
15, 17. om. et, K x L! R S corr. W c&rr. Bou. Orl. 7, 9, 10, 15, 17. om. 
et, Stav. 13, 15, 17. om. et, B. 8. et, supra lin. sec. man. (?) N. om. et, B P 4 
Or 2 . 8, 9, 10 > 10, 8, 9. feternus . . . increatus , . . immensus, P 3 U 2 (cf. 
11, 12). 9. inmensus (semper], B D F H G 2 G 4 * K 1} 2 L 1} 2 M 2 N Pj, 4 Q R S T U^ 2 
Fort. Tr. Or. Bou. Paris Stav. om. et, B Or 2 Paris. 10. ceternus, 1 ... set. 3] 
et . . . et , P!. om. et, B G 2 P 4 . 11. om. et, E F. tres] .III. B. unus 
ffiternus] def. P 2 . eterni . . . eternus, P^ 12. > unus inrnensus et unus increatus, 
B. 14. om. tamen, B. nee tamen, Bou. tres] III. M 2 . omnipotentis, P 3 T. 
unus ] + ^- P 4 ras. N. 16, 17 > 17, 16, Or. 16. tres] .III. B. Dii, D F H K 2 
Li^NPs^QRSTUi, 2 . om. est, B L 2 P^ 18. tres]. III. B. om. est, B. 19^ 
om. sicut, Pj. singulatim, L v unaquamque persona, Kj. et, 1] ad, Mj. om. et, 
1 C E F Gj, 2) 3) 4 H K! L lt 3 N corr. P 3 Q R S T Uj corr. U 2 Or. Bou. Orl. 
Stav. et, 2] ac, Or. Orl. Stav. ; hac, K!. confitere, L 2 P 4 . christiane, P x . 
ueritate trinitate, L 2 . conpellimur, B F II Kj L 2 M 2 N Pj, 3 , 4 Q S T Uj. 
tris, Pj. aut] ac, Bou 2 . Dominos] Decs, ras. U^ pr. tres, D E Kj M x P 3 T Or. 


Boii!. dicere] dici, N P 4 ; dicire, Uj. catliolicam religionem, Kj ; rclegione, 
M 2 N Uj corr. (?) Paris, proliibimur, M 2 , h supra lin. N corr. P 4 ; proibemur, 
Q Paris ; ita tres . . . prohibemur, in marg. G 4 . 20. >factus est, Den. 21. solus, 
Kj. om. est, K x . non] nee, Kj. nee] aut, Or. 22. non] nee, Kj. nee, 1] aut, 
Or. genitus] + est, C E F M! N V. procidens P x ] + Patri et Filio comternus 
est, B (cf. Symb. Damasi). 23. unus, 1] + est, K^Mjj unus, 2] + cst, Kj. OM. 
Sanctus, P a . non, 3]^r. sed, Or 2 ; tris, Pj, fer ; .III. B (for). Sancti] Sanctos, P 4 . 

24. et, 1] supra lin. M x ; sed, Or. K : ; om. et in hac, C. liac] ac, P 3 * ; a, Paris ; 
+ enim, M r mains, pr. est, M P tote, KjLaPo^RTUa. persone, L 2 P 3 TJ 2 W. 
coeterne, K 2 ; coteterne, L 2 ; quoeterne, K-, P x ; quolieeternse, P 3 ; quoaet , 
Or. Orl. Paris, quoreq. Kj Q U 2 Or. Or]. Paris ; quorequalis, L 2 (eo .Uj). 

25. o??i. supra, Boil. ; superius dictum, supra lin. P* lt om. et, 1 K^ et, 1] tit, 
N P 4 . om. et Trinitas in Unitate, Mj. > Unitas in Trinitate et Trinitas in 
Unitate, C D F N P 4 R corr. S* Y (Fort.?) Bou 2 Orl. ; + et Trinitas in Unitate, 
in marg. D ; Unitatem . . . Trinitatem, Uj*. ueneranda sit] ueneremur, K lt 

26. Qui] Quicunique, K x P 4 U*. ergo] supra lin. N corr. Uj ; om. K x P 4 . senciat, 
K 2 M 2 Paris. 27. om. est, Pj. incarnatione, K x . quoque, supra lin. Uj. 
Domini] Me we. A. Jesu] ihu, B D F H K 2 L l52 M 2 N P lf 8 , 4 Q R S T U 1} 2 W. 
ikleliter] pr. unusquisque, in marg. e rccentiori manu Q. credat] + s. qui 
milt saluus esse, supra lin. S. 28. est] pr. hec, K^. Dei] Deus, L 2 . > Filius 
est Dei. Deus, Kj. om. Dei Filius, Or. Deus] pr. et, B C Gj Mj P 3 Paris ; 
+ pariter, A B C D G* 2 H K T V L 2 Mj Pj* S* T U^ Fort. (?) Tr. Or. Paris, Stav., 
in marg. Q corr. 29. om. est, 1 K x Bou 1} supra lin. W corr. ex] de, A D fo s. 
substantia, 1] substaucia, L 2 . ante sgecula genitus est, in marg. e recentiori 
manu B. om. et, B C F P/Tr. Or. 60%. om. est, 2 A C D F H K x W Tr. 
Boup in] a, Y. seculo, R, supra lin. W corr. ; secula, H P l W* ; sseculum, 
Kj Uj. 30. rationale, M 2 N P* 1)4 (efere eras. R) Uj corr. ; rationabili, A B C D Mj 
Q* Tr. ; racionabili, Fort, umana, P 3 . carne] carnis, L 2 . 31. Equalis, 
M 2 P 1)3 "W ; + est, Or 2 . Patri] Pa tris, K x * Uj corr. secundum] sedum, P 2 . 
Patri, 2] Patre, B C D Gj, 2 , 3 , 4 H L 3 N corr. P 4 Q R S U 2 W corr. ; Patris, Kj* (?) 
L 2 M 2 *U 1 corr. 33. unus autem] una, K 1 . conuers x x ione (at utuid. eras.}, 
B. diuinitates, K* 2 ; is, K 2 corr. in carne . . . Deo, A B C D E F G 2 H L x , 3 
M i 2 p i> 3> 4 (carnse, Q) R S T V Fort. 0^ Paris ; carne . . . diuinitate, Tr. ; 
carnem . . . Deum, G 1 K 2 L 2 Or 2 Bou. Orl.; carnem . . . Deu x (m eras.), 
G 3 Uj (Deo, Uj corr.) ; carne . . . Deum, K x "W Bou 2 Stav.; carne x (m eras.) 
. . . Deum, G 4 ; carnem . . . Deo, Y. adsumptioue, B E F H K l5 2 N" P 3 corr. 
T Stav.; ni, P 3 *; nem ; U* 1} 2 ; adsumtione, L 2 ; adsuptione, Pj ; adsump- 
sione, Paris, liumanitatis] h eras. P 3 ; a, 1 supra lin. B. 34. unitatis, P 3 . 
persone, K : L 2 N P 3 , 4 U 2 . 35. rationabilis, B M x Tr. ; racionabilis, Paris, om. 
hunc uers, A. 36. saluta, V. salutem nostram, Kj L 2 . >pro sal. n. passus 
est, Or 2 . discendit, B M 2 N Uj. ; descendet, P 3 . ad inferna, A W Fort. Or. Stav.] 
ad infernum, Tr. Paris ; ad inferos, B ( nos, C) D E F G 1} 2 , 8 , 4 H K x K 2 L 15 3 M 2 
NP 1} 3 , 4 QR STUj, 2 VY Bou. Orl. Tol.; inferus, L 2 . resurrexit] sun-exit, 
B Kj P 3 U 2 Fort. Tr. Bou 2 , re ras. supra lin. U 2 ; pr. tertia die, E (cum lin. 
G 4 ) H K 2 Lj Q corr. R S corr. T (supra lin. sec man. W) Or. Bou. Orl. ; pr. die 
tertia, A Tr.; pr. et, M x (ascendit ad inferos et resurrexit in cselos, Mj). cuelos, 
F. sedit, B E H Pj, 3 , 4 T U^ ad] a, P^ dexteram] + Dei, D E F G lf 2 , 3 , 4 
H Kj, 2 L 3 M 2 N P 1; 8 , 4 Q R S T U a corr. U 2 Y W Orl. Stav. Patris] 
+ omnipotent, C D E F G lf 2 , 3 , 4 H K ls 2 L x , 3 M 2 N P 1; 3 , 4 Q R S T U 2 W Y 


Orl. Stav. ; omnipotentis. Inde . . . mortuos, in mctrg. \J 1 corr. 37. iienturus] 
+ est, H Kj. et] ac, B K v 38. ad] A, Kj ; ad . . . et] om. a . . . e, F. 
> habent resurgere (D) onmes homines, M^ rcsurgere\\(nt erasl) habent, supra 
lin. E. cum] in, A B. racionein, M 3 . 39. 03/4. Et, N P 4 . Et procedunt qui bona 
fecerunt in resurrectionem uitaj, U 2 . segerunt liibunt, Uj. uitam fet.] + fecerunt 
in res. uitse, P 3 . seternam, a eras bis L x . qui, 2]pr. et, D E F H N P 4 T (supra 
lin. Uj) (\\ sec. man. W) Paris ; pr. nam, M x ; qui uero m. sec. man. ut uid. Q. 
uero] autem, K^. om. uero, A B E F Mj N P l5 4 T, Paris ; upro, Uj. mala] 
+ egerunt, Or. eternum, K P 40. Hsec] pr. hc eras. Kj ; a eras. L a . est] 
+ ergo, Kj. fides] + fides, P 3 . chatolica, P 3 U 2 . quisque] quis, Mj. fidiliter 
hac, H!. firmiterquse, P 3 ; om. que, G 3 . crediderit] credederit, Uj^Jj + atque 
seruauerit, G 2 . poterrit, L 2 . 

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 V Y, and they 
are not represented in their completeness. 


1 Whosoever willeth to be in a state of salvation, is. John vii. 17. 
before all tilings it is necessary that he hold the ark xvi . ie S 
Catholic Faith, 2 which Faith except everyone 2 2 Thess. ii. 10-12. 
shall have kept whole and undented without doubt 
he will perish eternally. 

I. i. (a) 3 Now the Catholic Faith is this that we worship One 3 s. Mark xii. 29. s. 

Divine God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, 4 neither con- 4 ( 

Personality founding the Persons nor dividing the substance. ^ 7 - 3Q 

s Tnune. there is one Person of the Father, another of 3, 4, 9. 

the Son, another of the Holy Ghost. G But the God- (a) EX. ia. 14. (&) 
head of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy fj) /S ^H. 58t 
Ghost, is One, the Glory equal, the Majesty co- 

(I) 7 Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is 

Attributes of the Hol y Gllost > * the Fatlier uncreate, the Son un- s Q en . i. i. s. John 
the Godhead create, and the Holy Ghost uncreate ; 9 the Father { 2 

, 9 p Jer 

s5bsfd S fa e r d y m infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Ghost xxiii. 24. 
antitheses, i n fi n jt e ; 10 the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and 10 P S . xc . 2. Col. i. 
the Holy Ghost eternal. n And yet they are not g. g Heb. ix. 14, 
three eternals but one eternal, 12 as also they are not 12 isa. ivii. 15. 
three infinites, nor three uncreated, but one un 
created, and one infinite. 13 So, likewise, the Father 13 j^ x ^- 22. s. 
is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost Luke i. 35, 

i 9 6 


almighty ; 14 and yet they are not three almighties 
but one almighty. 

in which 
Truth ac 
the Trinit} . 

(c-) l5 So the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy 
Ghost God ; 16 and yet they are not three Gods but 
one God. 17 So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, 
and the Holy Ghost Lord ; 18 and yet they are not 
three Lords but one Lord. 19 For like as we are 
compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every 
Person by Himself to be both God and Lord ; so are 
we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, there 
be three Gods or three Lords. 

15 (a) S. John vi. 27. 

(b) S. John i. 1, 
xx. 28. Acts xx. 
28. Rom. ix. 5. 

(c) S. John iii. 6 ; 
cf. 1 John v. 4. 1 
Cor. iii. 1G, vi. 19. 

17 (a) S. Matt. xi. 25. 

(t>) 1 Tim. vi. 15 ; 

cf. Acts x. 3C. (c) 

2 Cor. iii. 17. 
*3 Deut. vi. 4. 

ii. 20 The Father is made of none, neither created nor 203. John v. 26. 

Divine Re 
in scriptural 
terms are 

* * 

begotten. 21 The Son is of the Father alone, not 

made nor created but begotten. 22 The Holy Ghost Heb. i .5, 6, B, 10. 

.,,, T ,1 T .828. John xv. 26; 

is of the Jb ather and the Son, not made nor created cf. xvi. 7, 14, 15, xx. 

nor begotten but proceeding. 23 So there is one 
Father not three Fathers, one Son not three Sons, 
one Holy Ghost not three Holy Ghosts. 24 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. 

22. 1 Cor. xii. 4-G. 
Eph. iv. 4-G. 

25 So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Trinity 
in Unity and the Unity in Trinity is to be wor 
shipped. 2G He therefore who willeth to be in a 20 s. John iii. 33-36. 
state of salvation, let him thus think of the Trinity. 

II. 27 But it is necessary to eternal salvation that he 27 1 Tim. iii. IG. 
The In also Believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord John iv - 2 > 3 - 
carnation. Jesus Christ. 28 The right Faith therefore is that 2 s. John xiv. 2. 
we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, 

We confess 
that Christ 

the Son of God, is God and Man. 

in TWO 



29 He is God of the substance of the Father begotten 
before the worlds, and He is Man of the substance 
of His Mother born in the world ; 30 perfect God, 
perfect Man of a reasoning soul and human flesh 
subsisting ; 31 equal to the Father as touching His 
Godhead, inferior to the Father as touching His 

32 Who although He be God and Man y&t He is not 
two but one Christ ; 33 one however not by conver 
sion of the Godhead in the flesh, but by taking of 

29 Gal. iv. 4. 

3 <> (1) Col. i. In ; cf. 
Heb. i. 3. (2) S. 
Luke ii. 52. S. 
John xiii. 1. S. 
Mark iii. 5. Heb. 
ii. 14, 16 f. 

31 (1) S. John x. 30 ; 
cf. S. John v. 18. 
(2) S. John xiv. 28. 

32 1 Tim. ii. 5 ; cf. 
Cor. viii. G. 

33 Phil. ii. Off. 


the Manhood in God ; 34 one altogether not by con- 34 c f. Heb. i. 2 f. 
fusion of Substance but by unity of Person. 35 For 35 ^. x ?i. 15 f . S 
as the reasoning soul and flesh is one man, so God 
and Man is one Christ. 

iii. 3G Who suffered for our salvation, descended into 36R 0m . Hi. 24 f; of. 

Redeemer ^ ie ^> rose a g a i n from the dead, ascended into heaven, I pit^iii^is". 4 |. 

sitteth at the right hand of the Father, 37 from Luke xxiv. 46, 51. 

. , . , ., . Acts i. 11. Rom. 

whence He shall come to judge the quick and the viii. 34. Col. iii. 
dead. 38 At whose coming all men shall rise again vilt 56 

with their bodies and shall give account for their ^^J? ? I* . J 
The Judge, own works. 39 And they who have done good shall 2 Cor. v. ib. 

go into life eternal, and they who indeed have done 89 Heb J x hl 26, V 27 28 f 
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. 



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 
Eastern 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. 


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. 



In Koine itself the type was most carefully preserved, 
and remained unaltered possibly for two centuries to come. 
Eufinus 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 Explanatio 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 
^Ethelstan (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 Eoman Creed brought to 
England by Koman 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 1 Cod. Sivainsonii (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, Symbol^m Aposfo/onm, 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, 2 from a sermon in Cod. Sessorian. 52 (V), of the 
1 i. i>p. 74 f. 2 Rev. JB<?n., Nov. 1897, p. 486. 



eleventh or twelfth century, now in the Victor Emmanuel 
Library at Kome. The collection in which it is found will 
come under our notice again (p. 232), and was made probably 
in Kome. The sermon begins : " Simbolum enim in greca 
lingua " ; and ends : " psenas corporis et ammse." 

These MSS. enable us to check the text, which may be 
gleaned from Eufinus (E). It is true that they are of a later 
date, and that they are not free from interpolations, e.g. 
catholicam, SV; uitam ceternam, V. Their general agreement, 
however, is decisive in favour of Deum Patrem omnipotentem, 
in place of the ablatives quoted by Eufinus from the Creed of 
Aquileia, and implicitly suggested for that of Eome ; also in 
favour of et in Art. 3, and qui in Art. 4. 


I. 1. Utoreuco elsQebv Trare pa nav- 


II. 2. Kai (Is XpKTTov irjcrovVy TOV 
vlov aiiTov TOV povoyevr) TOV 

3. TOV yevvrjdevTa CK 

dytov KCII Mapias TTJS nap- 

4. TOV eVinoi/r/ouIIiXarou o~Tav- 
pa>devTa nal TCKpevTa, 

5. xai TTJ Tp iTrj f)fjLpaava(TTavTa 


6. di/a/3di/ra els TOVS ovpavovs 

7. Kai Kadrjfjievov v Se^ia TOV 


8. 66ev ep^erat npiveiv 
Kai vcKpovs. 

III. 9. Kai els TO ayiov 

10. ay iav 

11. (icpfo-i 

12. o~apKos dvdo~Tao~iv. 

I. 1. Credo in Deum Patrem 


II. 2. Et in Christum Jesum, 
Filium eius unicum, Do- 
minuni nostrum, 

3. qui natus est de Spiritu 
Sancto et Maria uirgine, 

4. qui sub Pontio Pilato cruci- 
fixus est et sepultus, 

5. tertia die resurrexit a 

6. ascendit in cados, 

7. sedet ad dexteram Patris, 

8. unde uenturus est iudicare 
uiuos et mortuos. 

III. 9. Et in Spiritum Sanctum, 

10. sanctam ecclesiam, 

11. remissionem peccatorum, 

12. carnis resurrection em. 

1. om. Trar^pa, M. 

2. rbv vlbv] om. T&V, A. 

1. Deo Patre oinnipotente, R. 

2. Christolcsu, RL, > Ihesum Chris 
tum, SV, > miico Filio eius, R. 
Domino nostro, R. 

3. et] ex, R. 


4. om. qui, R, > cine, sub P. P., R. 
5. om. /cat, A. om. est, R. 

TWJ/ veKpuv] om. TUV, A. 

6. ad c^los, V ; in ctvlis, L. 

7. om. /ecu, A. 7. sedit, S. dextera, L. Patris] pr. 

Dei, S*; Dei, S. corr. 

8. Kpivei.v] icpiJHu, A. 8. inde, RV. et] ac, S. 

9. rb ttyiov vr^eO/aa] Trj/eO/xa ayiov, A. 9. Spiritu Sancto, RL. 

10. ayi[av &c/cA?;<nW], A. 10. sancta ecclesia, L] + catholiuam 


11. remissione, L. 
12. avdcrTa[(ri.v], A. 12. resurrectionis, L. 

+ farjv aiuviov, M. + uitam reternam, V. 


The creed which Eufinus 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, 3 pp. 43 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 cesium. Lupo adds, in Art. 5, uiuens; 1 in Art. 10, 
catlwlicam ; and at the end, et uitam ceternam. Fortunatus 
records the descent into hell, but in the form ad infernum ; 
and in Art. 8 reads iudicaturus. 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. 2 

Eufinus was careful to explain that the preposition in 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. 
3 Kattenbuseh, i. p. 107, 




regem scecul- 

unicum Do- 







are uiuos et 



n, carnis et 

Q 3 

^ 5* 





S w 






. Credo in Deum Patre 

uniuersorum creatorem 
orum, immortalem et i 

. C rafo et in Filium eiu 
minum nostrum lesui 







. qui crucifixus sub Poi 
sepultus est, 

. tertia die resurrexit a 

. ascendit in cselum, 
. sedet ad dexteram Pal 
. inde uenturus est ind 




3 o 

. remissionem peccaton 
. resurrectionem uitam 







CD I- 00 

OJ rH C^ O 

CD 1- CO 




Credo in Deo Patre 

inuisibili et impassibili 

! i I 

1 ^ <s 

a J> 

.11 1 S s 
3 2 s 

o 2 -g o S , 
d .5 S .3 g 

3 3 .S gp ^ 

-^ o 3 -M g i 
W ^ ^ 5 o : 


descendit in inferna, 

tertia die resurrexit a ] 

ascendit in coelos, 
sedet ad dexteram Pati 








* <s> 

mortuos ; 

Et in Spiritu Sancto, 
sanctam ecclesiam, 

remissionem peccatoru 
huius carnis resurrectic 


CD I> 00 

05 O r-H 


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 in repeated before unam . . . ecclesiam, the distinction 
required by Eufinus was kept up by the use of the Ablative 
to denote the Divine Persons. 

The words inuisibili et 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. 1 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. Eufinus calls attention to the fact that it is 
not in the Eoman or any Eastern Creed. 

SIRMIUM, 359. NiKtf, 359. CONSTANTINOPLE, 360. 

Kai fls TO. Karax^twa Kai TcXpevra KOI els TO. Kai rcKpevra KOI els 


olKovofj,f)<ravTa ov TruXco- bv avros 6 adrjs e rpo- \vdora ovnva KOI avros 
pol adov Idovres efppi^av. fiacre* 6 a8rjs 

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. Trv\wpol Be aSov ISovres 
o-e eTn-rjjfav), 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 

l Ejylatmtio ad in-ttiandos, quoted on p. 207 infra. Rufinus is careful to 
guard against the Ariaii inference. 

a Kattenbusch, i. p. 261, n. 16; Zahn, p. 72. 


seen in other features of the Sirmian ecthesis." l 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): Karrj\6ev 
els ra KdTd xdovia, iva tcaiceWev \VTpcb(rr)Tat, TOVS Siicaiovs ; and 
at the beginning of the following section on the Eesurrection 
(ib. 12) : AX)C 6 icara/Bas et? ra Ka-ra^Oovia 7rd\iv avrj\6e, teal 
o ravels I^o-oy? 7rd\iv avea-rr} TO Tpiij/jLepov d\r)6ws. 

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 Nike 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 Eufinus 
wrote. " At any rate " (says Dr. Swete), " Eufinus 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., els aSov tca,T/3r) ; e.g. Ps. liv. 
(Iv.) 16, and xvi. (xv.) 10, quoted by S. Peter (Acts ii. 27). 3 

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 

1 Swete, pp. 56 f. 

2 Swete goes too far in saying that he made it "one of his ten primary 
c/-ede r tida." 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, huius carnis resurrectionem, " possibly a relic of some 
early struggle of the Aquileian Church with docetic Gnosti 
cism. Eufinus interprets huius carnis as teaching the absolute 
identity of the future with the present body." 1 This was the 
popular teaching of the time of Jerome and the latter writ 
ings of Augustine, and it is emphasised in several creeds, e.g. 
of Phcebadius, Niceta, and others. It ministers, however, to a 
materialistic view which is opposed, as Origen had pointed 
out long before, to S. 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." 


We look instinctively to the writings of the great bishop 
and statesman Ambrose for information about the Creed of 
Milan. Caspari 2 has restored to a place among them a very 
interesting sermon, Explanatio 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, saec. ix., x.). It is a copy of what might be 
called rough notes taken down by a hearer. The other MSS. 
(Cod. Lamb. seec. xiii., from the monastery of Lambach, and 
Cod. S. Gall. 188, saec. 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 Eoman Creed. 3 Nor is 
the style in the least like that of Augustine, of whose sermons 
on the creed several specimens survive. 

1 Swete, pp. 95 f. 2 II. 48 ; III. 196. * Hahn, 3 p. 40. 


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 syinbolum quod Romana ecclesia tenet." In a letter of 
Ambrose to Pope Siricius the same opinion is expressed: 
" Credatur symbolo Apostolorum, quod ecclesia Romana 
intemeratum semper custodit et seruat." 1 As a matter of 
fact, when we compare his creed with the Roman, the only 
variation of any importance 2 is the addition of the word 
passus, which is in any case implied in crurifixm. (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 inuisibilis 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 Dominicce 
Sacramento, e.g. the use of derogare, accipere, videre, and denique? 

These arguments have been opposed by Kattenbusch, 4 
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 

l Ep. 42. 

2 The order lesus Christus, and the repetition of in before ecclesiam and 
remissionem (Cod. Vat.}, might be due to copyists. 

3 Caspari, ii. pp. 82 ff. 4 i. pp. 84-91. 



Empire," 1 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 Eufinus, 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 2 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 Eufinus, he 
failed to quote the written words more exactly, e.g. the 
emphatic and repeated " Constat." The passages are of in 
terest in themselves, and I will therefore quote them in full : 

Explanatio symboli. KUFINI Commentarius. 

Sed dicis mihi, postea emerserunt His additur, inuisibili ei impassi- 

hoereses. Quid ergo ? uide simplici- bill. Sciendum quod duo isti 

tatem, uide puritatem. Patripas- sermones in Ecclesiae Ronianae 

siani cum emersissent, putauerunt symbolo non habentur. Constat 

etiam catholici in hac parte adden- autem apud nos additos, hosreseos 

<\\\minuisibilem etimpassibilem, quasi causa Sabellii, illius profecto qure a 

Filius Dei uisibilis et passibilis nostris " Patripassiana " appellatur ; 

f uerit. Si fuit uisibilis in carne, id est, quae et Patrem ipsum uel ex 

caro ilia fuit uisibilis non diuinitas. Virgine natum dicit, et uisibilem 

Denique quid dicat audi : " Deus, factum esse, uel passurn affirmat in 

Deus respice in me : quare me de- carne. Ut ergo excluderetur tails 

reliquisti ? " In passione hoc dicit ; impietas de Patre, uidentur hsec 

dominus noster lesus Christus hoc addidisse maiores, et " inuisibilem " 

secundum hominem locutus est, Patrem atque " impassibilem" dix- 

quasi caro dicat ad diuinitatem, isse. Constat enim Filium non 

"quare me dereliquisti ? " Ergo Patrem, incarnatum et ex carne 

esto medici fuerint maiores nostri ; natum, et ex natiuitate carnis 

uoluerint addere aagritudini sanita- Filium 
tern ; medicina non quseritur. Ergo factum. 

uisibilem et passibilem 
Quantum autem spectat 

si medicina non fuit eo tempore ad illam deitatis iminortalem sub- 

necessaria, quo erat hoereticorum stantiam, quse una ei eademque 

quorundam grauis segritudo ani- cum Patre est, ibi neque Pater, 

morum ; et si fuit tune temporis neque Filius, neque Spiritus Sanc- 

quaerenda, nunc non est. Qua ra- tus uisibilis aut passibilis creditur. 

tione ? Fides Integra aduersus Sa- Secundum dignationem uero carnis 

1 P. 86. 

- P. 87, u. 7. 



Explanatio syinboli contd. 
bellianos. Exclusi sunt Sabelliani 
maxime de partibus occidentis. Ex 
illo remedio Arriani inuenerunt sibi 
genus calumniae : et quoniam sym- 
bolnmKomanse ecclesiae nos tenemus, 
ideo uisibilem et passibileni Patrem 
omnipotentem illi sestimarent et 
dicerent : uides quia symbolum sic 
habent, ut uisibilem Filium et passi- 
bilem designarent. Quid ergo? 
Ubi fides integra est, sufficiunt 
prsecepta apostolorum. Cautiones 
licet sacerdotum non requirantur. 
Quare? quia tritico immixta zizania 

Sic dicite : Filium eius unicum. 
Non unicus dominus ? Unus Deus 
est, unus et dominus : sed ne calum- 
nientur et dicant, quia una persona ; 
dicamus Filium etiam unicum dom- 
inum nostrum. 

KUFINI Commentarius contd. 
assumtse Filius et uisus et passus 
est in carne. 

Hie est ergo Christus lesus, Filius 
unicus Dei, qui est et dominus 
noster. Unicus et ad Filium referri 
et ad dominum potest. Unicus est 
enim et uere Filius et unus dominus 
lesus 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 unicus is to be con 
nected with Filius. But the author of the Explanatio permits 
the teaching of unicus dominus against Sabellianism, while 
Eufinus connects it with the Lord s work of redemption. On 
the other hand, it is easy to explain how Eufinus, 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, ssec. xv.). The three sermons contain a creed- 
text practically identical with that of the Explanatio. It 
is true that in 212 the words " inuisibilem, immortalem, 


regem saBculorum, uisibiliuin et inuisibilium cveatorem," follow 
the first article, but not in the correct order of the African 
Creed, as in Sermon 215, and the phrases passus and in 
ccelmn show that he is quoting the Creed of Milan. 1 

From a dogmatic point of view the creed is chiefly 
interesting as the Baptismal Creed of Augustine. It only 
differs from the Eoman Creed by the addition of the word 
passus, which is so plainly included in the idea of the word 
crucifixus 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 Irenseus, in whose Eule 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 Abbe* 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 Ireneeus 
were the source in both cases. 


The following passages from the letters of S. Cyprian, 
Bishop of Carthage, c. A.D. 255, witness to the use of an African 
form, though only a fragment is quoted. 2 The varying order 
of articles 1012, which was stereotyped in the later African 
form, may have come through the interrogatories used at 
baptism. 3 

Ep. 69. 7, ad Magnum: " Quodsi aliquis illud opponit ut 

1 For 213 Cod. Breslau has "et uirgine Maria" ; cf. Baumcr, p. 63, n. 2, 
and Cod. led. Monac., 8826 f. 326 f. 

2 Lumby, Hist. Creeds, 2 ]). 115, n. 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, lie argues that the form as quoted is complete. 

3 Kattenbusch, i. p. 136. 



dicat, eandem Novatianum legem tenere, quam catholica 
ecclesia teneat, eodem symbolo quo et nos baptizare, eunclem 
nosse Deum Patrem, eundem Filium Christum, eundem 
Spiritum Sanctum, ac propter hoc usurpare eum potestatem 
baptizandi posse, quod uideatur in interrogatione baptism! 
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 ceternam per sanctam 
ecclesiam ? mentiuntur in interrogatione, quando non habeant 
ecclesiam. Tune 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, quse 
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. 1 Indeed, 
in his book de Fide et Symlolo, an address originally delivered 
as a presbyter to the Council of Hippo Eegius in 393, he 
says distinctly that the exact form given to the catechumens 

1 Serm. 212, see p. 281 infra. 



is not repeated. This address was afterwards, as he tells us 
in his Retractations (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 Genesi ad Literam. In this 
passage it is immediately explained by unicum, 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 lesus Christus docuit 
nos orationem, et cum ipse sit dominus sicut in symbolo 
accepistis et redclidistis filius Dei unicus tamen uoluit esse 

Perhaps it would be simplest to exhibit the variations in 
the de Fide ct Synibolo, 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. 

2. unigenitum , i.e. 


3. per Spiritum 

Sancto ex uir- 
gine Maria. 

4. sub. P.P. cruci- 

12. carnis res. 

De Genesi. 


. ct. 

Serin, ad catccli. 


de . . . et. 

passus sub. P.P. 

res. carnis. 


tinigenitus, I.e.. 

de . . et. 

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, 1 which, from the strong language used 

1 Ed. Hahn, 3 p. 60, from Aug., ed. Bened. viii. 1609-1648. 


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 
Euspe, 1 at the beginning of the sixth century. It is 
preserved in a fragment of his treatise against the Arian 

AUG. Serm. 215 (A); Ps.-AuG. Serm. (B) ; FULG. c. Fab. AT. 
Frag, xxxvi. (F). 

I. 1. Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, 

universorum creator em, regem sseculorum, 
immortalem et inuisibilem. 

II. 2. Credo et in Filium eius unicum Dominum 
nostrum lesum Christum, 

3. natum de Spirit u Sane to ex uirgine Maria ; 

4. qui crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato et sepultus est, 

5. tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, 

6. ascendit in caelum, 

7. sedet ad dexteram Patris, 

8. incle uen turns est iudicare 

uiuos et mortuos. 
III. 9. Credo et in Spiritum Sanctum, 

11. remissionem peccatorum, 

12. carnis resurrectionem et uitam seternam 
10. per sanctam ecclesiam. 

1. Credo (ter)] ; Credimus (ter), A B ; sseculorum] cselorum, B. 2. om. 
et F; om. unicum, AB; om. Dominum nostrum, B; > lesum 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 
ccelos, 2 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 S. 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, 3 p. 61. 

" Ad cuclos and Del in the following articles are plainly due to copyist s 



repeated use of Crede in this sermon, where credite 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 

Upon this quotation I rely also for the exclusion of 
mortuus, which has been inserted by Lumby l in his text of 
the creed extracted from this sermon. In this passage, 
mortuus, 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 
resumxit we read " crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato et sepultus 
est," and mortuus again follows in a comment. Here I have 
the support of Kattenbusch. 2 

Both Lumby and Heurtley add mortuus to the text of 
the creed quoted in Sermo ad Catcchumenos. 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 resurrcctionem 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 

The addition uitam 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. 

2 I. p. 137, n. 4, " Dass das Symbol niclit etwa ein mortuus aufgenom- 
men habe, clarf ohne Umstancl prasumiet worden." 



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) unum Deum Patrem omnipo ten tern, 
II. 2. et unum Dominum lesum Christum, . . . 

3. natum ex Maria uirgine ex Spiritu Sancto, . . . 

4. passum sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixum . . . 

sepultum : 

5. tertia die resurrexisse . . 

6. ascendisse in ccelos, 

7. sedere ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis . . . 

8. hide uenturum et iudicaturum de \\mis et morlm s. 

10. (Credimus) in sanctam ecclesiam, 

III. 9. Sanctum Spiritum (baptismum salutare) ; . . . 

11. (Credimus) in remissionem peccatorum ; . . . 

12. (Credimus) in 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. ludicaturus is confirmed by 
the reading of the Mozarabic Liturgy. 


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. Phcebadius (+ 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 1 to have written the formulary issued 
by them, which is quoted by Jerome. 2 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 Galilean form of creed, since it does 
not contain the word "suffered," for which there is other evidence : 

Crtdimw in unum uerum Deum Patrem omnipotentem. 
Credimus in uniyenitum Dei Filium, qui ante omnia srccula 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 coelo descendit, conceptus 
est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria uirgine, crucifixus a Pontio 
Pilato, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis ascendit in ccelum, sedet ad 
dexter am Dei Patris, uenturus iudicare uiuos et mortuos. 

A more important form of confession, also attributed to 
Phoebadius, subsequently obtained a wide popularity, under the 
title, " The Faith of the Eomans." This theory of authorship 
was first suggested by the Benedictines of S. Maur, and has 
been confirmed by Kattenbusch, 3 who quotes the following 
words from the writing of Phoebadius, de Fide Orth. c. 8 : " Quern 
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 Niccena Ruffino presbytero 
interprets tractatus. Also among the writings of Yigilius of 
Thapsus, in the 7th Book, "On the Trinity" attributed in the 
Middle Ages to S. Athanasius. In this way it came to be 
quoted by Hincmar as " The Faith of S. 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. 4 They are 

1 By the Benedictines of S. Maur, Hahn, 3 p. 208. 
- Dial. adv. Lucif. c. 17. 3 i. p. 171 ff. 

4 0. Marucchi, Le memorie del SS. apostoli, p. 108, Rome, 1894. I owe this 
reference to Dom. G. Morin, 


contained in six collections of canons, the earliest of which, 
that of S. Blasien, was completed in the sixth century. 1 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 

I am able to print a critical text from the following MSS : 

A Paris, B.N., Cod. 3836 in the Gesta Liberii . s. viii. 

L Leiden, Cod. xviii. 67 F . . . . s. viii., ix. 

Mj Munich, Cod. lat. 6330 s. viii., ix. 

M 2 Munich, Cod. lat. 14,008 , . . . s. x. 

P Paris, B.N., God. 1451 s. viii. ex. 

Q Paris, B.N., Cod. 3848 A . . . . s. viii., ix. 

R Paris, B.N., Cod. 2341 . . . .. s. x. 

V Rome, Cod. Vatic. 1342 . . . . s. ix., x. 


Credimus in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem et in unum unigenitum 
Filium eius Ihesum Christum, Deum et Dominum saluatorem nostrum 
et Spiritum Sanctum Deum. Non tres Deos, sed Patreni et Filium 
et Spiritum Sanctum unum Deum esse conntemur : non sic Deum 
5 quasi solitarium, nee 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 substantive cum Patre. Spiritum uero Sanctum Deum, 
10 non ingenitum neque genitum, non creatum nee factum, sed Patris et 
Filii, semper in Patre et Filio coseternum ueneramur : unum tarn en 
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 nee amisit plenitudinis siue Deitatem. 
15 Totum autem quod est Deus Pater id esse et Filium ab eo natum 
certissime tenentes cum Spiritu Sancto unum Deum piissime conn 
temur. Credimus Ihesum Christum dominum nostrum Dei Filium per 
quern omnia facta sunt, quse in crelis et quse in terra, uisibilia et 
inuisibilia propter nostram salutem descendisse de cselo, qui nunquam 
20 desierit esse in cselo, et natum de Spiritu Sancto ex Virgine Maria. 
Uerbum caro factum non amisit quod erat, sed coepit esse quod non 
erat, non demutatum sed Deum permanent-em etiam hominem 
natum, non putatiue sed uere, non cerium sed corporeum, non 
phantasium sed carneum, ossa, sanguinem, sensum et animam 
25 habentcm. Ita uerum hominem ut uerum Deum unum eundemque 
uero licminem et uerum Deum intelligimus, ita ut uerum Deum 

1 Maassen, p. 504. 


uerum hominem fuisse nullo modo ambigimus coiifitendum. Hunc 
eundein Ihesum Christum adimpleuisse legem et prophetas, pas- 
sum sub Poniio Pilato, crucijixum secundum scripturas, mortuum 

30 et sepultum secundum scripturas tertia die a mortuis resurrexisse, 
adsumptum in ccelum, sedere ad dexteram Patris, inde uenturum 
iudicare uiuos et mortuos. Expectamus in huius morte et sanguine 
mundatos remissionem peccatorum consecutos resuscitandos nos in his 
corporibus et in eadem carne, qua mine sunius, 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 seternam 
prremium boni meriti, aut sententiam pro peccatis ceterni supplicii. 

LINE 1. om. in, Q. om. patrem, LM 1} 2 , PQR. om. in, 2 M X PQ corr. om. 
unum, P. 2. Filium] + Dei, L. om. Ihesum Christum, Q. om. Dominum, P. 
Salbatorem, M 2 . 3. et] + in, R. om. Deum, R. om. Non . . . Sanctum, R. 
Non. . . unum, LM 2 . om. sed, Q. 4. om. Deum, 1LM 2 PR. sic] si, P. 
5. om. quasi, P. om. et, P. 6. uerum, 1] uero, L. om. uerum, 2 M 2 , id] 
et, L ; ut, M 1J2 Q. V hie inc. 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 2 Q R V. 8. creatum] creaturam, Q. sed, 1] set, V. 9. substantie, 
Vj ; substancie, L. Spiritum] pr. et, Q. om. Spiritum ... 10. genitum, M 2 . 
Deum] + nostrum, A. 10. nee] neque, ALMjR. sed] -f de patre procedentem, 
AMj (procedente, R). Patris] Patri, M 2 . 11. Filii] fi supra lin. A. in] cum, 
AMjR. quoseternum, Rj. coset , V. 12. Patre ? V. Deus Natus, LV. 13. 
Filius] + est Filius, M 2 . om. et, P. Patre] Patrem, Mj. in est] Deus est, P ; 
dm. supra lin. Q. om. Deus, M 2 . totam, P. genuit] ingenitum, M 2 . filinm] 
filio, LR lt pr. in, LM 2 RV. 14. non] no n supra lin. M 2 . su, V. 15. om. 
est, LR. om. Deus, L. > Deus Pater est, AM 1}2 QV. id esse] idem se, M!. 
ab eo] a Deo, P Q. 16. Certissime, L. tenentis, A P V ; confitentes, A a ; 
credentes, V+ una, Mj. credimus, M 2 . om. Deum, M 2 . om. piissime, M 2 V. 
17. om. Credimus, Q. Ihesum] pr. dominum, V. > Christum Ihesum, Q. 18. 
om. omnia, Q. qu?e, 1] que,!^. pr. et, M 2 . clis, V. om. qute, 2 A QR V. celo 
(bis)V. discendisse, Pj. descendit, AQ. 19. propter] pr. et M x ; propter nos 
homines et, R. numquam, A L P R. desiit, L R. om. qui . . . nunquam . . . 
20. cselo, M 2 ; cpelum, A. ex] et, M l9 2 V. uirginem maria, Mj. >mariauirgine, 
M 2 V. 21. caro] carne, M 2 ; em,V. erat, fuerat, M 2 QRV. om. sed. . . erat, M 2 Y. 
cnepit, Q R. 22. demutabile, L R. sed] se, M 2 . Deum] qm, V. ; om. Deum. Q. 
e.tiam,V. 23. putatiuum, A 1 ; potaui, L; putatiure, Q ; potatiue, R. uere] uiri, L. 
serium] sereum, ALMj ; ereum, M 2 ; hereum, R x ; ereum, V. 24. phantaseum, A : ; 
fantasia, Vj ; fantasiam, L ; him, M x Q R ; fatasiam, P. carneum] carnium, L; 
carnem, M 2 V. om. et, Q. 25. Ita] Iterum, M 2 . om. hominem ut uerum, LR. 
om. unum . . . Deum, 1 M 2 V. 26. uero] uerum, A L. om. et . . . hominem, 
A. intellegimus, L Mj, 2 . amus, Q. ut] et, Mo. om. ut, L Q. 27. uerum] 
pr. et, Mj. modo] nodo, P. ambigamus, P ; emus, R ; ambiguimus, M 2 . 
confitendum] confi tendo, L. hunc] nunc, M 2 V. 28. eundem] + que, Mj P. 
Ihesum] pr. dominum, A M^ 2 Q R V. pr. nostrum, QR. adimplesse, A R V, 
adimples se, Q ; adimplesset, M 2 ; adimplisse, P. legem] leges V ; legimus. et] 
uel, A. passus, M 2 V. 29. crucefixum, A. om. secundum scripturas, R. scrib- 


turas, A. am. mortuum ... 29. scrip turas, A. mortuum] + esse, P. 

30. om. sec. scripturas, M lt tercia, L Q. resurrexit, R. ; resurrexisset, M 2 . 

31. assuraptum, Q. celum, M 2 Y] ; caelis, A L M x P Q R. uenturus, LM 2 . 32. 
uius, L. mortims, L. spectamus] + et speculum per ignem, A. hie. clef. A. 
mortem et sanguinem emundatus, L. 33. emundatos, M 2 R + nos, L. remis- 
sione, M 2 . peccatorum] + e, Y. consccutus, Q ; consuetus, L ; consequuturos, 
Mj; consec , Y. + nos, Mj. resuscitandu, LM 2 ; resuscitando, Y. s. eras, 
at ind. M 2 . nos] om. nos, L. + ab eo, LM 15 2 QY. his] is, L*. 34. cor- 
poribus] cordibus, M 2 . om. et, L M 2 . carne] carnem, M 2 R. qua] que, M 2 . 
om. qua . . . carne, LY. eandem, Q. om. in eadem carne, M 2 . 35. qua] 
qui, M 2 . natus] + est, LQ. passus]^r. et L M 1? 2 QRY. om. et, TMjP. om. 
et, 2 Q. mortuos, PY. om. est, Q. 36. om. hoc, L. hanc carnem, M 2 . 
vel] et L. om. accepturas, Q. accepturas, LPMj. eo] + accepturos, M x . aut] 
ad, P. e_ternam, Y. 37. prsemium] pro premio, M x . ajterni, $t Y] o?ternis, 
Mo. om. seterni, Mj. supplicii] aeternam, M x ; recepturos, Q. 

ii. Another confession of great interest is found in the 
treatise by Victricius, Bishop of Eouen ( + 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. 1 

We may compare the forms to be extracted from these 
writings, thus : 


I. 1. (Credimns) in Deum Patrem (Confitemur Deum Patrem 


II. 2. Et in (umgenituml) Filium Confitemur Deum Filiurn) 
ems Ihesum Christum 
Dominum nostrum, 

3. natum de Spiritu Sancto ex 

uirgine Maria, (de) Maria uirgine . . . 

4. possum sub Pontio Pilato passm est, 

(mortuum et ?) crucifixum crucifixus, 

et sepultum ; eepultus ; 

5. tertia die resurrexisse, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, 

6. adsumptum in cselum, 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 i. p. 174. I have quoted more of this confession on p. 130. 


The net result is a creed almost identical with that of 
Milan. It is doubtful whether the phrase nnigenitum of Art. 
2 belonged to the underlying Baptismal Creed of Phoebadius. 
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 (natum, possum, etc.) 
also look like a translation from a Greek text. In Art. 3 
ex reminds us of the African Creed. In Art. 4 mortuum et 
is, as Kattenbusch says, uncertain. In Article 6 the reading 
ccehim is preserved by the MSS. V and M 2 only, but confirmed 
by the text of Victricius. The Vatican MS. alone preserves 
Patrem in the first line, which, with the evidence of Irenreus 
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 Phoebadius and Victricius and that of Milan offers further 
confirmation of the theory of the Abbe 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 Eoman 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 


found it in the expositions of Phoebadius 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. 



I. Galilean Creeds in the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries. Salvi- 

anus, Faustus, Csesarius, 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 cceli et terrce is not found in any purely 
Gallican Creed till the twelfth century. 1 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. 

1 Moreover, the Gallican Creeds generally repeat credo in Art. 2, and read in 
in Art. 6. 





Salvianus supplies the following fragment : De giib. Dei, vi. 
6 : " Credo, inquis, in Deum Patrem omnipotentem et in lesum 
Christum Filium eius." There is a less exact quotation in 
the profession of Leporius. " Nascitur . . . de Spiritu Sancto 
et Maria semper uirgine, Deus homo lesus 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 Yictricius of Eouen, though the mention of the 
Blessed Virgin before the Holy Spirit reminds us of Pris- 
cillian. He writes : " Natuin esse de uirgine et Spiritu Sancto 
. . . passum et sepultum, resurrexisse a mortuis . . . ascend- 
isse in coelum, indeuenturum expectamus ad iudicium uiuorum 
et mortuorum. Carnem quoque nostne resurrectionis fatemur 
integram." * 

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 lesum 
Christum qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto natus ex 
Maria uirgine. 2 ii. (Credo et) in Spiritum Sanctum, sanctam 
ecclesiam, sanctorum communionem, abremissa peccatorum, 
carnis resurrectionem, uitam seternam." 

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 x H 2 . 

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. s. ix., and published under the title, Tractatus 
s. Faustini de symlolo (T). 3 The in of Faustini has been 

1 Ep. ad Fratrem Grsecum diaconum, ed. Engelbrecht, p. 205. 

8 De Spiritu Sancto, i. 2. 3 A. u. N. Quellen, 1879, p. 250. 


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 ctbremissio 
pcccatorum, which occurs in the Creed of the Antiphonary 
of Bangor. But it lacks other marks of relationship to the 
latter creed. 


I. 1. Credo in Deuin Patrem 

omnipotentem j 
II. 2. Credo et in Filium eius 

Domiuum nostrum om. Dom. n., Hj 

lesum Christum, > I. C. d. n., T. 

3. qui conceptus est 

de Spiritu Sancto, 
natus ex Maria uirgine, 

4. passus sub Pontio Pilato, T. 
crucifixus et sepultus, 1 + mortuus H 2 (a 2 ), T. 

5. tertia die resurrexit, 

6. ascendit in cselum, 2 ad cyelos, H t H 2 . 

7. sedet ad dexteram Dei 

Patris, + omnipotentis, Hj. 

1 Kattenbusch reads (qui ?) sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus est. He quotes for 
passus, mortuus, the doubtful support of Ps.-Aug., Serra. 243, which contains 
quotations from Faustus. 

2 The singular, preserved by T, is remarkable (of. Phcebadius, Victricius). 
The Homilies have ad ccdos in their text, but the Second Homily has the 
singular ad ccelum in the exposition. 


8. inde uenturus iudicare 1 

uiuos et mortuos ; 

III. 9. Credo et in Spiritum om. et, T. 


10. sanctam ecclesiam catliolicam, 

sanctorum communionem, 

11. abremissa 2 peccatorum, 

12. carnis resurrectionem uitam seternam. 

We turn next to the sermon of CaBsarius of Aries (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., led. 
3848 B and 2123). Caspar! came to the conclusion that 
the composite expositio fidei 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 Eouen MS. (A. 214). 

I will print the whole passage containing the creed from 
the Benedictine edition, with the variants of Cod. Sangallensis, 
150, saec. ix. in (G) and Cod. lat. Monacensis, 14, 470, ssec. 
viii., ix. (M.) : 

" Credite ergo, carissimi,inDeumPatrem omnipotentem, 
credite et in lesum Christum Filium eius unicum Dominum 
nostrum, credite euni conceptum esse de Spiritu Sancto, 
natuin ex Maria uirgine, qure uirgo ante partum et uirgo 
5 post partum semper fuit, et absque contagione uel macula 
peccati perdurauit. Credite eum pro nostris peccatis 
passum sub Pontio Pilato, credite crucifixum, credite 

1 Horn. 2 (a 2 ) has uenturus iudicaturus de uiuis 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 
donautur." In H 2 (Cod. Madrit.) it is used as feminine singular, followed 
by abremissio in the Commentary, \vhich is the reading of Tr. 


mortuum et sepultum, credite eurn ad inferna descendisse, 
diabolum obligasse, et animos sanctorum, quse sub custodia 

10 detinebantur liberasse secumque ad coelestem patriam 
perduxisse. Credite eum tertia die resurrexisse et nobis 
exemplum resurrectionis ostendisse. Credite eum in cselis 
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 sbternam." 

LINE 1. car.]^;r. fratres, G. 2. om. et, G. 4. pr. et, BG. om. etu. p. p. M. 
5. fait] fidelis, G. 7. cruc.]_pr. eum, G. 8. disc., G. 9. diabulum, M. alligasse, 
G. aniraa, 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. 13. nostra, G. 
14. sed // duo Hit. ras. G. sedet, B. 17. >s. c. B. >c. r. B. 18. om. et, G. 

Closely parallel to this Creed of Caesarius 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 Csesarius. The whole passage is as 
follows : 

" Certe symbolum, quod et tenemus et credimus, hoc 
continet : Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, credo et 
in lesum Christum, Filium eius unigenitum dominum nos 
trum ecce explicitse sunt personse 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 crelos, sedet ad dexteram Patris, inde 
uenturus iudicaturus uiuos ac mortuos qui utique quern 
superius es confessus Filius unigenitus est." 

LINE 4. Cod. persone. 8. Cod. nomen . 9. Cod. inquid sup. 13. Cod. uiuis. 

1 Monumenta Germ. Hist., Epp. iii., ed. "W. Gundlacli, from Cod. Colon. 
212 (Darmstad. 2326), saec. vii. 




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 : 


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 


ascendit in ccelos, 
sedet ad dexteram Patris, 
inde uenturus iudicaturus 
uiuos ac mortuos. 


I. 1. Credo in Deum Patrem 

omnipotentem ; 

II. 2. Credo et in lesum Christum, 
filium eius unicum, 
Dominum nostrum, 

3. concepturn de Spiritu Sancto, 

natum ex Maria uirgine, 

4. passum sub Pontio Pilato, 

crucifixum mortuum et 
sepultum ; ad inferna de- 

5. tertia die resurrexit, 

6. ascendit in cselis ; 

7. sedit in dextera Patris, 

8. inde uenturus iudicare 

uiuos et mortuos. 

9. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum, 

10. sanctam ecclesiamcatholicarn, 

communionem sanctorum, 

11. remissionem peccatorum, 

12. resurrectionam carnis 
et uitam seternain. 

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. 1 
The result was a purely artificial form, and was criticised as 
such by Morin. 2 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 symloli salutare carmen, or perfectio 
symloli? My object might just as well be gained by quoting 
the Creed of Csesarius alone, to prove that nearly the whole 

1 Art. in Guardian of 13th March 1895. 2 Rev. Btn., 1895, p. 199. 

3 Ed. Engelbrecht, p. 102 f. 


of our Textus rcceptus 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 lesum 
Christum Filium eius unicum, dominum Deum nostrum. . . . 
Credo eum die tertia resurrexisse . . . ascendisse in coelos, 
sedere ad dexteram Patris, uenturum ac iudicaturum uiuos 
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 iudicaturus agrees with the 
Creed of Cyprian. 

Much the same creed was used by Eligius of Noyon 
(+659) in his cle Rectitudine CatJwlicce Conuersationis Tract- 
atus. I will quote the passage from Cod. lot. Monacensis, 6430, 
ssec. ix., which gives a slightly different and probably purer 
form of text : 

FOL. 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 coelis. Promisistis deinde credere uos 
et in Spiritum Sanctum sanctam ecclesiam catholicam, re- 
missionem peccatorum, carnis resurrectionem et uitam 

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. 5 9 r.) : " Eogo uos et admoneo fratres carissimi ut diem 
iudicii semper pertimescatis. . . ." 


The Creed of the heretic Pelagius contains the following : 

I. 1. Credimus in Deum Patrem, omnipotentem 
cunctorum uisibilium et inuisibilium 

II. 2. Credimus et in Dominion nostrum 
lesum Christum . . . (unigenitum 
et uerum Dei) Filiuin . . . 

4. passus est . . . mortuus est 

5. ... resurrexit tertia die, 

6. ascendit in coelum, 

7. sedet ad dexteram Dei 
Patris . . . 

8. uenturus est ... ad iudicium uiuorum 

9. Credimus et in Spiritum Sanctum ; l 


12. resurrectionem carnis. 

This form 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 lesum Christum, Filium eius 
unicum Dominum nostrum, Deum 

3. conceptum de Spiritu Sancto, 
natum de Maria uirgine, 

4. passum sub Pontio Pilato, 2 
qui crucifixus et sepultus 
descendit ad inferos, 

] I have transferred these words from their place following the confession of 
the Son. 2 Cod. Pylato. 


5. tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, 

6. ascendit in ccelis, 

7. seditque ad dexteram Dei 
Patris omnipotentis, 

8. exinde uenturus iudicare 
uiuos ac mortuos. 

III. 9. Credo et in Spiritum Sanctum, 
Deum omnipotentem, imam 
habentem substantiam cum 
Patre et Filio ; 

10. sanctam esse ecclesiam l 

11. abremissa 2 peccatorum, 
(10). sanctorum communionem, 3 

12. carnis resurrectionem. 
Credo uitam post mortem et 
uitam seternam in gloria Christi. 

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 Quicunque. Its 
influence on the Irish Church is easy to explain, since S. 
Patrick had visited Lerins. The creed seems to be Gallican, 
omitting creatorem cceli et terrce, the place of which is supplied 
from the Nicene Creed or from Cassian. 4 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, Auscultate 
expositionem (p. 243), which appears to be Gallican of the 
fifth century. I therefore agree with Halm 3 (p. 85, n. 222) 
that it is neither founded on the Textus receptus nor an inde 
pendent recension of the Old Eoman Creed. But I do not 
think that it is possible at present to prove anything more. 

1 ^Ecclesiam. 2 Abremisa. 3 Commonionen). 

4 Halm, 3 p. 84, n. 207, compares the so-called Creed of Palmatius found in 
Martyrlum Sancti Calixti Pap<;e et Sociorum eius, but this reference is of very 
doubtful value. 



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 Eome, 
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 Eoman Creed was preserved unaltered, with the 
exception of the order lesum Christum and the reading in ccelum. 

The sermons of Peter Chrysologus, who was Bishop of 
Eavenna at the same period, show an even closer adherence to 
the form, though there is some doubt whether uitam ceternam, 
which appears in the exposition of Ixi., and in the other 
sermons, had not crept (as we have seen happen in other 
cases) into the text of the creed. 1 

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 Eome 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 fyriritu 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 i. wrote a letter to King 
Childebert L, 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 : " Quern sub Pontio 

1 Halm, 3 p. 42, n. 58. Catholicam is certainly an interpolation. 


Pilato sponte pro solute nostra passum esse carne confit- 
emur, crucifixum carne, mortuum carne, resurrexisse tertia 
die. . . ." 

The Creed of Gregory the Great, printed in the appendix 
to his letters, is extant in many MSS., 1 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 
cielum, sedet ad dexteram patris, unde uenturus est iudicare 
uiuos et mortuos." 

Need we hesitate to conclude that E was still in use in 
the Eoman Church, a fact which is confirmed by the 
discovery of the Old Eoman form (with uitam ceternam) side 
by side with T, in a collection of liturgical documents made 
in Eome 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 Or do Eomanus (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 

The Gelasian Sacramentary, in its present form, is clearly 
a compilation, which was introduced into France about the 
end of the seventh century. 2 It is based on a Eoman liturgi- 

1 E.g. Rouen, God. 516 (0. 16), from Jumieges, ssec. xi., which I have collated 
with the Benedictine text given in Halm, 3 p. 337. There is no variation. 

2 Duchesne, Origines, p. 123 : " Par sacramentaire gelasien il faut entendre 
mi recueil liturgique remain ," 


cal collection, and has been enlarged from Galilean 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 E. 

"Interr.: Credis in Deum Patrem omnipotentem? Eesp.: 
Credo. Interr. : Credis in lesum Christum, Filium eius 
unicum, Dominum nostrum, natum et passum ? Eesp. : Credo. 
Interr. : Credis et in Spiritum Sanctum, sanctam ecclesiam, 
remissionem peccatorum, carnis resurrectionem ? Eesp. : 

Kattenbusch l lays stress on the marks of antiquity 
which distinguish the preface and concluding words that form 
the setting of the Traditio symboli, and argues that E not C 
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, 
47 6-49 3. 2 Baumer indeed pointed out a discrepancy, in the 
fact that the creed was said to have been sung dicit synibolum 
decantando, whereas Leo in. wrote to Charles the Great that 
the Nicene Creed was not sung in Eome. But he was unable 
to explain the problem except by suggesting that some 
enlarged form of the Apostles Creed, like the Bangor Anti- 
plwnary, might have been used. 3 

The mystery has now been cleared up by Morin s publica 
tion 4 of another text of the seventh Ordo Eomanus from Cod. 
Sessorianus 52, ssec. xi., xii. This interesting MS. comes 
from the Abbey of Nonantula, and is now in the Victor 
Emmanuel library at Eome. The collection in which the 
Ordo is found comprises fol. 104 177 v , and includes solemn 
acclamations for use on festivals characteristic of the Carlov- 
ingian epoch, and containing the names of a Pope Nicholas 

1 ii. p. 20. " Caspari, ii. 114. 3 P. 46. *Rev. Ben., 1897, p. 481, 


and an Emperor Louis. These must be Nicholas I. (858-867) 
and Louis n. (855875). We may therefore assume with 
some confidence that the collection was made in the ninth 

Now in this text of the Ordo it is the Textus 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 unwn 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 Eoman Creed 
transformed into our Apostles Creed. We cannot on this 
evidence alone argue that the completed form was found in 
Eome before the ninth century, when the collection was 


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, Psalterinm Latinum et 
Grcecum, Papce Gregorii, which implies that the archetype 
came from Eome. Caspari s judgment on a point of this 
kind is always weighty, and he decided to refer it to Pope 
Gregory in. (7 3 1-74 1). 1 The text of the creed only varies 
from T by the omission of cst in Art. 8 and et in Art. 12. 
This would be an insecure foundation for a theory by 
itself, but it may be supported by a number of small 

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, 


and came into Southern Germany c. 720, where he founded 
the Abbey of Reichenau, and many others. His creed is 
found in an interesting treatise called Dicta Abbatis Pirminii 
de sinaulis 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 w&s a 
distinctly Eoman custom, whereas in Gallican usage^ftn 
interval elapsed before the giving of the creed. 3 This at 
once establishes a presumption that it was from Home 
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 4 do not decide the 
question of the form used. Before the days of Boniface, 
the Eoman liturgy had begun to exercise influence in Gaul. 
Duchesne 5 points out how the country had been traversed 
continually during the seventh century by Eoman missionaries 
on their way to England. The mixture of Eoman 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, srec. viii. 
in.) is not a missal, but a sacramentary, and was written 
most probably in France. It contains, however, a large 
proportion of Eoman elements. The ceremonies of the 
Traditio syrriboli 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 
Bibliotheque Rationale at Paris (Cod. lat. 13,246, ssec. vii.). 
It presents a peculiar mixture of Gallican and Eoman rites 

1 Scarapsus, from scarpsus = excarpsus, excerpt, Halm, 3 p. 96, n. 247. 

2 Atiecdota, p. 151. 

3 Duchesne, 2 Origenes du Culie Chr&ien, p. 308, n. 3. 

4 Epp. 6. 8. 5 Op. dt. p. 94, 


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." : 

In it there are four forms of creed, which I will call 
A, E, B, C, distinguishing the creed of the exposition (E) 
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., 2 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. 2 4 1. 3 It is fully reproduced in the Miss. Gallic. 

As printed in the appendix to S. 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 : " lam ad ... symboli 
professions sacramentum textumque ueniamus, quod in hunc 
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 credo, and in omitting 
unicum, mortuus, a mortuis. 

Of the date, it is only possible to say that it was in 
existence at the date of the formation of the Miss. Gallic., 
c. 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 Ducliesne, Origines, 2 p. 151. 2 Caspari, iv., xviii. n. 1. 

3 Kattenbusch, i. p. 210, n. 16. 



1 BC 















.3* & j 

M J -; 




O fj S^ 

^ s 

Q s 







unigenitum sempiter- 
num, A 
om. Dom. nost., A 

conceptum . . . natum, 



.^ CO. O 

om. sanctorum corn., E 

uitam habere, post 
inortem in gloria 
Christi resurgere, B 



^ r PQ 







3 g^ 





+ creatorem 








o "^ 

tfi ^u 


W 1 

"2 I 
1 1 & 

sancta ecclesi 





























<j pq 









43** <j 






B w 

d ^ 





^ S 




S ^ 


CO , ^ 






5 ^ 


tn . 




d d 
d d 





O> S 







4 - 

PQ _ 




+ creatorem c. et t., 




om. unicum, B 





(in expos. Dominus n, 

om. est, A 
om. mortuus, B (in ex 
in ueritate mortuus 

J tt 

s .S" 


^, <u 
02 O S 

PM "S 

fi PQ 

* 4- 

1 1 r 

g e-sS 

5 ^PQ O 







iO Ci 

P t^ OS 


i5 c<i 



The other creed forms from Ps.-Augustinian Sermons, 
240, 241, joined with this by Harm 3 , 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 cceli et terrcc 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 far as 
it goes, of the various lists of apostles names attached to 
particular clauses of the creed, whether E or T. It is diffi 
cult to arrange it clearly, but the following may suffice : 

I. Sermons founded on R. I have come across two sermons 
in which the clauses of E are assigned to apostles, follow 
ing the order of Matt. x. 24, Cod. Sangallensis, 40, 
ssec. viii., ix. and Cod. Vat. Pal. 220. 1 I will print all the 


S^c. IX., 


SMC. X. 

Cod. Sangallensis, 

Cod. Vat. Pal. 

Cod. Sessorian, 
52 B 

Cod. Vesoul, 73 


+creatorem c. et., t. 

2. om. Filinm eius 


>I. C. 

>I. C. 

3. et] ex 

qui cone, est deS.S. 

natus ex 

4. o?7i. est 

>cruc. etsep.est 

Passus subP. P.cruc. 



>res-t.d. amort. 

6. celum 

uictor ad ccelos 

ad celos 

uictor ad caelos 

7. +Dei 

+ Dei 

+ omnipotentis 
8. Inde 



+ omnipotentis 

om. est 

om. est 

om. est 





4 sanct. com. 


+ uitam futuri 

+ uit. set. 

+uit. set. 



Another MS. is found in Cod. Vat. Pal. 212, saec. ix., x. 


variations from the pure text of B, 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. V&soul, 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, i.e., 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 Eoman 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 S. Paul s 
name after S. Peter s, and add Matthias at the end. It is 
true that the Karlsruhe MS. also omits Simon the Canansean, 
but a blank space proves that this was an oversight. 

MATT. x. 2. 

ACTS i. 13. 


God. Sangallensis, 40 
Cod. Vat. Pal. 220 
Cod. Sessorian 52 (B) 

Ps.-Aug. 241 
Sacr. Gallic. (C) 

(1) Cod. Sessorian, 52 (A) 
(2) Cod. Augiensis, ccxxix. 
(3) Ps.-Aug. 240 


James 2 

(1) Paul or (2) (3) Andrew 

4 John 










8 Matthew 
James of Alphseus 

James of Alphacus 
Simon Zelotes 


Simon the Cananaean 
12 Matthias 

Judas of James 
Matthias 3 

Simon (l)the Canantean 

(2) (3) Matthias 

1 Cf. also Cod. Sangallensis, 732, ssec. ix. 
3 Pirminius repeats Thomas. 

Order in R.V., A. V. James, John. 


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 Eoman Creed 
was revised in Rome itself before 700. All the details which 
have been brought forward converge upon this conclusion. 
The Psalter of Gregory in., the witness of Pirminius, as an 
exponent of Roman customs, the similar witness of the Miss. 
G-allic. 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 
Mlioque 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 possum, mortuum, catholicam, 
sanctorum communionem, et uitam ceternam were found com 
bined in the Creeds of Niceta 1 (see p. 252) and Caesarius, 
who visited Rome, and were received with distinction. 
Niceta s sermon may also be the source from which Creatorem 
cceli et terrce was taken, though it is perhaps more probable 
that it was taken from the Nicene Creed. Ceesarius 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 (weitlaufigste) form. 2 He 
quotes " Deum et Dominum, resurrexit uiuus, omnium pecca- 

1 For my present quotation it does not matter whether Niceta was a Galilean 
or a Dacian Bishop. 2 i. p. 196. 


torum " from the Spanish Creeds, " ascendit uictor " from 
Miss. Gallic, (and elsewhere), " per baptismum remissionem " 
from Soar. Gallic., the peculiarities of the form in the Banyor 
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 Eoman 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. 

Nicene Creed 1. Credo in Deum Patrein omnipotentem, creatorem ccdi 

Niceta (?) 

et terrce. 
2. Et in lesum Christum Filium eius unicum dominum 


Phoebadius (?) 3. qui concevtus est de Spiritu Sancto natus ex Maria 

* uirgine, 

Milan, Phoebadius 4. MISSUS subPontio Pilato, crucifixus mortuus et sepultus 

Caesarius , 7 .. 7 . /. 

Aquileia descendzt ad inferna, 

5. tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, 
Augustine 6. ascendit ad cselos, 

Victridus, Faustus 7. se det ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotent, 

(Priscillian) . ,. 

Ca?sarius, Faustus 8. inde uenturus est ludicare uiuos et mortuos 

Charms, Faustus 9. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum, 

Ctesarius, Faustus 10. Sanctam ecclesiam catholicam, sanctorum communi- 

Ccesarius, Faustus 11. remissionem peccatorum 

12. carnis resurrectionem et uitam ceternam. 

1 This text with slight variations of spelling is found in Cod. Sessorian, 52, 
the Ordo Romanus (0), the first sermon (A) ; in the Psalter of Gregory in. (C), 
and Cod. Sangallensis, 27 (G). Art. 4. mortuus] + est, A. ad infernum, A. 
Art. 8. om. est, A C G. Art. 12. om. et, A C G. 



I. Bratke s Berne MS. 

II. The Sermon Auscultate expositionem. 
III. The Creed of Damasus. 
IV. The Rhythm of the Te Deum 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 Te Deum. 


The following creed was published in 1895 by Professor 
Bratke, 1 from a MS. at Berne (Cod. N. 645) of the seventh 
or eighth century. 2 Most of the other contents are of a 
geographical or chronological character ; e.g. 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 Caevsarea, 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. 

2 Bratke compares the specimen of Merovingian writing in Sir E. M. 
Thompson s Manual of Palaeography, p. 230. 



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 3 (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 lesum Christum Filium eius, 
unicum dominum nostrum, 

3. natum de Spiritu Sancto et 
Maria uirgine, 

4. Passus sub Pontio Pilato 
crucefixum et sepultum, 
descendit ad inferos, 

5. tertia die resurrexit a mortuos, 

6. ascendit ad cselos, 

7. sedit ad dexteram Patris, 

8. inde uenturus iudicare 
uiuos ac mortuos. 

III. 9. Credo in Spiritu Sancto, 

10. sancta ecclesia chatholica, 

11. remissionem peccatorum, 

12. carnis resurrection] s, 
in uitam ceternam. 

Thus the creed appears to be a recension of the Old 
Koman Creed, formed by adding the words passus, descendit 
ad inferos, in uitam ceternam. 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. 


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 
Eoman missionaries. 1 It is easy to understand how such a 
copy of the Old Kornan 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 


The sermon Auscultate expositionem has been edited by 
Caspari and Ommanney from the Paris MSS. (B.N. lot. 3848 
B and 2123), in which it is combined with the sermon of 
Caesarius (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. lot. 14,508, from the 
Abbey of S. Emmeran at Eatisbon ; (iii.) Wolfenblittel, Cod. 
91, from the Abbey of Weissenburg, all of the ninth century. 
Having published the text of the whole sermon in the 
Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschickte, July 1898, I will now only 
quote the creed form : 

I. 1. Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, 
inuisibilem, uisibilium et inuisibilium 
(omnium) 2 rerum conditorem. 
II. 2. Et in lesum Christum, Filium eius unicurn, 
dominum nostrum, 

3. concepturn de Spiritu Sancto, natum 
ex Maria uirgine, 

4. crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato 
et sepultum, 

5. tertia die resurgentem ex mor tin s, 

6. Victor (ascendit ad cselos), 

1 See p. 199 supra,. Art. 9. spu sco ; 10. sancta ccclc-sia, om. catholica ; 12. 
carnis resurrectionis. 

- The words in brackets are adde.l by Halm 3 from the later recension. 


7. sedit in dexteram Dei Patris, 

8. inde uen turns iudicare uiuos ac mortuos. 
III. 9. Et in Spiritum Sanctum Deum omnipotentem, 

unam habentem substantiam cum 
Patre et Filio, 

10. ecclesiam catholicam, 

11. remissionem peccatorum, 

1 2. communem omnium corporum resurrectionem 
post mortem (et uitam seternam). 

This form is apparently Gallican, and of an earlier date 
than the Creed of Csesarius in Ps.-Aug. Serm. 244, with which 
it has been associated from the sixth century. It lacks the 
additions passum, mortuum, ad inferno, descendisse, communi- 
onem sanctorum. Nor does the sermon contain the character 
istics of Csesarius s style, which have been pointed out in the 
other. If it is still conceivable, as Morin thinks, that Csesarius 
wrote it, we must suppose that he used differing forms of one 
creed, one belonging to his birthplace Chalons, the other to 
Aries, 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 hdbentem 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 Csesarius. Victor ascendit ad ccelos recurs in Miss. 
Gallic. B, Cod. Vat. Pal. 220, Ps.-Aug. Serm. 238, and a sermon 
in a Vesoul 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. 1 


The Creed of Damasus 2 in its original form is always 
ascribed to Jerome, and in some MSS. is called a Letter or 

1 Cf. the addition in Art. 12, post mortem, in the Bangor Antiphonary. 

2 It is called in Hahn, 2 " The Second Creed " ; in Hahn, 3 "The First Creed," 
ascribed to Damasus. The change is somewhat misleading. 


Faith addressed by him to Dainasus. It is generally found 
in collections of creeds, and in one MS. (God. Augiensis xviii., 
s?ec. ix., at Karlsruhe) it follows two Kules of Faith ascribed 
to Councils of Toledo. Its history is important in con 
nection with the Quicunque, 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. Sangallensis 125 ... . . ssec. viii. 

G 2 Cod. Sangallensis 159 ssec. x. 

K Cod. Augiensis (Karlsruhe) xviii. . . ssec. ix. 

L Cod. Leidensis xviii. 67 F. .... ssec. viii., ix. 

M Cod. Mediolan. Ambros. 0. 212 sup. . . ssec. viii. 

P Cod. Paris. B.N. 1684 * ssec. xi. ex. 

Fides Hieronimi ad Damasum Papam, G x ; Epidola Hieronimi ad Papam 
Damasum de symbulo, G 2 ; Fides beati Hieronimi presbyteri ad Damasum 
Papam, K ; Exemplar fidei chatolice sancti Hieronimi presbiteri, L ; 
Hieronimi incipit fides, M ; (Hieronimi) de Fide apud Bethleem, P. 





Patri et Filio CO^ETERNUM et cosequalem et cooperatorem, quia 

10 scriptum est : uerbo Domini cceli firmati sunt, id est, a Filio Dei, 
et Spiritu oris eius omnis uirtus eorum, et alibi : Emitte Spiritum 
tuum et creabuntur et renouabis faciem terrce. Ideoque in nomine 
Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti unura confitemur Deum, quia Deus 
nomen est potestatis non proprietatis. Proprium nomen est Patri 

15 Pater, et proprium nomen est Filio Films, et proprium nomen est 
Spiritui Sancto Spiritus Sanctus. In liac trinitate unum Deum 
credirnus, quia ex uno Patre, quod est unius cum Patre naturae 
imiusque substantiso et uuius potestatis. Pater Filium genuit, non 
uoluntate, nee necessitate, sed natura. Filius ultimo tempore ad 

20 nos saluandos et ad implendas scripturas descendit a Patri, QUI 
NUNQUAM DESIIT ESSE cum Patre, ct conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, 


1 Collated by Ommanney. 

2 The words in capitals are found in the Fides Romanonim. 


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 
Patrem, sedetque ad dexteram eius in gloriam, quam semper habuit 

ab eo RESUSCITANDOS die nouissima IN HAC CARNE QUA NUNC uiuimus 
et habemus, consecuturos ab ipso AUT UITAM ^TERNAM PREMIUM BONI 
MERITI aut poenam PRO PECCATIS ^TERNI SUPPLICII. Hsec lege, hsec 
retine, huic fidei animam tuam subiuga, a Christo Domino et uitam 

35 consequeris praemia. 

LINE 2. om. nostrum, LP. om. in, M. 3. om. Sanctum ... 4. Sanctum, 
G 2 . om. Deum, M. 5. om. Deum, LP. ipse, supra lin, G 2 . 6. qui] 
quern, Gj. genuit] + Filium, G x . Filium] pr. et, G 2 (K, supra lin.}. 7. sit] 
est (sit, supra lin.), K. 8. Patre] + et Filio, GjL(K*). 9. coequalem, K; 
quosequalcm, M. 10. scribtum, M*. celi, G x . om. id ... Dei, M ; a, supra 
lin. K; om. a, L. 11. emittes, G l5 2 . 12. innouabis, G : . terre, LP. 13. 
quia] quod, G 3 corr. om. Deus, G 2 > nomen est potestatis Deus, K L M. 
14. om. Proprium, L. om. est, 2 G 2 . ]5. proprium 1] proprio, L. 16. 
Spiritu, P. In] pr. Et, K. hac] + autem, G x . Deum] + colimus, supra 


lin. K. 17. uuo] no, L. naturse] nature, G 1 ; natura, L a ; + est, G a M; el, 
K ; esse, L. 18. uniusquse substancire, L. geuuit, supra lin. G 2 corr. om. et 
uuius, Gj. 19. uoluptate, P. 20. saluandus, L. implendos, Gj. scribturas, 
M ; scriptura, Gj. discendit, K* L M. 21. numquam, KM. desiuit, M. om. 
et, G r om. est, M. 22. et, l c supra lin. M. uirgiue, pr. Maria, GjKLM. 
carnem] CARNEUM, G x * L. ANIMAM, eras Gj ; pr. et, G 2 . 23. suscipit, M. 
nee] non, L. 24. nostris] + sit, Gj. 25. om. Deus . . . (26) qui, 1 M. 
om. est . . . eat, Gj L, lio&c uerba supra lin. K. 26. moritur] moreretur, 
L bis. 27. surgit, G 2 P] resurgit, G X 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, Gj. resurrexit] surrexit, G 1} pr. et, 
G 1; 2 KM!, + ter(c)ia die, K L. 29. sedit, KM; om, que, 2 . gloria, G 2 M. 
30. huius] cuius, Gj. emundatos] e, supra lin. K ; MUNDATOS, L M. nos] 
+ esse, Gj ; + et, G 1? 2 . 31. ab eo] habeo, L. nouissimo, G x . IN hac CARNE 
QUA NUNC uiuimus] IN QUA NUNC uiuimus CARNE, P. 32. habemus] + spem, 
G 2 corr. supra lin. consecuturos] + nos, G 1} pr. nos, G a . om. ab ipso, G 2 . 
uitam] pr. ad, G x . om. aut uitam seternam, G 2 K corr. premium, K L. 34. 
om. Domino, G a . 35. prsemia] prsemium, G 1 KM 1 , pr. et, GjM. 

In the Cod. Sangallensis 1 2 5 is added the following : 

" Spiritus uero Sanctus Patris et Filii comniuniter Spiritus. 

Sicut generare solius Patris et nasci solius Filii et procedere 

de ambobus solius confitemur Spiritus Sancti. Credimus in 

Spiritum Sanctum, Spirituin Sanctum Deum dicimus, nee 


tanien diciinus Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum ties 
Deos sed unum quia una est aeternitas una maiestas una 
potestas. Pater non est Filius sed Pater est. Filius non 
est Pater sed Filius est Patris. Spiritus Sanctus nee Pater 
est nee Filius sed Spiritus est Patris et Filii, tres personse 
sed unus Deus est. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum. Spiritus 
Sanctus Deus est a Patre Filioque 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 Quicunque, and 
with good reason. It explains why Priscillian s frequent 
and loose use of the term potestas 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 "; ] 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 

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 . . . qui 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. 88 : "Christum nulli nomini uel potestati parte concessa unuin 
Deum crederet." 


dum moritur homo resurgit ut JDeus, 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 quseritur, uetus testamentum castificandi corporis Deo 
et nouum animoe institutione mancipatur et non dissentaneum 
sibi sed ratione diuisum est, ut sicut hsec duo testamenta 
Deus unus est, sic in nobis perfectio boni gloria sit." . . . 

II. 97, Sap. 9, 15 : " Corpus . . . anima . . . sensus" 

I~b. 105:" Post sapienfe srecularis 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. 117: " Perpetua luce contecti pecca- 
torum supplicia respuere et requiem possimus habere iustorum 
per lesum Christum." 

Lastly, the appeal, " Haec lege, htec retine, huic fidei 
animain tuam subiuga," fits in well with my theory of 
authorship. The connexion with S. Jerome suggested by 
the MSS. may be explained by the fact that he was at this 
time in Eome, and in constant communication with Damasus. 



The researches of Meyer 1 prove that the work of 
S. Cyprian, dc Mortalitate, in which we have found an 
important parallel to verses 7, 8, 9 of the Te Deum, was 
written in metrical prose ; that is to say, prose which had 

1 Gottingsche gel. Anzeigen, 1893, p. 1. I owe my introduction to this 
interesting subject to Mr. J. Shelly. Cf. article in Guardian, March 10, 1897. 


strictly regulated metrical endings to its sentences. These 
were used by many rhetoricians of the Silver Latin period, 
and were known as clausula rhetoricce (cf. Terentianus 
Maurus V. 1439). The passage may be scanned as 
follows : 

"Illic ap5stolorum | gloriosjiis clioriis 3 1 1, illic prSplietarum exult|an- 
tmm | niimertis 6 ||, illic martyrum innumer|abilis | populfts 6 || 6b cer- 
taminis et passionls gloriam et ulctoriam coronatus 9 ))" 

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 (pi) 

cursus tardus (t) 

cursus uelox (v) 

These cadences are found throughout the writings of 
Cassian, Pomerius, his pupil Caesarius, 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 IL, under Pope Urban II. 
(1088). Definite rules were drawn up by another chancellor, 
Albert de Mora, the future Gregory vm., 1 according to which 
the beginning of the sentence should contain spondees 
(rhythmical, not metrical), the middle spondees and dactyls 

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, Poesie liturgiquc du moycn age, p. 36. 


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. 1 

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 Csesarius, 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 Te Deum 2 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." 

Plamis help and defend us. 
man s understanding, 
able to please thee. 

Tardus help and deliver us. 
continual godliness, 
worship the Unity. 

Velox nourish us with all gdodness. 
service is perfect freedom, 
glory of His resurrection. 

2 In the first instance by Lejay, 


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 Qiticunque 

Verse 2. Te ceternum Patrem omuls terra iieneratur. 
Clause 3. Trinitatem in Unitate ueneremur. 

Meyer 1 shows that this was allowed as a sixth form of 
the cursus, but not, it would seem, till a much later time. 

Among the Quicunque endings there are several which do 
not conform to the usual rules of the cursus, i.e. clauses 3, 
20, 25, 26. Mr. Shelly suggests that "a slight alteration 
of the words in each case would form a recognised cadence." 


Clause 3. ueneremur et Trinitatem | in Uniltate.P 1 
,, 20. religione Catholica | prohib|einui . v 
25. in Unitate | sit uenejranda.P 1 
26. ita sentiat | de Trinitate.P 1 

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, genitus | sed pro|cedens. v 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 Caesarius 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 

1 P. 25. 


suitable for singing at a later time. In an interesting 
lecture on " Art in Liturgical Melodies, Ancient and Modern," 
by the Abbe A. Bourdon, 1 director of the cathedral music 
at Kouen, some stress is laid on the fact that there is a 
musical cnrsus which corresponds to the literary cursus, and 
is founded on it. 

He quotes the following words of Dom. Mocquereau : 
" Dans les repertoires liturgiques des trois principaux dialectes 
du plain-chant (ambrosien, gregorien, mozarabe), ou trouve, 
reproduces des milliers de fois, plus de cent cadences imitant 
les ondulations rhythmiques du cursus planus litteraire, sur 
lesquelles on les a dvidemment calque*es." 


Niceta was Bishop of Eemesiana 2 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, i.e. born before 
353. This date agrees with the chronological setting of the 
short reference in Gennadius, who seems to date his life c. 
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 Eoman Synod held 
under Pope Damasus c. 369371, which they sent to the 
Bishops of Illyria. Eeports of the revival of Arianism had 
been sent them by brethren among the Gauls and Bessi. 3 

1 M&moires sur la Musiquc Sacrde en Normandie. 

2 Gennadius, c. 22 in B.N. Paris, Cod. lot. 12,161. 

3 Spidlegium Casinense, i. 98. 


Possibly Niceta was the messenger, for his treatise on the 
titles of our Lord shows acquaintance with the Decretum 
Gfelasii, 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 Getae north of the Danube. 
He taught also among the gold-diggers of the neighbour 
hood. 1 

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 Eome his learning made a great impression. Paulinus 
wrote of it to Sulpicius Severus : " Quo genere te et 
uenerabili episcopo atque doctissimo Nicetae, qui ex Dacia 
Komanis merito admirandus aduenerat . . . reuelaui." 2 
Paulinus also delighted in his gifts as a hymn-writer, 
beside whom he felt himself poor. 3 

Kattenbusch 4 makes the interesting suggestion that he 
was the Bishop Nichae 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 Nicetae, since the specimens of handwriting from 
Dacian wax tablets given by Maunde Thompson 5 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 6 in a MS. at Eouen, in an 

1 Paulinus, Carm. xviii. 213, 269. 2 Ep. 29. 

3 Carm. xxvii. 193-199. 4 TheoL Lit. Zeit. 1896, p. 303. 

5 Greek and Latin Paleography ^ p. 216. 6 Rev. Ben, 1897, p. 97. 


Ordo de catechizandis rudilus, cod. A, 214, ssec. xi., xii., this 
fifth book may be identified with the Explanatio symloli 
attributed to Nicetas of Aquileia. 1 On f ol. 1 2 3 v. an extract 
from that sermon is called de Immortalitate Animce Nicetce in 
libro quinto ad competentes. 2 This evidence seems completely 
to remove the doubt expressed by Hahn 3 (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 communioneni 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 3 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), Hlimpel (H 1 ), 
Hahn 3 (H 3 ), and Kattenbusch (K). It seems to be a pro 
vincial form of R, and the accusatives natum, crucifixion 
seem to point to independent translation from a Greek text. 4 
I have somewhat doubtfully included cceli et terrce creatorem, 
because the note following hunc confitere Deum in connexion 
with the use of confessio after the first words of Art. 1, and 
of confiteberis 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. 5 The words uiuus a mortuis 
are found in the Creeds of Martin of Bracara, a native of 

J M.S.L. 52, 865. 

2 Morin, Art. cit., points out that the third and fifth fragments, edited by 
Denis from another MS. (Cod. Vindob. 1370, soec. x.), are said to have been 
taken from the fifth book of Niceta, and are not found in the Explatmtlo. I do 
not see that this affects the evidence of the Rouen MS. 

3 Das a/p. Symbol, i. p. 406. 4 Cf. p. 200 suyra. 5 P. 240 supra. 


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. 


I. 1. Credo in Deum Patrem ornnipotentem 

cceli et terrce creatorem : 
II. 2. Et in Filium eius lesum Christum, 

3. natum ex Spiritu Sane to et ex 
uirgine Maria, 

4. possum sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixum, 
mortuum ; 

5. Tertia die resurrexit uiuus a 

6. ascendit in coelos, 

7. sedet ad dexteram Patris, 

8. inde uenturus iudicare 
uiuos et mortuos : 

III. 9. Et in Spiritum Sanctum, 

10. sanctam ecclesiam catholicam, 
communionem sanctorum, 

11. remissionem peccatorum, 

12. carnis resurrectionem 
et uiiam ceternam. 

1. om, coeli et terrse creatorem, C H 1 H 3 K. 2. -f Dominum nostrum, K. 
3. natum . . . uirgine, in expos. C. 4. > sub Pontio Pilato passus est (passum, 
H 3 ), C H 3 . mortuum, pr. et, H 3 ; mortuus, in expos. C. 7. Patris, pr. 
Dei, H 3 . 10. sanctse ecclesiae catholicre, C. 11. remissionem, pr. in H 3 . 
12. carnis, jpr. huius, H 3 . uitam, yr. in H 3 . 



I. MSS. and Quotations. 
II. The Authorship. 

III. The Sources upon which the Author may have drawn. 
IV. The Text. 

THE history of the Te 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 Eemesiana, 
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 

1 Appendix E. 



The hymn Te Deum 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 Bang or Anti- 
phonary, which may be dated A.D. 680691. 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 Kule of Benedict of Nursia, which was written 
c. A.D. 530, contains the following Direction : c. xi., "Post 
quartum responsorium incipit Abbas Te Deum laudamus, quo 
prsedicto legat Abbas lectionem de Euangelio cum honore et 
tremore, stantis omnibus, qua peiiecta respondeant omnes 
Amen, et subsequatur mox Abbas hymnum Te decet laus." 

To this we may add the Eule of Aurelian : " Omni 
Sabbato ad Matutinos Cantemus Domino et Te Deum 

The Kule of Caesarius, who was consecrated Bishop of 
Aries in 502, is said to have been written while he was still 
Abbot of Lerins. He directs : c. xxi. " Perfectis missis dicite 
matutinos directaneo : Exaltabo te Deus meus et rex meus. 
Deinde Confitemini. Inde Cantemus Domino, Lauda anima 
mea Dominum, Benedictionein, Laudate Dominum de caslis. 
Te Deum laudamus. Gloria in excelsis Deo : et capitellum." 

To this testimony of Caesarius 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 Cffisarius by name, and his use of the Te 
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 glorisB, Christus, tu patri sempiternus es films ; 


et consequenter subiungit : Tu ad liberandum subcepturus hominem 
non orruisti uirgines uterum ; te ergo qusesumus tuis famulis subueni, 
quos prsetioso 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 2 
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 Eome, A.D. 400 405. 3 

The other is a passage in the Commonitorium of Vincen- 
tius of Lerins : c. xvi. ad fin. " Beata igitur ac ueneranda, 
benedicta et sacrosancta, et omnino supernse ille angelorum 
laudationi comparanda confessio, quee unum Dominum Deum 
trina sanctificatione glorificat." 

I do not know if it has ever been suggested that Vincen- 
tius refers here to the Te Deum, 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 
C. 15), and Laus angelorum in a MS. at Rouen, Cod. 227 
(A. 367), ssec. xii. 


In the ninth century there were two conflicting traditions 
held as to the authorship. Hincmar of Eheims believed the 
beautiful story, that it was composed by S. 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 hunc 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 quern S. 

1 Cod. Colon. 212 (Darmstad. 2326) f. 113 f., quoted by Morin, Rev. Btn. 
J M. C. Weymann in a letter to Dom. Morin. 
s Zalm, Neuere Beitrage, p. 119, n. 1. 


Ambrosius et S. Augustinns 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. 
xviii., 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 c. A.D. 527. 

On the other hand, Abbo of Fleury, in a letter to some 
English monks (A.D. 985), attributed the hymn to S. Hilary 
of Poitiers : " Dei palinodia quam composuit Hilarius Pietau- 
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., 1 
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 Te Deum attributed to a Niceta. This MS. 
has at last been identified with the Irish Book of Hymns 
(ssec. 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 Te Deum written in Latin and Old Irish, which may be 
translated as follows 2 : " Neceta, coarb [i.e. successor] of 
Peter, made this canticle. In Eome, now, it was made. 
Incertum autem quo tempore et ob quam causam factum, 
nisi Necetam Deum laudare uoluisse diceremus, dicens 
Laudate pueri Dominum, Laudate nomen Domini, Te Deum 
laudamus" etc. 

Ussher found in the Cotton Library another MS., which 
ascribed the Te Deum to a Nicetius, i.e. a Gallican Psalter, 
which he supposed to have been written in the reign of 
Henry i. (1120-1134). This is missing, but with inde- 

1 Thesaurus Hymnologicus, ii. 288. 2 Bradshaw Society vol. xiii. 59. 


fatigable labour Pom. Morin has collected references to nine 

The earliest is (1) A Eoman Psalter from the Abbey of S. 
Aubin, at Angers (Cod. xv.), of the tenth century. The others 
are (2) B. M., Harleian, 863, srec. xi. ; (3) B. M., Arundel, 60, 
saec. xi., in which Vicetius is obviously a mistake for Nicetius ; 
(4) Bibl. Laurent. Florence, Plut. xvii. Cod. iii. saec. xi.; (5) ib. 
Cod. ix., saec. xi.; (6) ib. Cod. viii. ssec. xiii.; (7), Munich, Cod. led. 
13067, saec. xi., xii., in a Scotch or Irish hand, from the Belgian 
monastery of Hastiere on the Meuse ; (S) Bibl. Vatican., 
Cod. Palat. lot. 35, ssec. xiv., xv. ; (9) an early printed Psalter, 
ad usmn ecclesim Sarisburiensis, London, 1555, in which is "the 
rubric, Canticum beati Niceti" 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 

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, saec. 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. S. Gregory, who narrates, Dial. ii. 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 "TE 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. 1 

There are strong reasons for identifying him with Niceta 
of Eemesiana. 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 Treves, 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 Eome. Evidently the 
scribe had seen the inscription, Civitatis Romance episcopus. 
Now Romance is one of the forms in which Remesiana is found 
in the MSS. of Gennadius. 

The internal evidence of the treatises On the G-ood of 
Psalmody and On Vigils points quite away from the times 
and circumstances of Nicetius of Treves, 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 Eemesiana 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, 

J M. S. Bergcr, Hist, of Vulgate, Paris, 1893, pref. p. 12. 



Leontius. S. Basil introduced the practice into Csesarea 
(Cappadocia) in 375, and was heavily reproached for it. 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 2 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. 3 This throws light 
on the extent of his reading, and is an interesting parallel to 
the quotation of Cyprian " On Mortality," in the Te 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 : 





Moses, Exodus 

Moses, Exodus 

Isaiah xxvi. 9 





Moses, Exodus 





Isaiah, xxvi. 9 



Isaiah Ix. 1-14 


Isaiah xxvi. 9 

Moses, Deut. 

Ixi. 10-lxii.7 





Jeremiah, (?) 

Benedicite, i. 

Zachariah, Luke 





Isaiah xxvi. 9 

Elizabeth, Luke 

Mary, Luke i. 

Mary, Luke i. 46 


i. 46 




Jeremiah, Lain. v. 


4 Esdras viii. 20-36 

Azarias, Dan. iii. 26- 


1 Ep. 207. 2 Kevue Benedictine,, 1897, p. 385. 

3 Ep. ad Donat. c. 16, ed. Hartcl. 

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. 1 He hoped to gain inspiration, 2 and that Niceta would 
visit the church of his patron-saint Felix, with psalm-singing 
and hymns. 3 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 : 

" Navitte Iseti solitum celeusma 
Concinent uersis modulis in hyinnos 
Et piis ducent comites in eequor 
Vocibus auras. 

Prsecinet cunctis, tuba ceu reaultans, 
Lingua Nicetse modulata Christum : 
Psallet iEternus citharista toto 
^Equore Da aid. 

Audient Amen treraefacta cete, 
Et sacei dotem Domino canentem 
Laeta 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 Te 
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. 5 

The parallels to the Te Deum scattered in the writings of 
Niceta are not perhaps so striking as one could w^ish, but they 
show that his mind was working on similar lines. 

1 Carm. xxvii. 193-199. 2 ib. 243-272. 3 ib. 500-510. 

1 Carm. xvii. 109. 5 Morin, Rev. Ben. 18P4, p. 75. 


Ver. 7. In the Explanatio he writes : In cuinsgloriam etiam 
angeli prospicere concupiscunt ; qui et sedes et dominationes 
uniuersasque coelorum uirtutes sua maiestate 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 l of 
his letter, de lapsu Susannce, 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, defide unicce 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 uerus (dei) films (Mai, p. 315). 
He uses the title spiritum sanctum paraditum (Mai, p. 322). 2 
Ver. 16. Expl. 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 iustitiie, de coelestis glorise 
expectatione (Mai, p. 332). 

For the thoughts worked out in the whole of this section 
of the hymn, we may compare de Psalmodice Bono. " Et 
quod his est omnibus excelsius Christi sacramenta cantantur. 
Nam et generatio eius exprimitur, et rejectio plebis impise et 
gentium credulitas nominator. Uirtutes domini cantantur, 
passio ueneranda depingitur, resurrectio gloriosa monstratur, 
sedisse quoque ad dexteram non tacetur. Tune deinde igneus 
domina manifestatur aduentus, terribile de uiuis ac mortuis 
iudicium panditur. Quid plura ? Etiam Spiritus 3 creantis 
eniissio et terras renouatio reuelatur. Post quse erit in gloriam 
domini sempiternam iustorum regnum impiorum perenne 

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 Nicctcc Episcopi, in the MS. d Epinal, ssec^vii., viii. 

2 Zalm, Art. cit. 3 Cod. Vat. xi\s. 


Niceta must have been competent to translate it himself, 
and we may even hope some day to find the rest of the 

1 . Se @ov alvovfJLev ae /cvpiov e^ofjio\oyovf.Li> 

2. 2,e ala)viov Trarepa irdcra 77 <yfj. . . . 

3. Sol irdvre? ayyeXoi. <rol ovpavol teal Trdcrat e^ovcriai, 

4. Sol %epov/3ljjt, Kal aepacfrlfji dtcaTairavo-j^ (fxvvfj dva/c- 


5. "Ayios ff Ayios f Ayio<? Kvpios 6 0eo9 <ra/3ac*)d 

6. TrXijpeis ovpavol /cal TJ 77} T?}? fjbe<ya\u>o-vv r]S T?}? 


7. Se 

8. Se 

9. ^e fjLapTvpwv eK\a/jt,7rpo<s alvel <JT paras 
10. ^e Kara Tracrav TT]V olKOV^evrjv rj dyla 

The absence of a verb in verse 2 should be noted. 
Either 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 ae/Berat was forgotten. 1 
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. 


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 Deum. 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 Codex Alexandrinus of the fifth century. But 

1 Wordsworth, Art. cit. 



Codex Alexandrinus. 

1. Ad# eV v-^sio-Tois 0e&> 

2. icai eVi yrjs elprjvij 


it is also found in part in the treatise de Virginitate l wrongly 
ascribed to Athanasius, which must have been written in 
Syria in the fourth century. In the Apostolic Constitutions, 
vii. 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 


Bangor Antiphonary. 
Gloria in excelsis Deo, 
et in terra pax 
hominibus bonae uoluntatis. 
Laudamus te, 
benedicimus te, 
adoramus te, 
glorificamus te, 
magnificamus te, 
gratias agimus tibi 
propter magnam misericordiam 


Domine rex 

Deus Pater omnipotens, 
Domine Fili unigenite 
Ihesu Christe, 
Sancte Spiritus Dei, 
et omnes dicimus, Amen. 
Fili Dei Patris, 
ague Dei 

cjui tollis peccata mundi, 
miserere nobis. 


4. cvXoyovficy (re, 

5. 7rpo(TKVvovfj,ev (re, 

6. doo\oov4ev (re 



9. Kvpif /SacrtXeO 

10. firovpdvie, 

11. ee Trartjp 

12. KVpie vie fj.ovoyevrj 

13. l?^(r 

14. Kai ayiov 

15. Kvpte 6 Qeos 

16. 6 rov eoi), 

17. 6 vlos TOV TTorpoy, 

18. 6 a ipwv ras a/zaprt ay TOV 

19. fXeqcrov rjp,as. 

20. 6 aipwv ray afJLaprias TOV 


6 KaOrjfJifvos 
TOV irarpos 

23. 6Vi cru ei povos ayios 

24. crt> el p,6vos KUplOC. 


eic AoiAN Geoy 

Snscipe orationem nostram, 
qui sedes ad dexteram Dei 
Patris, miserere nobis. 
Quoniam tu solus sanctus. 
tu solus Do minus, 
tu solus gloriosus. 
cum Spiritu Sancto. 
in gloria Dei Patris. Amen. 

1 Robertson, Athanasit s, p. Ixv. 

2 Phil. ii. 11. 


writer, known as Ps. Ignatius, " has taken and simply 
manipulated it to square with his curious views and termin 
ology." l 

The following is the form found in the Apostolic Con 
stitutions. As it really depends on one MS. (X), I will 
quote it separately from Lagarde s edition : 

X. Cod. Vindobonensis gr. 46, saec. xiv. Y. Cod. Vindo- 
bonensis f/r. 47, srcc. xvi. Z. Cod. Parisinus gr. 931, suec. xvi. 

Trpoaev^rj ecodivr) X Y. [e Z\. 

ev vtylarois @&> Kal erri ryj}? elprfvr), ev dv6poo7rots 
alvov/jiev ere, vfjivovfjiev o~e, 2 euA,o r yoi)/-tei> <re, 
erot, SofoXoyoO/zez/ ae, Trpoo-fcvvov/jLev ere, 
Sia rov fijd\ov apxiepecos, ae TOV ovra Seov dyevvrjrov 
5 eva dirpo(TiTov fjiovov Bta TTJV fjb yd\Jiv crov So^av, tcvpie 

/3a(7L\6V 7TOVpdvi, 66 TTdTrjp TTaVTOKpaTWp, KVpi V(6 

I^croO Xpiare, KOL ayiov irvevfjia Kvpie 6 0e - o9 o 
Seov, Q vios rov Trarpo?, o aipwv ra? dfjuaprias 
rov Koafjiov e\.7)crov 77/^5? o alpwv ra? a/iaprta? rov 
1 KO(TIJLOV, Trpoa-Segai rrjv Serjcnv TJ/JLWV b KaOijfJbevo^ ev &ej~(,a 
rov Trarpo?, eX^aov rj/jids on av el /AOZ/O? ay to*,, av el 
Kvpi,o<$ I r]crovsXpi,<rros et? So^av 

3. om. 2 ere, Y Z. 6. Trarep Trai/roxparop, Y. vie ... 8. djuapria?, X. 
6 Qeos 6 Trarrjp rov XptoroO roi) dp-do^ov dfAvov os ct ipfi TTJV dpapriav, Y. 
9. Om. e\er}(7ov KOO-/XOV, Y. 10. eV . . . 11. f)p.ds, X. eVl ra>i/ Xfpou/3ei /i, 
Y. 0771. 6t 6*5, Y. 12. Xptcrroy + TOU 0foO nacres yfvvrjTrjs (pvcrf&s TOV 
/3acriXe cos ^oii/ ei? . . . d^??i/, X. dt ov (TOI dva rt/i/} *cai (Te/3as, 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 " : 3 

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 Uirgi- 

3 Brightman. 


A ia TOV fjLeyd\ov ap%iepea)s. Ap. Const, ii. 25, 5, v. 6, 

7 : Sta Irjo-ov XpiaTov TOV peyaXov dp%iepic0s ; vii. 38 : 

Sia rov jj,e<yd\ov dp%iepecd<; Irjaov XpicrTov ; viii. 1 6 : rjrt? 

fjLijjLrjcriv Trepie^ei TOV fieyaXov dp^iepea}^ Iijo-ov XpiaTov. 

Cf. viii. 46 : Ty fyvcrei dpxiepevs 6 (jLovoyevfo XpLo~Tos. 

Smyrn. 9 : rfj (frvaei, TOV Ilarpos dp^iepea. Ap. Const. 

viii. 46 : TOV HaTpos dp^iepea Xpio~Tov I^croi) TOV Kvpiov 
6 : dp^iepea crov. Magn. 7 : Irjaovv Xpio~Tov TOV 

TOV dyevvrfrov Oeov. 
^e TOV ovTa @ov. Ap. Const, v. 12, 3 : irepl TOV 6Wo? 

&eov ; viii. 12 : dvvfjuvelv <re TOV 6Wo)? OVTO, Oeov. 
AyevvrjTov eva dirpocriTov JJLOVOV. Eph. 7: o /JLOVOS 

d\r)divo<$ 0eo9 o dyevvriTos aTTpocriro?. Ap. Const. 

viii. 6 : o dyevvrjTos KOI dTcpbo iTos o /JLOVOS d\ri6ivo<$ @eo?. 

Antioch, 14 : o cov //-cW? dyevvrjTos. 2 : TOV eva teal povov 

&6ov ; 4 : TOV eva iraTepa JJLOVOV d\r]0ivov 0eov. 


Smyrn. 1, Ap. Const, viii. 6, etc. : o @eo? KOI TraT^p TOV 
Kvpiov rjjjitov Iqcrov XpiaTov (a favourite quotation : notice 
change from original of Smyrn. 1). vii. 42 : TCV TraTepa 
TOV Xpio-Tov, and 41. 

The rest does not seem to occur elsewhere (cf. 1 Pet. i. 19). 

f O fcaOij/jievos eVt TWV ^epov^eifju. Ps. Ixxix. 2, xcviii. 1. 

Tov Seov Trdo-rjs ryevvr)Tr)$ (frvo-ea)? TOV /SacrtXew? rjfjuwv. 
Philip. 5 : 6 Trakai /JLEV Trdaav aiaOijrrjv /cal vorjTqv 
KdTaaKevdcras. Smyrn. 8 : $iavo/j,el Trdaqs voTjTrjs (fr 
Ap. Const, viii. 1 2 : /3aai\ea Se /cal fjivpiov 7rdcrr)$ I/O^TT}? /cal 
al<T@ijTi)<; fyvcrews ; ib. : TOV Oeov irdo-r}^ alffOijTrfi /cal 
vorjTi)<; ^ucrea)? TOV /5acrtXea)9 rj/jLwv ; vii. 46 : TOV jBa<Ti\ea 
alo-OrjTrjs real VOTJT^ ^ucrecw?. Cf. viii. 12 : 
aoi TOJ /3a<7tXet /cal &eu>; 46 : I^o-oO Xpta-Tov 
TOV /SacrtXea)? TJ/JLWV. 

AL ov aol B6t;a Ti/jLr) ical o~e/3as. d/^rjv. Ap. Const. v\i. 38: 
(Tol r) o~6i;a real TO cre^Sa? fieTa XpLo~Tov /cal Trvev^aTo^ 
dyiov vvv Kal et? TOV? alwva? d/ju^v , viii. 5 : fj>e0* ov /cal St 
ov aol Sofa TL/JUTJ /cal cre/Sa? ev dylw TrvevpaTi vvv /cal aei 
Kal 6i9 TOU9 al(Lva<$ TWV alwvtoV dfjujv. Cf. 6, 7, 8, 11. 


After the Gloria in the Apostolic Constitutions follows 
another hymn, the latter part of which, aol Tr/oeVet ati o?, still 
accompanies it in the offices of the Eastern Church : l 

Alvelre, Traio es, tcvpiov, alveire TO ovofjba Kvptov, alvovfiev 
ere, vfJLvov^iv ere, v\oyovfjuev ere Sia ryv [AeiydXrjv crov oo^av, 
/cvpie /SacrtXeO o Trarrjp TOV Xpiarov TOV d^aipov ajj-vov, o? 
alpei Trjv a/Jbapriav TOV KOO-^OV <rol TrpeTret, alvos, vol Trpeirei 
, aol Sofa Trpenrei TO> Trarpl real TM via- KOL TO) 
el? rot"? atcoz^a? TWV 

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 3 7 8, when 
Mceta 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 Mceta 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. ii. 11. It 
is by a mere accident that the first mention has dropped out 

1 In"0/t>0pos (Horolog. 1870, p. 72) and A7roSe?7n OJ (ib. pp. 108, 179). I owe 
this information also to Mr. Brightman. 


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 Tc Dcum, 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 Te Dcum 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, 1 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 pueri dominum, familiar to us in the so-called 
Irish text of the Te Deum. And it ends with some words of 
praise, Te decet laus. 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 Te decet laus. 


Another source of the Te Deum may be sought in the 
Sanct-us 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." 3 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 Te Deum, and w r ith reference to the 
new theory of authorship it may be pointed out that there 

1 Art. cit., p. 119. - e.g. Oxford Bodl. Lib. Canon 83. 

3 C. Q. JR., April 1884, p. 19. 


are more parallels to the Gothic Missal than to either of the 
Gallican books. Does that represent the Liturgy used in 
Dacia ? 

1. Dignum et iustum est . . . ut Te Dominum ac Deum 

totis uisceribus humana conditio ueneretur, Miss. Goth., 

p. 604; Miss. Gall., p. 753. 
2,3,4. Omnis terra adorat te, et confitctur tibi : sed et cceli 

coelorum et angelica potestates non cessant laudare 

dicentes, Sanctus, Miss. Goth., p. 518. 

Quern anyeli et archangel!, quern throni et domina- 

tiones, quern Oherubin ct Seraphin incessabili uocc 

proclamant dicentes, 1 Sanctus, Mone ii. 

Cui omnes angeli atque archangeli incessabili uoce 

proclamant dicentes, Sanctus, Miss. Gall., p. 751. 

Totus in orbe terrarum mundus exultat : sed et 

superna^ concinnunt potestates hymnurn gloriae sine 

fine dicentes, ib., pp. 473, 750. 

Cui merito omnes angeli atque archangeli sine 

cessatione proclamant dicentes, Sanctus, Miss. Goth., 

p. 525. 

Omnes angeli atque archangeli, Cherubin quoque et 

Seraphin sine intermissione proclamant dicentes, 

Sanctus, ib., p. 557. 

Cuius regnum . . . incessabili uoce proclamabant 

dicentes, Sacr. Gall., p. 925. 

7. .Apostolorum chorus, Miss. Goth., p. 528. 

8. Tarn copioso prophetartim numero, Mone v. 

13. Spiritus Sanctus Tuus Paraclitus, Sacr. Gall., p. 873. 

14. Tu rex glorice Christus. ib., p. 919. 

15. Tu Patris sempiternus es Filius, Mone ix. 

16. Secundum humanam conditionem liberauit hominem, 
Mone v. 

17. Aculeo mortis extincto, Miss. Goth., p. 532; mortis 
uicit acitleum, ib., p. 623 ; aculeus mortis obtritus, 
Sacr. Gall., p. 858 ; cce/orum regna, Miss. Goth., p. 
543 ; ianuam regni ccelestis aperiat, ib., p. 540. 

1 The Irish and Milan versions in most MSS. add dicentes, probably a 
reminiscence of some such liturgical form. 



19. Quern credimus et fatemur ad iudicandos uiuos et 
mortuos in gloria esse uenturum, Sacr. Gall, p. 857 ; 
quern omnes gentes expectant uenturum iudicem ad 
iudicandum, Miss. Goth., p. 752. 

20. Quos sanguinis tui effusione rcdemisti, Miss. Goth., pp. 
601, 607; Sacr. Gall., p. 858; ones, quas pretioso 
sanguine Filii tui redcmisti, 1 Miss. Gall., p. 706. 

Another parallel to the Tc Deum may be found in the 
Preface of the Liturgy of S. James, where mention is made 
of " the heavens/ " prophets," " martyrs and apostles," with 
" angels," " Cherubim and Seraphim." 



Antiphon, Fs. cxii. 
TO God the Father, 

and invisible. 


Laudate pueri Dominum laudate nomen Domini 
1. Te Deum laudamus, te Dominum confitemur. v 
2 " Te ^ernum Patrein omnis terra uener at ur. 5 

3. Tibi omnes angeli, tibi cseli et uniuersoepotestates. 5 

4. Tibi cherubim et serapliim incessabili uoce pro- 
clamant ;i }1 





confesses the 

7. Te gloriosus apostolorum chorus. v 

8. Te prophetarum laudabilis mimerus.* 

9^ Te martyrum candidatus laiidat excrcitus.* 

10. Te per orbem terrarum sancta confitetur ecclesia : 




thegioryand 14. Tu rex glorise Christe.P 1 

1 The prayer in which these words occur is also found in Sctcr. Leon. c. 304 ; 
Sacr. Gclas. cc. 531, 554, 699 (Invocation). 



mystery of the 

echoing- the creed 

as the ground of 
her petition to be 

j^race now and 
jjlory hereafter. 

15. Tu Patris sempiternus es F 11 ins.* 

16. Tu ad liberandum suscepturus hominem, non 
horruisti uirginis uterum. 11 

17. Tu deuicto m6rtis aciileo,* aperuisti credentibus 
regna caeloriini.P 1 

18. Tu ad dexterain Dei sedes in gloria Patris.P* 

19. Index crederis esse uenturus.P 1 

20. Te ergo, qucesumus, tuis famulis subueni, 1 quos 
prsetioso sanguine redemisti. v 

21. Sterna fac cum sanctis gloria munerari. v 

Capitcllum, Ts. 
xxviii. 9. 

1 s. cxxiii. 3. 

Ps. xxxi. 1. 

22, 23. Saluum fac populum tuum Domine et benedic 
hcGreditati tuse, et rege eos et extolle illos usque in 

Capitellum of the Gloria in excelsis. 

24, 25. Per singulos dies benedicimus te, et laudamus 
nomen tuum in sseculum et in seeculum seeculi. 

Prayers after the Te Deum 

(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 seternum. 

A prayer of the Celtic Church after the Te Deum from 
the Bangor Antiphonary 

" Te Patrem adoramus sternum : 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 mereaniur per eeterna specula." 

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 


things visible and invisible." This interpretation alone gives 
a plain meaning to the words ceternum pair cm in verse 2. It 
is rendered necessary by the tuum 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 : 

Digmim et iustum est . . . ut Te Dominum ac Veum totis uiscer- 
ibus liumana conditio ueneretur. 

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 ceternum Patrem as addressed to Christ. It was 
never adopted by Latin writers as an equivalent of Trarrjp rov 
fjL6\\ovros alwvos 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 Te Deum throughout. 1 It begins : " Christe 
Bex 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 Eatgar, 
802 8 17, leaves no doubt as to the opinion held in the ninth 
century : 2 

" Te ergo Deuin laudanms te dominumque fatemur 
Te genitorem perpetuum terra ueneratur." 

Verses 713. Founded on apostles, prophets, martyrs, 
the Church comfesses the Trinity. 

1 Daniel, Thesaurus, i. p. 46. 

2 Mon. Hisl. Poet. Led. acid Carolini, ed. Duemmler, ii. I owe tins reference 
to Dr. Gibson. 


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 Eev. F. E. Warren from a MS. in the British 
Museum (Harl. 7653, s. viii., ix.). 1 It was the work probably 
of an Irish nun, and contains a Litany and other prayers. 
Among them without title are introduced verses 121 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 S. 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 cseli et uniuersa terra 
honore glorice tuoe." The other texts omit uniuersa, and for 
honore read maiestatis glorire tu<T, pl or in the Milan version 
" gloriae maiestatis tuse." The reading honore may be explained 
by the presence of the word honor in the Spanish 2 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 maiestatis. To fill up the line, he 
or someone else would introduce universa. The order of the 
Milan version glorias maiestatis is found in the Mozarabic 
text of the Te Deum. But the familiar idea in Christian 

1 Bradshaw Society, vol. x. pp. 83 ff. 2 Cone. Tokt. iv. c. 1 5. 


worship is to give glory, 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 
Aries, which he preached after the death of Honoratus, the 
founder of Lerins : " Nee facile tarn exerte tarn lucide 
quisquam de diuinitatis trinitate disseruit cum earn 
personis distingueres et glorise aeternitate 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 glorise iuse " pl makes a better rhythmical 

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 unicum. 
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 Te Deum. Unicum, 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, 1 and from which we learn that the reading used in the 
Houth-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 suscepisti for 
suscepturus. It has been suggested that mundum may have 
dropped out through homceoteleuton. This is quite possible, 
but it is more probably an interpolation by an Irish copyist 
who was familiar with the idea of the phrase Saluator mundi. 
The word mundus recurs frequently in the collects of the 
Bangor AntipJwnary. Since none of the MSS. of the other 
versions insert the word, it seems inadvisable to adopt it. 

1 P. 257 supra. 


In verse 2 in one MS. of the Milan version (Cod. Monac. 
lat. 343), and in some six or seven MSS. of the ordinary 
version, sancte has been added after ergo. In the Milan 
Breviary it is added after qucesumus. 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, rex ceterne, which begins, Te ergo sancte qucesumus. 

In the Munich MS. I found that hymn immediately after 
the Te 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 hcereditati 
p. xxviii. 9. tuse, et rege eos et extolle illos usque in seternum. 

24. 25. Per singulos dies benedicimus te, et laudamus nomen 
r-3. cxlv. 2. tuum in sseculum et in sseculum saeculi. 

20. Dignare Domine die isto sine peccato nos cnstodire. 
Ps. cxxiii. 3. 27. Miserere nobis, Domine, miserere nobis. 

PS. xxxiii. 22. 28. Fiat misericordia tua, Domine, super nos quemadmodum 
sperauimus in te. 

PS. xxxi. i. 20. In te, Domine, speraui non confundar in sternum. 

Dan. iii. 26. * Benedictus es Domine Deus patrum nostrorum etlaudalrile 
et gloriosum nomon tuum in sacula. 


Ordinary Version in our Prayer Book. 

1 Irish Version in the Bangor Antiphonary. 

G The Gloria in excelsis (Cod. Alexandrinus and Bangor 

A Cod. Vat, Alex. xi. 

M Milan Version in Cod. Vat. 82. 

Verse., gj I A $ M 

f 6- I O |f 

* * 

\ n A 

J A 

28 I 


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 
Kule of Csesarius directed the use of Te 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 Te Deum from the fifth century. 

The simplest explanation of the enlargement is as follows : 
that Ps. xxviii. 9, 10, Saluum fac popidum = verses 22, 23 of 
the Ordinary Version, was the eapitellum appointed for the 
Te Deum in the Gallican Church. On the other hand, Ps. 
cxlv. 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 Csesarius, was attached to the Te Deum. It is an interesting 
fact that Saluumfac is not found among the capitella appended to 
the Gloria in any of the three Irish texts printed by Mr. Warren, 1 

1 Banyor Antiphonary, ii. p. 78. 


whereas Ps. cxlv. 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. xxxiii. 22, Fiat misericordia = verse 26 in the Irish 
text of the Te Deum. That it did not originally belong to it 
is hinted by the Amen which precedes it in the Bangor 
AntipJionary. It was prescribed for use twice during the 
Fraction in the Celtic Liturgy. 

The text of the antiphons in A is plainly formed by adding 
to the capitellum of the Te Deum two capitella from the 

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, 2 7, 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 ia founded on the Irish 
rather than the Milan version. 



I. Of the Early Use of a Baptismal Creed. 

II. The History of the term ISymbolum. 

III. Our U-e of our Apostles and Nicene Creeds. 

IV. The Athauasian Creed. 

THUS fir my purpose has beeo ni^uly historical, to trace the 
development of the chief c. ee<is ut 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 
bedeve 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 


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 


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 c. 100 in the ancient Church to which both 
S. Peter and S. 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 Eoman 
Church was bilingual, arid 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 (Traditio symloli} when he had 
been taught and tested, and he was required to repeat it 
publicly before his baptism (Eedditio symloli). The earliest 
expositions delivered at the Traditio which have come down 
to us belong to the fourth century. Both Cyril and 
Augustine 1 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 Eavenna, 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." 2 His rhetoric 

1 Cyril Hieros. Cat. v. 12 ; Aug. Scrm. ad Catech. i. 2 Srnii. 59. 


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 


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 Trapei^ttya/uev, 
SeSi,Sd yfj,e9a, fiefjiadij/ca/jiep, or even to phrases of Irenaeus : 
I. 9. 4, rbv tcavova TT}<? a\r)0eias ; I. 22. 1, regulam ueritatis ; 
III. 3. 1, traditionem apostolorum. There is a controversy, 
as yet unsettled, as to the meaning of the term Eule. Some 
writers maintain that the creed itself, the bare form, was the 
Eule of Faith ; others, that the Eule was the enlarged inter 
pretation of the creed, though the creed would certainly be 
the groundwork of the interpretation. 1 

Certainly Irenseus included in his Eule of Truth some 
articles not yet added to the Eoman Creed, which he probably 
knew. Nor are they found in the Creed of Gaul, when it 
comes to light in the fourth century, e.g. 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 Eule of Faith common to 
the Churches of Eome and Africa, as a tessera, or token of 

The illustration is derived from the tessera 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. 


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 symbolum or token 
of their genuineness, adv. Marc. 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, quo 
symbolo susceperis apostolum Paulum, quis ilium tituli char- 
actere percusserit, quis transmiserit tibi, quis imposuerit, ut 
possis euni constanter exponere." Kattenbusch l points out 
that the term had affinities to the terms sacramentum and 

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," 2 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 
Trinitatis 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 : 
" Dehinc ter mergitamur amplius aliquid respondents quam 
Dominus in euangelio determinauit." 

1 ii. p. SO, n. 4H. 

" EI>. ad M ag/i, : "symbolum et lex symLoli et qoseatumea," 





I 1 

a "i > 


rt pL, 



.3 3 

5 3 3 

rH O C3 


1 1 

w I 

( -Z3 


a ^ 


1 S ? ! 

"5 1 

s S ^ 

S 2 a 

^ & 


<& O 


<u r^ 

rj r^, 

rt fl 



s I 


I I 

I 3 

.a ft 


Many more of these forms might be quoted, 1 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. 2 

In the fourth century the term synibolum 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 avp/3o\ov with crt^/SoX?; = 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, 3 and was most popular in later 

But Rufinus conies nearer to the truth when he explains 
it as indicium or signum, a token of orthodox belief, the 
watchword of the Christian soldier. 4 

The title symbolum apostolorum was first used by S. Am 
brose, and occurs in the letter of the Council of Milan, which 
was possibly drawn up by him. 5 S. Jerome also wrote of the 
synibolum fidei . . . quod db apostolis traditum. 6 In some old 

1 Halm, 3 pp. 34-36. 

2 On this ground I differ from Lumby, p. 18. 

3 DC Incarnation* Ucrbi, VI. iii. : "Collatio autem kleo, quia in uiiuin 
collata ab Apostolis Domini, totins catholicae legis fide, quicquid per uniuersuni 
diuinorum uoluminum corpus imrnensa funditur copia, totum in symbol! colli- 
gitur breuitate perfecta." 

4 In Syml). Apod.; "Synibolum enim Greece et indicium dici potest ct 
collatio, hoc est, quod plures in unum con fe runt. Id enim fccerunt apostoli 
in his serinonibus, in unum conferendo imusquisque quod sensit. . . . Idcirco 
i.stud indicium posuere, per quod agnoscerctur is qui Christum uerc sccundum 
apostolicas regulas pnedicaret. Denique et in bellis ciuilibus hoc obseruari 
ferunt : quoniam et armorum habitus par, et sonua uocis idem, et mos uims est, 
atque eadem instituta bellandi, ne qua doli subreptio fiat, symbolo distincta 
unusquisque dux suis militibus tradit, qupe Latine signa uel indicia nuncu- 
pantur ; ut si forte occurrerit quis de quo dubitetur, interrogatus synibolum, 
prodat si sit hostis uel socius." 

5 Opera, v. p. 292. 

6 Ad Pammacb. c. loann. Hicr. Oj)cra t ii. col. 380. 


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 synibolum 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 Kiez, though it is possible that 
he has some sentences of Niceta in mind, gives a different 
derivation from the use of the plural synibola, contributions 
to a common feast, gathered by the Fathers of the Churches 
for the good of souls. 2 

The legend of apostolic origin, attached in the first 
instance to the Old Koman Creed, was naturally transferred 
to its later form, and was received without question in 
mediaeval times. 


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. 3 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 liaec breuitatis causa 
collecta sunt, tanquam geminpe pretiosre in una corona composite, ut, qnoniam 
plures credentium literas nesciunt, nel, qui sciunt, per occupationes sseculi 
scripturas legere non possunt, habeant sufficientem sibi scientiam salutarem." 

2 Horn. i. ed. Caspar!, Anecdota, i. p. 315 : "Sicut nonnullis scire permissum 
est, apud ueteres symbola uocabantur, quod de substantia collect! in unum sodales 
in medio conferebant ad solemnes epulas, ad ccense 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- 

8 Amalarius, de Ecd. Ojftc. iv. 2, M.S.L. 105, 1165. 


as an antidote to the poison of the devil by night and day. 1 
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 it is 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 

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." 2 

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, e.g. 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. 3 It 
preserves the word " One " in the first Article, which the 
Western archetype (E) 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, Borne 

1 Had den and Stubbs, iii. p. 316. 

2 Zahn, Das ap. Symbol., p. 101. 

3 Gibson, The Thirty nine Articles, i, p. 302. 


c. 1000), 1 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 2 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 been 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. 136. 2 Foundations of Belief , p. 279. 


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. 


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 Boman 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 



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, 1 and the merit of Faustus and Ctesarius, 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 (Ep. 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. iii. 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. 


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 


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." l 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 
is 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 William 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. 


doctrines have the ungentlemanlike rigour of the Athanasian 
Creed." l 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." 2 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." 3 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, 
p. 263. 

3 Mozley, Lectures and Theological Papers, p. 194. 5 Mozley, ib. 


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 1 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 

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. 

2 Kg. the present Archbishop of Armagh. 


addressed to the last Diocesan Conference over which lie 
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 is, like that of 
the Nicene Creed, negative and positive. We may say with 
Waterland : 2 "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. Dishop 
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." 3 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." 4 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 S. 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. 2 P. 247. 

s Charge, 1863. 4 Works, ed. Keble, ii. p. 187. 


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." l This teaching embodied in the Qui- 
cunque supplements the teaching of the Nicene Creed, and 
we therefore value it as possessing permanent and positive 

The history of the Te 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 

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 Illingworth, Personality, Human and Divine, p. 74. 


APPENDIX A. List of Parallels to the Quicunque in Augustine, Vin- 
centius, Faustus, Eucherius. 

B. Vigilius of Thapaus. 
C. Fulgentius of Ruspe. 
D. Early Testimonies to the Quicunquc. 
E. MSS. of the Te Deum. 
F. Creed of the Didascalia. 



1. Quicunque uult saluus esse 
ante omnia opus est ut teneat 
catliolicam fidem, 

quam nisi quisque integrani 
inuiolatamque seruauerit, abs- 
que dubio in seternum peribit. 


1. De Util. Cred. 29. Catholicse 
disciplines raaiestate institutum 
est, ut accedentibus ad re- 
ligionem fides persuadeatur 
ante omnia. 

c. Max. ii. 23. Ha3c est fides 
nostra, quoniam haec fides est 
recta, quse fides etiam Catholica 

Enarr. in Ps. x. 3. Haeretici 
. . . simplici fide catholica con- 
tenti esse nolunt ; qii89 una 
paruulis sal us est. 

3. Fides autem catholica hsec est, 
ut unum Deum in Trinitate, 
et Trin ita tern in Unitate uen- 
eremur : 

4. iieque confundentes personas 
iieque substantiam separantes. 

4. DC Trin. vii. 6. Ut neque per- 
sonarum sit confusio, nee talis 
distinctio qua sit impar aliquid. 




1 . c. 36. Catholica fides. 

c. 4. Inter sacraria catholic 
fidei salui esse potuerunt. 


2. c. 7. Qui uiolauerunt fideru 
tutos esse non posse, inuiola- 
tamque illibatamque conserua. 
c. 34. Catholicorum hoc fere 
proprium, . . . damnare pro- 
fanas nouitates : et sicut dixit, 
atque iterum dixit apostolus : si 
quis annunciauerit,pra3terquam 
quod acceptum est, anathemate. 

3. c. 22. 18. Catholica ecclesia 
unum Deum in Trinitatis 
plenitudine, et item Trinitatis 
aequalitatem in una diuinitate 
ueneratur ; 

4. Ib. ut neque singularitas sub- 
stantise personarum confundat 
proprietatem, neque item Trini 
tatis distinctio Unitatem se- 
paret Deitatis. 

3. Faustus, Serm. 9. Trinitas sine 
separatione distincta. Pater et 
Filius et Spiritus Sanctus unus 
Deus credantur tres personse et 
non tres substantia3. 
4. 76. Credatur a nobis Unitas 
sine confusiorie coniuncta, Tri 
nitas sine separatione dis 

Cf. de Spu. Sco. II. i. 12. In- 
separabilem in personis Trini- 


3 oo 


"QuicuNQDE " contd. 
5. Alia est enim persona Patris, 
alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti, 


6. sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus 
Sancti una est diuinitas,sequalis 
gloria, coseterna maiestas. 

7. Qualis Pater talis Filius talis 
et Spiritus Sanctus. 

Serin. 126. Trinitas est sed una 
operatic, una seternitas, una 

8. Increatus Pater increatus Filius 
increatus et Spiritus Sanctus. 

9. Imraensus Pater immensus 
Filius immensus et Spiritus 

zEternus Pater seternus Filius 



aeterims et Spiritus Sanctus, 


Et tamen non tres cCterni 
unus seternus : 

12. sicut non tres increati nee tres 
immensi, sed unus increatus 
et unus immensus. 

13. Similiter omnipotens Pater, 
omnipotens Filius, omnipotens 
et Spiritus Sanctus, 

10. Serm. 105. .Eternus Pater 
coseternus Filius coseternus 
Spiritus Sanctus. 

13. De Trin. v. 8. Itaque omnipo 
tens Pater, omnipotens Filius, 
omnipotens Spiritus Sanctus. 

14. et tamen non tres omnipotentes 
sed unus ornnipotens. 

15. Ita Deus Pater Deus Filius 
Deus et Spiritus Sanctus, 

16. et tamen non tres Dii sed unus 
est Deus. 

17. Ita dominus Pater dominus 
Filius dominus et Spiritus 

14. Ib. Nee tamen tres omnipo 
tentes sed unus omnipotens. 

15. De Trin.i.5. Hsec est catholica 
fides . . . sed in ea nonnulli per- 
turbantur cum audiunt Deum 
Patrem et Deum Filium et 
Deum Spiritum Sanctum. 

16. Et tamen hanc Trinitatem non 
tres Deos sed unum Deum. 

Cf. viii. 1. Deus Pater, Deus 
Filius, Deus Spiritus Sanctus, 
nee tamen tres Dii. 

17. c. Maxim, ii. 23. Sic et dorni- 
num si quceras, singulum quern - 
que respondeo. 



5. c. 19. Quia scilicet alia est 
persona Patris alia Filii alia 
Spiritus Sancti, 

6. Ib. sed tamen Patris et Filii et 
Spiritus Sancti non alia et alia 
sed una eademque natura. 


5. Faustus, de Spu. Sco. I. Alter 
ergo in persona est Deus Pater 
alter Spiritus Dei Patris. 

Ib. In proprietate persoiiaa 
alter est P. a. est F. a. S. S. 

6. Faustus, Serm. 30. Coseterni- 
tatem . . . maiestatis. 

7. Philastr. Hwr. 45. Qualis im- 
mensa est Patris persona talis 
est et Filii, talis est Sancti 

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. 



"QuicuNQUE " contd. 

18. et tamen non tres domini sed 
unus est dominus. 

19. Quia sicut singillatim unam- 
quamque personam et Deum et 
dominion confiteri cliristiana 
ueritate compellirnur ; ita tres 
Deos aut dominos dicere catho- 
lica religione prohibemur. 

20. Pater a nullo est factus nee 
creatus nee genitus. 

21. Filius a Patre solo est, non 
factus nee creatus sed genitus. 

22. Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et 
Filio, non factus nee creatus 
nee genitus, sed procedens. 

23. Unus ergo Pater non trea 
Patres, unus Filius non tres 
Filii, unus Spiritus Sanctus 
non tres Spiritus Sancti. 

24. Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius 
aut posterius, nihil maius aut 
minus, sed totse tres personse co- 
seternge sibi sunt et coaiquales : 

25. ita ut per omnia, sicut iam 
supradictum est, et Trinitas in 
Unitate et Unitas in Trinitate 
ueneranda sit. 


18. Ib. Sed simul omnes non tres 
dominos Deos, sed unum dorni- 
nurn Deum. 

10. De Civil. Dei, xi. 24. Cum 
de singulis quseritur, 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 

De Trin. v. 14. Nam et singil 
latim si interrogemur de Spiritu 

20. Serm. 140. Dicimus Patrem 
Deum de nullo. 

21. Ep. 170. Filius Patris solius. 
Hunc quippe de sua substantia 
genuit non ex nihilo fecit. 

22. De Trin. xv. 11. De Filio 
Spiritus Sanctus procedere 

Ib. v. 14. Neque natus est 
sicut unigenitus, neque factus. 

23. c. 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. 

24. Serm. 214. In hac Trinitate 
non est aliud alio maius, aut 

25. De Trin. vii. 4. Unitas Trini- 

26. Qui uult ergo saluus esse ita 
de Trinitate sentiat. 



22. Faustus, Ep. 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. 

25. c. 22. Neque item Trinitatis 
distinctio unitatem separet 

c. 34. Trinitatis Unitatem de- 
scindere . . . Unitatis Trini- 
tatem confundere. 

26. c. 18. Recta sentiens nee in 
Trinitatis mysterio, nee in 


incarnatione blas- 

24. Faustus,Serm.31. Maiusautem 
aut minus ignorat Trinitatem. 
. . . Nam etsi distinctionem 
recipit Trinitas gradum tamen 
nescit aequalitas. 

25. Faustus. . . . Trinitatem in 
Unitate subsistere. 



"QuicuNQUE " contd. 
27. Sed necessarium est ad seternam 
salutem, ut incarnationem quo- 
que domini nostri lesu Christ! 
fideliter credat. 

27. Serm. 264. Necessarian! fidem 
incarnationis Christi. 
76. 264. Necessariam fidem 
incarnationis fidei Christi. 

28. Est ergo fides recta, ut credamus 
et confiteamur, quia dondnus 
noster lesus Christus, Dei 
Films, Deus et homo est. 

28. Enchirid.35. Proinde Christus 
lesus Dei Filius est et Deus et 

29. Deus est ex substantia Patris 
ante ssecula genitus, et homo 
est ex substantia matris in 
ScECulo natus. 

30. Perfectus Deus, perfectus homo 
ex aniina rational! et humana 
carne subsistens. 

29. lb. Deus ante omnia ssecula : 
homo in nostro saeculo, unus 
Dei Filius idemque hominia 

30. Serm. 238. Aduersus Arium, 
ueram et perfectam Uerbi 
diuinitatem ; aduersus Apol- 
linarem, perfectam hominis in 
Christo defendimus ueritatem. 

31. jEqualis Patri secundum diui 
nitatem, minor Patri secundum 

31. Ep. 137. JEqualem Patri se 
cundum diuinitatem, minorem 
autem Patre secundum carnem, 
hoc est secundum hominem. 

32. Qui licet Deus sit et homo 
non duo tamen sed unus est 

33. Unus autem, non conuersione 
diuinitatis in carne, sed as- 
sumptione humanitatis in Deo. 

32. In loh. Tract. 78. Agnoscamus 
geminam substantiam Christi ; 
diuinam scilicet qua sequalis est 
Patri, humanam qua maior est 
Patri . . . utrumque autemsimul 
non duo sed unus est Christus. 

33. Enchirid. 34. Uerbum caro 
factum est, a diuinitate caro 
suscepta, non in carnem diui 
nitate mutata. 




28. c. 19. Unus idemque Christus, 
unus idemque Filius Dei . . . 
unus idemque Christus Deus et 

29. Ib. Idem ex Patre ante srecula 
genitus, idem in saeculo ex 
matre generatus. 

30. c.20. Perf ectus Deus, perf ectus 
homo ; in Deo summa diuinitas, 
in homo plena hurnanitas, . . . 
quippe quse aniiuam simul 
habeat et carnem. 

31. c. 19. Duse substantiae sunt . . . 
una ex Patre Deo, altera ex 
matre uirgine ; una coseterna et 
requalis Patri, altera ex tempore 
et minor Patre. 
Idem Patri et sequalis et minor. 

32. c. 18. Unum Christum lesum, 
non duos, eundemque Deum 
pariter atque hominem . . . 
et hoc totuni unus est Christus. 


27. Faustus, de Spu. Sco. II. 25. 
Hoc loco necessarium uidetur 
ut in Christo Deo pariter et 
homine unam personam et duaa 
substantias testimoniis adser- 

28. Ib. ii. 4. Si in Christo Deo 
pariter et homine duas sub 
stantias dicimus. 
Eucherius, ad. loh. 2. Quia 
licet assumpserit hominem, 
tamen homo et Deus, hoc est 
Christus, una persona est. 

30. Faustus (Euseb.), de Nat. Dom. 
ii. Perf ectus 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. 

31. Faustus, Serm. 2. Secunduin 
diuinitatem sequalis Patri, se- 
cundum humanitatem minor 
etiam angelis. 

Eucherius, ad. loh. 10. luxta 
quam rationem diuinitatis atque 
humanitatis, etiam in reliquis 
quse aut sequalitatem cum Patre, 
ant humilitatem eius sonant, 
facile intellectus patebit. 

32. Ib. 2. Quia licet assumpserit 
hominem, tamen homo et Deus, 
hoc est Christus, una persona 

33. Ib. Unam personam .... 
quia mutabile non est Uerbum 
Dei ut ipsum uerteretur in 


33. Faustus (Euseb.), Horn, de Lat- 
rone beato. In una eademque 
persona quam bene manifestan- 
tur hum ana pariter et diuina ? 



" QUICUNQUE " contd. 

Of. Serm. 187. Adsumpta hu- 
mana substantia. 

34. Unus omnino non confusione 
substantial sed unitate persontc. 

35. Nam sicut anima rationalis et 
caro unus est homo, ita Dens et 
homo unus est Christus : 

34. Serm. 186. Idem Deus qui 
homo, et qui Deus idem homo, 
non confusione naturae sed 
unitate personae. 

35. In loh. Tract. 78. Sicut enim 
unus est homo anima rationalis 
et caro sic unus est Christus 
Deus et homo. 

36. qui passus est pro salute nostra, 
descendit ad inf erua, resurrexit 
a mortuis, 

37. ascendit ad cselos, sedet ad dex- 
teram Patris : inde uenturus 
indicare uiuos et mortuos, 

38. ad cuius aduentum omnes 
homines resurgere habent cum 
corporibussuis et reddituri sunt 
de factis propriis rationem. 

39. Et qui bona egerunt ibunt in 
uitani seternam, qui uero mala 
in ignem seternam. 

40. Hsec est fides catholica, quam 
nisi quisque fideliter firmi- 
terque crediderit, saluus esse 
non poterit. 

36. Ep. 164. Quis ergo, nisi in- 
fidelis negauerit fuisse apud 
inferos Christum? . . . ante- 
quam dominus in inferna de- 

40. Serm. 205. Cauete,dilectissimi, 
ne quis uos ab ecclesise catho- 
licae fide ac unitate seducat. 
Qui enim uobis aliter euangeliz- 
auerit praeter quam quod ac- 
cepistis, anathema sit. 



c. 20. Uerbum Deus 
ulla sui conuersione . . . non 
conf unden do, non imitando 
factus est liomo, sed subsis- 
tendo ... in se perfect! hom- 
inis suscipiendo naturam. 

34. c. 19. Unus autem non . . . 
diuinitatis et humanitatis con- 
fusione sed . . . imitate per 

35. c. 20. (Igitur) sicut anima con- 
nexa carni nee in carnem uersa, 
non imitatur liominem, sed est 
homo, . . . ita etiam Uerbum 
Deus . . . uniendo se homini 
. . . factus est homo, . . . et 
ex duabus substantiis unus est 


Faustus, Ep. 7. Nos uero . . . 
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 AnimW i. 3. 

37. Eucherius, Lib. Fonnul.Se~ 
cundum corpus sepultus est, 
secundum uero animam in in- 
ferna descendit. 

38. Faustus (Euseb.), Horn. I., de 
Ascensione. (Anima) resumere 
proprii corporis desideret in 



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 1 has endeavoured to trace the books on the 
Trinity to an Italian theologian. And the excellent mono 
graph by Ficker 2 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 
Quicunque. In the books against Eutyches the phrase unitas 
personm is not found, though the writer speaks of nnio? The 
descent into hell is expressed in the form, " Descendit ad (in) 

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 

It is probable that the creed obtained its connexion 

1 Rev. B6n. 1898. 2 Halle, 1897. 

8 Le Quien, Dissert. Damasc. p. 10. 


with the name of Athanasius through association in some MS., 
e.g. the Codex Thuaneus> quoted by Waterland l from Quesnel, 
with a Vigilian treatise written under that name. I may 
note the following parallels : 

Clause 3, c. Arr. Sabell. Phot. iii. 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 
catholicce 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 naturae unionem 
unus sit Deus." 

Ib. iii. 9 : "Ac si Trinitas unus Deus est secundum 
naturae unionem, et unus Deus Trinitas est secundum person- 
arum distinctionem." 

c. Pallad. : " Perfecta Trinitas in Unitate consistens." 

5. De Trin. ii. : " Alius est Pater in persona qui uere 
genuit, et in hoc alter est Filius." 

1 P. 82. 



THE writings of Fulgentius of Ruspe ( + 533), Bishop of 
Ruspe iii North Africa, contain many parallels to the 
Quicunque. There is no distinct evidence of quotation, unless 
we accept Kattenbusch s l 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. . . . Nee 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 ; nee tamen tres Dii omnipotentes sed unus Deus 
omnipotens est Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus. ^Eternus 
est sine initio Pater, eeternus est sine initio Filius, seternus 
est sine initio Spiritus Sanctus ; nee tamen tres Dii seterni 
sed unus Deus SBternus est Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus. 
Immensus est Pater sed immensus est Filius et immensus est 
Spiritus Sanctus : nee 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 gubstantia, Obj. ATT. : " nee personas 

1 Theol. Lit. Zeit. 1897, p. 540. 


confundere nee substantiam separare," thus accepting the 
creed s phrase. And we find him using the language, ad 
Tras. iii. : " (Ohristi) in quo perfectus homo plenus est gratise, 
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, e.g. 
Ep. ad Cor. I. xii. : " Spiritus Sanctus qui naturaliter a Patre 
Filioque procedit." Cf. ad Ferr. Ep. xiv. : " Sanctam et 
ineffabilem Trinitatem unum esse naturaliter Deum." 









God. Corbeiensis, S. Germain 

F. S. Ath. Epi. 



P 3 


B.N. Paris, Cod. lat. 13,159. 
B.N. Paris, 1451. 
Golden Psalter (Vienna). 

F. C. S. Ath. Epi. Alex. 
F. S. Ath. Epi. Alex. 




Psalter of Fulco. 

F. C. 

c. 850 


Psalter of Charles the Bald. 
Utrecht Psalter. 

F. S. Ath. 
F. C. 

c. 850 
c. 830 


God. Augiensis ccxxix. 



Lyons MS. 
Orleans Cod. 94. 

c. 800 
c. 850 



Cod. Sangall. 20. 
Milan 0. 212 sup. 

F. C. S. A. Epi. 

c. 820 
c. 700 












Regino of 

Sernio Ath. de F. S. 







Sermo F. C. 



Tarentum ? 


F. C. 






Sermo b. Ath. 




Ratramn of 

Libellus deF.b. Ath. 


Alex. epi. 





F. C. S. Ath. Epi. 






F. C. a b. Ath. 







i. De Prcedest. 

C. F. 


ii. Capitula. 

Sermo Ath. de Fide. 


iii. De u. non t. 

C. F. 


iv. Pastoral. 

Sermo C. F. 


Mainz (Mo- 


Haito of Rei- 

F. S. Ath. 






Floras Dia- 

F. C. 





Benedict d 5 

F. C. 





Agobard, adv. 

F. C. (b. Ath. ait.). 

Dogm. Pel. 




i. Address to 




ii. De Spu. Sco. 

Symbolum Ath. 1 



S. Gallen. 





Libellus cle 


1 Loofs, art. " Athanasianum," M.E. 3 p. 173, thinks the text of this passage 
faulty, and calls attention to Sirmond s note on this passage (M.S.L. 105, 247). 




THE following is a provisional list of the more important 
MSS. of the Te Denm. I have affixed symbols to those 
which have been recently collated : 




Cod. Ambros. C. 5 inf. 





Franciscan Convent, Lib. Hymnorum 




Brit. Mus. Harleian MS. 7653 

viii., ix. 



Trin. Coll. Cod. E. 4. 2. 





Cod. Vat. Reg. 11 



V 2 


Cod. Vat. 82 




Cod. lat. 343 




Cathedral Breviary 





Univ. Lib. LI. 1. 10 


viii., ix. 



Corpus Christ! Coll. 272. 0. 5 



Miinster Kirche (Psalter) 




Lambeth, 427 




Brit. Mus. Galba A. xviii. 



Cod. S. Emmeran Ixvii. 





B.N. Cod. lat. 1152 

God. 20 

(Psalter of Count Henry) 

Codd. 15, 20, 23, 27 

Psalter (Claudius, C. vii.) 

Cod. 1861 

Cod. Mp. th. f. 109 

Psalter of Lothaire 

Miinster Kirclie 
Cod. 17 
Cod. A. i. 14 
Cod, 8 






G!) 2) 3> 4 

S. Gallen 








S. Gallen 

B 2 








IT may be of interest to add the following Creed, which has 
been conjecturally restored by Zahn 1 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] tlie 
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 NciLere Beitragc zur Gcschichte des apost. Syr/ibolums, p. 23. 




I. 1. Ilicrreua) els Qeov iravTOKpdropa, 

II. 2. Kat els TOV nvpiov f][j.o)v irjcrovv XptoToi/ (rov vibv avrov ?), TOV (Si* 
f] eXdovra KOI) 

3. yevvrjOevTa ex (Ma/Ha? rrjs ?) rrapdevov 

4. K.CU (TTavp(jL>6fvTa enl Tlovnov IltXarou KCU drrodavovTa, 

5. rf) TP LTIJ f) avacrravTa IK. (ra>v ?) veupwv 

6. KOI dvafidvTa (dvf\66vTO. ?) els TOVS ovpavovs 

7. KCU KadrjfJLevov en Se^itov Qeov TOV TravroKpdropos, 

8. Kai epx6}j.evov /nera bwdpeats KOL 86rjs, Kplvai vezpovs fcai 

III. 9. Kal eis ro dyiov Trvevfia 
10. (dyt ar eKK\T](riav ?) . . . 


ABBO, 182, 259, 276. 

Abelard, 183. 

Abundius, 260. 

Acacius, 87, 91, 94. 

Ado, 117. 

Adoptianism, 167 f., 177. 

Mlfric, 117, 183. 

jEthelstan, Psalter of, 199. 

Aetius, 108, 113. 

Agobard, 178. 

Alcuin, 173, 176 seq. 

Alexander, 80. 

Amalarius, 183. 

Ambrose, S., 20, 70, 77, 126, 138, 143, 
203, 205 f., 208, 219, 252, 258 if., 
275, 285 f. 

Anomceans, 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, 286 f. 

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, 

Asterius, 86 f. 

Athanasius, S., 48, 69, 76, 80, 82, 85 f., 
87,91, 94 f., 97, 99 f., 101 f., 104, 
114, 120 f., 123 f., 125 f., 130, 136, 
139, 176 f., 179, 183, 215, 266, 295. 

Attalus, 153. 

Attila, 201. 

Augustine of Canterbury, S., 243. 

Augustine of Hippo, S., 44, 62, 70, 
122, 124-128, 133, 136 f., 140, 
146, 170, 173, 178, 182, 188, 205, 
208 f., 235, 258 ff., 275, 281, 285, 
295 f. 

Auitus, 116, 150, 181 f. 

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, 

33 if., 64, 70. 
Basil of Ancyra, 92, 94 f. 
Basil of Csesarea, S., 95, 99, 101, 105, 

110, 262. 
Bede, Yen., 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. 
Bornemaim, Prof., 39. 
Bourdon, Abbe", 252. 
Bratke s Berne MS., 63, 229, 241. 
Bright, Prof., 96. 
Brightraan, Rev. F. E., 267, 269. 
Butler, Bishop, 291. 

C^LESTINE, Pope, 111. 

Csesarius, 148, 151-153, 160, 179, 

181 f., 188, 249, 250 f., 257, 290. 
Cajetan, John (Gelasius II.), 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 i., King, 230. 
Chlodosinda, 159. 
Chrysologus, 230, 281. 
Chrysostom, S., 111. 
Clarke, Dr. S., 96. 
Clement of Rome, S., 26 f., 61, 64. 




Columban, S., 152 f. 
Commentaries on the Quicunque unit : 
Bouhier, 164, 170. 
Fortunatus, 160 f., 168, 180 f., 187. 
Oratorian, 165, 170. 
Orleans, 163, 166. 
Paris, 164. 

Holle of Hampole, 167. 
Stavelot, 163, 167 f. 
Theodulf, 166. 
Troyes, 166 f., 171. 
Constans, Emp., 90 f., 203. 
Constantine, Copronymus, Emp., 117. 
Constantine the Great, Emp., 66, 76. 
Constantins, Emp., 91, 100. 
Cotton, Bishop, 295. 
Councils of Aachen in 809, 118. 
,, Agde in 506, 278. 
,, Alexandria in 362, 98- 

101, 126. 

, , Antioch in 329, 82. 
Antioch in 341, 83. 
Antioch in 378, 107. 
Aquileia in 382, 206. 
,, Cvesarea, Forged Acts of, 241. 
, , Caria in 367, 86. 

Chalcedon in 451, 110-114. 
,, Constantinople in 381, 107, 

109, 121. 

Epliesusin430, 111. 
Frankfort in 794, 118, 164, 


Friuliin791, 117. 
,, Gentilly in 767, 117. 

Heth field in 680, 117, 159. 
Laodicea in 360, 262. 
Milan, 285. 
,, Rome in 869, 107. 
Sardica in 344, 90. 
Seleucia in 357, 86. 
,, Sirmium in 357, 91. 
ZWedo w 4^7, 117. 
Toledo in589, 114, 117, 119. 
2W#fo w 655, 153. 
Creeds : 
Antioch, Sewnd Creed of, 83-85, 

86, 94. 

Antioch, Third Creed of, 87. 
Antioch, Fourth Creed of, 86, 87- 

89, 91, 203. 

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, 214 f., 


Athanasian Creed, The, 124-197, 

Creeds contd. 

Augsburg, Confession of, 155. 
Augustine, 209-213. 
Auscultate exposition-em, 179, 243. 
Bacchiarius, 131, 138, 144, 181, 

Bangor Antiplwnary, 60, 228 f., 


Beatus, 255. 

Bratke s Berne MS., 63, 241 ff. 
Csesarius, 224 f., 239. 
Constantinople, 203. 
Constantinople in 525, 114. 
Constantinople in 553, 114. 
Cyprian of Carthage, 48, 209, 283 f. 
Cyprian of Toulon, 225 f. 
Damasiis, 130, 153 f., 181, 216, 


Dated Creed, 92 ff. 
Didascalia, The, Appendix F. 
Deer, Boole of, 63. 
Denelert, 161, 172, I74ff. 
Dionysius, 46. 
Eastern and Western compared, 70, 


Egyptian Church Order, 69. 
Eligius of Noyon, 227. 
Etherius, 255. 
EuseUus of Ccesarea, 77-80. 
Faustus, 222 ff., 226. 
Fides Eomanorum, 129, 161, 168, 

177, 215-219. 

Gelasian Sacramentary, 231 f. 
Gregory Thaumaturgus, 72. 
Gregory of Tours, 227. 
Hincmar, 130. 
Ildefonsus, 255. 
Isidore, 154 f. 
Jerusalem, 34, 98, 101-106, 119, 


Leporius, 132f., 139ff. 
Lucianic Creed, The, 83, 86, 90. 
Martin of Bracara, 60, 254 f. 
Mesopotamia, 105 f. 
Missale Gallicanum, 221, 229, 234 f., 

050, 239 f., 244. 
MozaraHc Liturgy, 214, 255. 
Jtfitmcfc CW. Za^. ^6>S, 63, 160. 
JVtce?w Council, 76-80, 99, 104, 

110, 119. 
Our Nicene Creed, 7, 98 seq., 102, 

103, 110, 203, 286 ff., 288. 
Niceta, 62, 205, 239, 252-255. 
Nike", 94, 203. 
Novatian, 46. 
Pelagius, 138, 139 f., 228. 
Philippopolis in 343, 90. 
Phcebadius of Agcn, 129, 205, 214- 




Creeds contd. 
Prisdllian, 214. 
Ps. -Augustine, Serm. 23S, 62. 
Old Roman Creed, 21, 33, 45, 198. 
Sacramcntarium Gallicanum, 60, 

221, 229, 234 f., 236, 238 if. 
Salvianus, 222. 
Cod. Sessorian., 52, 63, 237 ff. 
Sirmium in 351, 90. 
Sirmium in 357, Second Creed of, 

Sirmium in 359, Dated Creed of, 

92-94, 95, 203 f. 
Turin, 230. 
Victricius, 214, 21 8 f. 
Cursus Leoninus, 249. 
Cyprian of Carthage, S., 22, 48, 123, 

209, 220, 248, 262, 283 f. 
Cyprian of Toulon, 219, 257, 276. 
Cyril of Alexandria, S., Ill, 113, 137. 
Cyril of Jerusalem, S., 6C-69, 99, 
107 f., 110, 113 f., 120, 203 f., 
220, 253, 281, 28 4 f. 

DAMASUS, Pope, 107 sey. } 113, 143, 252. 

Dante, 249. 

Delisle, M. L., 173. 

Didache, The, 21, 30. 

Didascalia, The, 87, 90, Appendix F. 

Dido, 177. 

Diodorus, 261. 

Diogenes, 112. 

Dionysius, 46 ff. 

Docetism, 204. 

Dracontius, 97. 

Duchesne, Abbe, 108, 122, 209, 219. 

EGBERT, 286. 

Elchasaites, The, 22. 

Eligius of Noyon, 188. 

Elipandus, 118. 

Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 291. 

Epiphanius, 45, 87, 92, 102, 104 f., 

109 f., 113, 116, 170. 
Eucherius, 135, 252. 
Eunomius, 113. 
Euphronius, 169, 170. 
Eusebius of Cresarea, 75, 82, 86, 170. 
Eusebiusof Nicomedia, 75,77, 79 If., 83. 
Eustathius of Antioch, 78, 100. 
Eutyches, 113, 140; heresy of, 169, 

FAITH, 3. 

Faustus, 62, 127, 135, 148 f., 182, 

222, 286, 290. 
Felix of Urgel, 167 f. 
Firmilian, 283. 
Flavianus, 109, 261. 

Florianus, 160. 

Fortunatus, Yenantius, 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 cxcelsis, The, 265-270, 278. 
Gnostics, The, 25, 43. 
Goldast, 168 seq. 
Goulburn, Dean, 293. 
Gregory the Great, S., Pope, 119, 231, 


Gregory in., Pope, 233, 239. 
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, 25 f., 32, 43, 109, 

121, 128, 173. 
Harris, Prof. Rendel, 40. 
Harvey, 147. 

Haussleiter, Prof., 17 f., 20. 
Hennas, 55, 61, 64. 
Heurtley, Prof., 211, 213. 
Hilary of Aries, 135, 148, 276. 
Hilary of Poitiers, S., 83, 86, 92, 99, 

116, 121, 125, 127, 129, 134, 143, 

259 f.. 296. 
Hilsey, 184. 
Hincmar, 119, 157, 173 ff., 176, 215, 


Hippolytus, 59 ff. 
Homceanism, 121. 
Honoratus, 135, 14711 ., 276. 
Honoring of Autun, 183. 
Hook, Dean, 291. 
Hooker, Richard, 295. 
Hort, Prof., 104 ff., 114. 
llosius of Cordova, 75, 78. 
Hunter, Sir W., 292. 

IGNATIUS, S., 10, 28, 31, 38, 68, 73. 
Illingworth, Rev. J. R., 6, 128, 296. 
Innocent I., Pope, 130, 253. 
Irenseus, S., 17 f., 25, 41-44, 53, 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, 123. 
John of Jerusalem, 64. 



Julian, Emp., 101. 
Julius Africanus, 170. 
Julius of Rome, 83, 106. 
Justinian, Emp., 114 f., 159. 
Justin Martyr, 15, 21, 30, 35-40, 43, 
62 f., 65, 282. 

KATTENBUSCH, Prof. F., on Jerusalem 
Creed, 68 ; on Second Creed of An- 
tioch, 86 ; on Creed of Constanti 
nople, 110 et passim, 

Kingsley, Rev. Charles, 289, 295. 

Kunze, Prof., 111. 

LAGARDE, 267. 
Leidrad, 173 f., 178, 191. 
Leo i., Pope, 8., 70, 113, 230. 
Leo in., Pope, 118 f., 18<3. 
Leodgar, 156. 
Leontius, 262. 

Lerins, Monastery of, 134, 289. 
Libcllus de Trinitate, 160. 
Liberii Gesta, 161, 215. 
Lightfoot, Bishop, 28, 30, 294. 
Liturgy of S. James, 272. 
Loofs, Prof., 80, 155, 173-181. 
Louis ii., Emp., 233. 
Lucas, Father H., 184. 
Lucian, 74, 86 f. 
Lucifer of Cagliari, 101. 
Lumby, Prof., 172, 213. 
Lupus, 135, 219. 


Macedonius, 107, 112; heresy of, 110, 

112, 269. 
Marcellus, 44 f., 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, 143. 
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. 

MLssale Gallicanum, 270 ; vide Creeds. 
MissaleGothicum,27Q, 27 4; vide Creeds. 
Mocquereau, Dom., 252. 
Monarchianism, 58-61, 63. 
Monothelitism, 166, 169. 
Montanism, 59. 
Mora, Albert de (Gregory vni.), 249. 

: Movin, Dom. G., on Cod. Sessor. 52, 

161, 232 ; on Niceia of Remesiana, 
253 ; on the authorship of the " Te 
Deum," 256 seq. 

NECTARIUS, 109, 111. 

Nestorius, 111, 139 if.; heresy of, 167 f., 


Newman, Cardinal J. H., 289. 
Niceta of Remesiana, 107, 125, 2^,2 seq., 

259 seq., 269, 286. 
Nicetas of Aquileia, 254. 
Nicetius of Treves, 159 f., 261. 
Nicholas i., Pope, 119, 232 f. 
Nilus, 111. 
Notker, 163. 
Novatian, 47, 60, 62 f., 283. 

OBILO, 163. 

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. 

Pa,ulinusofAquileia,117f., 168,176,178. 

Paulinus of Nola, 130, 252 f., 263. 

Paulinus of Tyre, 79. 

Peter Fullo, 114. 

Pelagius i., Pope, 230. 

Pelagius, heretic, 21 8 f. 

Philostorgius, 87. 

Photinus, 92. 

Photius, 119. 

Pirminius, 221, 233 f., 238 f. 

Poly carp, 28 f., 41, 61. 

Pomerius, 249. 

Praxeas, 54, 58 f. 

Priscilliau, 142-115, 247 f. 

Priscillianists, The, 117. 

Procession Controversy, The, 115 seq. t 


Proclus, 111 f. 
Prudentius, 258. 
Ps.-Gennadius de Fide, 160. 
Ps. -Ignatius, 267 f. 

RABANTJS Maurus, 176. 
Rade, Dr., 109. 
Ratramn, 119, 157, 173. 
Reccared, 11 4 f. 
Redditio symboli, 52, 281. 
Regino, 183. 

Rhythm of Te Deum and Quicunque, 



Robertson, Dr., 10, 74, 78, 86, 95, 100. 
Robinson, Prof. J. A., 40. 
Rufinus, 45, 46, 47, 57, 200f., 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, 99 f., 110, 

121 ff. 

Semi-Pelagianisra, 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. 
Svvainson, Prof., 113, 135, 175 ff. 
Swete, Prof., 27, 63, 204. 


Terentianus Maurus, 249. 

Tertullian, 38, 48-58, 61-65, 73, 127, 

282 f. 

Thcodosius, Erap., 108. 
Thcodotus, 59. 
Theodulf, 163 f., 165 f., 177. 
Theological Creeds, Of, 72-74. 
Theonas, 80. 
Theophronius, 87. 

Thompson, Sir E. Maunde, 241, 253. 

Timothy, S., 14-17. 

Timothy, Bishop of Constantinople, 


Traditio symboli, 281. 
Treves Fragment, The, 157-160, 172, 

174, 178 f. 

ULPHILAS, 107, 125. 
Urban n., Pope, 249. 

Ursacius, 81. 

Ussher, Archbishop, 45, 259. 

VALENS, Bishop, 81, 91 f. 

Valens, Emp., 95, 101, 107. 

Valentinus, 53, 63, 112. 

Victor, 59. 

Victorias, 241. 

Victricius, 116, 130, 146 f., 229. 

Vigilius of Thapsus, 69, 157, 215, 

Appendix B. 
Vincentius, 135 f., 137 f., 146 ff., 166, 

173, 182, 188, 258. 
Voss, 168, 259. 

WALAFBID Strabo, 176. 
Warren, Rev. F. E., 275, 278. 
Waterland, Dr., 145, 149. 
AVestcolt, Bishop, 3, 18, 26. 
Wyclif, 184. 

ZAHN, Prof. Theod., 7, 9, 12, 17, 30, 

54, 56 f., 65, 107, 204, 270. 
Zephyrinus, 59, 61. 


University of Toronto 








Acme Library Card Pocket 

Under Pat. "Ref. Index File"