The Nicene Creed

. n Fcap . 8vo . One Shilli g e ach ne t

O xfo rd Churc h Te xt B o o ks

Edito r The REV . LE HT N P LL N e e O M . G n ral , IG U A , A . , ’ e t. J C e e Le e T F llow of S ohn s oll g , and ctur r in h e ology ’

S t. O e C e e . at john s and ri l oll g s , O xford

w ' The R v R h H b e Pi hets . e . . L . TTLE D D T e e O O . C r p Y , anon of C hrist Church and Re gius Profe ssor of Pastoral The ology he U e in t niv rsity of O xford .

Th Rev . B R N E O l e s O ld Te a e T e e C . . ut in of st m nt h ology . F U Y , ’ D Li tt Le e H . . e e S t . C e e O . , ctur r in br w at John s oll g , xford x o f th N w T m The Re v K LA K E M Th e Te e e e e . . . ; A t sta nt , Profe ssor of N e w T e stam e nt Exe g e sis and Early C hristian L e a e the U e Le e it r tur in niv rsity of yd n .

Early Christian Doctrine . he Re v LE I TO N P ULLA N M A T . GH , . . H h An Ele me ntary istory of t e Church in Gre at B ritain . ' W H H TTO N B D Fe t The Re v. . . S . C e e U , . llow of John s oll g ,

O xford .

The R eformation in Gre at B ritain . M A e ll H . WA K E M AN . e A S C e e . O , . , lat F llow of ouls oll g , ’ ‘ O a nd the Re v. LE IGH I O N P LLA N M . A . xford , U , H s the B k C mm P er The i tory of oo of o on ray . M H . A DE M A E m h The Re v. . . . C t e J U , , xa ining haplain to

S t. Al Bishop of bans . th h E a The Article s of e C urch of ng l nd . D ' The R e v. B . . K DD D. . V o f S t . P O d . J I , , icar aul s , xfor — H t a nd E o f Arti cl i - V V I . es . . 2 s o l. In ol . is ory xplanation viii — - V l E a A e . . o . II . xpl nation of rticl s ix xxxix

ne t. M ay a lso be ﬁa d i n one as .

The C in e a R e t . The Re v . B . . K DD D. D. ont nt l forma ion J I ,

r rm . The Re v . T . ELD D . D A M anua l fo C onﬁ ation FI , Ra e e Warde n of dle y C oll g .

th 2 . The Re v . H . N . BATE A History of e C hurch to 3 5 ,

M A E a m C a a the B L . . . , x ining h pl in to ishop of ondon

Th C u h its M s r A . e h rc , ini t y and uthority M A L b a Pu e H e t he Re v DA RWELL S TO NE . . . , , i rari n of s y ous , f O x ord . A History of th e A me rican C hurch to the close of th e Nine R Re v L E I TO N C O LEMA N The . tee nth Century . ight GH ,

De e U . S . A . T D LL D. L e B S . . . . , , at ishop of lawar ,

NS Kl NG STREET CO ENT AR DEN . LO NDO N : RIVI N GTO , 34 , V G

r 0 x. 9 9 . d h h x B k — n i O xfor C urc Te t oo s Co t nued.

Th R v A F M Th F e S a e . e e . S . C . O RD . A . e utur t t G Y , , ’ V e - P B C e e C e ic rincipal of ishops oll g , h shunt. M Evi d e es o f C s a . The Re v . L . RA . A nc hri ti nity GG , P e be V e - C e L e r ndary and ic hanc llor of incoln C ath dral . ’

The A s es C e e . The Re v . A . E . B RN D . D po tl r d U , V a o f H a a P e e Li chﬁe ld ic r lif x ; r b ndary of , nd E m l a xa ining Chaplain to th e B ishop of Lichﬁe d . u h Re v A N N M I ELL S s C H T e . T O T cotti h h rch istory . H Y CH , D P a P n n ian P e o f the B . a to o f T e . , rincip l and rof ssor h ology The ological C olle ge o f the E piscop al Church in S cotland ; ' C a S t M C a e E non of . ary s th dral , dinburgh . h T i n L T e e ach g of our ord . h e Re v L E I TO A M A T . N P LL N . GH U , . A S r the L e re th ld T me ho t Introduction to it ratu of e O e sta nt . H B x V R The Re v . . o M . A . a L me G . , , ic r of inton , oss , for rly H e e M a e M e T a lo rs S br w st r at rchant y chool .

N Th Re v . A E B RN D D The e e C e e . e . . . . ic n r d U ,

T H E C H U RC H U N IVE RS A L B rie f Historie s o f H er Co nti nuous Life

R V W. H H TT e b The E . . O N B . D. Edit d y U , , ’ e S t . J C e e F llow of ohn s oll g , O xford . o f the A s The C hurch po tles . The Re v LO N DA L RA M A 6 n . E . . s. d . e t S GG, 4 . — Th C r o f th e F e s . 6 1 e hu ch ath r 98 4 . T R v E I T N P LL A N M he e . L O A 5 . ne t GH U , . . 5 . Th C u th B a 01—1 e h rch and e arbari ns . 4 003. Th E DIT R 6d e O . s . ne t . 3 . — u h and the E i e . 1 1 0 The Ch rc mp r 003 3 4 . M EDLE M D . . . A P e o f H the U e J Y , rof ssor istory in niv rsity me T o f Ke e C e e O of Glasgow, for rly utor bl oll g , xford . — h 1 0 1 0 . The Ag e of S c ism . 3 4 5 3 M P H E RB E RT BR E . A . e H the U e UC , , rof ssor of istory in niv r

sit C e e C a . 5 . 6d . ne t . y oll g , rdiff 3 - R . 1 0 16 The eformation 5 3 48.

W I TN E B D . P E Th e Re v . . P . e e J H Y , , rof ssor of ccl siastical ’

H at K C e e L . 5 . n e t . istory ing s oll g , ondon 5 - 1 181 . The A g e of R e v olution . 648 5

h ED I TO R s. 6 ne t . T e . 4 d . u M d e D s 181 —1 00 The Ch rch of o rn ay . 5 9 . M I T N P LLA N . A The Rev . LE O . GH U ,

LO N DO N RIVI NGTO NS N TREET CO ENT A RDEN : , 34 KI G S , V G .

S ma F ca . 8v o . I S . e a ne t . ll p ch , ﬂDrforD r mm 21500135

Gen era l E di tor The R EV. LEIGH TO P ULLA , N N , ’ M . A . F e l w t o/zn s ol e e a l o o S . C l nd Lecturer i n T/z , f j g , eo ’ lo at S t. oli n s and O ri el Co lle es Ox o d r . gy f g , f

h i d T e N ce ne Cre e . B h R D . D . Vi ca r o a t e Rev . A . . U N H li ax y E B , , f f , ’ a nd E xa mi ni n Cna la i n to ﬁre B i s/m o Li cn ela g p p f ﬁ .

A S hort I ntrod uction to the Lite rature o f the B B h R v H . O X . A t e e . G . M O ld Te stam e nt . y , . , Vi ca r o L i n to n Ross o rmer H ebrew M a sler a t f , ; f ly ’ M ere/za n t Ta lors S choo l y .

m m e It contains an amazing a ount of atte r . And what is mor e a t the e e e e th e a m e wond rful mon y , v ry lin of it has cost uthor ti M e e se t c . r B ox to inve stigat and tim to it down suc inctly For . ’— o n e . x osi tor Ti m is e of our most consci ntious sch olars E p y es.

hi n d The Te ac g o f our Lor .

h R v LE HT N P U LLAN M . A . By t e e . IG O ,

‘ M r P e e e a the e . ullan has succ d d in p cking into littl book an e e e a nd e a e e imm ns amount of matt r , in spit of all th t has b n ’ e the e h e e e e e e e . writt n on subj ct , has pr s nt d it in som fr sh asp cts E x osi tor Ti me p y s.

f he Chu h i A S hort Hi sto ry o t rc n S cotlan d . H LL M TC E B . D B h e Re v . A N TH O N Y . Ca n on o y t I , , f ’ S t M a r s Ca t/zedra l E di n bu r P ri n ci a l a n d . y , g h ; p P a n i on i a n P rof esso r of Tneology of Ike Tneolog i cal t t/i s}: E i sco a l C/zu rc/z Co lleg e of lze S co p p . This littl e book is by far the b est short history of the S cottish ’ — ’ Gua rd i an . Church that has com e into our hands .

’ The Apostle s Cre e d . D D . . the Re A . E . URN By v . B ,

‘ Dr B e e e . T be the . urn do s all his work to p rf ction his will ’ ’ ’ e a stud e nt s introduction to the Apostl s Cre e d for y e rs to com e . — x s t m E po i ory Ti es.

LO N D N R I VI N GTO N S N STR EET CO E NT A RDE N . O : , 34 KI G , V G E v id n e s o f h i i e c C r st anity . h Re R M A t e v . L. A . . Recto r o Ti cben cote By GG, , f , R ntla n ds/zi re a nd P rebendai o i n e a , y f L coln Ca t/z dr l.

M r. R a H e gg has done his work w e ll . pre s e nts his argu m e m e the nts lucidly and cal ly , and xhibits wh ol e of the Christian ’ — e e e the a the a . lz urclz Ti e syst m c ntr d in f ct of Inc rnation C m s.

The hu h it Mi ni an d C rc , s stry Authority .

the Re v . DARWE LL STO N E M A Li br a ri a n o By , . . , f

use H ouse x ord . P y , O f It brie ﬂ y and cle arly conve ys much information conce rning the e e the B e e facts and doctrin contain d in ibl , and lat r history , with h — M orn i n st e t e C . r gard to hurch g P o .

i o f h hu h A D H sto ry t e C rc to . . 325. R H M A . xa /za th e e v . . . ATE . E mi ni n la i n By N B , , g C p o d o to t/ze B i s/l op f Lon n .

B e e e e e e e . H e has o ne Mr. at has succ d d b yond b li f produce d — th e E x ositor Ti mes. of the be st volumes of e seri s . p y

‘ The re putation of this s e ri es is not only maintaine d but e n ’ B e e e e e hance d by Mr. at s xc ll nt comp ndium of e arly Church — S aturda Rev i ew. history . y

n Th e Te xt o f the N e w Te sta me t.

v LAKE M A . P ro ess r o N ew Testa he R . . o By t e . K , , f f men t E xeg esi s a nd E a rly C/z r i sti a n Li tera ture i n tlze e de ew a n d ev i sed E di ti n n i v ersi t o L n N R o . U y f y .

e e e e e e e e It is a v ry xc ll nt pi c of work , a mod l of r ally lucid and concise e xposition of a ve ry complicate d and difﬁcult subj ect. ’ No more se rviceable manual of te xtual criticism is to be found . S ectat r p o .

ine o f O ld O utl s Te stam e nt The o logy .

Re v . R N w ture n the C . . U EY D . Litt. F ello Lec r i By F B , , , ’ w an d Li bra ri a n o s H ebre S t. o/zn Colle e O x ord . f j g , f

‘ e e H e Is ve ry important, and answ rs a gr at nee d . is constru cti ve e th thoroughly , and shows how dify ing and h elpful e h ld Te e e W ne w scie nce of t e O stam nt r ally is . e know of no ’ e the oth e r book at a popular pric doing same thing . n i vers t U ity Corr esponde n .

D R re N s N STREET CO ENT A RDEN . LO N O N GTO , 34 KI G , V G Th F u B the R R D e u v . AY FO t re S tate . y e S . C . G , ’ - M . A . Vi ce P ri nci a l o B i slzo s Co lle e Clzeslzun t. , p f p g , ‘ As a compre h ensive e lem entary te xt-book on a ve ry difﬁcult e e c e e the subj ct , this book quit om s up to , if it do s not surpass, ’— e e the e e . Gua rdi an standard alr ady attain d in s ri s .

An E l e m e ntary Hi story o f th e Ch urch i n Gre at B i i n th Re ‘ W N D F ellow a e v . . . TTO B . . r t . By H H U , , ’ ' o S t. olzn s Co lle e Ox ord E xa mi n i n Cli a lai n to f j g , f , g p tire B i s/to o Roclzester p f .

Mr H e d the . utton has v ry happily combine the scholarly and - e burclz uarterl R ev i ew. popular leme nts in his narrative . C Q y ’

the e are e e . If cl rgy wis , th y will get it into wide circulation

Cbu rclz Ti mes. “ It is quite the best Ele me ntary History of the Church in ’ we e - Gu ard n this land that hav . i a .

Th e Re f i n i ormat o n Gre at B ritain . ’ ls O . WA K MAN . l S ou . E M . A L a te F ellow o A l By H , , f

Colle e O x ord an d th e R v LE HTO N U LLAN M . A . g , f , e . IG P , ’ e he A bri f but trustworthy account of t Re formation . w Cﬁu rclz Q uarterly R ev i e . ‘ The little book will do much to re move all sorts of wrong e the e e e e id as about p riod of chang , and also , its chi f m rit to us , provid e p e opl e with a b e tter Vi e w of the re lations betwe e n the Scottish and English Reform e rs than is found in most works on ’— the e . Clzur cb Ti mes p riod .

E a Ch i i n D n e rly r st a o ctri . h N t e Rev LE H TO LLAN M A . By . IG P U , . ’— uardi an . An admirable sketch . G

M n A a ual fo r Co n ﬁrmatio n .

he R v LD D D Wa rden o Ra dle olle e. t e T E . C By . . F I , . , f y g ‘ Will be of th e very greate st v alue to schoolmasters wh o are intrusted with the important duty of pre paring public school boys C ﬁ be the the for on rmation , and as a book to put in h ands of e e e e we e e candidat s th ms lv s , his manual is, think , an improv m nt ’— an w are e Gua rdi an . on y with which e acquaint d .

LO NDO N : RIVINGTO Ns N TRE ET CO E NT ARDE N . , 34 KI G S , V G h T LEv h P h t e Re v . R . L. O T T e H e bre w ro p e ts . By , D o Clz ri st Clzu rclz a nd Re i us P ro essor o D . Ca n n o . , f g f f

P astor a l Tli eology i n tbe Un i v ersi ty of O xf o rd . This handy littl e book is writte n with the cle arne ss and good ’ e b M r. O e tast which ha itually mark ttl y s work , and it contains much — w e m. l¢ urcli ua rter R evi e us ful information in a short for C Q ly .

Th H h B k m e istory o f t e oo o f Com on P ray e r .

H . A DE M A . E xa mi n i n a la i n B the Re v . . M U . Cb y J , , g p

to o A lba ns. tlze B i sbop f S t .

‘ ’ “ S o we e e H th B far as know , th r is no istory of e ook of ” Common Praye r more full of information or more trustworthy

the e n th R v . H . M e e than that which ready p of e e J . aud has giv n — /z u rclz i m s us . C T e .

’ - a . a n adi an lz ur /z ma n M y be highly comme nd e d C C c .

Th A e rticle s o f the Church o f E ng lan d . Two V e I n olu m s . — - V l H nd a i i e s i i . o . a . l . istory Explan t on of Art cl v ii — - Vo l. a i ic e ix. . I I . Expl n at on of Art l s xxxix lu m 2s n et M a a lso be ba d i n O n e o e . y V , . ’ t a ul he R D . Vi a r o S . P s x ord . t e v . . DD D . c O By B J . K I , , f , f ’ e —Gu ardi a n It supplie s e xactly what is wante d for b ginne rs . . ’ — ma n e e e e e . S cots . It is at onc bri f, concis , and rudit

The C n in n o t e tal R eformation . th R e e v DD D . D. By . B . J . K I ,

Mr. Kidd has giv e n a maste rly surv ey of his subj e ct. It is no disparageme nt of the oth e r volum e s of the se ri e s to say that this o ne more th an m aintains the high stand ard of exce llence ’— e h S cotti slz Gu ardi a n . which has hith rto mark e d t e s erie s .

A Hi story o f the Am e ric an Church to the Close o f the XIXth e n u C t ry .

B the R Re v . LE HT N LEMAN y ight IG O CO , D a t i s/z e LL. l e B a o D la a re . w . A . , p f , U. S It giv e s a lucid and inte re sting account of a chapte r of Church history only ill unde rstood in this country The book forms ’— cotsma n . a v aluabl e acc ession to the se rie s in which it appe ars . S

LO N DO N : RI V I NGTO N s N STREET CO ENT ARDEN . , 34 KI G , V G

— xu . 09 . QDrforti E burcb (al ert B ooks

The N ic e n e C re e d

V E B D TH E RE . A . . R . D U . N ,

VI A R O F A L I A X A N D P R N D A RY O F L l C H F l E L D C H F , EBE EXA M I N I N G CH A P LA I N T O T H E BISH O P O F L ICHFIE L D A UT H O R O F

‘ ’ T H E A PO ST L ES C REED ( O XF O RD CHU RCH T EXT BO O K S)

R I V I N G T O N S

K IN G S TR E E T C O V N T 34 , E GA RDE N

L O N D O N

I 9 O 9

M Y W I F E C O N T E N T S

T I — THE S R PA R . HI TO Y

’ CH A I .

I . The C e e the C l Nic ze a r d of ou nci of ,

. The C ee e Constanti n o oli tan um I I r d call d p ,

I . The L te e e C e e I I a r History of our Nic n r d ,

RT I l — THE T O LO PA . HE GY

— I v . e e e T e A nt Nic n h ology,

. e e Te the v Nic n aching on I ncarnation ,

D . The e the VI octri n of God Holy Ghost,

Th D h S VI I . e octrin e of t he Church an d t e acra

e m nts,

A P P E ND I X— TH E G R E EK A N D LA TI N T Es o n T H E

R E ED FO R M O TED C S Q U ,

E D E N Bo o xs R E CO MM END F O R R FER E C E ,

N D E X I , TH E N ICEN E CRE E D

— THE H ISTO RY PA RT I .

CHAPTE R I

TH E CR E ED O F TH E CO U N CI L O F N ICE A

TH E tru e history of ou r Nic e n e Cre e d is at last e m e rging The e the C e e h from obscurity . ol d th ory th at r d of t e

A D . e Cou nci l of Nicaea of 325 . was slightly alt re d an d

he C e 38 1 A D . e r e t C . nla g d at ou n cil of onstantinopl i n , is still maintaine d in most of the te xt- books on the Praye r e e e Book , an d has r c ntly fou nd support from a l arn e d 1 Profe ssor of the Easte rn O rth odox Church . But its e foun dations hav e b e e n u nd e rmin e d by r e c e nt r se arch . e De e e e It was a Fr nch scholar, nys P tau , b tt r k now n P avi us e as e t of Paris , who ﬁrst point d ou t that our Ni ce n e Cr e e d had b e e n q uote d by th e h istorian S E i han i us e e e e aI s e e the C . p p som s v n y b for ou ncil of e e e n Con stanti nopl e . But it was r s rv d for an E glish 2 e s e e e e s cholar, Prof s or H ort, two c nturi s lat r , to disc rn the importance of th e argum e nt wh ich may be bu ilt Di ssertati on he e u p on that fact . I n his brillian t prov d S E i han i us that th e Cre e d thu s q uote d by . p p was a R the C e e the C e e e vision of r d of h urch of J rusal m , most e e e e C i n probably r vis d an d nlarg d by Bishop yril , wh o se rte d a se ction tak e n ou t of the Cr e e d of the Nic e n e ’ S C e e C e e e Cou ncil . . yril s r vis d r d was i n som way or e th C C e oth e r approv d by e ou ncil of onstantinopl , an d cam e up agai n for discussion at th e Coun cil of Chalc e don

1 A D . e e th e e e C e e i n 45 . sid by sid with original Nic n r d

1 S e e . 2 p 7 . 2 Two Di sser tati n s C e an d L 1876. o , ambridg ondon , A 2 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

Nic ze a ae e e e of the Cou ncil of . At Nic a th e r w e re pr s nt 318 C e e 150 the som e bishops , at onstantinopl som , so two Cre e ds we re distinguish e d as the Cre e d of the 318 holy Fath e rs an d the Faith of the 150 holy Fath e rs T e e e e re spe ctive ly . h y w r so m uch alik e that gr at t e m ptation was offe re d to copyists to assimilate th e ir e e we se e the e te xts . I nd d , as sh all , proc ss of corru ption e e e h e e had alr ad y b gu n . I n cours of tim e t e r vis d ' e C ee e e Consta nti no oli tan um J e rusal m r d , oft n call d p , cam e to be r e gard e d as an improv e d r e ce n sion of the e C e e e e the e e Nice n r d , an d i nh rit d all pr stig wh ich h the fi attach e d to t e work of rst G e n e ral Cou ncil . From e e e e b e o n e point of vi w th is d v lopm nt may e j ustiﬁ d , be cause the k e rn e l of th e te aching of the Nice n e Council on the Divinity of our Lord Je su s Christ was e nshrin e d e e the the e e i n it, l aving outsid h usk of n gativ warnings , th e anath e m as . To mak e what has b ee n said quite cl e ar I will at once q uote the two forms sid e by sid e . I t is som e tim e s con v n i n t an d e th e e e e e , I sh all i n futu r , for sak of br vity ,

. The e e S . d e sign ate th e m N an d C. t xt q uot d by Epiphani us diffe rs i n som e slight re spe cts from the te xt q u ote d at Ch alce don as th e Faith of th e 150holy Fath e rs of

Constantinopl e . At this point I will qu ote h is variations the e e e e e the i n italics . For Gr k t xt I m ust r f r to

A pp e ndix (p .

B Y Err TH E CR EED o r TH E CO UN CIL o r TH E C R EED Q UOTE D S .

D 2 P H AN S A D . 3 4. N I CzE A, A . . 3 5 . I U , c . 7 WVe be li e v e We b e li e ve

1. o n e th e e . 1. i n o n e the e In God Fath r I God , Fath r A m e of Alm a e o l ighty , mak r all ighty , m k r b th n e of e e e thi gs, both visibl and h av n and arth e o f i e invisibl . and all things v sibl an d invisibl e .

2 And i n o n e L J e 2. And o n e L e . ord sus in ord J sus C the S on o f C the e hrist, God, hrist, only b got e e o f the e t e n S on o f be b gott n Fath r, God , e e a e o f Hi s e only b gott n , th t is gott n Fath r — o f the substance o f the b efore all worlds tha t e i s o the substa n e o Fath r , God of God , f c f L L e the F a ther — L ight of ight, v ry ight of e be L e e God of v ry God , ight, v ry God of v ry ' T H E C R E E D O F T H E C O U N C I L 3

e e o f e e gott n not mad , God , b gott n not o n e e th e e e o ne substanc with mad , b ing of sub a e b m e the e F th r, y who all stanc with Fath r ; e e e b n things w r mad , both y whom all thi gs e e e an d e e e b th th se thos in h av n w r mad , o o those on e arth i n heaven a nd those on ea r th ; n Wh o Wh o fo r us me and for 3. for us men an d for our salvation came our salvation cam e down i n car f ea e an d down and was rom h v n , was e e Man e of the H nat , was mad , incarnat oly Ghost an d the Virgin M ary , and was made Man ;

S nﬁ e red 4. A n d e , was cruciﬁ d for us e P P e und r ontius ilat , ffe e was and su r d , and

buri e d . d e the a 5 . An d e the And ros third y , ros again third day according to the S e criptur s,

e e e e 6 . A n d e Asc nd d into h av n , asc nd e d into e e an d e a t h av n , sitt th th e right hand O f the e Fath r , e the A n d m Is coming to judg 7. is co ing again n d e th quick a d e ad . with glory to judg e quick and de a d ; whose kingdom shall have n o

e nd .

i n the H . 8 A nd the H And oly Ghost . III in oly Ghost, th e Lord an d Giv e r of e e e e lif , who proc d th the a e from F th r, who with the Fath e r an d the S on togeth e r is wor e e shipp d and gloriﬁ d , who spake by the P ro ph e ts : 9 I n o n e H C . oly atholic an d A postolic Church . IVe acknowl e dge o n e baptism f or the re mis

sion O f sins . We look for the resur e o f th e e r ction d ad , And th e life o f the

world to come . 4 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

We h av e n ow to stud y the e ve nts which le d up to the C ae the e the ou ncil of Nic a, an d cours of discussions i n h which the Cre e d of t e Cou ncil was shape d .

(l ) A ri as a n d A r i an i sm

‘ The A rian h e re sy had its roots far back i n the distant e e e the e past, but it d id n ot d riv its str ngth from app al e e e a m e to history . It app al d , as mod rn Unit rianis app als , the e e e the e e to pr s n t rath r than past, to r ason rath r than e e e e e be e xp ri nc , to find a com promis w h ich may s umm d ‘ ’ e te e . The e C u p i n a s n nc Arians call d hrist good, but Him ‘ ’ would n ot i n the full s e nse call God . Arius him e e C D e e e e s lf worshipp d hrist as ivi n , w h il d nying H is tru D the e l e ivinity, and during controv rsy which fo low d the d e claration of his d e nial of t he Ete rnal G e n e ration the 8 011 e e e e of of God , many of h is follow rs w r r ady, not C e e e th only to worsh ip h rist, but v n to conf ss e e ss e ntial i th L keness of the S o n to the Fath e r . But e poison of e e e e e rror yi lds to no oth r antidot th an undilut d truth , an d at the e nd O f the controve rsy Arianism id e ntifi e d itse lf with the ass e rtion that the S o n is u nlike the e Fath r . T e e a re me n e e History r e p e ats its e lf. h r still who r fus ‘ C \Ve C the to call hrist God and say, will call hrist e e t he e e e e wis st of proph ts, nobl st of t ach rs s nt from God , h e e th e me n So n t e fair st charact r among sons of , of God he D e e S o n i n clos e st lik e n e ss to t ivin Patt rn of man h ood , the Hi s by adoption from fi rst days of public min istry, 8 011 by grac e continu ally mani fe ste d in gracious word s e -sac rifice S o n e e e e e e and loving s lf , by p rf ct d ob di nc to ’ h e e e the Re e the t e Fath r s will , d ifi d by surr ction from e e e ea e e n ot the d e ad , only lik ours lv s a cr t d b ing , - e So n e e only b egott n of God , t rnally God of God , of o n e e sse nce with the Fath e r i n the s e ns e in wh ich ’ “ the J e ws u nd e rstood our Lord s words : I and My

J u . e e Fath e r are o n e ( . x and for which th y tri d Hi m ’ ? M e e to ston e . What follows isun d rstanding, mis ry The e of wave ring doubts an d fe ars . Arian hypoth sis and its mod e rn substitute s are i n n o se nse a platform

6 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

e e e e the Ariu s was a cl v r and inﬂu ntial parish pri st, in e B au ali H de district of Al xandria kn own as c s. e is e e e scrib d as tall , with a m lanch oly, thoughtfu l fac , a e e e e I t e th e grav man n r , an d a pl asan t voic . cam to e the B i slIO e h ars of p, A l xand e r , that e had b e e n sp eak ’ i ng O f Ch rist as only t he e ld e st an d high e st O f God s

e e - e the e e cr atu r s , n ot d n ying H im titl God , but xplain

e . Re e e i ng away its m aning monstranc s , follow d by an

e e e ef e . ee e int rvi w , prod uc d n o f ct At a m ting of cl rgy the e e Bish op spok e strongly . Arius was s ur n ough of hims elf and h is own O pinions to criticise v e ry s e ve re ly ’ the te rms of the Bish op s add re ss as favouring the S He ab e llian h e re sy . found a larg e circl e of admire rs e e S e e e e e e e wh o d r ad d ab llianism , who w r r ady to b li v the e e e S that id a of an t rnal onship is u n thinkabl e , wh o w e re re ady to follow the popular pre ach e r wh e n he h h T rationalise d t e id e a of t e Christian rin ity .

S O le d l d th e . Ari us on , an d was e on by e mu ltitud It is so e asy to start a popular m ove m e nt an d so hard to

H e e e . control it. was carri d away by a fals logic Arius e h S n ? th S o n ask d , What do e s t e nam e o m e an I f e is a

S o n He e e e e e e e . , m ust h av com into xist nc aft r His Fath r ' O e H T e e e e e S o n nc e did not e xist . h r was a tim wh n th Hi d d uc was not . s logic s ee m e d to re qu ire a furthe r e

. e e e the S o n e tion I f th r was a tim wh e n was not , th n H e e e e e . was not u ncr at d , but a cr atur A riu s brough t e h be e e h ims lf i nto a d il e mma . Eith e r e m ust consid r d e e a r e e to t ach that th re e two Gods a h igh r an d a low r , or must be consid e re d to t e ach that it is righ t to worsh i p e e e It e a cr at d b ing , which is idolatry . would only hav b ee n possibl e for hi m to e scap e from this dil e mma by h L d e nying to t e ord both d ivinity and worsh ip . The - e fact was that Ari us was u tte rly sh ort sight d . I n e he n e e spit of warnings, insiste d on translati g his th ori s set e i nto popular forms , wrot e songs which w e r e to tu n s e e e e e us d for lic ntious and comic songs , and ncourag d idl h gossi p on t e d e e pe st myste ri e s of th e ology . S e e th re . Gr gory of Nyssa d scrib e s e situation as it p ‘ Me n s e nte d itse lf to him som e ye ars late r ve ry vividly . e e th e e e e e e f of y st rday and day b for , m r m ch anics , o fhand e e dogmatists in the ology, s rvants too, and slav s that T H E C R E E D O F T H E C O U N C I L 7

e e n e e e are had b ﬂogg d , ru naways from s rvil work , s ol e m n with us an d philosoph ise about things i n co m

e e e . e e the e pr h nsibl Ask about p nc , and trad sman will the e e e h e e e the d iscuss G n rat and t e I nge n rat . I nqu ir “ e e he e e the e pric of br ad , an d will say , Gr at r is Fath r h S n S a e o e . and t is l ss y th at a bath would s uit you , ﬁ “ h S i “ an d he d e n e s that t e o n s out of nothing . S e a the e e n ot p cu l tion ran riot, an d misch i f b gan with the fact that qu e stions w e re aske d by al l sorts an d con di i o n s O f m e n the e e i n t , but with irr ve r nt spirit which th e y we re aske d . The controv e rsy gre w and spr e ad from Ale xan dria to h n e Pal e stin e . Finally , t e e ws of distu rbanc es caus d by e the e the e C e it cam to ars of Emp ror on stantin , who

e Ho si us C e e e . s nt , Bishop of ordova, to m ak p ac But Ho sius was u nsu cc e ssfu l e ve n with th e support of a e T e th strongly word d l e tte r from Constantin e . h n e Em pe ror took the mom e ntou s ste p of su mm on ing a Ge n e ral Council O f all the Bishops of th e Christian

Ch urch .

2 Th C unci l o N i ceea ( ) e o f .

The C met ae i n th e e O f ou n cil at Nic a, provinc M I the e . t Bithyn ia, i n North We st corn r of Asia inor e e was a plac we ll adapte d for su ch a gath ri ng, e asily e sea the e R approach d by or land , gr at oman roads The e radiating from it i n all d ire ctions . admirabl post ing arrange m e nts of the I mpe rial Civil S e rvice we re re ui si i n d The e e e e q t o e . bishops with th ir att ndants trav ll d he e T e e e n e e at t public e xp nse . hu s gath r d m or tha thr h un dre d bishops from all the important ce ntre s of C e S e e hu rch lif , from Egypt, yria, Asia, W st rn Asia,

e e e S S . Gr c , Italy , Gau l , pai n , icily , and ou r own Britain The atte ndant pri e sts an d d e acons swe ll e d the n umb e r

to som e ﬁfte e n h u n dre d .

The e arli e st m e e tings of th e Cou ncil we re h e ld i n a e i n an the e church , aft rwards O blong hall of Im p rial

e e n the e . palac , with be n ch s and chairs range d al o g sid s the e e e e se th e I n c ntr , on a rais d s at, was t a copy of H oly 8 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

e . The e e Gosp ls Em p ror sat on a small thron , i n a e e e e s carl t rob blazing with j we ls . H is m ost trust d e H o si u s C n e e advis r , Bishop of ordova, was on o sid ; th e e e Cae e the e on oth r, Eus bius , Bish op of sar a , gr at C T e e m et O ld n e h urch historian . h r an d you g ; ag d bishops wh o h ad l ive d through the last and ﬁ e rce st of t he e e e e e h p rs cutions, v t ran soldi rs of t e Cross wh o had com e out of the battl e scarre d and m utilate d by torture and with th e m cam e b e ardle ss d e acons wh o co uld bar e ly ’ re m e m be r the pu blication O f the Em pe ror s e dict of e e e n e w e ra C e e tol ration , which h ad op n d a of h u rch xt n

n . e e the the sio It was , ind d , characte r of gre at com pany of confe ssors of the Faith wh ich gave so m uch we ight in e e the e the C aft r y ars to d cision s of ou ncil . Praye rs w e re r e ad and an add re ss was pr e s e nte d to the e e e e T e the Em p ror, wh o xh ort d th m to u nity . h n e e n ee e e d lib ratio s b egan . I t s ms to h av b e e n d cid e d v e ry soon th at the on ly way to e n d the controve rsy was to draw u p a form of cree d as a te st of orthodoxy to be e e b sign d by bishops , without an y id a of su stituting it for t he h Baptismal cre e ds of t e ch u rch e s . At ﬁrst the Bishops e nd e avoure d to agre e on som e Scri p tural argum e nt wh ich should e ffe ctual] e xclu d e the Arian To e the e ade rs th e ory . th ir dismay Arian fou n d th at th e y could not cou nt on t he su pport of more than som e e T e e e O f e e s ve nte e n bishops . h ir conﬁd nc a sp dy victory

e e e e e e e . had b n misplac d , so th y sough t r fug in vasion “7 he n the S e e e e traditional criptural phras s, w h ich w r h ld e the e e e the So n e e to t ach t rnal God h ad of , w r brough t e e e e o n e e u p, th y acqui sc d , wh isp ring to anoth r and h int

i ng h ow e ach ph ras e migh t be e m pti e d of its m e aning . The sce n e has be e n vividly d e scrib e d by S . Athanasius

‘ Wh en the bishops said that the \Vo rd must be describe d as th e T e P e an d m a e O f the e i n all e ru ow r I g Fath r, things xact and e the e an d a e e an d a a an d as i n lik Fath r, as un lt rabl , as lw y s , 7 H im e e was the “ 0rd n o t H e was without division (for n v r , but e e e a the a e the e o f alway s, xisting v rl stingly with F th r, as radianc 1 E e an d e e e e e light), us bius his f llows ndur d ind d , as not daring e e b the m e e e to contradict, b ing put to sham y argu nts which w r

1 O f N e a icom di . T H E C R E E -D O F T H E C O U N C I L 9

e e e e e e e urg d against th m , but inst ad th y w r caught whisp ring to “ “ ” e e an d e e e e an d ach oth r winking with th ir y s , that lik , alway s , “ ” “ ” an d e and i n Him e e e e mm the pow r , , w r , as b for , co on to us and “ ” S o n and n o a e e e e . As e , that it was difﬁculty to gr to th s to lik , e a e o f Man th e m e an d o f th y s id that it is writt n us, is i ag glory ” ” w we 1 Cor. . a as e God, ( xi 7) alway s , th t it writt n , For which “ ” H im I n Him we e an d e are 2Co r. i v . 11 i n liv alway ( ) , liv ”

e an d a e e A . a e e mov h v our b ing ( cts xvii un lt rabl , that it “ e N a e a e th e e o f C is writt n , othing sh ll s p rat us from lov hrist, ” Who ha ll ar a te : e the Ro m . . 35 s se ( viii , p ) as to pow r, that ” cate rpillar an d the locust are calle d pow e r an d gre at pow e r

J e . an d a O e o f the e e fo r e ( o l ii th t it is ft n said p opl , instanc , “ ” All the pow e r of the Lord cam e out o f th e land o f Egy pt

Ex. an d e e are e e a e e for S ( xii . th r oth rs also , h v nly on s , crip e The L o f e the tur say s, ord pow rs is with us, God of Jacob is A e b e th e S e e P s. . . e e our r fug ( xlvi 7) Ind d , st rius, y titl ophist, th e e i n e e m em an d had said lik writing, having l arn d it fro th ,

e e A e a e e e . B ut b for him rius , having l rn d it also, as has b n said t e e i n e m n an d e e h bishops disc rning this too th ir dissi ulatio , wh r “ i t e De e i n th e e a o f th e e as is writt n , c it is h rt irr ligious that ” m e . e e a m e e o n e i agin e vil (Prov . xii w r ag in co p ll d th ir part e th e e e O f the S e an d e a an d e e to coll ct s ns criptur s , to r s y r writ e had e e e e what th y said b for , mor distinctly still , nam ly , that 1 t he S o n is o n e i n e ssence with the Fath e r ; by way of signify i n the S o n f the e an d n o t e e e g that was rom Fath r , m r ly lik , but ’ the e i n e e an d o f the S e e an d sam lik n ss, showing that on s lik n ss unalte rabl ene ss was diffe re nt from such copy o f the sam e as is e we e m e o n the o f ascrib d to us , which acquir fro virtu ground ’ 2 O o h e mm m e bse rvance f t co and nts .

The the e e e e e e day of d cisiv m ting cam , an d Eus bi us e e e e e of Nicom dia , appar ntly convi nc d th at h alf m asur s e e e e e e e e e e e i n w r us l ss , pr s nt d a stat m nt of h is b li f, wh ich h e e m e t t e A rian b e li e f was con cis ly xpre ss e d . It was with angry clamou r and the docu m e nt was torn to i e p c e s . The n e e Cae e e e cam forward Eus bi us of sar a, r now n d for e e e C e e h is gr at s rvic s to h ristian l arni ng, but as Prof ssor ’

Gwatki n e e e e e . says , n ith r a gr at man n or a cl ar thin k r e he e the His th ology was h azy, and was spok sman for gre at bu lk O f the bishops wh o cam e from S yria and Asia M e f i nor, an d had littl k nowl e dge O Arianism an d small e e capacity to disc e rn its dange r . Eus bius prod uc d a

1 - - 2 ho mo u i o s. De d ecreti s 20. Gk . o s , 10 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

th e e e O f formula, consisti ng of cr d his own ch urch , togeth e r with an addition m od e lle d on the Cre e d of L e e S e ucian and dir ct d agai nst ab llianism . T he h e e h is , said , was wh at had l arnt as a cate ch um e n e he an d taught as a pri st an d a bish op . From t point of e S e vi w of criptur an d trad ition it was irre proachable .

But it laid n o e mphasis on the e te rnal Sonshi p . Its ‘ ’ ‘ phrase s First begott e n of all cre ation and be fore all ’ ‘ e e Gwatki n e e ag s m ight m an , as points out , b gott n ’ e e e e e e (not t rnally , but) b for oth r things w e re cre at d . ‘ “ Its God of God was n o m ore than Arius had re eate dl e e e e e p y con f ss d , whil its solitary was mad ﬂ sh l e ft the whole doctri n e of the I ncarnation i n u n cer ’ 1 tainty . The e e e e e Emp ror xpr ss d his approval , but was prompt d ‘ it se e ms by Ho si us to ins e rt t he word homo-ousi os O f ’ n e e C ae e o e su bstanc . Eus biu s of sare a con fe ss s i n h is h f l e tte r that t e word was O old usage i n the Ch u rch . ‘ Te rtu llia n has the ph ras e O f the substance of the ’ 2 3 e O e th . Fath r . Possibly rig n h ad us e d e word I t ‘ e ee e the e th e m ans , as has b n w ll said , i nmost b ing of Hi s h e e e . T e a e Fath r, v ry s lf translation s ubst nc wh ich com e s to us through the Lati n (substan tia z e sse nti a) is “ e e n ot satisfactory . Ess nce hardly conv ys to English “ ” e the e e e e ars r al m ani ng, and natur too is strictly qu it The e the i nad equate . ph ras is inte nd e d to mark e e the So n the e e ss ntial u nity of with Fath r, d claring that He has His e xiste nce from n o source e xte rnal to the e the h — so Fath r, but is of v e ry b e ing of t e Fath e r that the e e i s e e Fath r H ims l f n ot, do s n ot xist, is not ’

e e e the So n . conc iv d of as having b ing , apart from The e e f Sa m sata word had b n us e d by Pau l O o , an d according to som e write rs had b e e n con de m n e d by a h e A D . 269. t e e e Coun ci l at A ntioch i n . But vid nc is fl e e con icting, and for ou r pr se nt pu rpos e it do s not m atte r wh eth e r the e arli e r Cou ncil had cond e mn e d it or

1 w tkin S tud i e o A r i m 42 G a s i an s . . , f , p 2 3 m. 4 . V m h . A l. 5 . I n P ra id . Pa , p po ,

4 - B e e B e I n tr od . to E a rl H i st. o Chr i sti a n D tr i ne thun ak r, y f oc , 16 8 n . . p. 5 T H E C R E E D O F T H E C O U N C I L 11

TH E R D O F E I TH E C R D O F TH E CO N I L . C EE USEB US . EE U C We be li e v e We be lIe v e

. 1. i n o n e the e . 1 . i n o n e the e I God , Fath r I God , Fath r A m the m e m e o f l ighty , ak r Al ighty , mak r o f all things visibl e all things visible and

an d e e . invisibl . invisibl A n d i n o n e L J e 2 A n d i n o n e J e . 2. . Lord sus II ord sus C r the W o f C the S o n o f h ist, ord hrist, o f Go d e e of the God , God God, , b gott n L o f L L e e e e ight ight, if Fath r , only b gott n , o f L e Son O o f th e e if , nly that is substanc e e o f o f the e o f b gott n , first born Fath r , God e e e a e e e L L v ry cr tur , b for God, ight of ight, the e e e e o f e all ag s, b gott n v ry God v ry God , the a e b e e e O f from F th r, y b gott n not mad , whom also all things o n e substance with th e e e e e b w r mad Fath r, y whom all e e e things w r mad , both tho se i n he av e n an d tho se o n e arth Who fo r 3 Who fo r m en 3. our salvation . us and was a e fl e fo r e m d sh , and our salvation cam liv e d as a citiz e n down and was mad e m m e n fl e e Man a ong , sh , and liv d as m en among ,

4. And ffe e 4 . S ff e e su r d u r d ,

5 A n h the i da . d e t e . An d e . ros again third 5 ros th rd y da y ,

6 An d e e the 6 e e e e . . asc nd d to . Asc nd d into h av n e Fath r,

7 7 . 8 An d e e the will com again 8. Is coming to judg i n glory to judge quick and de ad . the an d e quick d ad .

h H . 9 A n d we e e e i n . 9 An d t e G . b li v also III . in oly host on e Holy Ghost B elie vin e ach o f the se to be and B ut those who say O nce H e was g ’ t o e s the F a he t no t a nd B e fo e He was be xi t , t r ruly , r ’ F a he an d t he So n t S o n o e n H e was n o t and H e t r, ruly , g tt , a nd t he Holy Gho st truly came into e xiste n ce out o f ’ ‘ H ho s as a so o ur Lo d ha wa s n o t Tha the oly G t, l r , w t , or t se ndi ng forth H is disciple s fo r S o n o f Go d was o f a diffe re n t the e a n sa d GO e a h e sse n e h o sta sis ~ o r e n pr chi g, i , t c c ( y p ) b i g ‘ all natio ns baptiz ing the m i n or Th at H e wa s ’ ‘ the n ame o f the Fa he and o f m ad e o r is han e a e t r , c g bl or ’ ’ th e So n an d f he H ho s . m a e h se the C a ho o t oly G t ut bl , t o t lic Co nce rni n g who m we c 0n ﬁ Church anathe matise s. ( le ntl afﬁ m ha so we ho d y r t t l , and so we h n a nd so we t i k , a e e d afo e me a nd we h v h l r ti , maintai n this faith u nto the d e a h ana e ma s n e e r t , th ti i g v y d e s e es g o l s h r y . 12 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

T n ot . h e y had c e rtainly n ot cond e m n e d it in the se n se h h ‘ i n wh ic it was us e d by t e Nic e n e Cou ncil . ’ O n the e e oth r han d Ariu s had disclaim d it , and Eus e bius of Nicom e dia had writte n i n a l e tte r : I f we call the S o n the e e e e are we Him of Fath r and u ncr at , th n granting that He is o n e i n e ss e n ce (homo 3 S . e e e the C According to Ambros , th is inﬂu nc d ouncil i n h ad opting t e te rm . S e It is a m istak e to su ppos e that . Athanasius insist d S o m n e he on it as e ss e ntial . long as e h ld t truth wh ich

e e he e . e it conv y d , was cont nt H is attitud towards it was ‘ L : He e always loyal , but as oofs puts it was m ould d h "1 t e e C e e e . by Nic e n r d , did not m ou ld it h ims lf e e th e C Having d cid d th is cru cial point, ou ncil e e e e the C ee e t e e d t rmin d to ov rh au l r d y furth r, and mad e e e som oth r important ch ang s . ‘ ’ The word S o n was put ﬁrst i n place of Logos ’ The i ns e rtion of th at is of the substanc e of the Fath e r ‘ ’ ‘ ’ e O f o n e e as w ll as substanc , an d God of God , was

sp e cially d ire ct e d against Euse biu s of Nicom e dia . ‘ ’ ‘ ’ D e e ﬁrst e ropping lif of lif and born of all cr ation , ‘ ’ e e e e e e e e th y i ns rt d tru God of tru God , and th n r sum d ’ e e e e e the e b gott n n ot mad parall e l to b gott n of Fath r, contrasting the two participl e s wh ich the Arian con u f s e d . ‘ ’ ‘ To was incarnate th e y add e d liv e d as man among ’ ’ " me n . Gwatki n s T the L e I n words , hus ord took som th ing more than a m e re hu man body : but it was l e ft u nd e cid e d wh e th e r He assume d human n atu r e or m e re ly e e e e the nt re d i nto u nion with a man . N storian rror on ’5 e O e . I ncarnation is still l ft p n , bu t A rian is shut out Mr T e To the C e e e e e e . r d w r add d anath mas, as urn r ’ e e h C e e e the says , onl y b caus t e r d is n o long r layman s ’

e th . The O ld e conf ssion of faith , but e bishop s principl that the profe ssion o f be li e f of cate chu m e ns sh ould be positiv e i n characte r is n ot in fringe d : the Cou nci l has e e e the e the e e not v n i n vi w cas of cl rgy , still l ss that of

1 S e e . 126. Gibson , p 2 3 E i han i us H a er 69. De d e . 7 . p p , . , ﬁ , iii 4 5 L ei t a d en 151. 0 . c i t. . 45 . f , p . p , p

14 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

e n many support rs, although for a lo g tim e his party we r e Th unable to d e clare th e ir policy . e ﬁrst ste p was to O btai n the re call of A rian l e ad e rs O II the stre ngt h O f th e ir e Th e ge n e ral prof ssions of orth odox b e li e f. e n xt was to

e e e e . O n e e S . attack Nic n l ad rs various pr t xts Athanasiu s , e e e e e e who h ad su cc d d Al xand r as Bishop of Al xan dria , M e e e e e e e e . an d arc l lus of Ancyra , w r d pos d from th ir s s T e e e C e e e e h y cam back aft r on stantin s d ath , but w r soon The e e again e xil e d . way was th n pr pare d for a furth e r the e e C ee e attack on Nic n r d , not so m uch by op nly

e e e e . Th d nying it, as by r placing it with som thing ls e e Arians tri e d to ﬁ n d a formula which e ve ry o n e wh o th h m -ousi s dislik e d e word o o o wou ld acc e pt . C m n A O . 41 e t h n h I . 3 a oun cil on t e occasio of t e ’ C e e d e d ication of onstantin s Gold n Chu rch at Antioch . The Arian bish ops u nd e r Euse bi us form e d a com pact th C W e e ee . e body , and b gan work of r d making hil profe ssing to acce pt the Nice n e Cre e d th e y brought

e e e e . T e C forward anoth r , which was r j ct d h n a re e d was agre e d u pon which is com monly calle d the Secon d Creed

A nti h. e e e e e of oc I t i s of som im portanc , b caus it aft rwards be cam e a ste pping- ston e by which som e s e mi- Arians lat e r e Ni lan ua on advanc e d to full acc ptance of c ene g ge . ‘ I t is cath olic i n the ass e rtion of the e xact lik e n e ss o f ’ ’ ‘ ’ the S o n the e e e e . The e e e to Fath r s ss nc word ss nc , e e e e e e hon stly acc pt d , wou ld confu t any att mpt to xplain it away by the m e ntal r e s e rvation th at this h ad not be e n h ‘ always tru e . Cath olic also is t e phras e m e diator ’ m n the e be tw e e n God and e . But it marks b ginning of Th e a doctrinal re action . e ph ras s which Eus ebius of l e S Cae sare a had propos d to e xclud e ab e llianism r e ap pe ar . - \Vha e the e h m ousi os e . t is m or im portant, t rm o o is omitt d Und e r s uch circu mstance s it was of littl e avail to b e at u p ’ e th L D Th S criptural phras s to d e fe n d e ord s ivinity . e ‘ e ee Gwatkin e Arians gain d by this cr d . A s says, th y could n o t e xpe ct an y d ire ct sanction for th e ir doctri n e ; bu t th e y could r e turn to the Ch u rch as soon as it had h e c e as e d to be e xpre ssly forbidd e n . But if t e Arians cam Nic n s e T o n e the e e e . e e i n at door , w nt out at anoth r h r

1 Vi d . m I n rod u ti on . 83. y t c , p T H E C R E E D O F T H E C O U N C I L 15 was n o alte rnativ e for wh e n onc e th e controve rsial e e e th e e e d was clause s had b e e n sol m n ly ins rt d i n cr , it ’ impossibl e to d rop th e m with out making the Lord s ’ 1 n Divi nity an ope n q u e stio . Whe n the way had onc e b e e n op e n e d for m aking n e w The e cre e ds th e art ﬂourish e d . party that ralli d rou n d Euse biu s of Nicom e dia w e r e n ot agree d among th e m e e e e de clare s e lve s . An d dir ctly th y v ntur d to a policy

e the e e e . T e of th ir own , party b gan to fal l to pi c s h y

e e e e e e i n . Th e mad cr d aft r cr d , but all vain political e e e th e S o n Arians , or E us bians, w r willing to say that is homoi os the e e e e e e h m i like ( ) Fath r , or v n ss ntially lik ( o o

u i e e e e e e S . o s os). Both th s t rms had b n us d by Athanasius - e as e h m ousi os. th e hims lf, compatibl with o o But u ltra th e e e e A rians , arguing from poi nt of vi w that lik n ss is a e e e m a e e ee e e r lativ t rm , an d y imply som d gr of u nlik n ss, re e e the hom i -ousi os e the j ct d word o , an d tri d to twist m i s e n word ho o o i nto a conformity with th ir ow n te e ts . Th e y re ally h e ld that the S o n i s u n lik e (anomoi os) the w V e . n e e e e e e Fath r A coalition was ngi n r d by al ns , an n the n e e e n e e e the Aria bishop of you g r g n ratio , b tw n u ltra -Arians an d thos e political Arians who only wish e d h S n homoi os th T e to say that t e o is lik e ( ) e Fath e r . h y

m et i n S A . D. 35 c o m a small synod at irmium i n 7, and l t l T h p e e y ove rreach e d th e ms e lve s . h e y ass e rte d t e u niqu e I o dhead th e e th e e the Son of Fath r , an d subj ction of to the e homo - ousi os h m i -ousi os Fath r, proscribing both an d o o , ‘ ’ and all d iscussion of the word e ss e nc e as appli e d to T h - God . hu s the way was l e ft O p e n for t e u ltra Arians ‘ ’ or A nomoeans to maintai n the e sse ntial u nlik e n e ss of

- the So n the e . e e e to Fath r But this trum p t blast of d ﬁanc , which m ore cle arly than anyth ing re ve al e d the duplicity O f the e e the e e e m e n A rians , fright n d m or mod rat , who e T e m t had hith rto l e nt th e m th e ir su pport. h y e at A ncyra 358 e e e e e e i n , and dr w u p a stat m nt of th i r b li f, which was h h almost Nice n e . Wh e n t e Emp e ror Julian cam e to t e e the C e the th ron h is policy was to kill h urch , by r storing e e e xil s , an d allowing fr e scope for i nte stin e q uarre lli n g . th ff e But e re sult was ve ry d i e r nt from his e xp e ctations .

1 0 ci t. 66 p . , p . . 16 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

Pre sse d by the tyran n y of ﬁ rst o ne and the n an oth e r the e - e h A rian party, m or old fashion d bishops and t e se m i ‘ e e the N e e Arians sway d ov r to ic n doctrin e . Bishop e e e the aft r bish op cam ov r to Athanasian sid e , cre e d ’ e e e e e 011 h h aft r cr d was r m od ll e d t e Nice n e . But t e d e ath e e the e i of Julian d lay d u ltimat tr umph for tw e nty y ears . The Easte rn Emp e ror was a m e re tool i n the hands of A- e e V e Ursac i us rian intrigu rs l ik al ns and , wh o said that ‘ ’ t he So n e the e e e is lik Fath r , but tol rat d an d e v e n r e the e He e su ppo t d doctrin th at is u nlik . The Emp e ror Val e ns vigorously p e rs e cute d thos e who e th e e he h u ph ld e Nice n cr e d . But could n ot stay t e n e w e e ﬂ owing tid e . A g n ration of th e ologians was grow o f admi rati o n the e O f Athanasi us i ng u p, full for nobl spirit , e the e o f hi s On the C un ils an d m uch m ov d by app al work o c , h e e e e e i n which xpos d Arian i ntrigu s , an d ask d for pray e r e e e that all strif and rivalry m igh t c as , and futil e q u e s ti o n i n s be e e an d e a g cond m n d , strif s bout words , and th at the h truth might shin e again in t e h e arts of all .

S . the e e e Basil Gr at , at that tim a young d acon , who S O f the S had accompani e d . Basil Ancyra from yn od of S e h S e C e e t e . l ucia to onstantinopl , adopt d words of Athan ‘ : O n e we e o n e e asi us God conf ss , in natu r n ot i n m e e e t he e n u b r, for n u mb r b longs to cat gory of quantity e L n o r e e e e e n ithe r ik e Unlik , for th s t rms b long to the cate gory of q uality He that is e sse ntially

e e e e . God is co ss ntial with Him , that is , ss ntially God ‘ s e L I f I am to tate m y own opinion , I acc pt ike i n ’ ’ e e e the e e ss nc , with addition of xactly, as id ntical i n ‘ ’ ‘ ’ s e nse with co e ss e ntial but e xactly lik e [with out ‘ ‘ ’ e e e I sus c si n ce c o e ssen tial ss nc pe t . Accordingly t he e e e i s t rm l ast op e n to abu s , on th is grou nd I too ’ 1 i e adopt t . It is of gre at importance to n otic th is and e e S e e e similar stat m nts of . Basil . It has in r c nt y ars b e e n s aid by som e scholars such as Dr. Harnack and 2 th S e A . D 36 e e e e e e e . Prof ssor b rg , th at aft r A ntioch n s

the C he S . S . e O f N ssa an d appadocian fat rs , Basil , Gr gory y S e Naz i an z us e e e e th e an d . Gr gory of , r ally su rr n d r d e e e e e the e the Nic n position , and w r follow d by r st of

1 E . . 9 p viii . T H E C R E E D O F T H E C O U N C I L 17

Catholic Chu rch at th e Coun ci l of Constanti nopl e . It is u rged that wh ile th e y acce pte d the word homo-ousi os th e y inte rpre te d it i n a s e ns e wh ich mad e it e qu ival e n t h m - i T are e e e e n to o o i ous os. he y th r for said to hav fou d e d n e w a S e - a orth odoxy which was subst ntially m i Arian . But it would be far m ore tru e to say that th e y only acce pte d

- - hom i ousios e h m o usi os. e e o , so far as it im pli d o o N ith r e the C e e e th y , nor hurch as a wh ol , wou ld h av committ d t he folly of giving away the truth that the So n of God is

The Dr. h e ss e ntially d ivi n e . th e ory of H arnack that t e C h e e e e th e e e e hu rc xchang d a b li f in ss ntial u nity of b ing, i n e for a b e li e f a m e r e lik e n ss of b ei ng, has thus b e e n Mr - ﬁtl e e e e . y criticis d by . B thu n Bak r ‘ T e ffe e e his is i n ct to say, that it was p rmitt d to b e li e v e in thre e b e ings with natur e s lik e e ach oth e r ousi a “ ” r e ce iving a s e nse more n e arly e qu ival e nt to nature e e o n e e e r than to b ing . I nst ad of Godh ad , xisting pe m an ently e te rnally — i n thre e distinct forms or sph e r e s e e e e e be e e o f xist nc , th r would th r distinct forms of e e e e e e e e e xist nc of lik natur with ach oth r, which tog th r u h T mak e p t e Godhe ad . his amou nts to saying th at a doctrin e which is hard ly to be distinguish e d from poly e e the the e th ism , xce pt i n limitation of n um b r of Gods

e e e e e the C . S to th r , was u ltimat ly acc pt d by hurch u ch a conclusion would inde e d be a scathing satire on the work of counci ls and th e ologian s the Nic e n e Faith at last triumph ant— the w h ole Ch urch of the East at last convinc e d that its te rm s alon e e xpre ss and safe guard so m uch o f the truth as human minds can appre h e nd the Nice n e Cr e e d again afﬁrmed — its chi e f watchword proclaim e d : an d al l i n a d iffe re nt ! th e v e ry s e ns e of th at v e ry rival te rm against which the whol e battl e had ’ 1 n e w e bee n waged . But this r ading of h istory is a e e the e e e paradox . It is n ot r ally s upport d by vid nc ’ 2 e cit d i n its favou r . O n e word in conclusion on th e history of th e Cre e d in

th . e e We st Hilary of Poiti rs was a man of good bi rth , e e e N ew- h ighly d ucat d , a stud nt of Platonism , who was

1 Texts and S tud i es . . NO 1. Cam e 1901. , vol vii . bridg , 2 I n tr od . to E a rl H i st. o Chri sti a n D tr i n e . 194. y f oc , p

B 18 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

e C the conv e rt d to hristianity i n m aturity of his powe rs . h S ‘ He cam e to t e faith as . A ugustin e says lik e Cyprian an d oth e rs with t he gold and silv e r and raim e n t of ’ H e e e 350 A D . T Egypt . b cam a Bishop about . h re e

e e e n S . e e y ars lat r, wh Ath anasius was cond m n d by a Cou nci l at A rl e s on fals e ch arge s of im morality H ilary e e e e the was probably pr s nt and acc pt d Emp e ror s wo rd . Two ye ars afte rwards he d iscove re d h is mistake an d too k t h e e e r h is sid e with e p rs cute d Nic n e pa ty . From his O wn lips we h e ar th at he n e ve r h e ard the Nic e n e Cre e d the H until e xil e d for truth which it guard e d . e was e e he charg d with fom nting political d iscord . I f had h e e e h e k e pt qui e t e wou ld h av b n l e ft alon e . A s it was e M e was banish d to Asia inor, wh ich was a fatal m istak He of Arian policy . was th us brough t into touch with h e e e e t e Nic n l ad rs , an d all his vigour of mind was e e the t he e e e e x e rt d to xplai n East to W st, to r mov m is

e e the e S . a u nd rstanding, to s cond gr at work of Ath nasius wh e n he labour e d to win th e confid e nce of the S e mi e he e e the Arians . Wh n was allow d to r turn to Gaul victory was assu re d . Arianism won partial an d local the e Go thi c ki n s supre macy at courts of conqu ring g , but h e e e e w the t e tid e of Nic n i nflu n c was al ays rising, an d high tid e of Gallican orthodoxy i n the fi fth ce ntury the e the Le ri n s u nd e r gr at bishops of sch ool of , H ilary e L Caesari us e e e of Arl s, u pus , Faustus , , spr ad v ntually to S Visigoth ic pain . S e e e The following words of . H ilary of Poiti rs can n v r e e e e e e be q uot d too oft n to prov h ow sinc r ly, an d m od stly , he e e t h e the C e e an d faithfully acc pt d e t ach ing of r d . Alon e th e y o ffe r sufli ci e n t proof th at its advocate s w e re e e e not dryasdust dogmatists, ag r only for v rbal an d logical tri umphs

Faithful souls would be contente d with the word of God e e i n the a e which bids us Go t ach all nations , baptizing th m n m ” a e an d the S o n an d o f the H . B ut of the F th r, of , oly Ghost we are dr awn by the faults o f our h e re tical opponents to do a e e a e e e things unl wful , to scal h ights in cc ssibl , to sp ak out what

e a a e e e e e we n o t . A n d e e a is unsp k bl , to pr sum wh r ought wh r s it e we t he a e an d e e is by faith alon that should worship F th r, r v r h S o n and be l e the S we are n ow e e nce t e , ﬁ l d with pirit, oblig d to T H E C R E E D O F T H E C O U N C I L 19 strain our we ak human language i n th e utte ranc e of things b ey ond i ts scope ; force d into this e vil proc e dure by the e vil

e e of e . He e a s be m e o f e proc dur our fo s nc , wh t hould att r sil nt re ligious m e ditation must now ne e ds be impe rill e d by e xposition ’ i n 1 words .

\V h e e e com e back to t e probl e m of probl e m s . W r S S n ? O r . H ilary an d . Athanasiu s playi g with shad ows e e e se e e e e t w r th y abl e to e a littl b tte r than oth rs , y as in e e the ? a glass dark ly , som thing mor of light of truth h S . S u e t e e e . e e H ilary, lik A gustin aft r him , bas d doctrin of the Trinity o n the baptismal formula of the Ch ristian ‘ Dr e Th re . : e Ch urch . A s I llingworth has w l l said sulti n g cre eds are n oth ing m ore th an the auth oris e d e e e e e the e pitom s of wh at, in vi w of th ir com pos rs , Gosp ls e e ar contain . Concr e t facts wh n th e y e translate d into the te rm s of sci e nce or philosophy look v e ry u nlik e

e e e . e e n ot e th ms lv s A daisy, for xampl , is lik its

e e e . botanical d scription , n or a sonata lik its mu sical scor A nd so the sim pl e password th at give s e ntran ce into a - e di li e r the e world wid fam ily , will naturally from int l ’ l f m an s l e ctual state m e n t o wh at a gre at r e ligion e . h f S uch th e n is t e history of the irst Nice n e Cr e e d . I t th e e n e the e a is m on um nt of a lo g struggl , i n wh ich rl y . h op e s that c e ntre d rou n d the gre at Cou ncil w e r e doom e d e De e n o t e e to disappointm nt . bat brought p ac but a Y e t the e e e the e e sword . conflict d v lop d i n d f n d e rs of the faith fi n e r qualiti e s th an wou ld h ave be e n foste re d e th S by u n distu rb d prosp e rity . I n e words of . Hilary of ‘ Poiti e rs : B ut l trust th at the Church by the light o f ’ he r e e e the doctrin , will so nlight n world s vain wisdom , e e e the e the that v n though it confut n ot myst ry of faith , it will r e cognis e th at i n ou r conflict with h e re tics we an d n ot e are the e e e e e th y tru r pr s ntativ s of that m yst e ry . For gre at is the force of truth : n ot on ly is it its own f e e the e e the su fici nt witn ss , but m or it is assail d m ore e vid e nt it b e com e s ; th e daily shocks which it r e ce ive s e e e e the a only incr as its inh r nt stability . I t is p e culi r prop e rty of the Chu rch that wh e n she i s bu ffe te d she is e sh e e e sh triumphant, wh n is assault d with argum nt e

1 2 D e Tr m . 1 2. Di vi n e I mma n en e . 153. ii , c , p 20 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

e e e the e she e e e b he r prov s h rs lf i n right , wh n is d s rt d y h h ’ 1 supporte rs s e h olds t e ﬁ e ld . The e e C e e ﬁ rst Nic n r d , with its anath e mas , was not d e sign e d for use as a Baptismal Cre e d nor i n Publi c e e Worship . I t was put forward as , an d it r mai n d , a stan dard of orthodoxy for Bishops as r esponsible te ach e rs e e e the of the Church . I n this r sp ct it is a d ocum nt of e the high e st importan ce , b caus e i t s umm e d u p wh at com monse ns e of the Chu rch agre e d on as t he te ach ing of Holy Scriptu re conc e rni ng the Divinity of ou r Lord

J e sus Christ .

1 r m De T i 4. , vii .

22 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

e e e e the e e C e e n v r m ntion d Nic n r d , but signiﬁcantly told h is h e are rs th at th e i r own Cre e d of J e rusal e m was not e e the me n e e put tog th r by will of , but had b n built u p ’ 1 all the S e . h e e m strongly out of criptur s I n fact, s ldo touche d on the gr eat d ogmatic controve rsy of the day . This was not b e caus e he did not r e cognise the i nﬂu e nc e o n He e of faith cond uct . was car fu l to instruct his h e are rs according to the proportion of fa ith taught i n e C he e th ir Baptismal r ee d . A nd warn d th e m vigorously e e e S against strang rrors of G nostic J ws and amaritans , which would cut away th e ir h istoric faith by its roots . He e e C e e e e r f rs to two r ds , a short r form wh ich was us d the e e e at mom nt of Baptism , and a long r form wh ich th y we r e re quire d to r e pe at on th e day wh e n th e y stood u p i n the gr e at cong re gation to mak e th e ir vows of R e n unciation an d Faith .

A R E T CR E E D o r E R A LE M A . D . 34 E LI S J US , 1

. 1 . e e e the e I I b li v i n Fath r,

2. the S o n I I . A nd i n ,

I II . the 9. And i n H oly Ghost , o n e e e e the re 11 . A nd i n baptism of r p ntanc for f mission o sins .

This ﬁrst cre e d was e vid e ntly re gard e d as a summary o f the e e use t he e e e s e cond , conv n i nt for at supr m mom nt h e of th e ir re ce ption i nto the Hol y Ch urch . At t e sam tim e it is plai n that th is was th e basis u pon which the e the oth e r was built up . I n its sim plicity it r minds u s of S e e h e e te aching of . P t r on t e day o f P nt cost, an d may go back to v e ry e arl y d ays i n th e h istory of the Ch u rch i n Je rusal e m . ’ S C e e e e e . yril s s con d cr d is lik a map of g ological strata wh ich a re shown to witn e ss to th e ir gradual forma tion . 1 a t . 12. C , v C O N S T A N T I N O P O L I T A N U M 23

D 34 TH E CR EED o r J E R USA LE M I N A . . 7

- C R L Cat. . Y I , , vi xviii

1 We e e e i n o n e the e I . . b li v God Fath r Almighty, e and n make r of h e ave n an d arth , of all thi gs

visibl e an d i nvisibl e .

o n e L e C the e e 2. An d i n ord J su s hrist, on ly b gott n S n e e e e o of God , b gott n of H is Fath r, v ry e e God , b for al l worlds , by whom all th ings e e e w r mad , 1 e e and was incarnat , and was m ad man , i e e was cruc ﬁ d an d was bu ri d , an d rose agai n the th ird day e e e e and asc nd d into h av n , h th e e an d sat at t e right h an d of Fath r , an d is coming i n glory to j udge th e quick and

the e e e e n d . d ad , whos kingdom shall hav n o

H h e e 9 . o n e A nd i n e oly Ghost, t Paracl t , who e th e he spak i n prop ts , an d i n o n e baptism of r e p e ntance for the e r missio n of sins , o n e C C and i n H oly ath olic h urch , th e h e the an d i n e r surre ction of t e ﬂ sh , an d i n e e lif te rnal .

‘ ’ The t e rm O nly b e gotte n S o n and the title Paracl e te

us h h S . The point back to t e te ac ing of . Joh n word ’ Catholic re minds us of the te aching of Ignatius the The e m artyr bishop of A ntioch . words w h os k ingd om e e n d e e be e e n sh all h av no s m to a r c nt addition , guardi g h 2 against t e h e r e sy of Marce llu s of Ancyra . ’ C r e e e i e e S . y il s t aching on th s poi nts is full of nt r st, an d shall be q uote d m ore fu lly wh e n we com e to d e al the e e with th e ology of his r e vis e d Cre e d . It is n c ssary at this point to k e e p strictly to th e h istory of th e form . Th e r e is o n lv o n e oth e r point which m ust be tak e n b e for e

1 ’ The original word (eua vdpwr no dvr a ) rath e r e xpresses the ‘ e m n m en man VVe stco tt . thought, liv d a o g as ( ) 2 S e e . 5 p 7 . 24 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

w e the e e e S . i hani us pass on to discuss vid nc of E p . The ord e r of the articl e s r e v e als un mi stakab y th e d e n d h C th Th e n c t e . 11 p e e of e s e con d r e e d on e ﬁ rst . Art w e e e the . 10 the C e on Baptism pr c d s Art on hu rch , if n umb e r th e m i n the usual orde r according to th e ir

- subj e ct matte r .

11 o n e e th . A nd i n Baptism of re p e ntanc for e

r e mission of si ns . 10 n n . An d i o e holy Cath oli c Ch u rch . It is e vid e nt that the J e rusal e m Cre e d has grown u p h h rou nd t e fram e work of t e origi nal short Cre e d .

2 S E i han i o S l mis ( ) . p p a s f a a

E i han i us S p p , Bishop of alamis , was a man who had m e e e n e . trav ll d , an d had many good among his fri nds The v iol e n ce of his te mp e r an d h is pe dantry hav e som e e e a w what damag d his r putation as th e ologian . But e he e e e e may say th at was b yon d qu stion l arn d , and d id a e gr at work i n his dioce s e . h A D h n t e e . 3 4 e e e Th A h r d I n y ar . 7 wrot a book call d e c o e On e the e e e , for i nstruction of som pri sts an d l ading C e S e d ra P e h u rchm n of y i n amphylia , who had appli d to e C e the T h im for an xposition of atholic t aching on ri nity . The titl e of his book prom is e d to thos e who h ad be e n toss e d on stormy s eas of doubt that th e y should ﬁnd an th anchor of e sou l . He e C e e — i e e C ee q uot d two r d forms ( ) our Nic n r d , u e e e the e ( ) an laborat paraphras of original Nic n e Creed . We gath e r th at t he form e r had b e e n introd uc e d into h is dioce se as a Baptismal Cre e d b e fore his conse cration to h A H r t e e e e . D . 3 6 . e piscopat , wh ich took plac i n 7 e gard e d it as the Cre e d of the Apostl e s e xpl ain e d by the e e e e e e Nic n Fath rs , an d add d to it th i r anath mas, with The e e e e e som e variations . latt r cr e e d s ems to hav b n o siti o n the u se e his ow n com for of conv rts , wh o h ad

e he re ti ca . e e e e h ld opinions It is v rbos an d w arisom , and n e e d n ot d e tai n u s . Dr B in dle e the the . y mak s important sugge stion that E i hani us e e e words with which S . p p introd uc s this cr d may C O N S T A N T I N O P O L I T A N U M 25

o n e e the the with e simpl e m ndation , addition of word be a e the e e e [and], t k n to im ply that cr d was compos d of

e e e e e e e . E i han i us A postolic , J ru sal m , an d Nic n l m nts p p ‘ e the says, An d th is Faith was hand d dow n b h oly e i n the C th e A ostl s and h u rch , hol y city an d] from alpthe holyy bish O s toge th e r abov e the n umb e r o t three ’pl h u ndre d al l d te n .

CR EED Q UO TED B Y S . EP I P H A N I US

A ne ratu ad n o s ﬁ .

W n 1 . e e e e o e the e I . b li v i n God , Fath r A lmighty, m e e e e n ak r of h av n an d arth , an d of all thi gs b th o visible an d i nvisibl e .

2. o n e L e C the e e A nd i n ord J su s hrist, only b gott n S o n e e e e e of God , b gott n of H is Fath r b for all - that i s the substan e o the Father worlds of c f , L L e e e e ight of ight, v ry God of v ry God , b gott n , n o t e e o n e e the m ad , b ing of substanc with e n e e e b th that Fath r , by whom al l thi gs w r m ad , o are i n heaven a nd that are i n earth ; who for us m en and fo r ou r salvation cam e down from e e h av n , h th 3. an d was i ncarnate of t e H oly Ghost an d e V M e irgin ary , an d was mad m an

4 . e u s e e and was cruciﬁ d for und r Pontiu s Pilat , ffe e e and su r d an d was bu ri d , 5 e the n th e . and ros again third day, accordi g to S e criptur s, e e e e and asc nd d i nto h av n , e the th e e and sitt th at right hand of Fath r, and is coming agai n with glory to ju dge t he quick the n d and d e ad ; whos e kingd om shall h ave n o e .

111. 9 . the the L an d e A n d i n H oly Ghost, ord Giv r of e e e e the Fathe i lif , who proc d th from , wh o with the Fath e r an d the S o n toge th e r i s worsh ipp e d e th e an d gloriﬁ d , wh o spak e by e proph ts

1 O e ume i m 2 2 n a l Docu en ts e d . . 30 . c c , , p 26 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

10. o ne C in Holy atholic and A postolic Chu rch . 11 \Ve n . ackn owl e dg e o e baptism for the r e mission

of sins . W 12. e the e e th look for r surr ction of e d e ad , and the e the e li f of world to com .

\Ve must turn to the distinctive fe atu re s of this re vise d Cr ee d to note ﬁrst how it di ffe rs from the te xt wh ich we u se - T e to day . h se slight variations are probably d ue to — e e o f S . E i han i us 1 both . 2 Copyists of th t xt p p Art . , ; Art , that i s the s ubstan e o the F athe b th the thi n s i n the of c f r, o g heavens an d the thi n s on th earth Tw ar g e . o oth e rs e of

e . . 2 God o God 9 a nd the importanc I n Art , f , i n Art. ,

S on are e . The , abs nt h istory of th e ir i ntrod uction m ust be e e e the e c ha te r ' to ethe r r s rv d to n xt p , g with a d iscus th e e the h l 10 e e sion of r ason wh y word o y i n A rt . has b n e omitt d from ou r English translation . Th e re are th re e im portant ch ange s u pon wh ich Dr h . e S C t e H ort bas d his mai n argum e nt th at . yril was n T sa auth or of th is re visio . he change from t to sitte th

. e e th e e e i n A rt 7, agr s with e t ach ing i n his l ctu r s th at the So n was from all e te rnity sitting at the right han d l th e e e th e e . The of Fath r , an d not only aft r Asc nsion ‘ ’ ‘ ’ i n l wi th l 8 i n ch ange from g ory to g ory i n Art . is ’ e C e Ca t. . 3 . The accordanc with yril s t aching, , xv m ost ‘ ’ important is the ch ange from resur rection of the ﬂ esh ’ resurrecti on the d ead e e to of , i n accordanc with his i nt r r i h C 1 e tat o n t e e at. . p of claus ( , xviii and h is habitual a ph r se . U D e e pon th e s e change s r. Hort bas d his argum nt th at

S C e e e A . D . 362 . yril on h is r tu rn from e xil e to his dioc s in 364 wou ld ﬁ n d a natural occasion for the re vision of the p ublic cre e d by the skilfu l ins e rtion of som e of the Co n e the e e the ciliar languag , including t rm which proclaim d r e storation of ful l comm u ni on w ith th e ch ampions of e e i m Nicaea , an d oth e r ph ras e s and claus s adapt d for h ” pre ssing on t e p e opl e positiv e truth . Dr e e e the e . Hort trac d oth r ch ang s to following sou rc s , ‘ ’ ’ ‘ u der P o ntius Pila te an d A st li C li e o n , po o c ( h u rch) , f f

1 - 1 1 30. Di sser tati n . 91. Cu t. . . , xi 7 ; xiv 7 o , p C O N S T A N T I N O P O L I T A N U M 27

’ the age to co me to the cre e d of the Apostoli c Consti tu ‘ ’ ti n s e e r om the heavens br us su ered o , tog th r with f , f , ff ; ‘ ’ a ai n The Me C1 e ed e g (with glory) . sopotamian sup li s ‘ ’ p‘ a paralle l for th e omission of of repentan ce afte r on e ‘ ’ a i m The e e e e e ee e b pt s . Paracl t s ms to hav b n omitt d ’ b e caus e o f the accompany ing e nlarge m e nt . S E i han i u s e I t is e asy to prove th at . p p h ad con n ctions

He e e e e e . with J e rusale m . had liv d for som tim i n Pal stin H e s hows knowl e dge of circum stanc e s relating to Je ru

e Ele uthe ro o lis e e Cae e . sal m , p , n ar h is birth plac , an d sar a He give s a list of Bishops of J e rusal e m who liv e d th rough h A D h t e e . . 3 e e e troublous tim s . I n 77 corr spon d d with S e e the e e n th e . Basil about som quarr ls among br th r on

Mou nt of O live s . ’ Dr th e e . H ort s th e ory has comm e nd e d itse lf to gr at maj ority of write rs on the subj e ct both i n England and i n Dr att n bu sch e . K e e e e G rmany . acc pt d it nth usiastically ‘ with th e wo rds The only wond e r is th at i t was n ot d is cove re d b e fore B ut t he th e ory has late ly b e e n call e d i n qu e stion by a R e Le e e f M ussian scholar, Prof ssor b d f of oscow , w h o holds ’ He th at Epiphani u s te xt has b e e n d e libe rate ly alte r e d . E i h an i u h e e C e e thi nks that p p s gav e t e original Nic n r d . that the late r te xt h as b ee n inte rpolate d ; also that th e

e arly Cre e d of J e rusal e m was the i nv e ntion of scholars . ar H is argum e nts e not convin cing . ’ H ort s th e ory h as also b ee n call e d i n qu e stion by the e e 1 e e e e e e e Bishop of Glouc st r, whos argum n ts d s rv d tail d consid e ration : He d ir e cts atte ntion to the fact that th e re is i n t he s e con d division of the Cre e d a consid e r abl e amount o f mate rial th at is n e w both to th e Cre e d of Ni cze a the C e e e e t e e i f and to r d of J rusal m , s o th a v n the Cre e d of Je rusal e m li e s at the basis of th e e nlarge d C e e e e e the h e e b e e r d , it h as b n rais d by lp of oth r r ds , as th ose of th e Apostoli c Con sti tuti ons an d the Ch u rch of ’ e e e be A ntioch . As a m att r of fact th se sourc s may for e re practical purpose s r egard e d as o n e . It is ge n rally cognis e d th at the S e v e nth Book of the Apostoli c Co n stituti ons was put toge th e r by an u nknow n write r at

1 Dr. E . C . S . The Thr ee Cr eed s . 169 n te Gibson , , p , o 28 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

1 . 3 5 A . D . e A ntioch c 7 , so that its vide nce is only e vid e nc e that such an d such ph rase s w e re use d and appre ciate d by o n e e e the C or m or writ rs of hu rch i n A ntioch , at or soon

e the e e S . C be aft r, tim wh n yri l may su ppose d to h ave M e w e e . e e e e S C mad his r vision or ov r , r ﬂ ct that . yril as a follow e r of Me l e tius of A ntioch was i n clos e touch with the e e e e cu rr nts of th ological thought th r , and th at it was C S e h to this h urch that . Athanasius addre ss d t e famous ’ e e e P e e t he l tt r wh ich was , u nd r God s rovid nc , starting e e e the S e - point of a b tt r u nd rstanding with mi Arians , ’ i nd e e d of S . Cyril s ow n r e conciliation with the Nice n e the e the party, and of wh ole m ove m nt in e nlarge m e nt of e T e e e e e cre d s . h s facts su r ly l ad us to xp ect that

S . C he e an e e e yril , if u n d rtook y such nlarg m nt, woul d the C ee e T turn to A ntiochian r d for sugg stion s . his ‘ ’ e the h e e sou rc would accou nt for all additions from av n , ’ the the V M of Holy Gh ost an d irgi n ary, also cruciﬁ e d ’

e e . for us u nd r Pontius Pilat , agai n (i n Art ‘ ’ With re fe re nce to the change from sat of the O ld ‘ ‘ ’ J e rusal e m Cr e e d to sitte th and from i n to with ’ ‘ Dr 011 e : (glory) . Gibson go e s to sugg st Now it s e e ms im probabl e that th e s e phras e s wou ld have be e n alte re d

the C e e . T e are S i n a r e vision of r d h y both criptu ral , an d though it is e asy to u nd e rsta nd how Cre e ds wou ld be e nlarge d by the addi tion of words and the inse rtion of n e w e e t the e altera ti n e claus s, y m inut o of ph ras s is e e be e anoth r matt r, and it can hardly thought lik ly to ’ He e e e the hav e tak e n place . ntir ly ov rlooks fact that S C i n e e e e e e . yril h is t aching lays str ss on ach of th s r ad So w ar le d e e ings . th at e e positive ly to xp ct such alte ra

tions from his pen i f be r e vise d the form . Ca th C t . 2 e e ee I n , x iv 7, having q uot d Baptismal r d ‘ ’ the e h e e th e with r ading sat, agai n and again sp aks of ’ ‘ ’ S t e e on s si ting as of e te rnal continuanc , and cond m n s ‘ th os e Wh o fals e ly say that it was afte r H is Cross and R e e e the So n e surre ction an d Asc nsion i nto h av n , that ’ be an to sit 0 11 the righ t hand of the Fath e r . ‘ ’ 11 Ca t. . 3 e n the C e e as i n , xv , aft r qu oti g old r d glory, ‘ he : O ur L e C e e write s ord J sus hrist, th n , com s from

1 B W The lifi n i str o Gra e . 45 . ishop ordsworth , y f c , p

30 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

(3) The Co un cil of Conslan timple

The e v e nts wh ich le d u p to the Cou ncil of Consta nti n 0 le A . D . 38 1 are e e th e p i n m any of th m obscur , an d we t he M e the C A cts, or as sh ould say , inut s of ou ncil , We e e e . e e e e be hav b n l ost hav vid n c , as will sh own e e the C C the e pr s ntly, th at at ouncil o f halce don r vis e d C e e e the r d was quot d from Acts , as compos e d or acce pte d a S w by the holy F th e rs at Constantinopl e . o e are j usti ﬁe d i n scru tinising the e vide nce to ﬁ nd out som e r eason the e e the C th C for acc ptanc of ree d at e ou ncil . 1 i n ci le s e I n Nice n e p p w r e spre ading o n al l hands . Rom e an im portant s e ri e s of S yn ods was h e ld u nd e r

m asu A . D 369 O n h the Pope Da s ( . t e acce ssion of w e T e A . D . 380 n e e e Emp ror h odosius , i n , hop cam to al l th wh o r e main e d tru e to e Nice n e fai th . T e e e e C C e h odosius conv n d a gr at ou n cil at onstantinopl , i nviting Dam asu s to atte n d it with oth e r We ste rn Bishops . Possibly Th e odosius had som e i d e a of obtaining political su pport from Easte rn Bishops by su mmoning the Cou nci l h th Th e e i n t e capital of e Easte rn Empire . e W st rn e Damasus e Bishops wou ld not com , an d s e e m s to hav b ee n badly advis e d about t he tre nd of e ve nts i n the

East . m Ma A D 81 C e 3 . T e e e e se The ouncil t i n y . . h er w r pr nt e 150 e e e e e e som Bish ops, wh o l ct d as th ir ﬁrst Pr sid nt, Me e e e letius , Bishop of A ntioch , who h ad form rly b n the l e ad e r of the S e mi -Arian grou p of Bish ops to T h C e e . t e wh ich S . yril had b long d h is brought w ith it ’

C Dr . triumphant vindication of yril s orth odox y . H ort sugge ste d th at wh e n charge s w e re brought against He C he e C e e e e e . S . yril produc d h is r d to prov h is b li f e e e b e the C e e was d f nd d y Gr gory of Nyssa , to whom r d v i has b e e n attributed . But th e re is n o conclusive e ’ S C e e e im d e nce th at . yril s orthodoxy was v r s riously d pugne . e e Me e e e the f o f Unfortunat ly , wh n l tius had s ttl d a fairs 1 C a e h d D fﬁ h C n e e . e t e h urch onst nti n opl , i d i culti s had arise n i n conn e ction with the installation of Gregory o f z u C H e Naz i an s as Bish op of onstantinople . e had b e n con a d e in se cr t e against h is will, and w nt to Consta ntinopl e C O N S T A N TI N O P O L I T A N U M 31 the n e ee n e days of Aria s upr macy , an d h ad b wond r fully succe ssfu l i n k e e pi ng t he orth odox congre gatio n e e e e n e e tog th r, b ing a man of st rli g ch aract r and marv llous

e loqu e nce . Not u nn aturally he was chos e n to su cce e d Me l e ti us e e th e C he as Pr sid nt of ou n cil , but was n ot a good ch air D e a the e man . ispute s aros t on ce about su cc ssion of a M bishop to the S e e of A ntioch . Wh e n e l e tius was still S e - e e e e e a mi Arian , a bish op had b n cons crat d to minist r the P e to orth odox faithfu l i n Antioch , aulinus by nam , s wh ose claim was strongly su pport e d by Pop e Dam asu . Gre gory was h imse l f of opi nion that Paulinus sh ould be e H e e e r cognis e d as tru e Bishop of An tioch . pl ad d with the C P n o t e oun cil that aulin u s was an old m an , lik ly to e e e e the liv long . By acc pting his claim th y woul d h al ‘ e the e f e sch ism an d conciliat W ste rns . I it costs som th ing le t us m ak e the sacriﬁce for th e sak e of a gr e at ’ e n r e ligious gain . But social f e li g sile nce d cou nse ls of

e e . The e S . e e p ac young r bishops , whom Gr gory bitt rly e e e e e compar s to a ﬂigh t of crows , to g s or cran s i n a e n qu arr l , to a wh irlwin d raisi g a cloud of dust, to a ’ m e e e e swar of wasps d arting agai nst a trav ll r s fac , insist d th at to acce pt Paulin us wou ld give a triumph to th e ‘Ve e e the e e C e a e st, wh r as East, wh r hrist app r d , had

the e . e e e the right to asce nd ncy S . Gr gory r tort d that East was the lan d wh e re Ch rist was cruciﬁ e d ! Such e e e u n di n iﬁe d squabbl s w r g an d could d o n o good . e e e be Flavian was l ct d to Bish op of Antioch , an d con se crated n e the th T e at A tioch aft r close of e Cou ncil . h n

e t e S . e th e a p rsonal at ack was mad on Gr gory, on grou nd of an obsole t e canon which forbad e the translation of a o n e se e e h e bishop from to anoth r . As a matte r of fact e e e S se e he h ad n v r act d as Bish op of asima , for which h ad ee e e he e h b n cons crat d , nor had ve r h e ld t e se e of Naz ianz us the e , so obj ction had littl e support on t e ch ni cal f grou nds . But it was su ﬁ ci e nt to procure h is r e signa I n tion . the brilliant s e rm on wh ich he pr e ach e d o n th e occasion h e contraste d th e pre s e nt an d th e past C th e position of atholicism i n e city . A littl d rop h ad e n e H swoll into a migh ty str am . e e n d e d with a p e rora ‘ tion which e ve n Gibbon calls path e tic an d alm ost sub 32 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

’ He lim e . bad e fare w e ll to the gre at Chu rch of the ’ Re e e the e the surr ction , to his Bishop s s at, cl rgy, e e e e the the m mb rs of r ligiou s comm uniti s , wid ows , the th e orphans an d poor, e hous holds which had t e nd e d i nﬁrmitie s th e e e e he e h is , audi nc s wh ich wh n pr ach e d had e the e Dr crowd d u p to ch an c l gate s h e r e as . Bright ‘ e e - e th says , com s i n a touch of s lf com plac ncy, to e ’ e e the e e s e e m p ror and palac , and its train of s rvant , wh th r e e h e fe faith fu l to th ir mast r or not , d id not pro ss to w he e e the e e kno , but did kn ow (h r rapie r s m s to ﬂash out) that for the m ost part th e y w e re u n faithful to God to the gr e at Ch ristian city whose citize ns might we ll be u rge d to s ee k God m ore e arn e stly an d m ore i nte llige ntly the the e he to East and to W st, i n t cau se of which and h e e e e he by which , was alt rnat ly assail d , which had e e e e be e e striv n to r concil , which p rhaps cou ld r concil d “ i f oth e rs wou ld imitate h is abdication : for those wh o e e n o t e e e qu it th ir thron s do los th ir God , but will rath r

e e e e e e . t e s cur a high r thron i n h av n Fin ally, af r bidding e e the e far w ll to A ng l guardians of th is ch urch , an d praying th at the Holy Trinity might be th e re i n con ti n uall e e e e he y acknowl dg d an d i ncr asingly worsh i pp d , e xhorte d the p eopl e whom he te nd e rly de scribed as still “ — M e e e e the h is own y d ar ch ild r n , k p , I pray you , d e posit ; r e m e mb e r h ow I was ston e d : the grac e of ou r ” 1 Lo rd J e sus Christ be with you all i e u e e e C ee H is pray r was f lﬁll d in our Nic n r d , which from t he date of this Cou ncil has b e e n known by the se e e e the L th e nam e of his , a cr d which in iturg y of Ch urch has don e so m uch to promote worship of the

Holy Trinity . ’ S e e Ne ktari us e e . Gr gory s succ ssor was , an ld rly m an , of good birth an d ple asant mann e rs but without training e e the fﬁ e ae i n th o logy , wh o h ad h l d o c of a Pr tor , but at the tim e of his e l e ction was still u n baptiz e d Hi s nam e s e em s to hav e b e e n s e l e cte d by the Emp e ror from a list s th e the e e uppli e d by e Bishops, possibl y u nd r inﬂu nc of T e e e e a e Dio do re of arsus . H is arly lif h ad b n st in d by l e e e e s som e i mmora iti es , an d th r we r prot st against his

1 ' W B The A e o the F athers . 433. . right, g f , i C O N S T A N T I N O P O L I T A N U M 33

e e the e . e l ction , but maj ority approv d it H is lax rul was h S e t e e e . e a gr at contrast to th at of aust r Gr gory , an d

e . the e was not a succ ss But at tim it was acc e ptabl e . e e e he e e i n Having b n baptiz d , was cons crat d his white bap tism al garm e nts . A most i nge nious conj e ctu re has b e e n m ad e by

Dr . e the e e e e C ee Kunz , that r vis d J rusal m r d was u s e d as The e e e o n his baptismal confe ssion . vid nc which it is bas e d be longs to the history of the Cou n cil of Ch alc e do n b he and may e d e fe rr e d for t m om e nt . The C C e ee e oun cil of on stanti nopl , m ting agai n und r the e e o f Ne ktari us e ffi e th e C ee pr sid ncy , r a rm d r d of T Nicaea and pass e d ce rtai n Canons . h e y also se nt a e e th e e e l tt r to Em p e ror with a r cord of th ir work . The e the C e e e e followin g y ar ou ncil r ass m bl d , an d s n t a e e Damasu s e i n e e l tt r to Pop e an d oth rs , which th y stat d that for the proof of th e ir orthod oxy it was su ffici e n t for e e e the e th m to r f r to tom from A ntioch , an d to a similar form ulary i n which th e y hav e confirm e d the Nic e n e faith e e e e e e e th and anath matis d h r si s, an d also xpand d e

Dr. Bi n dle e the confe ssion of faith . y sugg sts that ﬁrst Can on e xactly corre spond s to the conﬁ rmation of the e e t he e he e e re Nic n faith , an d anath matisation of r si s e e the e e e e the f rr d to, an d that mor xpand d conf ssion of m a faith y hav e b ee n the r e vis e d Cr e e d of Je rusal e m . Th n A D 8 h T e e . . 3 3 t e e e followi g y ar, , Em p ror h odosiu s e C e e f e e summon d a th ird ouncil , an d d mand d that di f r nt b O h form s of Cr ee d should e subm itte d to him . nly t e e e k ari s Cr d of Ne t u found favou r .

th A D . 43 the e e At e Counci l of Eph e su s i n . 0 h r ti c h f A e e t e o rt . 3 N storius , who was on his trial , qu ot d words ‘ ’ i ncarnate of the H ol y Ghost and the Virgi n Mary as

the e e C e e the e S . C from Nic n r d , to astonishm nt of yril e e the e th e of Al xan dria, who quot d corr ct form of ﬁrst e 1 Nic n e Cre e d . Th e n th e curtain falls u nti l the Cou ncil of Chalce don li an C e A . D . 451 e we the C o n stanti n O o t e , wh n ﬁ n d p r d an d the original Nice n e Cr ee d q u ote d sid e by sid e as th e Cre e ds of the 150 h oly Fath e rs an d the 318 holy e Fath rs re sp e ctiv e ly . 1 0 . ci t . 73. p , p c 34 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

the e o ne the D At ﬁrst s ssion of Bishops , ioge n e s of C e e e the e the e e C e e yzicus , d f nd d t xt of r vis d r d as an h Th additio n to t e Nice n e Cree d . e discu ssion about it

was ve ry protracte d . Whe n i t gre w dark wax candle s

e e e e e e . w r brought in , but did not pr v nt som disord r At last the I mp e rial Comm ission e rs ask e d all the Bishops to e writ down th e ir cree ds . The Nic e n e Cree d with its anath e mas was re ad out by

E uno mi us o f Ni co m e dia . T e e e , Bishop h r was loud applaus , ‘ the Bi shops e xclaiming This is the faith of the we e e e we z orth odox , into this w r baptiz d , into this bapti e .

S . C B e e e L yril ( ish op of A l xan dria) b li e v d this . eo ’ Le o (Bishop of Rom e ) has i nte rpre te d thu s . h ad s e nt a e e T most important l tt r, commonly known as h is om e . The n the Com mission e rs said : Let the things se t out ’

the 150 e be e . Ae ti us e by holy Fath rs also r ad , Archd acon ‘ of Constantinopl e r e ad th us : The holy faith wh ich the 150 Fath e rs set out agre e ing with the h oly an d gran d ’ S T e the C ynod i n Nicaea . h n followe d onstantinopolitan C e The e T the re d . Bishops c ri d out his is faith of all w ’ h T e e e e . t e orthodox . his all b li v The C e e e e e ommission rs propos d a conf r nc , which had h h th i mportant re sults i n t e r e vision of t e te xt . At e sixth e the C e e e e e th e s ssion two r ds w r r ad again , and e t xt give n of the Constanti n opolitanum was that which we are h e R led to con n e ct with t e te xt afte rwards u s d in om e . It do e s not s e e m i mpru d e nt to conj e ctu re th at it had b e e n ’ h e Le e O n h r e vis e d with t e assistan c of o s l eg at . t e oth e r the e C e hand , (pr sumably) onstantinopolitan t xt wh ich Aeti us had read at the se cond s e ssion is the te xt wh ich we sh all afte rwards ﬁ nd carri e d ove r from Constantinopl e to S pain Now we com e to the e xtraordin arily i nte re sting ’ r e e th C1 e vide n c e on which D . K u nz s th ory about e e e d the e n d th e C the is bas e d . At of ou ncil all Bishops e O n sign e d th e ir n am e s to its d cre e s with littl e n ot e s . e Kalli n ikus e ! M e of th e m , Bishop of A pam a ( y rl a) i n Bith y nia acce pti ng the Cre e ds as the symbols of the 318 150 e e e e the C C and Fath rs , r f rr d to ou ncil of onstan t i n o ple as h aving be e n h e ld at the ordination of the 1 ’ — ’ Da s N i cci n i sch Ko nstan ti no oli tam sche S mbo l . 35 . p y , p C O N S T A N T I N O P O L I T A N U M 35

O u most pious N ektari us the Bish op . bvio sly th e r e was som e conn e ction i n his m ind b e tw e e n the Cre e d an d th e cons e cration of N e ktari us as Bish op . Probably it was th e C e e he e e an d r d which had prof ss d at his baptism , it be cam e the Baptismal Cr e e d of h is city .

Th e re is som e furth e r e vid e nc e . A c e rtai n ofﬁc e r of the e e e C e e im p rial s rvic i n onstantinopl , Nilus by nam , e e who cam e from A ncyra i n Galatia, and aft rwards w nt e M S e e e e to liv as a m on k on ou nt i nai , s ms to hav qu ot d this form of Cre e d . The e e e pri st Proclus , who oppos d N storius , is su p pose d to show acqu aintanc e with the Cr e e d i n the Lo the e th words , Holy Gh ost is worsh ipp d with e ’

e th e So n . T e e e e Fath r and his is slight vid n c i n its lf, but is worth y of consid e ration tak e n with othe r possibl e b h a e . . M t e e e q uot tions , g y ark h rmit, w h o liv d at A n cyra,

C . an d was a pu pil of S . h rysostom Ce rt ai nly th is is the d ire ction i n which futur e re s e arch m u st work .

(4) I n troducti on i nto the Li turgy

We have trace d th e re vise d Cre e d from its original e e e e e C hom i n J rusal m to its adopt d h om in onstantinopl e . Y e t e e anoth r c h apt r i n its romantic h istory is op e n e d . It had b e e n i n Ante - N ice n e tim e s an instru ction i n the In the e faith for cate chu m e ns . fourth c ntury it b e cam e e also a guarantee of orthodox y . I t n xt b e cam e th e ’ the th e L To d oxology of faith in itu rgy th is position , ‘ M r T e e e C as . urn r has w ll said , n o oth r form of re e d

e ve r aspir e d than that of Constantinopl e . A li k e in the ee the L e e the C C e Gr k , atin , an d v n optic hurch s, its maj e stic rhythm and its d eﬁ nite but simpl e an d straigh t forward th e ology have mark e d it out as the Cree d of ’ Christian worship . T e e th e Re e Chur h Hi st r h odor ad r , i n his c o y (abou t 520 A D e e e the e M . . ) t lls u s th at P t r Fu ll r , onophy site 4 488 e the Patriarch of A ntioch from 76 to , d e vis d saying the C e e e e e e T of r d at v ry s rvic , an d agai n that im othy of C e 512 h e M e onstantinopl ( an ot r onoph ysit , ord e r e d that the S Vm bo l of the Faith of the 318 Fath e rs shou ld 36 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

be e e e e M e said at v ry s rvic , as an i nsi nuation that ac d o n i us [his orth odox pre d e ce ssor] did not acce pt the C e e e e e e e r d , for it had form rly b n said only onc a y ar, on the occasion of the cate ch e tical instructions give n by th " e bishop on Good Friday . Re e e e the e we se e the M ading b tw n lin s , can that on o h site s the e the O n e C p y , who clu ng to id a that i n hrist e e o ne e an d e the C e e th r was only Natur , took u p us d r d i n this way as a prot e st agai nst the De fi nition of Faith the C C e the put forward at oun cil of h alc don , i n which d octri n e of the Two Natu re s had be e n v e ry be au tifully

and ve ry e xplicitly stat e d . ‘ Mr T e e e . urn r quot s a cu riou s narrativ which has b ee n e mb e d d e d among the acts of t he Cou ncil of a Constanti nopl e h e ld by the patriarch Me n n s i n 536 . Timothy the Monophysite patriarch di e d i n 5 17 ; A nas h M 18 h tasi us t e e e e 9 5 . T onoph ysit m p ror on Ju ly , e n e w e m pe ror Justin was an ad h e re nt of the Chalc e donian De th e n e w h e ﬁ nition , and patriarc Joh n , it was su ppos d , ’ n had only anath e matise d it u nd e r compulsion . O M 16 5 18 e e e t e onday , July , , a sol mn c l bra ion was h ld i n ‘ Th the cath e d ral i n h onou r of the Fourth Cou nci l . e patriarch on his e ntrance was gre e te d with fre sh ' de man ds for th e i ns e rtion i n to the ch u rch diptychs of the m e morial th e e Mace d o n i us of orthod ox patriarch s Euph miu s and , e P e Le o fi e e the as w ll as of op ; satis d agai n on this h ad , ” congre gation brok e out for a good hour i nto anti B nedi th e ph onal sin g ing of the e ctus. At last e s rvice e e e the e th e Tri sa i n : was allow d to proc d , an d choir b gan g o “ te t he e the e the e an d af r r ad ing of holy Gosp l , divin litu rgy taking its u sual cours e and the doors having

e e and the h l i stru ti n da a i . e. the b e n clos d , o y n c o (p qp , C e havi n bee re ited a rdi to ust m the r e d) g n c cco ng c o , at mom e nt of the diptychs t he whol e mu ltitud e qui e tly gath e r e d roun d the sanctuary an d liste n e d ; an d wh e n only the nam e s of the afore said fou r Holy Synods w e re e e the e e the m ntion d by d acon , an d th os of archbishops e e Mac e do n i us Le of h oly m mory , Eu ph mius , an d o , all “ e e be The e O with a l ou d v oic cri d out, Glory to ,

1 T e Le H E . 11. e . 48 an d 39 . h odorus ctor, , fragm nts

38 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

’ S the th e 318 T ynod by collating of h oly Fath e rs . hat he m eant the Consta nti nopolitan um i s prove d by re fe r e n ce s i n th e e igh th and twe lfth Cou ncils of Tol e do

A . D . 653 68 1 e e the C e e e i n the , , wh r r d as it is proclaim d e th M s ol e mn iti s of e ass is transcribe d i n full . We m ust n ow turn to the s ubse qu e nt history of the C ee t he e e L e r d i n W st rn iturgy , wh ich is m ainly conc rn e d ’ h h h S n with t e addition of t e words A nd t e o . But it is ‘ n e ce ssary also to tak e accou nt of the addition God of ’ God . ‘ ’ The words God of God stood in the original Cre e d Cassarea e e ae e of as quot d by Eus bi us at Nic a , and cam T e i nto the Cre e d of the Cou nci l . h y w e re n ot i nclu d e d S C e th e e e C e e by . yril i n h is r vision of J rusal m r d , but e e are with out any dogmatic pu rpos , sinc e th y impli e d i n ‘ ’ the words tru e God of tru e God . At Chalce don th e y app e ar i n t he form quote d at the s e con d S e ssion by Aeti us e the e e the C , pr su mably as t xt us d i n hu rch of C e e the o e onstantinopl , an d cam naturally i nto f rm u s d h S C w se by t e panish hu rch as e shall e pre s e ntly . But th e y do n ot occur i n the te xt qu ote d at the sixth S e ssion of the Cou ncil of Ch alce don . I may sum u p the conclusions wh ich we have th us far w T re ach e d i n the e loqu e nt ords of M r. urn e r The Cre e d of Constantinopl e did not m e re ly make its way i nto oth e r baptismal rite s than those of its original h om e at Je rusal e m and its adopte d h om e at Consta nti n l e i e e ffe e o p e . Its r al signif can c i n history li s i n a di r nt ’ the e C e e i nali e n dire ctio n altoge th e r . I f Apostl s r d is ably associate d with the initial stage s of the Christian life as part of th e pre paration for the S acram e nt of the C C e e e Baptism , onstantinopolitan r d h as acq uir d an e qually organic conn e ction with the full e st e x pre ssion of h S th ’ 1 Ch ristian life i n t e acram e nt of e Eucharist .

1 i . 0 c t. 46. p . , p C H A P TE R I I I

TH E LA TE R HISTO R Y O F O UR N ICE N E CR E ED

I T e e e e has b n assum d , som what too hastily, i n man y mod e rn te xt- books th at the last sce n e i n the history of ou r Nice n e Cre e d was e nacte d at the fam ou s Cou n cil of

T A D 589 . Th e e T e ol edo i n . . anci nt town walls of ol do wh i ch frown down on the wate rs of the Tagu s as th e y dash e the e e e th e u n d r old bridg , dat back i n part b yon d i nva M h h V e sion of the oors to t e days of t e isigoth ic supr macy . Ne v e r have me n pass e d withi n th em to a more striking sc e n e than the m e morabl e Council at wh ich K ing Re c ca re d the e t he e e e , i n nam of his n ation , and i n pr s nc of e e e th e his ch i f cou ncillors, tog th r with all Bish ops of the C C d a e the ath olic hurch with i n hi s om i nions, bj u r d he resy of Arianism wh ich had be e n h e r e d itary i n his e e e the e e C e e the e rac , and acc pt d Nic n r d as tru standard e C e H e e of primitiv h ristian doctrin . introd uc d i nto e the De C e an d the n his ad dr ss part of ﬁnition of halc don , , e the : n Re c c ared e s ubscrib d it with words I , K i g , h av e e e subscrib d this holy faith and this tru conf ssion , wh ich alon e the Catholic Chu rch through the whol e globe p ro ’ fe ss e s . The ee e e e e t e n h Q u n follow d his xampl , an d som Bis ops witn e ss e d th e ir subscription with e xpre ssions of th an k e The met S e e ful n ss . Bish ops th e n in ynod an d agr d on som e tw e nty- thre e anath e m as for the pr e s e rvation of tru e e e C o n e be e doctrin , and som anons , of wh ich m ust quot d

i n full .

‘ For th e incre ase o f the Faith an d to stre ngth e n th e minds o f m e n e e b the S the e o f Re cca re d , it is ord r d y y nod , at advic , that i n the C e of S a Galli c ia f the o f all hurch s p in and , ollowing form the O e C e the S o f the o f the C ri ntal hurch s, y mbol Faith ouncil of C e a i s o f the o n e e and onstantinopl , th t hundr d ﬁfty bishops, ’ shall be r e cite d ; so that b e fore th e Lord s Pray e r is said the Cre e d 39 40 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

shall be chante d with a cl e ar voice by the peopl e that testimony ma be e the e an d a th e e o f the y thus born to tru faith , th t h arts pe opl e may come puriﬁ e d by the faith to taste the B ody and B o f lood Christ.

O n e th e e e the C h of l ading th ologians at ouncil , Jo n B i c laro e e e e e of , Bish op of G rona , had r c ntly r turn d from C h e e e e e e e e . onstanti nopl , wh r had r sid d for som y ars It was no doubt d ue to h is i nﬂu e nce th at the liturgical u se the C e e n h of r e d was i ntrod uc d , accordi g to t e C M e e t he h custom at onstantin opl e . or ov r te xt of t e Cre e d itse lf in the Acts of the Cou ncil follows close l y the form qu ote d at th e s e cond S e ssion of the Cou ncil of C e we e e th halc don , which fou nd r ason to r gard as e form 1 e e th e C C e . cu rr ntly, us d i n hurch of onstantinopl Th e s e consid e rations r e nd e r it i n the h igh e st d e gre e improbabl e that the Cou ncil could h ave acce pte d the 111 ‘ S n t e rpo lati o n of t he words A nd the o in A rt . 9 with ou t prote st from a pre late wh o was q ualiﬁ e d to sp e ak with the e e the e n C the auth ority on t xt u s d by East r h u rch , e e e xampl e of which th e y all e vid ntly wish d to copy . 2 I n m y I ntroduction to the Creeds I q uote d the fact that two e arly e ditions of the Cou ncils — Cologn e ( 1530) an d Paris ( 1535) —omit the words in t he te xt of the Cr e e d as ’ T e e e C d A u i rre q u ote d at ol do . I nd d ard i nal g admits

SS e . that som e M . d o not contai n th m I am n ow abl e to 3 h ro dhc e e e e t e MSS . p vid e nc , from som of most important the S C the M of panish ou ncils at Escu rial an d at adrid , wh ich conﬁrm s m y conviction that the Cou ncil n e v e r S S S h e M . e add e d t e words at al l . om omit th m alto e e be e e g th r, an omission wh ich would n ot mad int ntion ally afte r controve rsy had aris e n with the Easte rn Chu rch M S the S e S . e th e i n n inth c e ntu ry . om put th m i nto e the C e e margin or b etwe e n t he lin e s . Wh n r d occu rs e e the e C e e twic , ﬁrst u n d r h ading onstantinopl , an d th n e the e T e e the e u nd r h ading ol do , it is alway s u n d r h ad T e the e e e e e are ing ol do th at words cr p in , b for th y - The e add e d in t he oth e r t e xt form . r ason is not far to e e Th e o ne the e s k . e copyist has r ad i n of anath mas of

1 ‘ ’ 2 E . i t e the o f i n A rt . 2. P . 115. g . includ s words God God, 3 l S a e e i n e i n the J u r n a l o The . tud i es I h v publish d it a not o f o ,

J an . 1908 . LA T E R H I STO R Y O F N I C E N E C R E E D 4 1

‘ ‘ this Cou ncil of Tol e do : Who e ve r doe s n o t b e li e v e or h as not b e li e ve d that the H oly S pirit proce e ds from th e e the S o n He e e Fath r and , an d has not sai d that is co t rnal h th S n le t be and co e sse ntial with t e Fath e r an d e o , h im ’ e hi s e anath e ma . With that fate h angi ng ov r h ad w h at was a poor copyist to d o ? \Vi tho ut large r knowl e dge he could n ot imagin e that the Cre e d h ad n ot contain e d the ‘ ’ \Ve words A nd the S o n from the b eginning . can n ot e he e the T e blam him . Wh e n t words onc cr e pt into ol dan t ext it was natural that th e y shoul d spre ad i nto th e e form q uote d as from the Cou nci l of Constantin opl . Th C e re e d th us inte rpolated spr e ad . At first sigh t it s e e ms som e wh at illogical th at th e C T th e ou ncil of ol e d o sh ou ld lay su ch str e ss on point, e t e th we re an d y k e p e Cre e d t e xt pure . But m u st e e e e e m m b r that th e re w e r oth r points i n th e ir anath ma, such as the asse rtion of the coe ss e ntiality an d co e te rnity the H S e i m of oly pirit, w h ich to th e m w e re qually e t e e e e e e e e i n portant, y n ith r of th m w r xplicitly ass rt d h C e t e e e . e e r d As i n so man y cas s , it has happ n d th at t he progre ss of e rror si n c e the m aking of the Cre e d h as re n d e re d furth e r dogmatic d e finition n e ce ssary for cl e ar i nte rpr e tation of the fu ndam e ntal truth s which the Cre e d the e i n its simplicity prote cts . I f Holy Gh ost is worshipp d the e the S o n with Fath r an d , such honou r can only be righ tly paid on the grou n d that He i s co e ss e ntial an d e the S o n e e e e be the co qual , as has b n acknowl dg d to at th e T e e e th e cost of long Arian controv e rsy . h r for Tol edan Fath e rs w e re only drawi n g out what se e m e d to th e m late nt in the Cr e e d As re gards the Proce ssion from th e Son th e y w e re l oyal the e C n to arli e r te aching of th e ir Chu rch . A ou cil of T e A D 44 e th C The e ol d o i n . . 7 h ad ad opt d e an on Fath r e e the S o n e e the e e be is u nb gott n , b gott n , Paracl t not ’ gotte n but proce e ding from the Fath e r an d the So n . The e e e Dr e e e latt r ph ras occurs twic . . N al sugg sts th at th e Spanish Church in its conti nual controv e rsy with the e the e A rianism , sh ran k from id a th at Fath r h ad an 1 e h S 011 e attribut w h ich t e h ad not . But it is m or prob able th at withou t m uch re fl e ction th e y w e r e simply 1 H i st. E aster n Chu r h . ii . 115 3. c , Introd . 42 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

loyal to what had b e e n a m ark e d characte ristic of We ste rn th S te achi ng sin ce e tim e of . Augustin e . It is im portant e e to mak this fact qu ite plain . East rn and We ste rn ff th ink e rs starte d from two di e re nt points of vi e w . Th e re i n li es t he j u stiﬁ cation for the ag e - lon g quarre l on e e e be this subj ct, wh ich can n v r compose d u ntil j ustice is e the e d on to sinc rity of both parti e s . The u se th C liturgical of e re e d spre ad far and wid e . Among th e Me tropolitans who subscribe d the A cts of the C Mi e ti us Me e oun cil was g , tropolitan of Narbonn , Bishop Th e w of the provi nce of Gau l . p rovince of Narbonn e as a constitu e nt part of the Visigoth ic kingdom which ex h te nd e d as far as the Rhon e . At t e begin ni ng of the e e e e e e e e e e e S s v nth c ntury th r w r s s stablish d at aragossa ,

e e . th e the Barc lona, G rona I n following ce ntury C e the e e e e kingdom of harl s Gr at, xt n d d southward to e e e the e e C ee Barc lona, so th at v n i f i nt rpolat d r d had n ot e e e e the e e p n trat d to Narbonn i n pr viou s c ntury, it might e e e w ll have com from Barc lona i nto Gaul .

1) The Controversy

The addition of th e words And t he So n d id n ot begin

' the e n d h to attract n otice u ntil of t e e ighth c e ntury . A D 6 — 5 0 we are i h At the Cou ncil of G e ntilly i n . . 7 7 form e d by the Chronicl e r Ado of Vi e n n e — the q ue stion was v e ntilate d be twe e n the Gr e e k s and the Romans th T e e the S ro about e ri nity, an d wh th r Holy pirit so c e ds th S o n as He e e the i er e from e proc ds from Fat . S om e ambassadm s of th e Easte rn Emp e ro1 Constantin e C0pro nymus w e r e pr e se nt and 1 e mo n strate d We h e ar

A . D 8 e C e the e e n o more until . 7 7, wh n h arl s Gr at r mon strate d with Pope H adrian be cau se h e acce pte d the Tarasi us C a e Cre e d of , Patriarch of onst ntin opl , i n which ‘ - I e e e the the L the words occur b li v i n Holy Gh ost, ord L e e e e the e and Give r of if , wh o proc d th from Fath r h S o n e th rough t e , and H ims l f both is and is acknow ’ C e e the e e e e l e dge d as God . harl s q uot d i nt rpolat d Nic n e e Tarasi us e e the Cre e d . Hadrian answ r d that r li d on S h e . te aching of t e Holy Fath rs , qu oting Athanasius ,

S S . e . The s e are . Euse bi us , H ilary and oth rs pa sag s n ot LAT E R H I S TO R Y O F N I C E N E C R E E D 43

th e e k e the Po e all to poi nt, an d it is r mar abl that p did ’ e h the C n ot r ply to t e King s appe al to Nice n e re e d . Be caus e he dare d n ot ? More probably be caus e h e was th h MSS p uzzle d by e e vid e nc e of t e . the C n e At ou n cil of Friuli , u d r Paulinu s , Bishop of h e e A . D . 91 t e e e e Aquil ia, i n 7 , int rpolation was d f n d d , and a l e tte r was s e nt by Pauli n u s to the K ng i n which occurs th e following passage

‘ For if the v e ne rabl e compilation of the N ice ne Sy mbol be e e e e be be se t f e e c on xamin d , nothing ls will found to orth th r in ‘ﬂ e h T e sa A nd i n h l c rningt e H oly Ghost than this . h y y t e H o y Gho s Ho w e e e o f e be t. is this so v ry bri f prof ssion th irs to r e ce ive d e xcept that th e re is give n us to unde rstand the re ligious e o f th e e f of e e e e e d votion pur aith th ir minds , and that th y b li v d, as e the H i n the e an d the is most lik ly in oly Ghost, just as Fath r in S o n e e b th e 150 e e ; as aft rwards was don y holy Fath rs, who t sti ﬁe d that the faith of the Sy mbol o f th e Nice n e Council should

e f o r e e e . Y e t i f fo r e the e r main v r inviolat , as xpounding m aning o f e e e ce e a e an d e e th ir pr d ssors; th y m d additions , conf ss that th y e e e i n the H l Gh st the L rd a nd Gi ver o li e who ro b li v o y o , o f f , p ” ceed eth r m the F a ther for e e an d the e f o , th s words r st that f l are n o t e i n th e e of th o low contain d sacr d dogma e Nice ne Sy mbol . B ut e o n e e e e aft rwards too , account forsooth of th s h r tics who e a th e H S the a e e e e whisp r th t oly pirit is of F th r alon , and proc ds “ th e e e e e e — who r eed eth r m from Fath r alon , th r was add d p oc f o ” h a her h on A n d t e e e ar t e F t an d t e S . y e th s holy Fath rs e not to be e i f e had e e blam d , as th y add d any thing to, or tak n any thing m the a o f the 318 e away fro f ith Fath rs , who had no thought on e e c o n trar l e e i n divin subj cts to th ir m aning, but an hone st ’ e e com ie te e e e mann r studi d to p th ir s ns without spoiling it.

The w e ak poi nt i n th is argum e nt is that Paulinu s could not quote anoth e r Cou ncil of auth ority as suppl e h m e n ti n g t e Cre e d o f Constanti n opl e by this addition . Whil e the matte r was th us simm e ring in the min ds of the e the C e th e e n e w th ologians at cou rt of harl s Gr at , a turn was give n to th e discussion by a le tte r which c e rtain L e e M O e atin monks who w r living on ou nt liv t, an d e e e n e e e e e oth rs wh o w r livi g at B thl h m , s nt hom to e e the Pop e . Both at J e rusal e m an d at B th l e h e m th y e e e e e e e w r accus d by a c rtai n monk , call d Joh n , of h r sy , b e caus e th e y san g the i nte rpolate d Cre e d on Christmas Da S o e e o n e e e the e y . th y s nt of th ir n u mb r to ask Pop e e e e the what th y sh ou ld d o , and r qu st d h im to i nform 44 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

e T e e e h e Em p ror . h y u rg d that th y had h e ard t e Cr e d ’ e e the e e s ung with th s words i n Emp ror s chap l , and th at e e S e such t ach ing was giv n i n a homily of . Gr gory , an d the R S MS S e e e . ee e in ul of . B n dict , which h ad b n giv n e t he e S e e to th m by Emp ror ; also i n a dialogu e of . B n dict the e e e the which Pop h ad giv n to th m , an d i n Ath anasian

Cr e e d . e e the e No dir ct r ply from Pop has com e down to us , e e e e e e but th r is a prof ssion of faith , w h ich may hav b n i nclud e d i n his answ e r Le o to all th e ch urch e s of the ’ e e e h e the East . It is a cl ar xpr ssion of t e doctrin of R C e e oman hu rch , and contain s a d ﬁ nite state m nt of th e e the S o n Proc ssion from . Le o e e e the e wh o e s nt a formal l tt r to Emp ror, at onc e h T e e summon d t e Bish ops to m e e t him at Aix . h e y w r h th e u nanimous i n uph olding t e doctrin e . As r egarding e t he C e e e the e i nt rpolation i n r d , th e y f lt th at matt r e e e e n The e n n r quir d d licat h an dli g . Pop said othi g e e the e th e R about it, an d th y k n w th at practic of oman Chu rch diffe r e d from th e ir ow n as to the u se of th e h L S o e e e e Cre e d i n t e itu rgy . th y d cid d to s n d a mission th e e E in hard the to Pop , con sisting , accord ing to g ( ’ f e e e e of “ Emp ror s s cr tary), of B rnhard , Bishop orms , Adalhard P tav i us he C e . e and , A bbot of orbi says th at e e the e e e fou nd m ntion i n s om old acts of conf r nc , of e e the O e th e e e J ss , Bish op of rl ans , n igh bou r an d dioc san Adalhard the e e e e e n e of , who is m or lik ly to hav b ad d d to the m ission b e caus e he had b e e n s e nt by Charl e s on a A D 802 political mission to Con stantinopl e in . . . A m ost inte r e sting account o f the confe re n c e which was h e ld be twe e n the Pope and th e s e l egate s i n the ’ S i um S Pe e e the e c re tar t. e e e e of t r s , has b n pr s rv d by Th e the A bbot Sm aragdus . e Pop e r e adily ass e nt d to e e th C e e d octri n as stat d by e ounci l of Aix , and agr d with th e m th at wilful r ej e ction of it was h e re sy . Bu t he d e clin e d to ass e rt th at acc e ptance of the d octrin e was h e e e i n all cas e s n e c e ssary to salvation , an d r solut ly The e e re fus e d to ins e rt the words i n the Cre e d . l gat s l e ad e d that thousan ds of souls had gain e d th e i r know pe dge of the truth by h e aring the int e rpolate d words the C e e M the e e su ng in r d at ass , an d that Pop hims lf

46 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

l steri e s e the use th e y , and with it cam of e inte rpolat d

gre e d . M r T e e e h fﬁ . u rn r has d alt concis ly with t e di culty that e t e the e e c r ain Gallican writ rs of ninth c ntury mak , or

e e e e the . the app ar to m ak , stat m nts to contrary , viz to e ffe the C e e e the L R ct th at r d was us d i n iturgy in om e . ‘ We e e e T e hav j ust got to xplain th m away . hu s wh n Am alari us of Treve s incl ud e s in h is Comments on the Ordo R manus e the C ee d we o a m ntion of r , must su ppose what e e he e the O is asy nough , that is com m nting on rdo R Walafrid oman us as us e d in Gaul . A n d wh e n write s ‘ that the liturg ical use of the Cre e d is b e li e v e d to h ave ’ e the East R e Gaul thi s e e e com from to om , and so to , r pr s nts wh at Charl e s and his Frankish th e ologia ns wante d to be e a ri ri e e e be e e tru , and on p o grou nds b li v d to tru , rath r ’1 than what was tru e in fact .

T alafrid S Re e . A . D . h is W trabo was Abbot of ich nau , c 850 e the the C ee , an d t lls us th at cu stom of singing r d be cam e more popular i n the Gallican an d G e rman h the Church e s at t e tim e of Adoptionist controve rsy . T The e e the his is probably tru e . tr atis of Italian Bish op s the Eli an dus e 94 against Adoptionist p , pu blish d i n 7 , contains v e ry strong state m e nts on the doctrin e of the

e the S on . \Valafrid e e Proc ssion from giv s two r asons, Mr T e e e as . u rn r says, both sou nd in th ir way, to xplai n why it was th e Constan ti n opolitan um and not t he N i cce n um n e the e e which was use d , am ly, that form r was p rhaps e e the e n asi e r to sing, and th at it had oust d latt r owi g to h the l ocal patriotism of t e p e opl e of Constan tinopl e .

(2) Later hi story It re mains to trace the h istory of the re vis e d Constan ti no o litan e e e C e e the Se e p t xt , our Nic n r d , i n rvic books h S C e of t e Ce ltic and axon hurch s, and of its translation

i nto English at the tim e of the Re formation .

A D . British bish ops atte nd e d the Cou nci l of Arl e s in . 314 e e e the C ae , an d w r summon d to ouncil of Nic a, from wh ich th e y e xcus e d th e ms e lve s on the grou n d of distan c e e e th C e e the and po v e rt v. The e arli st t xts of e r d of

1 0 . ci t. . 60. p , p L A T E R H I S TO R Y o r N I C E N E C R E E D 47

Cou n cil wou ld p e n etrate into Britain through Gaul . T w C e e e hus e ﬁ nd a r ed , which combin s charact ristics ’ h he e e e . C ee t e of t Nic n an d Apostl s r ds , in Bangor h we Antiphonary of t e sixth c e ntury . But m ust wait until th e n inth c e ntury b e fore we com e u pon the te xt of h on stanti n oli tanum th e S e M t e C Op . Probably tow issal is th e e e e e e th e e arli st re pr se ntativ , an d I will q uot its t xt i n 1 App e nd ix . This is o n e of the e arli e st re maining se rvice books of the C e e e I rish hurch , and contains an u nint rpolat d t xt , the words Fi lioque having b e e n add e d by a late r han d i n h Th th i ntr duc t e margin . e q u e stion of its witn ess to e o n h h tio of t e Cr ee d into t e I rish liturgy is stil l i n disput e . Dr th e e . . . e But forth com ing dition , which G F Warn r e the S e is diting for Bradsh aw oci ty , will no doubt supply h mate rials for a ﬁnal j u dgm e nt on t e q u e stion . The variations i n the Lati n te xt curre nt i n Englan d

d uring the Middl e Age s h av e n e v e r b e e n i nve stigate d . The use of the Cre e d in the Liturgy was comm on c e rtainly h from t e te nth ce ntu ry . The first translation of the Nice n e Cre e d into English appe ars to have b ee n mad e by Archbishop Cran m e r i n o n e e e e the M of his first xp rim nts i n translation of ass , h an d was publish e d in t e fi rst Pray e r Book of Ed ward VI . Th S h M 2 e M . t e e first draft is fou n d i n a in British us um , and the te xt d i ffe rs from that fou n d in th e First Pray e r 3 h Book only i n small d e tails . It did not includ e t e words ‘ ’ n d D whose kingdom shall have no e . Bishop owd e n th e e e e has shown that e omission was d lib rat , as a r s ult of e C e he critical i nv stigation , but that ranm r fou nd that had b e e n m istak e n and r e store d the words i n the S e con d

Praye r Book . ‘ Bishop Gibson sugge sts that Cranm e r ins e rte d I ’ b e li e ve be for e o n e cath olic and apostolic chu rch to mak e a distinction b etw e e n b e li e ving i n the Holy Gh ost

e e the C C i . e. e e e e and b li vi ng atholic hu rch , b li ving th at th r C C Ruﬁn us e L e is such a ath olic hu rch . and oth r atin writ rs

1 P . 114 . 11 Mus. MS 341 . . B . 91 W. H e e i n J . T S . . . 232 rit . Fr r . , i p 3 ‘ ’ ‘ ’ ‘ And was cruciﬁe d fo r us : to judge the q uy cke which b ’ spake y the proph ets . 48 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D ofte n d raw this distinction be tw e e n b e lie ving i n Divi n e Pe rsons an d b e lie ving about th e ir work in the Ch u rch or i n the r e mission of sins e tc . Cranm e r himse lf i n his ‘ A n notati ns u n the Ki n 8 B o k e e th o po g o writ s, I b li e v e i n e ’ e e 1 H oly Ghost, and th at th r is a holy Catholic Ch urch . ‘ ’ That he shou ld inse rt th e word holy wh e n quoting ’ th e e C e e e from Apostl s r d , mak s it more notic eabl e that th the C T b he omits e word i n Nice n e re e d . h e re can e n o qu e stion that this was due to the omission of the word in t he t e xts of the Cre e d give n i n “ e arly e ditions of the W s he e . e are Cou nci l , wh ich consult d now i n a position to prov e that the om ission was characte ristic of the old L e S R e e atin t xt both of pain and om , an d also, appar ntly, h e the C C of t e t e xt us d i n hu rch of onstantinopl e . Why it shoul d th us diffe r from the te xt of the J e rusal e m Cr ee d

S C the C e e S . E i han i us et of . yril , and r d of p p , h as not y Th Re b e e n di scove re d . e form e rs followe d the be st te xt th o mi sso n e th wh ich the y could ﬁ nd , but e is non e l e ss ’ b e e e e e the C to e r gr tt d , sinc h oly was a not of hu rch in C e h e the Baptismal r e d from t e earli st tim e s . Th e practical im portance of the doctrin e which has th us b e e n i ncorporate d in the Liturgy and A rticle s of We a r our Ch u rch will com e b e fore us again . e n ow conce rn e d only with the history of the form of the Cre e d We e e e its e use d . hav trac d its volution from ﬁrst b gi n

the e e da . e e e e e ning u ntil pr s nt y As I hav said ls wh r , The faith of the Nice n e Cou n cil is r e late d to our Nice n e C re e d as a bu d from a gard e n - rose to the wild - ros e stock e The e - e i nto which it is graft d . ros grow r with cu nn ing hand u n ite s th e b e auty of colour and form wh ich he h as cultivate d to the hard y n atur e an d vigorous growth of h O ur e e C e e the a t e wild plan t. Nic n r d is old Baptism l Cre e d of J e rusal e m re vis e d by t he i nse rt ion of Nice n e e T the e e th e ological t rm s . h u s improv d th ology was ’ h 2 “7 e grafte d into t e stock of the old h istoric faith . m ay thank God that the ge n ius of a gre at Cate ch ist has give n u s i n the Cre e d of ou r E ucharistic worship o n e e e the ﬁtt d, alik by its rhyth m and by proportion i n its e e be e e th ological t aching , to a liturgical tr asur for all C e h rist ndom . 1 2 0 0. ci t. . 1 5 . I n tr d ucti on to the C eed s . 98 . Gibson , 1 , p 7 o r , p — TH E THE L Y P A RT 11. O O G

CHA PTER IV

A NTE- N ICEN E TH EO LO GY

TH ER E are two main l in e s of attack u pon the Nice n e C e e : F i rst e h C e e r d , I t is m ai ntain d t at a d ogmatic r d has b e e n set i n the for e grou n d of Christian te achi n g

e e C se t C e e Se . Se ndl wh r hrist not a r d but a rmon co y , I t is said that th e Gre e k m etaph ysical te rm s i ntrodu c e d into the Cre e d m ar the sim plicity of the plain Bibl e t e ach ing wh ich it wou ld oth e rwise share with oth e r ’ e h th an ci nt form s of t e Apostl e s Cr e e d . I n e first case it is said th at we sacrifice the claim s of consci e nc e to the e e e e th e e su ppos d i nt r sts of r ason ; i n s con d , so it is e e we are e e e e e e e e all g d , ch all ng d to d cid b tw n cr d ulity e and comm ons nse . (a) Th e ology m ust at all costs pr e se rve th e d e licat e h C balance b e twe e n t e d e mand s of Re ason an d onsci e n c e . he It was the supr e m e m e rit of S . Ath anasius that saw e e e u n fl i n chi n l e e th is n d , an d labou r d g y to pr se rv it . L S . h ik e Pau l e gave most we igh t to consci e n ce . ’ C th e C e e e the hristianity i s imitation of hrist s p rf ct lif , e nd e avou r to liv e m ore an d m or e stre n uously accordi n g th e e se t the S e the M to patt rn forth i n rm on on ou nt . the e f e e e th e e But moral fort d mand d is so gr at, pric to be e e M e paid for all gian c to such a ast r is so costly, th at ‘ t he e e the q u stion m u st aris , By what authority did Proph e t of Nazare th t e ach such th ings and mak e su ch ’ d e mands on consci e n ce ? The wh ol e drift of H is te ach le d m e n the e e the ing to ask qu stion , which at last u nd r e e He he e e most sol m n ci rcumstanc s put to t Apostl s , wh n e ve nts w e re sh aping towards a crisis i n the history o f 1) 50 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

i ‘ i" e e e . H is m ssion to His p opl , Whom say y that I am ‘ The e the e T the C the answ r of Apostl s, hou art h rist ’ Son of the living God was the only possibl e answe r w h ich cou ld satisfy O n e who claim e d to sp e ak with an e h P h authority su p rior to th at of Mos e s or t e rop e ts . He He was Th x 13 e e I f was n ot God not good . e e no scap th e th from ol d dil e mma . It pre s e nts its e lf to e m inds e e n e e diffe 1 e n t of succ di g g n rations i n man y forms , but the qu e stio n can n e ve r be s e ttl e d o the 1 W1se than on t he e S t h lin s which . Athanasius, as e fore most apologist of the e e C \V e n we e e e Nic n ou ncil , has lai d down . h b li v i n C we e th e hrist , yi ld to attraction of a Pe rsonality wh i ch has th rough all the c e ntu ri e s won the all e giance o f ‘ e e S The e cou ntl ss h arts who can say with . Paul , l if th at I now liv e i n the ﬂ e sh I liv e by th e faith of the S o n ’ T e of God wh o love d m e and gav e H imse l f for m e . h y are consciou s of a m ystical u nion through which th e ir e e e e e e e e e e ch aract r is r mad , th i r consci nc str ngth n d , th i r e T e e e i h whol e outlook on lif wid e n e d . h ir faith b com s e e e e e e vincibl e . How v r imp rfe ctly words may xpr ss th ir e a h the gratitud , it is plai n th t n o confe ssion s ort of ’ ’ e e e C L C full st acknowl dgm nt of h rist s ordship, of hrist s ' D e e e ivinity , can j ustify th ir i nstinctiv e d sir to worsh i p ‘ e ackn o wle d H im . A ny compromis e with r gard to th is g e th e an e e e e m nt, Arian or y oth r , l ads to noth ing ls th an th e T S idolatry or e r j e ction of Christ . h us . A th anasiu s e e e the e the e e C e e d f nd d main th sis of Nic n r d , which is a l e gitimate an d r e asonabl e con clusion built u p on the e the e t he e the practic of Apostl s , whom t ach ing of

S e rm on on the Mount le d to worship the Preach e r . Th the e the e us first lin of attack , false antith sis i n wh ich the e e C e e the S e the M Nic n r d is put to rmon on ou nt, e o n e e e the e br aks down . No wh o h as not t st d valu of ee e the h e e his cr d i n lif , i n ou r of t mptation , wh n his 1s e e the fine f i n te lle ctual will w ak , wh n all array o argu e e e e the e e e m nts is ndang r d by ons t of passion , wh n prid and prej u dic e sw e e p away the last r e m n ants of the ord e re d r e sistanc e of h is facu lti e s to fi e rce ange r and e w01 d s th e e e e m e bitt r , and only f bl y of a tott ring con ‘ ’ scie nc e to J e su s Chxi st has avail e d to turn d e feat into — e the th e victory, has an y right to criticis i n study A N T E - N I C E N E T H E O L O G Y 5 1 te rms in which on the battl e - field of l ife Christian s e xpr e ss th e ir lov e to Him i n w h om th e y are mor e than c on qu e ro (b) The s e cond lin e of attack i nsists that Gre e k m e ta physical t e rm s have corru pte d the te aching of the Bibl e ar e the re se nt d a T i s an d e u nsuit d to p y . his attack e f ee the e u e be m or di fi cult to m t th an fi rst, b ca s it can not ' d e n i e d that our mod e s of thought di ffe r wid e ly from e the e o n e e e th os of fou rth c ntury, an d n o i n his s ns s has wou ld ass e rt that human th ought n ot progr ess e d . e e e the e e e e At first, th r for , cont ntion th at Gr k m ta physical te rms are out of date i n Ch ristian cre e ds s ee m s e we e e e re asonabl e . But on s cond though ts p rc iv that th er e is a m uch more important p robl e m i nvolve d th an the m e re qu e stion of the h istory of c e rtai n Gre e k philo Dr S has r e soph ical te rms . As . trong put it wi th gard to th e fam ous te rm Homo- ousi os : This also re qu ire s trans lation ; it m ust be e xpre sse d i n the language in which w th e e th e C e think . But it is formal d fi nition of h urch o n e a e a e e e e e of g , contin uall y cc pt d by su cc ssiv ag s , of he C e e the n e th e S o n e x t atholic b li f as to atu r of . It pre ss e s th e conviction th at J e sus Christ is the S o n of W la n u a w . e e e e e God m ay translat th is i nto an y g g lik , but we can not e xplai n it away with out a total d e parture

the e C e n . To e e from anci nt faith of h rist dom say , th r e i t e e e e e for , th at has only a historic int r st , as r pr s nting h e w e e t e point of vi of that day, d o s not qu it corre spon d the e e he with the facts . It is Nic n form give n to t C S o n t é o oém o v thought that h rist is of God , j us as u is ‘ the Gr e e k word e xpre sse d i n E nglish by the ph rase of ’

n e e . The e e on e o substanc r al matt r is of fact, of truth ’ 1 W e e e e . e e or falsity , an d not of xpr ssion m r ly turn th n to the su bj e ct of A nt e -Nice n e Th e ology to watch th e d e v e lopm e nt of id e as wh ich the Nice n e te rms syste m a n t e ti se d but did o cr ate .

(1) N ew Testamen t Theology

It is n e e dl e ss to say that the write rs of the Ne w Te sta e the e e e th e m e nt assum d xist nc of God , an d taught 1 M a n ua l o The l B . 198 f o ogy , lack , p . 52 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

doctri n e of th e cre ation of the world by God as th e y had h T l e arnt it from t e J e wish Scriptu res . h is be cam e a e e the e the burning qu stion wh n Gnostics cam on h orizon . It is probably d ue to the pre ssure of such e rror th at the Easte rn Cre e ds i n clu de d a re fe re nce to the cr e ation o f e e the all things visibl an d invisibl by A lmighty Fath e r . e e e e A nd it is pr cis ly i n this conc ption of God as Fath r, the e the Ne w Te e Th th at t aching of stam nt is orig inal . e e n o t n e w the e e id a was , but it was t ach ing of J sus which ‘ ’ e e e n e w h ad mad it cu rr nt coin , and had ﬁ ll d it with To e e e e m eaning . form r t ach rs God was Fath r of Israe l 1 e e e e e an d l sra lit s , but th y allow d only limit d range to e e ho w e the de th is id al , and kn w n ot to combin it with i a S th e O n of God as Cre ator and ustain e r of u n ive rs e . the e Se the M the L oth r hand , i n His rmon on ou nt ord J e sus m ove d naturally as it we re i n th e s e high e st realms e e e e e of thought . H is Fath r was th ir Fath r also, loving v n the e He e the to u nthankful and vil , as giv s rain both to the e the e j ust and unj ust, and car s for littl birds an d e o He e e the ﬂ ow rs, s that n othing that h as mad is b yond 2 P e e range of His inte re st and H is rovid nc . O nly upon such te ach ing cou ld be raise d the strong fou n dations of h th S . e e t e e te ach ing of Joh n , i nspir d t aching wh ich is

ee C L e . v e ry charte r of fr hristian th ought , God is ov A n d it was th e b e lov e d discipl e who proclaim e d also that ’ 1‘ L the So n e the God is ight, so th at of God com s into world as ligh t i nto darkn e ss to disp e l the shadows of ‘ ’ 5 e e S e rror an d vil , an d again , God is a pirit, so that tru re ligion m ust always t e ach worsh ip i n spirit and i n T e e the co n c e truth . his principl is n ough to guard p ’ S e are i n e e tion that acram n ts , Hook r s ph ras , m oral , n ot The e S e m e chanical m e ans o f grace . two chi f acram nts of the Gosp e l w e re valu e d by the e arly Ch ristians as m e ans of grac e which e nabl e d th e m to walk in the ste ps e L e e e e f e of th ir ord , to r produ c H is xampl , to grow a t r Hi s e e lik e n e ss . But th y follow d th is aim always with a e e the m oral purpos e . A nd th e r is n o q u stion about T e e the e e r e ason . h y had always i n th ir th oughts b li f

1 9 . . 16 u 1 P 8 . . 13 J e r. . 4 1 . 8. Cf . Dc t. i . 3 ; ciii ; iii , ; Is lxiii ; lxiv 2 3 45 26 . 29 . 1 J h . 8. Matt. v . ; vi . ; x o n iv 4 5 1 5 . J . 24. 1 J ohn . ohn iv

54 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

e e e he e . T i Fiv y ars lat r was banish d h s, says his e e biograph r , was his r ward for with drawing from living ’ ‘ h e e sig t a horror lik that of h ll , and for savi ng his country ’ m e the e e e fro b coming mpty sh ll of an e xil d population . This is an e xampl e which should app e al to us of th e e e e e e tw nti th c ntu ry, wh o talk so m uch , w h th r w e e e e e . car or not, about sch m s for social r forms \Ve n e e d n ot ad d a word i n d isparage m e nt of t he s e lf e e e sacriﬁc of sci ntist or philanth ropist, who is unabl to acknowl e dge with u s the glory of the Ete rnal Trinity h D L We or t e ivinity of ou r ord . only claim as our p roud e st boast that th e r e have n e v e r be e n l acki n g volunte e rs for any work of m e rcy wh ose inspiration has e C e e e e - e com from ou r r d , and that such l ov , s lf forg tting, e e e e e e be humbl , loyal to com rad s , u nb li v rs as w ll as li v rs th t e e e e e e . , is supr m t s of its truth

(2) The Apostoli c F athers

The m ost important for ou r pu rpos e of th ose write rs is ’

the . In L Ignati us , martyr Bish op of Antioch ightfoot s e e e e e e words , h is l tt rs t ach a th ology wond rfully matur ’ n i n spite of its im matu ri ty . Ignati us i n his te aching o th th e 2 Co r e Trinity conti n u e s e Pau lin e t aching of .

. 13 the S o n the the e x iii , th at th rough is way to Fath r, an d th at u nion with t he Fath e r th rough the S o n is a h S h e e e com mu nion i n t e pirit . Agai n and again r it rate s his te stimony to the h istoric faith as we ﬁnd it outlin e d m h t he e the C e fro t e days of A postl s i n Baptismal r eds . ‘ T the T he e e . . B e e e h us to rallians writ s , g y d af, e e e e e e th r for , wh n an y man sp ak th to you apart from e C the e D the J sus hrist, who was of rac of avid , wh o was S o n M ate of ary, who was truly born an d an d d ran k , e e e e e was truly p rs cut d u nd r Pontiu s Pilat , was truly cru ciﬁ e d and di e d i n the sight of thos e in h e ave n and e e e e the e r thos on arth an d th os u nd r a th ; who, more e t he e e ove r, was truly rais d from d ad , H is Fath r having Hi m the e e rais e d , w h o i n lik fashion will so rais us also e — e e us— i h wh o b e li e v on Him His Fath r I say, will rais ’ C we e e e hrist Je sus, apart from wh om hav not tru lif . A N T E - N I C E N E T H E O L O G Y 55

I n his te ach ing o n the Pe rso n of Christ Ign atius go e s th e C e e he m a e e furth e r than e old st Baptismal r ds , y v n e S e - be said to anticipat . Ath anasiu s by his cl ar cut ‘ h T i s o n ad E . e e e antith e se s ( p , h r only ph ysician , e e e e of fl esh an d of spirit, b gott n an d u nb gott n , God i n e L fe e So n M So n man , tru i i n d ath , of ary an d of God , fi rst passibl e capabl e of sufie ri ng) and th e n impassibl e ’ 1 ! e f e e C L . ( i ncapabl of su f ring) , J su s h rist ou r ord Th e r e might be j ustification for qu e stioni n g wh e th e r e i n e e e th e s e words t nd an h r tical dir ction , if Ignatius had not m ad e it q uite plain that he b e li e v e d i n the pre h S o n H e C e xiste nc e of t e . e sp aks of J e sus h rist who was b e for e th e age s with th e Fath e r an d i n the en d ’ 2 the e the e e e e app e are d . But con c ption of t rnal G n ra tion of the S o n had n ot yet fou n d cl e ar e xpre ssion i n

Christian th ought . C e e R e e e e e e C ee l m nt of om writ s , without r f r n c to a r d but on the sam e lin e s : Have we n ot o n e God and o n e C o n e S e e h rist and pirit of grac , wh ich was pou r d ou t ’ 3 us e the L e C u pon . As God liv s an d ord J sus h rist li v e s the S the e the , an d H oly pirit faith an d hop of ’ 1 e le ct . The e e e th C t ach ing of H rmas, a proph t of e hurch i n

R e e The S he herd e e e . om , i n his all gory p , is l ss d cisiv I t o ne e e d S e e e was at tim cit as criptu r by som church s , but was sil e ntly rej e cte d i n the ﬁ nal shaping of the Ne w Th Te stam e nt Canon . e autobiographical d e tails which e are e e e it su ppli s full of int r st . H rmas was an obscure , probably se con d - rate sh opke e p e r in Rom e at th e b e gi n n the e n i g of s e cond c e ntury . I n spit of many failu re s h e e e e e e h He tri d to k p h on st , an d to sp ak t e tru th . had m an y d isappointm e nts i n his busin e ss an d i n h is me et he e e e e e T e e e ho , an d y tri d to k p ch rfu l . h r i s som th i n g path e tic abo ut h is confe ssions o f th e d ou bl e e e e e the m ind dn ss which inj ur d his bu sin ss , an d q uick

e e e the e e e . he t mp r which marr d p ac o f hi s hom Both , ‘ h ’ ‘ e e t e S . T e e e e e says, gri v H oly pirit h r for , r m ov sorrow from thy h e art an d afﬂ ict n ot the Hol y Spirit

1 2 E h. . 6 . p , 7 M ay n , 3 1‘ 1 C rn . 6 . I bi d . . 2. o , xlvi , lviii 56 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

which dwell e th i n th ee l e st He mak e inte rc ession against ’ e e e 1 th with God and d part from th e e .

As Dr. O rr has sh own : With re gard to Christ him se lf th e re s e e ms littl e doubt that He rmas m e an t to e e th r -e ass rt a tru i ncarnation of e p e xiste n t S o n . I n o n e e e e plac , for instanc , H rmas is shown a rock and a e e e e the S o n gat , an d is tol d that th y d not of God . he be ee t he H ow, asks , can th is , s ing th at rock is old ? and the gate n e w It is re plie d — The S on of God is ’ e e e e e h m or anci nt th an all cr ation , an d b cam t e Fath e r s e e e He cou ns llor i n H is cr ation . For th is r ason is old . the e n w e e He But gat is e , b caus was mad e manife st i n the e are be e e last days, that th y wh o to sav d m ay nte r ’ 2 th rough it into the Kingdom of God . We can maintai n that H e rmas b e li e ve d rightly th e L e C e we I ncarnation of our ord J su s h rist , whil ack now l e dge that he made s e rious m istak e s wh e n atte mpting to e n h he L h S xplai t e r e lation of t ord to t e H oly pirit . O e Wh at pportuniti s h ad such a man , strugglin g agai nst a spirit of ind e cision to confe ss the Lord whole- h e arte dly 3 e e u e e e e the e e u se v n i n s ff ring , to p rf ct hims lf i n pr cis ? Dr H e of th e ological te rms . arnack has r li e d on pre carious fou n dations wh e n he e nd e avours to prov e from the mistak e s of H e rmas that th e re we re t wo strains of Ch ristian te aching about the Pe rson of Christ at this e e e the e C e e p riod , that b sid t aching of l m nt and Ignati us S e e e e e e as to a piritual B ing wh o has b com i ncarnat , th r was anoth e r lin e of th ought i n which Je sus was regard e d the S d e as a man i n whom pirit of God w lt, wh o was S o n adopte d afte r probation by God as His . It was the task of wis e r m e n than H e rmas to r e ﬂ e ct the e e e e the C on d p r m aning of h ristian tradition , and to i nte rpre t it to cultu re d min ds . The t e ach ing of S t he L the D e e e e . John on ogos , ivin Word , was d v lop d W b h e . y t e Apologists , but progr ss was slow h at Justin M e e e he e arty r fail d to xpr ss as could wish , was aft r wards d e ve lop e d by Cl e m e nt o f Al e xandria and O rige n .

1 M ound 2 x . iii . . 2 The P r ress o Do ma . S im . . 12. og f g , p 77, quoting , ix 3 S i m . . 28. 2. , ix ’ A N T E - N I C E N E T H E O L O G Y 57

A n d i n the m e antim e Te rtullian was fashioni n g the te rms in wh ich late r W e ste rn th e ology e xpr e sse d its e e e imm morial b li f.

(3) The Apologi sts T he work of the gre at A pologists was n ot m e r e ly e e e i n e e e C n a n gativ e , ith r d f nc of hristia m orality gainst

e e e . T e sland r, or i n controv rsy with J ws and Pagans h y e t h R r state d e gre at truth s of Natural e ligion . Justin Martyr claims that all me n have i n th e m a portion of th e Divin e Word Wh ate ve r th ings w e re rightly said ’ 1 m n r h C am ong all e a e t e prop e rty of us hristians . From e th n e w Re e this point th e y w e nt on to d fe n d e v lation . I n his Di alogu e wi th Trypho J ustin mai ntains that h e can e e e De C e t be e r cognis tru ity in h rist and y a m onoth ist . But som e of hi s ph rase s s e e m to imply that b e fore th e e h L cr ation t e ogos e xiste d with God pote ntially only . I n D ' r. O the e f e e e e e e the e rr s words, chi f di f r nc b tw n th ory ‘ the of Apologists an d Nice n e te aching was, that wh ile attributing to the Logos a re al an d ete rnal mod e of e n e e e e subsist c i n God, th y did not, appar ntly , r gard th is e e e e e the n mod of subsist nc as p rsonal , but h ld th at comi g ’ forth or b ege tting (y e uv mn s) of the S o n as a distin ct e e e hypostasis was imm diat ly prior to cr ation , an d with a

e . T sa the Lo s e e Hi s vi w to it hat is to y, go was t rnal , but

e e e So n . e p rsonal subsist nc as was not Fu rth r , as against the e t e e e Gnostic vi w of i nvolu n ary manation , this g n ra tion of the So n for th e work of cre ation was re pr e s e nte d ’ ’ th will T the e as an act of e Fath e r s . his is vi w of Ju sti n e e e e probably, an d of som oth r l ading Apologists c rtainly th T He e e an d was e vi e w of e rtullian . xpr ssly says ‘ T S ’ ‘ I h e r e was a tim e wh e n the Fath e r h ad n o o n . t will be e vid e nt that this Logos doctrin e of the Apologists gav e a c e rtai n point of su pport to th e late r Sabe llian an d : the S e the e th e Arian construction s to ab llian , i n id a of L m d al th e e ogos as a o , n ot p e rsonal d istinction in God h ad th e the e e e an d to Arian , i n admission th at th r was a tim e the S o n H e wh n was n ot, and th at e was produc d by an ’ h Y be u e act of t e Fath e r s will . e t nothing could f rth r

1 S e n A l. 13. co d po , 58 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D from th e m inds of the A pologists than to giv e support to e e e e e T e e ff ith r of th s vi ws . h ir vi w di e rs diam e tricall y the e e the Son b from that of Arians, i n that th y h ld to e ' truly of the Fath e r s e sse nce ; an d it diffe rs from the S e e ffi e the ab llian , i n that th y a rm d e xiste nce of thr e e h stases e the ea e e e distinct ypo , or p rsons, in Godh d , ant c d nt ’ 1 e the e to and sinc cr ation . This admirabl e summary by an e min e nt Pre sbyte rian scholar is su ffici e nt pro o f that the u ndivid e d Church has n ot b e e n guilty of spe cial pl e ading i n d e fe nc e of the d octrin e of the Divinity of C h rist against all mann e r of rational Th w ising h e re si e s . e practical l e sson wh ich e n e e d to l e arn is that as h e re si e s re pre se nt te nd e nci e s common to the e e a e e e human m in d i n v ry g , and m ust r app ar ag ain e the e e and again , so progr ss in d finition of doctrin is only mad e by those wh o are not afraid to pre ss on i n spite the T b of risk of mak ing mistake s . h e y must e both e th e e e e e the and e willing to l arn from xp ri nc of past, hop the S h h ful that Holy pirit, guid ing t e com monse ns e of t e e C e e d ue e u niv rsal h urch , will corr ct rrors to mistak n z e aL we may draw an e xce ll e nt illustration of this from the fe the Te e e i li of Apologist rtullian , whos f rv d African fe e ling stirre d h im to e xpoun d with rare e l oqu e nce the r e ligion which the pati e nc e and courage of Ch ristian le d Hi s martyrs had h im to adopt . l e gal training e nabl e d him to do a gre at work i n m ou lding forms of Christian ’

. He the use the e T th ough t was not ﬁrst to t rm rinity, e e Tri a s we o we the i e which , in its Gr k form , to wr t r T h e . e e e h ophilus of Antioch B ut m ad it curr nt coin , ‘ ’ and h e i ntrod uce d the u se of th e te rms Pe rson and ‘ ’ 2 S T e e e e e e u bstance . h re was som dang r l st l gal id as u s h shoul d d ominate Ch ristian e of th es e te rms . I n t e e y e of a juri st a man of substan ce is a man poss e ss e d of e erson e e prop rty, and a p is a b ing with l gal rights, the e e . g . right to hold prop rty, so that a corporation can poss e ss prop e rty th ough it is only by a ﬁction th at it T h Te can be said to live . hrough suc analysis rtu llian 1 m 0 J . O rr The P r ress o D a . 8 . , og f og , p 2 H e am e an d H i s W an d Hi s W m as the T n s God ord isdo riad , a d A u t l. . 15. o , ii A N T E - N I C E N E T H E O L O G Y 59

i llustrate d the id e a of divin e e xist e nce as of o ne sub e e e e e i n o ne an d stanc sh ar d by thr p rsons cond ition , since th e re is nothi ng to h ind e r o n e an d th e sam e p e rson m e Te e e e fro holding two kinds of prop rty, rtu llian proc d d to illustrate th e d octri n e of the I n carn ation th rough the e e e the e e e sam m taphor , sugg sting that sam P rson J su s Christ might own the two su bstance s of Godh e ad an d h 1 manhood at t e sam e tim e . Y et this j u ristic s e nse of th e word gave way to philo We e soph ical m e anings . h av n o righ t to bu il d on this

e Dr . e e Te t ach ing, as H arnack do s , a th ory that rtullian 2 i ntrodu c e d into Ch ristianity a syste m of l egal ﬁcti on s . The e e o n e ordi nary languag of man k in d is, as som has

e e . e said , no m an m taphysician Words attach to th m

s e lv e s i h com m on talk d e e p philosophical m e ani n gs . A ‘ ’ ’ p e rso n i n Te rtulli an s m ind m e ant o n e w h o h ad prope rty ; t h e re fore h e s e e ms to avoid th e use of the e the T n th e T e e word i n sp aking of rinity, u si g word hr e e e alon , j u st as Augusti n e at a lat r tim apologise d for the te rm ‘ e e e e S on S o n For i nd d , si nc Fath r is not , an d is n ot e th S the Fath r , and e H oly pirit, wh o is also call e d gift e e e n o r S o n e are e of God , is n ith r Fath r , th y c rtainly h “ h e e . t e t e e thr A n d so it is said i n plural , I an d Fath r are o n e — for he did n ot say is o n e as the Sab e llian s “ are on e . Y e t e e th e say, but wh n it is ask d wh at e e ar e e e e e d e e th r , human utt ranc is w igh d ow n by d p

e e e . the e we e e e pov rty of sp ch A ll sam say th r p rsons , we we be not that wish to say it, but that may n ot ’ 3 re duce d to sile nce . e e e th e e - e For u s, th anks i n a gr at m asu r to s lf qu stion ’ W S . n e e e e e e n . e i ng of Augusti , p rson has a d p r m ani g o n e e think of e wh o acts , w h o can thin k an d f l an d will , and ou r large r con ce ption of h uman pe rsonality e nabl e s u s to form a high e r and nobl e r conce ption of Divin e ‘ ’ e e Pe rsonality . For us su bstanc i s that wh ich xists , and we ﬁnd th at Te rtu llian also pass e s to this wid e r philosophical u se of the t e rm : The So n I d e rive from

1 A d v P r a ia 2 : Vide mus d u li ce m a n o n . , 7 p st tum , confusum se d co ni unctum i n u na e e e t e J e m p rsona . d um homin m su 2 3 st. o D ma e d . 30 e Tr i n 10. Hi f og ( . ii 7. D v 60 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

’ 1 e e th e th e no oth r sourc but from substan c e of e Fath r, e h T Te m aning t e whol e b e ing of the Fath e r . hus rtullian pr epare d the way for the wid e spr e ad b e lie f of the We st the So n o n e e the e that is of su bstanc with Fath r , which (as we h ave s e e n) Ho si us sugge ste d for i nse rtion i n the C e th B Nice n e re ed . I nd e d e following words of ish op Bu ll are by n o m e an s out of date : Re ad only his singl e Praxeas h e e work against , i n which tr ats fu lly an d pro fesse dly of the most h oly Trinity ; he th e r e ass e rts the the So n e e consubstantiality of so fr qu ntly and plainly, that you wou ld su ppos e the author had writte n afte r the ’ 2 e the e tim of Nic e n Coun cil . It is difficult to d e cid e wh e th e r to class Ire n ae us with the the n e e e e e Apologists or with xt g n ration of t ach rs . T e he C ru wrote no formal Apology for h ristianity, but e e e M his arly lif was sp nt in Asia inor, wh ich was at that tim e the sce n e of the gre ate st spiritual activity i n the C e he h urch , an d i n h is l ong controv rsy with Gnosticism built on the fou ndations wh ich Justin and oth e rs had laid . Gnosticism i n all its forms was a s e rious atte mpt to the a e e d e al with the proble m of e vil . All fant stic th ori s ' e e the e e Go o d Go d of A on s m anating from supr m , of a e e e e e d mi urg or cr ator of th is world of sin an d pain , w r I m otive d by the d e sire to e xplain th e myste ry of pain . n O pposition to Gnostic th e ori e s Ire n aeus taugh t the e te rnal he L th e e co existe nce of t ogos with e Fath r, d nying that He e e e e e was mad , or that g n ration impli s cr ation , or that any th e ory of e manation can e xpre ss the myste ry of the S n e e e i n e te rnal re lationship of o to Fath e r . H is d p st te re st was c e ntre d in the id e a of the I ncarnation as the fulfilm e nt of the e te rnal purpos e of God i n spite of sin . Man e the e e e e s mad i n imag of God , n dow d with r a on , an d e e the e e the fr will , lost th rough sin lik n ss of God , capacity e C as t he e for immortality, wh ich is re stor d i n hrist s cond O n Hi s e e He e e Adam . accou nt of infin it lov b cam w are He e He wh at e , th at migh t mak u s wh at him ’ se lf is . T S ae e e the S e e h us . I r e n us u n it d his t aching that u pr m

1 2 i O x. Tr . A dv P ra m 4 De . o N i ene C unc l . . , . f f c o , ii vii

C H A P T E R V

N ICEN E TEA CHI N G O N TH E I N CA R N A TI O N

d u — h hi n S A than (1) I ntro ctory T e Teac g of . asi us

The b e st i ntrod ucti on to Nic e n e te ach ing on th e I n carnation is to be fou n d i n the tre atise of the gre at On the I n ar nati on he S . Athanasiu s c , wh ich wrote as a n e e the e e The you g m an b for controv rsy b gan . following passag e m ay su fﬁce at l e ast to show the stre ngth of the h 1 conviction to wh ich e was so tru e .

e e the e e and For this purpos th n , incorpor al and incorruptibl m e W o f e e e H e was i mat rial ord God com s to our r alm , howb it not n o o f e a e H im far from us b efore . For part cr tion is l ft void of : H e has ﬁll e d all things e v e ry wh e re re maini n g pre sent with Hi s B ut H e me i n c e e - own Fath e r . co s ond sc nsion to show loving kind

u s an d . An d e e the e o f n ess upon , to visit us s ing rac rational e i n the wa e an d e a e e e b cre atur s y to p rish , d th r igning ov r th m y e the e e e an d His a e corruption l st cr atur should p rish , F th r s handiwork i n m en he spe nt fo r nought— He take s unto Himse lf

3. an d a o f n o e e . He body , th t diff r nt sort from ours For did not

e m e e e m e e e . simply will to b co mbodi d , or will r ly to app ar For e e e e He e e ff e Hi s e if H e will d m r ly to app ar , was abl to ct divin m e and e B ut H appe arance by so e oth r high r m eans as we ll . e o f and e e m e tak e s a body our kind , not m r ly so, but fro a spotl ss l e man e i n and stain ss virgin , knowing not a , a body cl an, and e o f v e ry truth pure from inte rcours me n . For b e ing H imse lf an d Artiﬁc e r e e He e a e the b i n mighty , of v ry thing , pr p r s ody as e m e H m e an d e Hi s e o wn th e Virgin a t pl unto i s lf, mak s it v ry

n e i n e e an d i n e . A n d as a instrum nt, it manif st d it dw lling thus m e o n e o f e e e e e e taking fro our bodi s lik natur , b caus all w r und e r p en alty o f the corruption o f de ath H e gave it ove r to death the e ff e e the e - i n st ad of all , and o r d it to Fath r doing this , o f H is i e the e n d more ove r . lov ng kindn ss , to that, ﬁrstly , all e e Him the the of b e ing h e ld to hav di d in , law involving ruin

1 xv 2 Acts n . 7 . NI CENE TEACHI NG O N THE INCA RNATIO N 63 me n might be undone (inasmuch as its powe r was fully spe nt in ’ the L an d no e - m en ord s body , had long r holding ground against , His e e an d e e e m e n e p rs), that , s condly , wh r as had turn d towards He m e m an d corruption , ight turn th again towards incorruption , quicke n th e m from death by the appropriation o f Hi s body an d b the e o f the Re e e m e e y grac surr ction , banishing d ath fro th m lik m ﬁre straw fro . What th e n was God to do ? or what was to be done sav e the ’ e e o f i n m e b m e n r n wing that which was God s i ag , so that y it might once more be abl e to know H im ? B ut how could this a e m e e b the e e e o f the e e of h v co to pass sav y pr s nc v ry Imag God , ’ L e C ? b e e m e our ord J sus hrist For y m n s m ans it was i possibl , e e are e e an e b e e e sinc th y but mad aft r imag ; nor y ang ls ith r , ’ fo r r m W e e the W of no t e v e n th ey a e (God s) i age s . h nc ord God m e i n Hi s o wn e a H e th e e o f the e ca p rson , th t as was imag Fath r , H e might be able to cre ate afresh th e man afte r th e image . e th e e e a e on a e has e e e a e For as , wh n lik n ss p int d a p n l b n ff c d b h e e e e e e e y stains from without, whos lik n ss it is must n ds com once more to e nable the portrait to be re ne w e d o n the sam e : fo r fo r th e e o f e e e th e m e e o n wood , sak his pictur , v n r wood i s a e n o t a a the e e e e which it p int d is thrown w y , but outlin is r n w d i n the me wa the S o n o f th e e upon it sa y also most holy Fath r , e the e o f the e m e e e e m an b ing Imag Fath r , ca to our r gion to r n w e m a e i n Hi s e e an d ﬁn d o n e b the onc d lik n ss, him , as lost, y ’ e o f r mission sins .

(2) The P erson of the Redeemer

It has al re ad y b e e n poi nte d out th at th e ﬁ rst Nic e n e Cre e d di ffe r e d i n i mportant r e sp e cts from the Cre e d of ae Eus e bius of C sare a on which it was b as e d . Pe rh aps th e most important of th e change s mad e was the pro m i n e n ce e the e Of the D n e S giv n to d octrin ivi onship , all the clause s following be ing r e fe rre d back to the S on e the Word L T e e the i nst ad of ( ogos) . h is mph asis s importanc e of th e words w h ich follow 011 the Ete rnal

e e . e e e e . G n ration Ev ry claus is car fully balance d , g.

e e e o n e e th e e . b gott n n ot mad , of substanc with Fath r The Arians we re inclin e d to confuse the participl e s be tte n mad go and e .

TH E C R EE D O F E usnnrus TH E CR EE D O F TH E CO UN CI L An d i n o n e L e C A n d o n e L J e Ch ord J sus hrist, in ord sus rist ' th e W of the S o n e e o f ord God , of God , b gott n the e e e Fath r, only b gott n 64 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

o f th e e th e Fath r, that is of e o f th e e substanc Fath r, o f Go d L o f L L e L of L God , ight ight ( if God of God, ight ight, O f L e e o f e if ) v ry God v ry God , e e S o n ﬁrst - o f e e e o n e only b gott n ( born b gott n not mad , of e e e e the e all cr ation, b for all worlds substanc with Fath r, e e o f th e e b gott n God Fath r), b e e b e e e y whom all things w r y whom all things w r mad , mad e both those i n h eaven and those on earth :

Th e s e sol e mn words r e qu ire d e tail e d e xposition . A nd W the e e e th Se e n . e profe ss sam b li f i n e con d P rso th e T th th T of rinity as in e First, an d again i n e hird ’ Y e e e e e e ME (A rt . b li ve i n God , b li v also i n L the e e e (Joh n xiv . said our ord at sol m n m om nt wh n On L rd J su s He had i nstitute d the Holy Eucharist . e o e

Chri st . The e e e 1 Co r . . 6 whol phras com s from viii , but

S e the e On e L rd . . Pau l writ s again to Eph sians o (iv - Ro m . 13 e e the L and (i n . x 9 ) id ntiﬁ s H im with ord 2 m Je hovah on whom the proph e t Jo e l ( 11. 3 ) bad e e n C 58 . 14 . J esus call . om pare Joh n viii . with Exod iii . is the hum an Nam e which the Saviour of m ankind has

e 11 . Chri st the e xalt d above e ve ry nam e (Phil . A noi nte d is the title which signiﬁ e s H is fulﬁlm e nt of the e xpe ctation of the J e ws as th e ir looke d - for Me ssiah d H The Son o Go . T e e (Joh n i . f hu s was hail d by

e S . e e e fe Nathana l (Joh n i . by P t r in his gr at con ssion ,

M . 2 S T n also by arth a (Joh n xi 7) an d . homas (Joh . xx . The constru ction of the clause s begotten if the F ather only be tten that i s o the substan e o the F ather God o God go f c f , f , i Dr. B n dle ee . is not fr , as y sh ows , from ambiguity Hort conclud e d that begotten d id double d uty combin e d alik e ” o the F ather God o God the e w ith f and with f , claus ‘ ’ tha i o h substa n th F ath r e t s f t e ce of e e b ing pare nth e tic . Thu s th e re would be n o r eal paus e b e tw e e n the se v e n ‘ ‘ ‘ o the F ather nl be otte God o God The words , f o y g n f . the e o l be tten God e familiarity of phras n y go , bas d u pon ’ S n t . e e e . Joh s u sage (i is abu ndantly prov d , but th r is also su fﬁci e nt authority for re garding God of God as an

e e e h e e l e . . the Cae e C e e i nd p nd nt p ras by its f, g in sar an r d e the Lu cianic C ee of Eus bius, in r d of Antioch , and i n a NICENE TEACH ING O N THE INCA RNATIO N 65

e e e T the e - 1 cr d of Gr gory h aumaturgu s wond r work e r) . The e be e e e pare nth sis , i f it a par nth sis , i s xtre m e ly e e e ee awkward , and do s not app ar to hav b n admitted into any local Cre e d w h ich was e xpand e d by m e an s of 2 n O n the e Nic e n e additio s . oth r hand , it is ce rtai n from the state m e nts O f Euse bius an d of Athanasius that “ ” the words of the substan ce of the F ather w e re m e an t to “ ” “ ” 3 e e n ot nl be otten be tten o the F ather int rpr t , o y g , but go f . “ O n the wh o le e e e n n l , it is p rh aps simpl r to und rsta d both o y “ ” begotte n and that is of the substance of the F a ther as ” “ e O f the Father e God o G d xplanatory of , and to tak f o “ i nd e p e nd e ntly as a fr e sh clau se i n apposition with the ” ’ 1‘ God e the Cae e C S on o e e . f , and as adopt d sar an r d ’ The pre position of d e note s origi n an d d e rivation D the e t he e . 26 from Fath r as Fou ntain of ity (Joh n v , As the F ather hath life i n him s e lf ; so hath he giv e n to the ’

S n e e e . Cf. . 42 . o to hav lif i n hims lf viii , xvi

3. Light of light is bas e d on He b. i . ‘ ’ 6 S the e true God o tr ue God . Athanasiu s has phras f . ’ — ‘ i Ar an s writes Dr . Bi n dl B e otten the F ather . The e g of , y , ’ e the S e e th e e admitt d on s G n ration from Fath r, but r ej e cte d the logical conse qu e n ce of this ad mission in the e e e D e e cas of a G n ratio n wh ich was ivin an d u niqu . Tru e Ge n e ration from a Divin e Be ing m ust imply in the O n e e e e th e e the e D e e G n rat d poss ssion of sam ivin Natu r , an d the Ge n e ration its e lf must th e re for e be of an e t e rnal e O the F ather e e charact r . f was thus xplain d and ” ” b c 7 d e ﬁn e d as of the su stan e and of one substan ce . s S e Naz i an z us ar n Th e sol e m n word of . Gr gory of e ot e S e e th e D e e e out of dat p culat not u pon ivin G n ration , for it is n ot safe bu t th e doctrin e is to be honou re d sil e ntly I t is a great thing for th e e to know the fact t he mod e we can n ot admit that e ve n ange ls und e r ’ 8 e . stand , m uch l ss th ou The be ore all w rlds e e n ot e e words f o , w h ich w r tak n ov r

1 H . 254 M i . 1030. ahn , p ; ansi , 2 E xce pt in the Epiphan i an S horte r Cre e d . 3 D eer . N i c. 19 ad E e S o cr. . 8 . e D us bius , apud , i ; Athan , ,

A r . f os , 5 . 4 5 6 We Z . E s. F i d . O . ci t. . 29 . ad oe x . p , p stcott, p o , i 7 8 8 0 . ci t. . 2 . . . p , p 7 cxxxix 66 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

the C e h by ou ncil , r tai n th e ir origi nal place i n t e r e vis e d C e e t he O ld e e C r d , havi ng stood i n J rusal m re e d as i n th e C e e e . The e e S e r d of Eus bius xpr ssion is not i n criptur , b ut conv e ys the s e nse of su ch words of the Lord as h l whi ch 1 had wi h xvn . 5 t e or t Th be h Joh n , g y ee f ore t e w ld was 24 Thou locedst m h d or , e before t e f oun o h w r ld ti on of t e o . o ne substan e with th F a h r — Of c e t e . As I have e xplain e d

e . 10 the e h abov , p , ph ras is inte nd e d to e xpre ss t e ess e n the S o n the e ee e tial u nity of with Fath r , an d it s ms b st ’ e e the e f to k p translation substanc , amiliar to us i n ou r e i n e e e e v rsion , although its popular s ns it sugg sts som ‘ ’ e e the e thing mate rial . Ph ilosoph rs u s d te rm sse n ce “ usi a e e th e e re (o ) to d n ot both id a, wh ich logically p e e th e the e c d s thing, and also mat rial th ing con side re d T the S e by itse lf. h u s with toics it was e q uival nt to hul s ma Th m atte r ( e) or body ( o ) . e Gnostics introduc e d ' use e e e e i t its i nto th ology (I r n . i . wh r h e ld its e Hom —ousi os e e id e alistic s ns e . o would thu s m an of ss e n h tial u nity . A ll sp e ci e s of t e sam e ge nu s would be “ - u i a homo o s with e ach oth e r . B ut as God is u niq u e i n e e e O ne hom - ca si s Natur an d Ess nc , who is o o with H im b V ’ 1 m ust e e ry God also . n h The following q u otation from S . Ath anasiu s O t e ’ Cou ncils m ay su fﬁce as a sp e cim e n of his m e th od of argum e nt :

’ B ut i f e the S on the e th e e sinc is from Fath r, all that is Fath r s ’ i s the S i n an m e and e e le t be e e on s , as i ag xpr ssion, it consid r d ’ e e e an e e e e the e dispassionat ly , wh th r ss nc for ign from Fath r s e ssence admit of such attribute s ; an d wh eth e r such a o ne be e i n e e i n e e e and e e a oth r natur and ali n ss nc , not co ss nti l with the e . we m a e e e e e e e e i Fath r For ust t k r v r nt h d , l st transf rr ng e the e l e Him i n e e e what is prop r to Fath r to what is un ik ss nc , ’ and e xpre ssing the Fath e r s godh e ad by what is unlike i n kind an d e i n e e e we e a e e e e e ali n ss nc , introduc noth r ss nc for ign to Him e t a e o f the e e o f the e e e an d e , y cap bl prop rti s ﬁrst ss nc , l st we be e e b H m e a M n o t e sil nc d y God i s lf, s y ing, y glory I will giv ” e an d be e e n l e to anoth r, discov r d worshippi g this a i n God , and be u e e e the J e o f da who W e e acco nt d such as w r ws that y , said h r ” f e T be i u m an m a e T e ? e e i the or dost hou , g a , k hy s lf God r f rr ng, e e e th e o f the S an d whil , to anoth r sourc things pirit, blas

1 B in dle 0 . ci t. . 34 n . y , p , p NICENE TEACH ING O N THE INCA RNATIO N 67

he m ou sl He e e B e e e y say ing, cast th out d vils through lz bub

8 J . 33 L e . B ut if Is . xlii . ; ohn x ; uk xi this is shocking, a the S on n o t e i n e e e e e the pl inly is unlik ss nc , but co ss ntial with ’ e for if a th e e b e th e S Fath r ; wh t Fath r has is y natur on s, and the S o n H e m the e an d e e e e ims lf is fro Fath r, b caus of this on n ss e a o f e H e an d the e are o n e an d h e of godh d and natur Fath r , e e the S o n e e th e e e i s H e that hath s n hath s n Fath r , r asonably ” calle d by the fath e rs Co -e sse nti a l f or to what is oth e r in ’ 1 e e e e no t e e e . ss nc , it b longs to poss ss such pr rogativ s

n 1 h We hav e co sid e re d abov e (p . 7) t e un fou nd e d th e ory that the te rm Homo- o usi os was acce pte d at Constanti n o le th e e e Homoi - ousi os n o t the e e p i n s ns of , i n s ns of h th e e e C t e old orthodoxy of Nic n ou ncil , but with a n e w m e aning giv e n to it by the A ntioch e n e s an d the n Cappadocia s . By whom all thi ngs were made — Th e r e is abu ndant Co l S 1 Co r . 6 . 3 . . criptural authority ( . viii , John i , i for te achin g that the S o n c o -op e rate d with the Fath e r h in th e cre ation of t e world . S . A thanasiu s also quot e s ‘ i h w un d rs a He b. 3 e : B a t e e t n d xi . i n th is conn ction y f that the w rlds have been r amed b the Word o God so o f y f , that what i s seen hath not been mad e out of thi ngs whi ch

d o a ar. e e e a th ppe For God is good , or rath r is ss nti lly e sou rce of goodn e ss : n o r could o n e that is good be : e e e e e niggardly of anything wh nc , grudging xist nc to n He e on e , has mad all thi ngs out of nothing by H is ow n ’

e C L . Word , J su s h rist ou r ord

S C e u e Ps. . 6 . yril of Al xan dri a q ot s xxxiii

‘ B the w rd o the L rd were the hea ven s mad e a y o f o , nd a ll the h st o them b the S i r i t o H i s m u th : ou th e o f y p f o Is not, I pray y , W Wh o m an d i n Him e e f ord , is fro , p rsonally distinguish d rom ? H e e e e o r the e B . u f H e God Fath r is ind d disting ish d , subsists

e H e be a a . A . S e e n e e e p culiarly , though consubst nti l i g th r for the Fath e r brought all things into be ing an d e stablish e d the e e th e W th e C ea o f e m ? Te m e h av ns, how is ord r tor th ll , who

e . B W . B ut d esire to l arn this . illingly this disquisition is n h o n e e o f D acute a d subtl e . T e natur e ity is known by us and

b th e a e i n the an d a T . An d y holy ng ls, holy consubst ntial rinity the e i n Hi s o wn P e e e as th e S o n an d Fath r is rson most p rf ct , is t he S fo r the e e e e o f o n e o f e a e pirit cr ativ n rgy thos just now n m d , i n e e e e e the e ﬁ a o f O n e t what v r thing it is x rcis d, is f c cy that y e e e e the De and th e o f th e e e it p rm at s all ity , is work uncr at d sub

1 De S n od i s . 50 y , c . 68 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

e if m e i n mm a t th e a e m e stanc , as so thing co on , s m ti that singly it a e e a h P e the e e P e is appropri t d to c rson , so that through thr rsons be e e e e e o n e e m e e it should p culiarly ﬁtt d to ach , v ry b ing co pl t

i n e . The e e e e e b t he S o n the its lf Fath r th r for work th , but y in

S . A n d the S on e the P e o f the a e e pirit work th as ow r F th r, b ing unde rstood according to Hi s o wn e xistence to be i n H im an d from

Him . A n d the S e fo r H e the S o f the e pirit work th , is pirit Fath r ’ M e o f 1 and of the S on the . , ak r all things

w e S C I f e may concl ud that it was . yril of Je rusale m wh o grafte d this s e ction of the ﬁrst Nice n e Cre e d into C e e e e C e e e e his r d of J rusal m , it is to his at ch tical l ctur s w e that e m ust look for h lp i n illustration of its m e an ing . But for the sak e of cl e arne ss I will ﬁ rst re p eat it sid e by side with the u nre vise d Cre e d of J e rusal e m to be L e xtracte d from h is Cate ch e tical e ctu re s .

CR EED o r JE R US AL E M 01 m N ICEN E CR EED A nd i n o n e Lord Jesus Christ An d in o ne Lord Je sus Christ th e only -be gotte n S on o f God the only -b e gotten S o n o f God e e o f Hi s e e e o f His e e e b gott n Fath r, b gott n Fath r b for God o God L all worlds , [ f ], ight e e e L e o d o f e v ry God b for all worlds, of ight, v ry G v ry e e e be God , b gott n not mad , i ng of o n e substanc e with th e by whom all things we re Fath e r by whom all things made : we re made

2 ’ S C a Enough has b e e n said about . yril s h esit tion to w e acc e pt the n e te rms i n his arly days . But it is most n e ce ssary to sh ow cl early that th is d id n ot im ply any D e the L e h e sitation to pay ivin h onour to ord , to giv H im

S . e e e th e worship which , as Ath anasiu s was n v r tir d of

e e e e e . insisting, is idolatry if addr ss d to a cr at d B ing

’ the e H e e e e n o t as e For thron at God s right hand r c iv d , som e e a e o f Hi s a e e a e e e as hav thought, b c us p ti nt ndur nc , b ing crown d it w e re by God afte r His Passion ; but throughout His be ing— a b e e e e — H e Hi s and be ing y t rnal g n ration , holds roy al dignity , ’ e th e e e e an d \Vi sdo m and P e shar s Fath r s s at, b ing God ow r, as e e a e e e th e e and e hath b n s id ; r igning tog th r with Fath r , cr ating fo r the e e t i n the all things Fath r, y lacking nothing dignity of e an d Hi m e e Hi m e e H e Godh ad , knowing that hath b gott n , v n as w of Him a e e an d e e ﬂ em e is kno n that h th b gott n to sp ak bri y , r m

1 2 Di al . . De Tr i n . P . 21. vi ,

70 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

e e D S the m I ncarnation , b caus u ns cotus was ost d istinguish e d th e ologian of t he Middl e Age s wh o e e e e e e advocat d it . It is sugg st d by arli r an d m or e e e th C e the distinguish d t ach rs of e h u rch . I t kin dl d e ae e the glowing imagination of I r n u s , who pass s from th ought of man as fall e n to the th ought of the absolute ‘ purpos e of th e I ncarn ation : I f man h ad not conqu e red t he e the e e e e adv rsary o f man , n e m y would n ot hav b n

e e . e e j ustly conqu r d A n d again , if God had not b stow d we e e e salvation , shou ld n ot hav poss e ss d it su r ly . A nd e e e he e i f man h ad n ot b n u nit d to God , could not h av the partak e n of i ncorru ption . For it was n ec essary th at Me diator of God and m e n by H is ow n e sse ntial r e lation sh ip with both should bring both togeth e r i nto fri e nd the o n e e e sh ip and concord , an d on han d pr s nt man to ’ 1 t he e e . God , and on oth r mak God k now n to man T H h is thought was m u ch i n the m i nd of S . ilary of e Poiti rs . Came d own — Th is word e xpr e sse s the s e lf- e m ptying of D \V rd the e o e . ivi n , wh o laid asid H is glory (Phil

i i . W - The e h as i ncar n ate . Arians e vad d t e plain m e aning h The S L the of t e words . chool of ucian taught that 1 e an d Word took fl sh only without a h uman soul , th is E ud xi us was brough t out cl e arly by o of Constantinopl e . So the Cou n cil of Ni cma add e d d welt amongst men as ‘ m an e e e e e e e , i n plac o f an xpr ssiv phras of Eus bius liv d ’ m n T e e . e e e e as a citiz n among his was int nd d to xpr ss , ’ Dr B i n dle s the erman en t i n . y words , p u nion of God with e e e h uman natur ; but as it aft rwards prov d , it was not s u ffici e ntly te chnical to e xclud e h e re tical th e ori e s as to the e the e e the e the m od of u n ion , wh th r by conv rsion of Godh e ad i nto fl e sh (Apollinarian ism) or by u nion with a 3 hu man p e rson t h C e e S C e e I n e r e vis e d r d of . yril m ntion is mad of the m od e of the I ncarnation through t he miraculou s ’

e h e S . C conc ption , w ich had always foun d a plac in yril s 4 n th ld R l e cture s as i e O oman Cre e d . w r - the e A nd as cr uciﬁed f o as. H e re again d ath of

1 3 0 ci A d v . H a rm 18. . t. . 39. , iii . 7 . p , p 2 4 S . E i han i us A n r . 33. Ca t . . 9 . p p , co , , iv NICENE TEACHING O N THE IN CA RNATI O N 71

L the l Ve stern C e e ou r ord , wh ich i n r d is brought e e th e C e b for us as a h istorical fact , is i n Easte rn r e d h mad e t e basis of a th e ological argu m e nt . But ou r th e ology analyz e s our e xp e ri e nce . H istory prov e s th at from the day of Pe nte cost th e pow e r of Ch ris tian ity as a missionary re ligion has b e e n the pre ach C e e t he C ing of hrist cruci fi e d . B n ath ross m ulti tud e s of si n- bou n d souls have fou n d the bu rd e n of si n e e the e e roll d away , whil at sam tim th e y w e r e utte rly u nabl e to make any e xcu s e for th e ms e lve s . And the r e ality of th e ir re p e ntanc e has bee n shown i n the re sponse which th e y h av e mad e to the call e for sacrifice of will, of ple asure , of e as , which fi nds its ’ Th motiv e an d support i n C h rist s suffe rings . e Chu rc h e e e e t he e e h as n v r form ulat d any th ory of Aton m nt, b e yond th is Scriptural ph rase wh ich was on th e lips both

S e e 1 Pe t . . 18 S . 1 C o r . . of . P t r ( iii ) and Pau l ( x v Th e r e is room i n e ach succe e ding ag e for large i nte rpr e ta T tions o f its b e aring on the n e e ds of souls . h us i n ou r ’ Dr D e own tim e man y of u s h ave fe lt that . al s book on the Aton e m e n t su ppli e d som e th ing that was lacking ‘ ’ Dr M L C h i n e o d e e e t e e . . ampb ll s pr s ntation of doctrin Dale h ims e lf fore told that furthe r advanc e could not be mad e u ntil th e d octrin e of Pe rsonality human an d e e e e ' d ivi n h ad b n r state d . H is proph e cy has b e e n fulﬁll e d i n the w e ll - kn own Bampton Le cture s

Dr. e the e of I llingworth , u pon wh ich follow d gr at

Dr M e A t nement and P ers n ali t . work of . ob rly , o o y Agai n w M r D Dr e D . e e n ote advance . . ob rly shows that al

e h S Ro m . . had stopp d short of t e teaching of . Pau l i n viii that we m ust n e ve r be conte nt i n ou r m e ditations on C the e e He alvary to omit thought o f P nt cost . who

con qu e re d for us n ow conqu e rs i n u s th rough H is Spirit . I t is the grace of Hi s Spirit th at mak e s us worth y of forgive n e ss from the ﬁrst mom e nt wh e n we turn ou r fac e s the e th e e e the to light, and lik e p e nit nt thi f r sponding to e e the S ff e are e m ut app al of si nl e ss u e r r, j ustiﬁ d by faith wh ich we lcom e s mor e grac e to cl e ans e an d sanctify and e e e e T i s p rf ct v ry soul . his is a th e m e on wh ich it

i mpossibl e to dw e ll within th e l imits of th is book . But e e en e e f C n th s s t nc s may su ﬁ ce to show th at hristia thought , 72 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

e e e h whil progr ssing, is still guid d by t e old landmarks . ‘ We ru n ou r race still looking u nto J e sus the auth or and e H b p rfe cte r of our faith ( e . xii . ’ Un der P o nti us P i late — The e e addition of Pilat s nam , an u e th e e e probably from A ntioch ian so rc , brought r vis d C e e e the O ld R an r d into lin with oman , an d was possibly i mportant link in the ch ain of r e s e mblances u pon wh ich P0pe Le o bas e d his acce ptance of the Consta ntinopolitan C e e C r d at h alce don . ’ S e e l h . Augustin sugge st d that Pi ate s n am e fix e d t e d e the C e at of rucifixion , a th ory which found favour also 2 ’ Rufin i s the e with u . I t fits i n with r fe re nc es i n Pl iny s e e T th Hist r T the l tt r to raj an and in e o y of acitus . B ut argum e nt cannot carry the w e ight of a furth e r th e ory ’ that the arche typ e of al l cre e ds which includ e s Pilate s e e e e e e e the nam m ust hav b n writt n i n Pal stin , on groun d that the nam e of the Gove rnor wou ld on ly be of i nte rest h 3 to t e district which be gove rn e d . Dr H e e e the . indl y has an i nt r sting note on way i n which e ve nts i n Barbado e s are date d by the nam e s of the The e 1898 e Gove rnors . hurrican of is said to h av ’ he Si r happ e n e d i n t tim e of Jam e s H ay . But Pli ny s l ette r sh ows that Ch ristian tradition i n Bithynia also ’ ’ associate d Pilate s nam e with th e re cord of the Lord s d e ath . I nd e e d i t s ee ms so natural that it is strange that e e e be laborat xplanations sh ould sought for it, su ch as ’ Dr Z e the e e e e . ah n s th ory that nam was ins rt d to prov the e e that story was historical , an d not a myth d vis d to e t ach a c e rtain moral . ' ' — n s r S S . C A d ufl ered a nd was bu i ed . om e h e re tics in yril s ’ tim e still taugh t the Doce tic th e ory that ou r Lord s ff e e su rings we r u n re al . H is warning is worth qu oting

an sa the C an him . If y y that ross is illusion , turn away from A bhor those who say th at Christ was cruciﬁ e d to our fancy only for if an d i f the C e so , salvation is from ross , th n is salvation a r i n o u r i n s fancy also ; but if Chr i st be no t r i sen we a e y et s . If the Cross 18 fancy the Asce nsion 18 also fancy an d i f the Asce nsion e 18 the e a an d e e 13 is fancy , th n s cond coming also f ncy , v ry thing ’ a h e nceforth unsubst ntial .

1 9 n S mb. a . 16. S mb. 11. I D e F id . a y , y p 3 4 Ma Morawsk Z . u r k. The l 1895. Ca t. . 37. rian y , f o , xiii NICENE TEACHING O N THE INCA RNATI O N 73

The e e e C ee e buri ed arly J rusal m r d add d , which he C e t S . naturally cam i nto re vis e d re e d . Pau l fou n d

e e the 1 o r S . C occasion to m phasis fact ( C . xv . yril e e th e De e e add d to it t aching on sc nt i nto H ll , wh ich e e C e e e b gan to ﬁ nd m ntion i n r ds at this tim , but did not put it in h is re vise d Cree d . A nd He rose agai n the thi rd day accordi ng to the Scriptures — In m e n tion of the Scripture s we hav e anoth e r 1 We Pau lin e fe atu r e ( Co r. xv . may su ppos e th at

S . i n e Ps . 10 Pau l had his min d su ch passag s as . xvi , S C 1 C r 1- 4 e 2. e e o . . Hos a vi . . yril chos this passag x v e Le e 011 the Re e as his t xt for his ctur surr ction , and comm e nts as follows

‘ A s an e e e e e th e e m e o f Apostl , th r for , has s nt us back to t sti oni s the S e we et f k e e o f the criptur s, it is good that should g ull nowl dg hope of our salvation an d th at we should l e arn ﬁrst wh e th e r the e S e e the e o f Hi s R e e e e divin criptur s t ll us s ason surr ction , wh th r me i n m e i n m f e e an d it co s su m r or autu n , or a t r wint r from what o f lac e the S u e an d e e e kind p avio r has ris n , what has b n announc d i n the admirable Proph e ts as the nam e of the place o f the Re sur e an d e e the e an d Him n o t r ction , wh th r wom n , who sought found , afte rwards r ejoice at ﬁnding Him in orde r that wh e n the Gospe ls are e th e e o f e e S e ma be r ad , narrativ s th s holy criptur s y not thought ’ e 1 fabl s nor rhapsodie s .

“ T e e e e e S the h r is an loqu nt passag i n . Athanasius on e R the d a e e r asons for His ising third y , not soon r, to prov He e e the e th at tru ly d i d ; n ot lat r, to guard id ntity of e e e e e He H is body, n ot to k p long i n susp ns th os wh om the Re e e e had told about surr ction , whil thos who had slain H im w e re still living on th e e arth an d w e re on th e ’ e the e the L spot an d could witn ss to d ath of ord s bod y , the S o n e e e e e of God Him s lf, aft r an int rval of thr days, e e e e sh ow d His body, onc d ad , imm ortal and i ncorru ptibl ; an d it was mad e manife st to al l that it was not from an y natu ral w e akn e ss of the lVo rd th at d we lt i n it th at the e e e be e bod y had di d , bu t in ord r th at i n it d ath might don h ’2 away by t e powe r of the Saviou r . This victory ov e r d e ath is d e monstrate d by the courage “ ” e e e all e giv n to martyrs , d ath b ing d e priv e d of his pow r

1 2 a t 2. De I ncar n 26 . C xiv . § 74 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D in e ach o ne of th e m that hold H is faith and be ar the the C sign of ross .

‘ n o w the S e m e n For that aviour works so gr at things among , and d ay by day is invisibly pe rsu ading so gre at a multitude from e e e e e e e e e v ry sid , both from th m that dw ll in Gr c and in for ign a e e His e Hi s e l nds , to com ov r to faith , and all to ob y t aching , will an y o n e still hold his mind i n doubt wh e th e r a Re surre ction e e e b the S a an d e e C has b n accomplish d y viour, wh th r hrist is e a e H e the L e ? O r e e a man aliv , or r th r is ims lf if is it lik a d d , be the e e o f me e d e e to pricking consci nc s n, so that th y ny th ir ’ h e re ditary laws an d bow b efore the tea ching o f Christ ? 1

A nd ascen ded i n to heaven and sitteth on the right han d of God th F ath -T u n e er . his going p answ e rs to H is comi g e e e the e D e down , and xpr ss s r s um ption of H is ivin glory H Th si tteth the wh ich e had l aid asid e . e change to from past te nse sat d own of the old Je rusal e m Cre e d corre ’ s o n ds . C p to S yril s teaching .

‘ Let us not curiously pry into what is properly m eant by the throne ; fo r it is incompre h ensibl e : but ne ith e r le t us e ndure e e sa a was a e Hi s C an d Re surrec thos who fals ly y , th t it ft r ross an d A e e a e the S on e a o n the tion sc nsion into h v n, that b g n to sit o f the e the S 011 a e Hi s e b right hand Fath r . For g in d not thron y 2 advancem e nt but throughout His b e ing (an d Hi s be ing is by an e e a e the a t rnal gene r tion) H e also sitteth toge th r with F th e r . A n d this throne the P roph et Esaias h avi ng b e h e ld before the i n a n e o f the S a I sa w the L rd si tti o n a c r at coming aviour, s y s , o ng i 3 n man thr n e hi h a n d l ted u an d the e . the e o o , g f p , r st For Fath r ha th seen a t a n ti m e 1‘ an d H e who e a e e the e y , th n p ar d to proph t

the S o n . The P m a Th thr one i s re a red o was sal ist also s y s, y p p f ol h r 5 6 d ; T ou a rt f rom eve la sti ng .

A nd i s coming agai n wi th glory to judge the qui ck and the dead — The i n wi th e . change from to is agai n support d by ’

C e . S . yri l s usag

O ur L e C e e e e and He ord J sus hrist, th n , com s from h av n ; c e the e n d o f the d a . om s with glory at this world , in last y For o f e e be an e n d an d e e this world th r is to , this cr at d world is to

1 D I n a r n e c . , 30. 2 S e A a ma e e P aul of Samo sata L om ri ns intain d , lik , that our ord was promote d to Divine honour i n re ward o f Hi s obe di e nce as M n S o n o f a . 3 4 5 6 ‘ . . 1 . 18 P s . Q . Ca t. . 27 . Is vi . John i . xciii . , xiv NI CENE TEACHING O N THE I NCARNATIO N 75

be e e e . e a n d the t a nd ad ulter r mad an w For sinc corruption f , y , e e ha ve been u red r th ver the ea r th an d and v ry sort of sins p o fo o , bl d ha s been mi n led wi th bl d 1 the e e e oo g oo in world , th r for , that e - e m a e e this wondrous dw lling plac y not r main ﬁll d with iniquity , a e th e e ma be e this world p ss th away , that fair r world y mad ’ 2 manifest. O ut of e o wn e e be e th th u hts thin consci nc shalt thou judg d , y o g the mea n whi le a usi or else ex u i n i n the d a when God cc ng c s g , y shall ud e h e The e e e e o f the j g t e s crets of men . t rribl count nanc J e e e e e the e e e udg will forc th to sp ak truth or rath r , v n though

e n o t e e . e e thou sp ak , it will convict th For thou shalt ris cloth d ’ 3 w e o wn e e th e e e . ith thin sins, or ls with y right ous d ds ‘ And shouldst thou ev e r h e ar an y say that th e Kingdom o f C e an en d the e e e e hrist shall hav , abhor h r sy ; it is anoth r h ad o f the e A e on e dragon , lat ly sprung up in Galatia . c rtain has a e m e the e n d o f the C d r d to afﬁr , that aft r world hrist shall e e h e a e sa the W r ign no long r ; has lso dar d to y , that ord having com e forth from the Fath e r shall be again absorb e d the e be n o e e into Fath r, and shall mor ; utt ring such blas e e o wn e he has e e ph mi s to his p rdition . For not list n d to 4 the L The S on a bi d eth or ever . He n ot e e ord , say ing, f has list n d e A nd H e sha ll r ei n ver the hou se o J a b to Gabri l , say ing, g o f co or ever a n d o H i s Ki n d m th r e ha ll be n n d 5 f , f g o e s o e .

The e C e e M e h e r sy to which S . yril r f rs is that of arc llus e e e of A ncyra i n Galatia , who th ough promin nt as a l ad r of the orthodox party at Nic aea fe l l afte rwards into the e e e e snar of fancifu l sp cu lation , and was con d m n d H th e 1 Co r u niv e rsally . e pr e ss e d words of S . Pau l ( . the o n e e e the e xv . about S b ing subj ct d to Fath r t God ma be a ll i n all the e hat y , to point of t aching th at the e S the r lation of onsh ip will pass away, and Word of God b e com e wh at Marce llus said He was be fore th e

e the e . T e e be I ncarnation , imman nt i n Fath r h r can little doubt that Marc e llus gre w confuse d i n his old

a e . S . e e e e g Athanasiu s would n v r cond m n him by nam , an d wh e n he was qu e stion e d by an i nquisitive fri e n d ‘3 T would only smil e qu i e tly . his throws light also on ’

S . C e e e e e e yril s sil nc about his nam , wh ich may hav b n d u e to r e sp e ct for his past se rv i ce s to the faith . Although it is n ot possibl e wi thi n the prop e r limits of this chapte 1 to t 1 ac e the fu rth e r d e ve lopm e nt of Nice n e

1 2 3 4 3 Ho s i v . 2. a . 2 . 5. C t . 3. I h 5. . , xv , John viii

5 1 6 H a er . 4 . Lk. i . 33 Cat. 2 S . E i hani us Ad v. . , xv . 7. p p , , lxxii 76 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

e e th h C th ology at an y l ngth , e discussion of t e ree d at C e O e n e w e h alc don p ns out a vista of th e ological probl ms, e e e he e e the wh ich w r d alt with as t y aros , lik Arian

e le d e e e e . Sp culation , but lik wis to thorn y controv rsi s Th e y w e re al l summ e d u p with r e markable concis e n e ss i n the e of t he C C ﬁ n al d ﬁnition ou ncil of halce don , which re pre s e nts the last word of the e arly Ch u rch on th e e e the m e gr at s ubj ct of Pe rson of Christ . It is ost int r e sting to watch from far o ff h ow i n e vitably r e action e e the e e e follow d , lik r gu lar swing of a p ndulum , wh n any o n e asp e ct of Ch ristological te aching was pre sse d too C e far . arri d too far by h is abh orre nce of A rianism , o lli nari s e the e A , d siring to mag nify d ivin glory of Ch e the D e lV r the rist, suppos d th at ivin o d took i n Him e th s ul e e plac of e h uman o . Wh n it was maintain d that ou r Lord took pe rfe ct manh ood i nto u nion with H is D e e the e e e the e ivi n Natur , N storians d ni d that Bab on ’ M e e t he e ary s kn was righ tly obj ct of worship , an d taugh t that Je sus was a man wh o was tak e n into gradual the e n the e u nion with Et r al Word . A n d again p nd ul um

. e e a th e d ue e swung back I n th ir z l for h onour , as th y e the M e the L D f lt, to oth r of ord an d to H is ivinity , Eutych ians use d rash words abou t the taking u p of the e e e e man h ood into God as i f it w r absorb d , lik a d rop of h lVe e vin egar i n t e mighty oce an . may w ll sh rink from e 011 e e we e e e sp culation such th m s , but dar n ot h sitat to give answe rs for the faith that is i n us wh e n ou r faith a w chall e nge d by n e qu e stions . An d to ai d ou r thinking the balan ce d words of the De ﬁnition of the Coun cil of Ch alce don com e down with p e r e n nial fre sh n e ss

‘ e e e th e e we e and all Following, th r for , holy Fath rs, conf ss e o n e o n e an d th e e S o n L J e t ach with accord sam , our ord sus C e e e m e e i n e and e e hrist, at onc p rf ct (co pl t ) Godh ad p rf ct (com le te i n an d l m an an d e o f p ) manhood , truly God tru y , , furth r, a re asonabl e soul an d body ; o f o n e e ssence with the Fath e r as e e an d th e m e e o f o n e e e e r gards his Godh ad , at sa tim ss nc with us e a Hi s a i n e e e sin as r g rds m nhood , all r sp cts lik us, apart from He b e a H is e e e o f the e ( . iv . as r g rds Godh ad b gott n Fath r e e the e e t e a H is m — o n u o f b for ag s, but y as r g rds anhood acco nt us an d our salvation— be gotte n i n the l ast day s of Mary the V e e o f o n e an d the m e C S o n L irgin , b ar r God ; sa hrist, , ord , O - e e a me i n r e w c nly b gott n , procl i d two natu s, ithout onfusion ,

78 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D que stion we re simply adopte d as those best calculate d to e xpress the e l C e e e sp ciﬁca ly hristian id a that J sus Christ is r ally God . Th ey do not e v e n carry With th em any particular th e ory o f what ” “ e sse nce or substance may be ; as is plain from the fact that those ve ry me n who insiste d on the use of the te rm c c ” e sse ntial insiste d e qu ally upon our utte r inability to know

the e e e . The i n e e what ss nc of God is words , short, as mploy d b the C a e e e e of an e y hristian F th rs, w r stripp d y ali n connotation , an d simply utilise d to de note a particul a r point o f Christian e e e are e e e c e e e we b li f ; and th y th r for as appli abl now as v r, if ’ e 1 r tain the patristic Cre e d .

1 . R. The D t i ne o the Tr i n i t M l J Illingworth , oc r f y , acmi lan ,

190 . 122. 7, p C H A P T E R V I

TH E DO CTR I N E O F GOD TH E H OL Y GH O ST

Ir is som e tim e s a matte r of d ee p conc e rn to b e gin n e rs i n the study of Christian doctrin e wh e n th e y for the ﬁrst tim e re alise how slowly the doctrin e of th e H oly Ghost was d e ve lop e d i n comparison with the doctrin e of the e e e Pe rson of Christ . I t may s m to th m to giv e som e support to the sugge stion of U n itarian t e ach e rs that th e H oly Ghost was r egard e d by the Ch ristians of the ﬁrst age as an im p e rsonal e n e rgy.

T e e e e e e be e . h r is n ot, of cours , m uch vid nc to produc d But su ch as th e r e is m ay with good r e ason be call e d T e e e the d e cisive . h e r is , proportionat ly , m or of it i n Ne w Te stam e nt th an in t he Apostolic Fath e rs of the

The e S . L e n e xt ge n e ration . pictur which u k draws for us in the Acts of the Apostl e s is an outlin e sk e tch of m en l iving from day to day in r e lianc e on t he gu idan ce h H and comfort of t e oly Spirit . It was ind e e d as a fact e e e e e e of spiritual e xp ri n c th at th y nj oy d His fe llowship . the e e n e an d e e th e But gr at work of va g lisation , oft ntim s e e e e e e e e str ss of p rs cution , l ft but littl l isu r for m dita tion conc e rning the fu ll glory of H is Pe rson and the e th e e h d ignity of His r lationsh ip to Fath r an d t e S o n . ’ S e e e the e e . Pau l s t aching, how v r , on subj ct is cl ar , an d h shows d e ve lopm e nt from t e ﬁ rst . It is probably the fruit of the nin e y e ars which h e spe nt at Tarsu s b e fore

he e b S . h was summ on d y Barnabas to A ntioch , wh e n e s e e ms to h ave be e n ch ie ﬂ y occupi e d i n thinking out the C le d conclusions to wh ich faith i n h rist h im . The im portance which the d octrin e of the H oly Spirit the e S e e assum e s i n t ach ing of . Pau l has b n strange ly

e . T e S e e n egl e ct d his t aching of . Pau l r pre s nts i n part 79 80 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D n o doubt his own re ﬂ e ctions u nd e r the guidan ce of the S we b Holy pirit . But sh ould e blin d i nd e e d if we fail e d to re cognis e th at he is building all t he tim e on a common e e e the C C basis of b li f shar d by hristian hu rch , to which ’

S . e e e e e e Joh n s l tt rs at a lat r dat b ar mphatic te stimon y . The ultimate sou rce of it is the te ach ing of the Lo rd e e e the C h hims l f, giv n in a lit rary form to hu rch of t e ’

S . n e xt ge n e ration i n John s Gosp e l . ’ ‘ The e Dr S e e Fourth Gosp l , i n . w t s words, relate s a se ri e s of con ve rsations ru nn ing through the cou rse of ’ L e e e n e w e ou r ord s m inistry, which r v al ntire ly vi ws of ’ the S e the i l e the C pirit s r lation to indiv du a lif , to hu rch , th and to God . But e fu ll est and cl e are st r e v e lation was r e se rv e d fo r the last discou rs e on t he n ight b e fore h 1 2 1 t 6 1 6 . 2 . e Passion (Joh n xiv. , 7, ; xv 6 ; xvi 7, ‘ ’ The Holy Spirit as an advocate (paracletes) was to be ’ C e e e e e e th hrist s substitut and r pr s ntativ , s nt from e Fath e r and the S o n on H is mission to the d iscipl e s an d He the e th e Chu rch . was to carry on t aching work of ’ C e the e e e e C h rist, h lping discipl s to r m mb r hrist s word s s e n e w e T He and to e e in th m m anings . hus wou ld C C e the e e e glorify hrist as hrist gloriﬁ d Fath r , r v aling

L . 14 15 . 1 Cor. . H is ordship (John xvi , , cf xii An d H is witn e ss would have pow e r to convin c e m e n of the world e e e e e con c rning th ir sinfuln ss , divin right ousn e ss, an d divin e j udgm e nts (Joh n xvi .

( I ) The P ersonali ty of the Holy Sp i ri t

We m ust look ﬁrst for reasons to e x plain the slow growth of the d octri n e of the Pe rsonality of the Holy e e a e e the S pirit, and caus s w h ich r t rd d it, spe cially in We e e se con d ce ntury . h av n o i nte re st i n ov rlooking th e e e e e the e e e an y of e vid nc , ith r v ry confus d doctrin th e e th e e e the of e proph t H rmas i n s cond c ntu ry , or sad 8 Naz ianz us t he con fe ssion of . Gregory of i n fourth c e ntury wh e n h e was appointe d to the See of Constanti ’ n 0 le S e m en he e the S p om , sai d , r gard H oly pirit as e He e e e an e n e rgy, som th ink that is a cr atur , oth rs that

1 ’ Art. H l S i ri t i n H s D . B . o y p , asting THE DO CTRINE O F GO D THE HO LY G HO ST 8 1

He e e e e is God , whil oth rs do not know which of th s h S ’ O pinions to adopt out of r e ve re nce for t e criptu re s . O n e important factor i n the cas e is be yon d qu e stion th he e J w e e i nﬂu e nce of t Ale xand rin e Ph ilo, wh o syst m T atically r e ad Platonism into the O ld e stam e nt . H is

e e i n the Dr . e i nﬂu nc , words of Bigg, was partly h lpfu l , m e the e partly d e tri e ntal . I t was giv n to Al xandri n e J e w to divin e the possibility and th e m od e of an e te rnal th D e e e th distinction i n e ivin Un ity, and i n this r sp ct e be e e m agnitu d e of ou r d e bt can h ardly ov r stimate d . Ho w large it is we m ay m e asure in part by the fact that the e the S e hi s d octri n of Holy pirit, which has n o plac i n e e e e e e e syst m , r main d for a long tim m agr , i narticu lat ’ 1 e h h L an d u n ce rtain . Wh e th r t e te rm t e Word ( ogos) at the be gin n ing of the Fou rth Gosp e l was take n ov e r ’ e e e e from Ph ilo s t aching , dir ctly or indir ctly, or was tak n e r e a e the O ld Te e dir ct f om po tical pass g s of stam nt, ‘ h W h d w r m . 6 B t e rd o t e L r e e such as Psal xxxiii , y o f o ’ W the heavens m ade e e e e e . e , do s not com into qu stion h r are conc e rn e d n ot with the origin but with the d eve lop e the L e d e e e m nt of ogos doctrin , an d i n that v lopm nt th e re is n o doubt th at Christian write rs w e re e ncou rage d ’ by Philo s sp e cu lations to re ad the O ld Te stam e nt i n the ’ light of Christ s te ach ing an d to ph ilosoph ise about it . A n d the pity of it was that o n e - sid e d spe cu lation te nd e d to obscure t he t e achin g of the prim itiv e Ch ristian tradi S tion on the H oly pirit . h A word of warning is n e ce ssary e re . I n a write r such as Cl e m e nt of A l e xandria the d octrin e of th e Divin e S o n is ve ry fu lly d e ve lop e d and the te aching on the H oly S we e e e pirit se ems scanty . But m ust r m mb r that C e e e the S l m nt promis d a book on pirit, which has not e e e e w are com down to us , if it was v r writt n , and that e th e re for e e ntitl e d to pre ss to the full the importance of the fam ous passage in the Mi scellan i es wh e n Cl e m e nt h th S He shows a strong faith i n t e inﬂu e n ce of e pirit . e e the e is adapting a m taphor from Plato , an d pictur s whol e e e e e a h i rarch y of cr at d b ings as a ch ain of iron rings , ch e e e e sustaining and sustain d , ach saving an d sav d , h ld h a h S toge th e r by t e m gn e tic force of t e H oly pirit . 1 The Chri sti a n P la t ni sts o A ler amd r i a . 25. o f , p F 82 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

To e e e we the ou r sham , how v r . mu st confe ss that i n e e e the e he s con d an d th ird c nturi s , as in pr s e nt, t m ain caus e of failur e to b e li e ve rightly in t he Pe rson of the S e H oly pirit was b yon d dou bt world lin e ss . W s c learl i n h h M The e e e this y t e istory of ontanism . C e the d e clin e of h ristian proph cy , which coincid e d with stre ngth e ning o n all sid e s of the authority of the o fli ci al e De e ministry, of Bishops, Pri sts and acons , coin cid d also e e e e S o with a gr at incr as of t mptation s to worldlin e ss . far as it was a cons e rvative re action i n favour of proph e cy the Montanist m ov e m e nt bor e witn e ss to gr e at truth s h which w e re e ndange re d . But t e claim of Montan us to be the m e 1 e l e i en the S an d the y passiv nstrum t of pirit, e o f hi s e a1 o u se d fanatical z al follow rs , an opposition wh ich e b M was not all inspir d y worldly m otiv e s . I f ontanist e e e u s the e we m t aching s ms to a parody of Gosp l , u st e e e e e e e r m m b r , as it has b n w ll said , th at a parod y im pli s the e the an original , and that original in th is cas is e e e e e e Fourth Gosp l , w igh d , pon d r d , misu nd rstood , but bringing to r e cogn ition n egl e cte d truths that m igh t y e t h a i n t e futu re bring su ccou r to vit l re ligion . We se e this fact illustrate d i n the e xp e ri e n c e of the Th M A pologist Te rtullian . e wild e r vagari e s of ontanism e h ad n o attraction for h is cultur d m ind , to say noth ing of his trai ning as a lawy e r in caution . No doubt it is tru e th at h e would h av e taugh t the gre at bu lk of h is e e e e h e e e e t aching in an y cas , v n if h ad n v r h ard of e w e Montan us . B hin d h is harsh r ugge d n ess e can d isc rn e n e fire the e the fire e an ard nt atur on with z al , of lov of the S was the e M a pirit , wh ich i nspiring motiv of ont nism wh e re it was i n harm ony with the b e st th ough t of the first ’ a e . Te rtullian s e e e e g m agnific nt d scription of Pati nc , the gi ft of the Holy S pi 1 it wh ich accompan i e s H im wh e n H e e e e as e e b t he e d sc nds , sugg st d s e m s m ost probabl y e e e the ma 1 t r Pe 1 et ua e pati nc and cou rag of y p , prov s that by the be st inform e d though t of his tim e the H oly S was e e e pirit not conc iv d of as an imp rsonal gift , but as a Pe rson . THE DO CTRINE O F GO D THE H O LY GH O ST 83

( 2) The Doctr i ne i n the Thi rd and F ourth Centuri es

A striking e xposition of the doctrin e is fou n d i n ’ ‘

. n H O rige n s gre at work O n ﬁrst P r i ciples . e writ e s : The A postl e s r e late d th at t he Holy Spirit was associate d i n the e h S n honou r an d dign ity with Fath r an d t e o . But i n Hi s cas e it is n ot cl e arly distinguish e d wh e th e r He is be e e e e e n e e e to r gard d as g n rat or i g n rat , or also as a S o n of God or not ; for th e re are points which h ave to be e nqu ire d i nto out of sacr e d Scriptur e accordi n g to th e e e e e b st of our ability, an d wh ich d man d car ful inv stiga S e e o n e th tion . A n d th at th is pirit inspir d ach of e e e e e e e saints , wh th r proph ts or apostl s an d th at th r was n ot o n e Spirit i n the m e n of the old disp e nsation an d anoth e r i n thos e wh o w e r e inspi re d at the adv e n t of ’ C u th 1 e e e . hrist , is m ost cl arly taugh t th ro gh ou t chu rch s A n d i n the followi n g s e nte nce h e cl e arly t e ach e s the coe te rn ity of th e H oly S pirit : The Holy Spirit would b h th T e e e e e t e e i . e . n n v r r ckon d in u nity of rin ity, alo g the n e e e Hi s So n e H e with u ncha g abl Fath r an d , u nl ss ’ e e t he S had always b n H oly pirit . B ut som e of his e x pr e ssions le d to m u ch m i sun de r

as e he e o f th e hi st r i cal revela ~ standing, wh n is sp aking o ti on t e e e e e the of God , an d ach s as an inf r n c from Fourth Gosp e l that th e Spirit ow e s H is origi n to the m e d iu m of the So n e e He th e e he , an d that th r for e is i n ord r of t ’ 2 h He divi n e life i nfe rior to t e So n . i s not h e r e d e aling the i nn er bei n the e h e e e with g of Godh ad , on wh ich t ach s ’ 3 Nothing in th e Trin ity can be call e d gr e ate r or l e ss . ’ Th e misadve ntu re s of O rige n s sp e culations e xpl ain to th S C e e e e u s e acut e fe ar which . yri l of J ru sal m xpre ss s ‘ i n h is Cate ch e tical l e cture s : We wou ld say som e what conce rning the Holy Ghost ; n o t to d e clare H is substance ’ 4 e e e e e with xactn ss , for that w r impossibl . I n quire not cu riously into H is natur e or su bstan ce : for h ad it b e e n w ritte n we wou ld h ave spok e n of it ; e let e ffi e what i s n ot writt n , us n ot ve ntur on it is su ci nt

1 De P r i n c . P e . 3. , r f. p 2 - B e e B e 0 . ci t. . 203. thun ak r, p , p 3 4 Ca . 5 De P ri n c 34 . t . . , i . p . , xvi 84 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

e e e S o n for ou r salvation to k now , that th r is Fath r, and , H ’ 1 an d oly Ghost . Y S C u s e t . yril l e av e s in no doubt as to his b e li e f i n the d istin ct p e rsonality of the Spirit :

e a e a the e the H be It is st blish d, th t though titl s of oly Ghost ffe e H e o n e an d the e n an d an d di r nt, is sam ; livi g subsisting, a lway s pre se nt toge th e r with the Fath e r an d the S on n o t utte re d or breath e d from the m outh an d lips of the Fath e r or the S on n o r e e the a e e H im , disp rs d into air, but h ving a r al substanc , e ea an d an d e an d a e e s lf sp king, working , disp nsing, s nctify ing ; v n as the e conomy o f salvation which is to usward from the Fath e r an d the S on an d the H G e e an d m oly host, is ins parabl har onious ’ an d on e a s we a e e e 2 , h v also said b for .

I n the following passage he teach e s th at the S pirit is the so urc e of all that is be autiful in m oral an d spiritual l ife

? Why did H e call th e grace o f the Spirit wate r B e cause by wate r all things subsist ; because wate r brings forth grass and livi n g things be cause the wate r o f the showe rs comes down from e a e e a e e o n e i n m i n m h v n ; b c us it com s down for , but works any

m . o n e a e e the e P a e an d for s For fountain w t r th whol of radis , o n e an d the m e me the e t sa rain co s down upon all world , y it e m e e i n t he an d re d i n the e an d e i n b co s whit lily , ros , purpl e an d a an d ff e e an d a e i n e e e viol ts hy cinths, di r nt v ri d ach s v ral : o n e i n the a m - e e an d e i n the e an d kind so it is p l tr , anoth r vin , a ll i n all i an d e t o n e i n e n o t e e m e th ngs ; y is natur , div rs fro its lf ; fo r the a e n o t a e e an d e o n e r in do s ch ng its lf, com down ﬁrst as e a e e the thing, th n as noth r, but adapting its lf to constitution of m e e a e e e e e h e . ch thing which r c iv s it , it b co s to ac what is suitabl Th th e H e o n e an d o ne e an d us also oly Ghost, b ing , of natur , 3 e e e Hi s a e a r d i n a s H e wi ll : an d indivisibl , divid s to ach gr c , cco g the d r e e e a a o f e as y tr , aft r p rt king wat r, puts forth shoots , so the i n sin e has e e e e e m e also soul , wh n it b n through r p ntanc ad

o f the H e o f e e . worthy oly Ghost, brings forth clust rs right ousn ss n H e O n e i n e e t are the e A d though is natur , y many virtu s which n i h am o f by the will of God a d n t e N e Christ He works . For H e e mploy s the tongue o f o n e man fo r wisdom the soul o f anoth e r H e e nlighte ns by proph e cy ; to anoth e r H e giv e s powe r to driv e away d e vils ; to a nothe r He give s to inte rpre t th e divine Scrip ’ H e e e o n e e mm H e e e ture s . str ngth ns man s s lf co and ; t ach s anoth e r the way to giv e alms ; anoth e r H e te ach e s to fast an d discipline himse lf ; anoth e r H e t e ach e s to de spise the things o f t he body ; anoth e r H e trains fo r marty rdom dive rse i n di ff e re nt

1 2 3 Ca t. . 24. I bid . . 5 . 1 Cor . x11. 11. , xvi , xvii

86 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

e e e a an d e e e e wholly pr s nt with ach individu l , wholly v ry wh r ; m e an d e e a e m i passibly divid d , shar d without division , lik sunb a , whose gra cious influ e nc e is as much his who e njoy s it as though h e e e e i n the e the w r alon world , but which also bl nds with air, an d e e and s ea . T th e S e e shin s ov r land hus , too , pirit is pr s nt e e o n e e e e Him as e e e e on e re with v ry who r c iv s , if th r w r only ce i ve r e fi e an d m e e e 011 m , but b stows suf ci nt co pl t grac all ; who a e o f Him e the all things that p rtak njoy , according to capacity ’ 1 o f e e the e e o f H is e . th ir natur , not to xt nt pow r

The e S . e following passag s , from Hilary of Poiti rs , may w be e ho 0. A . D . 361 he e add d to sh ow , , u ph ld , th ough the e with caution , c ntral truth

‘ Th H S the A e e e an d y oly pirit, as postl say s , s arch s knows Th e e an d e e fo r m e e T e e y d p things, as int rc ssor sp aks to h words n o t e e e a e T e e I could utt r nothing, xc pt wh t b longs to h p e ne trates into The e n o r can the ag ency o f a pow e r fore ign an d a e T e e e e th e f Th e str ng to h m asur e d pth o y boundl e ss maj sty . Paul thought that t he description was sufﬁci e nt wh e n a e Him Th NVi th m en T e He S . e e e a c ll d y pirit th s , p culi rly hin e e i n e e m e n o t e e l ct, I will think th s att rs I will tr spass b y ond a e e c an w Th H S th t which human int ll ct kno about y oly pirit, but ’ 2 simply d e cl are that H e is Thy Spirit .

e e the e Mace d o n i us A crisis was r ach d with d position of , C e e e the D the Bishop of onstantinopl , wh o d ni d ivinity of Th C h S . e C e e t e pirit ouncil of onstantinopl , i n acc pting e e C e e e e e e e the r vis d r d of J rusal m , gav promin nc to truth th at the S pirit sh ould be worshipp e d and gloriﬁ e d w ith the

Th . Fathe r an d th e S 011. e controve rsy smou ld e re d on A graph ic picture of it is give n i n th e Cate ch e tical le cture s Re me sia n a e the M e of Nic e ta of , wh o accus s ac donians of raising inte rminabl e q u e stions O f what sort is the ? H oly Gh ost ? \Vhe n ce an d how gr eat is He Has He ? ’ b ee n born ? or has He be e n mad e Th e y w e re not ‘ conte nt with the plain words of the Lord He proc ee d e th ’ T e e e the fro m the Fath e r . h y p rsist d in misapplying ‘ 1 3 te xt All th ings w e r e mad e by Him (Joh n . ) as i f it h S e e e i nclud e d t e pirit . Nic ta argu d from th ir admission S e the S e the that . Joh n was i nspir d by pirit to writ e e e the S be e words , th r for pi rit could not includ d among He e e e e the cre ate d b e ings . q uot d oth r t xts to prov that

1 2 h l S i r i t 0. 22. De Tri m xi i . 55 56 . O n t e Ho y p , , , THE DO CTRINE O F GO D THE HO LY GH O ST 87

S Lo He e san ctiﬁe s pirit is rd , that guid s i nto all truth , ,

e e e e e . Hi s absolv s , r g n rat s attribute s includ e fore know e e e He l dg , goodn ss and omnipre se nce . who is confe sse d with the Fath e r and the So n at baptism should be e e e ff worshipp d with th m , not s parate ly as di e re nt gods are e the e e the th worshipp d by h ath n , but i n Un ity of e 1 Trinity .

(4) The Doctri n e of the P r ocessi on of the Holy Ghost \Vh e n the Divinity of the H oly Ghos t h ad thus b e e n op e nly chall e nge d by the Arians an d champion e d by C e e the wa e e n e w hurch l ad rs, y was op n d for a d e v e lop A n e w e th h m e nt of te ach ing . asp ct of e doctrin e of t e H e e e oly Ghost cam into vi w, wh ich stim ulat d thought an d e e e e provok d controv rsy . As so oft n happ ns , th is controve rsy has turn e d m ore u po n accid e ntals than e the o n e e was e ss ntials , u pon way in wh ich vi w brough t i nto promin e nce rath e r th an the impossibi lity of c o mbi n e i n o n e ing it with its opposit comm on form ula . It was fe lt th at pre cis e ly as the Church h ad le arnt through pain ‘ fu l e xpe ri e n c e to e mph asise the Scriptural word only ’ e e e the S o n e the re b gott n i n r lation to , so to in dicat lation shi p of t he H oly Spirit th e y must te ach th at He is ’ e bu n ot mad e nor cr at e d nor b e gotte n t proce e ding . N ice ta is cont e nt to r e p e at the Scriptural words Pro ’ c e e de th from th e Fath e r but th e qu e stion was ce rtain to com e u p— Wh at is Hi s re lationsh ip i n this r e gard to n ? Th 85 the So e quotation which I hav e give n abov e (p . ) ‘ ’ He h S from S . Athanasius i n which is call e d t e on s own ’ i mag e sh ows that the id e a of His proce e ding from th e the So n ff o n e e e Fath e r th rough i s not far o . It is of th lin s S e e of th ough t i n wh ich . Athanasius r v als h is sym pathy h h with t e mod e s of th ought cu rre nt i n t e W e st . The diffe r e nc e wh ich afte rwards arose b e twe e n East an d \Ve st on this subj e ct was due to th e fact that th e y . h approach e d t e s ubj e ct from opposite points of vi e w . The Gre e k Fath e rs starte d from the th ough t of the Ete rnal Distinctions (Hypo stase i s) an d re concil e d th e m T e as b e st the v could with t he id e a of Divin e Unity . h y

1 Cf . m N i ceta o R emesi ana . x . y f , p l iv 88 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

th ought of the doctrin e of the Tri nity as an e xplanation of the e e e the the e So n cr ation , manif st d i n work of Fath r, ,

. O n the e e e e e and Holy Ghost oth r han d , W st rn t ach rs b e gan with the id e a of the Trin ity as a n e ce ssity of the D e L e — u se e e e ivin if to a t ch nical t rm , as imman nt , ’ T h an abiding reality . h e y b e gan from t e th ough t of the e e e the D e e the L coinh r nc of ivin P rsons , as ord taught ; ‘ ’ Th u Father art i n me and [ i n thee . T o , , (Joh n xvii his le d th e m to the though t that the Spirit m ust be re gard ed as ‘ e e i n a se n se the S o n e e He the S i ri t proc ding from , b caus is p ’ ‘ ’ o J esus e the An d th e So n f (Acts xvi . Wh n words ’ had be e n add e d to Proce ed e th from the Fath e r Easte rn th e ologians thought that th is wou ld introdu c e the id e a of De two fou ntains (so to sp eak) of ity . But this was far from the imag ination of the e arly write rs who le d m e n h h e e to t e e dge of t e late r controve rsy . Pe rh aps v n n ow th e woun d m ay be h e al e d by use of the more e xact phras e ‘ ’ e e e the e the S o n Proc d th from Fath r through , which e saf guards te aching on each sid e .

S . e t he e S . Hilary of Poiti rs, gr at ally of Athanasi us the e ho ld e the e o n i n W st, is to sp ak of Fath r and S as authors of the Spirit wh o has H is be ing from the Fath e r

the S o n . On the T i i t h and th rough I n h is book r n y, e write s

‘ For my o wn part I think it wrong to discuss the qu estion o f Hi s e e e H e e e a He e e e e xist nc . do s xist in smuch as is giv n, r c iv d , i H e e e and S o n i n e o f r eta n e d . is join d with Fath r our conf ssion an d c be e e e e o f a e faith , annot xclud d from a tru conf ssion F th r n n an man e a m ea we a d S o . If y d mand wh t ning attach to this he e we a e e the o f the A e conclusion , as w ll as h v r ad word postl “ B e e e are e the S o f Hi s caus y sons of God, God hath s nt pirit ” “ S o n e a A e an d e e n o t the into our h rts cry ing bba, Fath r, Gri v ” e 1 H oly Spirit of God in whom y e hav e be e n seal d .

S e M e uch was his answ r to Arians and ac donians . I t is the n e xt ste p i n his though t that ﬁx e s ou r atte ntion h r S at t e p e se nt mom e nt . . H ilary had n o dou bt that the Spirit proc e e d s from the Fath e r and re ce ive s from ‘ ’ ‘ the S on . e he e e e And I q u stion , go s on , wh th r it is the sam e thing to r e ce iv e from the S o n as to proce e d ’ 2 th He e e from e Fath e r . was e vid ntly i nclin e d to answ r 1 2 De Tr i m . 29. De T i n . 19 20. , n r viii ,

90 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D plain n e ss an d e xplicitn e ss of language hith e rto withou t a e e e e e e e pr c d nt, his pu rpos is n ith r to ncou rage sp e culation e e e e e n or to provok d iscussion , but rath r to add com pl t n ss h and stability to t e Catholic doctrin e of the Holy Trin ity . He is conscious of n o conﬂict of opinion with i n the C e h the h u rch , his q uarr l is only with t e Arian and Mace don ian the F ilioque is part of h is answe r to thos e who d e ni e d the De ity of t he S o n an d of the H oly ’ I Gh ost . e th I hav d e alt sufﬁ ci e ntl y i n Part I . with e h istory of the controve rsy wh ich aros e wh e n the words F ilioque e e e th e w r add d to e Nice n e Cre e d . But it r mains to as k wh e th e r we can point to any advantage accruing from loyalty to the t e aching of We ste rn Ch riste n dom i n th is e e e e matt r, or i n oth r words , do e s such sp e culativ t ach ing b e ar a n y fruit in“ the spiritual life ? O n th is point som e light h as re ce ntly bee n thrown by the e C M H lat anon ob e rly . e says

Th e S o f th a th f B ut pirit e Inc rnate is e S pirit o God . it is not the S o f e a e i n His e e e e e so much pirit God , r g rd d t rnal xist nc , or e i n t he B e o f De : the S o f r lation , ing ity it is pirit God in H m the S o f e me th e S o f Man i n the u anity , pirit God b co pirit P e o f the e — e m e e e the e e rson Incarnat , b co th nc forward tru int r re tatio n an d e e o f ue e — i t p s cr t what tr manhood r ally is, is this

the e e e o f the N e w Te stamen t, the which is distinctiv r v lation . distinctive signiﬁcance an d life o f t he Church o f Christ . This is th e mm e e i n e fo r c C truth , i ns its signiﬁcanc pra tical hristianity , ’ which the so -call e d doctrine of the Doubl e P rocession dire ctly prote cts ; an d which the de ni al o f that doctrine te nds dire ctly to ‘ ’ m m a be a the e o f the e m the i pair . It y th t r moval Filioqu fro N e e C e e n o t e e a m e a o f the ic n r d , would n c ss rily i ply a d ni l e : e e can e be e doctrin but th r at l ast littl doubt. historically ‘ ’ e a i the e e e the e sp k ng , that Filioqu has s rv d, to doctrin , as a ’ 2 bulwark o f gre at importance .

S M Dr. e imilarly illigan wrot ,

A s the S o f the e e an d e L H e no t the pirit xalt d gloriﬁ d ord , is Third P e rson o f the Trinity i n His a bsolute a n d me ta phy sica l e e e a P e a s H e m e e h t he S o n , xist nc , but th t rson is diat d throug m w o n a a e who is hu an as ell as Divine . It is this p rticul r asp ct

1 i h H l S i ri t . 132. Hi o he B o . h P r es o n o t e st. f t o t of t e oc s f o y p , p 2 A t n emen t a nd P er sona li t . 195 . . o y , p THE DO CTRINE O F GO D THE H O LY GH O ST 91 o f His b eing that H e diff use s Himse lf through th e m embe rs of ’ ’ 1 C an d e 1n e m . hrist s body , abid s th

r M n Dr M e D . The opin ions which . ob rly an d illiga so set e e e e e e abl y forth d s rv full r d iscussion th an th y h av , h e t e e e . e e t e e so far as I know , y r c iv d Both d f nd d octri n of the Dou ble Proce ssion of th e Holy Spirit as a matt e r

of practical an d n ot m e re ly m e taphysical importance . A nd y e t al l the spiritual r e sults for wh ich th e y con te n d se e m to be s e cu r e i f i t is taugh t th at th e H oly S pirit h proce e ds from the Fath e r th rough the S o n . From t e point of vi e w of a practical pre ach e r I b e lie ve the state m e nt r e porte d from the lips of an e xp e ri e nce d m issi on e r f to be profou nd ly tru e : Whe n e v e r d u e hon ou r is pai d to God the Holy Gh ost in paroch ial missions r e s ults ’ The e e e Veni Creat r S i ri t/us follow . gr at W st rn hy m ns , , o p Veni San cte S i r itus the e C and , p , to wh ich East rn h urch can e e e the e sh ow no parall l , hav had th i r part i n gr at re vivals of spiritu al life for wh ich i n the \Ve ste rn w L u s we b Church e th an k God . et pray that m ay e e e e the e n o t nabl d to advanc along sam path , u n faithfu l to truths which ou r fore fath e rs w e re at pains to le arn . the e let be e e e the All sam , us car fu l not to ov rstat truth so as to give offe nc e to th os e wh om God is l e ading along w h e e e e e e t e e . anoth r path , as sur ly b li v , to sam goal The possibility of agre e m e nt with the Easte rn Ch urch is shown by the re sults of a confe re nce which was h e ld 18 5 e e e R e O ld at Bon n i n 7 , b tw n ast rns , Anglicans, an d C en the e e e atholics , wh following t rms of u nion w r e agr e d on . D e the We acce pt the te aching of S . John amasc n e on e e e i n th e Holy Gh ost , as it is xpr ss d following para 1 a hs i n the e e the e the e n u g p , s ns of t ach ing of anci nt d ivid e d Ch u rch 1 The H e t he e the . oly Ghost issu s out of Fath r as

e the e the e the e . b ginning , caus , sou rc of God h ad 2 The H e t he S o n . oly Gh ost do s n ot issue out of , e e e e the e a o n e e o n e b caus th r is i n Godh d but b ginni ng,

e . the e caus , through which al l th at is i n God h ad is

produce d .

1 A s en si n o ou r L r d . 189. c o f o , p 92 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

The e h 3 . H oly Ghost issu s out of t e Fath e r through

the S o n . The the e h So n 4 . Holy Gh ost is I mag of t e wh o is the e the e the I mag of Fath r, issuing out of Fath e r and r e st h S n ing i n t e o as His re ve aling powe r . Th the 5 . e Holy Ghost is p e rsonal production out of the e e the So n the S o n Fath r b longing to , but not out of , b e caus e He is the S pirit of the m outh of God d e clarator y th of e Word . Th f 6 . e Holy Ghost orm s the link betwe e n the Fath e r the So n e the e the S o n and , and is lin k d to Fath r by .

I t will be s ee n that th e se state m e nts sh ow that th e re e is a v e ry substantial agre m e nt . A n d th is agre e m e nt is still close r i n the cas e of thos e Easte rns wh o hold th at it ‘ ‘ i s lawful to be li e ve that the proce ssion and shining the S thr u h the S o n e e forth of pirit o g is from all t rnity . We may h op e that i n tim e He who i s the Spirit of u nity an d truth will r e u nite ou r scatte re d force s u nd e r the n M bann e r of ou r o e aste r . Such is the story of the long controve rsy 011 this e e e e h doctrin wh ich has com u nd r att ntion , ﬁ rst in t e e e C e e e the e history of ou r Nic n r d , and th n in cours of

e . S ad e xposition of its t aching to say, it is n ot th rough e e e the e e e e e misr pr s ntation i n progr ss o f h at d d bat , e ee though that is bad nough , so m uch as th rough sh r the e e e the e n egl e ct of doctrin altog th r , that worst vils T e e are C have com e i nto b e ing . h r man y hristians of to—day who are m u ch i n the position o f the disci pl e s S e e e e whom . Pau l fou nd at Eph sus, constrain d wh n th y ‘ w e re ch all e nge d to answ e r : We have not so m u ch as ’ h e ard wh e th e r th e r e be any Holy Ghost . e e e e As it was worldlin ss , m or than anything ls , that hind e re d the d e v e lopm e nt of the doctrin e i n the ﬁrst e - e c e nturi e s , so is it worldlin ss to day th at hind rs sou l afte r sou l from attaining to that p e ac e and j oy in the h h H oly Ghost which is t e bliss of t e kingd om of h e av e n .

94 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

S C u the C e e h wh ich . yril bro ght r d i nto lin e with t e e e e are e e customary ord r, th r s v ral slight alte rations

which are sign iﬁcan t . ’ ‘ ’ We m iss the words of r e p e ntance with wh ich the e e e e e e e anci nt sh ort cr d of J rusal m had n d d . But th e re was n o i nte ntion to alte r t he e m phasis i n dogm ati c ’

S . C e te ach i ng . yril s xh ortations to r e p e ntanc e are

n . he the e n d th e O ld m ost strik i g Baptism , says , is of Te e e t he N w stam nt an d b gin n ing of e . For its auth or t he h h d was Joh n , an d i n spirit of Joh n t e Baptist e e

claim s against h ypocrisy.

‘ Y et H e tri e s th e soul . He casts not his pe arls b efore swine if th e e me n a e e e th e thou play h y pocrit , though b ptiz th now ,

H oly S pirit will no t baptize th e e . B ut if thou approac h with a me n m e a e e the H f ith , though inist r in wh t is s n , oly Ghost

e e e . T m ea b stows that which is uns n hou art co ing to a gr t trial , e a e i n o n e if a to a gr t must r, that hour, which thou throw aw y , thy disast e r is irre tri evabl e ; but if thou be counte d worthy of the e th be e e e e e e e grac , y soul will nlight n d , thou wilt r c iv a pow r

. If e e e which thou hadst not thou b li v , thou shalt not only e e e e m o f man 8 r c iv r ission sins, but also do things which pass A n d m e be o f th e e pow er . ay st thou worthy gift of proph cy also For thou shalt re ce ive grace also according to the me asure o f thy capacity an d n o t o f my words ; fo r I may possibly spea k o f but ma e t a e e e e e a e e a s ll things , y thou m y st r c iv gr t r ; sinc f ith is a a a All th e th a a the e l rge ffair . y lif long will y gu rdi n Comfort r a e e e H e a e fo r e e fo r Hi s o wn e bid with th ; will c r th , as soldi r ; f or th an d th i n an d th f e . y goings out, y comings , y plotting o s A n d H e e e e e o f e e i e e will giv th gifts of grac v ry kind , if thou gr v “ Him n o t b si n fo r e A n d ar i er e n o t the H l S i r i t y it is writt n , o y p ” 1 o God wher eb e wer e sea led u n t the d a o r edem ti on . f , y y o y f p \Vhat en e e e e e e ? B e e e a re th , b lov d , is it to pr s rv grac y r dy to ’ 2 c e i v e e e e e e e e n o t . grac , and wh n y hav r c iv d it cast it away

I n one holy Catho li c and Apostoli c Church — The Chu rch o n e u i s , both by nity of outward org anisation and also by W ar u nity of inward spi ritual life . e e too r e ad y to acqui e sc e i n the mis e rabl e cond itions which pre vail i n

he e e da e e e . t pr s nt y , un d r which visibl u nity is brok n S e parations be twe e n Ch urch e s set u p barri e rs b e twee n e e e h e faith ful souls , and pr v nt th at int rc ang of spiritual e e e e e e e xp e ri e nc , th at f llowsh i p i n righ t ousn ss an d p ac

1 2 Ca t. xv n. 36 3 E h . . 30, 7. p iv , , T H E D O C T R I N E O F T H E C H U R C H 95

the are the e an d j oy i n H oly Ghost, w h ich charact ristics h of social life i n th e Ki n gdom of God . No wond e r t at the e the e e conv rsion of world is h ind r d , th at spiritual n Th e be e h i drance s abou nd . e world will n e v r convinc d W se e . e e e by wh at it cannot m ust pray for, an d xp ct ’ e th e e C e the e i n God s tim , r u nion of h rist ndom o n larg st e e e e e e scal . But this can only com th rough a gr at d p n h S ing an d str e ngth e ni n g of t e i nn e r life of th e pirit . It will n e ve r com e to th os e wh o are re ad y to sacriﬁc e 1 e the has truth for p ac e . As Archbish op of York sai d i n e e e we e a m morabl ph ras , what want is n ot com promis th e e e e e e the e for sak of p ac , but compr h n sion for sak of ’

. i n the e e e truth It is ability to tak larg r vi ws of history , and above all i n the insigh t w h ich can disce rn spiritual e e we n e w th ings b caus it is spiritual , th at sh all ﬁ n d pos sibili ti e s e e th e e e op n d out th rough vision of r stor d u n ity , e the e the maketh u nd r guidanc of Holy Ghost , who also ’ men to b n min d i a h us P s I n e o e n n e . 6 of o ( . lviii , the e e h w m antim th ough t e vision tarry e wait for it , an d we do w e ll to pond e r the opinions of gre at te ach e rs of th e

days wh e n the Ch u rch though thr e ate n e d was n ot divid e d . S e th e e Do e . Ignatiu s of Antioch writ s to Eph sians y , e e e e ach an d all , form yours lv s i nto a chorus , th at b ing the e e harmonious in concord , an d taking k yn ot of God , ye may i n unity si ng with o n e voice through J e sus Ch rist th e e He e u nto Fath r, that may both h ar you an d ackn ow e Hi s S n l dge you by your good d ee ds to be m e mb e rs of o . e e e b It is th r for proﬁtabl e for you to e i n blam e le ss u nity , ’ 2 e b t e that y may also e par ak rs of God al ways . S e ae h th . I r n u s also writing at t e clos e of e s e con d e e e e c ntury, wh n sch isms w r n ot u nkn own , though not se ri o us the e e so as i n mod rn world , writ s

A spiritual discipl e who truly re c e ive s th e Spirit o f God e e e m e n m e e of n o m an He ind d judg s all , but is hi s lf judg d wi ll e a e e are e e o f judg lso thos who caus divisions , who d stitut th e S o n an d e o wn e th e of God look to th ir proﬁt, rath r than to o f the C fo r m e a an d fo r an e a unity hurch , who s all r sons y r sons cut and e an d far i n e e e t h e e an d divid , , so as is th ir pow r , d stroy gr at o f C e e a e an d a e war glorious body hrist, who sp ak p c m k , who v e rily strain out the gnat an d swallow th e came l fo r from th em

1 2 Dr. E h. 4. Lang . p 96 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D can e e e as the o f He com no r formation so gr at is harm schism . e e are e the se will judg also all thos who outsid truth , that is, tho ’ are e the 1 who outsid Church .

The e e D f Al xan dria path tic app al of ionysius , Bishop o e , R e to Novatian , a schismatic Bishop of om , is worthy of m e ntion

If o u sa o u e e le d o n o u wi ll e i t , as y y , y w r unwillingly , y prov if o u e be e su ff er y r tire o f y our own will . For it would w ll to any thing an d e ve ry thing i n orde r to avoid dividing the Church o f M m the be e God . arty rdo to avoid rending Church would not l ss e e I n m me glorious than marty rdom to scap idolatry . y judg nt be e i n the o n e e man e a e it would mor glorious . For cas a b rs t sti mony to d e ath fo r the sake o f his o wn singl e soul ; i n the oth er c e th e e fo r th e e the e C . E e as , t stimony is sak of whol hurch v n i f o u e e the e e e c on now, y p rsuad or constrain br thr n to com to

the e e o f be e e r f . cord , r cov r y our standing will gr at r than y ou all

The he e e the e e l be e . B ut fall will not r ckon d r cov ry wil prais d , o u e n o e the e e e e e if y hav pow r with disob di nt, tak car to sav y our ’ 2 own soul .

From the thought of outward unity we turn to t he though t of in ward u nity e nj oy e d th rough fe llowship i n h n e e C T the e e the e t e o lif i n h rist . his is k yn ot of gr at ‘ e L e High Pri stly praye r in which ou r ord pray d , As O e me e e e thou , Fath r, art i n , an d I in th , th at th y also ’

b o n xvn St. e m ay e e i n us (John . A n d Paul labou r d continuously to e nforce the sam e truth As the body is o n e e e th e e e , an d hath man y m mb rs , and all m m b rs of r the bod y b e ing many a e o n e body ; so also is Ch rist . i n o n e S e e we e o n e For pirit w r al l baptiz d into body , e e e e e e e ee wh th r J ws or Gr ks , wh th r bond or fr ; and

e e e o n e S 1 Co r. . 12 w r all mad to dri nk of pirit ( xii , S uch u n ity of life b e gun i n Baptism is continu e d i n the : W are are o n e e o n e Holy Eucharist e wh o man y br ad , bod y : for we all partak e of the o n e bread (1 Co r . x . ‘ ’ T e the e S . his f llowsh ip i n Gosp l , w h ich was for Pau l the e ee e the o n e e sourc of d p st j oy , is abid ing poss ssion r e the e aﬁli cti on the wh ich e concil s u s to nd uring of , pati e nce n e e d e d by thos e who wou ld te nd old sore s .

1 hris ia A d v. H cer . . 33 1 e b D . S e The C t , iv . , 7, quot d y ton , n hu r h C . 120 c , p . 2 e b E e H . E . . 45. Q uot d y us bius, vi

98 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

i n e e a e s rious dang r of falling i nto sins of f ls hood , ange r ,

. 25 26 . e h and impurity (iv , , v I n oth r words , e is tru e th e L th S to e id al which ou r ord , both i n e e rmon on the M Hi s e e ou nt and i n parabl s, h ld constantly be for e the e h e ye s of H is discipl e s . Holin ss is t e id e al in Hi s king e be dom , but i n th is world vil will m ix e d with the good ’ h Da S P e a C u ntil t e Gre at y . . au l go s on to sp e k of h rist s ‘ purpos e to sanctify t he C h u rch having cl e anse d it by the e the He washing of wat r with word , that might e e the C e C pr s nt h urch to Hims lf a glorious h u rch , n ot h aving spot or wrin kl e or any s uch th ing ; b ut th at it

be e . 26 shou ld h oly an d without bl mish (Eph v . , The e e e e h antith sis, which is oft n drawn b twe n t e e th e e C e e be e visibl an d invisibl h urch , c as s to a sourc of pe rpl e xity wh e n it is cl e arly p e rce ive d th at we can say th e above words truly of the Church in the two worlds the e the e e h of se n an d u ns n , an d not on ly of t e latte r . The e pith e t Catholi c was ﬁrst use d to e xpre ss the id e a of the e xte nsion of the Ch ristian soci e ty throughout the

S . e e e the ualiﬁca world . Ignatius us d it fr from al l q tions which be cam e n e ce ssary wh e n h e re si e s b egan to the e e e e abou nd, and to primary id a of u niv rsality w re add d h To the Sm rnaean s h t e id e as of doctrin e an d u nity . y e e e e e e t he e e e l writ s Wh r so v r bish op sh all app ar, th r e t th e e e be e e e e e be e e the p opl v n as w h r J sus may , th r is ’ 1 To S. C u n ive rsal (catholic) Ch urch . yril of J e rusal e m it m eant m uch m or e

The Church is call e d Catholic be ca use it extends throughout all the world from o n e e n d o f t he earth to the oth e r an d be cause it t e ach es unive rsally an d comple te ly all the doctrine s which ought to come to the knowl e dge o f me n conce rning things visibl e e e e an d e an d e e i and invisibl , h av nly arthly ; b caus it brings nto e e the e a e o f n e an d subjction to godlin ss whol r c manki d , gov rnors e e e e a an d e a e e a a n d e gov rn d, l arn d and ignor nt ; b c us it tr ts h als e e as o f are m e i n l an d v ry cl s sins that com itt d sou or body , e e i n e e e e ame i n poss ss s its lf v ry form of virtu which is n d , both ’2 d ee ds an d i n words and i n e v e ry kind o f spiritual gifts .

“ 1 ’ S e e Li htfoo t s n o te ad loc . Mr. S o e The Chri sti a n Ca t. 8. g t n ,

Chu r h . 136 e the e i n the c , p , sugg sts that cont xt brings notion of

. T n o i n the o f S . orthodoxy his was doubt mind Ignatius, but it b a e th e e is not cl ear th at e n rrow d t rm . 2 Ca t. . 23. , xviii T H E D O C T R I N E O F T H E C H U R C H 99

S e e e . Cyril goe s on to warn h is h ar rs wh n th e y visit ‘ ’ stran ge citi e s to inqu ir e n ot sim ply wh e r e th e Lord s e e e the C hous is , nor sim ply wh r h urch is, but ’ e e he C C n th e e e w h r is t ath olic h u rch , avoid i g m tings of h e re tics . n S n e A similar inte rpr e tation is giv e by t. Augusti in a l e tte r i n which he r e pli e s to a Donatist :

‘ Y o u think y o u say some thing sharp wh e n y ou e xplain the m e C n ot m the mm o f th e W e na atholic fro co union hol world , but from the ke e ping of all th e comm andm ents o f God an d o f all the S me i f we e e i f e a e the C fo r acra nts, as , v n p rch nc hurch is this e e C e a e i t u th e e o f r ason call d atholic b c us tr ly holds whol , which e a m e are e e i n e e e e e e truth c rtain fr g nts found v n diff r nt h r si s, r st for our proof o f the Church in all nations o n the te stimony o f m e an d o n the m e o f o n this na , not pro is s God and so many and ’ 1 so cl ear oracl e s o f the truth itse lf.

The e A ostoli c e the t rm p , w h ich h as not com i nto e e C e e Cath li h W st rn r d with o c, has had a similar istory . ‘ S h C . th e T h . Ignatius sal ute s t e h u rch of rallians in t e ’ h In h divin e pl e nitud e afte r t e A postolic fash ion . t e d e scription giv e n of the m artyrdom o f Polycarp i n the Le e the Sm rn aean s e e th e tt r of y , Polycarp is d scrib d as t P glorious mar yr olycarp , wh o was fo un d an apos e e e e tolic and proph tic t ach r in our own tim , a bishop of th C S ’ e h oly (or Catholic) hurch wh ich is at myrna . h th S H e re t e te rm corre spon ds to e t e ach ing of . Pau l ‘ i n the passag e i n which he spe aks of the Ch u rch as the e e the hou s h old of God , b ing built u pon foundation of ’ T th e Apostl e s an d Proph e ts (Eph . i i . h is id e a of the e me n e e h istorical su cc ssion of apostolic , who in g n e e e e the tion aft r g n ration , conti n u d work of building u p

T - th e C e e . e de ﬁe s e e h u rch , is v ry attractiv rtu llian h r tics e the e C e e to trac back origin of th ir hurch s to Apostl s , an d the passage shows us th e practical im portanc e alre ady e the e e attach d to prin cipl of Apostolic su cc ssion , of ord e rly transmission of authority from o n e ge n e ration to anoth e r

If any d are to conne ct th e mse lve s with the Apostolic age that the y may appe ar to h ave d esce nde d from the Apostle s be caus e

1 b e 0 ci 2 Mr S . t. . E 3 e . 138. . p. xciii . , quot d y ton , p , p 100 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

e e e e e th e e o f the A e we can sa Le t th y hav b n und r rul postl s, y , e e e the o f e C e le t e the th m d clar origins th ir hurch s , th m unfold e e m the e succ ssion of th ir bishops, so co ing down from b ginning with continuous steps that the ﬁrst bishop may have had as his e a an d e e e o n e the A e A cons cr tor pr d c ssor of postl s, or of postolic ’ m en e e i n the o f 1 who r main d communion the Apostl e s .

It is this conce ption of an authority obe di e nt to the law e e e the e t of its own xist nc , loyal to past y not out of the e e th h harmony with pr s nt, that is e stre ngth of t e

syste m of Episcopacy . But it is with som e th ing m or e than con fid e nce i n Episcopal O rd e rs an d disciplin e th at the C the e hurch claims attribut Apostolic . It is with th e e e D e e s ns of a ivin mission to mankind , trust d to ‘ ’ ’ carry on an occu pation as d e fi nite as a soldi e r s in the e e u e e p rp t al confl ict against vil and mis ry and ignoran ce, the C - e t he e e that hu rch of to day acc pts sol m n charg , As ’ 2 h m v n e e e e e e . m y Fat r hath s nt , so s nd I you (John xx W acknowl d e one a ti sm r th missi n i n e e g b p /o e re o of s s. S om e anci e nt write rs on the Cree ds mak e a gr eat point e e of a distinction which is of r al importanc , th at ou r faith

e e . is a faith i n P rsons , n ot i n th ings or id as I n this e the i n i nstanc our faith is in God Holy Gh ost , not e e the e e Baptism as a c r mony, or i n id a of r mission of sins as conn e cte d with pre paration fo r re ce iving the S the acram e nt of Baptism . It is Holy Gh ost who san ifi s he ct e wate r to t mystical washing away of sins, who stimulate s and acce pts our impe rfe ct faith and re e ntan c e e e e e e e the p e , who alon giv s grac of p rs v ranc to baptiz e d childre n of God i n th e ir we ary warfare agai nst the he e the e . T e world , t fl sh , and d vil his conc ption R ufin us e e the was mark e d according to , for xampl , by us h i n he be e e of t e pre position , wh ich taught sh ould u s d h the e the Son the b e fore t e nam e s of Fath r, , and H oly e e e the C Ghost, but n ot wh n m ntion is mad of hurch or e e f the of re mission of sins , b caus ou r aith i n Holy Ghost carri e s with it b e li e f th at He d we lls i n and works through th the e . as e Ch urch , as th rough wat rs of Baptism A n d it is only by the Holy Gh ost that we are e nabl e d to f e the L con e ss our faith i n J sus as ord , so it i s H is

1 a m 2. De P rce scr . H , 3 2 ’ H uma n L i e a nd i ts Cond i tzons . 127. Dean Church s f , p

102 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

our spiritual b e ing is daily so m u ch hind e re d and i m ’ 1 pair e d afte r Baptism . We look f or the resurrection of the dead — As I have

e S . C e he e e e the shown abov , yril impli s th at pr f rr d of ’ ‘ ’ e the e e e d ad , to of fl sh , probably i n f ar of mat rialistic He ca e e : e xplanations . is r ful to x plai n For th is body shall be e e e e rais d , not r mainin g w ak as now , but rais d the e e v ry sam body , th ough by pu tting on incorruption be e e — e fire it sh al l fashion d an w , as iron bl nding with e e fire h e He the L d h b com s , or rat r as kn"ows how, or w o

e . T e e e be e rais s u s h is body th r for shall rais d , but it e e e shall abid not such as it n ow is , but an t rnal body ; n o e e e e e long r n ding for its lif such n ou rish m nt as now, e be e t n or stairs for its asc nt, for it sh all mad spiri ual , ’ 2 e we e a marv llou s th ing , such as can n ot worth ily sp ak of. e be e From this point of vi w it . will n otic d that our Nice n e Cre e d is fr e e d from the ambigu ity wh ich at tim e s has p e rmitte d mate rialistic e xplanations to gath e r rou nd ‘ ’ ’ th e e e the e the e word s, r su rr ction of ﬂ sh , i n Apostl s

Cr e e d . T e e e the e We h r is a not of triu mph i n p rson al touch , ’ u the e look for , wh ich rings th ro gh following passag

‘ The root of all good works is the hope o f the Resurre ction for the e xpe ctation o f the re compe nse ne rve s the soul to good e e a e i s e a e e the i f he works . For v ry l bour r r dy to ndur toils, se e s th eir re ward i n prospe ct ; but wh e n men w e ary th emse lv e s

fo r e e e e . A nought, th ir h art soon sinks as w ll as th ir body e e e e e fo r war e is soldi r who xp cts a priz is r ady , but non forward to di e fo r a king who is indiff e rent a bout those who se rve unde r him e o n e o . I n e n e e e , and b stows no honour th ir t ils lik man r v ry e e v i n Re e t e o f e soul b li ing a surr c ion is naturally car ful its lf ; but,

s e e a e e . H e e e e di b li ving it , ab ndons its lf to p rdition who b li v s hi s e e e o f e that body shall r main to ris again , is car ful his rob , th an d d e ﬁle s it n o t with fornication . Faith th e refore in e Re surre ction of the d e ad is a gre at commandment an d doctrine o f th e H Ca C e an d e e ol y tholic hurch ; gr at most n c ssary , though ’ 3 a b m e t e a e bv the . gains id y any , y sur ly w rrant d truth

x The q ue stion h as b e e n rais e d wh e th e r th e re is any hint h e re th at the Chu rch anticipate d a sp e e d y coming for a

1 3 E v h. 1 . 6 a t. . 18. I cclcs. P li t . l u . v n 1. C o y , v ; . , xviii , T H E D O C T R I N E O F T H E C H U R C H 103

‘ ’ First Re surr e ction of sai nts pr e c e ding a Mill e nnium an d the e T s con d r e su rre ction u nto Ju dgm e nt . h at though t C ’ e e e e e e S . an d e d o s not s m to hav b n in yril s mind , it r sts e C on misu nd rstan ding of doubtfu l te xts . St . yril do e s e e e e e e Re e not s m to hav b li v d in two surr ctions, but S ’ th T only th at . Paul s words to e h e ssalonians taugh t that the dead i n Chri st shou ld have the privil e ge of rising ’ first Le t u s wait and look for the Lord s coming u pon the T e shall clouds from h e av e n . h n ange lic trum pe ts 1 the dead i n Chri st shall r i se rst — the sou nd ; fi , godly e a re e be th p rsons wh o aliv shall caught u p i n e clou d s, r e ce ivi n g as the re ward of th e i r labours m ore th an e e hu man honour , i nasm uch as th irs was a mor than e as th e e Paul h uman strif ; according Apostl write s , F or the L rd Hi mse shall d scend r m h a saying, o lf e f o e ven with a shout wi th the voice o the A rchan l wi h h , f ge , and t t e trum o God : an d th d ad i n hri t h ll i Th n p f e e C s s a r se first. e we whi ch are ali ve and re mai n shall be caught up together wi th them i n th clouds to m the L rd i h ai e , eet o n t e r ; and so ’ 2 shall w r b wi h L O ur L e eve e t the ord . ord d e laye th e n e f H is com ing, an d it is oft n h ard to r e mai st ad ast at the e h C post of d uty, but this claus of t e r e e d sou nds i n e th e e H w ou r ars e trump t call of h op e . Wh n e com e s e shall W trium ph ov e r si n and d e ath . e look for the h ’ r e surre ction of t e d e ad . A nd the life of the world to coma — As compare d with ‘ ’ the ph ras e of the J e rusal e m Cre e d life e te rnal th is e e e e S m ndation is n ot e asy to xplain . I t is not l ss crip ’ e e i n the L tural , b ing q uot d First Gosp e l from our ord s li S o M n h p ( att . xii . It m ay draw atte ntio to t e fact that the fut ure life wil l be a life liv e d u nd e r n e w cond i e than a re eti io n he Th tions rath r p t of t life h e re . e ph ras e is fou n d i n a Cr e e d pr e s e nte d by the h e re tics Arius and e B e the e C e th e h is fri n d uz ins to Emp ror on stantin , an d in C e e the r d of Apostolical Constitutions (Bk . vii . ) wh ich we th e have trac e d to Antioch . Probably Cr e e d of Ari u s e e e e e h as A ntioch n rath r than Al xan drian conn ction s , since h e h ad b e e n taught i n the school of Lucian the

Martyr . An d i n an y cas e th e r e is n o dogmatic i nfe re nc e

1 2 1 T e . . 16 . I l) W 16 1 . h ss iv . . , 7 104 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D to be draw n from the phras e as if this variation i n an y the n way supporte d Arian te ach ing . It is most puzzli g e e all e e S . C e e e m ndation of , b caus yril rath r lov s to r p e at ’ the words eterna l life .

‘ n o ﬂ aim e e e e n For ours is tri ing , but our nd avour is for t r al e The ea e e e th e e r lif . r l and tru lif th n is Fath r, who th ough the S o n i n th e Holy Spirit pours forth as from a fountain Hi s e e an d Hi s e man the e h av nly gifts to all through lov to , bl ssings he fe e are e f us m n o f t li et rnal promis d without ail to e also . An d the way s o f ﬁnding e te rnal life are many . For the Lord Hi s e e e o n e in loving kindn ss has op n d, not or two only , but many b e e the e e e a far la doors , y which to nt r into lif t rn l , that as as y ’ 1 i n Him all e i e . , might njoy it without h ndranc

1 Ca t 28 29 36 . , xviii . , , .

106 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

e e e e e C ee e But th r is a far m or s rious obj ction to r ds , f lt e e e e e ar p rh aps m or oft n than it is stat d , that th y e atte m pts to e xpr e ss m ore than words can utte r of the e the D e mysteri s of ivin Nature and Pe rsonality . It is ‘ e m et the Dr Mill : w ll i n following word s of . It is a mis e o f the e the C e e e e d e tak n atur of r ds , to su ppos that th ir ﬁn iti o n s e e the e e e e e pr t nd to grasp whol matt r r v al d , and to bring its unfath omabl e d e pths within the cognisan ce

the e . T e e e e of u nd rstanding h y prof ss only to m th odis , e e e e e e e an d bring i nto a com p n dious shap , asily r m m b r d e e e the e o utli n e S ' o f the e de and r p at d , gr at Faith onc ’ 1 h T h n h live re d to t e saints . h at th is was t e fee li g i n t e minds of som e of the gre ate st Nic e n e te ach e rs h as e e the S alre ad y b n sh own i n strik ing words of . H ilary of 2 e e e e . The a e Poiti rs, which I hav quot d abov import nc e e e of it h as b e n insist d on m or than onc e . But th is is a a T truth which e ach ge m ust r e state for its e lf. im e afte r tim e m e n will re tu rn with profou nd th ankful n e ss to our e e C e e e e e e e e Nic n r d , as xpr ssing i n balan c d s nt nc s, and e e e the e the Re e e in tru p e rsp ctiv , outlin of v lation giv n e to u s i n ou r Lord J e sus Christ . As h as be n w e ll said ‘ ’ a h e Words re t e fortre sse s of thought . I n th e s words w R e e ntre nch ou r conviction that this e ve lation i s tru e .

‘ TH E WO RD WAs M AD L A N D DW LT A M O N G u s AN D WE E F ESH E , LD m s G LO R Y G LO R Y As o r TH E O N LY - G O TT N RO M TH E BEHE , BE E F ’ 3 AT R LL o r G R A AN D TR T . F HE , FU CE U H

1 S er m n s on the Tem ta ti n e d . 3 18 3 . 1 . o p o , , 7 , p 7 ‘3 3 P 18. 1. 14. . John A P P E N D I X A P P E N D I X

THE G REEK AND LATI N TEXTS O F THE CREED FO RMS Q UO TED A BO VE

TH E CR EED O F EB TH E CR EE D o r H E I I . EUS IUS T CO U N C L O F CE A R EA o r i a-zA A D 2 S N c , . . 3 5

S e H . E . . 8 The o dore t the e o f H ( ocrat s i or (according to t xt ort,

H E . 11 0 1. ci t. . . , i . ) 1 , p ‘ r' evo e 6 1 L ' TGUO LG l Il w u V 3 gm . 66 6V, II O / V e s éVa. 06 6V

' 1rar é a. 1ra w ox d:r o a 7ra r é a r a Vr ox aTO a p p p , p p p , 7 0V e dr dVTwV o a TwV Te 1rdVe‘ opa e r e -p Ka t d opdTwV n orm77V Ka i dopé e 7 0077 771” ‘ ‘ ’ Ka l ei séVa KU lOV I o o vV X to' TéV Ka i si s tVa KU tOV I o o w t p n p , p n Xp V 6 1 6 , 1 6V 7 00 6 017 h ‘ OV 1 6V NEW1 06 06 00 0 é y , 7 € VV770éVTa 6K 7 00 1ra r' pds ’ " uOVoe n— T o ur 60e 61: ' mp o va la s r‘ ov 7ra r‘ pOS ’ ’ 06 6V 6K 06 00 Gs eK orr bs' 06 6V eK Ge ou ( u s (3K c wr , ¢ (p , p p bs 06 6V dh wOV élc 6 017 h w fi nfl 0 d nfl o , ’ w v ex 017 s f h £ 3 , UIOV OVO ‘ GV V fléVr‘ a ou n oc OéVTa fl Y fi, e n n , n wr r OKOV mi Kr l e w o oo wV r r p é e n: a s. p w qb n a pl. 7r o n ae V 1 6 V a ld wwV he 68 015 r‘ d 1rdVr' a V r' p éy é e o , ' “ ‘ 7 00 t o u e 6 6VV éVO U r d. r e e V r o v a a r p s 7 7 fl M , pi p c K i r d. éV 7 7? V?) ’ ' 51 06 Ka i éy‘ éVer' o 1 a 1rdVTa ‘ ’ 1 6 6r 1' 7 V i ‘ wr‘ ' la 7 V 61 r il V nr V d, 7 juer épa V o qp V 6 o s d Opd ovs ' a Kw éVr a Ka i di d T i v e r' é a u O p O , j fin p ’ ' a ‘ O wr la V r h K i cV dv Opunrors wohtr e va dueV V, o np xa e ddw a Ka i o a xwflévr a p , Kai 1ra Vr‘ éVa V m r' o a V'ra 7ra 6V1' a 96 a , Op h , 0 , " Ka i dVa o r dVT a r‘ r lr t Ka i dVa o r dVT a 7 r lr' é , fi p p hu a, 77 p y fia pa,

' ' ' Ka t dVGh éVr a a es 7 6V 1ra 1 a d Veh éVra. 6 19 1 00 od a Vous O p p , d [ 3] p , ’ i o V 5 e o Ka i. ff wra é 651) pxbuev v “ x wa t Vr‘ a Ka i v ‘ K i vc u Cy u ' a l Vex p {w s Ve o s p ( r s A poé s. ’ ’ evo e t a Ka t 6 8 7 6 éi wV n Ve ﬁ a . [e u V] Ka t a s eu 1rVe v/. 9 7 u d i oV y . 108

110 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

TH E EA R Li ER CR E E D o r ER ALEM I II . J US

Re th e e e r o f ( store d from e Cat ch tical L ctu e s S . Cy ril

H 0 0. ci t. 142 ort, 1 , p . )

Il wr euoueu si s i n : 06 6V n a r' épa r a Vr oxpdr opa

’ 7 017 7 7 V od a Vo GKa i 7 8 7 7 p 7 3 ,

' Opa r' cTJV T e 1rdVe' Ka t dopdTwV

’ Ka i els 3 m Ku LOV I 7 0' o OV X LO' TOV 1 p 7 p ,

7 6V 11l 1 017 96 0i) T OV OVO ‘ i u e i,

‘ 7 0V ex 1 017 n a r pbs 7 €VV770éVTa 06 6V dhndwt w7rpo n ae V 7 61V

a lcbVwV ,

’ ' 61 of) T a 1rdV1 a. é éVer o y .

a a pKwOéVr‘ a Ka t

r' a éwr a Ka i T a c éVr' a cr v ﬂ p ,

r dvr a T lr' é dva a p nﬁu pq ,

’ i d VGh OVTa et s r o bs o u c wous Ka B p , ’ Ka lo o wr‘ a eté de LGV TO O n a r és Ka t ﬂ E p ,

’ ’ ’ i eVOV eu 6 K tVa t é w a s Ka t V ous Ka épxbu 689 p j e ,

’ ‘ ‘ o f; r“ ii s Ba o thela s O i méo r a t Tého s

’ i V d LO V n Ve OAa e s é y / ,

n a dxh r‘ O V T CP p n ,

' T o ha hﬁa a V éV r oi s n po gbﬁr a t s

’ ’ ' ‘ ri n 1 a. er a vola s els dt ea w d a r cd w Ka t els éV B a a/ u p y p ,

’ Ka i 6 5; Wo wdy i a V xa ﬂ ohrxiwexxhno la V

t i a x Vdo'T aa tV Ka e s o p ds d ,

’ ’ ' w t Ka t ets f hv a u wwV. A P P E N D I X 111

V H E CR E E D O F CO N TA N T N O P LE I . T S I

R VI D R D O F R A L M O R E SE C EE JE US E .

Il r eUO eV els' ¥Va Oe dV r ar é a 7raVr o x dr 0 a w u p p p , ’ ‘ c7 r 7 V o d aVo ii Ka t 7 3 7ro 7 1 p 7 3 ,

’ ‘ dpa r cdV r e n d e V Ka t d opdr wv

’ ‘ ' L V I UV r Ka i els EVa. Ku O 770 O Xpw dV, p _

i V r D 6 00r dV OVo r dV v d o 0 M e ﬁ,

‘ ' r o G1ra r d V eVr a 7r d n de V r GJV a i u i V r dV éx p s e nd p ,

63$ éfc ( o nds ¢ p ,

tV V etc 6 1? dh woﬁ 06 6V dhnd d 0 0 nd ,

ﬂ V ﬂéVr a r oz déVr a e n n ,

’ duo o zi c e r qd wa r pi

’ ’ er o ' dt oi? r d 7rdVr a. ey éV ’ ﬁ d r dV 61 ijuds r ods dVﬂpo rro vs Ka i. i d r ijV nuer épaV o wr npla V

’ ' ’ Vr a ex r cdV o d a JV Ka r ehdé p ,

Ka i o a KwOéVr a é/c r Veut ar os d i o v Ka i Ma la s r s 7ra éV v p / y p ﬁ p6 o ,

é a wm o a Vr a Kai V p j ,

’ r 1 d er i HOVr l v a r a v BéVr a r e in ép 731. r o c dr o v Ka i r a ddVr a Ka t r a pc évr a

’ t wa r ur a r r lr i é Kur d. r ds a Ka a o d ﬁ p y lu pa y p gbds,

Ka t dVehddVr a els r ods o d aVO US p ,

' ’ ' Ka t Ka e AGVOV ex de udV T O G1ra r d ﬁ fd/ f p s,

’ ’ xa i e d eVOV er d 66 7 s K iVa t Ka i V ou px u n 5 ’ p e s, ? ‘ o i r Sa d i hela s 013K éo r a t r ého s ﬁs [ .

’ ” Ka i a s r d n Ve O t a r d d' r d KU tOV r d worrordV / w p ( ,

r d éK r o i} 1ra r d émro e vd eVOV p s p p ,

‘ r d a dv n a r i ! a t a vun oo KvVOU eVOV Ka i o wdo a d e VOV p p u g j u ,

61 r cTJV 1r o 7 ' r d ha hﬁo a V d. p ¢ 7r 63V

' E19 p lo wd‘yla V Ka ﬂo huc'l wKa i drroo r ohmiyv emchq' o ta V ‘

t ' - ' d oho o ﬁ eV 81! ua n e l a u y u B / w. e s d¢ e aw dn pr udV

' ' r oo doxcd eV dVda' r aO' LV V cdV p u e ,

a t 0) r o ﬁ éhhow o a l K ( q u s CJVo s. 112 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

V A m A m . TH E S ME L r

TH E CO NSTA N TI N O P O LI TA N UM

(As quote d at the 2nd S ession of the Council o f Chalce don)

N A D A X AN P ATR O N O N A SA CT FI ES Q U M E P O S U E R U NT S CTI CL. ES C S SAN CTA E E T M A GN A E N I CAE N O S Y N O DO

Cre dimus i n unum De um Patre m omnipotente m facto re m cae li e t e e ui sibili um e t i nuisibili um t rra , omnium ’ e t i n D m e Chri stum Filium De i uni e n i tum ex unum o inum I sum g , P e n atum e e a De e x De o e ex atr ant omnia sa cul , um , lum n e De uerum e x Deo e n atum ac lumin , um n ro , non f tum , ho mo usi o n P hoe e st e iusde m P e e atri cum atr substantia , pe r que m omnia facta sunt ; qui propter nos et n o stram ” salute m de scendit e t incarnatus e st d e Spiritu sancto e t M ui r in e e t e st P P aria g , homo factus , passus sub ontio ilato * e t se ultus e di e re surrexi t ascen di t 038108 se de t p , t rtia , in , d e xte ram P r e u e n turus i n a e ad at is, it rum gloria iudic r ninos e t mortuo s e n on e rit fin i s , cuius r gni “ e t i n S iri tum D ui uifica torem e x P e p sanctum ominum ct , atr ro cede nte m P e e t con lo rificandum p , cum atr Filio g , qui ” lo cutus e st per pro phetas : in unam catho licam e t apo s toli cam ecclesiam co nfitem ur unum baptisma inre missio n em e e x ec tamus re surrecti one m mo rtuorum V p ccatorum ; p , itam saeculi A m n futuri . e .

114 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

' wn M V TH E S r o 1SSA L . I .

Cre do i n unum d e um patre m omnipotentem factorem caeli e t te rrae ; u i sibili um omnium e t i n ui si bili um Et i n unum dominum nostrum ihe sum Chri stum filium de i un i en i tum natum e x e e e e d e m e g patr ant omnia sa cula lum n lu in , e ue rum d e de o e n o n co n substantiale m d um n ro , natum factum, er e e e e t patri p qu m omnia facta sunt, qui propt r nos homin s propte r n o stram salutem de sce ndit d e caclo e t incarnatus e st d e e t M v ir i n e e t e st c spiritu sanoto aria g homo natus , ruci fixus (etiam ) pro nobis sub P ontio Pilato passus e t sepultus e t resurre xi t te rtia di e se cun dum scripturas e t asc e n dit c aelo s e t se de t a d d e xterum d e i e t e in , [ ] patris it rum uen turu s cum gloria iudicare ninos e t mortuo s cuius regni fin i s non crit . e t spi ritum sanctum dominum e t ui uifica to rem e x patre proc e e e e e t fili o co ado ran dum e t co n lori fi d nt m, qui cum patr g can dum locutus e st er ro h e ta s e t san ctam e e qui p p p , unam ccl catholi cam et a o stoli cam c on fite o r ba ti smum in siam p , unum p re missi one m e m e re surrecti o nem mo rtuo rum e t p ccatoru , sp ro

u ita A men . m futuri sacculi .

e e the e the e the e . I hav quot d t xt of ﬁrst hand , corr cting sp llings ‘ ’ A late r hand has add e d ﬁl i oq ue an d oth er words betwe e n the

e e th e e e . lin s, now assign d to t nth c ntury T H E N I C E N E C R E E D 115

L I T E R A T U R E

O R T Two Di s r ati ns 18 6 F . J . A . H , s e t o . Cambridge , 7 .

' ‘ M . . E ST CO TI The Hi stori c F ai th. B F W , acmillan

e e n 1883. C e e 6d . (s con d ditio ), ( h ap dition )

‘ ' . . SWE r E On the Hi st r o the Do tri ne o the P ro H B , o y f c f

D 18 6 . essi on o the H l S i ri t. e c f o y p igh ton , 7

- N Z E Das N ica ni sch K onstan ti n O oli tan i sche S mb l. J . KU , p y o

Le 1898 . ipzig,

. R N I n trodu ti n to th Cr ds. Me e 1899. A . E BU , c o e ee thu n ,

M GWATK I N Studi es o A ri ani sm C e 1900 H . . , f . ambridg e e (s cond dition).

C T R N ER The Hi stor and Us o Creeds a nd . H . U , y e f

a h mas S . C . . 1 08 . A n t e . P . K 9

C S . B O N B . e e The Three Creeds. E . . GI S , p of Glouc st r,

Lo n m ans 1 08 . g , 9 I N D E X

A DALHA RD A b o f C e . B B 60. , b ot orbi , 44 ull , ishop ,

Ado B V e e 2. , ishop of i nn , 4

A 6. CE SA R I US B A e 1 8. doptionism, 4 , ishop of rl s , ‘ A tiu m M e o d e s 8 . a L 1 C e Dr. . , 3 pb ll , , 7 A e e B o f A e C a e De the 6 l xand r , ishop l xandria, h lc donian ﬁnition , , 3 ,

6 1 . 6 . 4 39. 7 . m l i A a ar us o f T e e 6 . C a e the e Em e 2 ff. r v s , 4 h rl s Gr at , p ror , 4 B f M 2 Am e o 1 m f d a 8 1 . S . C e e o A e a bros , ishop ilan , l nt l x n ri , m A 0 6 f. C e m e R m e B . pollinarianis , 7 , 7 l nt of o , ishop , 55

A th e . C e Em e 1 2 1 pologists, , 57 onstantin , p ror , 7 f, 4 , , m A 6 . 1 0 rianis , 7 3.

A 6 8 1 2 1 0 . C O f Aix A . D . 80 . rius , 4 , , , , 57 , 3 ouncil , 9 , 44

A e . A A . O . 268 1 0 . st rius , 9 ntioch , , A ' A a S B e A e A . D . 1 6 . than sius ishop of l x rl s , 3 4 , 4 f a 8 1 1 2 A e A . D . 1 8 . ndria , , 4 , 7 , 4 , 49 , rl s , 353, 6 f 8 8 6 1 8 C e A . D . 1 55 . 59 . , . 7 3. 75 . 7 . 5 . halc don , 45 ,

8 88 1 0 . 1 0 6 . 7 , f, 99, 5 , 37 , 4 , 7

C a e A . D. onst ntinopl ,

BA N O R ANT P O N A R the . 81 1 1 0 . G I H Y , , 47 3 , , 7 , 3

B O f A a 1 6 . A . D . 1 . asil ncyr , Friuli , 79 , 43 B o f N D B the e e o e A . . 6 2 . asil Gr at , ishop G ntilly , 7 7 , 4

6 8 . A D 2 ae e 1 N ae . . 1 c sar a , , 5 ic a , 3 5 , f,

B e e VI 11 P e . 6 . n dict , op , 45 7 , 7

m A . D . 1 . Be A . S nson , rchbisho p, 53 irmiu , 357 . 5

- B e e B a e Re v . . F . 1 . T e A . D . 8 Ff. thun k r, J , 7 ol d o , 5 9 , 39

B Dr. 8 1 . C e A . igg , , ranm r , rchbishop , 47 f

B ind le Dr. T . H . 6 . C e e A 2 . y , , 33, 4 f r d of ntioch , 7

B C e e e the 1 . A S e C ee onn onf r nc , , 9 ntioch , cond r d

B a a S e the . 1 . r dsh w oci ty , , 47 of, 4

he 8 8 . B Dr. . A e t right, , 5 postl s , , 3 , 4 f 116

118 T H E N I C E N E C R E E D

L P e 1 2 P oofs , rof ssor , , hotius , 45. L h M t e 0 1 0 . P 8 1 . ucian artyr , 5, 7 , 4 lato ,

L B T e 1 8. P S . upus , ishop of roy s , olycarp , , 99 . P roclus , 35. M ACE DO N IUS B C , ishop of onstan i n l 6 8 R t o e . ECCA RED K . p , 3 f, 3 , ing , 39 M R e B A uﬁnns o f A e 1 00 . arc llus , ishop of ncyra, quil ia, 39, 47 , I 2 4 » 3, 75. M H e m the . S ABELL A N M 1 . ark r it , 35 I IS , 5 f, 3 f, 57 M e e B A 28 S e B 1 l tius , ishop of ntioch , , cundus , ishop , 3.

0 . Se B 8 . 3 f rapion , ishop, 5 Mi tiu e s 2. S m a A . g , 4 ar gdus , bbot , 44 M Dr 1 06 S e M the . ill , . , . tow issal , , 47 M Dr 0 S De 1 illigan , . 9 f. trong , an , 5 . M D 1 0 f 8 e r . . S e e Dr. 80 . ob rly , , 7 , 9 w t , , 45 , , 9 M 82 ontanism , .

T a u r u 2 . s , 7

Te ff 82 . N EKTA RI US B C rtullian , 57 , , 99 , ishop of onstan T e e the Re e . in le 2 h odor ad r , 35 , 37 t o . p , 3 f, 35

The o d o sins E m e 0 . , p ror , 3 N e a m 0 6 . stori nis , 33, 7 , 7 f

T e B 1 . e B o f Re me si an a h onas , ishop , 3 Nic ta , ishop , T e o f A n tio ch 8 . 86 h ophilus , 5 f. e Timoth y of Constantinopl , 35 Nilus , 35. H 1 2 6 . T e C . urn r, , 35 4 N a 6 . ovati n , 9

V LE N E e 1 1 6. A S , mp ror , 5,

O R E N 8 . IG , 5. 3 V A e 8 . ictorinus f r , 9

O rr Dr. . 6 . , J , 5 f Lerin s 1 0 . Vincentius of , 5

L F AMO SATA 1 0 L FRI D S TRABO 6. PA U O S , . WA A , 4

P 1 . W e Dr. . F . aulinus ofAntioch , 3 arn r , G 47

6 10 . P o f A e . W e B aulinus quil ia , 43 stcott , ishop , 9 , 7 28 Pe tavius De Pe 1 . W B . . ( nys ttau), ordsworth , ishop J , e e th e P t r e Full r , 35.

P 81 Z A N Dr. T. 2 . hilo, . H , , 7 T H E C H U R C H U N I V E R S A L

B R I E F H IS TO RI E S O F H E R C O NTI N UO US LI F E

E dited by W H E REV . . . H TTO N B . D . TH U ,

’ LLO W o r ST . O N O L L G O X O RD FE J H S C E E , F EXA M I N I N G CH A P L A I N T O T HE msn o p O F RO CHEST E R

A S E RIES of e ight volumes de aling with the history of the Christian h d Church from th e b eginning to t e pre se nt ay .

l Th e C h ur ch o f th e A p o st e s .

E M . A . V T e e Rut The Rev . LO N DAL RA S GG , , icar of ick ncot ,

land shi re P e e L C e . s . 6d . n et . , and r b ndary of incoln ath dral 4

‘ I t i s a a e f e e o f h h ma be ead e as e and c r ul pi c work, w ic y r with pl ur ' - 5 a tor . pro ﬁt . S; ect

e a h e s - Th e Ch ur ch o f th F t r . 9 8 4 6 1. L N M R v E TO N P L A . A . s. n et . The e . L IGH U , 5

‘ We shall be surpr se d “ his book d o e s n o t supe rse d e som e o f the le ss i . i nte re sti n g C hurch h i storie s which ha ve se rve d as te xt-books fo r se veral ’— ’ u a r d z a n . ge ne rations o f the ol o g ical stude nts. G ‘ The stud e nt o f this important pe rio d o f C hurch h isto ry — the formative e d — has he e a e a n a a i e a e d h n fo ma n d a n m p rio r cl r rr t v , p ck wit i r tio r w fro d a e h the m s e e n e s n authe ntic source s an d e luci t d wit o t r c t r sult o f i ve stig atio n . We d o no t kn ow o f any othe r wo rk o n Church histo ry i n which so much le arne d a nd accurate i nstruction i s co n de nse d in to a co mparatively small s a e a t the sa me me e se nt e d in the f m o f an n e e s n na a e . p c , but ti pr or i t r ti g rr tiv a an e d s d e n n an a Alike the be gi nn e r a n d the dv c tu t will ﬁ d Mr. Pull useful '— Clz u rck Ti m es. guid e and co mpanio n .

h n d th e a a n 4 - Th e C h urc a B rb ri a s . 6 1 1003 .

h D T R s. 651. m l T e E I O . 3 .

’ a H he s I n so accomplish e d h nd s a s Mr. utton s t re ult is a n i nstructive a nd ' sugge stive surve y o f t he course o f the Church s d e ve lo pm e nt throughout ﬁv e h nd e d e a s and a m s as man n e s a nd e o e s i n C o n s a n n e u r y r , l o t y cou tri p pl , t ti opl a s well as among the We nd s a nd Prussia ns in Ce ntral A sia a s we ll as i n the ‘ ° — R z fze w o T/zeolo a nd We ste rn I sle s . e f gy

‘ ' The volume will be o f gre at value as g iving a bi rd s-e y e vie w o f the ' fascinati n struggle o f the C hurch with he athe nism duri ng those spacious g ’ - r lz T m s . ce nturi e s. C1 m c z e

L O N D O N : R I V I N GT O N S T H E C U RGH VE — d H U N I RS A L Conti n ue .

Th e C h ch a n d h e - ur t E m p i r e . 1003 1304 .

D ME DL . . E M . A . P e H he J Y , , rof ssor of istory in t Unive rsity

. I n re arati n of Glasgow [ p p o .

- Th e A g e o f S ch i sm . 1304 15 03 .

H E RB ERT B R E M . A . P e H the e UC , , rof ssor of istory in Univ r i ' s t C e e C ardiﬂ . 3 . n et y oll g , 3 .

We mm e nd the bo o a s e n fa i n its d a t sm a e a o n co k b i g ir ju ici l cri ici , g r t p i t he e so ho n a s b e a s the e a h sm a n d i t ss e a r sse w r t r y u j ct Gr t Sc i s i u s e d iscu d . The a rt o f e ad n the me s he e a n e n m d e n has d e s e nd e d f m r i g ti , w th r ci t or o r , c ro W H ’— . . H o n . l M r . s utt to hi pupil P a l M a ll Ga z ette.

It is a e a e od fo r so sma a a mas e o f h s s e n s gr t p ri ll book , but t r i ubjct k ow w ’ a a s ha to e a e and h s m e e s the e d i n o mfo . l y w t l v out, t i volu cov r p rio c rt E xposi tory Ti mes .

- Th e R e form ati o n . 15 03 16 4 8 .

’ Th P W TN E B . D. e Rev . C S t. E . J . H I Y , , haplain of dward s ,

C e H e Le e 1 06 1 . n et . ambridg , and uls an ctur r ( 9 5

‘ ' A o o n the Re fo ma n a s a h e no t o nl i n E n and i n bo k r tio w ol , y gl , but

E o e has n e e n ne e d e d . T s e se n o me ﬁ s he e fo e a e a ur p , lo g b hi pr t v lu ll , t r r , r l

a n fo r i n t he R e o ma o n is e a e d as a h e . The a e o f w t , it f r ti tr t w ol v lu the o i s - u e o f ro o rti o n to i ts s z e and i ts m o ta n e be b ok q it out p i , i p r c will a ppre ci ate d by all those wiio se duty or inclination calls to study the R e fo r ’ — ° a . r m tion Gu a d za n . ‘ T e e s a It i s certai nly a very full a nd e xce lle nt outline . h r is c rcely a point i n s m me n s me i n re a d h h the s ud e n a nd nde e d the d thi o tou ti g r to w ic t t , , i , or i na e ad e no t ﬁnd e e e o ns de a e e as e a s s e st e ry r r, will h r v ry c i r bl h lp, w ll ug g iv ’— h n s fo r r he s C/z u r c/z Un io n Ga z ette . i t fu t r tudy .

l - 1 Th e A g e o f R e v o uti on . 16 4 8 8 15 .

d t D TO R . s. 6 . n e The E I 4 .

’ r H n s as s d e s i n E es as a H s a re s e se e him M . utto p t tu i ccl i tic l i tory ur to cur w i e d h e me a n a a e me i n h s ne e n e . The e s a a o f a n a welco t i v tur r br t tr t t , ccur t e s i e an d a ha t a e s i n a ll ha he e s h h ma e hi m p r pe ct v , c ri bl pirit t t writ w ic k ’ a worthy associ ate o f Cre ig hton an d Stubbs i n the g re at ﬁe ld o f histo ry . a l A berd een jou rn .

- 1 . Th e C h u rch O f M od e rn Day s . 18 15 9 00

Re v LE TO N P LLA N M . A . The . IGH U ,

L O N D O N : R I V I N G T O N S

The M a the S k L n e A wes B s anu l for ic of a c lot ndre , i hop of W Ed n t . e a N e s e e . B inch r it d , with Introduction and ot s y E B R I TMA N M f . . . A e w O S t M Ma a e e F GH , F llo . ary gd l n f o l m O o . 8 C e e C L C s. 6 d . ne t . oll g , xford , anon inc n rown . 3

L the Y The O ld Te e n t if“ lec tio r B ible e ss ons for oung . stam e s t e m he A . t e A a e b h R e v M . C fro uthoris d rr ng d y . Z D s ti v LA EBRO O K D . C Re id en ar ha f me G , . , anon of y , or rly H e a M a e O f v W C C e e . C 8 0 . Ma d st r lifton oll g rown ith ps . 2 6d Tw P e n e t 3. o 1 5 . d . . or in arts , 3 ach

N es and e B L Te e ot O utlin s for ible e ssons . For ach rs using B e Le the Y ibl ssons for oung .

B the Re v. M . LAZ E BRO K D D. r 8vo 3 6d ne t y G . G O , . C . . 3 . . .

' ' B ible Le ssons and N otes an d O utlin es m ay also be had o ne me 6d n e t 5 . . . in volu , 4

Re i s in O ld Te a e H st in 8 Le ss . ad ng st m nt i ory , 7 ons B the R v W I T AM M A P a f e . A R . o C y . . H H , rincip l ulham W M T C e e S m ca 8vo . raining oll g . all F p. ith aps . The Tex n the A e Ve the t o ly , in uthoris d rsion , without - Re S e e t e L e 25 . 6d net Two adings , v n y ight ssons , . ; or in

P 1 5 . d e ne t arts , 3 . ach . Re s l S e e -e Le o n the B e Te ading on y , v nty ight ssons ibl xt ,

6d . ne t 25 . .

n V m 5 6d . ne t. Text and Reading s in O e olu e . 4 .

e T x -B ks h l e R e T e e v e S criptur e t oo for C i dr n to ad h ms l s . e e h e t Publish d unde r the auspic s of t e S oci ty of he Cate chism . — N o 1 . The L e o f L and S a e . . if our ord viour J sus Christ — N 2 . The B e the C o . ginnings of hurch of Christ .

TR E E L N M W P e B th e Re v . . P . A . A . e y G V Y , ith a r fac

b th e Re v C ANO N B RO O KE V S t . the D e y . , icar of John ivin , m K e a n d P e e the S e the C e . nnington , r sid nt of oci ty of at chis

m ca 8vo . 8d . e net . S all F p. ach

A B o C mm The S anctuary . o k for o unicants .

Re v PER DE ARM ER M A . B y the . CY , .

E a e 8mo . I S . ne t e e e long t d 4 , cloth , gilt l tt r d or

d . ne t e e e 7 , cloth , ink l tt r d ;

the B O f C mm P e I S . 6d . ne t. bound with ook o on ray r ,

M a be had the A a C e E e y also , with ddition l oll cts , pistl s , ’ e m ‘ The E L and Gosp ls fro nglish iturgy ,

m m 2s. 6d n e t . 1 5 d . ne t a . . 4 in cloth ; or in li p l bskin ,

A the B C m m P e 25 . net lso bound with ook of o on ray r , in cloth

m a m s. 6d . ne t . or in li p l bskin , 3

D I N GT Ns N TREET CO ENT A RDEN . LO N O N : Ri V O , 34 KI G S , V G