CHAPTER V - OUR NICENE CREED

HOME | Contents | << || I. The Council of Alexandria | II. The Revised Creed of Jerusalem | III. The Council of Constantinople | IV. The Council of Chalcedon | V. Later History: the Filioque clause | VI. Conclusions | Appendices || >> |

I. The Council of Alexandria

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

The Creed of the Nicene Council was an elaborate dogmatic formulary constructed to meet a particular crisis, to be read with its anathemas. During thirty years it had held its own, and the tenacity and loyalty of its defenders through this long period of doubtful conflict won for it a sanction which no Council of Bishops, however learned, or spiritually minded, or unanimous, could bestow on a new confession. Leaders of Christian thought, who most dreaded this new advance in theological analysis, had come round to the opinion that its phrases, though not scriptural, conveyed the meaning of Scripture. 
Men who had been reared in a very different climate of thought, whose faculties had been trained to a high level of discernment in the best schools of Greek philosophy, fully recognised its value as a bulwark against the assaults of heathenising theology, a sign-post warning the traveller against the errors of a false logic. Such were Basil and the Gregories. 
Nor was it only accepted in the interests of the higher theology. A hard-working parish priest like Cyril of Jerusalem, whose mind was set on the teaching of a practical religion, a preacher of the gospel in all simplicity, came to find in it a remedy for the present distress, a clue to escape from the long labyrinth of competing creeds in which he unwillingly found himself turned adrift.

The triumph of Athanasius and his great Western ally Hilary was assured. But in the hour of victory they showed a wise moderation. They did not make of their creed a mere Shibboleth to be thrust upon a new generation anyhow. They cared more for deeds than words. The grace, which enabled so-called semi-Arians to suffer for their faith and hope in Christ, was precious in their sight. They feared to break the bruised reed or quench the smoking flax. With rare insight into the bearing of differences in theological expression, and tender sympathy for all fellow-seekers after truth, Hilary in Asia Minor, Athanasius from his hiding-places in the Egyptian desert, laboured in the work of conciliation. Is there not pathos, is there not power, in these words of Hilary de Synodis? They form the conclusion of his appeal (c. 91) to first principles of theology as an eirenicon:

"I have never heard the faith of Nicaea save on the eve of exile. The Gospels and Apostles have instilled into me the meaning of same in substance and like in substance."

For the former term he had suffered exile, but he was not hardened into a bigot; he was ready to accept like in substance as a stepping-stone of faith from men whom he regarded as honest.

Athanasius showed the same magnanimity in his treatise de Synodis, in which "even Athanasius rises above himself."

"No sooner is he cheered by the news of hope than the importunate jealousies of forty years are hushed in a moment, as though the Lord had spoken peace to the tumult of the grey old exile's troubled soul." [Gwatkin, Studies, p.176.]

He turned to the semi-Arians with a careful defence of the of ὁ μοούσιον. He was successful in his appeal.

"Not only did many of the semi-Arians (e.g. the fifty-nine in 365) accept the ὁμοούσιον, but it was from the ranks of the semi-Arians that the men arose who led the cause of Nicaea to its ultimate victory in the East." [Robertson, Athanasius, p.449.]

The death of Constantius in AD361 became a turning point in the history of the controversy, because the way had been paved for a new alliance and an immediate advance. Exiled bishops were everywhere recalled to their sees. Athanasius was back at his post in twelve days, and in a few months had summoned, early in 362 at Alexandria, "a Synod of Saints and Confessors," which, though small in numbers, had exceptional influence. Jerome writes enthusiastically that, "it recovered the world from the jaws of Satan." [Adv. Lucif, 20.] An interesting record of their discussions is preserved in the tome, or concise statement, which they sent to the divided Church in Antioch. 
Guided by Athanasius, they took a wide outlook on ecclesiastical affairs. Thus they advocated acceptance of the Nicene formula as the terms of reunion. They denounced Sabellianism as the trend of thought in some quarters towards the heresy afterwards connected with the name of Apollinaris of Laodicea, whose legates were present at the Council. 
But they were careful to explain in what way the terms ὑπόστασις and οὔσια might be distinguished, so that those who clung to the term μία ὑπόστασις (= οὔσια) might not be offended when they heard others say τρεὶς ὑποστάσεις, meaning not three substances but three subsistences. Their chief concern, however, was the state of affairs in Antioch, where a band of irreconcilable Eustathians under their priest Paulinus, who sent legates to the Council, refused to communicate with the Bishop Meletius. They urged reconciliation. Meletius had been in exile for the true faith, and was returning to take charge of the congregation in the Old Church, which had been infected with heresy, but should now be restored to communion with the faithful remnant under Paulinus.

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

Basil, who had been convinced by the words of Athanasius in his de Synodis that "co-essential" was the term less open to abuse than others, led the way in Cappadocia, where he seems to have introduced the Nicene Creed. He wrote in AD 373:

τοὺς ἣ προληφθέντας ἑ τέρα πίστεως ὁ μολογία καὶ μετατίθεσθαι πρὸς τὴν τῶν ορθῶν συνάθειαν βουλομένους. ἣ καὶ νῦν πρῶτον ἐ ν τῇ κατηχήσει τοῦ λόγου τῆς ἀ ληθείας ἐ πιθυμοῦντας γενέσθαι, διδάσκεσθαι χρὴ τὴν ὑ πὸ τῶν μακαρίων πατέρων ἐν τῇ κατὰ Νίκαιάν ποτε συγκροτηθείσῃ συνόδῳ γραφεῖσαν πίστιν. 
[Ep. 125.1; cf.140.2, quoted by Kattenbusch, i. pp.346 f.]

II. The Revised Creed of Jerusalem

By far the most important was the revision of the Creed of Jerusalem, which in a former chapter we gleaned from the Catecheses of Cyril. It is found in a treatise called "The Anchored One" (Ancoratus), which was written by Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, about the year AD 374. He wrote for those who had been tossed on a sea of doubts and fears, but had found an anchor of the soul. He was a travelled man, and learned; in pedantry a contrast to Athanasius; in temper violent, but a friend of good men. He introduced into his book two creeds.

The former of these is our Nicene Creed, commonly called the Constantinopolitan Creed, which I will print side by side with the Creed of Jerusalem, all common words being underlined, with a straight line if they are repeated exactly, with a wavy line if they are not. All the words which are found in the original Nicene Creed are pointed out by means of underlying dotted lines, so that it is possible to see at a glance to what extent it has been quoted. 
I have not thought it worthwhile to include small variations found in the text of Epiphanius, which are as likely as not due to an interpolator. [Kattenbusch, i. p.235.] They are - Art. 1, οὐρανοῦ + τε; Art. 2, αἰώνιων + τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός; ἐγένετο + τά τε ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ.

OUR NICENE CREED

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

We gather from Epiphanius that the creed had been introduced into his diocese as a Baptismal Creed before his consecration, and that he recognised in it the Apostolic Creed as explained by the Nicene Council. 
He adds to it their anathemas with variations; e.g., ἢ κριστὸν ἢ  τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀ λλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀ ναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ ἐ κκλησία he reads ῥ ευστον ἢ ἀ λλοιωτὸν τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ υἱὸν τούτους ἀ ναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ καὶ ἀ ποστολικὴ ἐ κκλησία.

The longer creed, which follows, is a free paraphrase of the original Nicene Creed.  
It seems to have been his own composition for the use of catechumens who had held heretical opinions. 
It is introduced with the words: "We and all orthodox bishops, in a word, the whole holy Catholic Church, offer to candidates for baptism in accordance with the faith quoted of these holy Fathers," etc. It is verbose and wearisome. As it is printed in Hahn,³ p.135, it need not be reprinted here, but a word may be added about a form closely related to it, the so-called "Interpretation of the Creed" formerly ascribed to Athanasius. This is probably an adaptation by some followers of Epiphanius [Kattenbusch, i. 303 ff.]. The Armenian scholar Catergian suggests that it was introduced into Armenia in the sixth century, and formed the groundwork of the later Armenian Creed.

It is to the credit of an English scholar, Professor Hort, that he was the first to point out that our Nicene Creed, which was transcribed by Epiphanius in AD 374, was not the work of the Council of Constantinople. His theory connecting it with Cyril of Jerusalem has been accepted widely by German and English critics, with some differences as to detail. Kattenbusch writes of it: "The only wonder is that it was not discovered before."

Hort's theory may be summarised as follows. Epiphanius had lived for some time in Palestine, and shows a knowledge of circumstances relating to Jerusalem, Eleutheropolis in Judaea, near to his birthplace, and Caesarea. He gives a list of Bishops of Jerusalem who lived through the troublous times. In AD 377 he corresponded with Basil about dissensions among the brethren on the Mount of Olives. 
It is therefore easy to understand how the revised Creed came into his hands.

It is also possible to connect it with Cyril, who, on his return to his diocese in AD362-364, would find "a natural occasion for the revision of the public creed by the skilful insertion of some of the conciliar language, including the term which proclaimed the restoration of full communion with the champions of Nicaea, and other phrases and clauses adapted for impressing on the people positive truth."

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

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

The most remarkable change, however, is the substitution of νεκρῶν - nekron for σάρκος, in accordance with his constant practice (xviii.1-21), and his interpretation εἰς σάρκος ἀ νάστασιν τοῦτ' ἐ στι τὴν τῶν νεκρῶν.

Other changes may be traced to the following sources: ἐ πὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ ἀ ποστλοκὴν, ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος to the Creed of the Apostolic Constitutions, together with ἐ κ τῶν οὐρανῶν, ὑ πὲρ ἡ μῶν, παθόντα, πάλιν (μετὰ δόξης); the omission of μετανοίας has a parallel in the Mesopotamian Creed; the omission of παράκλητον seems to be "necessitated by the accompanying enlargement."

Kattenbusch's proposal to restore the text of the Old Jerusalem Creed from the text of the revised form has been discussed above (Chap.III. p.68). 
It is most ingenious, but does not explain the facts so simply as Hort's theory. 
This is particularly the case with the phrase σαρκοθέντα ἐ κ πνεύματος ἁ γίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου. "In extant creeds," according to Hort, "this combination is unique." The revised Mesopotamian Creed has σαρκοθέντα ἐ κ πνεύματος ἁ γίου. In Cat.iv.9, Cyril wrote γεννηθέντα ἐ ξ ἁ γίας παρθένου, followed after two lines by σαρκωθέντα ἐ ξ αὐτῆς ἀ ληθῶς. So we see how the thought shaped itself in his mind. 
The form γεννεθέντα ἐ κ ... καὶ ... , from which he advanced to the other, is frequently found. [Hort quotes Origen's Rule of Faith, Marcellus, Athelstan's Psalter, Creed of Nike, 359; Julianus of Edanum; Paulinus of Antioch, in his assent to the tome of the Council of Alexandria, 362; Athanasius, c. Apol. i.20, p.938 E, etc.] He seems to have wished to guard in the new combination either against Docetic teaching, or against the theory, put forward at this time in the name of Apollinaris, that our Lord's body had a heavenly origin. The phrase σαρκωθεὶς (σάρκωσις) ἐξἁγ. παρθένου Μαρίας. Parthenou Marias occurs often in epistles bearing the name of Julius of Rome, which show an Apollinarian tendency.

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

III. The Council of Constantinople

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

The revival of Arianism under Valens had not proved serious. It was the work of courtiers, and had no root. Nicene principles spread quietly on all sides. An important series of Synods was held at Rome under Damasus in the course of the years AD369-376. Their discussions did not merely cover old ground, but included the new questions raised by Apollinaris and Macedonius. Their interest in Church affairs was far-reaching. The second Synod addressed a letter to the bishops in Illyria respecting an outbreak of Arianism, of which they had been informed by brethren among the Gauls and Bessi. [The old reading in Mansi, III.443, made no sense, "the brethren in Gaul and Venice." The Benedictines of Monte Cassino have found the new reading Spicilegium, Casinense.] Zahn [Neue Kirchl. Zeit. vii.102.] suggests that their information may have been derived from Niceta, Bishop of Remesiana, who-worked among the Bessi. He also infers that the spreading of Arian principles south of the Danube may have been the result of the devoted labours of Ulphilas. This is likely. In 378 an influential Synod was held at Antioch on the Orontes, which failed to end the schism between the followers of Meletius and Paulinus, but agreed to sign the tome of the Roman Synod of 369. Now, it is an interesting fact that the name Niceta Macedonius is found among the names of the bishops present at that Synod. [The full list of names has never been published, but I have found it in Codd. lot. Paris. 3836 and 4279.] And it fits in very well with Zahn's theory to suppose that, as he brought informa?tion to the Roman Synod in 369, so he supported its Acts at Antioch in 378. It is quite true that such lists are often unreliable, but we have the positive testimony of his writings to prove acquaintance with the discussions of this Roman Synod on the one hand, and with the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem on the other. This gives some confirmation of the suggestion, which is only offered because we so greatly need new light on the negotiations carried on by Damasus with Eastern bishops, and must follow up every possible clue.

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

He convened a great Council at Constantinople, to which he invited Damasus with other Western bishops. It has been suggested that Damasus was badly advised as to the course of events in the East. If it were true, it would not be surprising. We hardly know to what extent the emperor was influenced by the political aim of attaching to himself the powerful support of orthodox Eastern bishops. [Duchesne, Autonomies Ecclesiastiques, Egl. sep. p.176.] It is certainly remarkable that when the Council met in the autumn of 381 he received Meletius, who was made president, with special favour.

The triumph of Meletius brought with it the signal vindication of Cyril of Jerusalem, whose orthodoxy was formally recognised by the Council. Hort conjectures that charges were laid against him by envoys from Jerusalem, or by Egyptian bishops, and that Gregory of Nyssa [Gregory of Nyssa, in a letter written about this time, dissuaded his brethren in Cappadocia from undertaking a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, where, he said, affairs were in confusion.] defended him, while the Council giving judgment in his favour may have expressed approval of his creed. This would explain how the creed came to be attributed to Gregory [Niceph.-Callistus, Hist. Eccl..18.], and how it could have been copied into the Acts of the Council, from which it was afterwards extracted by Aetius at the Council of Chalcedon. We know that the Council of Constantinople, on its own account, only ratified the original Nicene Creed.

We cannot linger over the discussions of the Council prolonged by the death of Meletius. He was succeeded by Gregory Nazianzen, who has left in his famous discourse a vivid picture of the dissensions that led to his resignation. The pride of Eastern prelates, who boasted that the sun rose in the East as the home of light and learning, was rebuked by the reminder that Christ was crucified in the East. 
This is a commentary on the refusal of Western bishops to attend this Council. There is little doubt that a complete rupture was threatening between East and West. The Meletian schism was perpetuated by the consecration of Flavianus for the See of Antioch; and the letter, which was sent to the Synod of Rome, asking for the recognition of Flavianus, together with Cyril and Nectarius the new Bishop of Constantinople, arrived after the reception of his rival Paulinus.

Paulinus was accompanied to Rome by Epiphanius and Jerome (Ep. 68), who had been staying in Constantinople. They travelled by way of Thessalonica, where Paulinus received the famous letter from Damasus, Dilectissimo fratri Paulino Damasus, which is often quoted in Collections of Canons, and is also to be found in the history of Theodoret. [v.11.] The greater part consists of a series of anathemas, which express very accurately the dogmatic standpoint reached by the Western Synods, especially in regard to the Incarnation and the Holy Spirit. [Cf. Harnack, D.G. ii.p.271, n.1.]

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

Rade [Damasus, pp.107, 118 f., 133.] makes the interesting suggestion that the so-called 5th Canon of the Council of 381 really belongs to this second Synod of Constantinople, and represents some concession to the followers of Paulinus. "The tome of the Westerns" might refer to this letter from Damasus.
The Canon is as follows:

Περὶ τοῦ τόμου τῶν Δυστικῶν καὶ τοὺς ἐ ν Αντιοχ εία ἀ πεδεξάμεθα τοὺςμιὰν ὁ μολογοῦντας πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ πνεύματος Θεότητα.

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

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

One thing is clear. Our Nicene Creed does not represent a mere compromise between the new theologians of the East, Basil, the Gregories, and Cyril on the one side, and the Macedonians, representing the latest advance of Arian heresy, on the other. The letter of Damasus urged that the ὁμοουσία of the Holy Spirit should be asserted against them. This was a logical deduction from the confession of the ὁμοουσία of the Son, which had been made by Cyril and his friends. It is true that the Macedonians could sign Cyril's Creed so far as the teaching on the Holy Spirit is concerned. But the fact remains, that their heresy is of a later date than the creed itself, which cannot be expected to condemn them any more than it might be expected to condemn Nestorius. It is therefore a mistake to talk of any surrender of Athanasian principles. The creed cannot have been brought up as a formula for union (Unionsformel) between the orthodox semi-Arians and Pneumatomachi [Harnack, D.G. ii.267.], because the latter were definitely condemned.

IV. The Council of Chalcedon

We must pause to consider what was the Baptismal Creed of Constantinople at this time. 
Kattenbusch [Kattenbusch, i.p.366.] has suggested that Gregory Nazianzen introduced the original Nicene Creed. 
It will be convenient to call this Creed N, reserving the letter C for the so-called Constantinopolitan Creed. 
This would be natural under the circumstances of Gregory's call to rule the small company of the orthodox in Arian times. And there are some probable quotations, e.g. Orat. xl.:

Πιστεύε τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸν προαιώνιον λόγον, τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐ κ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀ χρόνως καὶ ἀ σωμάτως, τοῦτον ἐ π' ἐ σχάτων τῶν ἡ μερῶν γεγενῆσθαι διά σε καὶ υἱὸν ἀ νθρώπου, ἐ κ τῆς παρθένου προελθόντα Μαρίας ἀ ρρήτως καὶ ἀ ρυπάρως ... ὅ λον ἄ νθρωπον τὸν αὐτὸν καὶ Θεὸν ... τοσοῦτον ἄ νθρωπον διά σε ὅ σον σὺ γίνῃ δι' ἐ κεῖνον Θεός. Τοῦτον ὑ πὲρ τῶν ἀ νομιῶν ἡ μῶν ἧ χθαι εἰς θάνατον, σταυρωθέντα τε καὶ ταφέντα ... καὶ ἀ ναστάντα τριήμερον, ἀ νεληλυθέναι εἰς τοὺς οἠπανοὺς ... ἥ ξειν τε πάλιν μετὰ τῆς ἐ νδόξου, αὐτοῦ παρουσίας, κρίνοντα ζῶντας καὶ νεκροὺς ... Δέχου πρὸς τούτοις ἀνάστασιν, κρίσιν, ἀνταπόδοσιν.

It is true that there is a passage in Chrysostom's sixth Homily on the Epistle to the Colossians (c. AD399), in which he seems to quote the words "eternal life" from a creed. But he might quote these from the revised Creed of Antioch.

In AD430, Nestorius, at the Council of Ephesus, quoted the words σαρκωθέντα ἐ κ πνεύματος ἁ γίου καὶ Μαρίας τῦς παρθένου from N, to the amazement of Cyril of Alexandria, who quoted the correct form (adv. Nest. i. 8). It does not follow that Nestorius was here quoting C. Variations soon crept into copies of N. Hort points out that the copy of N quoted at the fifth session of the Council of Chalcedon was "encrusted with Constantinopolitan variations, including this." [He quotes a MS. in the Cambridge University Library which does not contain this particular phrase, nor four of the other interpolations, but retains as many more.] At all events, it is certain that Nestorius intended to quote N, for in his letter to Pope Caelestine he quoted the name sentence "from the words of the holy Fathers of Nicaea."

A new argument has been advanced by Kunze [Marcus Eremita, p.161 ff.] to prove that Nectarius had introduced C into Constantinople. He shows that a certain Galatian called Nilus, perhaps from Ancyra, who had held high office in Constantinople, and afterwards went to live as a monk on Mount Sinai, quoted C as his creed. He might just as likely have come across it on his travels.

Kunze [p.169.] also quotes the evidence of Proclus, Bishop of Constantinople 434-446, and of Marcus the hermit, who had lived in Ancyra, and was a pupil of Chrysostom. The facts of the life of Marcus are so uncertain that it is not safe to speculate much about his creed, and one sentence, τὸν ἐ κ Μαρίας γεννεθέντα, certainly points to N rather than C. Theodotus of Ancyra (430-440) speaks of N as the current creed.

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

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

When we reach the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, the history of C comes out into clearer light. We come upon a reference to it in the minutes of the first meeting. Diogenes, Bishop of Cyzicus, accused Eutyches of falsehood in denying that the faith of the Nicene Council could receive any additions.

"It received an addition from the holy Fathers because of the perversities of Apollinarius and Valentinius and Macedonius, and men like them; and there have been added to the symbol of the Fathers the words, 'who came down and was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary.' ... The holy Fathers at Nicaea had only the words, 'He was incarnate,' but those that followed explained it by saying, 'of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary.'" [Mansi, vi.632.]

Diogenes appears to quote C, not a revised text of N, because he says it was enlarged by holy Fathers, and the reference to Macedonius seems to imply that he included in the text further teaching on the Holy Spirit. The Egyptian bishops contradicted him, on the ground that Eutyches had correctly quoted the creed, which to them meant N, and that no addition could be made.

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

At the next session, Eunomius, Bishop of Nicomedia, recited N. It was received with much enthusiasm. 
A chorus of voices exclaimed:

"This we all believe, in this we were baptized, in this we baptize, this taught the blessed Cyril, this is the true faith. ... Pope Leo so believes."

Then Aetius, Archdeacon of Constantinople, read C as

"the holy faith, which the 150 holy Fathers set forth in harmony with the holy and great Synod at Nicaea."

This also was greeted by some voices with:

"This is the faith of all, this is the faith of the orthodox, so we all believe."

There does not seem to be any special reason why we should expect it to be received with the same enthusiasm as N. Reference had been made to the archives, and it was generally agreed that it was "the exposition of the 150." There is no need to impute dishonest motives to Aetius [Swainson, p.121.], as if he had hatched a plot for palming off a new Constantinopolitan Creed upon the Church by forging minutes of the former Council. 
The facts are plain. Constantinopolitan churchmen had naturally a greater interest in the Council of AD 381 than the representatives of other Churches. So they pressed for recognition of the creed, which they had somehow come to regard as its work. In their definition the two creeds were not identified, but C was treated as an instruction, while the faith of the 318 Fathers was to remain inviolate. Thus the way was prepared for subsequent confusion of the two creeds, but the approval stamped upon C was not the result of mere ignorance or political chicanery. Aetius knew what he was about, and most probably the Pope's legates had some reason for their consent. Either the Council of AD 381 had sent it to Damasus with their vindication of Cyril of Jerusalem, or he had learnt to value it through Epiphanius.

Some eighty-five years pass before we hear of C again, at the Council of Constantinople in AD535, when it was said that the 150 Fathers confirmed the symbol of the 318. After another eighteen years, at the Council of 553, it was finally identified with N, and regarded, to quote Hort's words, "as an improved recension of it."

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

V. Later History: The "Filioque" clause

The liturgical use of the Nicene Creed can be traced back to the fifth century. Peter Fullo, Bishop of Antioch, introduced it at every service. [ἐν τάσῃ συνάξει, Theodoras Lector, ii. p.566, ed. Valerius.]
Some years later the custom spread to Alexandria. 
In AD511, Timothy, Bishop of Con?stantinople, introduced a more frequent use in his diocese, where it was the custom only to recite it on the Thursday in Holy Week. In this case it was certainly N which was meant under the title "the faith of the 318," but the text might have been corrupted by those additions, which made the subsequent identification of N and C so easy.

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

The first mention of its introduction into the liturgy of a "Western Church is found in the records of the famous Third Council of Toledo, AD589, when the Visigothic King Reccared, in the name of his nation, renounced Arianism. The Canon is worth quoting in full.

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

It has been pointed out that John, Abbot of Biclaro [Pusey, "On the clause 'and the Son,'" p.184.], who was highly esteemed by Reccared, and was made Bishop of Gerona shortly after the Council, had recently returned from Constantinople, where he had resided for seventeen years. In his Chronicle John notes that the younger Justinian had introduced this custom into Eastern Churches. It seems probable that the Canon was passed under his influence, and a very important question is raised: "Could he have been ignorant of the true text?" It is generally supposed that this Council promulgated the additional words "and the Son " in the clause dealing with the Procession of the Holy Spirit. There can be no doubt that they believed in the doctrine involved, because they stated it plainly in their 3rd Canon, in which they anathematised all who did not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or that He is co-eternal with the Father and the Son, and co-equal.

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

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

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

Eastern theologians expressed it in the phrase, "Who proceedeth from the Father and receiveth from the Son" (Ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐ κπορευόμενον, καὶ ἐ κ τοῦ Υἱοῦ λαμβανόμενον), which is first found in the longer Creed of Epiphanius. The Cappadocian Fathers expressed it under the metaphor of "successive dependence," ὥ σπερ ἐξἁ λύσεως [Basil, Ep. 38, p.118 D., quoted by Robertson, Athanasius, p.xx.], using the words of John xiv.11, but arguing that the Godhead of the Father was the one primary source of the derived Godhead of the Son and the Spirit.

Western theologians approached the problem from another point of view. 
Hilary, starting from the thought of Divine self-consciousness as the explanation of the co-inherence of the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father, says distinctly that the Spirit receives of both. [Op. hist. frag. 2.]

Augustine teaches that the Father and the Son are the one principle of the Being of the Holy Spirit [De Trin. v.13.]. Thus he brought men to the threshold of the later controversy. But it was not merely his own private speculation. The same teaching had been given in Gaul years before the publication of his work on the Trinity.

Victricius of Rouen, by birth a Briton, had taught, before AD 400, that

"the Holy Spirit is truly of the Father and the Son, and thus the Father and the Son are in the Holy Spirit." [De Laude Sanctorum, c.iv., ed, Tougard, Paris, 1895.]

The unknown author of the Quicunque uult, if he lived in the first half of the fifth century, accurately summed up the teaching of the Western theology in a sentence which was soon found useful by Auitus of Vienne in his controversy with Burgundian Arians:

"The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding."

A Spanish bishop, Pastor, whose confession was quoted by a Spanish Council of Toledo in AD447 against the Priscillianists, seems to have taught the same doctrine. [Hahn,⁸ p.209, "a Patre Filioque procedens." Some MSS. omit Filioque. The reading is defended by Florez, Espana sagrada theatre geogr. hist. de la Iglesia de Espana, vi.77, against Quesnel, Opp. .Lewis M. Diss.xiv.]

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

A century later the English Synod of Heathfield, in AD 680, upheld the doctrine,

"glorifying the Holy Ghost proceeding in an inexpressible manner from the Father and the Son, as those holy apostles and prophets and doctors taught whom we have above mentioned." [Bede, Hist. eccl. iv.17.]

Thus the English Church has been, as it were, cradled in this faith, though it does not follow that the interpolation had yet been made in the creed. The earliest Anglo-Saxon version of the creed, which is found in an eleventh-century MS. of AEIfric's Homilies, contains it.

Nearly another century had passed before the question was disputed. We are told in the Chronicle of Ado of Vienne that a controversy between the Greeks and the Romans arose at the Synod of Gentilly in AD767. Ambassadors from Constantine Copronymus were present, and reproached the Westerns with adding to the creed. After this the matter was not suffered to rest. At the Council of Friuli, Paulinus, Bishop of Aquileia, drew up a clear statement justifying the insertion of the words. He maintained that the 150 holy Fathers had made additions to the faith,

"as if expounding the meaning of their predecessors. ... But afterwards too, on account, forsooth, of these heretics, who whisper that the Holy Ghost is of the Father alone, and proceeds from the Father alone, there was added, 'who proceedeth from the Father and the Son.' And yet those holy Fathers are not to be blamed, as if they had added anything to or taken anything away from the faith of the 318 Fathers, who had no thought on Divine subjects contrary to their meaning, but in an honest manner studied to complete their sense without spoiling it."

He justifies the addition by quoting John xiv.11, with the explanation:

"If, therefore, as He Himself testifies, the Father is inseparably and substantially in the Son, and the Son in the Father, how can it be believed that the Holy Ghost, who is consubstantial with the Father and the Son, does not always proceed essentially and inseparably from the Father and the Son?"

But the view so ably defended by Paulinus, one of the leading theologians of the brilliant circle which Charles the Great had gathered round him, was not yet held in Rome. In fact, some years previously, Pope Hadrian had been taken to task by the king for expressing approval of a confession put forth by Tarasius, Bishop of Constantinople, in which the words occur, "who proceedeth from the Father by the Son." The Pope in reply quoted passages from Athanasius, Eusebius, and Hilary, in defence of Tarasius. 
It may seem strange that the Pope did not quote the Nicene Creed in his reply, less probably in fear of the king than in despair of explaining the interpolation. His successor. Pope Leo Ill., was quite consistent in admitting the truth of the doctrine of the Double Procession, which he called "one of the more abstruse mysteries of the faith," while he refused to admit the words into the creed. We can understand why his legatees were authorised, at the Council of Frankfort in AD794, to accept the strong statements of the doctrine put forward both in the libellus of the Italian bishops against Elipandus, the Adoptionist, and in the Synodical letter of the bishops of Gaul and Germany.

A more critical discussion followed at the Council of Aachen in AD 809. The Latin monks of the monastery on Mount Olivet had been called heretics because they interpolated the words in their creed, and sang it as they had heard it sung in the royal chapel. They sent to Rome for advice, and asked that the emperor might be informed, since they had received from him two works in which the clause was found, a homily of S. Gregory and the rule of S. Benedict. They also quoted, as containing it, the Quicunque uult, and a dialogue of S. Benedict, which the Pope had given them. The Pope duly informed the emperor, who thereupon summoned the Council, which supported the monks and sent an embassy to the Pope. But Leo took the bold line of urging that the clause should be expunged from the creed, 'though the doctrine might be taught. His biographer says - that he set up two silver shields in the Basilica of S. Peter, on which the creed was inscribed in Greek and Latin. [Anastasius, in Vita Leonis; Migne, Patrol, lat. 128,1238. Lumby proves from the testimony of S. Peter Damian that this was the Constantinopolitan Creed. - Hist. Creeds, ed. ii.p.98.]

 We can readily understand that the object was to perpetuate the pure text.

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

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

These are the addition of the words "God of God" and the omission of the word "Holy" in the clause referring to the Church. They are both found in the text quoted at the Synod of Toledo in AD589. The former was obviously derived from the text of the first Nicene Creed. From the first it had been implied in the words that follow: "Very God of Very God." The latter was certainly an accidental alteration, since the word stood in the original Creed of Jerusalem, and there could be no reason for its omission in the revised Creed.

VI. Conclusions

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

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

Too much has been made of the omission of the words ἐ κ τῆς οὐσίας, which Athanasius is supposed to have thought quite as important as ὁ μοούσιος. Harnack goes so far as to say that a kind of semi-Arianism, under the title of Homo-usianism ( = confession of ὁμοιούσιος), has been made orthodox in all Churches [D. G, ii.269.]. This, if true, would be, as he suggests, a biting satire on the churchman's confidence in the victory of faith formuIated. But we have found no reason to suppose that the creed was a concordat between orthodox, semi-Arians, and those who doubted the divinity of the Holy Spirit at the Council of Constantinople or before. We must not confuse the issues. Athanasius accepted the semi-Arian alliance on the basis of the confession of ὁμοούσιος. It stood on record that the Council had added ἐ κ τῆς οὐσίας against the original Arians. [Specially against Eusebius of Nicomedia.] It the same difficulties arose again, let them be met in the old way. As to the future, which was unknown, the wisdom of Athanasius was justified by the use of the term "consubstantial" to guard the Godhead of the Holy Ghost.

Objections are often raised to the importation of Greek metaphysics into the creed of the Christian religion. There would be some reason to object if the Church had stopped there. This was not the case. 
Athanasius and his allies had safeguarded belief in the divinity of our Lord. Their use of the metaphysical term "substance" was a means to an end.

"The theology of Athanasius and of the West is that of the Nicene formula in its original sense. The inseparable unity of the God of revelation is its pivot. The conception of personality in the Godhead is its difficulty. 
The distinctness of the Father, Son, and Spirit is felt (ἄ λλος ὁ Πατήρ, ἄ λλος ὁ υἱός), but cannot be formulated so as to satisfy our full idea of personality. 
For this Athanasius had no word; πρόσωπον meant too little (implying, as it did, no more than an aspect possibly worn but for a special period or purpose), ὑπόστασις (implying such personality as separates Peter from Paul) too much."
[Robertson, Athanasius, p.xx.]

On this mysterious subject there were profound thoughts latent in the writings of Hilary, who had been led to faith in the Blessed Trinity by meditation on the idea of Divine self-consciousness. He had neither time nor means to work them out, hampered as he was by controversy, and, to some extent, dependent on Origen. Where Greek metaphysics failed, the strong intellect of Augustine took up the task, and in his great work On the Trinity made his contribution to the development of the doctrine of Divine Personality from the new vantage ground of Christian psychology.

The second thought, which needs emphasizing, relates to the future use of this creed as a bond between divided Churches. 
Duchesne [Autonomies Ecclsiastiques, Egl. sep. p.83.] has a most interesting passage on the difference between the theologies of East and West, which can be traced back to the fourth century, and even to the third. In the West, consubstantiality is regarded as the essence of the mystery of the Trinity. The idea of Divine Unity is cultivated above all, the idea of Triune Personality being subordinated to it. 
Western theologians think of the Trinity as a necessity of Divine life, - to use a technical term, as immanent, an abiding reality. 
On the other hand, Eastern theologians start from the thought of the eternal distinctions (hypostases), reconciling them as best they can with their idea of Divine Unity. They think of the doctrine of the Trinity as an explanation of the creation, as oeconomic, manifested in the work of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 
To this day they cling to the point of view attained by the Cappadocian Fathers, and reject the Filioque, which, apart from controversy as to its introduction into the creed, is a watchword of Western theology. Duchesne suggests that some taint of semi-Arianism is the cause of their opposition. Surely this is to erect a barrier, which Athanasius refused to build. 
The eloquent words of Duchesne, "Faith unites, theology sometimes separates us," express the whole gist of Athanasius's dealing with the semi-Arians. We must be careful not to read the present into the past. 
The shadow of the Filioque controversy had not yet passed over the Church. 
We may fully agree as to the importance of the truth which those words teach, and yet shrink from branding with the reproach of semi-Arianism a Church which refuses to use them. 
Logically, we should have to extend our suspicion to the whole creed, which we all use, since it originated in a semi-Arian circle. 
The fact is, however, that in it and through it the semi-Arians became Catholics. From this Catholic standpoint began, it is true, a divergence of views, represented in the teaching of Augustine and John Damascene.  These are the really antagonistic theologies which are confronted to-day, and which need closer study than they have received, by contrast as well as by comparison. It is no use to explain away words. The ideas, which they express more or less imperfectly, are imperishable, and will reappear in a new dress. 
It would be disastrous to cut out the Filioque, for in so doing we should be disloyal to the truths, which our fathers have been at pains to learn. What is needed is statement, frank explanations on both sides. The report of the Bonn Conference of 1872 showed that agreement of interpretation is at least possible.
We do not teach that there are two founts of Deity, confessing with S. Paul, "One God the Father, of whom are all things." In regard to the manifestation of God in creation and revelation, we confess with the Eastern Church, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. This is their distinctive line of thought, and the conclusion is valid. 
Only, we note that, along another line of thought, uplifted to the contemplation of the mystery of Divine life, they should acknowledge the procession of the Spirit from the Son as a true inference from belief in the Divine Coinherence. In the words of the great Cyprian let us agree:

"Saluo iure communionis diuersa sentire."

| << | >> | top |