The Preservation of Dogma in the Church (5)

By Professor Mikhail Nikolaevich Skaballanovich

The simplest and, by all indications, the most ancient written formula for the baptismal symbol is apparently that given in the monument “The Testamentum of Our Lord Jesus Christ,” discovered in a Syriac manuscript by the Catholic Patriarch Rhamani of Antioch and published by him in 1899.[175] This monument by Rhamani dates to the second century, while others to a later period, even to the fifth century; in our opinion, it bears traces of an origin no later than the end of the third century. The great antiquity of the symbol in this monument is also indicated by the fact that it is presented in a question-and-answer form, a form known to St. Cyprian and which disappeared in the East in the fourth century (in the West, it persisted until the sixth century). The symbol was pronounced by the person being baptized already standing in the water, and is divided into three parts, after each of which follows one immersion. Placing his hand on the person being baptized, the one baptizing asks: “Do you believe in God the Father Almighty?” The person being baptized answers: “I believe.” And immediately he immerses him for the first time. Then the priest says: “Do you also believe in Christ Jesus the Son of God, who came from the Father, who was with the Father from the beginning, who was born of the Virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, who died, who rose again on the third day alive from the dead, who entered into heaven, who sits at the right hand of the Father, and who is coming to judge the living and the dead?” And when he answers: “I believe,” he baptizes (immerses) him a second time. Then he says: “Do you also believe in the Holy Spirit, in the holy church?” and the person being baptized says: “I believe,” and baptize him a third time. After the laying on of hands (instead of anointing with oil (chrism) with the invocation of the Holy Spirit on the person being baptized and after receiving the Eucharist, the newly baptized, the monument prescribes, are taught the dogma of the resurrection of the bodies: for before receiving baptism, let no one know the word resurrection; for this is a new decree, having a new name, which no one knows, except the one who has received it (i.e., the Eucharist).” As we see, the Syrian symbol is completely alien to the Christological controversies of the 4th century, does not even include the concept of “only begotten”; its Christology is apparently directed only against Svionism (“who came from the Father,” “who was with God from the beginning”) and Docetism (“who died”). The closest in simplicity of the surviving symbols to this is the ancient Roman Symbol.

The ancient Roman Creed in its entirety was first transmitted by Marcellus of Ancyra (348) in a letter to Pope Julius and by Rufinus (c. 400) in his Commentary, in Symb. apostol. Since Greek was the ecclesiastical language in Rome at that time, Marcellus’s text, preserved by Epiphanius, is usually considered the older. However, this is apparently countered by the fact that this text has been proven to have undergone some, albeit insignificant, changes, and, furthermore, the Latin text has a rhythmic meter. It is divided into 12 parts, all of which are almost the same meter:

1) Credo in Deum, Patrem omnipotentem (Marcellus does not have πατερα)

2) et in Christum Jesum, filium ejus unicum,

3) qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto et Maria virgine,

4) qui sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus est et sepultus,

5) tertia die resurrexit a mortuis (in M.και),

6) ascendit ad caelos (Μ † και καθηυςνο)

7) inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos,

8) ol in Spiritum Sanctum,

9) sanctam ecclesiam (the meter requires eccles. sanct),

10) remissionem peccatorum,

11) carnis resurrectionem (Μ † ζωηκ αιωνιν).

The Roman Creed differs from the Syriac Creed in the formulas of the relationship of the Son of God to the Father: there (in the Syriac Creed) “the Son of God who came from the Father, who from the beginning is with the Father,” here (in the Roman Creed) “and in Christ Jesus, His only Son (unicum)”; 2) in the formulas of the earthly birth of Christ: there: “from the Virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit,” here – “from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary”; instead of “died” – “died and buried”; 3) the articles are added: “for the remission of sins” and “resurrection of the flesh.” In comparison with the Syriac Creed, the Roman Creed is thus shorter and simpler in places, and more complex in places: the relationship of the Son to the Father is defined in it by the shorter, but also more technical term unicus; The earthly birth of the Son of God in relation to the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary does not differ in different prepositions, but the Holy Spirit is placed earlier177. But the main difference is that the teaching about the resurrection is included in the Latin symbol. The essential difference between the Greek and Latin texts of the Roman Symbol is that the Greek does not include “Father” at the beginning of the symbol and adds “eternal life” at the end. All other discrepancies are explained purely lexically. Thus, there is no Latin word for παντοκρα᾿ τωρ–α, which is why it had to be translated as omnipotentem: but that it constitutes a rendering of the Greek concept παντκρατωρ is evident from Rufinus’s explanation of it: omnium teneat potestatem. Similarly, unicus is a rendering of the concept μονογενης, because anigenitus, a theological neologism of the 4th century, meaning “born and suffered” in the Communion, had to be expressed in Latin as qui with perfectum.

Harnack, challenging The apostolic origin of the Roman Creed indicates the following features of its post-apostolic origin. The word “Father,” although corresponding to the Gospel titles of God as the Father, is understood in patristic literature, with the exception of interpretations of the Lord’s Prayer, more in the sense of “Father of the world,” “Creator,” “Sovereign,” in this sense; it is also understood in the Creed. As for the name “Son of God,” “Lord,” and the concept of “begotten,” in the New Testament, according to Harnack, these designations refer only to the historical Christ, whereas in the Creed these words denote the metaphysical relationship of the Son to the Father. Furthermore, according to Harnack, apostolic and ancient writings did not contain such a gradation of Christ’s redemptive actions as in the Creed; just as there were no distinctions there to the same degree as in the Creed between the resurrection, ascension, and sitting at the right hand of the Father. For these reasons, the second one certainly cannot be accepted, as it is generated by Harnack’s incorrect views on the dogmatic development of Christianity. Zahn179 considers the “Father” (in the first article) and “only begotten” to be non-primordial in the symbol. The first is because Irenaeus and Tertullian quote: unus Dens omnipotens, and the connection παντοκρα᾿ τωρ (omnipotοns) is more natural with (-) εο᾿ ς, than with πατε᾿ ρα. These considerations are disputed by Harnack180 as follows: 1) those quotations are arbitrary; and it is said of Christ there: “in one Christ”; 2) the absence of “Father” is incomprehensible given the origin of the formula from the commandment on baptism. “Only Begotten” is also disputed by Zahn on the grounds of its absence from Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Justin. “Only Begotten” is not found in the supposed quotation from the Creed in the Syriac Didascalia.

From the text of these first Creeds, it is already clear that Parts 1 and 3 of the Creed (concerning the Father and the Holy Spirit) arose later. This is also evident in their style: Part 2 contains a detailed comparison of historical facts, while Parts 1 and 2 merely designate the hypostases with a brief indication of their actions. This can be clearly imagined if Parts 1 and 3 are arranged according to the plan of Part 2, or vice versa. Parts 1 and 3 should have discussed creation (in more detail) and God’s revelation, the historical activity of the Spirit; Part 2 would have stated that Christ is the Redeemer, the head of the Church. The replacement of the one-member symbol with a three-member one (meaning by member each of its three parts, dedicated to the three persons of the Holy Trinity), had a great, hardly comparable to anything else, significance for the history of dogmas: it imposed a strong trinitarian coloring on the entire understanding of the Christian faith.

Other additions to the symbol followed naturally. The Holy Spirit is followed by the Holy Church. This juxtaposition is intentional: the Church must be designated as what the Holy Spirit makes it and what it was destined for from the beginning. According to the Apostle Paul, “by one Spirit we have all been baptized into one body”182; the pagan Church is called an offering sanctified by the Holy Spirit.183 At Hermas, we see a remarkable juxtaposition of the Holy Spirit and the Church. The baptized person immediately learns that God is active as a holy power and that the Holy Church exists. But the essence of baptism consists in the forgiveness of sins. According to the Didascalia, “in baptism the sins of those who approach from the Gentiles and enter the holy Church of God”184 are forgiven. Finally, the conclusion of the symbol should most naturally have an eschatological content, closely connected with the preceding thoughts. Instead of “flesh” (resurrection of the flesh), “body” would be more accurate (according to Apostle Paul, “He gave life to your dead bodies,” “awaiting adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies”)185; therefore, perhaps, the Eastern symbols use “nekroḥ”186.

No matter how simple and ancient the Roman symbol is, one cannot see an archetype in it187, as Harnack and others have shown. This is because all Eastern symbols have many, and, moreover, common differences in comparison with it.

Several ancient Eastern symbols have survived to this day. These are: 1) the Jerusalem (called “Apostolic Faith”), preserved in the inscriptions of the catechetical teachings (6-18) (produced c. 330) of Cyril of Jerusalem. 2) Caesarean (called “Church Faith”), presented by Eusebius of Caesarea to the Council of Nicaea and transmitted in his letter to his flock about the Council of Nicaea (this letter has come down to us in the appendix to the letter of Athanasius the Great about the redefinition of the Council of Nicaea, as well as in the church histories of Socrates188, blessed Theodoret189 and in the history of the Council of Nicaea by Gelasius of Cyzicus190. 3) Antiochian (called “Universal Faith”), preserved in Latin in the work of John Cassian: “On the Incarnation of Christ” against Nestorius191. 4) Alexandrian (called “Apostolic Dogmas”), preserved in the encyclical letter of St. Alexander, Archbishop of Alexandria, against Arius, cited in the church history of Blessed Theodoret.192 5) The Cypriot (called “Apostolic Faith”) is preserved by St. Epiphanius in his work “Anchor”193. It is possible that all the ancient symbols were taken into account when compiling the Nicene Creed. But it is also possible that all these symbols were supplemented after the compilation of the Nicene Creed with its expressions. Thus, some of them contain expressions of “consubstantial” (Antioch., Cypriot), “that is, from the essence of the Father” (Cypriot), “uncreated” (Cypriot, Antioch.), “and begotten” twice (Cypriot) about the Son, which could only have been introduced from the Nicene Creed. The Creed of the Church of Cyprus, cited by St. Epiphanius, is especially close to the Nicene Creed, which even caused concern among Professor Lebedev’s hypothesis is that this symbol was later interpolated by a copyist in the works of Epiphanius. All of these symbols are generally longer than the Roman. This might indicate their later origin, if almost all of their additional expressions did not exist in the fragments of the ancient symbol found in the New Testament, among apostolic leaders, and among writers of the second and third centuries, even in the West. This latter point may particularly suggest that the Roman symbol, like the closely related Syriac, was an abbreviation of older versions (just as the Nicene Creed was somewhat abbreviated in its Christological section at the Council of Constantinople, as we will see below).

The most important differences between the Eastern and Western symbols are the following: the Eastern ones have ἕνα (the one) before Θεο᾿ ν (God), sometimes, later, before “the Lord Jesus Christ”, and even “the Holy Spirit”; 2) they speak of the creative activity of God; 3) before Jesus Christ there is almost always “the Lord”, 4) after “the only begotten Son” there is a more expressive designation of the divinity of Christ; 5) after “the coming” there is “in glory”; 6) to “the Holy Spirit” some addition is added: “life-giving”, “who spoke through the prophets”, “dwelling in the saints”; already in Justin: “the prophetic Spirit”; 7) The Church is always designated as καθολική; 8) “eternal life” is added to the resurrection; 9) smaller differences: “Jesus Christ” and not “Christ Jesus”, etc.

In comparison with our current Creed, every word of which (with the exception perhaps of “for us” at “crucified”) is found in the ancient Creeds, the ancient Creeds, including the Roman and Syriac, have the following redundant expressions and variant readings: “we believe” instead of “I believe” (if the Creed had a question-and-answer formula, then the second (“I believe”) is older); about God the Father after “one”: “and one only” (Antioch.); after “Creator” – “of absolutely everything visible and invisible” (Caesar.); About Christ – “Christ Jesus” (Syrian, Roman), after “Lord” – “our” (Roman Antiquity), “the Word of God” (Caesar) “who came from the Father, who from the beginning exists with the Father” (Syrian); after “begotten” – “before all creation” 194. The report of St. Athanasius is well known about how and why the fathers of the council decided to introduce this word into the symbol of faith, despite the fact that it is not in Scripture 195. The name Logos was avoided, since it could be understood in the Philonic sense – just like the name “firstborn of all creation” (in view of Arianism). The symbol composed in this way is transmitted to us by the aforementioned Eusebius in his letter to his flock (to the Caesareans) 196. It had the following form: “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made, as in heaven, so on earth. Who for us men and for our salvation descended and became incarnate, became man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven and is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit.” Then followed an anathema on the Arians. This creed was confirmed by the first canon of the Council of Constantinople: “the faith of the 318 fathers assembled at Nicaea shall not be annulled, but shall remain dominant.” However, this council is credited with a creed that differs significantly from the Nicene Creed. The contradiction of this tradition with the first canon of the Council of Constantinople, as well as other circumstances, have given rise to doubts about the attribution of the creed now known as the Nicene-Constantinople Creed to this council. The fact is that the Council of Constantinople of 381 was long held back from being recognized as ecumenical and was finally declared so by the Council of Chalcedon. Therefore, in the most ancient codes of conciliar creeds, its canons are either omitted or merged with those of the Council of Chalcedon, which was the first to cite the creed now known as the Nicene-Constantinople Creed. Historians Socrates, Sozomen, and Blessed Theodoret, in their accounts of the second council, speak only of its confirmation of the Nicene Creed, not of its additions. Gregory the Theologian, who attended the Council of Constantinople, mentions only the Nicene Creed in his letter to Cledonius, although he acknowledges the inadequacy of its teaching on the Holy Spirit. The Eastern Fathers, in their letter of 382, ​​cite only the Nicene Creed as sufficient for baptism. At the Council of Ephesus in 431, the Nicene Creed was read in its first session and included in the acts, as was the case at the Robber Council of 449. Thus, the Nicene-Constantinople Creed only becomes known from 450—with the Council of Chalcedon. All these circumstances, in connection with the fact that St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, in his Ancoratus (Anchor) against heresies (373), cites an ancient Creed very close to the Constantinople Creed, which prompted Caspari197, and after him Hort, Harnack, and others, to deny that the Creed was composed at the Council of Constantinople. In the opinion of these scholars, external arguments are joined by internal signs of inauthenticity: the omission of the words “that is, from the essence of the Father,” which was incredible during the period of the Arian controversies, the addition of “before all ages” (the Nicene Fathers were afraid to introduce any temporal element into the mutual relations of the Father and the Son), restraint in the teaching about the Holy Spirit – He is not called consubstantial and God, etc. The source of this Creed, according to these scholars, is in the aforementioned Creed cited by St. Epiphanius as “the faith handed down to us from the holy apostles and in the church of the holy city from all the holy bishops together, over 310 in number.” By “holy city,” they think, is meant Jerusalem: this symbol must be a reworking of the local Jerusalem and Cypriot symbol in the Nicene spirit, made, perhaps, by Cyril of Jerusalem. This symbol, is believed that it was read at the Council of Constantinople by Cyril, whose Orthodoxy was suspected there and included in its acts in the same way as the confession of Eusebius of Caesarea was included in the acts of the Council of Nicaea. Kuntze198 suggests that this symbol was first pronounced as a baptismal symbol at the Second Council by Nectarius of Constantinople, who was taught it by Diodorus of Tarsus (Cilicia is close to Cyprus). Kunze suggests this based on what Bishop Kalinicus of Apamea (Bithinia) said about the Second Ecumenical Council at the Council of Chalcedon: “a council of 150 fathers for the ordination of the most God-fearing Bishop Nectarios” (Mansi VII, 36). All of these are, of course, hypotheses. Professor A. Lebedev and Spassky199 refute them by finding at least vague hints of the composition of the Creed at the Council of Constantinople in documents from 381 to 450. Thus, the Council of Constantinople itself, in a letter to Emperor Theodosius, listing its activities, speaks of its “brief definitions” (συ᾿ ντομοι οροι) and immediately afterwards of the confirmation of the Nicene Creed. They further point out that the Nicene Creed was not truly a baptismal symbol, as it did not contain the necessary clauses concerning the church, baptism, or the resurrection of the dead. In some documents, it is even called not a symbol, but a “teaching” (μα᾿ θημα). Therefore, after it, various churches used their own local symbols, only edited in the Nicene spirit. The Constantinople Creed was such a revision of the symbol, only the most successful and therefore the one that received universal recognition. Comparing it with the Nicene Creed, it is easy to explain how all the differences between it and the latter arose. Thus, “the Creator” was simply moved before “the visible and invisible” due to stylistic requirements, and the latter was supplemented at the beginning by “heaven and earth,” transferred from the section on the Son of God, since the attribution of the creation of heaven and earth to one Son in the Nicene Creed was reminiscent of the old idea of ​​the Logos, as one who supplemented and accomplished the creative work of the one God. Thanks to this edition, the entire section on God the Father presents Him in the order of increasing creativity. In the section on the Son of God, a number of additions have been made against Marcellus (“before all ages” and “whose kingdom will have no end” and Apolinarius (“from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary”, “crucified for us under Pontius Pilate”, “buried”). The expression “from the essence of the Father” has been eliminated, in the form of those reinterpretations that the concept of essence caused after the Council of Nicaea. Thus, at the Council of Ancyra in 358, they said that Paul of Samosata, with the help of this concept, expressed his teaching on the identity of the Son of God, as an impersonal manifestation of God’s power, with the essence of God the Father; otherwise, in the opinion of Paul of Samosata, it would be necessary to assume some kind of primordial essence next to the essences of the Father and the Son, proceeding from it, as two coins are made from the same substance of copper200. Like the first member, the section on the Son of B. was stylistically smoothed out; definitions The Son of God are arranged in the order of their increasing importance, preceded everywhere by an article emphasizing their exceptional significance, and they are all connected by the conjunction “and,” και’, with the exception of “crucified,” where the conjunction τε, however; to “descended” is added “from heaven”; “sitting at the right hand of the Father” and (coming again) “with glory,” “whose kingdom will have no end” – are added as a final contrast to the derogatory expressions. As for the article on the Holy Spirit, it is composed in a conciliatory spirit (the Holy Spirit is not directly called God and consubstantial, although this follows from all the expressions about him, especially the penultimate one) in view of the great disagreement on this subject at that time. Thus, according to the words of Gregory the Theologian, “some venerated the Spirit by action (ενε᾿ ργεια), Some considered him a creature, others God, and others did not dare to say either of them out of respect, as they said, for Scripture, which allegedly had not expressed anything clearly about this, and therefore they neither honor nor deprive the Spirit of honor, remaining in some sort of middle ground, or rather, in a very pitiable position, with regard to Him.” Even among those who recognized him as God, “some are pious only in their hearts, while others dare to piety with their lips.” “Until now, nothing has caused the entire universe to tremble so much as the boldness with which we proclaim the Spirit as God. This, as is well known, has also earned me the disfavor of my friends.”201.

The Western Church, like the Eastern, also had to make many additions to its most ancient creed, and its current creed, despite the fact that it bears the name of the Apostles’ Creed, contains traces of additions to the most ancient text preserved by Rufinus and Marcellus. About God the Father is added “Creator of heaven and earth.” The expressions about Christ must be influenced by the Nicene Confession: “conceived” (by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary), “suffered,” “died” (the latter, according to Rufinus, is equivalent to “buried”), “descended to those in hell,” to “sitting at the right hand of the Father” is added before this last word “God,” and after it “almighty”; before the articles about the Holy Spirit and the Church is added “I believe”; to the Church – “universal” and “communion of saints” (this last expression entered the symbol through the interpretative explanation of the article about the church). In the same form, this symbol is also placed in Protestant symbolic books, with minor differences, however: instead of inferos – inferna – to the underworld, there is no credo before ecclesiam.

Before adopting this form, the Roman Church’s creed underwent many changes. Additions to the ancient text began in the 4th century. Rufinus notes a number of additions in the Aquileian Church of that century, although fewer than today. These additions also occurred in other Western churches; they were sometimes strengthened, sometimes subtracted, and sometimes, in some churches, the creed even assumed its ancient form (for example, in the 9th-century Aquileian Church). Thus, various Western churches had different versions of the creed before the 9th century; but it was only the Council of Trent that put an end to all changes to the creed. Not only did different churches have different creeds, but even within the same church, even in Rome itself, several formulas of the creed existed simultaneously, all of which were used simultaneously at baptism. Specifically, in the Roman sacramentaries of the 5th-7th centuries, alongside the Roman creed, our current creed is used, in Greek. Thus, in the Sacramentary attributed to Pope Gelasius 202.

The history of the Creed has demonstrated the importance and, at the same time, the difficulty of, on the one hand, isolating truths (dogmas in the proper sense) from the system of Christian doctrine, concerning which there should be no two opinions, and, on the other hand, finding expression for these truths that does not allow for different, even opposing, ways of understanding them.

The Creed did not save the Church from heresies, but it did reduce their number and soften their form: such extreme and numerous heresies as Gnosticism and anti-Trinitarianism became less possible. In the matter of preserving dogma, the tradition of the Creed thus acquired a great aid and a new, reliable means. But this means was dangerous in that it could reduce dogma to a verbal formula, whereas it is, first and foremost, an idea requiring profound comprehension. Therefore, its preservation could not be mechanical and deathly rigid. It had to be accompanied by a deepening understanding of it and its vital assimilation. And this was possible only through vigorous work on it. Thus, the preservation of dogma in the church naturally evoked reflection on it, in which it revealed itself to one consciousness and one era from a different perspective than to others. In addition to the unchanging dogma, immutably preserved in the church, a dogmatics or theology of different eras and schools of thought had to develop. The first and most honorable place in this elaboration of dogma was occupied by the theology of the apostles themselves.

* * *

Notes

175 Rhamani Testamentum Domini nostri lesu Christi, Moguntiae 1899; II, 8.

176 Epiphanius. Archpriest. 72, 8.

177 Yet the similarity is so great that an interpolation is possible.

178 Huynuk A. Das apostolische Glaubenbekenntniss, Berl. 1892, S» 19 f.

179Zahn. Th. Das apostolische Symbolum. Erl. u. Loipz 1893 S. 23 – 45.

180Zeitschr. f. Theol u. Kirche IV. 130.

181 Seeberq, Lehrb. d. Dogmeng. 179.

1821 Cor. 12:13.

183Rom.15, 16.

184Didasс. With. 21.

185Rom.8, 11, 23.

186Sceberg, 181.

187С Kattenbusch’em, Das ar. Symbol. 2 V. Leipz. 1894, 1900.

188Socrates, Church History VIII, 22.

189Theodoret, Church History 1, 4.

190Gelasius Cyzicus, Church History C, 34, 35.

191Cassian, On the Incarnation of Christ VI, 3.

192Theodoret, Church History 1, 4.

193Epiphanius, Ancoratus, p. 120

194ant. kes), “by whom the worlds were framed” (ant), lie “by whom all things were made” – “as in heaven, so on earth” (Cyprus); instead of “incarnate” – “born” (Roman ant.), “of the Virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit,” (Sir), “the Mother of God (Mary)” (Alex.), “and lived among men” (Kes.), “died” (Alex. Syriac); with “resurrected” – “from the dead” (Her. Alex. rpm.), “alive” (Sir.); with “heaven” – “to the Father” (Kes.); with “at the right hand” instead of “Father” – “Majesty” (Al.); with “coming” – “from there” (Roman); with “Spirit” – “in one” (Her. Kes., Al.), “Comforter” (Her.); “remission of sins” without “baptism” (Rom.); instead of “I hope” – “moreover we acknowledge* (al,); with “resurrection” – “flesh” (Rom.); with “life” – “eternal” (Jer. Roman).

Although there is no positive evidence to this effect, judging by the fact that representatives from all churches participated in the ecumenical councils, one might assume that each of the ancient local creeds was taken into account during the composition of first the Nicene and then the Constantinople Creed. To appreciate the nature and difficulty of this work, one must bear in mind that a creed must not contain a single word that is spoken without purpose, and that teaching is expressed not so much by individual words as by their juxtaposition, selection, and sometimes even by the mere absence of a certain word.

Eusebius of Caesarea proposed a baptismal creed for his church to the fathers of the Council of Nicaea, but he selected only those articles that pertained to the question being examined by the council, supplementing and developing them with his own additions (e.g., “We believe that each of Them, the Father and the Son, has its own being; the Father is truly the Father and the Son is truly the Son”). But in view of the commonality of expressions in this symbol, Emperor Constantine proposed adding the word ομοοδσιος2 to the symbol.

195 Athanasius the Great, Epistle on the Nicolaemus Council

196 Socrates, Church History I, 8.

197 Caspari, Quelle zur Gescliichte des Taufsymtiols. Christiania 1866-1869, 1875, I-III Bb.

198 Kunze, Marcus Eremita, Leipz. 1895. The Nicalia – Constantinopolitan Symbol, Leipz. 1898.

199 Lebedev, A. Ecumenical Councils of the IV and V Centuries. Works, Vol. III, Serg. pos. 1890, pp. 1–32, III–145. Spassky, History of Dogmas and Movements in the Epoch of the Universal. Soc., Vol. I. Trinitarian Question. Serg. pos. 1906, pp. 588–628.

200 Afanasy V. On the Sovereign. Arimathea. 27.

201 Gregory B. Letter 251. Spassky, Hist. of Dogmas and Movements, 628. See also other citations here.

2024–92), the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is cited, written in Greek in Latin letters on one line and translated into Latin on the other, with the inscription: “the Gospel Creed, inspired by the Lord, established by the Apostles, inspired by the Holy Spirit in the teachers of the Church.” This Creed is taught to those preparing for baptism, and they must learn it by heart. The ancient Roman Creed was recited at the baptismal ceremony itself, in the form of the baptized person’s responses to the priest’s questions. It can therefore be assumed that by the 5th-7th centuries, the Roman Church possessed two creeds: while imparting the Nicene Creed to those being baptized in accordance with Canon 7 of the Council of Ephesus to protect them from Arianism, it also preserved its own ancient creed. The latter, almost in its Marcellus-Rufinus edition, is found in the sacramentary attributed to St. Gregory the Dialogist (590-604) and the one discovered by Usher in the 17th century. The Psalter which belonged to King Athelstan (946) (must have been written in the 1840s; 3rd century), where this symbol is written in Greek with Anglo-Saxon letters (must have been brought to England by Latin missionaries under Gregory the Dialogist), As for the current version of the Roman symbol, it is first found in the Gallic Sacramentary, according to archaeological evidence, of the 7th century, found by the Benedictine Mabillon (1840s; 3rd century), from where he published its text in his “Italian Library” (1724): in this sacramentary, the text of the Roman symbol is given in 3 different versions: one for the catechism, another at baptism in the form of questions, the 3rd at the end of the sacramentary; the last is quite close to the ancient form, and the first two are close to the current one. In the Sacramentary of the Monastery of Gellones, published by Martin, the Creed is almost identical to the current one (only “inferna” instead of “inferos” and a few grammatical errors). In the work of Abbot Priminius (who must have died in 758), “Code of Various Canonical Books,” published by Mabillon, the text of the Roman Creed is read as in the Cologne Catholic Catechism of 1547 (published by the Viennese Bishop Blandinus Campianus), with a difference from the current one: regarding the Son of God, “Dei,” not “Ejus,” “inferna,” without “I believe” before “church.” The Council of Trent gave the current edition of the Roman Apostolic Creed.

The very tradition of Rufinus regarding the apostolic origin of the Roman Creed is no longer included in Roman Catholic catechisms. Meanwhile, it lived and was fervently defended throughout the ancient and medieval Christian West. It was accepted by Blessed Jerome, Popes Celestine I, Sixtus III, and Leo I. In the work De temporibus sermonis, attributed to Blessed Augustine, all the members of the Creed are already distributed among the 12 apostles, beginning with Peter and ending with Matthew. Bernard of Clairvaux provides a mnemonic hexameter for this story. On the 12 columns of a 15th-century church in Trier, the member of the Creed assigned to each apostle is inscribed beneath the image of each apostle. This story is also repeated in the aforementioned Cologne Catechism. It explains our customary division of the Creed into 12 members.

Source in Russian: Skaballanovich M. “The Preservation of Dogma in the Church” // Transactions of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1910. No. 9. P. 17-78.