E. Creed of Lucian the Martyr (Antioch).
F. Creed of Arius (Alexandria).
1. One (God), A, B, C, D, E, F.
Maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible
(or a like phrase), A, B, C, D, E.
2. Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, the only begotten (or a like phrase),
A, B, C, D, E, F.
3. Crucified under Pontius Pilate, B, C, D (A, E, F omit because
they are theological creeds. Loofs thinks that the baptismal
creeds on which they are based may have contained the words).
5. Rose the third day, A, B, D, E (F omits "the third day" being
a theological creed; the translation of C is uncertain).
6. Went up, A, B, D, E, F.
+ and ... and ... and, A, B, C, D, E, F.
8. And is coming, B, C, D, E, F; and is about to come, A;
+ again, A, C, D, E, F(B?); + in glory, A, B; with glory, D, E.
10. + Catholic, B, D, F (A, C, E?)
12. + life eternal, B, C; + life of the age to come, D, F.
Sanday (_Journal Theol. Studies_, iii. 1) does not attempt a
reconstruction on this elaborate scale, but contents himself with
pointing out evidence, which Kattenbusch seems to him to have missed,
for the existence of creeds of Egypt, Cappadocia and Palestine before
the time of Aurelian. He criticizes Harnack's theory that there existed
in the East, that is, in Asia Minor, or in Asia Minor and Syria as far
back as the beginning of the 2nd century, a Christological instruction
([Greek: mathema]) organically related to the second article of the
Roman Creed, and formulas which taught that the "One God" was "Creator
of heaven and earth," and referred to the holy prophetic spirit, and
lasted on till they influenced the course of creed-development in the
4th century. He asks, is it not simpler to believe that there was a
definite type in the background?
Another English student, the Rev. T. Barns, engaged specially in work
upon the history of the creed of Cappadocia, points out the importance
of the extraordinary influence of Firmilian of Caesarea in the affairs
of the church of Antioch in the early part of the 3rd century. He is led
to argue that the creed of Antioch came rather from Cappadocia than
Rome. Whether his conclusion is justified or not, it helps to show how
strongly the trend of contemporary research is setting against the
theory of Kattenbusch that the Roman Creed when adopted at Antioch
became the parent of all Eastern forms. It does not, however, militate
against the possibility that the Roman Creed was carried from Rome to
Asia Minor and to Palestine in the 2nd century. It is evidently
impossible to arrive at a final decision until much more spade work has
been done in the investigation of early Eastern creeds. Connolly's study
of the early Syrian creed (_Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, 1906, p. 202) deserves careful consideration. His
reconstruction of the creed of Aphraates is interesting in relation to
the other traces of a Syriac creed form existing prior to the 4th
century.
[I believe] in God the Lord of all, that made the heavens and the
earth and the seas and all that in them is; [And in our Lord Jesus
Christ] [the Son of God,] God, Son of God, King, Son of the King,
Light from Light, (Son and Counsellor, and Guide, and Way, and
Saviour, and Shepherd, and Gatherer, and Door, and Pearl, and Lamb,)
and first-born of all creatures, who came and put on a body from Mary
the Virgin (of the seed of the house of David, from the Holy Spirit),
and put on our manhood, and suffered, _or_ and was crucified, went
down to the place of the dead, _or_ to Sheol, and lived again, and
rose the third day, and ascended to the height, _or_ to heaven, and
sat on the right hand of His Father, and He is the Judge of the dead
and of the living, who sitteth on the throne; [And in the Holy
Spirit;] [And I believe] in the coming to life of the dead; [and] in
the mystery of Baptism (of the remission of sins).
The probable battle-ground of the future between the opposing theories
lies in the writings of Irenaeus. He has most of the characteristic
expressions of the Eastern creeds. He inserts "one" in clause 1 and 2.
He has the phrases "Maker of heaven and earth," "suffered," and
"crucified," with "under Pontius Pilate" after instead of before it.
Probably also he had "in glory" in clause 8. But there is always the
possibility to be faced that Irenaeus drew his creed from Rome rather
than Asia Minor. Kattenbusch does not shrink from suggesting that he
shows acquaintance with the Roman Creed, and that Justin Martyr also
knew it, in which case all the so-called Eastern characteristics have
been imprinted on the original Roman form, and are not derived from an
Eastern archetype. But the ordinary reader need not feel concern about
the future victory of either theory. The plain fact is that the same
facts were taught in Palestine, Asia Minor and Gaul, whether gathered up
in a parallel creed form or not. The contrast which Rufinus draws
between the Roman Creed and others, both of the East and the West, is
justified. In comparison with them it was guarded more carefully from
change.[7] We have yet to inquire how it received the additions which
distinguish the derived form now in use as the baptismal creed of all
Western Christendom. Some had already found an entrance into Western
creeds. We find "suffered" in the creed of Milan, "descended into hell"
in the creed of Aquileia, the Danubian lands and Syria; the words "God"
and "almighty" were shortly added to clause 7 in the Spanish creed;
"life everlasting" had stood from an early date in the African creed.
The creed of Caesarius of Arles (d. 543) proves that these variations
had all been united in one Gallican creed together with "catholic" and
"communion of saints," but this Gallican form still lacked "Maker of
heaven and earth" and the additions in clause 7.
Two newly-discovered creeds help us greatly to narrow down the limits of
the problem. The creed of Niceta of Remesiana in Dacia proves that c.
A.D. 400 the Dacian church had added to the Roman Creed "maker of heaven
and earth," "suffered," "dead," "Catholic," "communion of saints" and
"life everlasting." Parallel to it is the Faith of St Jerome discovered
in 1903 by Dom. Morin.[8]
_The Faith of St Jerome_.
"I believe in one God the Father almighty, maker of things visible and
invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of
God, God of God, Light of Light, almighty of almighty, true God of
true God, born before the ages, not made, by whom all things were made
in heaven and in earth. Who for our salvation descended from heaven,
was conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered by
suffering under Pontius Pilate, under Herod the King, crucified,
buried, descended into hell, trod down the sting of death, rose again
the third day, appeared to the apostles. After this He ascended into
heaven, sitteth at the right of God the Father, thence shall come to
judge the quick and the dead. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, God not
unbegotten nor begotten, not created nor made, but co-eternal with the
Father and the Son. I believe (that there is) remission of sins in the
holy catholic church, communion of saints, resurrection of the flesh
unto eternal life. Amen."
This creed may be the form which Jerome mentions in one of his letters
(_Ep._ 17, n. 4) as sent to Cyril of Jerusalem. It is important as
connecting the creeds of East and West. Since Jerome was born in
Pannonia we may conjecture that he is inserting Nicene phrases from the
Jerusalem creed into his baptismal creed, and that this form added to
Niceta's creed proves that the creed of the Danube lands possessed the
clauses "maker of heaven and earth" and "communion of saints."
The first occurrence of the completed form is in a treatise
(_Scarapsus_) of the Benedictine missionary Pirminius, abbot of
Reichenau (c. A.D. 730). The difficulty hitherto has been to trace the
source from which the clause "maker of heaven and earth" has come into
it. It has been known that the forms in use in the south of France
approximated to it but without those words. In the 6th century we find
creed forms in use in Gaul which include them, but include also other
variations distinguishing them from the form which we seek. The missing
link which has hitherto been lacking in the evidence has been found by
Barns in the influence of Celtic missionaries who streamed across from
Europe until they came in touch with the remnants of the Old Latin
Christianity of the Danube. The chief documents of the date A.D. 700,
which contain forms almost identical with the received text, are
connected with monasteries founded by Columban and his friends: Bobbio,
Luxeuil, S. Gallen, Reichenau. From one of these monasteries the
received text seems to have been taken to Rome. Certainly it was from
Rome that it was spread. We can trace the use of the received text along
the line of the journeys both of Pirminius and Boniface, and there is
little doubt that they received it from the Roman Church, with which
Boniface was in frequent communication. Pope Gregory II. sent him
instructions to use what seems to have been an official Roman order of
Baptism, which would doubtless include a Roman form of creed. Pirminius,
who was far from being an original writer, made great use of a treatise
by Martin of Braga, but substituted a Roman form of Renunciation, and
refers to the Roman rite of Unction in a way which leads us to suppose
that the form of creed which he substituted for Martin's form was also
Roman. It seems clear, therefore, that the received text was either made
or accepted in Rome, c. A.D. 700, and disseminated through the
Benedictine missionaries. At the end of the 8th century Charlemagne
inquired of the bishops of his empire as to current forms. The reply of
Amalarius of Trier is important because it shows that he not only used
the received text, but also connected it with the Roman order of
Baptism. The emperor's wish for uniformity doubtless led in a measure to
its eventual triumph over all other forms.
Nicene Creed.
2. _The Nicene Creed_ of the liturgies, often called the
Constantinopolitan creed, is the old baptismal creed of Jerusalem
revised by the insertion of Nicene terms. The idea that the council
merely added to the last section has been disproved by Hort's famous
dissertation in 1876.[9] The text of the creed of the Nicene Council was
based on the creed of Eusebius of Caesarea, and a comparison of the four
creeds side by side proves to demonstration their distinctness, in spite
of the tendency of copyists to confuse and assimilate the forms.[10]
_Creed of Eusebius, A.D. 325 | _Revision by the Council of Nicaea,
(Caesarea)._ | A.D. 325._
|
We believe | We believe
I. | I.
1. In one God the Father | 1. In one God the Father Almighty,
Almighty, the maker of all | visible the maker of all things
things visible and invisible. | and invisible.
|
II. | II.
2. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, | 2. And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Word of God. | the Son of God, begotten of the
| Father, only begotten, that is
God of God, Light of Light, | of the substance of the Father,
(Life of Life,) only begotten | God of God, Light of Light, very
Son (first-born of all | God of very God, begotten not
creation, before all worlds | made, of one substance with the
begotten of God the Father), | Father, by whom all things were
by whom all things were made; | made, both those in heaven and
all things were made; | those on earth.
3. Who for our Salvation was | 3. Who for us men and for our
incarnate (and lived as a | salvation came down and was
citizen amongst men), | incarnate, was made man,
4. And Suffered, | 4. And suffered,
5. And rose the third day, | 5. And rose the third day,
6. And ascended (to the Father), | 6. Ascended into Heaven,
7. And shall come again (in glory)| 7. Is coming to judge quick and
to judge quick and dead. | dead.
|
III. | III.
8. And (we believe) in (one) Holy | 8. And in the Holy Ghost.
Ghost. |
|
| _Revision by Cyril, A.D. 362.
| Council of Constantinople, A.D.
_Creed of Jerusalem, A.D. 348._ | 381. Council of Chalcedon, A.D.
| 451._
|
I (or We) believe | We believe
I. | I.
1. In one God the Father, | 1. In one God the Father Almighty,
Almighty, maker of heaven | maker of heaven and earth, and
and earth, and of all things | of all things visible and
visible and invisible. | invisible.
|
II. | II.
2. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, | 2. And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God, | the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of His Father, | begotten of His Father before
| all worlds, [God of God,]
| Light of Light,
very God before all worlds, | very God of very God,
| begotten, not made, being of
| one substance with the Father,
by whom all things were made; | by whom all things were made;
3. | 3. Who for us men and for our
| salvation came down from
was incarnate, | heaven and incarnate of the
| Holy Ghost and the Virgin
and was made Man, | Mary, and was made Man.
4. Crucified and buried. | 4. And was crucified also for us
| under Pontius Pilate, and
| suffered and
5. Rose again the third day, | 5. He rose again the third day,
| according to the Scriptures,
6. And ascended into heaven and | 6. And ascended into heaven and
_sat_ on the right hand of | sitteth on the right hand of
the Father, | the Father,
7. And shall come _in glory_ | 7. And He shall come again to
to judge the quick and the | judge the quick and the
dead, whose kingdom shall | dead, whose kingdom shall
have no end. | have no end.
|
III. | III.
8. And in _One_ Holy Ghost, | 8. And in the Holy Ghost, the
_the Paraclete_, | Lord and Giver of Life. who
| proceedeth from the Father
| [_and the Son_], who with the
| Father and the Son together is
| worshipped and glorified,
who spake _in_ the Prophets, | who spake by the Prophets,
9. And in one baptism of | 9. In the Catholic and Apostolic
repentance for remission of | Church.
sins, |
10. And in one holy Catholic | 10. We acknowledge one baptism
Church, | for remission of sins.
11. And in resurrection _of the | 11. We look for the resurrection
flesh_, | of the dead,
12. And in life eternal. | 12. And in the life of the world
| to come.
The revised Jerusalem Creed was quoted by Epiphanius in his treatise
_The Anchored One_, c. A.D. 374, some years before the council of
Constantinople (A.D. 381). We gather that it had already been introduced
into Cyprus as a baptismal creed. Hort's identification of it as the
work of Cyril of Jerusalem is now generally accepted. On his return from
exile in A.D. 362 Cyril 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 Nicaea, and other phrases and clauses
adapted for impressing on the people positive truth." Some of Cyril's
personal preferences expressed in his catechetical lectures find
expression, e.g. "resurrection of the _dead_" for "flesh."
The weak point in Hort's theory was the suggestion that the creed was
brought before the council by Cyril in self justification. The election
of Meletius of Antioch as the first president of the council carried
with it the vindication of his old ally Cyril. Kunze's suggestion is far
more probable that it was used at the baptism of Nektarius, praetor of
the city, who was elected third president of the council while yet
unbaptized. Unfortunately the acts of the council have been lost, but
they were quoted at the council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451, and the
revised Jerusalem Creed was quoted as "the faith of the 150 Fathers,"
that is, as confirmed in some way by the council of Constantinople,
while at the time it was distinguished from "the faith of the 318
Fathers" of Nicaea. One of the signatories of the Definition of Faith
made at Chalcedon, in which both creeds were quoted in full, Kalemikus,
bishop of Apamea in Bithynia, refers to the council of Constantinople as
having been held at the ordination of the most pious Nektarius the
bishop. Obviously there was some connexion in his mind between the creed
and the ordination.
The reasons which brought the revised creed into prominence at Chalcedon
are still obscure. It is possible that Leo's letter to Flavian gave the
impulse to put it forward because it contained a parallel to words which
Leo quoted from the Old Roman Creed, "born of the Holy Ghost and the
Virgin Mary," "crucified and buried," which do not occur in the first
Nicene Creed. If, as is probable, it was from the election of Nektarius
the baptismal creed of Constantinople, we may even ask whether the pope
did not refer to it when he wrote emphatically of the "common and
indistinguishable confession" of all the faithful. Kattenbusch supposes
that Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, or his archdeacon Aetius, who
read the creed at the 2nd session of the council, took up the idea that
through its likeness to the Roman Creed it would be a useful weapon
against Eutyches and others who were held to interpret the Nicene Creed
in an Apollinarian sense. But Kunze thinks that it was not used as a
base of operations against Eutyches because there is some evidence that
Monophysites were willing to accept it. Certainly it won its way to
general acceptance in the East as the creed of the church of the
imperial city; regarded as an improved recension of the Nicene Faith.
The history of the introduction of the creed into liturgies is still
obscure. Peter Fullo, bishop of Antioch, was the first to use it in the
East, and in the West a council held by King Reccared at Toledo in 589.
The theory of Probst that it had been used in Rome before this time has
not been confirmed. King Reccared's council is usually credited with the
introduction of the words "And the Son" into clause 9 of the creed. But
some MSS.[11] omit them in the creed-text while inserting them in a
canon of the faith drawn up at the time. Probably they were interpolated
in the creed by mistake of copyists. When attention was called to the
interpolation in the 9th century it became one cause of the schism
between East and West. Charlemagne was unable to persuade Pope Leo III.
to alter the text used in Rome by including the words. But it was so
altered by the pope's successor.
The interpolation really witnessed to a deep-lying difference between
Eastern and Western theology. Eastern theologians expressed the
mysterious relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son in
such phrases as "Who proceedeth from the Father and receiveth from the
Son," rightly making the Godhead of the Father the foundation and
primary source of the eternally 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 coinherence of the Father in the Son and the Son
in the Father, says that the Spirit receives of both. Augustine teaches
that the Father and the Son are the one principle of the Being of the
Spirit. From this it is a short step to say with the _Quicumque vult_
that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, while guarding the idea that the
Father is the one fountain of Deity. Since Eastern theologians would be
willing to say "proceeds from the Father through the Son," it is clear
that the two views are not irreconcilable.
Athanasian Creed.
3. _The Athanasian Creed_, so called because in many MSS. it bears the
title "The Faith of S. Athanasius," is more accurately designated by its
first words _Quicumque vult_.[12] Its history has been the subject of
much controversy for years past, but no longer presents an insoluble
problem. Critics indeed agree on the main outline. Until 1870 the
standard work on the subject was Waterland's _Critical History of the
Athanasian Creed_, first published in 1723. Having traced "the opinions
of the learned moderns" from Gerard Vossius, A.D. 1642, "who led the way
to a more strict and critical inquiry," Waterland passed in review all
the known MSS. and commentaries, and after a searching investigation
concluded that the creed was written in Gaul between 420 and 430,
probably by Hilary of Arles.
In 1870 the controversy on the use of the creed in the Book of Common
Prayer led to fresh investigation of the MSS., and a theory known as the
"Two-portion theory" was started by C. A. Swainson, developed by J. R.
Lumby, and adopted by Harnack. Swainson thought that the _Quicumque_ was
brought into its present shape in the 9th century. The so-called
profession of Denebert, bishop-elect of Worcester, in A.D. 798 presented
to the archbishop of Canterbury (which includes clauses 1, 3-6, 20-22,
24, 25), and the Treves fragment (a portion of a sermon in _Paris bibl.
nat. Lat._ 3836, _saec._ viii., which quoted clauses 27-34, 36-40),
seemed to him to represent the component parts of the creed as they
existed separately. He conjectured that they were brought together in
the province of Rheims c. 860.
This theory, however, depended upon unverified assumptions, such as the
supposed silence of theologians about the creed at the beginning of the
9th century; the suggestion that the completed creed would have been
useful to them if they had known it as a weapon against the heresy of
Adoptianism; the assertion that no MS. containing the complete text was
of earlier date than c. 813. This was Lumby's revised date, but the
progress of palaeographical studies has made it possible to demonstrate
that MSS. of the 8th century do exist which contain the complete creed.
The two-portion theory was vigorously attacked by G. D. W. Ommanney, who
was successful in the discovery of new documents, notably early
commentaries, which contained the text of the creed embedded in them,
and thus supplied independent testimony to the fact that the creed was
becoming fairly widely known at the end of the 8th century. Other new
MSS. and commentaries were found and collated by the Rev. A. E. Burn and
Dom Morin. In 1897 Loofs, summing up the researches of 25 years in his
article _Athanasianum_ (_Realencyclopadie f. prot. Theol. u. Kirche_,
3rd ed. ii. p. 177), declared that the two-portion theory was dead.
This conclusion has never been seriously challenged. It has been greatly
strengthened by the discovery of a MS. which was presented by Bishop
Leidrad of Lyons with an autograph inscription to the altar of St
Stephen in that town, some time before 814. As M. Delisle at once
pointed out (_Notices et extraits des manuscrits_, 1898), this MS.
supplies a fixed date from which palaeographers can work in dating MSS.
The _Quicumque_ occurs in a collection of materials forming an
introduction to the psalter. The suggestion has been made that Leidrad
intended to use the _Quicumque_ in his campaign against the Adoptianists
in 798. But the phrases of the creed seem to have needed sharpening
against the Nestorian tendency of the Adoptianists. It is more probable
that Leidrad was interested in the growing use of the creed as a
canticle, and was consulted in the preparation of the famous Golden
Psalter, now at Vienna, which contains the same collection of documents
as an introduction. This MS. may now without hesitation be assigned to
the date 772-788. The earliest known MS. is at Milan (_Cod. Ambros._ O,
212, _sup._), and is dated by Traube as early as c. 700.
There is a reference to the _Quicumque_ in the first canon of the fourth
council of Toledo of the year 633, which quotes part or the whole of
clauses 4, 20-22, 28 f., 31, 33, 35 f., 40. The council also quoted
phrases from the so-called _Creed of Damasus_, a document of the 4th
century, which in some cases they preferred to the phrases of the
_Quicumque_. Their quotations form a connecting link in the chain of
evidence by which the use of the creed may be traced back to the
writings of Caesarius, bishop of Arles (503-543). Dom Morin has now
demonstrated ("Le Symbole d'Athanase et son premier temoin S. Cesaire
d'Arles," _Rev. Benedictine_, Oct. 1901) that Caesarius used the creed
continually as a sort of elementary catechism. The fact that it exactly
reproduces both the qualities and the literary defects of Caesarius is a
strong argument in favour of Morin's suggestion that he may have been
the author. Further, Caesarius was in the habit of putting some words of
a distinguished writer at the head of his compositions, which would
account for the fact that the name of Athanasius was subsequently
attached to the creed.
The use, however, of the _Quicumque_ by Caesarius as a catechism may be
explained by the suggestion that it had been taught him in his youth, so
that his style had been moulded by it. He was not an original thinker.
Moreover, the creed is quoted by his rival Avitus, bishop of Vienne
490-523, who quotes clause 22, as from the Rule of Catholic Faith, but
was not likely to value a composition of Caesarius so highly. Morin does
not deal fully with the arguments from internal evidence which point
back to the beginning of the 5th century as the date of the creed. If
the creed-phrases needed sharpening against the revived Nestorian error
of the Adoptianists, it is scarcely likely to have been written during
the generation following the condemnation of Nestorius in 431. Burn
suggests that it was written to meet the Sabellian and Apollinarian
errors of the Spanish heretic Priscillian, possibly by Honoratus, bishop
of Arles (d. 429). He suggests further that the _Creed of Damasus_ was
the reply of that pope to Priscillian's appeal. This would explain the
quotation of the two documents together by the council of Toledo, since
the heresy lasted on for a long time in Spain. But the theory has been
carried to extravagant lengths by Kunstle, who thinks that the creed was
written in Spain in the 5th century, and soon taken to the monastery of
Lerins. There are phrases in the writings of Vincentius of Lerins and of
Faustus, bishop of Riez, which are parallel to the teaching of the
creed, though they cannot with any confidence be called quotations. They
tend in any case to prove that the _Quicumque_ comes to us from the
school of Lerins, of which Honoratus was the first abbot, and to which
Caesarius also belonged.
The earliest use of the _Quicumque_ was in sermons, in which the clauses
were quoted, as by the council of Toledo without reference to the creed
as a whole. From the 8th century, if not from earlier times,
commentaries were written on it. The writer of the Oratorian Commentary
(Theodulf of Orleans?) addressing a synod which instructed him to
provide an exposition of this work on the faith, writes of it, as "here
and there recited in our churches, and continually made the subject of
meditation by our priests." It was soon used as a canticle. Angilbert,
abbot of St Riquier (c. 814), records that it was sung by his school in
procession on rogation days. It passed into the office of Prime,
apparently first at Fleury. In the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. it
was "sung or said" after the Benedictus on the greater feasts, and this
use was extended in the second Prayer Book. In 1662 the rubric was
altered and it was substituted for the Apostles' Creed. It has no place
in the offices of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but is found, without the
words "And the Son" of clause 22, in the appendix of many modern
editions. In the Russian service books it appears at the beginning of
the psalter.
The controversy on its use in modern times has turned mainly on the
interpretation of the warning clauses. No new translation can put an end
to the difficulty. While it is true that the Church has never condemned
individuals, and that the warnings refer only to those who have received
the faith, and do not touch the question of the unbaptized, there is a
growing feeling that they go beyond the teaching of Holy Scripture on
the responsibility of intellect in matters of faith.[13]
On the other hand the creed is a valuable statement of Catholic faith on
the Trinity and the Incarnation, and its use for students and teachers
at least is by no means obsolete. The special characteristic of its
theology is in the first part where it owes most to the teaching of
Augustine, who in his striving after self-knowledge analysed the mystery
of his own triune personality and illustrated it with psychological
images, "I exist and I am conscious that I exist, and I love the
existence and the consciousness; and all this independently of any
external influence." Such a riper analysis of the mystery of his own
personality enabled him to arrive at a clearer conception of the idea of
divine personality, "whose triunity has nothing potential or unrealized
about it; whose triune elements are eternally actualized, by no outward
influence, but from within; a Trinity in Unity."[14]
II. MODERN CONFESSIONS OF FAITH.--The second great creed-making epoch of
Church history opens in the 16th century with the Confession of
Augsburg. The famous theses which Luther nailed to the door of the
church at Wittenberg in 1517 cannot be called a confession, but they
expressed a protest which could not rest there. Some reconstruction of
popular beliefs was needed by many consciences. There is a striking
contrast between the crudeness of much and widely accepted medieval
theology and the decrees of the council of Trent. Even from the Roman
Catholic standpoint such a need was felt. Luther himself had a gift of
words which through his catechisms made the reformed theology popular in
Germany. In 1530 it became necessary to define his position against both
Romanists and Zwinglians.
Augsburg confession.
1. _The Confession of Augsburg_ was drawn up by Melanchthon, revised by
Luther, and presented to the emperor Charles V. at the diet of Augsburg.
Some 21 of its articles dealt with doctrine, 7 with ecclesiastical
abuses. It expounded in terse and significant teaching the doctrine (1)
of God, (2) of original sin, (3) of the Son of God, (4) of
justification..., (21) of the worship of saints. The abuses which it was
maintained had been corrected by Lutheranism were discussed in articles
(1) on Communion in both kinds, (2) on the marriage of clergy, (3) on
the Mass, &c. (see AUGSBURG, CONFESSION OF).
The main difference between these, the first of a long series of
articles of religion and the ancient creeds, lies in the fact that they
are manifestoes embodying creeds and answering more than one purpose.
This is the reason of their frequent failure to convey any sense of
proportion in the expression of truth. The disciplinary question of
clerical marriage is not of the same primary importance as the doctrinal
questions involved in the restoration of the cup to the laity, or
discussed in the subsequent article on the mass. As has been well said
by a learned Baptist theologian, Dr Green: "It was by a true divine
instinct that the early theologians made Christ Himself, in His
divine-human personality, their centre of the creeds."[15] The
fundamental questions of Christianity, exhibited in the Apostles' Creed,
should be marked off as standing on a higher plane than others. In this
respect catechisms of modern times, from Luther's down to the recent
Evangelical catechism of the Free Churches, and including from their
respective points of view both the catechism of the Church of England
and the catechism of the council of Trent, are markedly superior to
articles and synodical decrees. The failure of the latter was really
inevitable. In the 16th century a spirit of universal questioning was
rife, and it is this utter unsettlement of opinion which is reflected in
the discussions of doubts on matters only remotely connected with "the
faith once for all delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). Moreover, fresh
complications arose from the confusion in which the question of the
duties and rights of the civil power was entangled. In an age when the
foundations of the system on which society had rested for centuries were
seriously shaken, such subjects as the right of the magistrate to
interfere with the belief of the individual, and the limits of his
authority over conscience, naturally assumed a prominence hitherto
unknown.[16]
2. _Other Lutheran Formularies._--For the purpose of classification it
will be convenient to discuss Lutheran, Zwinglian and Calvinistic
confessions separately.
Lutheran.
An elaborate _Apology_ for the confession of Augsburg was drawn up by
Melanchthon in reply to Roman Catholic criticisms. This, together with
the confession, the articles of Schmalkalden, drawn up by Luther in
1536, Luther's catechisms, and the Formula of Concord which was an
attempt to settle doctrinal divisions promulgated in 1580, sum up what
is called "the confessional theology of Lutheranism." Of less influence
in the subsequent history of Lutheranism, but of interest as used by
Archbishop Parker in the preparation of the Elizabethan articles of
1563, is the confession of Wurttemberg. It was presented to the council
of Trent by the ambassador of the state of Wurttemberg in 1552. Its
thirty-five articles contain a moderate statement of Lutheran teaching.
Zwinglian and Calvinist.
3. _Zwinglian and Calvinistic Confessions._--The confession of the Four
Cities, Strassburg, Constance, Memmingen and London, was drawn up by M.
Bucer and was presented to Charles V. at Augsburg in 1530. These cities
were inclined to follow Zwingli in his sacramental teaching which was
more fully expressed in the Confession of Basel (1534) and the First
Helvetic Confession (1536). Calvin's views were expressed in the
Gallican Confession, containing forty articles, which was drawn up in
1559, and was presented both to Francis II. of France and to Charles IX.
On the same lines the Belgian Confession of 1561, written by Guido de
Bres in French, and translated into Dutch was widely accepted in the
Netherlands and confirmed by the synod of Dort (1619). The second
Helvetic Confession was the work of Bullinger, published at the request
of the Elector Palatine Frederick III. in 1566, and was held in repute
in Switzerland, Poland and France as well as the Palatinate. It was
sanctioned in Scotland and was well received in England.
These confessions teach the root idea of Calvin's theology, the
immeasurable awfulness of God, His eternity, and the immutability of His
decrees. Such strict Calvinism was the strength also of the Westminster
Confession (see below), but was soon weakened in Germany. This same
Elector Frederick invited two young divines, Zacharias Ursinus and
Caspar Olevianus, to prepare the afterwards celebrated Heidelberg
catechism, which in 1563 superseded Calvin's catechism in the
Palatinate. While Calvin began sternly with the question: "What is the
chief end of human life?" Ans.: "That men may know God by whom they were
created,"--the Heidelberg catechism has: "What is thy only comfort in
life and death?" Ans.: "That I with body and soul, both in life and
death, am not my own, but belong to my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ."
This catechism has been called the charter of the German Reformed
Church. It contains three divisions dealing with (1) man's sin, misery,
redemption, (2) the Trinity, (3) thankfulness, under which is included
all practical Christian life lived in gratitude for mercies received.
Articles of religion.
4. _English Articles of Religion._--The ten articles of 1536 were drawn
up by Convocation at the bidding of Henry VIII. "to stablysh Christian
Quietnes and Unitie." They exhibit a traditional character, a compromise
between the old and the new learning. Thus the doctrine of the Real
Presence is asserted, but no mention is made of Transubstantiation.
Medieval ceremonies are described as useful but without power to remit
sins. Two years later, after negotiations with the Lutheran princes, a
conference on theological matters was held at Lambeth with Lutheran
envoys. Thirteen articles were drawn up, which, though never published
(they were found among Cranmer's papers at the beginning of the 19th
century), had some influence on the forty-two articles. Some of them
were taken from the confession of Augsburg, but the sections on Baptism,
the Eucharist and penance, show that the English theologians desired to
lay more emphasis on the character of sacraments as channels of grace.
The Statute of the Six Articles (1539), "the whip with six strings," was
the outcome of the retrograde policy which distinguished the latter
years of Henry VIII.
With the accession of Edward VI. liturgical reforms were set on foot
before an attempt was made to systematize doctrinal teaching. But as
early as 1549 Cranmer had in hand "Articles of Religion" to which he
required all preachers and lecturers to subscribe. In 1552 they were
revised by other bishops and were laid before the council and the royal
chaplains. They were then published as "Articles agreed on by the
bishops and other learned men in the Synod of London." But there is
considerable doubt whether they really received the sanction of
Convocation (Gibson, p. 15). They were not devised as a complete scheme
of doctrine, but only as a guide in dealing with current errors of (i.)
the Medievalists and (ii.) the Anabaptists. Under (i.) they condemned
the doctrine of the school authors on congruous merit (Art. xii.), the
doctrine of grace _ex opere operato_ (xxvi.). Transubstantiation
(xxix.). Under (ii.) they laid stress on the fundamental articles of the
faith (Art. i.-iv.), affirmed the Three Creeds (vii.), since many
Anabaptists held Arian and Socinian opinions which were rife in
Switzerland, Italy and Poland, condemning also their views on original
sin (viii.), community of goods (xxxvii.), and on other subjects in
articles which do not mention them by name.
The revision undertaken in 1563 by Archbishop Parker, aided by Edm.
Guest, bishop of Rochester, shows "an attempt to give greater
completeness to the formulary," and to make clearer the Catholic
position of the Church of England. For the clause (Art. xxviii.) which
denied the Real Presence was substituted one by Guest with the desire
"not to deny the reality of the presence of the Body of Christ in the
Supper, but only the grossness and sensibleness in the receiving
thereof." At the same time the substitution of "Romish doctrine" for
"doctrine of School authors" (Art. xxii.) marks an effort to define the
line of the Church of England sharply against current Roman teaching.
The revision was passed by Convocation and again revised in 1571, when
the queen had been excommunicated by papal bull, and an act was passed
ordering all clergy to subscribe to them. They have remained unchanged
ever since, though the terms of subscription have been modified.
An attempt was made to add nine articles of a strong Calvinistic tone,
which were drawn up by Dr Whitaker, regius professor of divinity at
Cambridge, and submitted to Archbishop Whitgift. They were rejected both
by Queen Elizabeth, and, after the Hampton Court Conference petitioned
about them, by King James I.
The first Scottish confession dates from 1560. It is a memorial of the
intellectual power and enthusiasm of John Knox. It exhibits the leading
features of the Reformed theology, but "disclaims Divine authority for
any fixed form of church government or worship." It also asks that "if
anyone shall note in this our confession any articles or sentence
repugnant of God's Holy Word, that it would please him of his gentleness
and for Christian charity's sake, to admonish of the same in writing,"
promising that if the teaching cannot be proved, to reform it. Between
this and the Westminster Confession must be noted the first Baptist
confession, published in Amsterdam in 1611. It shows the influence of
Arminian theology against Calvinism, which was vigorously upheld in the
_Quin-particular_ formula, put forward by the synod of Dort in 1619 to
uphold the five points of Calvinism, after heated discussion, in which
English delegates took part, of the problems of divine omniscience and
human free-will.
Westminster Confession.
5. _The Westminster Confession_ (1648), with its two catechisms, is
perhaps the ablest of the reformed confessions from the standpoint of
Calvinism. Its keynote is sovereignty. "The Decrees of God are His
eternal Purpose according to the Counsel of His Will, whereby for His
Own Glory He hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass." Man's part is
to accept them with submission. As the Anglican divines soon ceased to
attend the assembly, and the Independents were few in number, it was the
work of Presbyterians only, the Scottish members carrying their proposal
to make it an independent document and not a mere revision of the
Thirty-nine Articles. After discussions lasting for two years it was
debated in parliament, finished on the 22nd of March 1648, and was
adopted by the Scottish parliament in the following year. It is the only
confession which has been imposed by authority of parliament on the
whole of the United Kingdom. This lasted in England for ten years. In
Scotland its influence has continued to the present day, contributing
not a little to mould the high qualities of religious insight and
courage and perseverance which have honourably distinguished Scottish
Presbyterians all the world over. This was the last great effort in
constructive theology of the Reformation period. When Cromwell before
his death in 1658 allowed a conference to prepare a new confession of
faith for the whole commonwealth, the Westminster Confession was
accepted as a whole with an added statement on church order and
discipline. We must note, however, that the Baptist divines who were
excluded from the Westminster Assembly issued a declaration of their
principles under the title, "A Confession of Faith of seven
Congregations or Churches in London which are commonly but unjustly
called Anabaptists, for the Vindication of the Truth and Information of
the Ignorant."
Two other declarations may be quoted to show how necessary such
confessions are even to religious societies which refuse to be bound by
them. In 1675 Robert Barclay published an "Apology for the Society of
Friends," in which he declared what they held concerning revelation,
scripture, the fall, redemption, the inward light, freedom of
conscience.
In 1833 the Congregational Union published a Declaration or Confession
of Faith, Church Order and Discipline. It was prepared by Dr George
Redford of Worcester, and was presented, not as a scholastic or critical
confession of faith, but merely such a statement as any intelligent
member of the body might offer as containing its leading principles. It
deals with the Bible as the final appeal in controversy, the doctrines
of God, man, sin, the Incarnation, the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus
Christ, "both the Son of man and the Son of God," the work of the Holy
Spirit, justification by faith, the perpetual obligation of Baptism and
the Lord's Supper, final judgment, the law of Christian fellowship. The
same principles have been lucidly stated in the Evangelical Free Church
catechism.
Greek church.
6. _Confessions in the Eastern Orthodox Church._--The Eastern Church has
no general doctrinal tests beyond the Nicene Creed, but from time to
time synods have approved expositions of the faith such as the
Athanasian Creed (without the words "And the Son"), and the Orthodox
Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church. This was the
work of Petrus Mogilas, metropolitan of Kiev, and other theologians. It
was written in 1640 in Russian, was translated into Greek, and approved
by the council of Jassy and the patriarchs of Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. It was affirmed by the council of
Jerusalem in 1672, which also affirmed the Confession of Dositheus,
patriarch of Jerusalem. Both of these confessions were drawn up to
confute the teaching of a remarkable man who had been patriarch of
Constantinople, Cyril Lucar. He was a student of Western theology, a
correspondent of Archbishop Laud, and had travelled in Germany and
Switzerland. In 1629 he published a confession in which he attempted to
incorporate ideas of the reformers while preserving the leading ideas of
Eastern traditional theology. The controversy chiefly turned on the
question of the necessity of episcopacy. Dositheus taught that the
existence of bishops is as necessary to the Church as "breath to a man
and the sun to the world." Christ is the universal and perpetual Head of
the Church, but he exercises his rule by means of "the holy Fathers,"
that is, the bishops whom the Holy Ghost has appointed to be in charge
of local churches.
Mention may also be made of the longer catechism of the Orthodox
Catholic Church compiled by Philaret, metropolitan of Moscow, revised
and adopted by the Russian Holy Synod in 1839. The Church is defined as
"a divinely-instituted community of men, united by the orthodox faith,
the law of God, the hierarchy and the sacraments."
Roman Catholic.
7. _Roman Catholic Formularies._--For our present purpose the distinctive
features of Roman Catholicism may be said to be summed up in the decrees
of the council of Trent and the creed of Pope Pius IV. The council sat at
intervals from 1545-1563, but there was a marked divergence between the
opinions advocated by prominent members of the council and its final
decrees. Cardinal Pole had to leave the council because he advocated the
doctrine of justification by faith. Even at the later sessions the
cardinal of Lorraine with the French prelates supported the German
representatives in requests for the cup for the laity, the permission of
the marriage of priests, and the revision of the breviary. Finally the
decisions of the council were promulgated in a declaration of XII.
articles, usually called the Creed of Pius IV., which reaffirmed the
Nicene Creed, and dealt with the preservation of the apostolic and
ecclesiastical traditions, the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures
"according to the sense which our Holy Mother Church has held," the seven
sacraments, the offering of the mass, transubstantiation, purgatory, the
veneration of saints, relics, images, the efficacy of indulgences, the
supremacy of the Roman Church and of the bishop of Rome as vicar of
Christ. To this summary of doctrine should be added the dogmas of the
immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin declared in 1854, and of
papal infallibility decreed by the Vatican council of 1870.
_Conclusion._--In this survey of Christian confessions it has been
impossible to do more than barely name many which deserve discussion.
This is a subject which has grown in importance and is likely to grow
further. The very intensity of that phase of modern thought which
declaims fervently against all creeds, and would maintain what George
Eliot called "the right of the individual to general haziness," is
likely to draw all Christian thinkers nearer to one another in sympathy
through acceptance of the Apostles' Creed as the common basis of
Christian thought. In the words of Hilary of Poitiers, "Faith gathers
strength through opposition."
The question at once arises. Can the simple historic faith be maintained
without adding theological interpretations, those arid wastes of dogma
in which the springs of faith and reverence run dry? The answer is No.
We cannot ask to be as if through nineteen centuries no one had ever
asked a question about the relation of the Lord Jesus Christ to the
Father and the Holy Spirit. If we could come back to the Bible and use
biblical terms only, as Cyril of Jerusalem wished in his early days, we
know from experience that the old errors would reappear in the form of
new questions, and that we should have to pass through the 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 is "of one substance with the Father." In the words of Hilary again:
"Faithful souls would be contented with the word of God which bids us:
'Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Ghost.' But also we are drawn by the faults of
our heretical opponents to do things unlawful, to scale heights
inaccessible, to speak out what is unspeakable, to presume where we
ought not. And whereas it is by faith alone that we should worship the
Father and reverence the Son, and be filled with the Spirit, we are
now obliged to strain our weak human language in the utterance of
things beyond its scope; forced into this evil procedure by the evil
procedure of our foes. Hence what should be matter of silent religious
meditation must now needs be imperilled by exposition in words."
The province of reverent theology is to aid accurate thinking by the use
of metaphysical or psychological terms. Its definitions are no more an
end in themselves than an analysis of good drinking water, which by
itself leaves us thirsty but encourages us to drink. So the Nicene Creed
is the analysis of the river of the water of life of which the Sermon on
the Mount is a description, flowing on from age to age, freely offered
to the thirsty souls of men.
This justification of the ancient creeds carries with it the
justification of later confessions so far as they answered questions
which would be fatal to religion if they were not answered. As Principal
Stewart puts it very clearly: "The answer given is based on the
philosophy or science of the period. It does not necessarily form part
of the religion itself, but is the best which with the materials at its
command, in its own defence and in its love for truth, the religion (and
its advocates) can give. But the answers may be superseded by better
answers, or they may be rendered unnecessary because the questions are
no longer asked. Thus the Calvinism of the 16th and 17th centuries
elaborated answers to questions, which if no attempt had been made to
answer them, would have perplexed earnest souls and condemned the
system; but many parts of the system are now obsolete, because the
conditions which suggested the questions which they sought to answer no
longer exist or have no longer any interest or importance."
LITERATURE.--See J. Pearson, _Exposition of the Creed_ (new ed.,
1849); A. E. Burn, _Introduction to the Creeds_ (1899), and _The
Athanasian Creed_ in vol. iv. of _Texts and Studies_ (1896); H. B.
Swete, _The Apostles' Creed_ (1899); F. Kattenbusch, _Das apostolische
Symbol_ (1894-1900); C. A. Heurtley, _Harmonia Symbolica_ (1858): C.
P. Caspari, _Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der
Glaubensregel_ (Christiania, 1866); and _Alte und neue Quellen_
(1879). T. Zahn, _Das apostolische Symbolum_ (1893); C. A. Swainson,
_The Nicene and Apostles' Creed_ (1875); G. D. W. Ommanney, _The
Athanasian Creed_ (1897); B. F. Westcott, _The Historic Faith_ (1882);
J. Jayne, _The Athanasian Creed_ (1905); J. A. Robinson, _The
Athanasian Creed_ (1905); E. C. S. Gibson, _The Three Creeds_ (1908);
F. J. A. Hort, _Two Dissertations_ (1876); D. Waterland, _Crit. Hist._
edited by E. King (Oxford, 1870); F. Loofs and A. Harnack articles in
Herzog-Hauck's _Realencyklopadie_ ("Athanasianum" and
"Konstantino-politanisches Symbol") (1896), &c.; K. Kunstle,
_Antipriscilliana_ (Freiburg i. B., 1905); A. Stewart, _Croall
Lectures_ (in the press); S. G. Green, _The Christian Creed_ (1898);
P. Hall, _Harmony of Protestant Confessions_ (London, 1842); F.
Kattenbusch, _Confessionskunde_ (Freiburg i. B., 1890); Winex's
_Confessions of Christendom_ (Eng. trans., Edinburgh, 1865); A.
Seeberg, _Der Katechismus der Urchristenheit_ (Leipzig, 1903); F.
Wiegand, _Die Stellung des apostolischen Symbols_ (Leipzig, 1899); H.
Goodwin, _The Foundations of the Creed_ (London, 1889); T. H. Bindley,
_The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith_ (London, 1906); J. Kunze,
_Das nicanisch-konstantinopolitanische Symbol_; S. Baeumer, _Das
apostolische Glaubensbekenntnis_ (Mainz, 1893); B. Doxholt, _Das
Taufsymbol. der alten Kirche_ (Paderborn, 1898); L. Hahn, _Bibliothek
der Symbole u. Glaubensregeln_ (Breslau, 1897); A. C. McGiffert, _The
Apostles' Creed_ (Edinburgh, 1902); and F. Loofs, _Symbolik_ (Leipzig,
1902). (A. E. B.)