II
The fact that the Roman Church in the period between 250 and 460 A.D., and
partly also later,Vide Gregory the Great. used a symbol in its religious services which was held in
very great honour and to which no additions were permitted, has been well known
ever since Usher’ s investigations,Usher, op. cit. but was more particularly proved by
Caspari’ s researches. At Rome this symbol was believed to have been obtained
from the Apostles in the form in which it was used, and this led to the
supposition that Peter brought it to Rome. The idea of its Apostolic origin
did not arise later than the fourth century. We find this symbol, the older,
shorter Roman creed, existing complete in a number of texts,A few of the more important of these texts may be here named: a Greek text in
the Epistle of Marcellus of Ancyra to the Roman bishop, Julius, about the year
337 or 338 A.D. (Epiphan. Panar. haer. 52 (72),
Opp. T. i. p. 836, ed. Petav.;
Hahn, ibid. § 15; Caspari, op. cit. iii. S. 4 f., S. 28-161), and also in a MS.
of the Biblioth. Cottoniana, the so-called Psalterium Aethelstani, saec. ix.
(Hahn, § 16; Caspari, iii. S. 5 f., S. 161-203). The Latin text is in the Codex
Laudianus 35, in the Bodleian Library, belonging to the sixth or seventh century
(Caspari, iii. S. 162 f.; Hahn, § 17); also in a MS. in the British Museum, 2
A, xx., of about the eighth century (Swainson, The Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds,
1875, p. 161 f.); in the Esplanatio Symboli ad initiandos, attributed to Ambrose
or, as the case may be, to Maximus of Turin (A. Mai, Script. Vet. Nova Coll. T.
vii. p. 156 f. 1883), B. Brunus, Maximi Tur. Opp. p. 30 f., 1784; Hahn, § 20;
Caspari, ii. S. 48 ff., who makes it probable that the treatise came from Ambrose.
Against this view Kattenbusch urges some weighty considerations, which, however,
do not seem to me conclusive; cf. also in Rufin. Expos. in Symb. Apost. in
Opp. Cypr. Append. ed. Fell, p. 17 f. 1682; see Hahn, 14; and also the
so-called Florentine Symbol; Caspari, iv. S. 290 ff.; and some statements in
the 24th epist. of Leo the Great (Hahn, § 18). quite
independently of the sources from which it could be at least partially reconstructed.
The Greek text must be regarded as the original, for at Rome the symbol was for
a long time used only in Greek.See the reconstruction of the text in my treatise upon the old Roman Symbol
(Patr. Apost. Opp. 2 edit. 1, 2, 1878), and more especially in Kattenbusch’s
programme, Beitr. z. Gesch. des altkirchl. Taufsymbols, Giessen, 1892; also
his Apost. Symbol. S. 59 ff., where a recension of the Latin text is also
given. The best authorities are the Psalterium Aethelstani on the one side, and
the Codex Laudianus on the other. It was not until long after the Greek text was
in use that the Latin text was adopted as a parallel form. What happened here,
then, is just the opposite of what happened in the case of the longer symbol.On the use of Greek in the Roman Church, cf. Caspari, iii. S. 267-466; upon
the liturgical use of the Greek text in the West during the early Middle Ages, cf. ibid. passim, and iii.
466-510. The
following is the text of the shorter or Greek form:
Πιστεύω εἰς θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα
καὶ εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν (τὸν) υἱὸν
αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν, τὸν γεννηθέντα
ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς
παρθένου, τὸν ἐπὶ Ποντίον Πιλάτου σταυρωθέντα
καὶ ταφέντα, τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ· ἀναστάντα ἐκ (τῶν)
νεκρῶν, ἀναβάντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς, καθήμενον
ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρὸς ὅθεν ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζώντας
καὶ νεκρούς, καὶ εἰς πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ἅγιαν ἐκκλησίαν,
ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν.
The legend of the symbol having been composed by the Apostles appears as early as the above-mentioned
Explanatio Symboli of Ambrose. The fact that the writer was aware of its being divided into twelve
articles perhaps indicates that the legend of each Apostle having contributed one of
them was already known. The twelve articles were arranged in three groups of
four, or three tetrads. The division into tetrads, however, appears nowhere
else. It arose, in my opinion, from the third article and the second half of
the second appearing as though composed of four members each. Kattenbusch in his
Programme thinks otherwise, but in his chief workS. 81 ff. his statements on the point
are modified. I cannot, however, convince myself that twelve divisions were
originally intended.Cf. Loofs, I. d. GgA. 1894, S. 675. No one who wanted to construct a creed with twelve
articles in three main divisions would have been so clumsy as to divide it into
1 + 7 + 4, or, rather, 2 + 6 + 4. At all events the legend did not originate in connexion with the
later and Ionger Roman creed, that is, the South Gallican or our present
Apostles’ Creed, for it already appears in the manuscript of the shorter symbol
which Swainson first published, and is also proved elsewhere to apply to this
creed. Rufinus, however, who wrote later, knows nothing about it;According to Kattenbusch, Rufinus wrote somewhat earlier than the author of
the Explanatio. See also Expos. in Symbol. Apost. Praef. all that he
knows is the common composition of the Roman symbol by the Apostles soon after
Pentecost and before. the separation. But he refers this legend to a traditio
maiorum. It was doubtless, therefore, in existence from the beginning of the
fourth century. Both Ambrose and Rufinus testify, moreover, that the Roman
Church preserved the exact words of the Apostles’ Creed with the most scrupulous
fidelity.Rufin. l.c. p. 17: “Verum priusquam incipiam de ipsis sermonum virtutibus
disputare, illud non importune commonendum puto, quod in diversis ecclesiis
aliqua in his verbis inveniuntur adiecta. In ecclesia tamen urbis Romae hoc non
deprehenditur factum, quod ego propterea esse arbitror, quod neque haeresis ulla
illic sumpsit exordium, et mos ibi servatus antiquus, eos, qui gratiam baptismi
suscepturi sunt, publice, id est, fidelium populo audiente, symbolum reddere
(see Augustine, Confess. viii. c. 2); et utique adiectionem unius saltem
sermonis eorum, qui praecesserunt in fide, non admittit auditus.” Ambrose,
Ep. 42 ad Siric. P. n. 5 (Opp. T. ii. P. i. p. 1125, ed Migne): Credatur symbolo
apostolorum, quod ecclesia Romana intemeratum semper custodit et servat.”
Ambrose, Explanat. Symb. in Caspari, ii. S. 56, according to a quotation from
Rev. 22. 18 ff.: “Si unius apostoli scripturis nihil est detrahendum, nihil addendum, quemadmodum
nos symbolo, quod accepimus ab apostolis traditum atque compositum, nihil
debemus detrahere, nihil adiungere. Hoc autem est symbolum, quod Romana ecclesia
tenet, ubi primus apostolorum Petrus sedit, et communem sententiam eo detulit.” The Apostolic origin of this symbol is independently asserted by
Jerome,Ep. ad Pammach. de errorib. Joannis Hierosol. n. 28 (Opp. T. ii. p. 386, ed.
Migne). by the Roman bishops Celestin I.
(422-431), Sixtus III. (431-440), Leo I. (440-461), by Vigilius of Thapsus, and
in the Sacramentarium Gelasianum.References in Caspari, ii. S. 108 f. n. 78; cf. iii. S. 94 f.; Hahn, 46, n. 163. The belief in the Apostolic origin of the
creed must therefore be regarded as originating in the Roman Church. Finally, it
may be added that Augustine must also be claimed as a witness for this shorter
Roman symbol. Although he was first a presbyter and then a bishop in a
provincial church, in which the recognised and official symbol was one which
varied considerably from the Roman, yet as a pupil of Ambrose, and as one who
was baptized in the church at Milan, he held to the Roman symbol, with which,
according to the Explanatio Symboli, the Milanese symbol was identical. In the eight expositions of the creed which we
have from himCaspari, ii. S. 264 f.; Hahn, § 21. he follows the Milanese form almost exclusively, and he follows
it in all essential points. In view of these facts there can be no doubt that in
the fourth and the first half of the fifth century the Roman Church made
extensive use in the Redditio of a symbol, and a symbol, too, identical with the
one mentioned above, and allowed of absolutely no additions to it. Ambrose was
certainly not the only oneCf. Celestin’s position in the Nestorian controversy. who expressly protested against any anti-heretical
additions. He regarded it as an attack upon the Saints to take account of
contemporary difficulties in the creed, however pressing these might be. “He
attributed to the creed the very highest authority, higher even than that of Apostolic writings composed by individual
Apostles.” The epistle of Marcellus to Julius shows us that between the years
330-340 A.D., this symbol was the official one in use in Rome; but other
testimonies, which still require to be criticised and sifted, take us back with
a sufficient degree of certainty to the middle of the third century. Among these
the most important are Novatian’s tractate De Trinitate,Hahn, § 7. and the fragments
from the epistles and writings of Bishop Dionysius of Rome.Cf. e.g. Athan. De decretis synodi Nic. c. 26.
That the shorter Roman symbol as represented in the Epistle of Marcellus and in the
Psalterium Aethelstani was as early as about the year 250 the
predominant one in Rome, must be regarded as one of the most positive results of historical investigation. Here, however, a series
of questions arises, the answers to which involve very
complicated investigations and the combination of different facts. The most
important of these questions are as follow:
1. How is the shorter Roman symbol related to the Western
symbols which were used, between the years 250 and 500 (800), in the religious
services of the provincial churches until they were driven out by the (Gallican)
Symbolum Apostolicum and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan?
2. How is the shorter Roman symbol related to the longer, that is to say, to the
Apostles’ Creed as we know it from the time of Caesarius, and why was it
displaced by the latter?
3. When and where did the shorter symbol originate?
4. How is the shorter Roman symbol
related to the Eastern pre-Constantinopolitan symbols?
5. How is the shorter Roman symbol related to the different
forms of the Rules of Faith with which we are familiar in the first three
centuries?
These five questions can be separated only in abstracto. As a matter of fact
they are so closely interwoven, each with the others, that a definite and
separate answer to every one of them is impossible. In what follows these
questions will be discussed together and a general answer attempted.
III
A survey of the provincial and private confessions which
remain to us from the Western Church, belonging to the period from the fourth to
the sixth (seventh) century,Hahn, §§ 20-45; Caspari, Bd. ii. and iii. The fullest appreciation, however,
is in Kattenbusch, S. 59-215, and in the addenda, S. 392 ff. The number of
symbols found is very great, and is still increasing. We know of six Italian
(besides Rome, we have symbols from Milan, Turin, Ravenna, Aquileia, and
possibly also Florence), African (but none from Sardinia, for the very important
one of the date 340-360, which Caspari has discussed [ii. S. 128 f.], can
scarcely be attributed to that country; see Kattenbusch, S. 202 f.). There are also Spanish, Gallican
(South Gallican and Frankish, also one from Treves), and Irish. enables us to make six very important observations
about them:—
1. In the choice and arrangement of
the single parts they all exhibit the same fundamental type as the shorter Roman
symbol.
2. The shorter a Western symbol is, the more closely it approaches the shorter
Roman symbol. The shortest symbols of the provincial churches of the West are
almost, if not altogether, identical with it.
3. The later a Western symbol is, the more it varies, as a rule in consequence
of additions,Hardly ever by omissions; on the symbol of Venantius Fortunatus, printed in
Hahn, § 27, see Kattenbusch, S. 130 ff. The question of alleged omissions in
the Western symbols may be put aside in view of the uncertainty of the tradition. from the shorter Roman. With the exception of a few expressions,
like the anti-modalistic “invisibili et impassibili,”
added to the “omnipotente,” in the first article of the symbol of the church of
Aquileia; the plerophoric “huius,” as an addition to “carnis,” in the third
article of the same symbol; the position of “remissionem peccatorum,
resurrectionem carnis et vitam aeternam per sanctam ecclesiam” in the
Carthaginian Church (this arrangement, however, may be explained otherwise),
none of these additions are of a directly polemical nature, but are to be
regarded as completions and extensions held to be necessary in the interest of a
clear understanding of the Creed. With these may be compared the manifold and
various additions to the first article of the old symbol, for example:Hahn, § 42. the
formula “natus de Spiritu Sancto ex Virgine Maria,” in the symbol of Aquileia
and Ravenna; the formula “conceptus de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Virgine M.” in
the symbol of Faustus of Rietz; the differentiation of “crucifixus” into “passus . . .
crucifixus” in the later symbols; the addition of “catholicam,”
in the third article in the Spanish and Carthaginian symbols as well as in that
of Nicetas; the addition of “vitam aeternam” for example, in Augustine’s
symbol and in Faustus of Rietz; and so on. The fundamental character of the
symbols is not altered by such additions, as they are not of a speculative or
dogmatic nature.
4. The majority of the additions which the Western symbols exhibit are of such a
character that they may be regarded as intermediate steps between the shorter
and longer Roman symbol. This consideration, however, is not so important as
the fact that the great provincial churches of the West in the third and fourth
centuries, by the additions which they severally made, stamped the symbols with
a definite character. Four such types can be readily distinguished, namely, the
Italian, the African, the Gallican, which includes the Irish, and the Spanish.Kattenbusch, S. 189 ff., 194 ff. makes no distinction between the last two,
and recognises only one type in Western Europe; but this view is not correct.
As for the Gallican type which is seen in our Apostles’ Creed, one of its
distinguishing features is that it is characterised by such historical additions
as are to be found in the earlier Oriental Rules of Faith or symbols, as the
case may be, such as “creator of heaven and earth,” “suffered,” “died,”
“descended into hell”; and also the predicate “catholic.” The Gallican type in its
final form is not in every respect the richest or the longest of the Western
symbols; but in so far as its historical contents are concerned, it certainly
is so. What gives it its peculiar character is the fact that. with the richest
material contents it lacks all those finishing touches or elements of accurate
definition which are present in other symbols of provincial churches, such as “invisibilem et impassibilem”
in the first article; “omnium creaturarum
visibilium et invisibilium conditorem” and “unum,” in the first and second; “Deum”
in the second; “resurrexit vivus, omnium peccatorum, cum gloria venturus,
per baptismum,” in the third; “huius carnis, etc.” In these important respects
the final form of the Gallican type, that is, of our Apostles’ Creed, has
completely preserved the distinguishing features of the old
Roman symbol. It exhibits the same compact and severe style, and nevertheless
also preserves all the significant historical features that became attached to
the Symbolum Romanum in the course of its career. The Gallican Apostles’ Creed
also exhibits the same classical elaboration as its Roman predecessor, and like
it was regarded as possessing the same ecumenical authority.
5. The less any church was influenced by the church at Rome, the more
significant become the progressive variations of its creed from the shorter
Roman symbol. The symbols of the Gallican Church are relatively far removed from
it.
6. If all the Western symbols be reduced to an archetype, and the differences be
disregarded, we arrive without difficulty at the shorter Roman creed.
What conclusions are we to draw from these observations? The evidence justifies
the assertions (1) that the shorter Roman symbol was the source of all the
Western confessions of faith; and (2) that the longer Roman symbol was
gradually developed from the other, and as a consequence also preserved the same
attributes as originally characterised the shorter symbol. But the process did
not take place in Rome.
From the first conclusion we may reasonably infer that the shorter Roman symbol
must have originated considerably earlier than the middle of the third century.
Otherwise how can we explain the fact that all the Western churches originally
used the same symbol, and that the African Church, for example, had already
developed its own special type, before the year 250,
upon the foundation afforded by the old Roman symbol?Cyprian, Hahn, §§ 28, 29. Accordingly we must
refer the Roman symbol to a date at least as early as the year 200, which admits
of positive proof from the writings of Tertullian. Moreover, this conclusion is
established by a comparison between the shorter Roman symbol and all the Western
confessions of faith on the one side, and the provincial and private symbols of
the East on the other; and, further, by a comparison of the shorter Roman
symbol with the different editions of the Rule of Faith up to the middle of the
third century.
The Eastern baptismal confessions are distinguished one and all by great
flexibility, by freedom in form, and by richness of expression.See Hahn, op. cit. pp. 61 ff., pp. 183 ff.; Caspari,
op. cit. ii. S. 112 ff., iii. S. 46 f.; Swainson, op. cit. p. 60; Hort,
Two Dissertations, ii., On the Constantinopolitan Creed and other Eastern Creeds of
the Fourth Century, 1876, p. 73; and, above all, Kattenbusch, S. 216 ff. As the Eastern
Church never knew anything of any of the creeds having been composed by the
Apostles, it always dealt with them in a much freer spirit, and in its baptismal
confession gave expression at one and the same time to its interest in
speculative theology and to its horror of every kind of heresy. It was mostly in
the East that heresy originated. Thus the Eastern Church often puts dogmatic in
the place of historical expressions, omits important passages, largely extends
others by additional and preliminary matter, and interpolates anti-Gnostic,
anti-Monarchian, anti-Modalistic, anti-Arian, anti-Semiarian, anti-Marcellian,
anti-Photinian, anti-Pneumatomachian, anti-Apollinarian, and other
observations. “The Oriental symbols frequently exhibit in their separate
articles a greater or less freedom of form, whether by inserting dogmatic in
place of simple historical expressions or by uniting the two, or by expressing
the article in question in a somewhat fuller manner, or, finally, by making one
or more additions not of a distinctly anti-heretical character. . . . Further,
we often find that they contain whole articles wanting in the Western baptismal
confessions. . . . As a general result the Eastern confessions exhibit, some in
a higher and some in a less degree, a subjective, reflective and dogmatic
character. They wear, moreover, a more or less parti-coloured appearance, and
are more or less prolix, diffuse and verbose.” Lastly, catechetical instruction
in doctrine, which, as is well known, was
an accompaniment of the baptismal confession in the East, was much more strongly
influenced by dogmatico-polemical theories than in the West. In the Eastern
Church the symbol was accordingly in a constant condition of flux and
movement. Not until the adoption of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was this
state of things altered, and not even then was it completely altered. The Nicene
Creed alone did not do it. From about the year 430 onwards this latter symbol
supplanted the others in such parts of the territory of the orthodox Church as
lay beyond the imperial jurisdiction. From that time the Byzantine Church became
the home of severe conservatism in regard to the Creed, as up to the present day
it has clung, persistently and exclusively, to the Nicene Creed. This state
of things, which lasted in the East up to the middle of the fifth century, renders it
difficult to describe the general characteristics of the Eastern symbols in
their universality, and to reduce them to any fundamental type. Yet this much
may be said: (1) That a considerable number of Eastern symbols—not all,See, e.g., the symbol of Gregory Thaumaturgus, Hahn, § 114. but
certainly those of Syria and Palestine—are based on the same type;But, as Kattenbusch has proved, and as I previously maintained in my answer to
Cremer’s polemic (Leipzig, 1892, S. 9 ff.), there is no universal, independent
Eastern type of the baptismal symbol. (2) that
in its range and the disposition of its articles this type exhibits an affinity
with the shorter Roman symbol, but also the following variations from it:Caspari, ii. S. 44-88.
1. πιστεύομεν is almost always used, and in many symbols it is
repeated with each article. 2. In the first and second article ἕνα is added to
θέον and to κύριον. 3. In the first article, God is designated as the Creator of
all things, that is, of Heaven and Earth. 4. The position of the words in the
beginning of the second article is as follows: καὶ εἰς
ἕνα (τὸν) κύριον Ἰησ. Χρ. τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν
μονογενῆ In the Western symbol the words Χρ. Ἰησ.
stand first; τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν
μονογενῆ follow, and only after them comes τὸν κύριον. This order is
almost everywhere preserved, and ἡμῶν is added to κύριον.
5. Frequently “ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβίδ,” or something similar, is added to the phrase
γεννηθέντα κτλ. 6. In the East the separate clauses of the second article are
run together, polysyndetically; in the West, asyndetically; there, the affirmations regarding
Christ take the form of sentences placed in juxtaposition; here, of relative
sentences. 7. The article τὸν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πμλάτου σταυρωθέντα
καὶ ταφέντα is almost entirely lacking; here and there it appears in a modified form. 8. The words
τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ are placed after
ἀναστάντα. 9. Instead of
ἀναβάντα, ἀνελθόντα or ἀναληφθέντα is used.
10. The article concerning the “coming again,” is co-ordinated
with the preceding. 11. Μετὰ δόξης or ἐνδόξως is added to
πάλιν ἐρχόμενον. 12. In the third article the reading is
τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, or τ. ἅ. π. τὸ προφητικόν or something similar is often added.
13. ἐκκλησία has the predicate καθολική after the
other predicate ἁγία. Where the former appears in the later Western symbols, it
stands after “Ecclesiam.” 14. Baptism is frequently mentioned in the third article.
15. The words ζωὴν αἰώνιον are found almost everywhere.
All these characteristics, however, attach to a set of symbols dependent on the
symbol of Nicaea, or, as the case may be, on that on which it was based (the
symbol which Eusebius laid before the Council at Nicaea, usually called the
Caesarean); also on Lucian’s. This symbol, therefore, is not older than the
beginning of the fourth century. The assertion would, of course, be open to
challenge if the symbol produced by Eusebius were the baptismal confession of
the Church of Caesarea.As Hort and Loofs, S. 673, maintain. Both assume that the third article is
abridged. But the connexion in which Eusebius communicates the
symbol in his letter to his community makes it anything but probable that it is the symbol or baptismal confession
of that place. It ought, rather, to be regarded as a symbol which Eusebius
had constructed expressly for the existing situation,This may be inferred from the predicates applied to Christ: the series
beginning with τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ
λόγον is evidently made for the situation. not, of course, ab ovo
but according to the formulas familiar at Antioch or, as the case may be, in the
schools of Origen and Lucian.See his symbol. That the congregation at Caesarea in the course
of its instruction heard the faith which Eusebius here formulated is certain;
but whether, over and above the baptismal confession, it possessed a definite
creed consisting of three divisions is very questionable. Any such contention is
strongly rebutted by the fact that in Eusebius’ formula the third article simply consists of
πιστεύομεν καὶ εἰς ἓν
πνεῦμα ἅγιον.
The assumption that Eusebius made any omission from the church confession is a
very dangerous one to make. There is also the fact that a long-winded sentence
follows,Cp. Lucian’s symbol. ending in the general order to baptize. Eusebius regards this as
belonging to the confession of faith as much as what preceded it:
τούτων ἕκαστον εἶναι καὶ
ὑπάρχειν πιστεύοντες, πατέρα ἀληθῶς πατέρα
καὶ υἱὸν ἀληθῶς υἱὸν καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἀληθῶς
πνεῦμα ἅγιον, καθῶς ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἀποστέλλων
εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ μαθητὰς εἶπε·
πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντεσ
αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς κτλ.
This is evidently the reason why Eusebius as well as Lucian went on to the
baptismal confession and repeated it in extenso; he felt the necessity of
presenting his new formula as a paraphrase of the formula
known to the community. But if the Caesarean symbol is not one framed for a
particular community, then we know absolutely nothing of any definite, detailed,
ancient communal symbols in the East of any date preceding the Nicene Creed.
This negative conclusion is confirmed by four considerations: (1) by the
curious symbol of Gregory Thaumaturgus,Hahn, § 114. and the equally curious one of
Aphraates.Kattenbusch, S. 249. The argument seems to me unassailable that, where such “symbols” as
these can be constructed, there is as yet no communal symbol, such as the Roman,
in existence; and Gregory knew the Eastern Church from Pontus to Egypt. (2) By
the free and easy way in which the symbols were formed and also accepted in the East.
With pain and astonishment we see this process going on in the fourth and down
to the middle of the fifth century. If any old symbols had been in existence,
which had come down from previous generations, how could this state of chaotic
confusion and lack of reverence in the formation and acceptance of creeds in the
East be explained? (3) By the above-mentioned typical similarity of structure
exhibited in the Eastern symbols of the fourth century, where the type of the
Lucian-Eusebean-Nicene creed is almost the only one which emerges. (4) By the
uncertainty about the third article which prevailed in the East up to the middle
of the fourth century. Even as late as the first Antiochian formula of the year
341 it runs as follows:
εἰ δὲ δεῖ προσθεῖναι πιστεύομεν καὶ περὶ σαρκὸς
ἀναστάσεως κ. ζωῆς αἰωνίου.
In connexion with this last point I may observe that the
construction of the old Roman symbol is perfectly clear. It is based on the
baptismal formula with its three divisions. The first division is defined by the
words, “God Almighty”; the second is characterised by the phrases “Only Begotten
Son” and “Our Lord,” as well as by the historical account which it gives; the
third is conceived of as a gift, and hence three further blessings are
associated with it, which together express the content of the salvation which
faith brings. Of the thirty Eastern confessions of faith from the fourth century
which come into question more than two-thirds contain either no third article at
all or else only a bare confession of belief in the Holy Ghost. Putting aside
the symbols derived from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan,To which those mentioned by Hahn, §§ 68, 69, 70, belong.
and also the obviously abridged symbols mentioned by Hahn, §§ 71, 72,As against Kattenbusch, i. S. 330.
we find that the only symbol containing the third article in a complete form, or
the more than complete form which mentions Baptism, is that in the seventh book
of the Apostolic Constitutions, in the symbol handed by Arius to the Emperor,
in that of Cyril of Jerusalem, in the symbol of Salamis (which developed into
the Constantinopolitan), and in the longer symbol of Epiphanius.Hahn, § 68. These five
symbols evidently go back to one common root, which is most visible in Cyril’s
form, although it certainly does not easily lend itself to reconstruction. But
in the close affinity which it exhibits with the old Roman
symbol this very symbol takes precedence of all the rest. The relationship is so
close that Cyril’s symbol can only be the daughter or the sister of the Roman
one. That it can have been the mother is out of the question, as the Roman
symbol undoubtedly reveals an older and simpler form. Hitherto there has been no
reason for regarding it as even a sister, for the date of this set of
Palestino-Syrian symbols is not earlier than the beginning of the fourth
century, whilst we can certainly place the old Roman symbol a century earlier.
Now, as regards the more than twenty Eastern symbols which possess only a
rudimentary third article or none at all, it is clear from the way in which
christological attributes are accumulated, even in the oldest of them, that we
are dealing with symbols of late origin. Still,
however, the formula θεὸς πατὴρ παντοκράτωρ, and the structure of the
christological section, unmistakably exhibit a certain affinity with the Roman
symbol. Moreover they almost all possess, in common with the former group,
additions to the first article, as well as the ἕνα in the first and second.
Finally, there is a certain grammatical and literary character common to them
all. Hence the simplest solution of the problem presented by the relation
between the Eastern confessions of faith of the fourth century and the old Roman
symbol, is to say that, whilst there was no established baptismal confession of
faith in the East in the third century, there was, however, an old, flexible “christological rule,” and also old, ceremonial or polemical formulas of belief
in One God the Creator, and in His Only
Son Christ. Apart from the singular confession of Gregory Thaumaturgus, the
venturesome character of which is apparent in the very extravagances of the
legend connected with it, we may say that it was towards the end of the third
century, probably in the school of Lucian, at all events at some point in
Syria-Palestine, that the formation of symbols began in the East, where
men—first, it seems, in theological circles—had come to know and value the Roman
symbol. At the period of the struggles with Paul of Samosata other features of
the Roman Church also came to be appreciated. The direct and full acceptance of
the Roman symbol was, however, hindered by (1) the circumstance that the
christological section of the Roman symbol came into conflict with a christological type already established;
(2) by the desire to give fuller expression to the “higher christology”
in the creed. It was not until the time of the Arian controversy that fixed
symbols in the East began to be formed. The typeLucian, Eusebius, Arius, § 117, the Nicene, the whole of the Antiochian and
Sirmian symbols, etc. that was apparently, at
least, the most frequent up to the year 381, was that with the short third
article (in “the,” or, as the case might be, the “One,” “Holy Ghost”; or also,
in some instances, with additions such as “Who spake by the Prophets”); whilst
the type which, in the third article, is in essential agreement with the old
Roman symbol came to the front in the Jerusalem-Salamis symbol, and in that
contained in the seventh book of the Apostolic Constitutions,How old this symbol may be is a question. and
then gradually gained the supremacy through the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.
The question may be asked whether this conclusion is not upset by an examination
of the Rules of Faith, and the fragments of those rules and formula-like
sentences with which we are familiar as belonging to the Eastern half of the
Church from the middle of the first to the middle of the third century. This is
the opinion entertained by Caspari, Zahn, Loofs, and many others, and formerly
I, too, shared it. The idea is that we must take an Eastern symbol or, to be
more precise, a symbol from Asia Minor, and relate the old Roman symbol to it as
daughter or sister. The assumption rests principally if not exclusively oft what
we find in Clement of Alexandria,
Irenaeus, Justin and Ignatius. The opponents of this view argue briefly as
follows:—“The writings of Justin, who was baptized in Ephesus about the
year 130, show us that he assumes the existence of a symbol which on the one
hand much resembles the old Roman, and on the other is most characteristically
distinguished from it. These distinguishing marks also appear in the majority of
the later Eastern symbols (Ἰησοῦς Χριστός
not Χ. Ἰ.; σταυρωθεὶς ἐπὶ Π. Π. not
ἐπὶ Π. Π στ.;
ἀποθανόντα;
πάλιν μετὰ δόξης etc.); further, they are also to be found in the formulas of Irenaeus, who
employs others as well as ἕνα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς,
and in certain peculiarities of style which may also be shown to exist in
Eastern symbols of the fourth century. Some of these can be traced back as far
as Ignatius, nay, even to the Epistles of St. Paul, or, in fact, to the New
Testament in general. Finally, it follows from what Clement says that in his
time there existed a formal and fixed baptismal confession in Alexandria. In the
East, then, there existed in the second century a fixed symbol, or, rather, many
symbols, related to the Roman symbol, but independent of it. The history of
Eastern symbols may therefore be traced well into the second century, and this
history, accordingly, though latent in the third century, was still existent.
The Roman symbol at best is contemporaneous with the Asiatic or Syrian; more
probably it is later; and this Asiatic or Syrian symbol leaves it free to the
critic to assign it to the years 120-130, 100-120, or 70-100.” Such is the
argument.
Against it four considerations may be urged:
(1) The fact that single sentences seem to be echoes of the symbol or tally with
it offers no guarantee that they themselves derive from one symbol. Before any symbol existed God was παντοκράτωρ;
Jesus Christ was called “the Only Begotten Son, our Lord”; he was proclaimed
as “born of the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary,” as having suffered under Pontius
Pilate, and as coming to judge the quick and the dead.
(2) Formula-like sentences, if not obviously a part of the baptismal formula,
need not necessarily have originated in a baptismal confession, even though they
be identical with the sentences of that confession. The oldest tradition gave a
fixed or, as the case may be, a more fixed
shape to “The Faith,” not only in the form of a baptismal confession and for
the purposes of baptism, but also in (a) liturgical sentences, (b) formulas of
exorcism, (c) precepts concerning faith and morals, and (d) historical
summaries, and that, too, with a view to the most diverse objects (instruction,
apologetics, polemics, religious worship). As illustrating (a) we may take the
prayers in the Didaché; (b) statements in Justin and others; (c) Hermas,
Mand. 1 and Didaché 1-6; (d) 1 Cor. xv. 1 ff.,
Mark xvi. 9 ff. The words of John xvii. 3
ἵνα γινώσκωσι σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν
θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰ. Χρ.
were in the middle of the second century as much a formula of faith as Hermas, Mand. 1
πρῶτον πάντων πίστευσον, ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν θεός κτλ.,
yet they have nothing to do with the baptismal formula. Such
passages as Ephes. iv. 9 furnished themes for homiletical discourses; formulas
were also set up which led from the confession of the One God to the chief
practical commandments; of these some fine and powerful examples are found in
Mand. 1 ff. and Didaché 1 ff. Finally, the preaching of Christ is not unfrequently attached, on the foundation of numerous Pauline passages, to a
confession of belief in the One God, without any mention of the Holy Spirit, of
the Church, or of Christian blessings.
(3) In particular, the preaching of Christ, apart from the detailed form which
it received in the Gospels,Luke i. 4. also underwent various longer or shorter
epitomisations,See the above-mentioned fragments 1 Cor. xv.
and Mark xvi. 9.
which took a fixed form without being placed in a Trinitarian framework. These
epitomisations proceeded on various plans: (a) the mere chronicle, (b) the
chronicle with proofs attached, (c) the plan of fulfilled prophecy, (d) the plan
κατὰ σάρκα κατὰ πνεῦμα, (e) the plan of the
first and second coming, (f) the plan καταβάς—ἀναβάς.
All these plans, in part united with one another, issued in affirmations of
a character relatively fixed, even if capable of being modified.
(4) Out of the great number of predicates attached to God, Christ, and the
Spirit, some which were in general use very soon came to the front, apart from
the detailed Trinitarian confession. Those chiefly used in connexion with God
are, εἷς, παντοκράτωρ, πατήρ, δεσπότης
and Creator, with additions; with Christ, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ
κύριος, σωτήρ, διδάσκαλος, μονογενής, εἷς, λόγος; with the Holy Ghost
ἄγιος, προφητικός. In
the same way, out of the great number of blessings which the Christian faith
affords, some are named with especial frequency, such as ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν (with
or without mention of baptism), ζωή (αἰώνιος), ἀνάστασις (with or without τῆς σαρκός),
γνῶσις, ἀφθαρσία, etc. Everything thus variously produced was regarded
as “the Faith,” “the Rule of Faith,” “Kerugma” (or “Proclamation”), “Truth,”
“Rule of Truth,” μάθημα, παράδοσις,
ταραδοθείς λόγος, διδαχή, etc.
A consideration of the facts contained in the foregoing, the truth of which no
scholar will question, must make us very cautious in arguing from formula-like
confessional sentences to a formulated baptismal confession in three parts. Caution of
this kind seems to be everywhere wanting at the present time, as is seen, for
example, in Zahn’s treatise on the Apostles’ Creed (1893) and in the way in
which it has been received by the most distinguished students in this branch of
learning. No one has a right to claim a particular proposition, which forms no
part of any creed framed on the Trinitarian plan, as part of a fixed baptismal
confession, unless he is in a position to offer very strong evidence for his
contention.
What is the net result of the “testimony” of Ignatius,
Justin, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria?
(1) We find that Ignatius has freely reproduced a “kerugma” of Christ which
seems, in essentials, to be of a fairly definite historical character and which
contained, inter alia, the Virgin Birth, Pontius
Pilate and the ἀπέθανεν. There is no trace of any evidence, however, that it
was part of any creed based on the Trinitarian plan.
(2) As to Justin we find (a) that he knew of a definite christological
“kerugma,” and used it again and again; this was closely related to the second
article of the Roman symbol, although quite independent of it, and it even
exhibits many of the characteristic peculiarities of the later Eastern symbols;
(b) that with him this “kerugma” forms no part of any baptismal symbol, that
is to say, is not a formal second article; (c) that with him the baptismal
formula was not developed into a symbol at all, except that the three Persons were described as follows:
ὁ πατὴρ τῶν ὅλων καὶ δεσπότης θεός, Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς
ὁ σταυρωθεὶς ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, τὸ πνεῦμα
ἅγιον ὃ διὰ τῶν προφητῶν προεκήρυξε τὰ κατὰ
τὸν Ἰησοῦν πάντα,
or, simply, τὸ προφητικόν
any such description, however, in the baptismal formula itself, is improbable;
(d) that it is extremely likely that the christological “kerugma” above
indicated was formally stated as fulfilled prophecy, that is to say, stood as
part of a plan as follows: “The Holy Ghost prophesied etc.”; but we can go no
farther in this direction than the assumption that Justin knew of a “kerugma”; that after the mention of
πατὴρ τῶν ὅλων καὶ δεσπότης,
and Jesus Christ, a “kerugma” of Christ, in the form of fulfilled prophecy or, as the case may be,
in the form of a belief in the prophetic spirit, was added. But the contention
that this μάθημα was a baptismal confession, or, as the case may be, claimed to
be a developed baptismal formula, and that it existed in
a crystallised form at all, is unsupported by any evidence.
(3) As regards Irenaeus, (a) as I have shown in the first article against Zahn
in the Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, Bd. iv. S. 149 ff., we must be
very cautious in drawing conclusions from his “testimonies on behalf of the
baptismal confession”; a very small portion of the material which I collected
from Irenaeus in the treatise on the old Roman symbolPatr. App. Opp. edit. 2, T. i. 2, pp. 123 ff. is sufficient to
determine the “symbol” which he employed; (b) according to Irenaeus i. 9, 4
baptism bestows the κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας; this canon he himself
communicates in i. 10, 1. The form in which he here produces it, supplemented by
the watchwords of his theology, and given in other places with fragmentary variations,
shows that he is compiling it independently out of a large
number of fixed confessional formulas of the Church. Among these may be distinguished:
i. The expanded formula of Hermas.Mand. 1.
2. The formula εἷς θεὸς παντοκράτωρ
united with Johannine expressions or, as the case may be, with
πεποιηκῶς τ. οὐρανὸν
κ. τ. γῆν κ. τ. θαλάσσας καὶ πάντα τ. ἐν αὐτοῖς,
or εἱς μονογενὴς Ἰησοῦς Χριστός.
3. A christological formula of confession (in an historical form), showing a
close relation to the old Roman symbol, but a still closer one to Justin’s.
4. The θεὸς πατὴρ παντοκράτωρ
of the Roman symbol.
5. A formula of confession which to the confession of belief in the One God and One Christ Jesus joined a confession
of belief in the Holy Spirit, and incorporated with this confession the history
of Christ as fulfilled prophecy. As we were enabled to make a similar conjecture
in Justin’s case, so it is probable that not only in Irenaeus’ time but also
in Justin’s a confessional formula existed in the East containing something like the
following:—ἡ εἰς ἕνα θεὸν παντοκράτορα
(or εἰς τὸν πατέρα
τῶν ὅλων καὶ δεσπότην θεὸν)
πίσστις καὶ εἰς ἕνα Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, τὸν
σαρκωθέντα ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν (or ὑπὲρ τῆς ἡμετέρας
σωτηρίας) καὶ εἰς πνεῦμα ἅγιον, τὸ διὰ τῶν
προφητῶν κεκηρυχὸς τὰς οἰκονομίας, τὴν ἐκ
παρθένου γέννησιν κτλ.
From this formula, which Irenaeus made the foundation of his
κανῶν τῆς ἀληθείας, the historico-christological formula of confession containing the sentences about the birth,
suffering under Pontius Pilate, burial, resurrection,
and coming again in glory (in finite verb or, as the case may be, participle) is
perhaps, or even probably, to be distinguished. Parallels are also to be found
for this formula in Justin and Ignatius or, as the case may be, in 1 Cor. xv.
This is as far as the material hitherto discovered will allow us to go on this
subject. That Irenaeus assumed the existence of a symbol, or, in other words,
that the formulas (plans) indicated above were in existence in their
crystallised form, not only cannot be demonstrated but is entirely improbable.
Irenaeus’ whole line of argument must have issued in a different conclusion had
there existed in a fixed form, recognised in his community, what is necessary
for his demonstration, that “Multa,” that is to say, many familiar formulas and short statements of faith,
existed, but no “Multum,” that is to say, that there was no symbol. There is
nothing in the objection that Tertullian proceeds in a similar way, and that he
certainly assumes the Roman symbol to be already known. Tertullian’s references
to a symbol are incomparably clearer.See the evidence adduced in my above-mentioned treatise, and Kattenbusch, i. pp. 141 ff. But that he had to serve up to his
readers as Apostolic tradition the quid pro quo, that is to say, formulas
constructed ad hoc, followed from the fact that the text of the Roman symbol was
insufficient for the theological and anti-Gnostic objects which he had in view.
We may, however, ask whether the Irenaeus of Asia Minor and Gaul had ever heard
of the Roman symbol. In view of the distinct formula θεὸς πατὴρ παντοκράτωρ,
and the way in which he uses
the Roman community as evidence in his argument for tradition, I am disposed to
assume that he had.
Lastly, as regards Clement of Alexandria, there is a still unsettled controversy
as to whether he does not in one place assume the existence of a fixed symbol in
that city. Even if this be so—it seems to me still extremely doubtful—there is
no art which can discover how this symbol ran. It may have been something
entirely different from what we call a symbol. Therefore we may leave it out of
account.
That there existed in Asia Minor, or in Syria, or, in short, in the East before
the beginning of the third century, symbols used as baptismal confessions which
were based upon the baptismal formula, gave the second article in the form of an
historical account, and summarised in the third the
blessings which faith receives, cannot be shown. To prove the existence in the
East at all, in the earliest period, of any fixed crystallised confession, and
therefore of a primitive Eastern symbol closely related to the old Roman one,
but still independent of it, is impossible. Not only can the existence of any
such primitive symbol not be proved, but it is quite improbable, as the history
of the Eastern Church shows in the third century by its silence, and in the
fourth by what it says. Nevertheless the result of our investigations is not
merely negative. On the contrary, we can agree that those who defend the
existence of a primitive typical Eastern symbol are, up to a certain point,
right. There did actually exist in the East (in Asia Minor or, as the case may
be, Asia Minor and Syria), as early as
the beginning of the second century, inter alia a christological
μάθημα, which
is most intimately related to the second article of the Roman creed, and which,
as regards the formulas and details peculiar to it, made its way into the
Eastern symbols of the fourth century. There existed, further, formulas
referring to One God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, and to His Incarnate Son,
which also made their way, and exerted an influence on the whole process of
forming symbols, including many modifications of the Roman symbols in the West.
The exclusively theological tenor of the Eastern symbols in the second article may be traced to the primitive
σαρκωθέντα.
Finally, there existed a formula which asserted of the holy prophetic Spirit the
facts which it proclaimed in regard to Christ. Apart from these leading formulas
the words “descensus” and “catholica” point to the East. But nevertheless
the great feat of having formed the symbol, and of therewith laying the
foundation of all ecclesiastical symbols, remains the glory of the community at
Rome.
When did this happen? We have traced the old Roman symbol to the time of
Tertullian. It is this symbol that he means when he writes de praescr. haer. 36: “Si autem Italiae adjaces,
habes Romam, unde nobis quoque auctoritas praesto est . . . videamus quid didicerit, quid docuerit, cum Africanis quoque ecclesiis
contesserarit. Unum deum dominum novit, creatorem universitatis, et Christum
Jesum ex Virgine Maria filium dei creatoris et carnis resurrectionem . . . et
ita adversus hanc institutionem neminem recipit.” This symbol we unhesitatingly
trace back to about the middle of the second century. Had a symbol been
established in Rome at the time of the fierce struggle with Gnosticism and
Marcionism (about 145-190), it would have taken a different form; on the other
hand, to go back too far beyond the middle of the second century is unwise.
There are a great many things in the Shepherd of Hermas, both as a whole and in
its several parts, which would be difficult to explain if the Roman symbol had
been familiar to the writer. Justin shows us that about the middle of the second
century the distinction between ἐκ and διὰ Μαρίας had not yet been effected. The
omission of Jesus’ baptism by John, and also of the Johannine expression
υἱὸς μονογενής, the omission of the chiliastic hopes, and the sharp distinction
between
ἀναστάντα, ἀναβάντα and
καθήμενον, are facts to be seriously weighed. In
addition, the expression θεὸς πατὴρ παντοκράτωρ has no history behind it,
and it gradually displaced an older expression εἷς θεὸς παντοκράτωρ. This I
have already shown in the Zeitschrift für Theologie and Kirche,Bd. iv. S. 130 ff. in which I
refuted Zahn’s hypothesis that the old Roman symbol originally began with the
words πιστεύω εἷς ἕνα θεὸν παντοκράτορα. The old Roman symbol always ran as it
now runs, but the text of its first article must have made its way in opposition
to an older and very wide-spread form of the confession of God as the Creator.
To Hermas the formula θεὸς πατὴρ παντοκράτωρ is as yet unknown. This also
makes it probable that the symbol originated about the middle of
the second century or shortly before. The text, too, of the Eastern
christological μάθημα, which was presumably known to the author of the old
Roman symbol, is, if it contains Jesus’ Baptism by John and does not mention the
Ascension, older than the Roman symbol, just as the
παθόντα, ἀποθανόντα, as well as
πάλιν and ἐν δόξῃ,
can be put a long way back. Finally, if we examine the Roman symbol clause by
clause, the following facts are established:
(1) The symbol itself is the oldest witness for the formula
θεὸς πατὴρ παντοκράτωρ, which gradually superseded an older form.
(2) υἱὸς ὁ μονογενής is Johannine.
(3) The oldest and frequently recurring formula for the Virgin birth always runs
γεννηθέντα ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου. The
addition of ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου in the “kerugmatic” sentences is relatively late, and presumably comes from the
Gospels.
(4) The ταφέντα there is in like manner late.
(5) The addition of τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ to
ἀναστάντα. Both come from the First Epistle to the Corinthians.
(6) The special prominence given to ἀναβάντα between
ἀναστάντα and
καθήμενον is also relatively late, and shows a desire for completeness which is best
explained by the high regard felt for the only existing account.Acts i.
(7) The enumeration of the blessings of salvation, as given in the third
article, cannot be understood apart from the Pauline Epistles, but it lends a
precision to what was taken from those Epistles by
the particular prominence given to the Resurrection as a Resurrection of the
body. The fact that in the Roman symbol older and shorter “kerugmatic”
sentences were somewhat further developed under the influence of the New
Testament writings, and particularly under that of John, the Synoptists, Paul,
and probably the Acts of the Apostles, makes it unwise to trace the composition
of the symbol backwards beyond the middle of the second century.
To sum up: the symbol originated in Rome about the middle of the second
century. It was based upon the baptismal formula and on confessional formulas of
a summarising character (such as we can identify from the New Testament and from
Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus), which
had been generally handed down, including Eastern formulas (Asia Minor, Syria),
as also largely under the influence of the New Testament writings. Among these
confessional formulas the most important was a christological μάθημα of fairly
fixed form, yet capable of being added to and modified. Its main outlines, I
presume, are recognisable. In Rome itself the Roman symbol was never altered. It
made its way into the Western provinces from the end of the second century
onwards, without raising any claim to have been, in the strictest sense,
composed by the Apostles. That is why it underwent different modifications in
those provinces. (In Rome it was not until some time between 250 and 350 onwards
that it was designated as Apostolic in the strict sense of the term.) Amongst these
modifications, those became historically the most important which derive from
the primitive confessional formulas of the East or, as the case may be, the
μάθημα, namely, “creator of heaven and earth,” “suffered,” “died,” “descended
into hell,” “eternal life,” besides the “catholica”—these are just the
modifications traceable in the Gallic symbols which issue in our Apostles’
Creed—in addition, the “conceptus,” which is obscure in its origin and
otherwise of little importance, and, most perplexing of all, the “communio
sanctorum.” In this connexion may rightly be borne in mind the particularly
close relations existing between Southern Gaul and the East. But an historical
circumstance of very special importance seems also to have played a part. Hitherto I have said nothing about
the Symbol of Nicetas.Caspari, Anecdota, S. 341 ff.; Kattenbusch, i. pp. 108 ff.; Hahn, § 25.
MorinRev. bénédict. Tom. xi. Febr. has made it very probable that Nicetas means the
Nicetas of Remesiana in Dacia, the friend of Paulinus of Nola.His date is the beginning of the fifth century. The
symbol which he adduces can unhappily be no longer reconstructed in detail from
his Explanatio; but so much is certain, that it is closely related to the old Roman
symbol. What is much more interesting, however, is the fact that throughout
(partly word by word) he explains it by the catechising activity of Cyril of
Jerusalem, and in this connexion brings in the sentence “Ergo in hac una
ecclesia crede to communionem consecuturum esse sanctorum.” Whether the
catchwords belong to Nicetas’ symbol is very questionable
(to me improbable); but in any case, so far as their origin is concerned,
their presence there could be explained by reference to Cyril’s words. As there
is a certain relationship between Nicetas’ symbol and the Gallican (we may ask
whether his symbol was not even influenced by Cyril’s), and as connexions
between Gaul and Pannonia are not lacking, the possibility presents itself—more
than this I will not say at present—of conceiving the Gallican symbol, with the
clause “communio sanctorum,” that is to say, our Apostles’ Creed, as having
arisen about the year 500 under the indirect influence of Cyril’s catechising
(carried on throughout the Remesiana in Pannonia and Aquileia). LoofsLoofs, S. 677.
and ITheologische Literaturzeitung, 1894, Kol. 582. have
indicated this possibility independently of each other. At all events a piece of
ecclesiastical “ecumenicity” adheres to a part of the additions which
distinguish our Apostles’ Creed from the old Roman symbol. If “communio
sanctorum” is not to be traced to Cyril, but to be regarded, rather, as a
product of chance, it must be understood in Augustine’s sense (i.e., the Church
as the community of the Saints), or, with Faustus of Rietz, as a fellowship with
the martyrs and specially holy men. ZahnOp. cit. pp. 82 ff. has recently suggested another
derivation, namely, that “communio sanctorum” is
equivalent to τὴν κοινωνίαν τῶν ἁγίων,
the latter meaning “sacramenta.” Sub judice lis est.”
That the Roman Church after the beginning
of the sixth century gradually let itself be separated from and finally
robbed of the symbol which it had previously guarded so faithfully, is a
striking phenomenon which has not yet had its causes clearly explained.
Meanwhile, however, CaspariOp. cit. ii. S. 114 f., iii. S. 201 f., 230 f. has made some very important contributions towards
a solution of the problem. The most critical fact that it was not in the first
instance the longer (Gallican) daughter edition (our Apostles’ Creed) which
displaced the mother symbol but the Nicene-Constantinopolitan, which from the
beginning of the sixth century first took the place of the shorter one in Rome
in the Traditio and Redditio symboli, while in the baptismal interrogation the
old Roman still remained in use. The displacement of the old Roman symbol
by the Constantinopolitan becomes very intelligible, as soon as we consider the
conditions of the time. From the end of the fifth century, under the dominion of
Odoacer and the Ostrogoths, Arianism had impinged upon the Roman Church, and had
become a danger to it. By way of counteracting it the Roman Church will have
resolved to give up its ancient practice, so as in its very baptismal formula to
express its disavowal of Arianism. When three centuries later the church
returned to a shorter symbol, the old Roman one had already retreated into the
background, and the new Roman symbol, which was, in fact, the Gallican, the
Apostles’ Creed, possessed the recommendation of having a series of elaborations
which were wanting in the earlier one, and which now seemed indispensable.
But we may probably also assume—direct information we have, of course, none—that
the Roman Church would have difficulties about accepting the Frankish symbol as
a baptismal one, had it not been recognised as an old acquaintance. It is,
moreover, very probable that there was still enough historical tradition present
in Rome to allow of the Frankish confession reminding people of one that was old
and once highly honoured. The differences were overlooked or else not regarded
as considerable. Thus the legend which had encircled the old symbol with a halo
of glory awoke again around the new one, and again and for a long time became a
power in the Church. Not until the age of the Renaissance and the Reformation
was it exploded.