AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS AND TO THE TE DEUM

BY A. E. BURN, B.D. TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE RECTOR OF kynnersley, WELLINGTON, SALOP EXAMINING CHAPLAIN TO THE LORD BISHOP OF LICHFIELD
First published Methuen & Co 1899.
This Edition prepared for katapi by Paul Ingram 2003.

CHAPTER III

THE HISTORIC FAITH IN THE SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES

I. A theory of growth

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

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

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

Side by side with it must be set the most ancient short Creed of Jerusalem, the origin of which may possibly be sought in the preaching of S. Peter on the day of Pentecost.
To the Baptismal Formula were added only the words,

"one baptism for the remission of sins."

At a later period it too was enlarged on similar lines, either from current teaching or from the Roman Creed.

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

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

Hence arose the fear of committing precious beliefs to writing, which lasted on, as we shall see, to the fourth century. 
So it comes to pass that the earliest forms of complete Church creeds which we can identify with certainty are only found in writings of the fourth century, when Christianity became a permitted religion, and Christian books were brought out freely to the light of day.
It may be questioned whether the reserve which, in the course of the era of persecution, Christian teachers were constrained to maintain, was felt to be as important in the second century.
Justin Martyr does not seem to speak so cautiously as Cyril of Jerusalem. 
Yet he wrote at a time when the coarse hatred of the world had already raised fierce persecutions against the new religion, with its unbending morality and unflinching protest against wickedness in all places.  
Even a tolerant philosopher like Marcus Aurelius might fear social dangers from the rapid increase of close guilds of Christians, acting as a solvent upon a corrupt civilisation that despised itself and suspected others.
Page ^

II. the apologists:

1. Justin Martyr

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

The evidence of his writings is suggestive.
It cannot be called complete.
In fact, it is very puzzling to any who try to make too much of it.
We may classify the passages quoted under two heads:

1. Expansions of the Baptismal Formula;
2. Specimens of Christological teaching.

When Justin speaks of baptism, he states definitely that instruction was given to the candidates, and that a promise was required from them (Apol. i. 61):

As many as are persuaded and believe that these things are true which are taught and said by us,
and promise that they can live thus, are taught both to pray,
and to ask from God with fasting forgiveness of their former sins.

The teaching may have varied, as in Justin's varying expansions of the Baptismal Formula.
But the substance of the teaching plainly included two points, which it is well to emphasize.
The Lord Jesus was worshipped (Dial. 38):

εἶτα ἄνθροωπον γενόμενον, σταυρωθῆναι,
καὶ ἀναβηκέναι εἰς τὸν οὐπανὸν,
καὶ πάλιν παραγίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς,
καὶ προσκυνητὸν εἶναι.

This is a charge put into the mouth of Trypho, but the apologist at once accepts it.
And the Holy Spirit was asserted to possess a distinct individuality (Dial. 36):

καὶ ἀποκρίνεται αὐτοῖς τὸ πμεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἤ ἀπὸ προσώτου του πατρὸς ἤ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἰδίου.

JUSTIN MARTYR. (a) Expansions of the Baptismal Formula

Justin's Christological teaching is found in some five different references to (a) general teaching on the Incarnation,
(b) the fulfilment of prophecy,
(c) (d) the history of the Lord Jesus,
(e) a prayer of exorcism,
(f) an Old Testament type.

JUSTIN MARTYR. (b) Christological Teaching

These passages show marked variations from the text of R.
The order "Jesus Christ" might be explained as the accidental alteration of a copyist, were it not for the fact that in (b) the order is approved by the addition of the word "our ""Jesus our Christ."
And in (f) emphatic prominence is given to the name "Jesus, whom we also knew fully as Christ, God's Son."

Again, in five out of these six passages some reference is found to the Lord's death.
(Zahn quotes four others, Apol. i. 68; Dial. 63, 74, 95.) 
This had been an element in the teaching of Ignatius to the Trallians (c. 9).  
At a later time it was stated in the declaration of the elders of Smyrna against Noetus, and Tertullian found reason to insist on it, in connection with 1 Cor.xv.4, writing against the error of Praxeas. 
But it is never found in R.

The variety of context in which these parallels to the Apostles' Creed are found is an argument against the supposition that Justin professed one such form in a Baptismal Creed. 
It is interesting to note that the most complete specimen (e) is a formula of exorcism, and that Irenaeus at the end of the century spoke of the power of " the name of Jesus Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate" in a similar connection.
(We find traces of such a form in Egypt in the third century. Palladius, Hist, Lausiaca, c. 29. Cf. Kattenbusch, ii. p. 291 n.)
But the wording might just as easily have been borrowed from a fixed formal creed as from current modes of teaching.

There is no proof that Justin's personal creed contained more than "Jesus is the Christ the Son of God."
His use of the words ὁ μογολίας and ὁ μογολεῖν is varied. 
In the first Apology they are naturally referred to confession before a ruler. 
In Dial. 64, the Jew Trypho is represented as connecting the thought with prayer to Christ: οὐ δεόμεθα τῆς ὁ μολογίας αὐτοῦ οὐδε τῆς προσκυνήσεως.
Justin's own use implies that the preaching of Jesus crucified is to lead up to confession of Him as Lord and Christ (Dial. 35):

ὁ μολογοῦντας ἑ αυτοὺς εἵναι Χριστιανοὺς καὶ τὸν σταυρωθέντα Ἰ εσοῦν ὁ μολογεῖν καὶ Κύριον καὶ Χριστὸν.

Again, he writes of guarding such a confession (Dial. 47):

μετὰ τοῦ φυλάσσειν τὴν εἰς τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁ μολογίαν.

In the second Apology the word is used in the sense of teaching. (Kattenbusch, ii. p. 289 n.)
Apparently he laid stress on the act of confessing, rather than any special elaboration of the form.

By an elaborate argument, Kattenbusch (Ib. 279-29S.) seeks to prove Justin's acquaintance with R.
Since he had taught in Rome, this is quite possible, and even probable, if R was composed c. 100.
The most interesting coincidences of language are:

1. Justin's use of σταυρωθῆναιi (Dial. 51, 76, 100) in his quotation of Matt.xvi.21 = Mark viii.31 = Luke ix.22, in place of the word ἀ ποκτανθῆναι of our Textus receptus. 
   This is followed by τῇ τριτῃ ἡ μέρα ἀ ναστῆναι, where Mark (Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort) has καὶ μετὰ τρεῖς ἡ μέρας ἀ ναστῆναι; Matthew, Luke, καὶ τῇ τρίτῃ ἡ μέρα ἐ γερθῆναι (some MSS. of Luke, ἀ ναστῆναι).
2. He speaks confidently of the resurrection of the flesh (Dial. 80):
   ἐ γὼ δὲ καὶ εἴ τινές εἰσιν ὀ ρθογνὼμονες κατὰ πάντα Χριστιανοὶ καὶ σαρκὸς ἀ νάστασιν γενήσεσθαι ἐ πιστύμεθα.
   We may give such coincidences their full value, and yet remain unconvinced that the creed was then used in Ephesus.

(On the other hand, the only test of an Eastern type besides the words "Jesus Christ" and "dead," mentioned above, is the word πάλιν with reference to the Return. Apart from μετὰ δόξης this cannot be said to be conclusive.)

In any case, the testimony of Justin is valuable for the interpretation of the language of R.
He believed in the pre-existence of Christ before the incarnation.  
Thus he writes (Dial. 105): "He was the Only-begotten of the Father of the universe, inasmuch as He was, after a peculiar manner, produced from the Father as His Word and Power."
If the word "only-begotten" had come into R, we may fairly explain it in the sense that Justin vindicates.
If not (p. 62, infra), there still remains the question how to interpret the Divine Sonship taught in R.
And from Justin we learn that it is not to be limited to the human life of Jesus in which it was manifested, though Justin connected it especially with that life. (Dial. 88.)
The Church as yet thought vaguely (Cf. Ps. Clem., 2 Cor.9: Χριστὸς ὁ Κύριος ... ὢ ν μὲν τὸ πρῶτον πνεῦμα ἐ γένετο σάρξ.) about Christ's pre-existent life, but the main point is the fact that it was believed.

The elaborate inquiry contributed to the Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte (III. 1879.) by Bornemann offers an interesting summary of his teaching, formed by extracting all the creed-phrases that are most frequently used.

Πιστεύομεν εἰς (ἐ πὶ) τὸν πατέρα τῶν ὅ λων καὶ δεσπότην Θεόν ‧
καὶ εἰς (ἐ πὶ) τὸν κύριον ἡ μῶν Ἰ ησοῦν Χριστὸν,
τὸν πρητὸτοκον αὐτοῦ υἱὸν,
τὸν (κατὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς βουλὴν) διὰ παρθένου γεννηθέντα
καὶ παθητὸν γενόμενον ἄνθτωπον
καὶ σταυρωθέντα ἐ πὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου καὶ ἀ ποθενὸντα
καὶ ἀ ναστάντα ἐ κ νεκρῶν καὶ ἀ ναβάντα εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν
καὶ δόξης πάλιν παραγενησόμενον (κριτὴν πάντων ἀ νθρώπων).
Καὶ εἰς (ἐπὶ) τὸ ἅγιον προφητικὸν πμεῦμα.

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

Page ^

2. Aristides, AD 140-148

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

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

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

Page ^

3. Irenaeus

Irenaeus was a native of Asia Minor.
In his youth he had been a pupil of Polycarp, and of others who had been disciples of S. John.  
While he was still a young man he migrated to Gaul, and was ordained priest at Lyons.
The first missionaries who came to Gaul seem to have come from Asia Minor, following a great trade route.
The sympathy, which existed between the Churches, was fostered by the letter in which the Christians of Lyons and Vienna described their sufferings during the persecution of AD 177 to their brethren in Asia.
Before this Irenaeus had been sent on an important mission to Rome, and had lectured against heresies.
On his return he was chosen as bishop.

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

IRENAEUS

In the Christological part we note the phrase "Son of God," which was found in Ignatius and Justin. 
Seeing that Irenaeus is the earliest witness for the Eunuch's Creed in Acts ix., there is some ground here for the hypothesis that the only ὁ μολογία or formal confession, which he had been taught from his youth, was of the same simple kind,

"I believe that Jesus is the Son of God."

The fact that the Holy Ghost is not mentioned in his Rule of Faith makes it appear improbable that he is reproducing the creed of his Church in Gaul in a stage of development parallel to that of the Old Roman Creed.
At the same time, there are many phrases which seem to point to acquaintance with the latter, e.g. the exact wording, "One God the Father Almighty," the order of the names "Christ Jesus," e.g. iv.37.2: "Christum Jesum qui sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus est," and the use of "ex" with "Maria uirgine," as in R.

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

Irenaeus lived and wrote during a most critical period.
The spread of Gnosticism threatened to effect what has been called in a clever phrase "the acute Hellenising of Christendom."
(Harnack, D.G.² i.p.186.)  
It was an anti-Judaistic movement, which took shape among Gentile Christians.
In its origin it was not Christian but heathen.
Its fundamental problem, the origin of evil, was solved, not on Christian lines, by the suggestion of a Demiurge.
The founders of Gnostic systems have been classed among "the first Christian theologians."
(Ib. p.191. For the other view, see Seeberg, D.G. p.62.)
But this is a mistake, though the first beginnings of formal theology are found to date from that period. 
Opposition had a stimulating effect upon the minds of Christian teachers.
They picked their words more carefully;
they were led in time to question more thoroughly the validity of their arguments and of their conclusions. 
This is the good side of all controversy seen in its human aspect.
The historian of the creeds, if he still believes in the Holy Ghost, finds here evidence of His working.  
In proportion as a Christian theologian in any age does not enter upon controversy with a light heart, seeking less to win advantage over his adversaries than to witness to the truths which are for him " the master light of all his seeing," he will in all humility gain for himself guidance in dark paths of perilous speculation, and that growth in grace which enables him to win moral influence to stir wills as to move minds.

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

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

III. The Old Roman Creed

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

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

1. Marcellus and Rufinus

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

It is to the credit of an English theologian, Archbishop Ussher, that he was the first to discover that this document, which has been preserved by the historian Epiphanius (Haer. Ix.), did not contain the Creed of Ancyra, but the Creed of the Church in Rome, which Marcellus adopted and made his own.
There are two small variations, the omission of the word "Father" in the first article and the addition of the words "eternal life" in the last.
Probably these were not intentional.
They do not seem to bear any relation to the private speculations of Marcellus, which will occupy our attention presently.
The three MSS in which this part of the text of Epiphanius is preserved come from the same source, and are full of errors.
(Caspari, iii. 105 f.) 
It seems likely enough that these variations are due to a copyist.

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

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

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

Page ^

2. Novation, Dionysius, and Cyprian

We must now follow back the history of the creed, and we may take as our first witness Novatian (c. 260).
He was a priest of the Church of Rome, who held strict views against the restoration of the lapsed to Church privileges.
In consequence he obtained schismatical consecration in opposition to Bishop Cornelius.
His book, de Trinitate, is founded on the teaching of Tertullian, whose phrase regula veritatis, rule of truth, he uses with obvious reference to the creed.
I have quoted the closer parallels on p. 46, supra. (Caspari, iii. 462 n.)
Since the creed was transmitted orally, it is less important to mark the exact words used than to note how exactly Novation teaches the substance of the creed on Creation, Redemption, Sanctification.

The order Christ Jesus, which appears regularly in nearly all forms of the Roman Creed, was used both by Novation and by a contemporary, Bishop Dionysius, who wrote a treatise against the Sabellians, from which Athanasius (Ath. de Decretis, 26.)  quotes an extract in his "Defence of the Nicene Definition."

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

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

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

Page ^

3. Tertullian

In the writings of Tertullian we find a bridge that spans the gulf between the formal quotations of R in the fourth century and the parallels in the writings of Irenaeus and Justin Martyr.
The quotation made by Cyprian, and the less definite testimony of Novatian and Dionysius, other independent support.
(Kattenbusch, ii. pp. 53-101, has made a careful study of all the passages in his writings that have any reference to the creed, and has left little or nothing for other students to do.)

Though a native of Carthage, Tertullian, before his lapse into Montanism, had been ordained priest in Rome.
His varied training, both in the school of Stoic philosophy and at the bar, enabled him to plead for Christian thought and life in the spirit of a true apologist.

In plain words, Tertullian expresses the agreement of the African Church with the Church of Rome in matters of faith.
All who believe have the testimony of truth, which rests on apostolic tradition.
He represents all Churches as turning for guidance to apostolic seesAchaia to Corinth, Macedonia to Philippi and Thessalonica, Asia to Ephesus, the neighbourhood of Italy to Rome (de Praescr. 36):

"Si autem Italiae adiaces, habes Romam, unde nobis quoque auctoritas praesto est.
Quam felix ecclesia cui totam doctrinam apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt, ubi Petrus passioni dominicae adaequatur, ubi Paulus loannis exitu coronatur, ubi apostolus loannes, posteaquam in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est, in insulam relegatur.
Videamus, quid didicerit, quid docuerit, quid cum Africanis quoque ecclesiis contesserauit.
Unum Deum nouit creatorem uniuersitatis et Christum lesum ex uirgine Maria Filium Dei creatoris et carnis resurrectionem."

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

His use of words for the creed is very varied. "Rule of Faith " is a common term, as in later writers. 
He explains that it contains what the Lord ordained (instituit), so that speculation is concerned only with thoughts that lie outside it (de Praescr. 12):

"Quod salua regula fidei potest in quaestionem uenire."

He traces its origin in the teaching of Christ, without showing any acquaintance with the later legend of its composition by the apostles (ib. c.37):

"In ea regula quam ecclesia ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a Deo tradidit."

Again, he calls it the oath of allegiance (sacramentum) imposed on the Christian soldier at the font.

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

De Spect. 4: "Cum aquam ingressi christianam fidem in legis suae uerba profitemur, renuntiasse nos diabolo et pompae et angelis eius ore nostro contestamur."

De Cor. Mil. 3: "Dehinc ter mergitamur, amplius aliquid respondentes quam Dominus in euangelio determinauit."

De Bapt. 13: "Fuerit salus retro per fidem nudam ante Domini passionem et resurrectionem.
At ubi fides aucta est credendi in natiuitatem, passionem resurrectionemque eius, addita est ampliatio Sacramento, obsignatio baptismi uestimentum quodam modo fidei, quae retro erat nuda, nec potentiam habuit sine sua lege.  
Lex enim tinguendi imposita est, et forma praescripta.  
'Ite,' inquit, 'docete nationes, tinguentes eas in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.'"

It would be useless to discuss at this point the many shades of meaning that have been observed in Tertullian's use of the word "sacramentum."
In the last passage quoted it seems to me to correspond closely with the meaning given to it in our Catechism,

"an outward sign of an inward grace."

The creed is the sign; faith enlarged by knowledge of the whole scheme of redemption is the grace that clothes the soul.
The Baptismal Formula supplies the framework, and the birth, passion, and resurrection of the Lord are included in it.

The construction "in sacramenti uerba " (not "uerbis"), "in legis uerba " (not "uerbis"), seems to imply, further, that the baptizer recited the whole creed, to which the baptized only replied with "credo."
Last, and not least important, is this use of the term "symbolum" in his treatise against Marcion (adv. Marc. v.1):

"Quamobrem, Pontice nauclere, nunquam furtiuas merces uel illicitas in acatos tuos recepisti, si nullum omnino onus auertisti uel adulterasti, cautior utique et fidelior in Dei rebus, edas uelim nobis, quo symbolo susceperis apostolum Paulum, quis ilium tituli charactere percusserit, quis transmiserit tibi, quis imposuerit, ut possis cum conatanter exponere."  

Kattenbusch points out that Tertullian is using metaphors from trade, referring to Marcion's former occupation, and that one meaning of the word symbolum was "an agreement."
A passage in Harpocrates (vid. Rape's Lexicon) proves that the Greek word in the plural (τὰ σύμβολα) was used in commercial language for the pleadings which were laid before a court of law in any suit.  
Such an explanation might be given in this case.
The creed was the Church's agreement by which her children were bound to faith in one God. Marcion's teaching of two Gods, for which he claimed the sanction of S. Paul, must be derived from some other source, so Tertullian asks him to show the agreement.

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

What made reply to the Gnostics so difficult was the fact that they still held to the Roman Creed. 
Irenaeus seems to imply this when he writes that Valentinus imitated "nostrum tractatum" (iii.15.2).
Tertullian stated it more distinctly

(adv. Valent. 1): "Si subtiliter temptes (eos) per ambiguitates bilingues communem fidem adfirmant."  

This embittered his opposition to Marcion

(adv. Marc. i. 20): "Marcionem non tam innouasse regulam separatione legis et euangelii, quam retro adulteratam recurasse; ...
(ib. 21): post apostolorum tempera adulterium ueritas passa est circa Dei regulam."

In the latter passage he refers in the context to the teaching of God as Creator, from which Kattenbusch concludes:

1. that his creed contained no definite statement as to the creation;
2. that it contained some expression which Marcion could interpret of his good God; and
3. that he was in no way hindered by the creed from believing in two Gods.

This argument deserves careful consideration.
It raises the two most debatable questions about the creed of Tertullian:
Did it contain unum and patrem in the first article?

(i.) It is quite true that Tertullian lays stress on the work of God in creation with a variety of phrases, which seems to imply that this thought had no fixed form in the creed.  
In all four of the passages that I have quoted in parallel columns there is some such reference. 
It is interesting to note that, in writing against Praxeas, he quoted S. John's words of the office of the Word of God " through whom all things were made," whereas in his controversy with Gnostics it was always the Father to whom he referred.
No one would argue from these passages that the creation was mentioned in the Old Roman Creed, but they offer the obvious explanation of the clause in the later African Creed:
(Katteubusch, i. p. 144, n, 3.) universorum creatorem (Aug. Ps.-Aug. Fulg.), though it is not certain how soon after Tertullian's time it was introduced.

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

In the second passage the phrase delatum ex Spiritu Patris Dei points back to the first article.
Again, in his treatise "On Baptism" he writes of a confession in which the Church is mentioned, and the three heavenly witnesses are involved (de Baft. 6):

"Cum autem sub tribus et testatio fidei et sponsio salutis pignerentur, necessario adicitur ecclesiae mentio, quoniam ubi tres, id est Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, ibi ecclesia, quia trium corpus est."

We may compare a sentence in his treatise "On Prayer," where he passes from the thought of "our Father" in the Lord's Prayer to the creed (de Orat. 2):

"Dicendo autem 'Patrem' 'Deum' quoque cognominamus item in Patre Filius inuocatur ... ne mater quidem ecclesia praeteritur, siquidem in Filio et Patre mater recognoscitur, de qua constat et Patris et Filii nomen."

The combination "Patrem Deum" looks like a reminiscence.
(I owe these references to Harnack's article, Zeit. fur Theol. u. Kirche., 1894, pp. 155 f.)

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

Again, it has been suggested that in the second passage given Tertullian is quoting a sentence from Hermas (Mand. i.) combined with S. John i.1f., as Irenaeus before him had done.
There is no doubt that the earliest compound phrase, so to speak, about the Being of God was "one God Almighty," which is found in the Apocalypse of S.John, Clement, Hermas, etc., and that the introduction of the word "Father" into it involved the abandonment of merely Jewish Monotheism.
But there is no intelligible reason why Christian writers should not continue to use this biblical expression side by side with their confession of the Father;
why Tertullian, in the case before us, should not be supposed to use the words of his own accord. 
There is no proof that he quoted Hermas, and there is no need for it.
We shall return to this question again, when we have to make our final decision as to the original wording of the Old Roman Creed;
but in the meantime, so far as Tertullian is concerned, we must consider it probable that " one" stood in the first article of his creed.

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

The participial construction so marked in the passages quoted, e.g. in the first-quoted natum, crucifixum, resuscitatum, makes it probable that Tertullian was most familiar with the Greek form of the Roman Creed. 
But when we compare his text with that of Marcellus, it seems as if resuscitatum would answer to ἐ γερθέντα rather than to ἀ ναστάντα, receptum to ἀ νελεφθέντα rather than to ἀ ναβάντα. (Caspari, iii. pp.458 ff., Cf. Kattenbusch, i. p. 144.)
Perhaps Tertullian deliberately veiled his allusions to the creed, and this is another proof of the early and deep-rooted fear of writing the creed, which contributed to the awe and reverence in which it was held.

These results may sound somewhat tentative, and so they are. 
But the three words of the creed about which all this discussion is raised form a very small fraction of the total number. 
We may readily satisfy ourselves that Tertullian is a trustworthy witness to the great bulk of an Old Roman Creed substantially the same in form as that which was quoted in full by Marcellus.
And in his argument against Marcion he brings us back in thought to a very early date, the first half of the second century, since Marcion's breach with the Roman Church took place c. AD145.

We may conclude with a most interesting conjecture made by Zahn, which belongs rather to the literary history of Marcion than of Tertullian.
In one passage of the New Testament, as revised by Marcion, we find the mysterious passage, Gal.iv.24, remodelled by the addition of words from Eph.i.21 and others.
We read there about the two covenants:

"The one, from Mount Sinai, which is the synagogue of the Jews after the law, begotten into bondage;
the other, which is exalted above all might, majesty, and power,
and over every name that is named not only in this world,
but also in that which is to come;
which (covenant) is the mother of us all,
which begets us in the holy Church,
which we have acknowledged (or to which we have vowed allegiance)".

Marcion does not say, or rather does not allow the apostle to say, 'which we acknowledge,' but he looks back to the confession and the oath taken once for all with reference to the 'holy Church.'
The word used here, 'repromittere,' 'ἐπαγγέλλεσθαι', describes such an oath, and had been used earlier by Ignatius of the oath taken on the confession of the Christian faith. ...
Marcion thought much of the Church, as he understood her, and considered the Christian relation to her a very close one. ...
As far as I can see, it follows from the passage quoted from his Epistle to the Galatians that the words 'a holy Church' were contained in Marcion's Baptismal Confession, and therefore in the Roman Creed of AD 145." (Zahn, pp. 32 f.)
Page ^

IV. Was the old roman creed ever revised?

An important question must be considered in the light of this evidence.
Was the Old Roman Creed revised during the third century?
There is no special reason why we should believe that what Rufinus says about its immutability was true at every stage of its history.
When he compared it with other forms of Baptismal Confession, with the Aquileian and Eastern Creeds, some of which bore the marks of recent alteration, it was natural to come to this conclusion. 
The comparative freedom from the assaults of heresy which the Roman Church enjoyed during the fourth century, when Rome was the refuge of Athanasius and Marcellus, tended to obscure the fact that during the second and third centuries the city was the favoured resort of false teachers.
Naturally enough, they sought to win adherents in what was then the capital of the empire. 
Thus one reason, which he gives to explain his assertion, falls to the ground, and with it the probability that he had any better proof of the fact.
He also praises the Church of Rome for carefulness about the exact repetition of the creed by catechumens in the presence of the congregation, but this does not prove that similar care had been taken throughout the centuries past. 
Christian common sense looks for continuity of thought rather than of words. 
Otherwise, as Zahn shrewdly remarks, there would have been no history of the development of the creed.

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

The treatise of Tertullian against Praxeas introduces us to the central controversy that at that time disturbed the peace of the Church. 
The simple-minded Christians of the second century had been, so to speak, "naively Monarchian." (Robertson, Athanasius, p. xxiv.)
They had professed their belief in the divinity of Christ and the unity of God. 
The apologists had taught them that the Father and the Son were distinct, but they had not attempted to reconcile the necessary inference that the Son was in some sense subordinate to the Father, with their true Monarchian conviction of the unity of God. 
Reflection led to varying attempts to solve the problem. 
Some teachers identified the one God with the Christ of the Gospels.
They assumed that the Father became incarnate in Christ, whom they therefore regarded as personally Divine. 
The inevitable inference from such teaching, as their opponents at once pointed out, was that the Father suffered, a doctrine abhorrent to Christian common sense.
Praxeas was the first of these modalist Monarchians.  
He arrived in Rome early in the century.
Tertullian says of him:

"unicum Dominum uindicat,
omnipotentem mundi creatorem."

He combined with such teaching strong opposition to Montanism, which was itself the exaggerated expression of another current of Christian thought.

Belief in the Holy Spirit as the Guide of individual souls, was torn from its place in the teaching of Christ to explain and approve the enthusiasm of fanatics who regarded themselves as specially possessed and inspired. 
Tertullian, as a Montanist, thus tersely describes the teaching of Praxeas:

"He expelled prophecy and brought in heresy;
he routed the Paraclete, and crucified the Father."

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

From Tertullian we learn that the leaders of thought in Rome were strongly influenced by the former of these trains of thought. Zephyrinus is reported to have used the formula: "I believe in one God, Jesus Christ."
His successor, Callistus, attempted some form of compromise: "Christ the Divine was distinguished from Jesus the human."
He was thereupon deserted by the teacher Sabellius, who reproached him as inconsistent, and defined further the position of modalist Monarchians, asserting that the Trinity represented successive aspects (πρόσωπα) of the one God.
Hippolytus, a learned Roman theologian, who probably became a rival bishop to Gallistus, confirms Tertullian's statements.

This being the position of parties at the beginning of the second century, we are prepared to discuss Zahn's acute suggestion that the word "one" was omitted from the Roman Creed to counteract Monarchian teaching.
He quotes a passage from Eusebius (Η.E. v. 28. 3, 13.) in which heretics are said to have accused the Roman Church of recoining (παραχαράττειν) the truth like forgers.
What is meant by the word is shown by a countercharge that the heretics had tampered with the text of the Scriptures. (Ib. v.28.19.)

Harnack in reply suggests (Zeit. fur Theol. u. Kirch, iv. 2. 135 f.) that the change complained of was only the addition to the rule of some words like Θεὸν or λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦu as a predicate of Christ.
By the time of Cyprian and Novatian the formula Deus et Dominus noster had passed into the iron mould of Latin ecclesiastical language. (Ib. p. 137.)
At a later time it is found in Spanish symbols (Martin of Bracara), and the creed at the end of the Gallican Sacramentary.
The creed of the Bangor Antiphonary has the strong form, Dominus noster, Deus omnipotens.
Yet no one would argue that these words ever found a place in the Old Roman Creed.
We should therefore conclude that the accusation, which was brought by the dynamic Monarchians, did not apply to the corruption of a creed-text, but to the corruption of the preaching, which was regarded as an exposition of the Baptismal Confession.
Such teaching as that of Hippolytus in a favourite phrase (c. Nod. 8), "Son of God and God," seemed to them a forsaking of the old tradition, the thought (φρόνημα) of the earliest times.
And the error was made worse by the still more precise form of Novatian's teaching in his "Rule of Faith" (c. 9): "Credo in Filium Dei Christum Jesum, Dominum Deum nostrum, sed Dei Filium."

This would be a valid objection if Zahn's theory referred to the opinions of these dynamic Monarchians only or chiefly.
So far as the omission of ἕνα is concerned, they would be neutral in their teaching, because they were secure in their belief in the Divine unity, whereas they called the representatives of the Logos Christology (Hipp., Tert.), Ditheists.
From this point of view it would seem to be against the interests of the latter to object to the assertion "one God."

But it was one thing for the orthodox party to assert this in their own teaching, and quite another to submit to it when forced upon them by Zephyrinus, or by Callistus when he was in that mood.
Harnack himself suggests (P.137.n.1) that the minority may have proposed to strike out ἕνα, and that they eventually gained the day, though the history of their movement remains utterly obscure.
Such an attempt, in opposition to modalist Monarchianism, would not be regarded as an alteration so much as a simplification of the sense to guard against error.
No new doctrine was to be propagated thereby, but the old faith preserved.

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

Zahn raises the objection that if πάτερα had stood in the creed, Hippolytus and Tertullian would have been glad enough to quote it. 
As a matter of fact, they might have quoted it just as well from the later article, "at the right hand of the Father."
But the following passage from Hippolytus reads like a quotation of R (c. Noet. 8): ὁ μολογεῖν πατέρα θεὸν παντοκρατόρα καὶ Χριστὸν Ἰ ησοῦν υἱὸν Θεοῦ Θεὸν ἄ νθρωπον γενόμενον.

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

Similar dependence on Hermas is said to be found in Tertullian, de Praescr. 13 (see p.51, supra), but is very uncertain. 
Irenaeus, however, often quotes πάτηρ with Θεός (e.g. iii. 6. 5):

"Distinxit enim et separauit eos qui dicuntur quidem, non sunt autem dii, ab uno Deo Patre, ex quo omnia, et unum Dominum Jesum Christum ex sua persona firmissime confessus est."

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

ὁ Χριστὸς κατὰ τὴν τοῦ παντοκράτορος πατρὸς δύναμιν δοθεῖσαν αὐτῷ παρεγένετο.

There is yet another question to be raised about the earliest form of the Old Roman Creed. 
Did it contain μονογενῆ (unicum)?
There is no positive proof on either side. 
There is no trace of it in the Rules of Faith in Irenaeus, Tertullian, or Novatian.  
It is wanting in some later African Creeds (Ps. Aug. Serm. 238; Ps. Ambrose), as in the Creeds of Niceta and Faustus.
Yet it cannot be said that this means much. 
These African Creeds are not so important as the African form used by Augustine himself, which contained the word.  
The Creeds of Niceta and Faustus are isolated specimens in this respect, in neither of which is the form quite certain.
Nor is there any special reason why the word should have been introduced into the Roman Creed at this period. 
It was used in the Septuagint (Ps.x.21, xxxv.17) and by S. John, from whose Gospel it probably came into the creed at its making.

Kattenbusch offers an interesting suggestion, that it was connected in the earliest form of the creed with "our Lord" τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ [τὸν] μονογενῆ κύριον ἡ μῶν.
In this case it might have been brought into the creed independently of S. John's Gospel, though he does not think it improbable that that book was received in Rome by the year 100.
At a later period the phrase was connected with the teaching of S. John, and the article was added before κύριον.

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

It is true that the sub-apostolic writers did not use the term, whereas the Valentinians appropriated the name Monogenes for the Aeon Nous.  

"The Catholic writers,"
says Swete, (The Apostles' Creed, p.25.)
"began, although slowly, to reclaim it; Justin uses it sparingly;
it occurs once in the Smyrnean circular on the martyrdom of Polycarp;
in Irenaeus at length it becomes frequent.
Thus it is not unlikely that the word took its place in the vocabulary of the Church by way of protest against the Valentinian misuse of St. John; and the same cause may have gained for it admission to the creed."

Such an explanation would not account for its insertion during the Monarchian controversy, but may suggest the reason why Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Novatian did not refer it to in the Rules of Faith quoted. Gnostic errors survived, and they would be afraid to refer to it openly, lest they should give some handle to their opponents.

We conclude, therefore, that ἕνα, πάτερα and μονογενῆ, were found in the original text of the Old Roman Creed, and that ἕνα was dropped out during the controversy with the modalist Monarchians.
This conclusion is supported by the evidence of an inscription on a tombstone (Baumer, p. 122.), which is supposed to belong to the second or beginning of the third century "Cassius Vitalio qui in unu Deu credidit."
It corresponds to the teaching in the Shepherd of Hermas, which was written in Rome at all events before AD150;

"First of all, believe that God is one."  

So Clement of Rorne wrote in his first Epistle, c. AD100:

"Have we not one God?"

It would be absurd to lay much stress on such testimony, but one may fairly say that it confirms the argument.
Page ^

V. The date of the Old Roman Creed

Though the evidence is scanty, it is generally agreed that a very early date may be assigned to the Old Roman Creed.
We have traced it back through Tertullian to the date of Marcion's arrival in Rome, AD145. 
This fact, that it was in use as a Rule of Faith, enables us to argue with some confidence that the parallels in the writings of Irenaeus and Justin Martyr show acquaintance with it.
We may not be able to prove how far actual quotations of its words extend, but this matters little.
It may be taken for granted that the form came into existence from AD100-120. 
Beyond this date it is not safe to go, because of the silence of the Shepherd of Hermas, and of Clement's first Epistle. Caspari, (Der Glaube an die Trinitat Gottes, sein Vorhaitdensein im ersten christl. Jahrhundert, 1894.) indeed, quotes the oath found in that epistle (c. 58.2):

ζῇ γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς
καὶ ζῇ ὁ κύριος Ἰ ησοῦς Χριστὸς
καὶ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅ γιον ἥ τε πίστις
καὶ ἡ ἐ λπὶς τῶν ἐ κλεκτῶν, 

where the words ἡ πίστις stand in apposition to the preceding sentence. 
He compares with it Jerome against John of Jerusalem (c. 28):

"in symbolo fidei et spei nostras ...
omne dogmatis christiani sacramentum carnis resurrectione concluditur."  

Then lie asks whether these words do not point to the neighbourhood where the Old Roman Creed was composed.  
This is quite probable.
The words prove that theological thought in Rome had been focussed, so to speak, on an expansion of the Baptismal Formula through the addition of words confessing Jesus Christ as Lord, who in the words of S. Paul, 1 Tim.i., "is our hope."
But there is no need to search for the nameless author among the immediate successors of Clement, there is no need to inquire whether he had any colleagues in the task or a model upon which to plan his work. (Kattenbusch, ii. pp. 329 f.)

The internal evidence may be relied on to confirm such a view. 
The simplicity and the monumental terseness of the style, if I may attempt a free rendering of Caspari's phrase "Lapidarstyl," points to the sub-apostolic age. 
There is no mention of God's work in creation, which became an inseparable part of outlines of Christian doctrine after the rise of Gnostic heresies. 
On the other hand, the words "resurrection of the flesh" are not to be considered anti-Gnostic, as some writers have supposed.  
Justin Martyr quotes the words (Dial. 80) with a reference to the chiliastic hope, (Ib. ii. p.335; cf. p.297.) which still lasted on as a part of orthodox belief though the bright dreams of early Christians, of which 1 Thessalonians is so vivid an example, were fast fading away. Clement, too, in his first Epistle, c.26, quotes the words of Job xix.26: καὶ ἀ ναστήσεις τὴν σάρκα μου ταύτην, where the MSS. of the LXX. give το δέρμα or τὸ σῶμα.
This, at all events, shows that the phrase was in current use.

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

It may seem tempting to try to set the date further back still. 
Zahn conjectures the existence of an apostolic archetype, distinguished from the sister forms found c. AD 120 at Rome and Ephesus by the addition (Ignatius, possibly also of some reference to the baptism by John.) of the phrase of "the seed of David," which we noted in the teaching of Ignatius.
He brings together all the evidence that can be obtained from the Epistles to Timothy to support the conjecture that an Apostolic Creed was actually drawn up before S. Paul started on his famous missionary journey. 
But the difficulties in the way of such a theory are very great.
We saw that the New Testament evidence, considered apart from any question of later formulated creeds, led us to conclude that the Baptismal Formula and the simple Christological Confession existed side by side, but were not fused into a creed in apostolic times.  
The inference that the teaching about the Lord's confession before Pilate, and His return to judge, did not stand in a Trinitarian scheme, is very strongly confirmed by the teaching of S. John's First Epistle. 
If the thought of the Only-begotten is S. John's contribution under the Holy Spirit's guiding to the creed, which was to be the root of all reverent speculation in the future, we must allow time for the development of such reflection, and for the transport of Johannine books to Rome.
We are therefore confined to the date AD 100, and in this way freed from the obligation of facing the final and most formidable objection.
If the creed was literally written by the apostles,
how could the next generation have presumed to alter it's wording?
In every Church, not excepting the Church of Rome, later generations still permitted further alterations, consistently if they need only desire to maintain a continuity of sense, impiously if they were really bound by the letter of their law of believing.
Page ^

VI. The old creed or Jerusalem

Two early Creeds of Jerusalem are found in the catechetical lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem.
As a young man he was priest in charge of the catechumens in the great church, which Constantine had built on Golgotha. 
When he speaks of the cross, he reminds his hearers that they stand on holy ground.
His addresses are very earnest and practical. 
He keeps constantly in view the moral training of his hearers, exposed to many temptations.
He scarcely glances at the great dogmatic controversy of the day within the Church. 
But he recognises fully the influence of faith on conduct, and is careful to instruct them according to the proportion of faith preserved in their Baptismal Creeds.
At the same time, he warns them against the strange doctrines of Gnostics, Jews, and Samaritans, which would cut away their historic faith by the roots.

THE OLD CREED OF JERUSALEM

The first form is very short.
It was used apparently at the very moment of baptism.
It is found in a lecture addressed to the newly baptized (Cat. xix.).
He reminds them how they renounced Satan and all his works, turning to the West, the land of darkness.
Then turning to the East, as the land of light, they said:

"I believe in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit,
and in one baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."

They were then baptized and anointed.

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

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