of which an order was made that catechumens should be taught the Nicene Creed, and no other.' The like may be observed in the Edict of the Emperor Basiliscus, mentioned by Evagrius 87, who, speaking of the Nicene Creed, calls it the Creed in which both he and all his ancestors were baptized.' And it is remarked by Epiphanius 8, of the two Creeds which he recites, that they were the Creeds which every catechumen repeated at his baptism;' which were nothing but the Nicene Creed, with the addition of such articles as the Church supplied to make it a complete summary of the Faith. So that nothing can be more evident than that the Nicene was the Creed then generally made use of in all the Eastern Churches for the instruction of catechumens at their baptism.

But as yet it was not made a part of the common liturgy of the Church, to be repeated daily in divine service. St. Ambrose 9 indeed speaks of it as used in private devotion, and gives directions to the holy virgins so to use it in their morning retirements, and upon other proper occasions. And Habertus 90 thinks it was also required of bishops at their ordination; which is not improbable, because they were obliged to make a profession of their faith. But all this did not yet make it a part of the daily liturgy of the Church. For it is agreed

πους τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς, καὶ τοὺς κληρικοὺς τοῦ κλήρου· εἰ δὲ λαϊκοὶ εἶεν, ἀναθεματίζεσθαι.

86 Act. 2. (t. 4. p. 342 a.) Αὕτη ἡ ἀληθινὴ πίστις· αὕτη ἡ ἁγία πίστις αὕτη αἰωνία πίστις· εἰς ταύτην ἐβαπτίσθημεν· εἰς ταύτην βαπτίζομεν.

ἀπὸ τῶν ἁγίων Αποστόλων τοῦ Κυρίου φυλάττειν· καὶ οὕτως ἕκαστον τῶν κατηχουμένων τῶν μελλόντων τῷ ἁγίῳ λουτρῷ προσιέναι οὐ μόνον ἀπαγγέλ λειν ὀφείλετε τὸ πιστεύειν τοῖς ἑαυ τῶν υἱοῖς ἐν Κυρίῳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ διδάσκειν ῥητῶς, ὡς πάντων ἡ αὐτὴ μητὴρ 87 L. 3. c. 4. (v. 3. p. 335. 44.) ... ὑμῶν τε καὶ ἡμῶν, τὸ λέγειν· Πιστεύ Θεσπίζομεν τὴν κρηπίδα καὶ βεβαίω-ομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν, κ. τ. λ. σιν τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης εὐζωΐας, τουτέστι τὸ σύμβολον τῶν τιή ἁγίων πατέρων τῶν ἐν Νικαίᾳ πάλαι μετὰ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐκκλησιασθέντων, εἰς ὃ ἡμεῖς τε καὶ πάντες οἱ πρὸ ἡμῶν πιστεύσαντες ἐβαπτίσθημεν, μόνον που λιτεύεσθαι, καὶ κρατεῖν ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἁγιωτάταις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκλησίαις τὸν ὀρθόδοξον λαόν. Ibid. c. 7. (p. 341. 13.) . . . . Εἰς ἣν καὶ ἐβαπτίσθημεν καὶ πιστεύομεν.

88 Anchorat. n. 119. (t. 2. p. 122 b.) Μὴ διαλείπητε, οἱ πιστοὶ καὶ ὀρθόδοξοι, ταύτην τὴν ἁγίαν πίστιν τῆς καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας, ὡς παρέλαβεν ἡ ἁγία, καὶ μόνη παρθένος τοῦ Θεοῦ

89 De Virgin. 1. 3. [c. 4.] p. 115. (t. 2. p. 179 b. n. 20.) Symbolum quoque specialiter debemus, tanquam nostri signaculum cordis, antelucanis horis quotidie recensere. Quo etiam, cum horremus aliquid, animo recurrendum est.

90 Archierat. ad Profess. Fid. Observ. I. (p. 499.) Professionem autem fidei ac symboli pronuntiationem non solum in baptismo, sed etiam in aliis mysteriis; in ordinatione etiam, praesertim pontificia, seu potius ad illam fieri, ut æquissimum, sic solemnem semper in ecclesia Latina fuisse arbitror.

among learned men, both of the Romish and Protestant communions, that the Creed was not used to be repeated in the daily service till about the middle of the fifth century in the Greek Church, and not till some time after in the Latin Church. So Valesius 91, Cardinal Bona 92, Schelstrate 93, Pagi 94, Christianus Lupus 95, Hamon L'Estrange 96, and Vossius 97. Theodorus Lector 98 observes, that Peter Fullo, who was bishop

91 Not. in Theodor. Lect. 1. 2. p. 566. (v. 3. p. 582. n. 4.) Cum Petrus Fullo instituisse dicitur, ut in quavis synaxi symbolum recitaretur, de missarum solemnibus id intelligendum est: in quibus etiam nunc symbolum fidei recitatur.... Sane ritus isti, qui a Fullone primum instituti esse dicuntur, non illico ab omnibus ecclesiis usurpati sunt, sed progressu temporis paul latim inoleverunt.

92 Rer. Liturg. 1. 2. c. 8. n. 2. (p. 294.) Quis omnium primus illud [symbolum] liturgia inseruerit, aut cantari præceperit, incertum est. Radulfus Tungrensis, Prop. 23., a Marco Papa, Sylvestri successore, sancitum fuisse ait, ut Symbolum Nicænum in missa diceretur. At Innocentus [III], 1. 2. de Mysteriis Missæ, c. 49., et alii passim scribunt S. Damasum id recitari jussisse ad exemplum Græcorum. In hoc autem conveniunt omnes, quod publice cantari cœperit in ecclesiis Orientalibus adversus pravas hæreticorum opiniones, a quibus postea ad Occidentales laudabilis usus transfusus est. Verum Græci, vivente Damaso, hunc ritum nondum admiserant. Ait enim Theodorus Lector, 1. 2. Collectaneorum, Timotheum patriarcham, anno 510, Constantinopoli instituisse, ut symbolum fidei per singulas synaxes diceretur, cum antea semel tantum in anno diceretur in magno die Parasceues, cum episcopus catechumenos instruebat. Eandem symboli recitationem in omni conventu Petro Gnapheo tribuit Nicephorus Callistus, 1. 5. [15.] c. 28. Sed hic fortassis in Antiochena, ille in Constantinopolitana ecclesia, hunc morem induxerunt; quem postea Hispani primi inter laicos [leg. Latinos]

receperunt, &c.

93 C. Antioch. Restitut. c. 6. n. 6. de Can. 2. (p. 210.)...Verissimum est, quod Cardinalis Bona animadvertit, recitationem symboli post evangelium esse aliquid recentius liturgiæ additum, &c.

94 Crit. in Baron. an. 325. n. 25. (t. I. p. 409.) Ex iisdem rationibus aliæ ecclesiæ citius, aliæ serius cœperunt symbolum publice in missarum solenniis dicere aut cantare. E Latinis prima id æmulata est Hispaniarum ecclesia ex consilio Richaredis Regis, novellos suos Gothos in fide Romana firmare cupiens, ut legitur in tertia Synodo Toletana, in qua statuitur: Ut per omnes ecclesias Hispaniæ et Galliciæ, secundum formam ecclesiarum Orientalium, Concilii Cpolitani symbolum recitetur, &c. Imitatæ id postmodum sunt quædam sub Carolo Magno Gallicanæ ecclesiæ, aliæ tamen, ac ipsa Capella Regia, imitari non sunt ausæ; ideoque a Leone III. Pontifice veniam impetrarunt.

95 Schol. in Concil. t. 1. c. 4. [al. c. 5. p. 13. (t. 1. p. 193. col. sinistr.) Morem prius laudare cœpit, qui ad quinti decimi sæculi exordium floruit, sanctus Vincentius Ferrerius, &c.

96 Alliance of Divine Offices, ch. 3. p. 79. (Reprint, p. 116.) Neither this, nor, &c.-Ibid. ch. 6. p. 170. (Reprint, p. 252.) As for the public use, &c.

97 De Symbol. dissert. 3. s. 17. et seqq. (t. 6. pp. 526, seqq.)-[The citation is indistinct: the exact authority I do not find. ED.]

98 L. 2. p. 566. (v. 3. p. 582. 4.) Πέτρον φησὶ τὸν Κναφέα ἐπινοῆσαι. . . .. ἐν πάσῃ συνάξει το σύμβολον λέyeoba.

of Antioch about the year 471, was the first that ordered the Creed to be repeated in that Church, èv náoy ovvá§eɩ, in every church-assembly. And the same author 99 reports, that Timotheus, bishop of Constantinople, anno 511, was the first that brought in this custom into that Church: which he did in hatred to his predecessor, Macedonius, and with an intent to represent him as disaffected to the Nicene Creed, which before that time was used to be rehearsed in the church only once a year, on the Parasceue, or great day of preparation before the Passover, now called Maunday-Thursday, when the bishop was wont to catechize such as were to be baptized at Easter. From the Oriental Churches the custom was brought into the West, first in Spain and Gallicia, at the petition of king Reccaredus, by the order of the third Council of Toledo1, about the year 589, when those Churches were newly recovered from the inundation of the Arian heresy. This practice was then thought a proper antidote to preserve them from relapsing into their ancient error. Lupus and Pagi say it was not brought into the French Churches till the time of Charles the Great, and then Pope Leo the Third advised them to lay it aside again, because it was not yet the custom of the Roman Church. They concluded yet further, that in the time of Pope John the Eighth, anno 870, it was not yet the practice of the Roman Church. But at last, in the days of Benedict the Eighth, anno 1014, as is collected from Berno Augiensis, the custom was admitted into the Roman Church; for this reason,' to give it in the words of Lupus, since the Roman Church could not bring over the French and Spanish Churches to her own way, she resolved at last to comply with their custom, that there might be no disagreement among them :' and so the Nicene Creed came to be universally read throughout the whole Church.

99 Ibid. p. 563. (p. 578. 17.) Tiμόθεος τὸ τῶν τριακοσίων δέκα καὶ ὀκτὼ πατέρων τῆς πίστεως σύμβολον, καθ ̓ ἑκάστην σύναξιν λέγεσθαι παρεσκεύασεν, ἐπὶ διαβολῇ δῆθεν Μακεδονίου, ὡς αὐτοῦ μὴ δεχομένου τὸ σύμβολον, ἅπαξ τοῦ ἔτους λεγόμενον πρότερον ἐν τῇ ἁγίᾳ παρασκευῇ τοῦ θείου πάθους, τῷ καιρῷ τῶν γινομένων ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου κατηχήσεων.


1 C. 2. (t. 5. p. 1009 e.).... Petitione [al. consultu] Reccaredi Regis constituit Synodus, ut per omnes ecclesias Hispaniæ et [vel] Galliciæ, secundum formam Orientalium ecclesiarum, Concilii Constantinopolitani.. Symbolum Fidei recitetur: et, priusquam Dominica dicatur Oratio, voce clara populo prædicetur, [al. decantetur], &c.

N n

Of the

18. There is but one Creed more, which I need to stand to give any account of, and that is the Creed which is commonly received under the name of the Athanasian Creed. Baronius 2 is of opinion that it was composed by Athanasius, when he was at Rome, and offered to Pope Julius as a confession of his faith; which circumstance is not at all likely, for Julius never questioned the faith of Athanasius. However, a great many learned men have so far embraced the opinion of Baronius, as to believe this Creed to be of Athanasius's composing; as Cardinal Bona3, and Petavius4, and Bellarmin3, and Rivet, with many others of both communions. Scultetus leaves the matter in doubt. But the best and latest critics, who have examined the thing most exactly, make no question but that it is to be ascribed to a Latin author, Vigilius Tapsensis, an African bishop, who lived in the latter end of the fifth century, in the time of the Vandalic Arian persecution. The learned Vossius 7 and Quesnels have written particular dissertations upon this subject. Their arguments are: First, because this Creed is wanting in almost all the manuscripts of Athanasius's Works. Secondly, because the style and contexture of it does not bespeak a Greek, but a Latin author. Thirdly, because neither Cyril of Alexandria, nor the Council of Ephesus, nor Pope Leo, nor the Council of Chalcedon, have ever so much as men

2 An. 340. n. II. (t. 3. p. 528 c.) ...Quum Romæ esset, illud quoque insigne fidei suæ reliquit Occidentalibus monumentum, nempe Symbolum, quod hactenus Athanasii nomine in ecclesia Catholica publice recitatur.

3 De Psalmod. c. 16. n. 18. (p. 469.) Hic [Athanasius] teste Baronio, cum esset Romæ anno quarto Julii summi pontificis, symbolum scripsit, suæ fidei memorabile documentum, quod Latino idiomate coram pontifice recitavit.

4 Animadvers. in Epiphan. Hær. 72. (pp. 304, 305.) Quin etiam Athanasii Symbolum, quum sit quædam fidei expositio ab eo edita, qui τὸ ὁμοούσιον acerrime propugnaret, ejusdem vocabuli mentionem omisit. 5 De Scriptor. Eccles. p. 81. (Oper. t. 7. p. 53 d.) Præter libros, qui in his quatuor tomis continen

tur, exstat seorsim Vita Sancti Antonii, et Symbolum, quod incipit; Quicumque vult salvus esse; quæ Sancti Athanasii opera esse vera et germana, non dubitamus.

6 Critica Sacra, 1. 3. c. 4. p. 240. (t. 2. p. 1103. col. sinistr.) Symbolum Quicumque vult salvus esse, in multis codicibus MSS. non repertum est inter Athanasii opera: in uno legitur; sed autoris nomine suppresso. Invenitur in Fragmentis Hilarii Historicis. Est tamen orthodoxum, et in ecclesia magnæ autoritatis. Athanasii esse, mihi per

suasum est.

7 Dissert. 2. (t. 6. pp. 516, seqq.) de Symbolo Athanasio.

8 Dissert. [12. s. 12.] de Variis Fidei Symbolis in antiquo Codice Romano. (ap. Oper. Leon. M. Lugdun. 1700. t. 2. p. 384.) De Symbolo Athanasio conjecturæ.

tioned it in all that they say against the Nestorian or Eutychian heresies. Fourthly, because this Vigilius Tapsensis is known to have published several others of his writings under the borrowed name of Athanasius, with which this Creed is commonly joined. These reasons have persuaded such men as Bp. Pearson, Archbishop Usher 10, Hamon L'Estrange11, Dr. Cave 12, Schelstrate 13, Pagi, and Du Pin 15, critics of the best

9 In Symbol. Artic. 8. Ed. Lat. (p. 569. n. 50. col. dextr.) Ex quibus aliisque similibus testimoniis Patrum Latinorum satis conjicere licet, utra in ecclesia symbolum illud, Athanasio vulgo adscriptum, primitus fabricatum sit. Ut enim in confesso est, illud primum Latina lingua scriptum fuisse, sic valde probabile est, illud compositum fuisse a quodam Latinæ ecclesiæ membro propter eum loquendi inodum, qui in eo habetur: Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens.-[Engl. edit. 1741. (p. 324. in the note.) By which testimonies, &c.

10 De Symbol. Rom. [Præf. ad Gerard. Joh. Vossium,] p. 1. (Lond. 1647. p. 2. Works, v. 7. p. 299.) Ad ea, quæ de Athanasiano Symbolo erudite, ut soles, commentatus es, nihil quod adjiciam habeo, &c.

11 Alliance of Divine Offices, ch. 4. p. 99. (Reprint, p. 143.) The tradition is, &c.

12 Hist. Liter. (v. 1. p. 146.) Symbolum Athanasii genuinum Athanasii opus non esse, satis indicat, quod nec ipse Athanasius, nec sequentium sæculorum scriptor aliquis ante Theodulphum Aurelianensem (libro de Spiritu Sancto, p. 72.) ejus meminerit, nec in ecclesiis ante annum millesimum obtinuerit, neque ubique inclarescere cœperit, donec a Gregorii IX. legatis, circa an. 1233, in disputatione Constantinopoli habita sub Athanasii nomine, testimonii loco, prolatum fuerit.

13 C. Antioch. Restitut. dissert. 3. c. 2. n. 3. (p. 109.) Huc usque Petavius de quatuor fidei professionibus, quorum ultima Symbolum Athanasii vulgo dicitur, quod licet ab aliquibus recentiori auctori vin

dicandum credatur, et a Vigilio Tapsensi aliove Latino Patre editum, negari tamen non potest, quin fidei confessio Ursacii et Valentis edita fuerit paucis post Concilium Antiochenum annis, &c.

14 Crit. in Baron. an. 340. n. 6. (t. I. p. 440.) Joannes Vossius, libello de Tribus Symbolis, dissert. 2., Quesnellus Dissert. de variis Fidei libellis in antiquo Romanæ Ecclesiæ codice contentis, Usserius, aliique tam ex Protestantibus, quam ex Catholicis, Symbolum, quod vulgo dicitur S. Athanasii, et quod incipit, Quicunque vult salvus esse, Sancto Athanasio abjudicant, quia in antiquis et probatæ fidei codicibus MSS. pene omnibus operum S. Athanasii hoc symbolum desideratur, et quia stylus, sermonisque contextus nequaquam Græci hominis est, sed Latini. Quod si Divus Athanasius Latine scripsisset, vix fieri potuisset, ut ipsi Græcismus aliquis non excideret, quum non nisi imperfecte linguam Latinam scire potuerit. Præterea, si symbolum istud Athanasii fuisset, illud laudassent Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Ephesina Synodus, Sanctus Leo, et Concilium Chalcedonense, dum contra Nestorianam et Eutychianam hæresin loquuntur. His adde Latinorum contra Græcos silentium post schisma Photianum, usque ad Gregorii IX. tempora, de processione Spiritus Sancti disputantium. Si enim tunc pro certo creditum fuisset, istud symbolum esse Athanasii, illo usi fuissent contra Græcos schismaticos Occidentales; quod non leve pondus habuisset ob summam S. Athanasii in utraque ecclesia auctoritatem. Et tamen primi, quos hoc argumentum adhibuisse legimus, sunt apocrisarii Gregorii IX., postquam hæc contro

« ForrigeFortsett »