Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 1.djvu/705

Rh APOSTLES'

G31

APOSTLES'

Siicli a table serves admirably to show how incom- plete is the evidence providetl by mere quotations of the Creed, and how ca\itiously it must be dealt with. Had we [Kissessed only the " De Virfiinibiis Velandis", we might have said that the article con- cerning the Holy Ghost iliil not form part of Tcr- tullian's Creed. Had tlic " De Virginibiis Velandis" been destroyed, we shoidd have declared that Ter- tuliian knew nothing of the clause "suffered under Pontius Pilate". And so forth.

(5) It nuist not be forgotten that while no ex- plicit statement of the coiniK)sition of a formula of faith by the .\postles is forthcoming before the close of the fourth century, earlier Fathers such as Ter- tuUian and St. Irena;us insist in a very emphatic way that the " rule of faith " is part of the apostolic tradi- tion. Tertullian in particular in his " Ue Prxscrip- tione", after showing that by this rule {regtUa doctrince) he understanils something practically iden- tical with our Creed, insists that the rule Wiis insti- tuted by Christ and delivered to us (tradita) as from Christ by the .Vjxjstles (Migne. P. L., H, 26, 27, 33, 50). As a conclusion from this eviilence the present writer, agreeing on the whole with such authorities as Semeria and Batiffol that we cannot safely afhrm the Apostolic composition of the Creed, considers at the same time that to deny the jwssibility of such origin is to go further than our data at present war- rant. A more pronouncedly conservative view is urged by MacDonald in the "Ecclesiastical Review", January to July, 1903.

n. The Old Ro.m.\x Creed. — The Catechism of the Council of Trent apparently assumes the Apo.s- tolic origin of our existing Creed, but such a pro- nouncement has no dogmatic force and leaves opinion free. Modern ajwlogists, in defending the claim to apostolicity, extend it only to the old Roman form (H). and are somewhat hampered by the objection that if R had been really held to be the inspired utterance of the .Apostles, it would not have oeen modified at pleasure by various local churches (Rufinus, for example, testifies to such expansion in the case of the Church of .Aquileia), and in partic- ular would never have been entirely supplanted by T, our existing fonn. The difference between the two will best be seen by printing them side by side.

T.

1. I believe in God the

Father Almighty;

2. .\nd in Jesus Chri.st, His

only Son. our Ix)rd:

3. Who was born of (de) the

Holy Ghost and of (ex) the Virgin Mary;

4. Crucified under Pontius

Pilate and buried;

5. The third day He rose

again from the dead,

G. He ascended into Heaven,

1. I

believe in God the Father Almighty Crea- tor of hrttven and earth;

2. And in Jesus Christ. His

only Son, our Lord;

3. Who was conci-ived by the

Holy Ghost, born of the V'irgin Mary.

4. Suffered under Pontius

Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried:

5. He draeeiuted into hill: the

third day He rose again from the tlead;

6. He ascendol into Heaven.

siltcth at the right hand of God the Father Almiaht!/;

7. From thence He shall

come to judge the liv- ing and the dead.

8. / belirte in the Holy Ghost,

8. Whence He shall come to

judge the living and the dead.

9. And in the Holy Ghost,

10. The Holy Church,

11. The forgiveness of sins;

12. The resurrection of the

body.

Neglecting minor points of difference, which indeed for their adequate discus-sion would require a study of the Latin text, we may note that R iloes not con- tain the clauses "Creator of heaven and earth",

9. The Holy Cn(Ao(ic Church. the communion of tainit

10. The forgiveness of sins,

11. The resurrection of the

body, and

12. life everliulinff.

"descended into hell", "the communion of saints", "life everlasting", nor the words "conceived", "suf- fered", "died", and "Cathohc". Many of these additions, but not quite all, were probably known to St. Jerome in Palestine (c. 380. — See Morin in Revue Rdnedictine, January, 1904) and about the same date to the Dalmatian, Niceta (Burn, Xiceta of Remesiana, 1905). Further additions appear in the creeds of southern Gaul at the beginning of the next century, but T probably assumed its final shape in Rome it.self some time before a. n. 700 (Burn, Introduction, 2.39; and Journal of Theol. Studies. July, 1902). We know nothing certain a.s to the reasons which led to the adoption of T in preference to R.

III. Articles of the Creed. — Although T really contains more than twelve articles, it has always been customary to maintain the twelvefold division which originated with, and more strictly applies to, R. A few of the more debated items call for some brief comment. The first article of R presents a diffi- culty. From the language of Tertullian it is con- teniled that R originally omitted the word Father and added the word one; thus, "I believe in one God Almighty". Hence Zahn infers an underlying Greek original still partly surviving in the Nicene Creed, and holds that the first article of the Creed suffered modification to counteract the teachings of the Monarchian heresy. It must suffice to say here that although the original language of R may po.ssi- bly be Greek, Zalin's premises rcgartling the word- ing of the first article are not accepted by such au- thorities as Kattenbusch and Harnack.

Another textual difficulty turns upon the inclu- sion of the wonl onii/ in the second article; but a more serious cjuestion is rai.sed by Harnack's refusal to recognize, either in the first or second article of R, any acknowletlgment of a prc-cxistent or eternal relation of Sonship and Fatherhood of the Divine Persons. The Trinitarian theology of later ages, he declares, has read into the text a meaning which it did not possess for its framers. And he says, again, with regard to the ninth article, that the writer of the Creed liid not conceive the Holy Ghost as a Person, but as a power and gift. "No proof can be shown that about the middle of the second century the Holy Ghost was believed in as a Person." It is impossible to do more here than direct the reader to such Catholic aiiswers as those of Baumer and Blume; and among Anglicans to the very convenient volume of Swete. To quote but one illustration of early patristic teaching, St. Ignatius at the end of the first century repeatedly refers to a Sonship which lies beyond the limits of time: "Jesus Christ . . . came forth from one Father", "was with the Father before the world was" (Magn., 6 and 7). While, with regard to the Holy Ghost, St. Clement of Rome at a still earlier date writes: "As God lives, and the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit, the faith and hoi)e of the elect" (cap. Iviii). This and other like passages clearly indicate the conscious- ness of a distinction between God and the Spirit of Ciod analogous to that recognized to exist between Ciod and the Logos. A similar appeal to early writers must be made in connection with the third article, that affirming the Virgin Birth. Harnack admits that the words "conceived of the Holy Gho.st" (T), really add nothing to the "born of the Holy Ghost" (R). He admits con.scqucntly that "at the lx>ginning of the second centurj- this belief in the miraculous conception had Income an cstal>- lished part of Church tradition". But he denies that the doctrine formed part of the earliest Gosiiel preaching, and he thinks it consequently impo-ssiblc that this article could have l:)een formulated in the first centurj'. We can only answer here that the burden of proof rests with him, and that the teach-