Christian symbolics; or, Exposition of the distinctive characteristics of the Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed churches as well as the modern denominations and sect represented in this country

Front matter

sii rectal at

Wetlavent Ue

ANA ttn aleldantye en fob el Wo te te AeA Yoh ta i er ti bit ; 7 i IN hanes raiean ‘eo ie thet Nie Ariat i rosea ‘) wi uel ” o pare rer eas

Preface

In a country like ours, where numerous denominations and sects exist side by side and new ones spring up almost every year, the study of Comparative Theology — Symbolics, Polemics and Irenics — becomes imperative. The excellent edition by Dr. L. Fuerbringer of Guenther’s ‘Populare Symbolik” supplies in a large measure the urgent need of a guide in the wide field of denominational history, literature and doctrine; this helpful work has never been translated into the English language.

In preparing the present volume the author’s aim and object has been to acquaint students, pastors and intelligent laymen with the distinctive characteristics of all Christian denominations and sects represented in this country. The author has sought to do this as objectively as possible and in strict accordance with the sources though he has nowhere concealed his own doctrinal views.

In the bibliography, prefixed to every topic, there are cited such works and books to which the average English-speaking reader has access, excepting some source material and a few of the most important German works on the subject.

May this volume, by the blessing of God, prove a service to the church among my brethren in the faith. With that prayer I send it on its way,

Table Of Contents

INTRODUCTION I. SyMBOL

Page COMIN Re Ai, oh alce MEME Went edi ata Oe al aatids a/b ar ccd eile tos AU he Ke ie AoE Fa 012 MARTENS ngs ANC EE i a EO 13 BME SSILY Ty cist, Ue eas even cry er icusura Mean awt Al) Nino at 14 PeSPLUUEME LY iis ici were WON tie Clchal Aho Mise etal as Ls La hla) aie 15

II. SymBo.rics

Conclusion

INTRODUCTION I. SYMBOL

I. NAME

The term “symbol” is derived from the Greek verb symballein “to throw or put together, to compare” two things for the purpose of perceiving their relation and association. Symbolon thus signifies a means of recognition and identification, a sign, token, badge, banner, watchword, parole, comparison or agreement.

Cyprian (Ep. LXIX, 7) states that the term “symbol” was chiefly applied to the Apostles’ Creed as the baptismal confession. Gradually the term was extended to the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. Some holding to the legendary origin of the Apostles’ Creed that it was composed by the twelve apostles take the term “symbol” in the sense of the putting together of the great truths of the Christian faith. Others use it—and this is probably the original meaning—in the sense of a military signal, emblem, or banner which Christians as soldiers of the faith should follow. In this sense the symbol is a mark by which Christians recognize each other and are known and distinguished from non-Christians.

In the Reformation period when a distinction was made between ecumenical and particular confessions the Lutherans applied the term “symbol” to the distinctive Lutheran confessions while the Reformed bodies preferred to call their creeds confessions. The significance of the term, however, was practically the same.

A symbol, therefore, is a creed, or an authoritative formulation of faith or doctrine distinguishing Christians from non- Christians, or orthodoxy from heresy, or denomination from denomination.

2. ORIGIN

A symbol or confession, although an authoritative summary or formula of articles of Christian faith, does not precede faith but presupposes it. Faith, however, being “a living active thing,” not only appropriates divine truth inwardly but inevitably gives to it outward intelligent expression. “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh,” Matt. 12:34. Inward conviction strives for utterance. Where there is faith there is also confession of faith. As faith expresses itself a common faith results.

A Christian truth first finds utterance in a certain theological proposition or formula. A truth thus set forth may be attacked or misinterpreted or misunderstood. This calls for a refutation of the error and a clear interpretation or precise definition of the truth. Such definition when accepted as authoritative is called dogma. It becomes the doctrinal standard and test and is as such always converted into the confession or symbol of the church.

3. NECESSITY

Since a confession of the church is the natural outgrowth and outward expression of the inner life of the church there would have been confessions, and there have been confessions (cf. baptismal formula; Peter’s confession, Matt. 16:16; see also Acts 16:31) independently of external occasions, such as doctrinal controversies, heresies and the like. These were only indirectly instrumental in the origination of fundamental articles of the Christian faith in that they compelled the church to judge, enlarge, multiply and deepen its confessions and give them even a more correct and definite form of statement. It is therefore correct to say that confessions become necessary to establish unity of faith, to regulate the public teaching of the church, and to ward off error.) Concerning the necessity of confessions the Formula of Concord says: “‘Because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief succinct (categorical) confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.” Conc. Trigl., p. 777).

But not only the orthodox and true church gives outward expression to inward faith; the errorist, too, feels the need of professing the faith within him. Accordingly there arise counterconfessions, which more or less influenced by error, do not present the genetic development and elucidation of revealed truths but rather their obscuration and perversion.

Socinians, Unitarians, Rationalists, Campbellites and others deny the necessity of formal creeds and advocate the free interpretation of the Bible as a sufficient confession of faith. It should be remembered in the first place that those sects are no less exposed to controversies, divisions and changes than churches with distinctive confessions; and in the second place that though the Bible is the only infallible rule and source of faith, it can never be made a confession of faith. “The Bible is God’s voice to us, faith is the hearing of that voice, and the confession is our reply of assent to it,” says Dr. C. P. Krauth in his Conservative Reformation, p. 166.

1 All quotations from the Lutheran Confessions in,this volume are taken from the Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis, Mo., 1921.

Introduction 15

4. AUTHORITY

We are now in a position to answer the question as to the authority of the confessions. If the confession is man’s answer to God’s word, the authority of the confession must be relative and limited. The Bible has a divine and absolute authority ; for it is the divine truth, perfect and infallible. The confession is the intellectual apprehension and the form adopted for the expression of the divine truth. We must therefore distinguish between divine truth as it is in itself, and the peculiarly human apprehension of divine truth; between the substance of a doctrine and its form. Or we may distinguish between the external and internal authority of the confessions. The former consists in their approval by the church, the latter in their conformity with Scripture. The confessions are not judges, as are the Scriptures, but only witnesses of Biblical truth. They are, therefore, not coordinate with, but always subordinate to, the supreme standard of Holy Scripture and their authority depends upon the measure of their agreement with the Scripture. The Bible is the sole rule and norm by which all doctrines must be judged, the norma normans, while the confession is a norma normata.

The distinction has no weight with the Romanists, for according to the Roman Catholic view the dogma or creed of the church is as such infallible because “it reaches us, from the original revelation, through an infallible medium, the Catholic Church.” (See Cardinal Newman, Essay on Development, 1845.)

The Greek Church claims infallible authority for the seven ecumenical councils from the first council of Nicea, 325, to the second of Nicea, 787.

The degree of the binding force of the confessions has been a matter of heated controversy in the church. It has been said that only fundamental articles of a confession should have binding force. But the liberal theologians of today do not agree enough among themselves to let us precisely know what articles are fundamental; nor is there an enumeration of them in Scripture. The very fact that some account articles fundamental which to others appear unimportant should warn us against the arbitrary distinction between fundamental and non-fundamental articles. And the very purpose for which a confession is composed, being to guard against error and to set forth the truths of religion, implies that every doctrinal statement of a confession must be regarded as essential and important.

Here we shall also answer the much disputed question: Shall the church insist on a so-called quia-subscription to the confessions or be satisfied with a quatenus-subscription? i. e., has a symbol binding force because (quia) it accords with Scripture, or only in so far as (quatenus) it accords with Scripture? To decide this question we must remember that the object of a confession is, not to find out what God teaches, for this we find in the Scriptures, but to show what we believe. A quatenus-subscription is no real confession, but an evasion and leaves it to a person’s subjective judgment what to accept and what to reject. The church must ask for a quia-subscription, for she must know where her ministers and teachers stand. A confession of faith is to the church what a constitution is to a society, and no one has a right to enter or remain in any Christian church except as its terms of membership give him that right.

Not only the heretical sects connected with Protestantism but also the liberal theologians of the church have raised an outcry against the authority of symbols as inconsistent with “the right of private judgment.” They style the church’s attitude in respect to symbols “symbololatry,” worship of symbols, and see in the symbols only a yoke of human authority, a new popery in the form of printed documents. Making all due allowance for the prejudice which many of the opponents of the church’s confessions have displayed, and for their ignorance which lies behind most of their comments on the subject, nevertheless, we cannot in the least support such a tirade against the symbols of the church, for the church does not compel anyone to accept her doctrines. A candidate for the ministry offers himself to the church for service, and his offer is accepted by the church on the ground that he is one with her in faith. If he cannot subscribe to the confessions of his church, he should not seek her ministerial office; or if, as a minister of the church, he has abandoned the faith of his church, he will, if he is at all sincere, leave that church and join another with which he is one in faith.

If the obligation to the symbols becomes necessary it is of greatest importance to the minister of the church to obtain the best possible understanding of her confessions. Theological training especially must aim at an intelligent fidelity to the church’s confessions.

As confessions are the result of historical development, they require thorough investigation of the earnest labor of the Fathers and study, on all sides, of the period in which they originated. Only thus will the student be able to comprehend and appreciate the force and value of the decisions, on disputed points, which the church maintains over against all errorists. Thus will he also be able to meet the Biblical requirement: “Be ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear.” 1 Pet. 3:15.

II. SYMBOLICS I. DEFINITION AND OFFICE

Symbolics is that branch of Historical Theology which treats of the Christian creeds and confessions of faith. Its relation to the History of Doctrines is similar to that of general ecclesi-

Introduction L7 astical statistics to Church History. The History of Doctrines traces the gradual development of the Christian doctrine to its dogmatic definition and final formation. Symbolics is the study of the definition of the essential and distinctive doctrines of the Christian faith. As these doctrines are laid down in the symbols of the church, Symbolics may be defined as the study of the symbols of the church, i. e., the study of their history and contents. Since the symbols of divided Christendom present the distinctive doctrines of the separate churches, Symbolics includes therefore also a study of the distinctive doctrines of each particular church or denomination. And since symbols distinguish the historical church from sects, orthodoxy from heresy, denomination from denomination, Symbolics includes also a comparative study of the distinctive doctrines of the separate churches in their relation to one another, i. e., an impartial objective treatment of the fundamental principles and the essentials of each confession in order to determine the consensus and dissensus of the separate churches and denominations.

The source of our discipline are the symbols of Christendom, to whit, the ecumenical creeds of the ancient catholic church and the particular confessions of the separate churches of divided Christendom. Liturgies, prayers and hymns, which are publicly used and are recognized by authority, as also the standard works of the theologians so far as they express the public faith and practice of a church, may be appealed to as a secondary source of Symbolics.

Modern sects without really official documents or statements of their special beliefs have, strictly speaking, no place in Christian Symbolics no more than ancient and medieval sects such as the Gnostics, Monophysites, Monothelites, Donatists, Catharists, and others. However, in an age and country like ours, where people of all creeds meet in daily contact, it is necessary to familiarize oneself also with the distinctive characteristics of those modern sects which either reject all creeds, or have no official doctrinal statements of their own. In this case it will be difficult to determine just what these various sects teach. Often their doctrinal views must be inferred from their established practices.

It is still a matter of dispute whether Symbolics should be limited to the study of doctrines or bring into view also the religious life, morals, cultus, constitution, and the like, of the churches. Modern writers on Symbolics, such as Loofs, Kattenbusch, and Walther, insist on the inclusion of all this with doctrine in the discipline of Comparative Symbolics for which Kattenbusch has substituted the title ‘“Vergleichende Konfessionskunde’’—Comparative Knowledge of Confessions. There can be no question that a comparative study of the consensus and dissensus of the churches must include everything that is of comparative importance, i. e., besides the doctrines of faith, the religious life, ethics, form of worship, and system of government and discipline of the churches are important factors in Comparative Symbolics. Besides, the particular confessions of the churches include much on these matters. They will, therefore, in this volume, receive due consideration in their proper places.

In the present volume we shall first give an historical account of the ecumenical creeds of undivided Christendom. Then we shall present the distinctive doctrines and characteristic features of the churches of divided Christendom. This shall be done not by the simple arraying of various doctrines side by side but by a comparative study of the characteristic conception and presentation of Christian truth peculiar to each church and denomination. Such comparative study will enable the student to see not only what any particular church stands for and where there is consensus and dissensus, but also where there is right or wrong conception and interpretation, where there is agreement with Christian truth, divergence from it, contradiction to it, or perversion of it. Let it be clearly understood that by Christian truth we mean the sum total of Christian doctrines of faith and practice as revealed by God in the Holy Scriptures.

We shall let the Catholic Churches, Greek and Roman, speak first on each particular doctrine according to the common arrangement of topics of Systematic Theology. Here we shall note the differences in faith and practice of the two churches as well as their departure from Biblical truth.

Then follows the testimony of the Protestant Churches, Lutheran and Reformed; and here we shall note not only their common opposition to Rome on the common ground of Scripture, but also a marked difference between the Lutheran and Calvinistic conception of Christian truth.

Lastly we shall let the later protestant denominations and sects testify to their peculiar conception of and departure from Christian truth.

It is evident that Comparative Symbolics requires, to some extent, acquaintance with the particular symbols of the various churches. A working knowledge of the history of each denomination and sect is likewise indispensable. We shall therefore, in every instance, acquaint the reader with these features in connection with the discussion of the distinctive tenets held by a denomination or sect.

The discipline of Symbolics is of comparatively recent date. It originated in Germany. In the sixteenth century the great conflict between the Lutheran Reformers and the defenders of the papacy gave rise to polemic theology. The polemic divines defended the rightness of their own doctrine and refuted the false-

Introduction © Ig ness of the doctrine of their opponents. (Chemnitz and Calov against Bellarmine). On the other hand, it became necessary clearly to set forth the contents of the symbols and guard them against misinterpretation. A correct understanding of the confessions also required a historical study of the symbolical books. Of the numerous works on our discipline in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries we mention especially the following two which combine the historical and dogmatic element in the study of the subject: (1) Isagoge in libros ecclesiarum Lutheranarum symbolicos, 1665, by T. B. Carpzov the Elder; it was completed after his death by Olearius, and won Carpzov the title of the father of Symbolics. (2) Introductio in libros eccl. Luth. symbolicos, observationibus historicis et theologicis illustrata, 1732, by Joh. Geo. Walch. The originator of Comparative Symbolics as a pragmatic study of the differences between the churches was G. J. Planck with his Abriss historischer und vergleichender Darstellung der dogmatischen Systeme wunsrer verschiedenen christlichen Hauptpartheien, 1796. Since then Comparative Symbolics was treated as a distinct discipline of theology. Phil. Marheinecke, who was the first to use the term “Symbolik” for our discipline, published his Christliche Symbolik oder historischkritische u. dogmatisch-komparative Darstellung des kath. luth. reform. und sozinianischen Lehrbegriffs, in 1810. Marheinecke completed only the first part of his extensive work, the system of Catholocism, but issued a complete outline of Symbolics, /nstitutiones Symbolical, 1812, ed.

III. 1830. J. G. B. Winer next published his Comparative Darstellung des Lehrbegriffs der versch. Kuirchenparteien, in 1824; Engl. tranl. Comparative View of the Doctrines and Confessions of Christendom, Edinburgh, 1873. As the most valuable works on Symbolics of a more recent date we mention: G. F. Oehler, Lehrbuch der Symbolik, second ed. by T. Hermann, Stuttgart, 1891; Gustav Plitt, Grundriss der Symbolik, second ed. by Fr. Wiegand, Erlangen, 1888; F. Kattenbusch, Lehrbuch der Vergleichenden Konfessionskunde, vol. I, 1892; Wilh. Walther, Lehrbuch der Symbolik. Die Eigentiimlichkeiten der vier christl. Hauptkirchen, vom Standpunkt Luthers aus dargestellt. Leipzig, 1924, Erlangen; K. H. G. von Schéele, (Swedish Lutheran), Theologische Symbolik, 3 vis., (German) Gotha, 1881-82. The Roman Catholic Symbolik by J. A. Moehler, 1832 (Engl. tranl. by J. R. Robertson, Symbolism or Exposition of the Doctrinal Differences betw. Catholics and Protestants as evidenced by their Symbolical Writings, London, 1906) is considerably polemic and provoked a protracted controversy. Works of a more popular character are: K. Graul, Die Unterscheidungslehren der versch. christl. Bekenntnisse, 12 ed., 1891; Engl. transl. by D. M. Martens, The Distinctive Doctrines of the Different Christian Confessions, Columbus, Ohio, 1897; and W. Rohnert, Kirche, Kirchen u. Sekten samt deren Unterscheidungslehren, 4th ed., Leipzig, 1888.

The discipline of Symbolics has been cultivated chiefly in Germany while it has excited very little interest in England and America, except among Lutherans. The Engl. Roman Catholic layman Charles Butler published his Symbolical Books of the Rom. Catholic, Greek, and Principal Protestant Churches in 1816; it is a historical and comparative study of the various confessions of faith. The Theological Symbolics by C. A. Briggs, in International Theological Library, New York, 1914, treats the subject in three parts, (1) Fundamental Symbolics, the study of the ecumenical creeds; (2) Particular Symbolics, the study of the symbols of the separate Churches of Christendom; (3) Comparative Symbolics, the study of the symbols of the Churches in order to determine their consensus and dissensus. The Handbook of All Denominations, by M. Phelan, 3d ed. 1924, gives valuable information on the history, doctrinal position and statistics of 9I denominations and sects. A most valuable work on Symbolics is Martin Gunther’s Populdre Symbolik in German, 3d ed. St. Louis, 1898; it is a comprehensive presentation of the teachings of the Luth. Church together with a refutation of the erroneous doctrines taught by others. Of a similar character, though much briefer, is: My Church and Others by John Theod. Miller, St. Louis, 1926, A Summary of the teaching of the Luth. Church as distinguished from those of other denominations.

Of works on Particular Symbolics (Lutheran) we mention: Historical Introduction of the Symbolical Books of the Ev. Luth. Church, Concordia Triglotta, pp. 1-266; and J. L. Neve’s Introduction to the Symbolical Books of the Luth. Church, Columbus, Ohio, 1926.

Chapter One The Segcumenicalv Symbols (of The Ancient Cathoeric: Church

J. Baron, the Greek Origin of the Apostles’ Creed, London, 1885.

H. C. Beeching, Apostles’ Creed, London, 1906.

T. H. Bindley, Oecumenical Documents of the Faith, London, 1906.

G. A. pe Theological Symbolics, 1914, Part I (Fundamental Symbolics).

A. E. Burn, Introduction to the Creeds, London, 1899.

Concordia Triglotta, St. Louis, 1921, The Three Universal or Ecumenical Creeds, pp. 9-15.

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed., vol. 7, p. 392, The Ancient Creeds of Christendom.

A. C. S. Gibson, The Three Creeds, New York, 1908.

G. A. Gumlich, Christian Creeds and Confessions, New York, 1894.

A. Harnack, Apostles’ Creed, in the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia.

A a Hist. and Theology of the Three Creeds, Cambridge, 1856,

vols.

J. Jayne, The Athanasian Creed, 1905.

F. Kattenbusch Das Apostolische Symbolum, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1894-1900.

C. W. Leadbeater, The Christian Creed, its Origin and Significance, New York, 1904.

J. J. Lias, The Nicene Creed, London, 1897.

J. R. Lumby, History of the Creeds, London, 1880.

A. C. McGiffert, The Apostles’ Creed, its Origin, its Purpose, and His-

torical Interpretation, New York, 1902.

A. G. Mortimer, The Creeds: Exposition of the Apostles’, Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, London, 1902.

J. Pearson, Exposition of the Creed (Apostles’), London, 1659 (still the English classic on the subject), new ed. 1849.

J. A. Robinson, The Athanasian Creed, 1905.

Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vols. I and II, fourth ed. 1884.

C. A. Swainson, The Nicene and Apostles’ Creed, London, 1875.

H. B. Swete, The Apostles’ Creed, Cambridge, 1894.

C. H. Turner, History and Use of Creeds ... in Early Centuries of the Church, London, 1906.

T. Zahn, Das Apostolische Symbolum, Leipzig, 1893.

§ 1. GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE ECUMENICAL CREEDS

The ecumenical consensus of the universal church is laid down in the three official creeds of the ancient catholic church, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed. They are called ecumenical or general creeds (tria symbola catholica seu oecumenica), because they are the common property of the universal church. They contain the fundamental articles of the Christian faith and have been accepted by all Christendom in the ancient, medieval and modern church although their acceptance by the universal church has not been uniform. It must also be born in mind that while the ancient symbols are formally acknowledged in the universal church, they do not rerae uniform interpretation in the churches of divided Christenom.

As the ecumenical creeds do not set forth abstract doctrines but living facts and saving truths, keeping human errors and ecclesiastical expressions out of view, they are preéminently suited for catechetical and liturgical purposes. This is especially true of the Apostles’ Creed. The singular credo “TI believe,” also points in that direction. The creed was the individual avowal of faith in the leading articles of divine truth.

The creed as the individual testimony of Christian belief was also used by the ancient Christians on solemn occasions as the formula of their common belief. In this the ecumenical symbols differ from the particular confessions of the churches. The latter represent the convictions of the separated churches, the former, the convictions of the church as the communion of all believers. The ancient creeds were binding on all Christians alike, the modern confessions are binding particularly on the ministers and teachers of the church as the expounders of the doctrine set forth in the confessions. “The ancient symbols were, broadly speaking, notes of the unity of the Church; the modern Confessions are, broadly speaking, notes of its necessary diversity.” (Winer, Doctrines and Confessions, Introd. p. XXII.)

§2. Tue AposTLes’ CREED

The Apostles’ Creed or Symbolum Apostolicum is the briefest of the ecumenical creeds confined to the fundamental articles of the Christian faith and expressing them in plain Scripture terms. The Apostolic Symbol was not composed by the apostles as was formerly believed and is still held by the Roman Catholic Church (cf. “the twelve articles of the Apostles’ Creed”). The story, which was first told, at the close of the fourth century, by Rufinus of Aquileia in his Expositio Symboli, and by Ambrose in his Explanatio Symboli, that the creed was the production of the apostles each of them contributing a sentence to it, has no ground in history. Its original form cannot be reconstructed with any degree of certainty. This is to be explained from the fact that under the influence of the Secret Discipline’ (arcani disciplina) of the church the creed was committed to memory but not to writing. The Apostolic Symbol as the ancient baptismal creed would thus be kept secret in the ceremony of baptism.

The baptismal creed was a brief summary of saving truth

1 Secret Discipline, i. e.. keeping secret among the communicant members of the church the more important parts of the divine service including thie Creed and the Lord’s Prayer,—a practice which arose in the church not in imitation of the ancient heathen mysteries or the Jewish custom with regard to proselytes, but from prudential motives because of persecution and from fear of profanation and misconstruction by those outside the church.

The Ecumenical Symbols of the Ancient Catholic Church 23 generally called the Rule of Faith (regula fidei) which at different times in different churches assumed different shapes and forms. The common substance of the Rules of Faith, however, points to a common source which was none other but the triune formula of baptism, Matt. 28: 19. Thus the early Fathers considered Christ himself as the giver of the Rule of Faith, though they admitted freely that this triune original early expanded into a brief statement of fundamental Christian truths. The formula thus enlarged was used as the baptismal confession of faith in the Triune God and served as a basis of catechetical instruction. Out of the baptismal! confession grew no doubt the so-called Apostles’ Creed.

It is generally agreed that the oldest form of the Apostolicum is the Old Roman Symbol which as early as the year 250 (Caspari Quellen zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols, III, 161-203) was used in the religious service of the Roman Church. There it was held in high esteem and believed to be derived directly from the twelve apostles and brought to Rome by Peter. It was thus designated at Rome as apostolic in the strict sense of the word, and no additions to it were permitted.

We know the Greek text of the Old Roman Symbol from Marcellus of Ancyra, 337 or 338; and the Latin from Rufinus, a priest of Aquileia, who wrote a commentary on the Creed of his native city and compared it with the Roman Creed, about 390. Critics agree that the form of the Old Roman Symbol can be traced to the earliest years of the second century and that it gradually became the prototype of all the creeds of the Western Church, but are divided as to its relation to Eastern forms. Some (Harnack, Kattenbusch) maintain that the Eastern creeds are dependent on it; others (Caspari, Kunze, Loofs, Sanday, Zahn), that it derived its characteristic form from an Eastern archetype. However that may be, all the facts and doctrines which it contains were taught in both the Eastern and Western Churches whether gathered up in a parallel creed form or not.

The following translation of the Greek original of the Old Roman Symbol shows that our Apostolicum is not in all parts identical with the Old Roman Symbol.

“I believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus, his only-begotten Son, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Ghost and of Mary the Virgin, was crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried, on the third day he rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead; and in the Holy Ghost, the holy Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, the life everlasting.”

This creed was gradually enlarged by several additions until at the beginning of the sixth century it had reached its final form. The present text of the Apostles’ Creed (textus receptus) may be traced back to the modified form which the creed assumed in the sixth century in Southern Gaul. But it was not till the eighth century that it is given in its complete form— probably revised in Rome—by the Benedictine missionary Pirminius, Cc. 730.