| I. | 1. I believe in God (the) Father almighty; |
| II. | 2. And in Christ Jesus His only Son our Lord, |
| 3. who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, | |
| 4. crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried | |
| 5. the third day He rose from the dead, | |
| 6. He ascended into heaven, | |
| 7. sitteth at the right hand of the Father, | |
| 8. thence He shall come to judge living and dead. | |
| III. | 9. And in the Holy Ghost, |
| 10. (the) holy Church, | |
| 11. (the) remission of sins, | |
| 12. (the) resurrection of the flesh. |
This Old Roman Creed may be traced back in the writings of Bishops Felix and Dionysus (3rd century), and in the writings of Tertullian in the 2nd century.
Tertullian calls the creed the “token” which the African Church shares with the Roman (de Praescr. 36): “The Roman Church has made a common token with the African Churches, has recognized one God, creator of the universe, and Christ Jesus, of the Virgin Mary, Son of God the Creator, and the resurrection of the flesh.” The reference is to the earthenware token which two friends broke in order that they might commend a stranger for hospitality by sending with him the broken half. Their creed became the passport by which Christians in strange cities could obtain admission to assemblies for worship and to common meals. The passage quoted is obviously a condensed quotation of the Roman Creed, which reappears also in the following (de Virg. vel. i.):
“The rule of faith is one altogether ... of believing in one God Almighty, maker of the world, and in His Son Jesus Christ, born of Mary the Virgin, crucified under Pontius Pilate; the third day raised from the dead, received in the heavens, sitting now at the right hand of the Father, about to come and judge quick and dead through the resurrection also of the flesh.”
There are many references in Tertullian to the teaching of the Gnostic Marcion, whose breach with the Roman Church may be dated A.D. 145. He seems to have still held to the Roman creed interpreted in his own way. An ingenious conjecture by Zahn enables us to add the words “holy Church” to our reconstruction of the creed from the writings of Tertullian. In his revised New Testament Marcion speaks of “the covenant which is the mother of us all, which begets us in the holy Church, to which we have vowed allegiance.” He uses a word used by Ignatius of the oath taken on confession of the Christian faith. It follows that the words “holy Church” were contained in the Roman Creed.[1]
While all critics agree in tracing back this form to the earliest years of the 2nd century, and regard it as the archetype of all similar Western creeds, there is great diversity of opinion on its relation to Eastern forms. Kattenbusch maintains that the Roman Creed reached Gaul and Africa in the course of the 2nd century, and perhaps all districts of the West that possessed Christian congregations, also the western end of Asia Minor possibly in connexion with Polycarp’s visit to Rome A.D. 154. He finds that materials fail for Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt. Further, he holds that all the Eastern creeds which are known to us as existing in the 4th century, or may be traced back to the 3rd, lead to Antioch as their starting-point. He concludes that the Roman Creed was accepted at Antioch after the fall of Paul of Samosata in A.D. 272, and was adapted to the dogmatic requirements of the time, all the later creeds of Palestine, Asia Minor and Egypt being dependent on it.
On the other hand, Kunze, Loofs, Sanday, and Zahn find evidence of the existence of an Eastern type of creed of equal or greater antiquity and distinguished from the Roman by such phrases as “One” (God), “Maker of heaven and earth,” “suffered,” “shall come again in glory.” Thus Kunze reconstructs a creed of Antioch for the 3rd century, and argues that it is independent of the Roman Creed.
Creed of Antioch.
| I. | 1. | I believe in one and one only true God, Father Almighty, maker of all things, visible and invisible. |
| II. | 2. | And in our Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, the only-begotten and first born of all creation, begotten of Him before all the ages, through whom also the ages were established, and all things came into existence; |
| 3. | Who for our sakes, came down, and was born of Mary the Virgin. | |
| 4. | And crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried, | |
| 5. | And the third day rose according to the scriptures, | |
| 6. | and ascended into heaven. | |
| 7. | ||
| 8. | And is coming again to judge quick and dead. | |
| 9. | [The beginning of the third article has not been recorded.] | |
| 10. | ||
| 11. | Remission of sins. | |
| 12. | Resurrection of the dead, life everlasting. |
Along similar lines Loofs selects phrases as typical of creeds which go back to a date preceding the Nicene Council.
A. Creed of Eusebius of Caesarea, presented to the Nicene Council.
B. Revised Creed of Cyril of Jerusalem.
C. Creed of Antioch quoted by Cassian.
D. Creed of Antioch quoted in the Apostolic Constitutions.
E. Creed of Lucian the Martyr (Antioch).
F. Creed of Arius (Alexandria).
| 1. | One (God), A, B, C, D, E, F. |
| Maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible (or a like phrase), A, B, C, D, E. | |
| 2. | Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, the only begotten (or a like phrase), A, B, C, D, E, F. |
| 3. | Crucified under Pontius Pilate, B, C, D (A, E, F omit because they are theological creeds. Loofs thinks that the baptismal creeds on which they are based may have contained the words). |
| 5. | Rose the third day, A, B, D, E (F omits “the third day” being a theological creed; the translation of C is uncertain). |
| 6. | Went up, A, B, D, E, F. |
| ＋ and ... and ... and, A, B, C, D, E, F. | |
| 8. | And is coming, B, C, D, E, F; and is about to come, A; |
| ＋ again, A, C, D, E, F(B?); ＋ in glory, A, B; with glory, D, E. | |
| 10. | ＋ Catholic, B, D, F (A, C, E?) |
| 12. | ＋ life eternal, B, C; ＋ life of the age to come, D, F. |
Sanday (Journal Theol. Studies, iii. 1) does not attempt a reconstruction on this elaborate scale, but contents himself with pointing out evidence, which Kattenbusch seems to him to have missed, for the existence of creeds of Egypt, Cappadocia and Palestine before the time of Aurelian. He criticizes Harnack’s theory that there existed in the East, that is, in Asia Minor, or in Asia Minor and Syria as far back as the beginning of the 2nd century, a Christological instruction (μάθημα) organically related to the second article of the Roman Creed, and formulas which taught that the “One God” was “Creator of heaven and earth,” and referred to the holy prophetic spirit, and lasted on till they influenced the course of creed-development in the 4th century. He asks, is it not simpler to believe that there was a definite type in the background?
Another English student, the Rev. T. Barns, engaged specially in work upon the history of the creed of Cappadocia, points out the importance of the extraordinary influence of Firmilian of Caesarea in the affairs of the church of Antioch in the early part of the 3rd century. He is led to argue that the creed of Antioch came rather from Cappadocia than Rome. Whether his conclusion is justified or not, it helps to show how strongly the trend of contemporary research is setting against the theory of Kattenbusch that the Roman Creed when adopted at Antioch became the parent of all Eastern forms. It does not, however, militate against the possibility that the Roman Creed was carried from Rome to Asia Minor and to Palestine in the 2nd century. It is evidently impossible to arrive at a final decision until much more spade work has been done in the investigation of early Eastern creeds. Connolly’s study of the early Syrian creed (Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1906, p. 202) deserves careful consideration. His reconstruction of the creed of Aphraates is interesting in relation to the other traces of a Syriac creed form existing prior to the 4th century.
[I believe] in God the Lord of all, that made the heavens and the earth and the seas and all that in them is; [And in our Lord Jesus
- ↑ McGiffert, on the other hand, argues that the Roman Creed was composed to meet the errors of Marcion, p. 58 ff. He omits, however, to mention this, which is Zahn’s strongest argument.
