ee sie iy Ni aad Ia x SEE <% s Se <5 4 * i if siete aE Seas iors pastrami ; of the Theologiens Soy PRINCETON, N. J. Division .. aA. red. bees she), 4 t t Section Nina, Y = ws me TWO DISSERTATIONS mbridge PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS TWO DISSERTATIONS I ON MONOTENH2 OEO2 IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION II ON THE ‘CONSTANTINOPOLITAN’ CREED AND OTHER EASTERN CREEDS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY BY FENTON JOHN ANTHONY ‘HORT D.D. FELLOW AND DIVINITY LECTURER OF EMMANUEL COLLEGE FORMERLY FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE Cambridae and Dondon MACMILLAN AND CO. 1876 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ACADEMIAE CANTABRIGIENSI HAS PAENE GEMINAS DISSERTATIONES GRADUS IN SACRA THEOLOGIA UTRIUSQUE ADIPISCENDI CAUSA ANTE BACCALAUREATUM ALTERAM ALTERAM ANTE DOCTORATUM CONSCRIPTAS GRATO ANIMO DICAT AUCTOR. PREFACE THE former of these Dissertations is an attempt to examine in some detail a single point of textual criticism, the true read- ing of a phrase occurring in a cardinal verse of the New Testa- ment. Once only has the evidence been discussed with anything like adequate care and precision, namely in a valuable article contributed by Professor Ezra Abbot to the American Bibliotheca, Sacra of October 1861, After having long had occasion to study the matter pretty closely, I am unable to accept the conclusions drawn by this eminent biblical scholar ; and accordingly it seemed worth while to place on record the results of an independent investigation. My own opinion has not been formed hastily. Some years passed before increasing knowledge and clearness of view respecting the sources of the Greek text of the New Testament convinced me of the incor- rectness of the received reading in Johnil8. This conviction did not however remove the sense of a certain strangeness in the alternative phrase transmitted by the best authorities; and for a considerable time I saw no better solution of the difficulty than a conjecture that both readings alike were amplifications of a simpler original. It was a more careful study of the whole context that finally took away all lingering doubt as to the intrinsic probability of the less familiar reading. In all cases where the text of a single passage is dealt with separately, a deceptive disadvantage lies on those who have H. b vi PREFACE learned the insecurity of trying to interpret complex textual evidence without reference to previously ascertained relation- ships, either between the documents or between earlier lines of transmission attested by the documents. Their method pre- supposes a wide induction, the evidence for which cannot be set out within reasonable limits. Thus, so far as they are able to go beyond that naked weighing of ‘authorities’ against each other which commonly passes as textual criticism in the case of the New Testament, they are in danger of seeming to follow an: arbitrary theory, when they are in fact using the only . safeguard against the consecration of arbitrary predilection under the specious name of internal evidence. The exhibition of the documentary evidence itself needs hardly any further preface. It will, I trust, be found more completely and more exactly given than elsewhere: but the additions and rectifications, though not perhaps without in- terest, make no extensive change in the elementary data which have to be interpreted, unless it be in some of the patristic quotations. The decisiveness of the external evidence would not be materially less if it were taken as it is presented in any good recent apparatus: in other words, the legitimacy of an appeal to internal evidence on less than the clearest and strongest grounds would hardly be increased. It is however in internal evidence that the supposed strength of the case against the less familiar reading undoubtedly, con- sists: and throughout this part of the discussion I have had to break fresh ground. What is said about the relation of the eighteenth verse of St John’s Prologue to preceding verses is intended to meet the more serious of the two apparent difficul- ties, that arising from supposed incongruity with the context and supposed want of harmony with the language of Scripture elsewhere, and is addressed equally to upholders of the received reading and to those who distrust the originality of either PREFACE vil reading. The question of relative probabilities of change in transmission, less pertinent in itself, finds, I have tried to shew, in the actual phenomena of the biblical and patristic texts an opposite answer to the answer assumed by anticipation when the manner in which ancient transcribers would be affected by dogmatic proclivities is inferred from the crudities of modern controversy. Here Professor Abbot's original argument is sup- plemented by an ingenious article in the Theological Review for October 1871, written by Professor James Drummond, and — also by a short paper in the Unitarian Review of June 1875 by Professor Abbot himself, for a separate impression of which I have to thank the author's courtesy. Had Professor Drum- mond’s article come into my hands sooner, I might have been tempted to follow his speculations point by point. As it was, it seemed best to refrain from rewriting an exposition of facts which, if true, was fatal to-his very premisses. It was obviously desirable that the comments on the evidence itself should be encumbered as little as possible with controversial digressions, though I have tried to do justice, in argument as well as in mind, to every tangible suggestion adverse to my own conclu- sions, whether offered in the articles already mentioned or else- where. On the other hand against the verdicts of oracular instinct I confess myself helpless: they must be left to work their legitimate effect on such readers as find them impressive. Since this Dissertation was set up in type as an academic exercise some months ago, in which form it was seen by a few friends, it has been revised and slightly enlarged under the sanction required by the University Ordinances. The last three of the appended Notes are likewise now first added. The two longer of these supply illustrations of incidental statements in the Dissertation rather than contributions to its argument. Indeed I should be specially unwilling to seem to make the principal issue in any way dependent on the theory propounded vill PREFACE in the last Note. At the same time the history of the detached phrase taken from the verse of St John cannot safely be neglected in any thorough investigation of the text. Wet- stein’s pardonable but misleading confusion between the text and the phrase was unfortunately overlooked by Dr Tregelles, to whom belongs the credit of recalling attention to the passage, and pointing out the inferiority of the external evidence for the received reading. But Professor Abbot’s warning against this confusion carries us only a little way. The traditional use of the phrase remains itself a part, though a subordinate part, of the evidence; and the remarkable inverseness of its currency with that of the parent reading invited, if it did not necessitate, an enquiry into the true construction of the corresponding clauses in the Nicene Creed. The latter Dissertation grew out of the last Note accom- panying the former. The ‘ Constantinopolitan’ modification of the Nicene language needed explanation: and while the recent researches of friends had disproved the direct responsibility of the Council of Constantinople for the Creed which bears the same name, it was unsatisfactory to rest without investigating whatever evidence might lead to a positive conclusion respect- ing the origin of this Creed and the motives of its authors. But the results actually obtained were wholly unexpected, and it was only by degrees that they presented themselves. The main outlines are, I trust, established: but it will be surprising if no fresh data are brought to light by those whose knowledge of early Christian literature and history is wider and surer than mine. Continental criticism is unfortunately silent, with a single exception, on most of the questions which I have had to raise: and it has been disappointing to find how little help was to be obtained, even on conspicuous points, from the studies in the history of doctrine which have been carried on for the last PREFACE ix two or three generations. The exception is furnished by Pro- fessor C. P. Caspari of Christiania, whose book on Ungedruckte, unbeachtete, und wenig beachtete Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der G'laubensregel is a mine of new texts and original illustrations. Although the separate obligations are all, I hope, acknowledged in the proper places, it is a duty to say here how much the latter pages of the Dissertation owe to his patient and conscientious labours; and the more since I have been often obliged to dissent from his conclusions. Perhaps it may be found a corroboration of the view here taken that it serves to link together his scattered researches, so far as they relate to Eastern Creeds. The publication of the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities has given me the advantage of seeing Mr Ffoulkes’s articles on the Councils of Constantinople and Antioch while the last sheets were passing through the press. I have thus been led to-add in a note the Greek text of the fifth canon of Constantinople; but have not found reason to make any other change. 7 Both Dissertations are of a critical nature, and directed solely towards discovering the true facts of history respecting certain ancient writings. On the other hand I should hardly have cared to spend so much time on the enquiry, had the subject matter itself been distasteful, or had I been able to regard it as unimportant. To any Christian of consistent belief it cannot be indifferent what language St John employed on a fundamental theme; and no one who feels how much larger the exhibition of truth perpetuated in Scripture is than any propositions that have ever been deduced from it can be a party to refusing it the right of speaking words inconvenient, if so it be, to the various traditional schools which claim to be adequate representatives of its teaching. Nor again is it of small moment to understand rightly the still living and ruling x PREFACE doctrinal enunciations of the ancient Church, which cannot be rightly understood while their original purpose is misappre- hended. Even the best theological literature of that age, as of every age, contains much which cannot possibly be true: and it is difficult to imagine how the study of Councils has been found compatible with the theory which requires us to find Conciliar utterances Divine. But the great Greek Creeds of the fourth century, and the ‘Constantinopolitan’ Creed most, will bear severe testing with all available resources of judgement after these many ages of change. Assuredly they do not contain all truth, even within the limits of subject by which they were happily confined. But their guidance never fails to be found trustworthy, and for us at least it is necessary. Like other gifts of God’s Providence, they can be turned to deadly use: but to those who employ them rightly they are the safeguard of a large and a progressive faith. CONTENTS PAGE ON MONOrENHC Oeoc IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION . 1 NOTE A The details of early Greek Patristic Evidence . . 30 NOTE B The details of Latin Evidence . . : : ° 43 NOTE C Some details of Aithiopic Evidence ‘ ‘ ° 46 NOTE D Unicus and unigenitus among the Latins . . ° 48 NOTE E On moONOreNHC 6€0C in the Nicene Creed. : 54 ON THE ‘CONSTANTINOPOLITAN’ CREED AND OTHER EASTERN CREEDS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY . 73 The Creed of Cesarea . ° ° . . . . . ° 138 The Nicene Creed . = 5 r : é F 139, 140 The Revised Creed of Jerusalem or ‘ Constantinopolitan’ Creed 141,143, 144 The Earlier Creed of Jerusalem . é ~ ‘ . . é 142 The Interpolated Nicene Creed . : F ° : . ‘ 145 The Creed of Cappadocia : : . ‘ - ‘ ‘ a, 246 Fhe Revised Creed of Antioch : . 2 . ° . : 148 . ° . 149 The Creed of Philadelphia . . . ° . . . : 150 The Creed of Mesopotamia ., ° ° "EK TOYT@N Kdl TON TOIOYTWN MANOANOMEN OT! TOCOYTON MEN OIAEN H OEdTINEYCTOC FpadH THe ém- FN@CEWC TO ATEPANTON, TOCOYTON AE THC ANOPWTIINHC PYCEWC TO TON OBEIWN MYCTHPIWN EN TH TAPONTI ANEDIKTON, El MEN KATA TIPOKOTTHN EKACT® TpocTidE- MENOY TOY TIAEIONOC, dei AE TOY TMpdc AzZIAN ATTOAIMTIA- NOMENOY ATIANT@N, AYpicC AN EAOH TO TEAEION OTE TO EK MEPOYC KATAPFHOHCETAI’ OYKOYN OYTE ENOC GNOMATOC APKOYNTOC TAcAC OMOY AHAMcaI TAc TOF OHE0F AdzZac, OYTE éxdcToy €z 6AOKAHpoy BKINAYN@C TTAPAAAMBAN O- MENOY. BASILIUS ON THE WORDS MONOFENHC OEOC IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION HE purpose of this Dissertation is to investigate the true reading of the last verse in the Prologue to St John’s Gospel (1 18). The result, I think it will be found, is to shew that povoryerns Beds should be accepted in place of the received reading 6 povoyevns vids, alike on grounds of documentary evidence, of probabilities of transcription, and of intrinsic fit- ness. The reading of three primary Greek MSS. has been known only within the last half-century; so that naturally this verse has not shared with other disputed texts of high doctrinal interest either the advantages or the disadvantages of repeated controversial discussion; and thus it offers a rare opportunity for dispassionate study. The history of the phrase povoyevns Oeos in early Greek theology, of which I have at- tempted to give a rude outline, has also an interest of its own. The verse stands as follows in the better MSS. : Oedy ovdels Edpaxev mamote’ povoyevns Oeds 6 av els TOV KONTOV TOU TaTpos éxelvos eEnyNoaTO. H, 1 2 ON THE WORDS MONOFENHC OEOC The Documentary Evidence for povoyevis Peds consists of Manuscripts: SBC*L 33 (S* omits the following o ov; N° and 33 prefix 0). Versions: the Vulgate (‘Peshito’) or Revised Syriac; the margin of the Harclean Syriac; the Memphitic; and one of the two Aithiopic editions (the Roman, reprinted in Walton’s Polyglott), in accordance with one of the two earlier British Museum MSS., a third of the MSS. yet examined having both readings’. The article is prefixed in the Memphitic rendering. The Thebaic and the Gothic versions are not extant here. © povoyerns vids is found in Manuscripts; ACEFGHKMSUVXTAATI and all kana cursives except 33. Versions: the Old Latin (q has wu. filius Det); the Vulgate Latin; the Old Syriac; the text of the Harclean Syriac; the Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary; the Armenian; and Mr Pell Platt’s Aithiopic edition, in accordance with many MSS. The Patristic evidence, though remarkable on any possible view, admits of various interpretation on some points. The grounds for the chief conclusions here stated will be found in a note at the end: it must suffice here to mark the limits of doubtfulness as clearly as the circumstances permit. The reading povoyeris Oecs, with or without o, in direct quotations from St John or clear allusions to his text, is attested as follows. Two independent reports of VALENTINIAN doctrine furnished by Clement of Alexandria (ac. ea Theodoto, p- 968 Pott.: a paraphrastic allusion a little later has viés by a natural combination, see p. 32), and Irenzeus (p. 40 Mass.: cor- rupted in the inferior MSS. of both Epiphanius, who sup- plies the Greek, and the old translation, which in this allusion is faithfully literal). IneENzvus himself at least once (256), and I strongly suspect two other times (255, 189): in all three places the original Greek is lost. CLEMENT himself twice (695, 956: in the second place, where the language is paraphrastic, 1 It is impossible to convey a true in few words. Some particulars will impression of the Aithiopic evidence be found in Note C. : IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 3 Clement has 6 mw. vids Peds, as in a still looser paraphrase at p- 102 he has 6 w....dOyos Tis mictews), ORIGEN at least three times (on Johni7 [the commentary on i 18 itself is lost], iv. p. 89 Ru.; [on John i 19, p. 102, the reading of two MSS. only is recorded, and they vary suspiciously between 6 p. vids Oeds and 6 pw. vios Tod Oeod; in an indirect reference shortly afterwards rév w. stands without a substantive;] on John xiii 23, p. 439; ¢. Cels. ii 71, p. 440, certainly in two MSS., apparently in all except two closely allied MSS., from which De la Rue introduced vids). Eusebius twice, once as an alter- native not preferred by himself (De Eccl. Theol. p. 67, 6 wovoye- vs vids, povoyerns Geos), and in one other exceptional but seemingly unsuspicious place, p. 174. EPIPHANIUS three or four times (Ancor. p. 8 [the clear statement here confessedly leaves no doubt as to the quotation at p. 7, hopelessly mangled in the printed text]; Panar. 612, 817). Bastu at least twice (De Sp. Sanct. 15,17, pp. 12, 14 Garn., quotation and statement con- firming each other, as the Benedictine editor notes, adding that earlier editions, unsupported by any of his six MSS., read vies; the quotation with vics at p. 23, which has no note, may therefore be only an unwary reprint). GReGoRY oF Nyssa ten times, always somewhat allusively, as is his usual manner in citing Scripture, (c. Zunom. ii p. 432 [469 Migne]; 447 [493]; 478 [540]; ii 506 [581]; vi 605 [729]; vill 633 [772]; ix 653 [801]; x 681 [841]; De wit. Mos. 192 [i 336]; Hom. ait in Cant. 663 [i 1045]: on the other hand vids is printed twice, e. Eun. ii 466 [521]; Zp. ad Flav. 648 [iii 1004]). The (Ho- mceousian) Synod of Ancyra in 358 (in Epiph. Pan. 851 ¢: the allusion here is reasonably certain’), Dipymus three times (De Trin. 126 p. 76; ii 5, p. 140 [cf. i 15, p. 27]; on Ps. Ixxvi 14, p. 597 Cord. [with absolute certainty by the context, though vids is printed]: an allusion on Ps. cix 3, p. 249 Cord. or 284 Mai, drops the substantive). CyrRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (ad 1. 1 The laxity of a reference to Prov. guarded by ample previous exposition viii 25 (vidv for yervd we) in the same (852 BC, 853 B—D): here it would sentence was unavoidable, and it was have been gratuitous and misleading. 1—2 4 ON THE WORDS MONOTENHC OEOC p. 103 [without 6] by Mr Pusey’s best MS. and repeated refer- ences in the following comment), and in at least three other places (Thes. 137, [without 6] 237; Dial. quod Unus, 768: twice (Thes. 365; Adv. Nest. 90') Aubert’s text has vids, which will probably have to give way, as it has had to do in the com- To these might perhaps be added the emperor JULIAN (p. 333 Spanh.), for though the full quotation and one subsequent reference have vids, another has Oeds, which the mentary’. argument seems on the whole to require. The patristic evidence for [6] povoyevs vids has next to be given. Irenzeus twice, but only in the Latin translation (see above), and exactly in the Old Latin form, with nisz in- serted before unigenitus, and once with Det added to Filius, so that we seem to have the reading of the translator, as often, HIppotytus (c. Noetwm 5) without o: all depends on Fabricius’s editing of a modern copy of a single Vatican MS., and the context is neutral. An EpistTLE from certain bishops at ANTIOCH (260—270 A.D.) to Paul of Samo- sata (Routh, R. 8. iii 297), again dependent on a single MS., unexamined for some generations, and with the detached not of Irenzeus. phrase tov povoyevyn vidv Tod Oeov Gedy occurring not long before. The Latin version of the “Acts” of the disputation between ARCHELAUS and Mani, c. 32, where again the inserted nist shews the impossibility of deciding whether author or trans- EUSEBIUS OF CASAREA six times, De Eccl. Theol. p. 67 (with @eds as an alternative, see above), 86, 92, 142; in Ps. lxxiv. p. 440 Mont.; in Hs. vi. p. 374, Ev- lator is responsible. 1 In this case the text is also Pusey’s (p. 170); but it rests on a single MS. of the fifteenth century: it is followed in a few lines by 6 ye why év Kod\T@ TOU Geo Kal marpods pmovoyerns Beds Nbyos. 2 In the ‘ Dialogues’ of an unknown Czmsanrius (Inter. 4, post Greg. Naz. iv 864 Migne), probably of the fifth if not a later century, the context implies Oeds, though vjos is printed. The ap- parent conflict of text and context has been lately pointed out by Prof. Abbot, who still regards the reading as only doubtful. The possibility of reconci- ling with the actual language an infer- ential argument from John i 18 con- taining vids seems to me infinitesimal : but I am content to leave Cexsarius in a note, IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 5 STATHIUS, De Engastr. p. 387 All. ALEXANDER of Alexandria, Ep. ad Alex. in Theodoret, H. #. i 3; but with the detached phrase tod povoyevods Oeod on the next page. ATHANASIUS seven times (Hp. de Decr. Nic. 13,21; Or. ¢. Ar. ii 62; iv 16, 19, 20, 26). Grecory or NazriAnzus, Orat. xxix 17. Basil of Cesarea, Hp. 234, p. 358, besides one of the three places in the De Spiritu Sancto already mentioned, where at least one Moscow MS. has Oeds: but the evidence adduced above casts doubt on both places. Gregory of Nyssa twice (see p. 3); but the reading is most suspicious. TITUS OF Bostra (adv. Man. p. 85 Lag.: but p. 93 6 pw. vids eds). THEODORE OF MopsuEsT1A (ad J. bis in Mai, N. P. B. vii 397 f.). Curysostom ad J, and later writers generally. On Julian see p. 4. , It is unsatisfactory that so much of the patristic testimony remains uncertain in the present state of knowledge; but such is the fact. Much of the uncertainty, though not all, will doubtless disappear when the Fathers have been carefully edited. In familiar passages scribes, editors, and translators vie with each other in assimilating biblical quotations to the texts current among themselves; and from the nature of the case the process is always unfavourable to ancient readings, whether true or false, which went out of use comparatively early. It would therefore be absurd to treat the uncertainty as equally favourable to both readings. Where we have a Greek original, without various reading noted, and without contradictory coutext, vios has a right to claim the authority provisionally, in spite of private suspicions: but it would be unreasonable to concede to vids any appreciable part in Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus, or Cyril—I ought to add, in Ire- nus or Basil—notwithstanding the variations already men- tioned. Serious doubt must also rest on an isolated vios in a neutral context, when, as in the case of the Epistles of the Antioch bishops and of Alexander, povoyevys Oeds is found at no great distance, though without any obvious reference to John i118: the doubt is not removed by the fact that one or 6 ON THE WORDS MONOTFENHC OEOC two Latin Fathers’ have unigenitus Filius in their quotation, and wnigenitus Deus often elsewhere. To gather up the documentary evidence with the usual abbreviations, we have Geos NBC*L 33 Memph. Syr.vulg. Syr.helmg. [?Aeth.] *VALENTINIANI.- Iren. *CLEM. *ORIG. [Euseb.] tSyn.Anc, *EpreH. *Drp. *Bas. *Gree.Nyss. *Cyr. AL. Cf. Caes. vies AX &e. &e. [?D] Latt.omn. Syr.vet. Syr.hel. Syr.hier. Arm. [Acth.codd.] [?? Iren.(lat.)] ?+Ep.Ant. ?4+Act.Arch.(lat.) *HUSEB. *ATH. tEust. ?fAlex.Al. [??Bas.] Greg.Naz. [?? Greg. Nyss.] +Tit.Bost. *THrop.Mors. *Curys., &c. Testimonies marked with * prefixed are clear and suffi- cient: those marked with + depend on a single quotation, with a neutral context. The Latin Fathers, as almost always, attest only what was read in the Latin versions: all Latin authorities have unicus Filius or unigenitus Filius, q adding Det. Against the four best uncials uios has no tolerable uncial authority to set except A and X, of which even A is in the Gospels very inferior to any one of the four, much more to their combination, and it is here deserted even by Syr.vulg., its usual companion, while 33 is approached by no other cursive. Manifestly wrong readings of AX and their associates abound hereabouts as everywhere: see i 16, 21, 26 bis, 27 quater, 30, 31, 39, 42, &c.: when D is added, wrong readings still recur, as lil 34; iv 2, 21, 25, 36, 37, 39, 42, 52, &. The solitary posi- tion of 33 among cursives here arises from the peculiarity of its position generally, and not merely from its comparative excel- lence, great as that is. The good readings supported by the 1 Hilary and Fulgentius. The latter Deus, but doubtless not from a Latin twice quotes the text with unigenitus copy of the Gospels. IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 7 other good cursives of the Gospels are, with rare exceptions, found likewise in the authorities called ‘Western’, such as D and the early Latins; that is, their ancient element is almost wholly ‘Western’, for good and for evil: the ancient element in 33 on the other hand can be only in part ‘Western’, for it abounds in true ancient readings which, as here, have little or no ‘Western’ authority. That the Old Syriac has vies is quite natural, when it has so many early ‘Western’ readings: what is really singular is the introduction of @eds at the revision, when few changes came in at variance with the late Antiochian text (Theodore, Chrysostom, &c¢.); and as @eds is not an Antiochian reading, its support by the Syriac Vulgate acquires especial weight. Among early versions this and the invaluable Memphitic more than balance the Old Latin and Old Syriac, which so often concur against BCL Memph. in wrong readings of high antiquity, as i 4, 24, 26, 38, 42; iii 8, 25; iv 9. In the later versions vids has no doubt the advantage. The Ante-nicene Fathers. follow the analogy of the versions. With the exception of the Antioch epistle, vics occurs in writers with a predominantly Western type of text, Hippolytus and Eusebius (compare the gloss in 11 6 at p. 72 of the De Lee. Th.) ; while Irenzeus leaves their company to join Clement and Origen in behalf of Geos. After Eusebius the two readings are ranged in singular conformity with the general character of the respective texts generally. Cyril of Alexandria, Didymus, Epi- phanius, are almost the only Post-nicene writers in whom we find any considerable proportion of the true ancient readings of passages corrupted in the common late text, while Basil and Gregory of Nyssa have also a sprinkling of similar readings, a larger sprinkling probably than Athanasius or Gregory of Nazianzus, certainly than Theodore, Chrysostom, or their suc- cessors. Thus it comes out with perfect clearness that vids is one of the numerous Ante-nicene readings of a ‘Western’ type (in the technical not the strictly geographical sense of the word) which were adopted into the eclectic fourth century 8 ON THE WORDS MONOFENHC OEOC text that forms the basis of later texts generally. As far as external testimony goes, Qeds and vics are of equal anti- quity: both can be traced far back into the second century. But if we examine together any considerable number of read- ings having the same pedigree as vids, certain peculiar omissions always excepted, we find none that on careful consideration approve themselves as original in comparison with the alter- native readings, many that are evident corrections. No like suspiciousness attaches to the combination of authorities which read @eds. Analysis of their texts completely dissipates the conjecture, for it is nothing more, that they proceed from an imagined Egyptian recension. The wrong readings which they singly or in groups attest can be traced to various distant ori- gins, and their concordance marks a primitive transmission uncorrupted by local alterations. Such being the case, @eds is commended to us as the true reading, alike by the higher cha- racter of the authorities which support it, taken separately, and by the analogy of readings having a similar history in ancient times, : External evidence is equally decisive against the insertion of 6, omitted by the four uncials, one passage of Origen pro- bably (c. Cels. 1171), and two of Cyril (ad Ll. and Thes. 257). On such a point the evidence of versions and quotations is evidently precarious. Probabilities of Transcription will doubtless be easily re- cognised as favourable to @eds. Movoyerns @eds is an unique phrase, unlikely to be suggested to a scribe by anything lying on the surface of the context, or by any other passage of Scripture. Movoyevys vids (the reading of Hippolytus and of Eusebius once, in Ps.), and still more 6 povoyevns vids, is a familiar and obvious phrase, suggested by the familiar sense of povoyeryns in all literature, by the contrast to tod marpés in the same verse (and wapa zratpos in 14), by two other early passages of this Gospel (iii 16, dote Tov vidv Tov povoyery édwxev, and iii 18, ore pr) wemlotevKev eis TO Ovowa TOD Movo- IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 9 yevovs viod Tov Geov), and by a passage of St John’s first Epistle (iv 9, OTe Tov vidv avtod Tov povoyevh améctadKev 6 Oeds eis Tov Kocpov). The always questionable suggestion of dogmatic alteration is peculiarly out of place here. To the Monogenes in the Ogdoad of the Valentinians, among whom by a mere accident we first meet with this and other important verses of St John, Oeds could be only an awkward appendage : the Valentinians of Clement take it up for a moment, make a kind of use of it as a transitional step explaining how St John came to give the predicate @eds (ini 1) to Logos, whom they anxiously distinguish from Monogenes (= Arche), and then pass on to their own proper view, in which Sonship alone appears as the characteristic mark of Monogenes ; while the Valentinians of Irenzeus content themselves with reciting the bare phrase Clwavens... Apynv twa vroriOetat TO TpwTov yevunbev [sic] vd tov Oeov, 0 5) Kai Tidv, cai Movoyevi Oedv Kéxdrnxev, ev @ ta twavta 6 Ilatyp mpoéBare omreppatixas) and leaving it, justi- fying i1 by the general remark 76 yap é« Oeod yevynbev Oeds: éoTuv, but not otherwise referring again to any Oeds except Him whom St John, they say, distinguishes in i 1 from Arche (= Son) and Logos. Neither in the Valentinian nor in any other known Gnostical system could there have been any temptation to invent such a combination as povoyevys eos. Nor is it easy to divine what controversial impulse within the Church could have generated it in the second century; for the various doc- trinal currents of that period are sufficiently represented in later controversies of which we possess records, and yet there is, I believe, no extant writer of any age, except that very peculiar person Epiphanius’, who makes emphatic controversial appeal either to @eos per se, or to Geos as coupled with povo- yevyns, or (with a different purpose) to povoyerns as coupled with @eos, whether in this verse or in the derivative detached phrase mentioned hereafter. The whole verse, with either 1 Also Cesarius, if the printed vios against St John in this verse, if I am is wrong. The emperor Julian maybe right in surmising that povoyev7s beds added, as finding matter of accusation was the reading before him, 10 ON THE WORDS MONOFENHC OEOC reading, soars above the whole extant theology of the second century antecedent to the great Catholic writers at its close: but I could almost as easily believe that that age invented St John’s Gospel, as some learned persons say it did, as that it invented povoyerns Oeds. Once more, assuming povoyeris @eos to have obtained a footing in MSS., we cannot suppose tbat it would gain ground from 6 povoyer)s vids in transcription, unless we trust modern analogies more than actual evidence. The single fact that povoyerys Peds was put to polemical use by hardly any of those writers of the fourth century who pos- sessed it, either as a reading or as a phrase, shews how unlikely it is that the writers of our earliest extant MSS. were mastered by any such dogmatic impulse in its favour as would overpower the standing habits of their craft. The only other possible explanation is pure accident. The similarity of YC to OC, though doubtless greater than that of the words at full length, is hardly strong enough to support a word forming a new and startling combination, though it might be able to cooperate in a transition to so trite a term as povoyevns vids. But a still more serious objection to this suggestion is the absence of the article in what we must con- sider the primitive form of the reading, povoyevns Beds. Sup- posing for the sake of argument that YC might pass into OC, the change would still have left 6 standing ten letters back, and there would have been as little temptation to drop o before Qeds as before vids, as is shown by the profuseness with which the Fathers (and their scribes) supplied it subsequently. On the other hand the known boldness of ‘ Western’ paraphrase would have had little scruple in yielding to the temptation of in- serting 6 after changing vids to Geos, whether immediately or after an interval in which the article remained absent. Thus, on grounds of documentary evidence and probabilities of transcription alike, we are irresistibly led to conclude that poovoyerns Oecs was the original from which 6 povoyerrs vics and 6 povoyevns proceeded, More than this no evidence from without can establish: but in a text so amply attested as that IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 11 of the New Testament we rightly conclude that the most original of extant readings was likewise that of the author himself, unless on full consideration it appears to involve a kind and degree of difficulty such as analogy forbids us to recognise as morally compatible with the author’s imtention, or some other peculiar ground of suspicion presents itself. This is perhaps the best place to mention a third reading to which Griesbach was somewhat inclined (it must be re- membered that BC were as yet assumed to agree with most MSS. in reading vids, and & was unknown), and which at one time seemed to me probable, namely 6 povoyevjs without either substantive. It is supported however by neither MS. nor version except the Latin St Gatien’s MS., but by a few quota- tions in Greek and Latin Fathers, almost wholly writers who use one or other of the fuller readings elsewhere; the only con- siderable exception being Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. vii ll). It is doubtless common to find different authorities completing an originally elliptic or condensed expression in different ways. But the stray instances of 6 wovoyerns and Unigenitus are suffi- ciently explained by the extreme frequency of this simple form of phrase in the theological writings of the fourth and fifth centuries. Nor, on an attentive scrutiny, does it commend itself even as a conjecture, these unsubstantial shreds of authority being discarded. To those indeed who justly recog- nise the conclusiveness of the evidence which shews that povo- yevis Oeds cannot be a corruption of 6 povoyern)s vids, yet are unable to believe that St John wrote it, 6 wovoyerns affords the best refuge. In sense it suits the immediate context, having in this respect an advantage over 6 povoyerns vids; though it seems to me to fail in relation to the larger context formed by the Prologue, and to lack the pregnant and uniting force which I hope to shew to be possessed by povoyevns Geos. But serious difficulties as to transcription have to be added to the want of external evidence. It is as inconceivable that @ecs should have been supplied to complete 6 povoyerjs m the second century, with the further omission of the article, as that 6 wovoyerns vids 12 ON THE WORDS MONOTENHC OEOC should have been altered to povoyevns Peds. Nor is the case improved by supposing accidental errors arising out of simi- larity of letters, CO becoming COCO, and O being lost after €. It would be an extraordinary coincidence either that both slips of the pen should take place at the same transcription, though separated by MONOTENHC; or that two corruptions of the same clause should take place at different times, yet both before the earliest attested text of the New Testament. And again to suppose povoyerys without 6 to be the true reading would only change one difficulty for another: povoyeyys without either article or substantive, followed by 6 or, and caught up by €xeivos, would be harsh beyond measure. Thus the conjectural omission of the substantive produces no such satisfying results as could for a moment bring it into competition with the best attested reading, except on the assumption that the best attest- ed reading is impossible. : Accordingly the field of criticism is now in strictness nar- rowed to the alleged impossibility of wovoyevns Beds. It will however be well for several reasoris to examine the readings on their own positive merits, without reference to the strong asser- tions of private and overpowering instinct by which criticism is sometimes superseded. We have therefore, thirdly, to consider Intrinsic Fitness. St John’s Prologue falls clearly and easily into three divisions: (a) 1. The Word in His Divine relations in eternity ante- cedently to creation. (8) 2—13. The Word in His relations to creation, and especially to man, chiefly if not altogether antecedently to the Incarnation. (y) 14—18. The Word as ees flesh, and especially as thereby making revelation. (The two digressions 6—8, 15, in which the Baptist’s office of witness is put forth in contrast, do not concern us here.) The first division ends with the simple affirmation that the Word, who was zpos tov @Oeov, was Himself @eds. -In the IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 13 second division, after the initial otros which reintroduces the second clause of verse 1, His original name is not repeated: He is presented as the universal Life, and as the Light of mankind ; coming into the world, and ignored by it; visiting His own special home, and receiving no welcome there, though in a manner accepted elsewhere: so ends the history of the old world. The third division pronounces at once the name unheard since verse 1, but now as part of the single stupendous phrase 0 Adyos cap& éyévero, and adds the visible sojourning of the Word ‘among us’, whereby disciples were enabled to behold His glory. This glory of His is further designated, by a single phrase which is a parenthesis within a parenthesis, as being “a glory as of an only-begotten from a father”. Neither the Son nor the Father, as such, has as yet been named, and they are not named here: there is but a suggestion by means of a comparison (the particle ws and the absence of articles being mutually necessary), because no image but the relation of a povoyerns to a father can express the twofold character of the glory as at once derivative and on a level with its source. Then the interrupted sentence closes in its original form with the description mAnjpns yapitos cal ddnOelas, fol- lowed, after the interposition of the Baptist’s testimony, by a notice of this fulness of grace as imparted to Christians, and its contrast with the preceding Law. Finally verse 18 ex- pounds the full height of this new revelation. Now, as truly as under the Law (Ex. xxxiii 20; Deut. ix 12), Deity as such remains invisible, although the voice which commanded has been succeeded by “the Truth” which was “beheld”. Yet a self-manifestation has come from the inmost shrine: One of whom Deity is predicable under that highest form of deriva- tive being which belongs to a jovoryerys, not one of imperfect Deity or separate and external place but He who in very truth is eis tov KOdArov To’ Tatpos,—He, the Word, inter- _ preted Deity to the world of finite beings. Part of this meaning is undeniably carried by the common reading 6 povoyerns vios; but incongruously, and at best only 14 ON THE WORDS MONOFENHC OEOC a part. Here as in v. 14 special force lies in povoyerns in contrast to the share possessed by one among many brethren ; and for this purpose vios adds nothing, if indeed it does not weaken by making that secondary which was meant to be primary, for other ‘children of God’ had just been mentioned (vv. 12,13). There would also be something strangely abrupt in the introduction of the complete phrase 6 povoryevis uids, as a term already known, which ill suits the careful progress of St John: the leap from o&s povoyevots mapa matpos would be too sudden; the absence of any indication identifying 6 vids with the Word would be dangerously obscure, while the article would mar the integrity of the Prologue by giving its crowning sentence a new subject in place of o ANoyos; and in any case a designative name would serve the argument less than a recital of attributes. This last point comes out more clearly as we follow the exquisitely exact language of the whole verse. The ruling note is struck at once in @eov, set before ovdets in emphatic violation of the simple order which St John habitu- ally uses: and further @edv has no article, and so comes vir- tually to mean ‘One who is God’, ‘God as being God’, and perhaps includes the Word, as well as the Father’. In exact correspondence with @eov in the first sentence is povo- yevns Oeds in the second. The parallelism brings out the emphasis which the necessary nominative case might other- wise disguise, and a predicative force is again won by the absence of the article. St John is not appealing to a recog- nised name, as an inserted article would have seemed to imply, but setting forth those characteristics of the Revealer, already described (v. 14) as ‘the Word’, which enabled Him to bring men into converse with ‘the Truth’ of God, though the be- holding of God was for them impossible. It needed but a single step to give the attribute wovoyevys to Him whose glory had been already called a glory as of a povoyevns from a father. It needed no fresh step at all to give Him the attribute eds, for He was the Word, and the Word: had at the outset been 1 Cf. Greg. Naz. Ep. 101 p. 87 A, Acorns yap Kad’ éaurhy ddparos. IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 15 declared to be @eds. The two elements of the phrase having thus been prepared, it remained only to bring them together, associating Deity with Him as Son (for that much is directly involved in the single term povoyevys) as expressly as it had been already associated with Him as Word; and then the com- bination is fixed and elucidated by the further description 6 @v eis TOY KOATOV TOU TaTpos*. It begins with the article, for now that One has been called povoyevys Oeds,—and in One alone can both attributions meet,—there is no longer need for gene- rality of language ; we exchange “ One that is—” for “He that is—”. In like manner now that He has been set forth as actually povoyevns as well as @eds, it has become right to speak defi- nitely of trod watpds. The connecting phrase wy els Tov KodTrov is a repetition of 6 Adyos Hv pts Tov Oeov, translated into an image appropriate to the relation of Son to Father. Thus St John is true to his office of bringing to light hidden foundations. The name ‘The Word’, in which he condenses so much of the scattered teaching of our Lord and the earlier apostles, leads gradually, as he expounds it, to the more widely current idea of Sonship, which after the Prologue he employs freely ; and yet is not lost, for é&yyjnoato suggests at once the still present middle term of v. 1 through which jpovoyevys has become linked to @eds. The three salient verses of the Prologue are 1, 14,18. These by themselves would suffice to express the absolute primary contents of St John’s ‘message’: the intervening verses are properly a statement of the ante- cedents of the Gospel, and of its meaning as illustrated by its relation to its antecedents. Verse 1 declares the Word to have been ‘in the beginning’ Oecs; verse 14 states that the Word, when He became flesh, was beheld to have a glory as of a povoyevns ; verse 18 shews how His union of both attributes enabled Him to bridge the chasm which kept the Godhead beyond the knowledge of men, Without povoyerns Oeds the end 1 Cf. Cyr. Al. adl. p. 107 B, éred) §=orarpds, wa vofrai Kal vids €& adrod yap pn Movoyera cal Oedr, rlOnow Kal ey avt@ puotkds K.T.D. evOus ‘O @yv éy tots KoATots Tod ‘ 16 ON THE WORDS MONOTENHC OEOC of the Prologue brings no clear recollection of the beginning: @eos is the luminous word which recites afresh the first verse within the last, and in its combination with povoyerns crowns and illustrates the intervening steps. It is therefore vain to urge against the phrase that it is unique in the New Testament. The whole Prologue is unique, and povoyevrs Beds seems to belong essentially to a single defi- nite step in the Prologue. No writer except St John applies povoyevys to our Lord at all, and he only in the three other closely connected places already cited. In each of them there is a distinctly perceptible reason why vuics should be intro- duced; and moreover there were obvious objections to the employment by St John of the definite title 6 povoyerns Oecs, that is, with the article. If we examine the combination dis- passionately, it is hard to see in it anything inconsistent with the theology of St John, unless the idea of an antecedent Fatherhood and Sonship within the Godhead, as distinguished from the manifested Sonship of the Incarnation, is foreign to him. This idea is nowhere enunciated by him in express words; but it is difficult to attach a meaning to 6 ov els Tov KONTrOV Tov TraTpés On any other view, and it is surely a natural deduction from the Prologue as a whole (with either reading) except on the quaint Valentinian theory that the subjects of vv. 14 and 18 are different, while it seems impossible to divine how he can have otherwise interpreted numerous sayings of our Lord which he records. The paradox is not greater than in the other startling combination 6 Acyos capE éyévero, the genuine- ness of which no one affects to question, though its force has been evaded in different directions in all ages. The sense of povoyerns is fixed by its association with vids in the other passages, especially v. 14, by the original and always dominant usage in Greek literature, and by the pre- vailing consent of the Greek Fathers. It is applied properly to an only child or offspring; and a reference to this special kind of unicity is latent in most of the few cases in which it does not lie on the surface, as of the Phoenix in yarious IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 17 authors, the povoyers ovpaves of Plato (Tim. 318) as made by the ‘Father’ of all (28¢), and the povoyeris Koopos of writers who follow him. Instances are not entirely wanting in which povoyerns is used of things that are merely alone in their kind (as if from yévos, and in its widest sense); but this rare laxity of popular speech, confined, if I mistake not, to inanimate objects, cannot be rightly accepted here, It finds indeed some support from Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat. xxx 20 p. 554) and Ammonius (on iii 16 in the catenz): but Basil’s simple rendering (adv. Hun. ii 20 p. 256 A) 6 povos yevunOeis, put forward in opposition to Eunomius’s arbitrary invention 6 mapa movov yevouwevos, (compare Athanasius’s negative defini- tion, Or. c. Ar. ii 62 p. 530.4, 6 yap Tot povoyerns ovK dyTMV Grwv adeAdav povoyevns éarw,) expresses the sense of the greater writers of different ages’, though they sometimes add éx povouv to povos. While however the idea conveyed by the verb itself in the paraphrase povos yevvnPeis belongs essen- tially to the sense, the passive form goes beyond it, as perhaps even in wnigenitus, and the narrower sense of the English verb in ‘only-begotten’ departs still further from the Greek. If 6 pi. vios were the true reading, it would on the whole be a gain to adopt ‘the only Son’ from Tyndale in iii 16, 18, and from the English Apostles’ Creed, where ‘ only’ represents the povo- yevns of this or the other like passages, as ‘only-begotten’ repre- sents it in the ‘Nicene’ Creed of the English CommunionService, But no such expedient is possible with povoyerrs Geos; and so the choice lies between some unfamiliar word, such as ‘sole- born’, and the old rendering which certainly exaggerates the peculiarity of the Greek phrase, though it may be defended by imperfect analogies from other passages of the New Testa- 1 A few out of the many somewhat later patristic illustrations of the true sense are collected, not without con- elvat Kapwov marTpikov: again ws pévos hucikas vyevynOeis: again ws povos Puctk@s yevynOels: again fusion in the appended remarks, by Petau de Trin. ii 10 10 ff.; vii 11 3 ff, Cyr.Al. Thes. 239 f. is specially clear: povoyevhs...d1a 7d pdvoy Tovrov 13 & el 5& yundels mubmore povoyevés TO ovo épyov KéxAnke, mas 6 vids ws yevome- vos G\N ovx ws yevynGeis povoyeriys vonOnoer ac; 2 18 ON THE WORDS MONOFENHC OEOC ment. A change of a different kind however seems absolutely required, either the insertion of ‘One who is’, or the resolved rendering ‘An Only-begotten who is God, even He who &c.’: without some such arrangement the predicative force of povo- ryevns Geos is lost, and the indispensable omission of the English article becomes perilous. But these matters of translation do not affect, though they illustrate, the primary question as to St John’s own Greek text. I have, I trust, now given sufficient reasons for con- cluding not only that povoyerrs Oeds presents no such over- whelming difficulty as to forbid its acceptance notwithstanding the weight of evidence in its favour, but that the whole Prologue leads up to it, and, to say the least, suffers in unity if it is taken away. All these considerations are entirely independent of the truth of any theological doctrines which have been deduced, or may be deduced, from St John’s text. When it is urged that certain words are incongruous with the context and with St John’s teaching generally, it becomes legitimate and perhaps necessary to discuss their genuineness on grounds of sense; and not the less legitimate where, as in this case, the sense is manifestly theological, the criterion for the present purpose being not doctrinal truth but doctrinal congruity. Since however it is matter of fact that a fear of theological con- sequences is acting in restraint of dispassionate judgement, and that in opposite quarters, I feel justified in appending to the critical discussion a few remarks on the treatment of povoyerns Oecs in ancient times, which may at least sug- gest some diffidence in relying on the infallibility of modern instincts. The list already given of Fathers who read [6] wovoyev7s Beds in their text of John i 18 takes no account of the much more widely diffused use of the phrase [6] wovoyevns Oeds without a biblical context. Professor Ezra Abbot justly points out that IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION Vi the phrase in itself affords no sufficient evidence as to the reading of St John followed by those who employ it, since it is a favourite with one or two who undeniably read 6 povoyevns vids when they quote the Gospel’. Yet it is equally true that this widely spread usage bears an indirect testimony which may be fitly noticed here, partly by its mere existence, partly by its probable connexion with public formularies. Origen’s voluminous remains contain the detached phrase fovoyerns Geos eight or ten times, usually softened by the addition of Noyos or in some other way. It lurks in one place in the Antioch Epistle against Paul of Samosata (ov ov« ddXov meTeiopcOa 1) Tov povoyerh vioy Tod Geod Oeov, p. 292), and ought, I suspect, to be restored to another (todtov dé Tov vier, yevyntov povoyevrn tuiov+t, eixova Tov dopatou Oeod TvYyxa- VOVTG,...1p0 Aiwvev dvTA ov TpoyvecEt GAN ovcig Kali UToTTACE, Qedy Oeod vidv, p. 290), where the second viov cannot be sus- tained by any punctuation, but must either be omitted or, with better reason, exchanged for Qeov. With these exceptions it is, I believe, absent from the extant Ante-nicene literature, notwithstanding the diffusion of the corresponding biblical text. The absence of this reading from good secondary MSS. and from almost all the later versions shews how rapidly it was superseded in the fourth and fifth centuries; yet we encounter the phrase itself on all sides in this period, and certainly not least abundantly in the latter part of the fourth century. Without attempting an exhaustive list, it may be useful to set down the following names and references, partly taken from Wetstein and other critics, partly from my own notes. Atha- nasius (c. Gent. 41 p. 40, 6d Kai 6 TovToV Aoyos GN Kat ov auvOetos, GAN eis Kal povoyevns Peds, 6 Kab Ex TaTpos ola mHYNS ayabijs dyabcs mpoedOov ; c. Apoll. ii 5 p. 944 A, odyt avOparrov mpos Tov Oedov dvTos, Ws vwels cuKopavTodyTes éyeTE, Stacv- povtes TO Tov Xpictiavay pvotnplov, GAA Oeod Tov povoyevoids 1 The few Greek writers coming or otherwise doubtful, cannot properly under this description, all of whose be taken into account, quotations with vics are either solitary 2—2 20 ON THE WORDS MONOFENHC OEOC [iie. One who is God, even 6 povoyern)s Peds] evdoxnoavtos TO TrAnpopate THS OeoTnTos avToU Tv Tod apyeTiToU TAdCW av- Opwrov Kal Troinow Kawihy éx pntpas Tapbévov avactncacbat éavT@ duoikh yevvnces kal adv’T@ évocer); Arius (ap. Ath. de Syn. 15 p. 728 E, Aowrdv 6 vids...wovoyerns Geos éort; Epiph. Haer. 732 A, 6 vids...0eknpate cal Bovdh tréoTn po xpovev Kat ™po aiwvev mAnpns Oeds povoyevys avaddoiwTos’); Alexander the bishop of Alexandria with whom Arius eame into conflict (Ll. c. p. 734 Noess. 7 Tod povoyevods Oeod avexdunyntos vTocta- ots); Marcellus (ap. Eus. c. Marc. i 4 p. 19 c*); Asterius (ap. Ath. Or. c:'Ar. 1 37 p. 505 ¢ [v. L];. de Syn. 18 p. 732 B)% Theodorus of Heraclea (on Isaiah in Mai, VY. P. B. vi 226); Eusebius [of Emesa, by Thilo’s identification ] (de fide &c. [ Latine] in Sirmondi Opp.i 3B, 16D, 22 4); Rufinus of Palestine (Latine in Sirmondi Opp. i 274 ff. ce. 39, 52, 53, and with Verbum often) ; the Synod of Ancyra (ap. Epiph. Haer. 854 c); Epiphanius (Haer, 755 C, 817 c, 857 A, 912 A, 981 A); Cyril of Jerusalem (xi 3, Aco Ocod povoyevel); Eunomius (Apolog. 15, 21, 26; Kapos. Fidei 2 bis); Basil (Zp. xxxviii 4 p.117c; de Sp. 8.19 p.16c; 45 p. 888; ¢. Eun.iil p. 2380; also 6 pw. vids Kat Oeds, i 15 p. 228; 26 p. 237 B); the Apostolic Constitutions (1 17; v 20§ 5; vil 38 § 3; 43 §1; viii 7§ 1, 35); the interpolator of the Igna- tian Epistles (ad Philad. 6); Gregory of Nazianzus (Hp. 202 p. 168); Gregory of Nyssa repeatedly and in various writings (Professor Abbot counts 125 examples im the treatise against 1 It has been urged that mAypys in- pa To dytov’ Kal gnow éx Tov validates the reference. On the con- trary the sense is that before ypévwv and aldjvwy the Son attained that full height, subject to no change, which is expressed by povoyerijs eds. 2 Marcellus seems to be quoting a Creed, but in such a manner as to make its language his own. Téypade ydp, says Eusebius (ce. Mare. 19 c) mirTevew els marépa Oedv mravTo- Kparopa, kat els roy vidvy avrov TOV movoyeryn Oeov, kal els TO mvet- Ocluv ypapav peuabnkévar todrov tov Tis OeoceBelas tporov. Quite differ- ent in form is the Creed presented by him to Julius of Rome (Epiph. Haer. 836), the suspiciously Western cha- racter of which is well known. In the epistle to Julius (835 p) he uses the phrase efs Oeds kal 6 TovTov povoyevhs vids Novos, where the added édyos pro- bably implies @eds, itself excluded by TOUTOU, IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 21 Eunomius alone); Didymus (de Trin. i 25 p..68 Ming.; 1 26 p. 72; with xat vids,i 18 p. 53; 26 p. 76; with vidos «av inter- posed, i 16 p. 40; with Adyos, i 26 p. 75); the ‘Macedonian’ interlocutor in an anonymous Dialogue on the Trinity (Ath. Opp. ii 509 B"); Isaac ‘ex Judaeo’ (Sirmondi Opp. i 406 ABC) ; Cyril of Alexandria repeatedly; Andrew of Samosata (ap. Cyr. Al. Ap. adv. Or. p. 290 Pusey [ix 333 Migne]); Theodoret (Repr. xii Capp. Cyr. 12 with rAdyos”; ¢. Nest. iv 1047 Schulze); Theodotus of Ancyra, once with Adyos, once without® (post Cyr. Al. x 1336 f. Migne); Basil of Seleucia (Hom. i p. 5 4; cf. xxv p. 139 pd); Isidore of Pelusium (Hp. iii 95); even John of Damascus in compound phrases*, perhaps following the Heno- ticon of Zeno (see p. 24 n. 1); Hilary in peculiar abundance in different writings (a single typical instance will illustrate his use: “Deus a Deo, ab uno ingenito Deo unus unigenitus Deus, non dii duo sed unus ab uno,” de Trin. 11 11); the fragments of a Latin Arian commentary on St Luke (in Mai S. V. N. C. iii 2 191, 199) and of Latin Arian sermons (ib. 217: cf. per filium unigenitum Deum in the Arian Primus capitulus fider catholicae, ib. 233); the Latin Opus Imperfectum on St Mat- thew a few times (e.g. i 20 bis, 25) &e. The chief apparent exceptions are the later Antiochian school of Greek writers, and Ambrose and his disciple Augustine among Latin writers. Yet the subsequent theologians of North Africa by no means eschew the phrase, and it is of frequent occurrence in the 1 The ‘ Orthodox’ interlocutor nei- doubtful whether he assumed the ther objects to the term nor uses it himself. 2 So in Pusey’s text of Cyril (Apol. adv. Theodoret. p. 492) with (appa- rently all) the Greek MSS. and the Syriac and Latin versions. Prior edi- tions (as Schulze of Theodoret v 66 and Migne of Cyril ix 449 c) substitute tod Oeov for Geos, apparently without authority. 3 In his Exposition of the Nicene Creed. But the context leaves it combination to be already in the Creed, or only took its elements from the Creed, 4'O povoyeviys vids Kal Novos TOO Oeov kal Oeos (De fid. orth, i 2 p. 792 ¢ Migne; iii 1 p. 984 4); 6 uw. vids Tov Geod kal eds (iii 12 p. 1029 B); ou. vios kal Oeds (i 2 p. 793 B). In the third passage #eos might be independ- ent of uovoyerns; not so, I think the context shews, in the others, 22 ON THE WORDS MONOFENHC OEOC writings of Fulgentius in particular. Even in the days of Alcuin and Theodulphus it is not extinct. In the later times the tradition doubtless passed directly from writer to writer: but this explanation will hardly account for the wide and various acceptance found by povoyerns eds in the fourth century, combined with the almost complete absence of attempts to argue from it by any of the contending parties. This remarkable currency arose, I cannot but suspect, from its adoption into Creeds. We look for it of course in vain in Latin Creeds', for Latin Christendom from the earliest times known to us did not possess the fundamental reading in the Gospel: Hilary must have learned it, as he learned much else, from his Greek masters. Among the very few Greek Creeds belonging clearly to the second or third century of which we have any knowledge, we can identify povoyevns Geos only in that of Antioch, incorporated with the remarkable ex- position of Lucianus (Sozom. H. #. 1115 9; vi 12 4), who suffered martyrdom about 311. Here we read xai els €va xiptov ‘Inoody Xpsorcy, Tov vidv avtod Tov povoyern Oedv, de’ ob} Ta TavTa, TOV yevrnbévta mpd TaV aidvwv é€x Tod Tatpds Hedy ex Oeov, ddov é& Odov «.7.r. (Graece ap. Ath. de Syn. 23 p. 736 4; Socr. H. £. 11 10; Latine ap. Hil. de Syn. 28 p. 478c: cf. Bull Def. Fid. Nic. ii 13 4-7). The word @eov after povoyervy was perhaps not in the earliest forms of this Creed (see pp. 24, 26): but there is no reason to doubt that it stood there in the time of Lucianus, of whose amplifications there is no sign till further on. In the passage of Marcellus of Ancyra referred to by Kusebius (about 336), in which he apparently follows some Creed (see p. 20), we have already found the identical An- tiochian phrase tov vidv avTod Tov povoyevn Oedv. The expo- sition of Lucianus was one of the four formularies brought forward at Antioch in 341: another, perhaps a modification of the local Creed of Tyana, the see of Theophronius who recited 1 One elaborate private formulary, (Hieron. Opp. xi 202 Vall.), has long attributed to Jerome or Au- verum Deum unigenitum et verum Dei gustine, the Confession of Pelagius filium. IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 23 it, has in like manner, kai eis tov vidv avrov Tov povoyevn Oedv Aoyor, Siva Kal codiar, Tov KUpLov nudv Inoody Xpicrov, dv ov Ta TavtTa, Tov yevyvnbévta éx Tod TaTpos TPO TaV aiwvwv Oedv Térevov €x Oeov TedeElov, Kal OvyTa pds Tov Oedv ev WrocTacEL «.T.r. (ap. Ath. de Syn. 24 p. 7378). Once more the formulary of the Synod of Seleucia in Isauria held in 359 declares, muorev- owev O€ Kab eis Tov KUpLov Hav 'Inoodv Xpiorcv Tov viov avTod, Tov €€ avTov yevynOévta atabas Tpo TavTw@Y TeV aidvev, Oedv Novyor, Gedy ex Geod povoyevyn, Has, Cwrv, adnOevav, codpiav, Svvapw, ov ov Ta TavTa éyéveto x.7.r. (ap. Ath. de Syn. 29 p. 746; Epiph. Haer. 873 B,c; Socr. 7. £. ii 40). The influence of the two latter documents would probably be limited and temporary: but the details of their language, so far as it was not shaped by current controversy, must have been inherited directly or indirectly from formularies now lost, matured before the out- break of the Arian disputes. Nay the original Nicene Creed itself appears to embody the phrase, though in a form which admits of being interpreted either as a deliberate retention or as a hesitating and imperfect obliteration of an earlier state- ment of doctrine (see Note D). Indeed it occurs once without any ambiguity, as a friend points out, in what purports to be a copy of the Nicene Creed included in a memorial from Eusta- thius of Sebastia and other representatives of the Asiatic Ho- mceousians proffering their communion to Liberius of Rome, and expressly accepted by him as the Nicene Creed, shortly before his death in 366. This copy differs in nothing but two or three trivial particles from the usual ancient form except in the words kal eis Eva povoyern Oedv Kiptov "Inoobv Xpiorov, Tov viov Tod Geod, and the omission of povoyervn from its accustomed _ place in the next clause (ap. Socr. H. H. iv12). In the familiar Creed usually regarded as the Constantinopolitan recension of the Nicene Creed povoyerjs Geos was undoubtedly wanting, for reasons explained in Dissertation II. But finally in 451 it stands included, though with the old Alexandrine addi- tion Adyor, in the carefully chosen last words of the Definition of Chalcedon: ov« eis S00 mpdcwrra pepiCipusvov 1 Svarpovpevor, 24 ON THE WORDS MONOTENHC OEOC GX’ eva Kal Tov avTov, viov Kal povoyevn Gedy oyov, KUpLOV "Inooty Xpiorov (“sed unum eundemque Filium et unigenitum Deum Verbum Dominum Jesum Christum,” in Mansi’s primary old version), kaOamep avebev of mpodfitas Twept avtod Kat avTos nas 0 Kvpios "Inaots Xpiotos é£emaidevae, Kal TO THY TAaTépwv nuOY Tapadédwxe cUuBorov. It is true that Evagrius (H. #. 1 4), Agatho (in Mansi Cone. xi 256), and the third Council of Constantinople in 680 omit xai so as to bring viov and povo- yevn into combination, as also most Latin versions omit et, some further making transpositions: but the reading of the best authorities is sustained not only by its less obvious cha- racter but by the unquestionable separation of vioy from povo- ryevn a few lines above, in the sentence mpd al@vwv pév éx TOU TaTtpos yevynbevta kata Thy OcoTnTta, er éoydtov Se TOY LEpav Tov avTov oe nuds Kal dia THY NueTépav cwTypiavy é€x Mapias THs TapOévov THs OcoTdKov KaTa THY avOpwroTyTa, Eva Kab TOV avtov Xpiorov, vidv, KUpLov, ovoryevin’. At this point a possible suspicion requires notice, whether povoyevns Geos may not owe its origin to Creeds, and have passed from them into the text of St John. The authority of a Creed might doubtless succeed in importing a difficult and peculiar reading, the intreduction of which in any other way would be inconceivable. But the facts already stated are as fatal to this as to all other suggested explanations of a change from 6 povoyerns vids to povoyevys Oeos; and the evidence of Creeds does but corroborate the other evidence. I do not press the late date, the close of the third century at Antioch, at which we first find povoyevns Geos actually standing in a Creed. The Creed of Antioch in that form might be of earlier date: and the same may be said of any Creeds which may have supplied ma- terials at Niczea in 325, at Antioch to Theophronius in 341, and at Seleucia in 359, though these might also belong in their corre- sponding form to Lucianus’s or even to the next generation. But 1 The Henoticon of the emperor oyoduev dé tov povoyern Tov Geou Zeno, promulgated in 482, begins its vidv xal Oedv, Tov x.7.d. (Evagr. H. E. final confession with the words ‘Oyo- iii 14). IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 25 conjectures of this kind will not avail unless we are prepared to go so far as to say that povoyerns Peds stood in several distant Creeds towards the close of the second century, or that it stood in some one leading Creed near the beginning of the second century, for nothing less would account for its presence in such various biblical texts. Ptolemzeus (see p. 30) speaks either from Italy for himself-in the third quarter or at most a few years later, or from Alexandria or Rome for his master Valentinus in the second quarter of the century; Irenzeus from Asia Minor or (less probably) Gaul; Clement and the Memphitic version from Alexandria; Origen a little later from Alexandria and probably also Palestine. It would not be easy to trace these scattered texts to Alexandria, the only imaginable single centre, at that early period: but if it were, we should find ourselves still confronted by two weighty facts. First, there is not a trace of theological activity at Alexandria, except that of the ‘Gnostic’ chiefs, till the Catechetical School of the Church (Athenagoras, Pantzenus, Clement) arose in the last third of the century, which is too late for our purpose: if such existed, some record of it must have been preserved by Eusebius, who had a special interest in Alexandria, and has given us a tolerable roll of contemporary writers from other parts of the East. Secondly, little as we know of the Creed of Alexandria, it happens that that little suffices to shew that it did not contain povoyer7ns Oeés. There is no trace of the words in the rule of faith expounded in Origen’s early work De Princi- pus (Preface to Book 1§ 3f.), though in various places where he speaks in his own name (as in 1 2; u1 6) there are suspicious signs that the translator Rufinus had them before him. But even in the days of Arius povoyerns eds is clearly absent from the Alexandrian Creed as recited by Alexander, notwithstand- ing his own use of the term; for the evidently ancient words run Kal eis éva Kipiov “Incody Xpiorov, tov vidv Tod Beod Tov povoyern, yevvnbévta x.7.r. Thus all external evidence fails to sustain a derivation from Creeds in the second century: if we are to consider intrinsic probabilities, it must be repeated that the invention of the phrase in the first half (and more) of the 26 ON THE WORDS MONOFENHC OEOC century is at variance with all that we know of any of its theologies: and as for the Creeds of the Church, that in those early days of elementary simplicity they should admit such a combination without direct Scriptural warrant would contradict all that we know of their manner of growth. Whether it could have been so admitted in the third century, with the theology of which it easily associates itself, is highly questionable; but that is not the period with which we have to deal. Yet even in the third century, as has been shown, the usage is cautious and tentative, by no means such as we should expect with words freely pronounced in Creeds. Origen quotes the verse almost half as often as he employs the phrase, and in a majority of cases he adds to the phrase some tempering word. At Antioch, where alone else it appears, it is conceivable that the Creed had an influence, though hardly if unsupported by Greek MSS., in changing the reading of the Syriac version; but the converse is equally possible. It is only in the fourth century that the phrase pervades the greater part of the extant litera- ture: and the cause surely is that, though povoyerns Beds as a reading was being swept out of biblical MSS. by the same acci- dental agencies of transcription which removed hosts of Ante- nicene readings of no doctrinal moment, as a formula it - had at last established itself in widely known Creeds. We cannot look to Creeds as the sources of the reading without inverting history. The one historical demerit then, if demerit it be, which attaches to the combination povoyerns Peds is that each of the great parties in the fundamental and necessary controversies which began in the days of Constantine was willing to pro- nounce it, and that it has never itself become a watchword of strife. It was not avoided by Arius or his successor in the next generation, Eunomius, though neither of them inserted it in his own shorter Creed (see the letter of Arius and Euzoius to Constantine, in Socr. H. #.i 26; Sozom. H. £. ii 27, without even povoyevns; and the Confession in Kunomius’s A pologeticus, c. 5, Kat eis Eva povoyerh viov tod Oeod, Pedy Aéyov), by the IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 27 Latin Arian commentator on St Luke, or by the author of the Opus Imperfectum, usually classed as an Arian. It appears sporadically in various quarters in the intermediate movement, commonly called Semi-Arianism, which, however inconsequent in thought, retained much of the letter of Antenicene language; while on the other hand it was not used spontaneously by Eusebius, who habitually followed his MS. or MSS. in reading vids in St John. It is uttered but sparingly and guardedly by Athanasius, once in youth and once in old age, probably for a similar reason’; for he seems hardly likely to have shrunk from it on grounds of doctrine or feeling, when we remember that he speaks of tyv tov Geod yévvnow (Or.c. Ar. 128 p. 432 C) and that the phrase in which he most loves to clothe his character- istic teaching is ldvov THs ToD maTpos ovclas yévvnua. Once more we find povoyevns Oecs in Marcellus, the blind violence of whose antagonism to Arius conducted him to a position of his own. Hilary, the wisest as well as the most successful cham- pion of the cause of Athanasius in the West, employs it with startling freedom, evidently as the natural expression of his own inmost thought. Among the greatest of the theologians who continued and developed the same line of tradition in the East are confessedly Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus, and Cyril of Alexandria; and to none of these, widely as they differ from each other, is povoyerijs Oeos strange, while with two of them its use is habitual. Finally, with an accompaniment which guards but does not neutralise it, it obtains a place in the definition of the last of the ‘four’ primary Councils. This great variety of belief among those who have received foovoyevns Geos into their theological vocabulary suggests at once that its utility is not that of a weapon of offence or de- fence. Experience has shown that it is possible to affix a con- 1 Sometimes (as de Decr. 16.2218; passage of Origen quoted by him de Or. c. Ar. 47 p.515 £; Ep.ad Afr. Decr. 27 p. 233 c, and is not rare else- 5 p. 895 a,c) he hasthederivativeform where. [6] ovoyer7s Novos, which occurs in a 28 ON THE WORDS MONOTENHC OEOC siderable range of meaning to words which simply express either Deity or Sonship, and even, as here, to a combination of the two predicates in the same subject. But itis rarely by the literal and apparent cogency of single texts that deliberate convictions have ever been formed: power in producing belief is not to be measured by convenience in argument. Under- standing as I do both terms in the highest sense, and holding that the doctrine of perfect and eternal Sonship within the Godhead, for which Origen and Athanasius contended, and which the Nicene and ‘Constantinopolitan’ Creeds explicitly set forth, is fundamental truth, I cannot affect to regret that a reading of St John’s words which suggests it, though it does not prove it, is established as genuine by a concurrence of evidence which I could not disregard without renouncing criti- cal honesty. Perhaps the words may prove in due time in- structive, thus much may be said without presumption, both to us who receive the doctrine and to those who as yet stumble at it. It does not however follow that good results would now arise from a resuscitation of the ancient formula detached from the context of the Gospel. To employ it with the article prefixed would open the way to serious evil; while without the article it requires arrangements of diction which could seldom be contrived in common usage, and which incautious writers would be perpetually tempted to discard. The danger of the article is somewhat less in Greek than in English: nevertheless it must have been a dread of possible misuse that induced the Greek theologians so often to temper the article, as it were, by adding afterwards Aoyos, vids, or some other term which fixed the denotation of eds without lowering its sense or suggesting ‘ division’. Yet these considerations can have no place in determining the text of St John. Taught by himself to “believe on the name of the Only-begotten Son of God”, we do well to adhere to the name thus entrusted to us: but we need not shrink IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 29 from accepting and trying to interpret his other language in the single instance when he is led—not to put forward another name but—to join two attributes in unwonted union, that he may for a moment open a glimpse into the Divine depths out of which his historical Gospel proceeds. 30 ON THE WORDS MONOFENHC OEOC Note A The details of early Greek Patristic Evidence The earliest known Greek reference to John i 18 occurs in two independent accounts of Valentinian doctrine, furnished by Irenzeus and Clement respectively’, The Valentinianism sketched by Irenzeus in his first book is commonly recognised to be that of Ptolemzeus, who apparently belongs to the genera- tion succeeding the middle of the second century. He cannot at all events be later than the episcopate of Eleutherus, about 175—190, under which Irenzeus wrote (p. 176 Mass.). “ They further teach”, Irenzeus says (p. 40), “that the First Ogdoad was indicated (uweunvuxévar) by John the Lord’s disciple, these being their words: ‘John, the Lord’s disciple’, intending to give an account of the genesis of the universe whereby the Father put forth (zpoéBanev) all things’, supposes a certain ’"Apyy, the first thing gendered by God (To rp@rov yevynbev vd Tod Oeod), which he has also® called (xéxAnxev) Son and povoyevns Beds, in 1 The recent criticisms of Heinrici (Die Valentinianische Gnosis und die heilige Schrift) and Lipsius (Protes- tantische Kirchenzeitung of Feb, 22 1873, pp. 182 ff.: cf. Quellen d. dlte- sten Ketzergeschichte 90) have not thrown so much light on the mutual relations of these two accounts as might have been hoped for from such otherwise instructive investigations. It seems clear that neither Clement drew from Irenzus nor Ireneus from Clement, nor both from a common immediate source. More than this it would be rash to assert at present. 2 The text followed up to this point is that of the Greek extract preserved in Epiphanius (p. 196 Pet.), which shews no sign of amplification here. The old Latin version has omitted some words, including those which mark the quotation as verbal; while at the end of the quotation it addg “Ht Ptolemaeus quidem ita,” omitted by Epiphanius. But both texts imply a Valentinian appeal to ‘‘John the Lord’s disciple’’ for what follows. 3 There is no reason to change quod etiam nune (al. q. e. me) of the MSS. to quod etiam Nun with Erasmus, IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 3 whom (or which) the Father seminally put forth all things’.” The Valentinian writer proceeds to treat St John’s Prologue, clause by clause, as a commentary on his theory that Adyos was derived from ’Apy7, and ’Apyn from eds, all three being never- theless intimately united; and endeavours to extract the per- sonayes of his Ogdoad from St John’s terms. From i 14 he obtains the first Tetrad, Pater and Charis, Monogenes and Aletheia; and there he stops, the second Tetrad having been already found in i 1—4, so that 118 is not quoted in so much of the passage as Irenzus transcribes. But the simple term Monogenes, required as a masculine synonym of Arche to make a syzygy with Aletheia, is distinctly taken from i 14; so that when the writer parenthetically attributes to St John two other designations of Arche, Son and povoyevyjs Oeds, neither of which is convenient for his present purpose, he cannot mean only that they are fair deductions from language used in 1 1—14, but must have in view some literal use by St John elsewhere; that is doubtless 118; 111.16, 18. The same result presents itself at once in the Valentinian statements of doctrine, partly copied, partly reported by Cle- ment of Alexandria in the Excerpta found at the end of the Florence MS. of the Stromates, and now reasonably supposed to belong to his lost Hypotyposes (Bunsen, Anal. Antenic. i 159 ff). “The Valentinians”, he says, (p. 968 Pott.; p. 210 Buns.) “thus interpret” Jo.i1: “they say that Arche is the Monogenes, who is likewise called (mpocayopevec@ar) Oeds, as also in what follows he [John] expressly signifies Him to be whose conjecture is adopted by later Epiphanius 6 6} kal vidv cal wovoyer§ editors. Quod etiamnunc (or etiamnum) Gedv xéx\nxev; the common text invert- is a natural rendering of 6 6) kal: and ing xaf and wovoyery. The true order though Nofs occurs in Clement’s pa- is retained in the Latin, ‘‘et Filium rallel exposition, and has been noticed et Unigenitum Deum”, thoughin some already by Ireneus (p. 5), it could of the inferior MSS. and in the edi- have no place among the terms enu- tions Domini (Dni) has been substi- merated as taken from St John, and — tuted for Dewm (Dm), as read by others, it is absent from the context which including the Clermont and Arundel follows. MSS., the two best, and representa- 1 So in the Venice MS, (the best) of _ tives of different families, 32 ON THE WORDS MONOFENHC OEOC Gecs (ws Kat év tots éEjs avtixpus Oedoy avtov Sndot), saying & povoyerns Oeds O wv eis TOY KOMTOV TOD TaTpds éxeivos e&n- ynoato.” The word ‘expressly’ was doubtless used because the writer considered the Deity of Arche, though not explicitly stated by St John, to be obviously included in the attribution of Deity to Logos (@eds jv 6 Adyos), since Logos was derived from Oeds not directly but through Arche’: but this preliminary inference only throws into clearer relief the coupling of the Monogenes with @eos by the Evangelist himself ini 187, When then in what follows reference is made to the Father’s ‘ putting forth’ of the Monogenes, who is further identified with the Son (rov7T’ éotiv 6 vids, OTs Sv viod 6 matHp éyveaOn), we have at once in the combined designations a sufficient explanation of the appearance of vids in a succeeding allusion to 118 (Kai 6 wey peas povoyerns vids eis Tov KOATOV TOD TaTpos THY evOvpnow diva THs yvooews €Enyettat Tols aidaw, ws av vd Tov KONTTOUV avToU mpoBAnOeis), Without supposing vids to have stood here in the writer's text of St John. The Hypotyposes were probably written in the early years of the third century, certainly not later®. If all the Valentinian Excerpts belong to the ‘Eastern School’ mentioned in the obscure title (cf. Hippol. Haer. vi 35), the coincidence with the Valentinianism in Ire- nus would bring the evidence as to St John’s reading far back, perhaps to the second quarter of the second century; for Ptolemzeus is named by Hippolytus (1.c.) as belonging to the 1 So the writer in Irenzus (p. 41). *Ey yap TS marpl Kal éx Tov mwarpods 7 apxn, ev 6 TH apxy Kal éx THs dpxis 6 Adyos. Kadds ofy elrey Ev apy Fv 6 Abyos, Hv yap & TH vid: kal ‘O Nbyos jv mpos Tov Gedy, kal yap 7) dpxy Kal Beds qv 6 Abyos aKorovOws, Td yap ex Beod yevynbév Bebs eat. otros qv év apxt wpos rov Oedv, eke ri ris mpoBorjs Taéw. * The next sentence appears to con- tain a retrospective argument justify- ing the ascription of Deity to the Logos, as in i, 1, by the subsequent ascription of Deity to the Monogenes (=Arche=Nojs), as in i. 18, which would imply the presence of eds in each verse. But in other respects the language is obscure, and probably cor- rupt. 3 Without referring to the Hypoty- poses, which must be a late work, Heinrici (l.c. 12 f.) places the Ex- cerpts and the cognate Eclogae Pro- pheticae in Clement’s youth, about 170—180, His argument is not con- vincing. IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 33 other or ‘Italian’ School, and thus the coincidence would have to be traced to Valentinus as the common source of both schools. But this assumption cannot be trusted, and we must be content to take Clement’s author as probably belonging to the same period as Ptolemzus. Trenzxus himself thrice quotes i18, “Deus qui fecit terram... hic et benedictionem escae...per Filium suum donat humano generi, incomprehensibilis per comprehensibilem et invisibilis per visibilem, cum extra eum non sit sed in sinu Patris exsistat. Deum enim, inquit, nemo vidit unquam nisi unigenitus Filius Dei qui est in sinu Patris, ipse enarravit. Patrem enim invisi- bilem existentem ille quia in sinu ejus est Filius omnibus enarrat” (p. 189). “Deus...qualis et quantus est, invisibilis et inenarrabilis est omnibus quae ab eo facta sunt, incognitus autem nequaquam, omnia enim per Verbum ejus discunt,... quemadmodum in evangelio scriptum est, Dewm nemo vidit unquam nist unigenitus Filius qui est in sinu Patris, ipse enar- ravit. Enarrat ergo ab initio Filius Patris, quippe qui ab initio est cum Patre, &c.” (p. 255). “ Manifestum est quoniam Pater quidem invisibilis, de quo et Dominus dixit, Dewm nemo vidit unquam. Verbum autem ejus...claritatem monstrabat Patris... quemadmodum et Dominus dixit, Unigenitus Deus qui est in sinu Patris, ipse enarravit” (p. 256). The Greek original being lost, the text may be due either to Irenzeus or to his translator, who frequently transcribes an Old Latin version of the New Testament when he comes to a quotation, even in cases where the extant Greek shews that Irenzus had other readings. Now the two former quotations coincide exactly (waiving Dez’) with most Old Latin authorities’, even to the insertion of the characteristic nisi; the Deus of the third quotation is unknown to Latin texts of St John, and therefore doubtless represents the Greek. The only question that can reasonably arise is 1 Ttself found in q. . was known to Tertullian through the ? Not it is true the oldest. But this translation. There is no real evidence, is of no consequence except on Mass- as Dodwell has shown, for an earlier uet’s groundless theory that Irenwus date than the fourth century. i. : 3 34 ON THE WORDS MONOTENHC OEOC whether Irenzeus followed different texts in different places, or Filius was introduced by the translator. But the close prox- imity of the two latter quotations is unfavourable to the suppo- sition of a variation in the original Greek, and the addition of Dei after Filius in the first passage savours of a corrective combination of a Latin Filius with a Greek @eds*. In neither case is the context available as evidence ; for though it contains references to sonship, they are such as might easily be founded on the single word povoyerys. Irenzus therefore read povo- revs Oeds at least once, and there is no solid evidence that he ever read otherwise. Hippolytus the disciple of Irenzeus, in the fragment against Noetus now generally recognised to be the close of a larger work, which is almost certainly the lost early Syntagma against Heresies’, has the following sentence : “Opdy 8é tov Oedv ovd eis ei pun) ovos 6 Tals Kat TédeLos avOpwTros Kal pdvos Sinynoapevos tiv Povds)y ToD maTpos’ eyes yap Kal "Iwavyns Oecv ovdeis Edpaxev TOTOTE, MovoyENns Vics 6 dy els TOV KCATOY TOD TaTpOS It is to be regretted that the text depends on Fabricius’s editing of a modern copy of a single Vatican MS.; and the context is neutral. There is how- ever no sufficient reason for doubting that Hippolytus read vids, but without the preliminary article. The Syntagma must have been written in the last decade of the second century*: a’tos Sinyjoato (c. 5 p. 47 Lag.). the later Hippolytean remains are barren of evidence. Clement himself quotes the whole verse once only (Strom. v p- 695), and then reads 6 povoyerrjs Geos. He adds that St John gives the name xodzos Oecd to 70 départov Kat dppytov, and this remark explains the combination of tov Kooy Tod matpcs with 1 Compare the similar case of Ori- gen, pp. 35f., 38. 2 See especially Lipsius Zur Quellen- kritik d. Epiphanios, 37 ff.; Die Quel- len d. alt. Ketzergesch. 128 ff. 3 So Lipsius, Q. Ep. 33—43, and much better Q. Ketz. 137 ff. Har- nack (Zeitschrift f. d. hist. Theol. 1874 191 ff.) places it in the following decade: but, after Volkmar, he refers the fragment against Noetus to a supposed treatise against all Monarchi- ans, for which, if I understand him rightly (p. 183), he accepts the date assigned by Lipsius to the Syntagma. IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 35 - €Enynoarto’ in a sentence in his tract De divite salvando (p. 956), Ged Ta THS aydrns pvoTnpia, Kal TOTE eroTTEvoELS TOV KOATTOV TOU TaTpos, Ov 6 movoryerns vids Beds pdvos eEnynoato' éatt Sé kai avtos 6 Beds ayarn Kal S0 ayarnv rpiv avexpabn Kal 76 fev appntov avtod tratnp x.7.X. Here vids and eds stand side by side, and it may be that the two readings are combined: but it is more likely that vids was inserted simply to soften the peculiar combination 6 povoyerns Oecs; just as elsewhere Clement (Hac. Theod. p. 969), in eontroyerting the Valentinian inter- pretation already cited, inserts Xoyos, perhaps from the familiar Alexandrine form eds Adyos founded on John i 1: els 8é Tov é€v TavToTyTL NOyou Oeoy ev Oe Hapév, Os Kal els Tov KONTTOV Tov TaTpos elvat NEyETAL, AdiaoTATOS, auéplaToS, els Beds’ TavTa dv avtod éyévero Kata THv Tpoceyy évépyeay Tod év TavTCTHTL Noyou...otTos Tov KOATOV TOU TraTpos eEnyroaTo, 6 cwTnp. And the process is carried a step further in an allusion which drops Geos but retains Aoyos (Paed. 1 p. 102): was yap ov dureirat 8c’ Ov 6 povoyerns €x -KéXTTwWY TaTpos KaTaTéuTEeTaL ACYOS THS miatews; It will be observed that there is no trace of vids except in the passage from the tract De divite, where the sub- ject, ayamn, would have rendered the introduction ef Adyos inappropriate. Origen’s extant quotations of the verse are confined to his commentary on St John’s Gospel and his treatise against Celsus. Commenting on John 1 7, he transcribes the whole passage 15—18 (iv 89 Ru.), reading 6 povoyevns Geos. Unfortunately we do not possess his exposition of the passage itself, his third, fourth, and fifth tomes being lost. The sixth tome begins, after the preface, with i 19, treating the ‘witness of John’ as a second witness of his, that? is, of the Baptist, and arguing against Heracleon who had attributed v. 18 (though strangely not 16,17) to the Evangelist. He thus sets up a former witness of John, as apEapévns ard tod ObTos Hv Ov eitrov ‘O dricw fhou €pxomevos, Kab Anyovons eis TOO provoryeris vids TOD 1 The same combination occurs, as we shall see (pp. 43 f.), in early Latin authorities, o—2 36 ON THE WORDS MONOFENHC OEOC Geod (or vids Peds) 6 My Eis TOV KOATIOV TOD TaTpOsS eKELVOS é€Enynoato (iv 102). The variation of reading is here signi- ficant. The Benedictine text adopts vids tod Oeod from the Bodleian MS.’, while Huet reads vids Qeés? with the Paris MS. It is hard to believe that in a verbal citation of this kind Origen would have inserted the superfluous tod @eov, and vids Tov Geovd is quite like a scribe’s correction of vids @eds; while this phrase is too peculiar to have been substituted for vids tod beod, yet might easily be written by Origen, either as a combination of the two alternative readings which certainly existed in his No inference can be drawn from the loose form of expression a few lines further down, when he pleads for the consistency of supposing 70 Tov movoyevn eis Tov KOATOY bYTA TOD TaTpOs THY éEnynow avt@ (the Baptist) cal maou toils éx Tod wANpwpmaTos eiAnpoot trapadedwxévat. In his 32nd tome the description of St John as reclining év Té KdAT@ Tod “Inood occasions the time, or to provide against possible misinterpretation. remark that he avéxevto év tots KoAmOLs TOD NOyou, avadoyov T® Kal avtov elvat év Tois KoATrOLs TOD TaTpos, Kata TO “O provoyerns Oeds 6 Ov eis TOV KOATIOV TOD TaTpOS EKELVOS é€Enyynaato (iv 438), where the selection of the term doyos confirms what appears to be the reading of all the MSS. Again in the second of the books against Celsus (c. 71 1 440 Ru.), which are transmitted in a different set of MSS. from those of the commentary on St John, we find: ’Ediéa€e 5é nuds o "Incods Nad 3 c , > A ’ \ ” A ’ ’ Kal doTis HV 6 Téurapas év TO Ovdcis Eyvw Tov TaTépa Eb it 4 Car. \ A \ ] \ Ce. / ¢ 17) © Vids Kal TO Oeov ovdels Edpaxe TMTOTE O MoVO- yevns ye @v Beds 06 @v Els TOY KOATOV TOD TaTpoS 5) a ) , is) Den a SIs \ \ a é€xetvos €Enynoato’ éxetvos Oeodoyav amnyyeine Ta TrEpi Oeov Tols yvnolows avtod palnrais. Such is the reading of one of 1 Prima facie the lost Venice MS. used by Ferrari for his Latin version might appear to have read the same, as Ferrari has Filius Dei. But it is morally certain that he would have rendered vids eds likewise by Filius Dei; since in the two other quotations, where there is no vids to help him, he gets rid of @eds by simple omission, adding nothing after Unigenitus. 2 The silence of the collator of the Barberini MS§, favours this reading, as he can have had no other standard than Huet’s edition. But the colla- tion is evidently too imperfect to be trusted negatively. IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 37 Héschel’s two MSS., confirmed by Gelenius’s Latin version, Unigenitus quippe Det Deus; Hoscthel’s other MS. merely sub- stituting kai povoyevns for 6 povoyerns. The Benedictine text has the received reading 6 povoyerns vids, but only on the authority of the Basel and Paris MSS., two closely related representatives of a single archetype, abounding in excellent readings but also in manifest corruptions. The silence of De la Rue as to his other MSS. (about six) implies the absence of at least any recorded difference from Hoéschel’s readings. The combination of @cokoyav with ta zrepi Oeod in the closing paraphrase moreover suggests the presence of @eds following on the initial Oedv*. To these four quotations may be added the following places,—the list is doubtless not exhaustive,—where the detached phrase is used. Sid Tob povoyevods Heod Aoyou eto OedtynTos Sia TodTo S€ Kab dvouarte (Cels, iii 87 p. 471 Ru.). vous Geod viod Tod Oeod, Tod TpwToTéKoy Tacns KTicews (Cels. vii 43 p. 725). é tov Ocod Tod aopatov, Tov jrovoryev7 Beov {Cels. vili 17 p. 755). Tov teriyenuévov amo Oeod Ilds def axovey Tepi movoye- To 1pwrotuToy TavT@Y ayadpaTwr, THY ElKoVA @¢ ‘\ > La \ 3 \ lal / A A \ Tpvous yap eis povov Tov emt maa. Aéyomev Oedv Kal Tov povo- a ’ lol 4 \ , - Ae fil < a ra | \ \ \ ip] yer} avtod Adyov Kab Oedv* Kai Vuvodpuév” ye Ocdv Kat Tov povoyevA an pi t a ? avTod ws Kal nLos Kal GEAnVN Kal doTpa Kal Taca 4 ovpavia fol a ” oTpatia* tuvovar yap Tavtes ovtot, Oeios dvTes Yopos, meta tal \ \ lal tav év avOporrois Siaaiwy tov émi maou Oecv Kal Tov povoyeva 1°O...yé wy singles out «. or pu. 0. 2 Origen can hardly be introducing here the language of an actual hymn, as the context shews. Celsus has been rebuking the Christians for their scru- ples against consenting to join in a pean to a heavenly body or a goddess, éav 6€ KeXevy Tis EUPnUToat Tov HrLOV h tiv AOnvav, rpodvuotata mera Kadov Tatavos evPnmetv’ otTw To céBew pa)- Rov dodges Tov péyav Oedv édv Kal robcde tuvgs. The reply is Od repiudévouer evPynpAoac Tov HLov Tov KeevovTa, ot pabdvres ov povoy Tos TH Suardée wro- TeTaypevous eVPHmEtV, GAL Kal Tovs éxOpods* evpnmovpmeyv ody mAcoY ws Ka- ov Beod Snusovpynua, Kal Tods vopous gtXacoov Oeov, kal Akovoy Tou Aivetre Tov KUpLov, HALOS Kal cedHyny (Ps. exlvili 3), cal don Sivayus buvody Tov Te (so read for buve?tre tov and duvotrra tov of the MSS.) mardépa nal rov Syuu- oUpyor Tov mavTés’ "AOnvay pévTor pera. lov Taccomévnv K.T.N....TOAN@ OANOV ou xp) buvacac Kal ws Oedv Soidoa Thy ’"AOnvav, elye ovdé Tov THALKODTOY HALOV mpockuvery nuty Odus, kav evp@nuGpmev avrov. Then follows the passage in the text, as an answer to Celsus’s second sentence. 38 - ON THE WORDS MONOFENHC OEOC avtov (Cels. viii 67 p. 792): for Adyov Kai Bedv Hoeschel has Oecv Noyov, probably rightly. “Qui enim &c., et qui in medio etiam nescientium se consistit, Unigenitus Dei est Deus Verbum et sapientia et justitia et veritas &c.: secundum hance divinitatis suae naturam non peregrinatur &c.”: and after a few sentences, “Speciem autem dicimus Verbi et sapientiae et veritatis et justitiae et pacis et omnium quidquid est Unigenitus Deus” (Jn Matt. Com. Ser. 65 iii 883). “Unigenitus ergo Deus* Salvator noster, solus a Patre generatus, natura et non adoptione filius est....Sed [Deus]... factus est Verbi pater, quod Verbum in sinum Patris requieseens annuntiat Deum quem nemo vidit unquam, et revelat Patrem quem nemo cognovit nisi ipse solus, his quod ad eum Pater caelestis attraxerit” (quoted from the second book on St John in Pamph. Apol. pro Orig. c. 5). Lastly the most plausible instance of a seeming testimony to the reading vids in any form of Origen’s writings is in Rufinus’s version of the commentary on Canticles: “Possumus...etiam hoc addere quod promurale (Cant. ii 14) sinus sit Patris, in quo positus unigenitus Filius enarrat omnia et enuntiat ecclesiae suae quaecunque in secretis et in absconditis Patris sinibus continentar: unde et quidam ab eo edoctus dicebat Dewm nemo vidit unquam: Unigenitus Dei Filius qui est in sinu Patris ipse enarravit” (iii 81). Yet here too the evidence doubly breaks down. Had Filius stood alone, the Greek quotations would have suggested that, as in many undoubted cases of doctrinal phraseology, the translator’s very free hand intro- duced the Latin reading. But we have Dei Filius, that is, one more instance of a disguised @eds. are distinct, no allusion to John i18 is perceptible here. If they are identi- 1 Two pages earlier Pamphilus quotes from the fifth book on St John the single sentence, ‘‘ Unigenitus Filius Salvator noster, qui solus ex Patre natus est, solus natura et non adop- tione filius est.” If, as seems probable (for the manifestly incomplete state of our second book renders superfluous the natural suggestion that 1 may be a corruption of v), the two passages cal, the words that follow in the longer quotation suggest that Unigenitus Deus rather than Unigenitus Filius is the true reading, though 6 povoyers vids debs is also possible; im any case their own reference to i 18 contains not Filius but Verbum, which implies @eés. IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 39 The first five books of Origen on St John were written about the second decade of the third century, the sixth not long after- wards, the later books, including the 22nd and therefore doubt- less the 32nd, after 235, the treatise against Celsus between 244 and 249, Thus our quotations cover a long period, and proceed alike from Alexandria and from Palestine. The epistle addressed to Paul of Samosata by certain bishops assembled at Antioch between 260 and 270* quotes the verse with vios and the article (ap. Routh &. S. iii 297). The doubts which have been raised as to the genuineness and age of the epistle appear to be unfounded. Its theology fits well into the third century; while the text of its quotations from the New Testament is mostly good, and entirely free, John i 18 excepted, from early ‘Western’ readings. As in the case of Hippolytus, the text of the epistle appears to rest on a single Roman MS. Two other passages probably contain the phrase feovoyevns Oeds, as has been already noticed (p. 19): but it has become detached from John i 18; and there is at present no sufficient reason to doubt that 6 wovoyevns vids was read there. The Acts of the disputation alleged to have been held in Mesopotamia between Archelaus and Mani should perhaps be noticed here, though it is doubtful whether they belong to the last quarter of the third century or the first quarter of the fourth. The ancient Latin translation has (c. 32) “ Dominum nemo vidit unquam nisi unigenitus Filius qui est in sinu Patris”; where once more the presence of the Latin insertion nist throws some doubt on the whole reading: elsewhere the quotations shew clear traces of modification, though not of transcription, from Latin texts of the New Testament. This part of the Acts has been printed only from a Vatican copy of a Monte Cassino MS. In Eusebius of Cesarea we have the last virtually Ante- nicene writer, that is, whose training belongs to the days before 1 It is unnecessary here to attempt the proceedings against Paul being greater definiteness, the chronology of _ singularly difficult. 40 ON THE WORDS MONOTENHC OEOC Constantine. The clearest evidence for our purpose is fur- nished by two of his latest treatises, those against Marcellus, » written in 336. Both treatises abound in the detached phrase 6 povoyerns vids; but there is uo reference to John i 18 till a few pages after the beginning of the second and longer work, De ecclesiastica theologia, where Eusebius says tov te evayyedtatod Siappyndnv avrov vidv povoyev, elvar SidacKovTos, 5: dv ébn Ocodv ovdels EWpaxe THTOTE 6 povoyerns ULOS, ) povoyerns Oeds, exetvos €Enynoato (p. 67D). No one can doubt that Eusebius here adopts the reading vios: but it is wholly arbitrary to rejeet the clause 7) povoyer)s Geos as It would be difficult to find any similar interpolation of theirs in a scriptural quotation, especially if a gloss of scribes’. it introduced for once a reading which elsewhere they perse- cute. It is more likely that Eusebius, familiar as he must have been with the reading 6eés through his Origenian lore, took that, to rest his case upon it?, Accordingly, having thus appealed to “the evangelist”, he goes on at cnce to claim the yet greater authority of “the Saviour Himself” whom he sup- advantage of this first quotation to indicate in passing while he adhered to his own reading, he did not care poses to have spoken John iii 16, which contains tov viov avtod tov povoyevj. At p. 864 he again quotes the verse, with a context which confirms vids, and again at p. 142 ¢, with a neutral context; and vios recurs for the fourth time in a clear allusion at p. 92D. On the other hand in a solitary passage the sentence 6 5 éréxewa Tov ddov Oeds Kai TaTiip al lal ’ nr na / c , Tov Kupiou nav Incod Xpiotod...wcvos eikoTws 6 ETL TaVTOD or the editor, probably O OC HAGEN for €EICHAOEN. : 2 Marcellus (see pp. 20, 22) used the phrase tov wovoyevn Ocov (Kus. c. Mare. 1Tt has been urged in favour of this conjecture that in a quotation of 1 Tim, i 15 by Origen (c. Cels. i 63 p. 378 Ru.), Hoeschel’s text has mores 6 doyos dre *Inoovs Xplords 6 Geos WrOev els TOY KOgMov GmapTwrods Taoat. Such a wild collocation as the sup- posed ‘ gloss” is evidence of nothing. It can be only a blunder of a scribe p. 19 c); and his theological tendency was to evade the idea of Divine Son- ship. On both grounds there would be force in a refusal of Eusebius to haggle about the various reading. IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 41 kat 51a K.T.r. Peds aveipntat Tapa TO arroctoA@ davte (Eph. iv 6) is continued by cal povos peév adtos eis Oeds Kal matnp ToD Kuptov nuav Incod Xpiotod ypnwartifor dv, o dé vids peovoyerns Oeds 6 @v Eis TOV KOATIOV TOD TaTPpOs, TO Oé TAapaKAnTov Treda ovTE Oeds ovtTe vids (p.174f.). It is vain to urge that ypnwarifo. dy is not the same as aveipntas Tapa T® dtrooTéA, where the title maintained for the Son is found verbally in a single verse of Scripture, and where the pre- ceding title is likewise transcribed from Scripture (2 Cor. i 3 &c.) with the exception of the word eis used just above’. Corruption of text is also unlikely, as vics could hardly stand here in both subject and predicate, to say nothing of intrinsic improbability®. Doubtless therefore Eusebius did on this occasion for a special purpose avail himself of the read- ing*® to which he habitually preferred another. It probably never occurred to him that one of the two must be might, and the other wrong: an inability to part absolutely with either of two respectable traditions is not unusual in his writings. Lastly vids stands, with neutral contexts but pro- bably rightly, in two of Eusebius’s Commentaries, on Psalm 1 Indeed e/s has so little force here, as an adjunct, that it becomes suspi- cious. It may represent 6 (EICOC for O@6C); or Eusebius may have written els Oeds 6 warp [1 Cor. viii 6, quoted p- 93] xal 6 Aeds Kai maTyp Tov Kv- ptov x.7.X., the intervening words 6 maTnp kai o Geos being lost by ho- meoteleuton. 2 The concluding words ovre Qeds ore vids are probably all in antithesis to the second clause 6 6é vids...rarpés; and, if so, they imply @eds, whether they refer to the alternative readings (as at p. 67D), or simply take up vids from the beginning of the clause. But it is not impossible to take otre Oeds as in antithesis to the first clause xat fovos...xpnudrifor av. 3 Passages like the following shew that it could not have been astumbling- block to his own mind on the score of doctrine, though 6 povoyevys vios had a sharper edge against Marcellus: indeed the first (on which more hereafter) sub- stantially contains it. Kal r@ rarpl ws viv 61 mavros ouvovTa, Kal ovK ayév- vytov ovra ‘yevvimevoy 6 é& dryevyyTou matpos, movoyery dvTa Aoyor Te Kal Oeov éx Oeod (Dem. Ev. 1v 3 p. 149 4). Aco 5 cfs Beds TH ExkAnola Tod Beotd Knpiir- TeTat, Kal ovK éstw érepos mv avTov" eis 6¢ kal povoyevys Tov Oeov vids, etka Tis Tatpihs Gedryros, Kal dua TovTO Feds (Eccl. Th. p. 62 4). To yap mpdcwrov Tod Geo Aoyou Kai 7 Bedtns TOU povo- yevous vlod Tod Oeod Ovnry pice ovK dv yévoro Kkatadnmry (Com. in Es, 375 D). 42 ON THE WORDS MONOTENHC OEOC Ixxiv (lxxii) 11* without the article, and on Isaiah vi 1? with the article. 1 In Montfaucon, Coll. No. Patr. 1 440. A freely condensed extract in Corder’s Catena, 11 535, has the ar- ticle. 2 In Montfaucon, ib. 1 374. The comment of Procopius, p. 91, founded here chiefly on Eusebius but perhaps also on Origen, has 6 wovoyeris Tov Oeod Adyos 6 Gv KT. IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 43 NoTE B The detuils of Latin evidence The Latin patristic evidence is properly speaking only a branch of the evidence of Latin versions. So far as it refers clearly to St John’s own text, it supports vids exclusively. Tertullian’s citations, all occurring, as is not unnatural, in the single treatise against Praxeas, are in no case quite verbal; but they leave no reasonable doubt. He says (not to quote refer- ences to the first clause only), “Apud nos autem solus Mlius Patrem novit, et sinum Patris ipse exposuit, et omnia apud Patrem audivit et vidit”, &e. (c. 8); “Deum nemo wvidit un- quam: quem Deum? Sermonem? Atquin, Vidimus et audi- vimus [et contrectavimus] de sermone vitae, praedictum est: sed quem Deum? scilicet Patrem apud quem Deus erat Sermo, unigenitus Filius qui sinum Patris ipse disseruit” (c. 15, some early editors for sinum reading est in sinu, and Rigaut [1634, 2on MS. authority] simply in sinwm); “Hujus gloria visa est tanqguam unict a patre, non tanquam Patris: hic unius (? Unicus') sinum Patris disserwit, non sinum suum Pater, prae- cedit enim, Dewm nemo vidit unquam” (c. 21). Cyprian does not quote the verse; but had he read Deus, he would probably have used it in his Testimonies (ii 6) under the head Quod Deus Christus, the texts of which from the New Testament are Matt. 1 23; Jo.i1;. (x 34—38;) xx 27ff.; Apoc. xxi 6f. The same may be said of Novatian (de Regula Fide 11, 13, 14, 18, &c.), and is probably to be inferred from the only pas- 1 Paméle’s reading unus, which is next note): but Unicus makes as good probably likewise conjectural, deserves _ sense, and was more likely tobe altered. . mention, as it might represent els (see 44 ON THE WORDS MONOTENHC OEOC sage in which he alludes to this clause, being part of an argu- ment to shew that Christ is idem Angelus et Deus: “Manifeste apparet non Patrem ibi tunc loquutum fuisse ad Agar, sed Christum potius, cum Deus sit; cui etiam angeli competit nomen, quippe cum magni consilit Angelus factus sit, angelus autem sit dum expomt sinwm FPatris, sicut Joannes edicit: si enim ipse Joannes hunc eundem, qui sinum exponit Patris, Verbum dicit carnem factum esse, ut sinum Patris possit expo- mere, merito Christus non solum homo est sed et angelus; nec angelus tantum sed et Deus per scripturas ostenditur, et a nobis hoc esse creditur” (c. 18). It will be observed that to both Tertullian and Novatian the last words of the verse must have stood as sinum Patris [ipse] exposwt (Tert.’ Nov.*) or sinum Patris ipse disseruit (Tert.’, perhaps his own rendering, as it occurs nowhere else), and we have the same construction with a different Latin verb in a, the oldest of existing Old Latin MSS., which reads “Deum nemo vidit umquam nisi unicus Filius solus sinum Patris ipse enarravit’.” forms of the Old Latin rendering were smoothed away by The inserted nisz*, probably derived from vi 46, These primitive degrees. vanishes only in the Vulgate and one or two other late revi- Unicus® is exchanged for unigenitus, and sinwm for Solus lingers only in sions (fq). qui est in sinu, with hardly an exception. 1 Tischendorf calls attention to the IJators. As we have seen, Clement coincidence of this part of the render- ing of a (he might have added Ter- tullian and Novatian) with the omis- sion of 6 dy in N*, suggesting that els was read as e/s: and apparently with | good reason, for N* has readings here- abouts in common with what must have been the original of the Old Latin in an early form, and solus stands for eis in many authorities in Mark ii 7, and seyeral in x 18, both passages having a similar turn, The correction was probably suggested by ééyyycaro, for transitive verbs used absolutely are always a distress to scribes and trans- likewise supplies roy xoArov Tod marpds in interpretation. 2 There is no Greek authority of any kind, as far as I am aware, for nisi: it might of course be introduced from vi 46 in Latin as easily as in Greek. 3 Retained only, it would seem, by the Manichean Adimantus as cited by Augustine (c. Adim, vitt 2 t. viii p. 120 bis). Sinwm Patris gives place alto- gether to in sinu Patris (in Patre c). But negative statements as to the Latin quotations could not be made quite confidently without dispropor- tionate labour. IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 45 mm, and probably other revised MSS. of the same group. The final verb is represented pretty constantly* by enarravit, vary- ing occasionally (after zpse, it will be remembered) into narra- vit. The final form, as it stands in the present MSS. of the Vulgate, answers exactly to the prevalent Greek text: “Deum nemo vidit umquam; unigenitus Filius, qui est in sinu Patris, ipse” enarravit.” This statement includes the Latin Fathers of the fourth and following centuries, and it is needless to give references: various types of Old Latin are represented, as the names of Victorinus, Vigilius, Hilary, Ambrose, and Augustine will sufficiently shew. 1 Adimantus (1. c.) has adnuntiavit: ix 37, and in scattered authorities _ Victorinus once (adv. Ar. i 2) exposuit elsewhere. Like avrés, which is to be with Tertullian and Novatian, else- found in Greek quotations but not where enarravit. MSS., it was evidently suggested by the 2 Ipse similarly represents éxe?vosin apparent sense. 4G ON THE WORDS MONOFENHC EOC Note C Some details of Athiopic evidence Dr Wright has most kindly ascertained the texts of the two MSS. at Cambridge, and of the nineteen in the British Museum. They singularly illustrate the truth of Dr Tregelles’s account of the Aithiopic version (Horne’s Introduction iv 319f.), which has been questioned of late, being all paraphrastic, and exhibit- ing no less than 12 combinations of readings, owing in part to the addition of pronouns, and the insertion of conjunctions in various places. Nineteen MSS. are of the 17th century or later: of the remaining two, ascribed to the fifteenth, one (B.M. Or. 525) agrees prima manu with the Polyglott. The accusa- tive particle is here prefixed to povoyev7s Oeds, doubtless owing to a misinterpretation natural in a language incapable of ex- pressing povoyevys otherwise than by a word like wnicus (wahed), since it was not to be supposed that “the only God” denoted the Son. To povoryevrjs Peds (or -v7j -dv) six other MSS. add utes followed by wahed, which in this second place probably stands for ovos or ets; two of them (including the other 15th century copy, B.M. Or. 507) having povoyerijs Oeds, the other four the accusative form. This interpolation supplied another possible construction for the accusative unicum Deum: it could be taken either simply in apposition to the previous Oedv (Deum nemo vidit unquam, unicum Deum: [Filius unicus] qui &e.), or as the object of €Enyncato (unicum Deum [Filius unicus] qui est in sinu...enarravit), or as the object of an intermediate clause (unicum Deum [sc. vidit] Filius unicus (or unus): qui est &c.): all three constructions seem to be indicated by punc- tuation and conjunctions in different MSS. An eighth MS. IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION. 47 omits povoyerys, retaining @eds vids wahed. The remaining thirteen likewise omit Oeds. The probable sequence was as follows, the position of the second wahed in all known MSS. being fatal to other interpretations of the facts which might be suggested. The original text (preserved now, as far as the MSS. yet examined shew, only with the accusative modifica- tion) had povoyevns Peds, the Memphitic reading. With this was next combined the alternative reading vios, accompanied by wahed, either a relic of the early reading mentioned in Note B or a like but independent interpolation: similar cou- plets of readings originally alternative are not uncommon in th’s version’. The first wahed would then be dropped as a need- less superfluity in MSS. which escaped the accusative prefix: and lastly the further omission of @eds would reduce the phrase to a familiar shape. The evidence is not very important; but its history is structive. The verse is closed by a gloss from Heb. i 2 in one of the seventeenth century MSS. which omits povoyeriis Peds (B.M. Or. 521). 1 It is possible, but much less likely, double reading, and that vids wahed that the Atthiopic had originally the was then omitted in some MSS. 48 ON THE WORDS MONOTENHC OEOC Note D Unicus and unigenitus among the Latins The varieties in the Latin rendering of povoyeyys in the New Testament are sufficiently interesting to be given in full. Sabatier’s references have of course been freely used. I Passages referring to our Lord John 1 14 d0£av ds povoyevods Tapa Tartpos. A unici (a patre) Tert2 (Prax. 21) Fr.Arian.(Mai, S.V.N.C. iii 2 228) Hil.2(Zrin. i 10 in comment.). unicr (patris sic) e. unicr filit (a patre) a. unict nati (a patre) Oros.’(Ap. de arb. lib. 613 Hav.). B unigeniti (a patre) bef vulg. Tert2(Praxv.16) Novat. (Reg. Fid. 18) Hil2(Trin. i 10 text) Amb.'(i 1204 F) Tren. lat.?(42, 315) Aug.(ad l. &c.) Hieron.’(Eph. v 33) &e. John i 18 6 povoyeris vids 6 dy els TOY KONTTOV TOD TraTpOS. A unicus (filius) a Adimant.'(ap. Aug. viii 120). unigenitus (filius) beef Tert.’(Prax.15: cf.7) Hil.(Ps. 138 § 35 &c.) Victorin. Irenlat. Amb. Aug. &e., John iii 16 tov vidv adtod Tov povoyevy Edwxer. A (filium suum) unicum abdem g* gat mm mt Tert.’(Praz. 21) Rebapt.(13) Fr.Arian.(226) Lwcif.2(151 Col.) Hil.cod. al. B (filium suum) unigenitum cf ffvulg. Hil."( Trin. vi 40 ed.) Amb.(ii 406, 626) Aug. &e. John 11 18 To dvoya Tod povoyevods viod Tod Oeov. IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 49 A unici (filit Det) ad Tert.(1.c.) Cyp.(Test. i 7; iii 31) (Fr. Arian. 226) Lucif.(L.c.) B_ wnigeniti (filit Det) beefffm vulg. Iren.lat.(325) Amb. (i 762) Aug.(ad 1) Vig.(Zrin.213 Chif.) &e. A John iv 9 rop vicv adtod tov povoyev} améactankev 6 eds. A (filiwm suwm) unicum m Lucif.(140). B_ (filiwm suum) unigenitum vulg. Aug.(ad 1.) Il Other passages Luke vii 12 povoyevs vids (or v. mw.) TH myTpl avTod. A (filius) unicus all, including Amb. (waiving order). Luke viii 42 @uyatnp povoyeri|s iv avT@. A (filia) unica all, including Amb. (waiving order). Luke ix 38 tov uidv pou, Te povoyervns pol eat (or €. fol). A unicus (mihi est) all (waiving order). Heb. xi 17 tov povoyev} mpocépepev 6 tds érrayyedias dvade§a- feEVvos. A wnicum (without oe or suum) d Ruf.[Orig.]Un Gen. Hom. i 1, ii 81 Ru.) Aug.(C.D. xvi oy B_ wunigenitum vulg. In the canonical books of the Old Testament ‘I'M’, the only Hebrew original of ovoyevys, is uniformly rendered by uni- genitus in the Vulgate where an only son or daughter is meant (Gen xxu)2, 12, 16; Jud. xi 34;Prov. iv:3; Jer. vi 26; Am. viii 10; Zech. xii 10). Singularly enough the LXX has ayarntos (ayarrapevos Prov.) in all cases but that of Jephthah’s daughter, though povoyevys was used by one or more of the other translators in at least five of the other places (no record being known for Gen. xxii 16; Zech.). But at least some form of the LXX must once have 1 Gregory of Nyssa (De Deit. F. et Sp. S. iii 568 Migne) has Gen. xxii 2 AaBé po, pyol, rov viov cov Tov d-yarn- Tov, Tov povoryevy, Where povoyery, if only a gloss on dyamnrov, must at least H, had povoyevns for Isaac’ (the have been found by Gregory in his MS., for he remarks in his comment mos dveyelper TO pi\rpov kal vidv aya- mntov Kal movoyern Kaa, Ws av dud Tév TootTwy dvoudtwv K.7.\. This case 4 50 ON THE WORDS MONOTENHC OEOC Vatican MS is wanting here), for we have clear Old Latin authority accidentally preserved for wnicus in Gen. xxii, 2, 12 and Judges, though most Old Latin quotations follow a@yamnrtos. Unicus is also the Old Latin word in three of the four remain- ing passages, all peculiar, Ps. xxii (xxi) 21; xxxv (xxxiv) 17 (solitarius Hier.) ; xxv (xxiv) 16 (solus Hier.). In the Apocry- pha the uniform wnicus of the Old Latin was not disturbed by Jerome; Tob. iii 15; vi 10 cod.; viii 17 or 19 (duorwm unico- rum, Tobias and Sarah) ; and even Sap. vii 22. Thus throughout the Bible wnicus is the earliest Old Latin representative of wovoyerns; and unigenitus the Vulgate render- ing of YM‘, however translated in Greek, except in St Luke and the Apocrypha, where Jerome left wnicus untouched, and the four peculiar verses from the Psalter (Ixviii [xvii] 7, and the three already mentioned), in which he substituted other words. But wnicus had been previously supplanted by wnigens- tus in one or more forms of the Old Latin in all the five pas- sages where it has reference to our Lord, all occurring in St John’s writings; and in the Prologue of the Gospel the change took place very early. These facts would prove, if any proof were needed, that vids was the reading of the MS. or MSS. from which the Old Latin version was originally made; for wnicus Deus* could never renders it not unlikely that Irenzus is following a similar double reading when he speaks of Abraham (233) as Tov tdov povoyern Kal dyamrnrdy mapa- Xwpjoas Ovolay TG OeG, a kai 6 Oeds evdokyjoy...TOV iiov povoyerh Kal dya- amnrov viov Ovolay mapacxev x.T.A. In Jud. xi 34 the Alex. and other MSS add to povoyerjs without a conjunction avrg dyarnry, and others aitG aya- w7nTH, TeplWuKTosS aUT@. 1 In Dr Swainson’s History of the Creeds attention is called to a ‘‘not infrequent punctuation” of MSS. by which unicum is strangely separated from the preceding Filium ejus and joined to the following Dominum nos- trum (pp. 163, 166, 365). He points out that this construction occurs in two sermons wrongly attributed to St Augustine: in one (240 in t. v p. 394 Ap.) it is at variance with the interpre- tation, and must be due to a scribe; in the other (t. vi p. 279 Ap.), a very late cento, it belongs to an extract from Ivo of Chartres, a pupil of Lanfranc. It is indeed, I find, as old as Rufi- nus, for he labours (Com. in Symb. 8 p. 71) to justify it, though evidently preferring (6 ff.) to take wnicum with Filium. But unicum Dominum nos- trum can hardly be more than a Latin IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 51 have been a designation of our Lord, and moreover it was actually applied to the Father in the Creed of Carthage in Tertullian’s time (De Virg. vel. 1; Adv. Prax. 2 f.). But they also give additional interest to the almost uniform rule that wnicus belongs to native Latin Creeds, wnigenitus to comparatively late Greek Creeds translated into Latin, both alike having but one original, the povoyevns of St John’s third chapter, if not also his first. It is needless to enumerate the various forms of what we call the Apostles’ Creed, which have been several times collected. They all have wnicus*, (mostly in the order Filiwm ejus wnicum as John iii 16, but the Aquileian form given by Rufinus’? unicum Filium ejus as iii 18, and the Poictiers form used by Venantius Fortunatus [Hahn, Bibl. d. Symb. 33; Heurtley, Harm. Symb. 55] unicum Filiwm only) with the exception of two peculiar Gallican documents, closely related to each other, which have unigenitum sempiternum (Hahn, 35f.; Heurtley, 68f)° In Tertullian we have seen unigenttus (cf. De An. 12; Scorp. 7), possibly a word of his own coinage, side by side with wicus. But the influence of the Creed remained strong: a century and a half later Lucifer seems to have only wnicus, which he repeats incessantly. Augustine vacillates between the Creed and his Latin MSS of the ‘Italian’ revision. Writing de Fide et Symbolo in 393 he puts unigenitus into the Creed but promptly explains it by the equivalent to which his hearers were more accustomed blunder, arising from the separation of aunicum from Filium by the genitive ejus and the immediate proximity of Dominum, together with the latitude of sense in wnicus. In some Spanish Creeds the insertion of Dewm et before Dominum (Swainson 164, 323) brings unicum and Deum into contact: but the resemblance to povoyer# Oedy can be only fortuitous. 1 So also the Latin original of the Sirmium formulary of 357 (Hil. De Syn. 11 p. 466), notwithstanding the Greek cast of its language. 2 This order cannot be safely as- sumed for the Roman and ‘Eastern’ forms to which he sometimes refers. 3 In the Te Deum we have verum et _ unicum Filium in the common text, probably rightly: but in the present state of knowledge unigenitum must be admitted as an alternative reading. The Gloria in excelsis has Domine Vili Unigenite Jesu Christe, without appa- rent variation. 4—2 52 ON THE WORDS MONOFENHC OEOC (“credimus etiam in Jesum Christum Filiwm Dei, Patris uni- genitum, id est wnicwm, Dominum nostrum: c. 3 t. vi p. 153 A), and twice afterwards repeats wnigenitus. Nearly thirty years later in the Enchiridion he employs wnicus (84, 35, 36 bis) till he has to quote John i 14, when he takes up for a moment the unigenitus of his version (36 s.f.), but in the next sentence slips back to the Creed by again combining both words, wnigenitus id est unicus: and in the rest of the treatise he uses only unicus when commenting on the Creed (38, 56), wnigenitus only with Verbum (41) or else absolutely (49, 56, 103, 108). But the influence of the Greek controversies of the fourth century upon Latin theology, the convenience of the antithesis to ingenitus, and the revision of Latin biblical texts secured the ultimate victory for the more explicit term wnigenitus, except in the Creed itself. It is the word adopted in several private formularies, all imbued with the results of Greek thought; those of Pelagius (but with Dewm, Hieron. Opp. xi 202 Vall.), Auxentius of Milan* (Hil. Lib. c. dua. 14: ef. Caspari, Quellen u. s. w. 11 801), and Ulfilas (Gm Caspari 303)°. And from the fourth century onwards it is the constant rendering of povo- yevns in all the Latin translations of Greek Creeds or other formularies, with hardly any exceptions and those in secondary authorities. Thus ten out of the eleven versions, or recensions of versions, of the original Nicene Creed collected by Walch (Bibl. Symb. 80 ff.) have natum ex Patre unigenitum, the eleventh® omitting the word: and five* out of the seven ver- 1 The closely related formulary of Germinius of Sirmium has however unicus (Hil. Op. Hist. xu1—xv: cf. Caspari 302). 2 Another attributed to Damasus and several other Fathers (Hahn 185) has unigenitus, but it appears to be a translation. 3 As given by Lucifer (De non pare. p- 204 Col.). Singularly enough wni- eus occurs in what can be only a quotation from the Nicene Creed fol- lowing on the already cited use of wni- genitus by Augustine in the De fide et symbolo (6 p. 154): ‘‘naturalis ergo Filius de ipsa Patris substantia wnicus natus est, id exsistens quod Pater est, Deus de Deo, lumen de lumine.” So also Gregory of Eliberis, if he is the author of the treatise De fide ortho- doxa in the Appendix to Ambrose’s works (ii 345), 4 Dionysius Exiguus omits; the Code of Canons &ec. of the Roman Church printed with Leo’s works sub- stitutes unicum. IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 53 sions or recensions of the ‘Constantinopolitan’ Creed, as quoted by Hahn (113), have Filiwm Det wngenitum. The two renderings of povoyerys were unconsciously retained by Latin Christianity in the two Creeds throughout the Middle Ages, and the double tradition is still preserved by corresponding renderings in our own tongue. 54 ON THE WORDS MONOTFENHC OEOC Nore E On monorenuc Geoc in thé Nicene Creed The second part of the original Nicene Creed begins thus:— Kai eis Eva KUpiov “Inoodv Xpiotcv, tov vicv Tod Geod, yevnbévra éx Tob Tatpos povoyerh}, TOOT eaTtiv ex TIS ovolas tod matpos, Oedv éx Oeod, das ex dhwrtds, Oedov arnOivov éx Ocod adnOwvor, yevvnOévta, ov rotnbevta, Omoovctoy TO Tarpl. Then follows the recital of the Incarnation. If now we withdraw the parenthetic clause tod?’ éoriv é« THs ovclas Tod tTatpos, the words povoyev and Oeov become contiguous. Is this contiguity accidental, so that povoyeri} alone goes with yevynOévta, and a new clause in apposition is formed by @edv é« @eov, or should the eight words yevyn- Oévta €x Tob matpos povoyevn Oedv éx Oeod be all read con- tinuously, so that wovoyevn belongs to Oedv? Neither alternative presents any grammatical difficulty; and thus the question must be decided by analogy and sense. The first step evidently is to investigate the probable origin of the passage. The en- quiry must occupy a space disproportionately great if pwovoyevrs @eds alone be considered: but it has to do with matters of sufficient historical interest to reward minute examination on other grounds. It is certain (1) that the bulk of the Nicene Creed was taken from earlier formularies, one or more; and (2) that the three’ clauses todT éotiv éx THs ovalas ToD TaTpds, yevynbévTa ov momlévra, and dfoovstov TO TraTpl were novelties introduced by the Council with the special purpose of excluding ambiguity. 1 Three for some purposes, howsoever the second and third may be gram- matically related. IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 55 Athanasius in his old age, nearly half a century later, explained how the introduction of the new phrases had arisen (De Deer. Nic. Syn. 19 ff.; Ad Afr. 5 f.), and justified them, as he or others had evidently done at Niczea, by reference to similar language of Theognostus, Dionysius of Rome, and Dionysius of Alexandria respectively (De Decr. 25f.) : gical writers sets in strong relief the absence of authority de- and this anxious appeal to theolo- rived from public Creeds. In a different quarter the unwonted language of the three clauses elicited from Eusebius a some- what reluctant apology in the epistle which he addressed to his own diocese shortly after the Council (Zp. ad Caes., preserved by Athanasius De Decr. pp. 238 ff. and Socrates H. #.1 8). The testimony thus doubly borne renders it highly unlikely that the Nicene Creed contained other novelties not mentioned; and however modified in arrangement, the whole of its remaining contents may be assumed to have been taken from Creeds already in use. The scattered and confused memorials of the Council afford little information as to the Creeds brought forward in the course Theodoret (H. H#.1 6) mentions an expo- sition (Urayopevoarvtes 5é wictews SidacKaNdiay) which was pre- sented to the assembly by the small group of bishops compara- tively friendly to Arius, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia; and which was at once torn up. ustathius of Antioch, an eye- witness, cited in Theodoret’s next chapter, tells the same story of “the writing (ypaupa) of Eusebius’s blasphemy,” meaning of the discussions. evidently the same document’, which was probably an elaborate private statement of doctrine. pastoral letter of Eusebius of Czesarea, the leader of the middle From the above-mentioned party, we learn more. Its purpose is to explain the circum- 1 Tdentical also, it would seem, with the “‘ epistle’’ of Eusebius of Nicome- dia from which Ambrose (De Fide iii 125) cites a sentence as having fur- nished the term és0o¢ct0s to his oppo- nents. What is said by Philostorgius (H.E.i 7), or rather by Photius abridg- ing his words, about the winning over of Hosius and other bishops by Alex- ander at Nicomedia before the Council has no necessary reference to the term itself, 56 ON THE WORDS MONOTENHC OEOC stances which had led him after some hesitation to subscribe the Conciliar Creed, as he was afraid that incorrect rumours might cause misunderstanding’. “We first,” he says, “transmit “to you the writing concerning the faith which was put forward “by us, and then the second, which they have published after “putting on additions to our expressions*. Now the writing “presented by us, which when read in the presence of our most “religious emperor was declared to have a right and approved “character (ev te éyew Kab Soxiuws atodavOév), was as follows. “*As we received from the bishops before us both in our first “‘“catechetical instruction and when we were baptized, and as “‘we have learned from the Divine Scriptures, and as “we both believed and taught in the presbyterate and in the “ ‘office of bishop itself, so now likewise believing, we offer to ce 29) you our faith; and it is this.” Eusebius then transcribed a Creed, to which he added a few lines of explanation and pro- testation®, When “this faith”, he tells his diocese, had been set 1 This is not the place to examine the characters and beliefs of the actors in the great Council. But it is worth while here to observe that though Eu- sebius differed on a grave point of doc- trine from Athanasius, and probably yet more from Athanasius’s non-Alexan- drine allies, the difference which de- termined the attitude of the two men respectively in regard to the proceed- ings of the Council was not of doctrine but of policy. When the policy of Eusebius had at length been clearly overruled, he had to decide how he could most nearly conform to its spirit ; by giving in his adhesion to the con- clusion of the majority, or by record- ing his protest against it. He decided that the former course was the best now open, provided that he could re- ceive sufficient assurance that the new terms were not meant to carry a sense inconsistent with his own belief, mis- givings haying perhaps been raised in his mind by wild language on the part of such men as Marcellus. The assu- rance was given, his conscience was relieved, and the accession of his name furnished a guarantee that the new Creed was not to be understood as a rejection of the elder theology. It was quite consistent with this decision that he should desire, on public and on private grounds, to be known as still regretting the eclipse of the policy which he represented. 2 Acvereupducba vuiv mpOrov pev Thy tp’ Tuav mporabetcav mepl THs mlorews ypapny, eérera tiv Sevrépav, nv Tats huetépas pwvats mpocOjKas émiBaddvres ExdedwKacw. 3 The defensive tone of this docu- ment implies accusations flung about in the previous debates. The later controversy with Marcellus may well have had a prelude at Nicea; nor is it likely that the animosity of Hustathius (Socr. i 23) began after the Council. IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 57 forth by him (tavrns bd’ judy éxteOelaons Tis wictews), there was no room for gainsaying. The emperor, followed apparently by others’, declared his entire agreement with it, and “urged all the bishops to give their assent to it and to subscribe to its articles and to express concurrence with them in this very form, with the insertion of the one single word dpuoovctos”; which word he proceeded to interpret by rejecting various erroneous senses’. Such, Eusebius says, was the wise discourse of the emperor; “but they, under pretext of the addition of ouoovctos, have made the following writing’,” i.e. the Nicene Creed. He then relates how, as soon as the Creed had been propounded, he or his party (the pronouns ‘we’ and ‘they’ are throughout ambiguous) enquired minutely about the intended meaning of the new phrases, and on receiving satisfactory answers thought it right to give consent, having peace always in view. From this narrative it plainly appears that Eusebius pre- sented a declaration of his own faith as his namesake of Nico- media had done; that the kernel of this private declaration was a public Creed, the same with which he had been conversant in his own Church at all stages of his life; the Creed therefore of Cesarea from at least the latter part of the third century; that 1 This seems to be involved in the guage, kal tavrn Tods mavras ouvyKata- words atrés te mp&tos 6...Bac.devs, although no second corresponding clause is extant. The shape of Con- stantine’s proposal was probably sug- gested by the debates which had fol- lowed the reading of the exposition by Eusebius of Nicomedia. But much may have been due to the advice of Hosius, who enjoyed his special confi- dence, and who, whatever may have taken place at Nicomedia (see p. 55 n.1), had doubtless not returned without instruction from his previous confi- dential mission to Alexandria (Eus. V. Const. ii 63—73; Socr.i71; Soz.i 16 5). 5 2 Such must be the force of the evi- dently careful though ungainly lan- Gécbat broypdgdewv te Tots Séypace Kal cuunpuwvelty TovTos avrots mapekeNeveTo, évds dvou mpoceyypaghevTos phuaros Tod duoovciov. Following troypddev, and joined with rovrois avrots, cupdwveiv must as usual denote some express act of agreement or compact. 3 Kal 6 wev copwratos judy kal evce- Bécraros Baoweds Tolade edirooddec’ of de mpopdcer THs TOU dmoovctov mpocOnKns THvde THY ypaphy mwemojKaciw. Late usage would allow mpégacis to express the mere connexion of facts without implication of motive: but the equally common stricter sense is suggested by the context, as also by the form of the sentence. 58 ON THE WORDS MONOTENHC OEOC Constantine advised the Council to be satisfied with adopting this Creed as it stood, inserting only the term oyoovcuos, this addition being evidently proposed in consequence of a previous discussion; that the Council, under colour of following the advice, did in effect go much further in the way of composition, so that the resulting document could be called a “writing” which they “made”; and yet that it might with equal correct- ness be described as the Creed of Czsarea with additions. The truth of the principal statements is confirmed by historic probability and by internal evidence. An appeal to a venerable existing document, such as the traditional Creed of Czsarea, was exactly in the spirit of the conservative policy espoused by Eusebius; nor could he easily find a better resource in en- deavouring to draw to his side the greater part of the Council. In like manner the adoption of this Creed as a basis by the Council would naturally ensue, in approximate compliance with the emperor’s recommendation. The Creed which Eusebius transcribes is simple in form, unlike the personal profession which encloses it’. Echoes of its phrases can moreover be dis- tinctly identified in references made by Eusebius elsewhere to a testimony of “the Church [of God]”, which must be a public Creed, and is not the Nicene* Its verbal coincidences with 1 By a curious oversight Hahn (46 ff.) has included in the Creed part of this personal profession, and so been led to unfounded doubts as to the pub- lie character of the Creed as it stands. 2 These coincidences appear to have been overlooked. The variations are only of order, and that among com- plete clauses, and they have no percep- tible significance. The passages are as follows: Ovs éxrpameioa 7 éxxAnola ToU Oeod TH THs aAnOelas evayyeixk@ KnpvymaTe cepviverar, Eva pev Tov em wavrev Oedv exe avxovoa éva dé kal uldov hovoyery, Oedv Ex Oeod, Incotr XK ptordv érvypagopevyn (De Eccl. Theol. p. 62.c). Ard roe rovrwy ardytwr dsro- Rabalpovoa Thy wAdvnv 4 éxkAnola Tov éva Oedyv knpirre, a’rov elvac kal ma- Tépa Kal mavrokpadtopa ddoKouvca, vidv Oeo0t povoyerR Incotvy Xpiordv rapadldwor, rov mpd wavTwy alwvwy éx Tov marépos yeyevynuévoy, ov Tov avrov bvTta TO marpl, Kab’ éavrdv dé dvTa Kal ¢wvra, Kal aAnOas vidy cuvovra, Oedv éx Oeod, Kal Pas ék Pwtos, kal Cwhv Ex FwAs (p. 66.4, B). Awd wicrevery mapel- Anpev [nN E€xkAnola Tov Aeov] eis Eva Oedv warépa mavrokpdtropa, Kal Ul ...0UTW Kal els Tov KUpLov Muay "Incotv Xptortop, TOV fovoyevyn TOV Oeod vidy (p. 108 B). Another probable trace occurs in the Demonstratio Evangelica, p. 215 B, IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 59 the Nicene Creed, as is well known, are at least too large to be accidental". But it is equally certain that one or more other Creeds fur- nished their quota to the result. Prominent among the leaders of the majority were the representatives of important sees, as Eustathius of Antioch, Hellanicus of Tripolis, Macarius of Jerusalem’, and Marcellus of Ancyra, not to speak of Alexander of Alexandria; and there would be an obvious fitness on such an occasion in combining with the Cesarean confession well chosen forms of language consecrated by the use of other great churches. Indeed two of these sees possessed rights which their bishops could not willingly compromise by allowing Czxsarea to furnish alone a standard for universal use, merely because Eusebius was in favour with the emperor: all Palestine was subject to the supremacy of Antioch; and the metropolitan jurisdiction of Caesarea over the rest of Palestine was balanced by privileges peculiar to Jerusalem, which were ratified by the seventh canon of the Council. The silence of Eusebius as to the employment of any additional Creeds by the Council is of little moment, for his narrative is palpably incomplete, though sufficient for his purpose of shewing first how he had made the best stand he could for the old Creed of his church, and then how it was that he had nevertheless in good faith subscribed the Conciliar Creed. It is at least possible that the omission of certain phrases used at Czsarea, as elsewhere, wpwrédtoxov maons Kticews (Col.i 15) and po travtwv tév aidvwv (1 Cor. G\N ws povoyeryns vids mdvos mpo wdvTwy TOY aidvwy éx TOU TaTposS yevyevvnuévos: and doubtless others might be found. 1 At the end of these Dissertations will be found the Creed of Cesarea in full, and also the Nicene Creed printed so as to shew its coincidences with the Cesarean base by diversity of . type. The concordances and differences are exhibited in another way by Dr Swain- son, pp. 65f. 2 The prominent part taken by Ma- carius against the Arians in the Council is attested by Theodoret (H. H.i18; cf. 2, 4) and Sozomen (H. E.i13 2; ii 20): he was moreover apparently on terms of friendship with Constantine and Helena (Sozom. ii 1 7; 4 7; Theodoret i 15f£.; Euseb. V. Const. iii 29 ff.), 60 ON THE WORDS MONOFENHC OEOC ii 7: cf. Eph. iii 11; Heb. i 2), arose from a dread of their lending themselves too easily to suspected interpretations. But the insertions and alterations in the latter half of the Creed all correspond with fair exactness to extant phraseology of Syrian and Palestinian Creeds*, though they cannot be traced to any one of the very few extant formularies. It is of course possible that other lost formularies of a similar type may likewise have supplied materials’. These facts enable us to understand the manner in which the Council changed those articles of the Creed that touched on the immediate subject of controversy. The Czsarean Con- fession ran, Kal eis eva Kvpiov “Inoody Xpictév, Tov Tov Beov Royor, Oeov éx Decor, das ex hwrtos, Gwnv ex Cwns, vidv povoryery, TpwToTOKoY Taons KTITEwWS, TPO TAaVTwY TOV al@vwDY EK Tov TaTpos ‘yeyevyNnMEevov. Not only were the phrases mentioned above omitted, and 1 Apostolic Constitutions and Jeru- salem (compare Antioch in all forms) Ta mavta éyévero for Kai éyévero TH nmavra; Ap. Const. insertion of rd Te év TS ovpav@ kal ra éml rHs yas; An- tioch (at least Cassianus and Eusebius of Doryleum haye 6: muds) inser- tion of 6” quds Tods dvOpwmovs; Ap. Const. and Antioch (Lucianus and Kus. Doryl.) insertion of kareNOévra ; Jeru- salem évavOpwrjcavra for év dvOpwrots modrevoduevoy; Ap. Const., Jerusalem, and Antioch (Lucianus and Cassianus) els Tovs ovpavo’s for mpds Tov marépa; Jerusalem épxduevov for Héovra mddw (év 66£y being likewise omitted by Cas- sianus); and Ap, Const. and Antioch (Lucianus) 7d dywor mvetua (at least these Creeds have 76 mvetya Td dy.or) for év dywov mvedua. In the above enumeration ‘Eusebius of Doryleum’ means the author of the Avayaprupla against Nestorius, printed in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (Mansi Conc. iv 1109): see Caspari, Quellen u.s.w. 1 78, 80; and Dissertation 11. 2 It would be rash to assume that there were no clauses on the Church, Baptism, &c. in the Cesarean or other similar formularies. It is more likely that Eusebius presented only so much of his native Creed ag related to the Persons of the Godhead, as sufficient for the special purpose of the Council; and that the Council kept within the same lines. Compare the language of the ‘ First’ Formulary of the Synod of Antioch in 341 (ap. Ath. De Syn. 22 p. 735 E), ef 6€ be? mpocbetvat, micrev- omev Kal mrepl capkos dvacracews Kal fwys alwvlov. The Anathematism (doubtless suggested by a precedent in the closing exposition of Eusebius, as Mr Lumby points out, p. 50), being evidently in- tended as part of the Creed, rounds off what would otherwise be an abrupt termination. ~ IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 61 with them roy tod GOeod Aoyov and Cary ex Lwhs, but the surviving language reappeared in a different arrangement, including a new phrase’ Oedv adnOuvov éx Ocod adnOwod, in ad- dition to the three clauses which were the special creation of the Council. This arrangement bears no trace of having been devised with the sole purpose of carrying the new clauses. The rather loose and clumsy order of the Cesarean Formulary might seem to invite the substitution of a compact and methodical paragraph supplied out of other existing Creeds: and such a procedure would be in analogy with the course seen to have been pursued in the later articles. The first step would be to set the simple fact of our Lord’s Divine Sonship? in the fore- front immediately after His name, in accordance with most precedents. Next would follow the declaration of the nature of His Sonship. Here even our imperfect evidence suffices to exhibit in outline what probably took place. The construction by which yevynfevta €x tov matpos is followed by a predicate, in this case povoyevn [Oeov], is borrowed from the Jerusalem Creed, which has in like manner tov yevynOévta éx Tod TATPOS Probably the con- \ > » \ U lel ,7 3 Oeov adnOivov po TavTav ToV aliaver’. 1 New, that is, in relation to the Cesarean Creed, but doubtless taken wholly or in part from another source, for otherwise it would probably have been mentioned as new by Athanasius and Eusebius. The complete phrase occurs in the Expositio Fidei of Atha- nasius himself (c. 1 p. 99 B: ef. Or. ¢. Ar. 119 p. 558 c, 6t Too adnOwod trarpos adnOwov éore yévynua); but so do simi- lar forms not adopted at Nica, as drpemros €& arpénrou, yévvnua éx Tedelou té\etov, Tov ex Tov povou wdvov. On the presence of decoy d\nOcviv in the Jerusa- lem Creed at this time see note 3. 2 The extrusion of the clause setting Him forth as the Word, and the trans- fer of the following clauses to the Son- ship, would find justification in almost universal precedent. 3 Touttée, the editor of Cyril of Jeru- salem, in an excellent dissertation on the Creed of Jerusalem (p. 80), conjec- tures Oedv ddnOwéy to have been intro- duced into the Creed from the Nicene Creed between 325 and the time, some quarter of a century later, when Cyril’s lectures were delivered. The suppo- sition is surely gratuitous. The pre- sence of rpd mavrwr Td aldévwy affords no grammatical argument, as our other evidence shews; the suggestion is sustained by no other Nicene echo in the Creed of Jerusalem; had any- thing been interpolated from the work of the great Council, it would hardly have been a phrase so little con- spicuous or characteristic; and any early Creed might easily take it at once from 1 Jo, y 20. 62 ON THE WORDS MONOFENHC OEOC struction is the same in the Antiochian Creed of Lucianus’, Tov yevynOévta Tpd THY aidveav éx Tov TaTpds Oedv EK Geod. But at all events the Antiochian diction passes with great facility into the Nicene. It stands thus :— TOV vidv avTod, Tov pmovoyevn Ocdv, Si 08 Ta TavTa, TOV yevynbévta po TaV aidvev éx TOU TaTpos Beov Ex Meod, drop €& Sdov, wovov ex movov, TéAELOV Ex TENElOU K. T. X. When once the evidently premature clause 6/ ob ta ravta had been deferred till the place which it held at Czsarea and Jerusalem alike, and the inconvenient’ phrase mp0 tav aidveav had been omitted, it was an obvious gain to shift povoyer Oedv from its isolated position, now rendered doubly conspicuous by the removal of &v’ of ta rwavra, deprive it of its dangerous article, and employ it, in strict analogy with St John’s own usage, as the chief predicate to yevvnbévta éx Tod matpos, combining it with the already present @edv éx Oeod into the single phrase fovoyevn Ocov ex Oeod’. The other alternative now claims attention. tov povoyevn of Jerusalem may have been preferred to the tov The simple The exact date of Cyril’s lectures cannot, I think, be determined, but it sion of these words at Nicwa, whether suggested by dogmatic prudence or seems to lie shortly before 350: see Pearson De Succ. ii 21 2; Tillemont viii 779 f.; Touttée Diss. exx ff. The most probable year is 348, which is preferred by Touttée, though partly on untenable grounds. 1 The doubt of course arises from the bare possibility of taking apo rap aljvwy as the sole predicate (é« Tod marpos being excluded from direct pre- dication by the sense), in which case Oedv éx Peo would become an addition in apposition. But this construction is virtually condemned, if I mistake not, by the order of the words. In both the local Creeds mpo roy aldévev seems to hold a weak place, as a se- condary predicate only, though the places are not identical. The omis- not, was an undoubted gain as regards grammatical clearness. It may also be owing to a grammatical impulse that Hilary omits them in his version of Lucianus’ Creed (De Syn. 29 p.478c). 2 See last note. 3 What follows hardly needs com- ment. Ocdv éx Oeov is succeeded by two clauses of similar form, as in both the Cesarean and the Antiochian Creeds; but no actual phrases are borrowed from Antioch, and but one, gas ék gwrés, retained from Cesarea. The other, Oedv ddnOwov éx Oeod &dnOwod, whether then first put together or not, had the advantage of taking up for better use what at Jerusalem had stood after yerynbévra éx rod marpis. IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 63 poovoyevn Oeov of Antioch; and povoyev} may have been in- tended, when transposed, to stand alone after yevynOévta éx Tov Tatpos, with Oecy é« Oeod as a fresh clause in apposition. It is impossible to disprove this rival supposition: but it is weighted with several improbabilities. First, it involves a somewhat wide departure from the real force of both the assumed precedents: in both of them the primary predicate to yevvnOevta €x Tov Tatpds is a strong term containing Georv, in the one case Oedyv adnOivov, in the other, Oedv éx Oeov. It is not likely therefore that both these phrases would be deposed into a secondary position, and their room occupied solely by an adjective not in itself implying Deity. Secondly, the bare phrase yevynbévta éx Tod matpos povoyevn is redundant and artificial’, if wovoyerns retains its true usual sense of an only son or offspring. The rare secondary sense (see p. 17) in which it casts off the idea of parentage, and comes: to mean only “unique”, receives no support from Athanasius or, as far as I can discover, any writer of the Nicene generation®. Thirdly, it is difficult to believe that a collocation so naturally suggest- ing the combination povoyev} Oeov to the many ears already familiar with it would have been chosen or retained except with the deliberate intention that it should be so understood’. On the other hand the one tangible ground for supposing the 1 The circumlocution would be all the more improbable because the ob- vious form roy vidy a’rov (or Tov Geov) Tov povoyerh was not only directly Scriptural (John iii 16; 1 Jo. iv 9) but stood already in the Creeds of Jerusa- lem and (by the easy omission of @edv) of Antioch. But in the case of povo- yevn Gedy there would be no circum- locution, partly on account of the sense and the weight of the phrase, partly because of the need of introducing it only in a predicative position. 2 This seemingly stronger sense would in effect have served the’ pur- pose of the Council less; for no Arian would have hesitated to affirm the uniqueness of our Lord’s Sonship. The point for which at least Athanasius repeatedly contends, as involving all else, is the strict and primary sense of the terms Father and Son; and this argument would have received no help from povoyerys as a Scriptural desig- nation of the Son, if it did not by recognised usage imply actual parent- age, 3 The transfer of unicum from Fi- lium to Dominum by transcribers of Latin Creeds (see p, 50 n. 1) can afford no real analogy for the skilful Greek theologians of Nicsea, 64 ON THE WORDS MONOTENHC OEOC two words to have been intended to belong to different clauses, namely the position of the Nicene parenthesis, requires careful consideration. But first, a few more words must be said in illustration of the continuous construction yevynbévta éx Tov matpos povoyevy Oeov ex Oeod. Apart from the unfamiliarity of povoyer7 Ocov, the prevalent habit of treating Qeov éx Oeod as a complete and independent formula may probably at first disincline a reader to accept its suspension, so to speak, on a preliminary participle. The absolutely independent use of @ecy é« Oeod has undoubtedly sufficient authority in ancient theological writers; but on the other hand this use is virtually unknown in Creeds; for popu- lar intelligibility the help of yeyevynuévov éx Tov matpos or some equivalent was apparently felt to be needed. Setting aside the Creed of Ceesarea, where Gedy éx Oeod follows tov Tod Oeod Noyov with probably the same effect as to sense, and perhaps the Creed recited by Charisius of Philadelphia at Ephesus in 431, where Oeov éx Geod follows tov vioy avtod tiv povoyervy’, I can find no exceptions; for it is impossible to count as such the highly technical Confession of Gregory Thaumaturgus (ed. Paris 1622 p. 1A, eis KUptos, wovos éx povov, Beds Ex Oeov, yapaxTnyp Kal elkav THS OeotHTOs, NOYos evepyys K.T.r.), or the still more elabo- rate Exposition of Athanasius (p. 99 B), in which Oedy adrnOivov €x Oeod adnO.vod is isolated among texts of Scripture®. On the other hand the rule is observed by the Antiochian baptismal Creed in all its extant forms*; the ‘Third’ Formulary of the 1 Tt is at least equally probable that here too rov povoyev7 Oedv éx Oeod should be taken together ; and then povoyerq would have the same effect as a parti- ciple. 2 A similar Exposition of uncertain authorship (ad cale. Greg. Naz. i 906 &e.: cf. Walch, Bibl. Symb. 172 ff.; Hahn, Bibl. der Symbole 185 ff.), has ‘“‘Patrem verum qui genuit Filium verum, ut est Deus de Deo, lumen de lumine, vita ex vita’ &c. Yet here too the aid is given by the context, though not formally by the grammar. 3 As represented by Lucianus, Euse- bius of Doryleum, Cassianus. The last two writers doubtless represent the same form, which shews signs of Nicene influence: see Dissertation 1. I venture to cite Eusebius of Dory- leum, although the words in question precede his express quotation from the pd@nua of Antioch. He certainly began to interweaye the diction of IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 65 Synod of Antioch, by Theophronius’; the ‘Fourth’ of the same (ap. Ath. De Syn. 25 p. 737 E, &c.; the ‘Fifth’ (A.D. 345), known as”Ex@eois waxpootiyos (ap. Ath. ib. 26 p. 738 ¢ &e.); the Formulary of the Synod of Philippopolis, miscalled ‘Sar- dica’, in 347 (ap. Hil. De Syn. 34, p. 482 D: the only probable construction in the lost Greek is a little disguised in the Latin version); the ‘First’ Formulary of the Synod of Sirmium in 351 (ap. Ath. ib. 27, p. 742 a &c.); the ‘Second’ in 357 (ap. Hil. ib. p. 466 A &c.); the ‘Third’ in 358 (ap. Ath. ib. 8 p. 721 c &e.), with the peculiar form yeyevynuévov Sé poovoyevn, dvov €x movou Tod Tatpos, Oeov éx Oeod, Guotov TO YyevvnjcavTe avTov TarTpt, which was copied, with variations of perfect and aorist only, at the Synod of Nicé in Thrace in 359 (ap. Theodoret. H. £. 11 16 fal. 21]) and at that of Constantinople in 360 (ap. Ath. ib. 30 p. 747 A)*; and lastly by what is known as the ‘Constantino- politan’ Creed*. Hence abundant analogy leads to the conclu- sion that @edv é« Qeod, whether forming part of the direct predicate to yevvnPévta .€x tov matpos or not in the Nicene Creed, is at least dependent on it, so that on either construction €x Ocod presupposes yevynfévra: and when thus much is esta- blished, there can be no intrinsic difficulty, wovoyer7 and the parenthesis apart, in the closer construction which makes @eov éx Ocod part of the main predicate. The chief external evidence for joining to yevynbévta a the Creed before he made formal appeal to it. The words are, a\N’ ta Tov mpd TdvTww aldvwy yervnbévta Beov follow at once. For the present pur- pose the difference is immaterial. 2 We are not here concerned with éx Oe00 kal marpés, Oedv dAnOuwov éx Beod GNnOwod,", k.T.X. 1 Cf. pp. 22 f. The words are, rov yevy evra Ek TOU maTpos Tpo THY alavwY Gedv tédecov éx Oeod Tedelov, Kal dvTa mpos Tov Oeov év brocrdcet, én’ EoxdTw dé trav jepay KaredOovra x.T.X. The position of mpd ray aldvwy allows Gedy Té\evov k.T.X. to be taken either pre- dicatively or in apposition, though the former is the more probable construc- tion, as two other participial clauses Lele the theological position of these va- rious Synods, but solely with their incidental testimony to a traditional habit of language. 3 That is, in the clauses gids ék gwrds, Gedy adyOivdv ex Oeod adnOwod, as this Creed does not contain the simple @edv éx Oeod. In all the other Creeds cited, that of Theophronius ex- cepted (note 1), @eov é« Oeod stands unmodified, Or 66 ON THE WORDS MONOTENHC OEOC predicate containing Oedv has been already given, namely the probable analogy of the Creeds of Antioch and Jerusalem. To this must be added the Epistle to Paul of Samosata by the bishops assembled at Antioch in 260—270, if the correction already suggested isright*. The whole sentence must be quoted here. Todtov dé Tov viov, yevyntov povoyev vidv (read Oeov), €ixova TOD aopatou Oeod TuyYavovTAa, TPWTOTOKOY TracNs KTITEWS, / \ y \ r a \ 5/7, v ’ / copiay Kai Noyov Kat Svvauiv Ocod po aldvev bvTa, ov Tpoyve- > ’ > ee! 4 Ae , \ a er ” y \ gel GAN ovoeliga Kal vToctacel, Yedv Peod viov, Ev TE Tadaig Kat As soon as @eov is substituted for the unmeaning second vidy, the two pre- ceding words acquire a clear force, the verbal yevynrov being equivalent to a passive participle. véa d1abnkn éeyvwKoTes OucroyoUmeEY Kal KnpvETOMEV a Sian ey 5 6uohoyody nptacoper. Possibly however this ought not to be accounted independent evidence, but only as a repro- duction of the Creed of Antioch”, The second required combi- nation, that of povoyevy with Oedov éx Oeod, had undoubtedly an actual existence. In the Demonstratio EHvangelica (p. 149 A) Eusebius speaks of our Lord as t@ tatpi ws viov dua TavTds CvuvorvTa Kal ovK ayévyntov bvTa yevvepevov 8 é€& ayevyntou TATPOS, MoVOYEVH OvTa NOyor TE Kai Oeov Ex Oeov. The posi- tion of re proves a reference to two distinct forms, the familiar povoyev) AOyov, not seldom used by Eusebius (as by Athanasius), and povoyevn Oedv éx Ocov: the only other grammatical con- struction, that which makes povoyeyn and Aédyov two distinct terms, would give Aoyoy an inappropriate position, imply an arbitrary distribution of the conjunctions; and enfeeble the 1 See pp. 4, 19, 39. Even if viov is right, which seems incredible, we should still have as the predicate of yevvnrov a combination of povoyer7 with a substantive. 2 The construction of the Nicene Creed here advocated receives illustra- it will be observed that pdvov éx movov, an accepted gloss on povoyer® (see p. 17), occupies the place of the Nicene parenthesis. The parallel language of Cyril of Jerusalem (iv 7) is instructive, Tov é€x TOU Oeov Bedv yervnbévra, Tov éx fons fwhv yevrvnévra, Tov éx pwrds Pods tion, rather than direct confirmation, from the language of the Third Sir- mian Formulary (quoted above, p. 65), adopted at Nicé in Thrace and at Con- stantinople in the two following years: yervnbévta, Tov Smovov Kara mdvra TO yevvnoavre (iv 7): Ouovos yap év racw 6 vids TG yeyerynkorl, (wy ex FwHs yevyy- Gels, kal pis éx pwrds, Sivames ex Suvd- pews, Oeds €x Oeod (xi 18: cf. 4). IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 67 whole of the last clause as a climax. The same form, slightly resolved, occurs a little earlier (p. 147 B), cal va TéXetov wovov yevuntov Oedv éx Oeod; and, slightly extended, in the Pane- gyric on Constantine (xii 7: cf. Theophan. i 24), obtos wovo- yevns eds ex Oeod yeyerynuévos AOyos*. It reappears in the Formulary of the Synod of Seleucia in Isauria (A.D. 359) Oeov Aoyov, Oedv €x Feod povoyerj, das, Gonv x.7.r. (ap. Ath. De Syn. 29 p. 746 c; Epiph. Haer. 873 c). And in the next century it is employed by Cyril in his commentary on St John, onpetov... Tod eivar Baciréa Kal Seorrétnv Tav OXwv Tov ex Deod wepnveTa Ocdv povoyers (viii 35 p. 541 ©), and again, émelmep trdpyowv [6 vios] éx Oeod Beds povoyerns avOpwiros yéyovev (x 15, p. 653 ¢); as also in his Third (Second cumenical) Epistle to Nestorius (p. 24 Pusey) 6 é« Oe0d ratpos yevyndeis vids Kab Qeds povoyerns. It is immaterial whether these forms of speech were derived from the Nicene Creed or independent of it*. In either case they shew the naturalness of the combination in the eyes of theologians of the fourth and fifth centuries. Doubt- less it was felt that each of the two elements associated with Oeov in povoyevy Oedv éx Ocod would sustain and illustrate the other. Thus far the discussion. has left out of account the Nicene parenthesis todr’ éotly éx tis ovoias Tod tatpds. Were it absent, the evidence would all, as far as I can see, be clearly in favour of taking wovoyev Oedv éx Oeod as an unbroken predicate of yevynBévta éx tod tatpés. It remains to consider whether we are driven to a different conclusion by the position of the 1 The added yeyevynuévos increases the resemblance to the Nicene lan- guage, though inverted in order. 2 Yet it can hardly be doubted that at least Cyril had the Nicene Creed definitely in view; for in his Zp. 55, which is a commentary on the Creed, he says that the Fathers of Nicwa, r7s @divos [the Paternity] 76 yvqotov’..: ev pdra onualvovres, Oedv Epacay Ex Oeod yevyevvyiocdat to viov (p. 178): and again, ov ydp Toe dwéxp7... ppovely ws Beds Ex Ocod yeyévynrac TOU TaTpos, ...GAN qv dvaykatov eldévat mpos TovTos ws THs dmrdvrwy évexa owrnplas K.T.d.° bia TovTO pact Tov dt nuds Tous av- Opwrous k.7.X. (p. 180). Both passages lose their force if Oeov éx Peod was not part of the main predicate. 5—2 68 ON THE WORDS MONOFENHC OEOC parenthesis. It matters little for our purpose whether the Nicene Fathers were here simply copying an earlier (Lost) Creed, or, as the extant language of Jerusalem and Antioch has rather suggested, to a certain extent modifying in combination and arrangement the traditional materials. In either case the sense and the place of their own entirely new parenthesis must be taken into account in order to ascertain the meaning which they attached to their completed work. A reader examining the passage merely as a piece of Greek, unaided by extraneous knowledge, could hardly fail to take povoyevn as the one weighty word interpreted by the parenthe- sis. Yet this supposition cannot be more than partially true at most, if we are to trust the concurrent testimony of the two men who had the best means of knowimg the facts, who moreover regarded them from different points of view. Eusebius and Athanasius represent é« Tijs ovclas Tod maTpos as the inter- pretation of €« tod tratpos’. Eusebius passes povoyevy over altogether, and Athanasius alludes to it with a slightness and indirectness which throw it completely into subordination’, 1 Kal 6y ravrys ris ypapis br’ abrav tmayopevdelons, Saws elpyrat adtots 76 °EK THs obclas TOO maTtpbs kal 7d TG warpl duootc oy, ovx avetéracrov avrois KaTeNprdvomev’ eTEpwryceEls TOL- yapoby Kal droxploes évTedOev avexwody- T0, €Bacavifev Te 6 Abyos THY didvoway Tov elpnudvuw’ cal 676 ’EK THs ovclas @mooyelro mpos a’t&v Snwrikdy elvae Tov é€x mev Tod tmarpos elvat, od phy ws pépos Urdpxewv Tod marpbs* Ta’Ty dé Kal huty eddxer Kad@s éxew ovyKxaratibecbat 7H Siavolg THs evoeBods SudackaNlas K.T.d. Eus. Ep. ad Caes. 5. Ol rept EvcéBuov [of Nicomedia]...éBovAovro rd "Ek Tod Oe00 Kowdy elvar mpos Huds [i.e. man- kind]...dA’ of wardépes Oewpyjoarres éxel- vw Thy mavoupylav...qvaykdaOnoav Noumov Nevxorepov eirreitv To Ex Tod Oeot, kal ypawac éx THs ovalas Tod Deo’ elvac tov vidv, brép TOU wh TO "EK Tov Oeov Kowov kal Toov Tov Te viov Kal Tay yern- Tov voulgecbar. Ath. De Decr. 19 p. 224 pg. And so in the parallel nar- rative Ad Afr. 5 p. 895B, aAN’ of ért- oKoTot Oewpynoavres THY K.T.N. NEUKOTEPOV elpjxace TO "Ek Tot Oeod, kal éypawav é€x THs ovclas Tov Heod elvac Tov vidv. 2 The possible allusions in the Ep. de Decretis to sovoyery (represented by povos) are in the two sentences 6 6é Novos, érel py xtloua éeorly, etpnrar Kat dort movos €k Tob TaTpos, THs dé rovavrns Siavolas yywpicua To elvar Tov vidcy éx THS ovalas TOU maTpos, ov- devl yap Trav yernr&v bwdpxe TovTo, and dia ToUTO yap Kal % ayla o’vodos NevKO- Tepov elpnxev Ex THS OValLas avroy elvat Tou warpos, wa Kal &\dos mapa Thy Tiv yevnTiov piaow 6 Noyos elvat misTevOy, movos wy addyOuas éx Tov Deod (225 A—c). The Ep. ad Afros has likewise the word itself, but in an ambiguous context, 6 dé vids wovos Udu0s THs TOU IN. SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 69 But the more the stress is shifted back from povoyevi to éx Tod matpos, the less reason is there to regard the clause as so termi- nating in wovoyervn as to make Oedv éx Oeod a fresh clause in apposition, It would seem in fact that povoyevy was put to double duty, combined alike with é« rod watpés and with @eov éx Ocod; just as we have already found reason provisionally to recognise Qed as doing double duty, combined alike with povo- yevn and with é« Geod. Thus there would be no real pause between the seven words €« tod matpos povoyern Ocov éx Oeod. Yet the parenthesis had to be inserted somewhere. It could not be placed at the end, for tod watpdos was too distant; nor before é« Ocod, partly for the same reason, partly because Oedv €x Qeod could not be severed. If placed before povoyev, it would have been close to é« 700 matpos, but at the cost of de- priving €« Tod watpés of any additional force or clearness which it could derive from association with povoyery, including perhaps the reminiscence of John 1 14 (d0£av es povoyevods Tapa Tarpos). Placed as it actually was,.the parenthesis, while chiefly limiting the sense of 逫 tod martpos, limited also the sense of povoyevi), as against the Homeeousians, and at the same time compelled poovoyevy into a subsidiary limitation of é« Tod aratpés, as against the Anomceans. No doubt in the process povoryerns Beds was disguised: but it was not possible to introduce the parenthesis without some sacrifice somewhere. Probably it was thought that wovoyevns Peds was too well known and accepted to lose instant recognition despite the parenthesis. But at all events its acceptance by Arius himself deprived it of controversial value for the special purpose of the Council; whereas in the eyes of at least Athanasius it must have been of primary im- portance to secure to the interpretation é« THs ovolas Tod matpos TaTpas ovcias, TovTo yap Uiiov movo- yevovs kal d\nOwot Noyou pos tarépa (895 c). These incidental references are of no force as compared with the express statements of fact cited in the last note. Indeed elsewhere (De Syn. 51), assuming ék rqs ovglas as the uni- versal criterion of true parentage and filiation, Athanasius argues from Jeph- thah’s daughter and the son of the widow of Nain that a child is not less duoovctos with its parent because it is likewise povoyevys. 70 ON THE WORDS MONOFENHC OEOC the utmost possible force’. Thus povoyerijs Oeds, though re- tained like other traditional forms too little stringent for the present need’, might have to suffer partial obscuration through the necessity of the case. No other explanation than this appears to account for all the facts, and to do justice alike to the language of the Creeds of Antioch and Jerusalem, to the statements of Eusebius and Athanasius, and to the actual order of words in the Nicene Creed. There is the less difficulty in accepting a single long clause made up of closely combined terms, if we remember the evident purpose to give continuity of form to the entire decla- ration respecting the nature of the Divine Sonship, the other Creeds having been more or less disjointed hereabouts, the Creed of Ceesarea to an extreme degree®. 1 Innumerable passages of his wri- tings shew that the form of language adopted in this clause was the test on which he relied above all others for the exclusion of Arianism. On the other hand, loyally as he defends duoovcvos when needful, he shews no great incli- nation to use it when left to himself: Dr Newman has noticed its almost total absence from the great treatise made up by what are called his first three Orations against the Arians (Sel. Treat. of Ath. 500, 210 d, 264 g), as also his use of the term 6polas ovalas (210 e: ef. 136 g): ef. Traets Theol. and Eccl. 291, The final result in the Creed may have been a combination of the expedients proposed by different sections of the majority in the Council. 2 Athanasius dwells on the desire of the Council to use only scriptural terms, till it was found that the party of Eusebius of Nicomedia was ready to accept them all (De Decr. 19 ff. p. 224 ff.; Ad Afr. 5 f. p. 894 fi.). Among such terms he includes the following, evidently described somewhat vaguely, Ort €x TOU Oeod TH pioer povoyerys eat Where all the clauses 6 Adyos, Stvayus, copla porn Tov Tarpos k.7T.A. (895 4). 3 To this purpose must probably be referred the omission of rev before the first yeryndévra, and the emphatic re- petition of yerynbdvra, first to set forth the contrast ov monfévra, and then to carry 6uoovc.ov T@marpl without another participle. Then comes a fresh start on the relation of the Son to created things, 6” ob 7a mwdvra éyévero; and the added clause rd re év 7G ovpavé kat Ta énl THS yhs, Wanting at Cesarea, Antioch, and Jerusalem (it is found in the Apostolic Constitutions), at once gives weight to this division of the second article of the Creed and con- Stitutes a parallel to the first article, on the Father, rdvrwy dpardy re Kat dopdrwv monriv. The resumptive force of the second yevyndévra, as connect- ing ov ronévra with the earlier clause, is distinctly recognised in the later Antiochian Creed (Cassianus), which has been modified by Nicene influence, ex eco natum ante omnia saecula, et non factum, Deum verum ex Deo vero; as also, by exactly the same collocation, IN SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION 71 bearing on a single subject are so carefully shaped into a whole, it is only natural that the series of terms relating to one portion of the subject should be knit together with unusual closeness. The arrangement may be exhibited as follows: — Kal eis €va xvpiov "Inoody Xpicrtov, Tov viov TOD Oeod: yevynbévta €x TOU TraTpds ovoyerh - TOUT é€oTly x THS aUTHS ovalas - Oedv éx Oeod, Pas ex PwTos, Beov adrnOiwov éx Oeod adnO.vod, yevvnbevta, ov TroinOévta, O“oovcloy TO TaTpl, OL ou Ta TAavTa éryéveTo, Ta Te €v TO Opav@ Kal Ta eml THs YRS" Tov ds nas Tovs avOpwrrous K.T.D. We have, it is to be feared, no means of knowing with any certainty how the senténce was understood in the following years. The remarkable form of the Creed noticed above (p. 23) as employed by Eustathius and others in 366 might be due either to an attempt to express more clearly the assumed sense of the Nicene language, or to a conscious reintroduction of a combina- tion assumed to have been set aside. The concise Philadelphian Creed recited by Charisius, in borrowing the Nicene phrase- ology, omits the Nicene parenthesis, and thus removes the only hindrance in the way of reading rév vidv adrod Tov povoyerh Oedv éx Oeod continuously: but the other construction remains possible; and again the authors of this Creed may have intended to improve rather than to interpret. Yet the growing favour of the phrase povoyerns Geds with the friends and successors of Athanasius, in-spite of its controversial uselessness, during the time that the distinctive terms of the Nicene Creed were the watchwords of every struggle, suggests the operation of some in the (Syriac) Mesopotamian Creed tion, which rests on an Antiochian examined in the following Disserta- foundation. 72 ON THE WORDS MONOFENHC OEOC more potent and universal cause than the influence of scattered local Creeds, or of Synods of doubtful orthodoxy which bor- rowed their language. The Nicene Creed itself would evidently be such an adequate cause, if it was understood as containing povoyerns Oeds: and if such was the retrospective view taken in the fourth century, such also, we may not unreasonably believe, was the intention of the Council. Against this evidence there is, as far as I am aware, nothing to set. A Cappadocian Creed formed on the base of the Nicene Creed at a date not far from 370, of which some account will be given in the next Dissertation, merely repeats this part of the Nicene language unchanged. No other known Creed can be said with any propriety to be a revised form of the Nicene Creed. That the ‘Constantinopolitan’ Creed had no such origin, it is easy to shew: but a position so much at variance with commonly received views requires to be illustrated in some detail, and must therefore be treated separately. It is enough here to say that the history of povoyerys Geos in ancient times virtually closes with the gradual supersession of the Nicene Creed. As its primary apostolic sanction had been lost long before through the increasing degeneracy of biblical texts, so its ecclesiastical sanction, such as it was, died out by an equally fortuitous process. Neither in 381 nor at any other date was the phrase peovoyevns Ocds removed from the Nicene Creed. If it had a place there from 325, as we have found good grounds on the whole for concluding, it was never displaced while the authority of the Nicene Creed was in force, It passed away only when the Nicene Creed itself completely yielded place to another Creed which never possessed it. ON THE ‘CONSTANTINOPOLITAN’ CREED AND OTHER EASTERN CREEDS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY In the last Note appended to the preceding Dissertation the origin of the Nicene Creed was incidentally brought under a fresh examination. The chief subject of the present Dis- sertation is the origin of the Creed which has taken its place and its name. of the Nicene Creed true, we should have to believe that the 150 bishops who composed the Council of Constantinople in 381 not only added new clauses to meet new doctrinal errors, but revised the existing text in such a manner as to shatter the most elaborate handiwork of their predecessors in 325, To abolish the specially Athanasian definition tot? éotiv éx Were the common account of the later history THs ovalas Tod matpos, to erase the time-honoured form Oecy €x Oeov*, and to remove povoyevn from the post in which it 1 This single omission is usually with the participial clause: nor could explained on the ground that Oeov éx Geod is contained in @edv ddnOwov éx Ocov ddnOiwot. Yet surely there is a distinct force in the unaccompanied substantives, especially as preceding PGs éx dwrds, though on other grounds (see p. 83 n. 2) there is likewise force in the close association of pas éx gwrds the conciseness gained by dropping three such words have seemed a com- pensation for the loss of a form both Nicene and Antenicene. But indeed it is impossible to separate the loss of this clause from that dissipation of the whole sentence which the common story implies, 74 ON THE ‘CONSTANTINOPOLITAN’ CREED contributed to a careful exposition of the Divine Sonship into its old place in less distracted days, as a simple Scriptural affix (with tov) to Tov vicy tod Oeod, are operations which it is difficult to understand as performed upon a formulary under- going a dogmatic enlargement in the midst of fierce controversy by men professing to guard the Nicene bequest with jealous care. Part of the difficulty has been removed by recent criticism", starting from the well known fact that in his Ancoratus, written about 374, Epiphanius transcribes under the name of the Nicene Creed’ a formulary differing only by the accession of two clauses* from the Creed as alleged to have been renovated at Constanti- nople seven years later. It is now certain that we have no evidence of any public recognition of the ‘Constantinopolitan’ Creed before the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when it was read by Aetius a deacon of Constantinople as the “Creed of the 150”, and accepted as orthodox, but not in any way placed on a level with the Nicene Creed, the “Creed of the 318”, (which was likewise read,) much less accepted as taking its place. The short records of the Council of Constantinople illustrate indeed the watchfulness with which the sufficiency of the Nicene Creed was maintained ; but throw no direct light on the foundation of 1 See especially Mr Lumby, pp. 67 —84, and Dr Swainson, pp. 86—96, 111—131. 2 At the outset he calls it ravryy rh dylay miorw THs Ka9oALKTS ExkAyoias, ws mapédaBev % ayla Kal wovn mapOevos Tod Ocob dro Tév aylwy drooTo\wy Tov Kuplov guddrrev; and after an appended Ana- thematism, a loose copy of the Nicene, he adds Ary pev 4 mlaoris mapedo0n amo Tov aylwy dmooréhwy, Kal év éxxAyaolg TH Gayla mode [sic] dro mdvrav buot Tar ayluv émisxorwy, brép Tprakoclwy Séxa Tov dpiOuov. A strange statement: but Epiphanius’s own remarks upon his priceless materials are often strange. 3 In addition to the Anathematism. They are both Nicene, rov7’ éartiv éx THs ovolas Tov marpos and rd Te ép Tots ovpavois Kal Ta EV TH YH: Tols ovpa- vois is substituted for 7 ovpayg and év 7TH yn for éri THs y7s, the latter at least, and apparently both, of these varia- tions being found in ancient copies of the Nicene Creed (see Hahn p. 106 n. 2, 108f. n. 8); indeed they both stand in the Nicene text embodied in Epiphanius’s own ‘Second’ Creed. The only other Epiphanian variations from the Chalcedon copy, both slight, the insertion of re after ovpavod in the first article and the change of 70 {wo- mowv to cal fworowy, (together with the omission of ro before kipioy, if Petau’s text is right,) are probably in like manner accidental. AND OTHER EASTERN CREEDS 75 the tradition which seventy years later associated the new form of Creed in some way with the 150 Bishops then assembled, and which does not seem likely to have been a mere invention’. It is not however an unreasonable conjecture that the Creed was submitted to the Council by some one of its members, and accepted as legitimate’, without any idea of its becoming in any sense an cecumenical Symbol, regulating the faith of many lands. However this may be, it was certainly in exist- ence some years before the Council met, and already in- cluded those clauses which in a later age were specially said to have been introduced by the Council’. The responsibility for the ‘Constantinopolitan’ Creed is thus shifted from the Council of 381, in which various dis- tinguished men took part, to an unknown person, synod, or church at an earlier date, possibly a much earlier date, than 3874. Yet it would still be difficult to understand how the Nicene Creed could be treated with such remarkable freedom in a revision which, upon any view, bears marks of having 1 Tt is quite possible, as has been suggested, that the presentation of the Creed by Aetius was connected with the efforts made by a Constantinopoli- tan party in the Council of Chalcedon to secure the supremacy of their city, which had been maintained by a canon of the Council of 381. But the Creed would hardly haveserved their purpose, unless it were already in some way associated with the proceedings of 381. That it had become the local Creed of the imperial city is not likely. Ina homily preached at Constantinople in 399 (on Col. ii 14, p. 369 Fr) Chryso- stom appeals to the words eis fw aiw- yor as part of the Creed which his hearers knew (cf. Caspari i 93 f.); words absent from the ‘Constantino- politan’ Creed but present in that of Antioch. And @ priori we should ex- pect Constantinople to have received its Creed from Antioch, its ecclesiasti- cal mother. Reasons will however be presently given for concluding that the ‘Constantinopolitan’ Creed was in some manner known or used at Con- stantinople early in the fifth century; and this ill defined currency may pos- sibly date from 381, though we have no evidence for the fact. 2 Its presentation and acceptance on this occasion would thus bear a resem- blance to what took place afterwards with the same Creed at Chalcedon, with the Creed of Caesarea on its first presentation by Eusebius at Nicwa (see p. 56), and probably with the (Phila- delphian) Creed presented by Charisius at Ephesus. Some other indirect con- firmations of this conjecture will be noticed further on. 3 Not only the additional clauses on the Holy Spirit, but od 77s BaciNelas ovx éstac TéXos, Which stands in the Creed of the Apostolic Constitutions as well as in that of Jerusalem, 76 ON THE ‘CONSTANTINOPOLITAN’ CREED been conducted by men fully alive to theological requirements. In the attempt however to trace the chief sources of the varia- tions introduced, I have been led to observe that the Epipha- nian or ‘Constantinopolitan’ Creed is not a revised form of the Nicene Creed at all, but of the Creed of Jerusalem’. parative exhibition of the Epiphanian Creed on the two bases, marking those words and clauses which occur already in the Nicene and Jerusalem Creeds respectively, will dispense with the need of lengthened argument*: but a few explanatory re- A com- marks may place the bearing of the evidence in a clearer light. Whichever base is assumed, most of the changes and in- sertions in the latter part may easily be explained by the influence of the Creeds of Antioch and the Apostolic Constitu- tions, or, it may be, lost Creeds of a similar type*: this feature In all other particulars the difference is striking. The first 6 lines, therefore must be taken as common to both theories. ending with mpd wavtwv Tév aidver, are copied exactly from the Jerusalem Creed, with the one exception that Oedv arnOwov is omitted from the sixth, being reserved for its Nicene place 1 The confusion was the more natu- ral, since the Nicene revision of the Cesarean Creed made considerable use either of the Creed of Jerusalem or of some closely allied formulary; and moreover the Creeds of Cxsarea and Jerusalem not rarely coincide, both being Palestinian. The similarity of the Jerusalem and ‘ Constantinopoli- tan’ Creeds was noticed, I find, by Gerard Voss (De trib. Symb. 32—38), and evidently perplexed him much: he took refuge in the crazy suggestion that the Lectures of Cyril and the con- tained Creed may have been interpo- lated after 381, forgetting that the supposed ‘interpolation’ would have involved not the addition or alteration of words or sentences here and there, but the total rewriting of large masses of the Lectures. 2 See the comparison at the end of the volume. The Creed of Jerusalem is given nearly in accordance with Hahn’s careful revision of Touttée’s work. 3 The citations given in this para- graph and elsewhere from the Cappa- ‘ docian, Mesopotamian, or other late Creeds are not intended to suggest that these Creeds were themselves the sources of any ‘Constantinopolitan ’ language. Conversely it is highly un- likely that they owe anything to the ‘ Constantinopolitan’ Creed, as in that case they would assuredly have bor- rowed from it more freely. It follows that, where they depart from Nicene language, they supply evidence partly for lost Creeds prior to Nicene admix- ture, partly for new phrases analogous to the new ‘Constantinopolitan’ clauses. AND OTHER EASTERN CREEDS (is lower down. At this point the scanty language of Jerusalem is enlarged by a long insertion from the Nicene Creed; first (but only in the Epiphanian copy) the parenthesis explanatory of €x Tov watpos; then above 7 lines without change and almost without interruption’, from ¢és é« dwrds to xateOovtTa, to which last word is added é« tov odpavdv nearly as in the Apostolic Constitutions’ and the Cappadocian and Mesopotamian Creeds. questionable Nicene influence. Henceforward to the end there is not a trace of un- It is true the wa@ovta of the Nicene Creed is added to the otavpw@évta of Jerusalem; but peta TO waGeiy stands in the Apostolic Constitutions, the Creed of which has apparently supplied the intervening words v7rép nav ert Lovtiov Icdarov (é. II. I. being in the Mesopotamian Creed likewise), and qa@ovra itself was used at Caesarea and Antioch (Lucianus)*: and again 76 wvetya 76 ayo is nearer to TO aryvov vedwa (Nicene) than to &v ayiov mvedua (Jerusalem)* ; but it is supplied exactly by the Apostolic Constitutions, the Cappadocian Creed, and at least the early or Lucianic Creed of Antioch. Thus the ‘Constantinopolitan’ Creed in its Con- ciliar form owes nothing to the Nicene except one long extract, 1 The exception is the dropping of Td TE Ev TH oUpayv@ Kal Ta emi THS vis in the ‘ Constantinopolitan’ recension, though not in the Epiphanian, But of this more presently. 2 It stands also in the Latin Libellus Fidei of Pheebadius (p. 49 c Migne). 7 The following are the Eastern forms used here, variations of articles and conjunctions being neglected: ‘Sy.’ is prefixed to the synodical formularies of 341—360. Tlaédvra Cms.; Nic.; Arius; Sy.Ant. 1 and 3: aé. vmép nuov Ant.(Luc.): ra9. vrép Trav dmap- tiav nua Sy.Sel.: wad. émi II. I. Iren., Tla@ovra, dmofavovra Smyrn.; Orig.. Lravpwhévra Jerus.; ‘Adamantius’ (?): oraup. én Il. If. Ant.(Hus.Dor, and -Cass.). Zravpwhévra, drvOavdvra Alex- ander; Ath.; Sy.Ant.4and 5; Sy.Phi- lip.; Sy.Sirm.1 and 3; Sy. Nic. Thrace. ; Sy.CP. of 360: oraup. aro0avovra Philad. oTau= pwléra Capp.: kal ma0dvra Kal orav- pwhévra émi II, Il. Mesop. Kal orav- pwiévra ért IL, Il. kal arodavdvra varép UTrép Lwv, Tla@ovra, quay Kal... mera TO wale K.7.d. Ap. Const. Zravpwhévra te vrép nuwy ént Il. Il. cat rafovra ‘Constantinop.’ It will be observed (1) that the combina- tion of the participles ma@évra and otavpwhévra is confined to three late Creeds, the Cappadocian, Mesopotami- an, and ‘Constantinopolitan’, though the Apostolic Constitutions append pera 70 Tafed; and (2) that this irregu- lar arrangement in Ap. Const. will ac- count for the unique ‘ Constantinopoli- tan’ position of cal radvra at the end, 4 See however p. 81, n. 1, 78 ON THE ‘CONSTANTINOPOLITAN’ CREED with a single clause omitted; this clause, and also the Atha- nasian parenthesis and the Anathematism, being retained in the Epiphanian recension. Moreover this long Nicene extract incor- porates the whole parallel language of Jerusalem, namely Oeov adnOvor, as reserved from above, and 8? of ta mravta éyévero. If on the other hand we start from the Nicene Creed as far as it proceeds, we find changes at almost every point till we reach pas €x dwtos; namely ovpavot [te] cal yjs inserted,and 7ravtwvand monty shifted, yevynbévra éx Tod Tatpos povoyevyn exchanged for Tov povoyevy Tov éx Tod TaTpos yevynOévTa, and mpd TavTwV TOV ai@vwy inserted to make a predicate to the denuded par- ticiple. After cated Oovra, the end of the clearly Nicene pas- sage, the contrast is even more striking. From a Nicene base we should have to suppose the insertion of cal tadévta (Jeru- salem &c.), Kat xaOeCopuevov ex SeE.av Tod matpos (Jerusalem &e., with xaficavta), peta doEns after épyouevoy (Jerusalem ev d0€n), and o8 tis Bacidelas ovxK éotat Tédos (Jerusalem and Apostolic Constitutions): whereas from a Jerusalem base we find nothing omitted, and nothing of any moment altered’ except év ayiov mvetua already mentioned’. Comparison of course fails after the first words on the Holy Spirit, what follows being entirely new to the Nicene Creed. The Creed of Jerusalem is more altered here than elsewhere. In place of tov wapaxdntov after mvetwa we have some im- portant new clauses, to be examined in due time; and éy Tois mpogpntais is exchanged for dua tav mpopyntav. The order of the clauses on Baptism and the Church is inverted, éworXoyodpmev 1 The changes are from xadicayra to xabegduevov, and from éy 6b to pera dd&ns: the probable motive for the former change will be noticed in another place (pp. 90 f.). 2 A passing word must suffice for the not unimportant accompanying additions new alike to the Nicene and Jerusalem Creeds, as by the nature of the case they do not concern us, Besides é€x r&v ovpayay (see p. 77), they are éx mvevuaros aylov Kal Maplas Tis map0évov after capkwhévra (see p. 89 n. 3, and for M. 7. 7. compare Ap. Const., Antioch, and Mesop.), wtép qpav émt Iovrlov Iiddrov after cravpw- Oévra re (see p. 77 n. 3), Kara ras ypadds after nuépa (Antioch according to Cassianus [followed by Mesop.] and in an earlier place Lucianus), and maw before épxduevov (Caesarea, Ap. Const,, Antioch, Mesop., Philad.), AND OTHER EASTERN CREEDS rh) being prefixed to év Barticpa’: Kal drrootonKypy (Apost. Const., Ueltzen’s text”) is inserted after cafodxnv, and wetavoias omitted 1 The form taken by the clause on the Church (els rhv x.7.d.) is not a little surprising. We should have ex- pected it either to come under d6podo- youuev or, as the last article under msrevouev, and as following a group of three clauses on the Holy Spirit, to be introduced by cai. The combination of this clause with \adfoavy, which has been defended, as a friend points out, by M. Valetta, is too artificial to be con- sistent with the diction of this or any other known Creed. Moreover the cor- responding clause in the earlier Creed of Jerusalem to all appearance stands independently, and certainly was so taken by Cyril in his Lectures (xviii 22, 26). Yet the combined construc- tion has the support of other formu- laries. The Creed of the Apostolic Constitutions, which has some remark- able coincidences with the ‘ Constanti- nopolitan’ Creed, ends its diffuse ar- ticle on the Holy Spirit with the words kal werd Tods droaréXous 68 [droorader] maou Tos misTevouow év TH ayla Kal dmosto\kyH exxAnoia, followed at once by els capxos dvdoracw x.7.X. The baptismal interrogation in the Coptic (probably Alexandrian) Constitutions (as translated by Boétticher in Bun- sen’s Anal. Antenic. ii 467), ends with Thiorevecs els 76 dytov mvetua, TO ayabor, 70 Sworooty, TO mavTa Kabaipov év TH ayla éxkAnolg; the previous jussive form appends to the Names of the Trinity pilav kupidtynra, piav Baoidelay, play rior, & Bdrricpa év TH Kabouxy dmocroNiky éxkdyolg, kal els gwhy alw- The Creed of Seleucia (359) has 6v ob [se. Tod aylouv mveduaros 6 cwrnp] Kal ayidfec Tos ev TH exxAnsig micrevov- viov. Tas kai Bamrifoudvous év évduaTe Tarpos kal viod Kal dylov mvetpmaros, four of its predecessors (Ant.3, Ant.4, Philippop., Sirm.1: ef. Sirm. 2) having had simply, with hardly any variation, &’ od kat ayidg¢ovrae al rev elduxpwds els avrov memictevxotwy Wuxat. Another com- bined construction is supplied by the Latin Creed of N. Africa, where per sanctam ecclesiam follows vitam aeter- nam at the end. The authorities are Cyprian, Augustine (Serm. 215: he usually expounds the Creed of Milan or Rome, as Caspari has shown, ii 264 ff.), the unknown authors of three sermons ascribed to Augustine (cf. Heurtley H. S. 44 ff.), and Fulgentius (Caspari ii 257). Tertullian’s refe- rences (De Bapt. 6, 11) suit this ar- rangement at least as well as any other, and it is implied in two Latin sermons attributed to Chrysostom (Caspari ii 229 f., 241 ff.: cf. Pearson On the Creed p. 334 notes). Thus a subordinate in- troduction of the Church in the Creed must haye existed in various regions: and in particular the Spirit was some- times set forth as given to the be- lieving or the baptized in the Church. Any Creed of this form (and the Creed of the Apostolic Constitutions with peculiar ease) might give rise to the ‘ Constantinopolitan’ arrangement if it were hastily assumed that the previous article ended with micrevovcw (virtually as in the four or five synodic formularies cited above), and that & TH K.T.A. Was a fresh beginning (going back to the initial IInorevouev), needing only to be changed to the more correct eis Tyv k.7.A. On the history of the subsequent removal of in from the Latin ‘ Constantinopolitan’ Creed, re- sulting from its absence in the Western Creed and the distinction drawn be- tween Credo in and Credo, much evi- dence is given by Caspari i 220—234. 2 Tt occurs in the Nicene Anathe- 80 ON THE ‘CONSTANTINOPOLITAN’ CREED after Bamwticwa as in the Mesopotamian Creed. In place of aap 0s avactacwy we have avactacw vexpav (so the Cappadocian, Mesopotamian, and Philadelphian Creeds, vexpdv avacracw the Antiochian in Chrysostom’), with mpocSoxéev prefixed; and in place of kai eis Cwnv aidviov we have kat Cwnv Tod wéAXovTOS aidvos (Apost. Const.)*, followed by ’"Ayyv. Unfortunately only a fragment of this part of the Antiochian Creed has survived, and nothing of the Czsarean Creed, supposing it to have con- tained corresponding clauses (see p. 60 n. 2); so that we know very little of the source or sources of the changes, But notwith- standing their number, which would have left the matter in uncertainty but for the clear light cast by the earlier parts of the Creed, there is no sufficient reason to doubt that the base is still supplied by Jerusalem. None of the Jerusalem materials are missing except Tov mapaxXyTor, replaced by the new clauses, and itself absent from the Cappadocian and Mesopotamian Creeds, and petavoias, absent from the Mesopotamian Creed: and the only change of order places the Church naturally next to the Holy Spirit. Thus, with these two exceptions of roy mapakdyTtov and petavolas, the entire Creed of Jerusalem from beginning to end is reproduced in the ‘Constantinopolitan’, The new clauses on the Holy Spirit were doubtless inserted in consequence of the Pneumatomachian controversy, as is commonly said. For the present it is enough to observe their simplicity of form. The adoption of the extended phrase 76 mvevdua TO aywov is accompanied by the addition of two adjec- tives similar to aytov, so as to make a triad of epithets desig- matism in most of the early texts, though not in that of Eusebius ap- pended to Athanasius De Decretis as edited by Montfaucon; and though accordingly omitted in some reprints, it is probably genuine. It stands in the body of the Cappadocian, the Mesopotamian, and apparently the Alexandrian Creeds. 1 On 1 Cor. xv 29 p. 380 c (Heurtley Harm. Symb.39; Caspari i 83 ff.), So also the Apostolic Constitutions a little further on in the Blessing of the Water (vii 43), «np¥far Bacidelay, dpecw duaptiav, vexpwv dvdoracw, Nexpaév appears likewise to have been the Alexandrian reading (Origen and Alexander). : 2 This peculiar phrase occurs like- wise in the Confession of Arius and Euzoius (ap. Socr, i 26; Sozom, ii 27). AND OTHER EASTERN CREEDS 81 nating the One Spirit within the Godhead, “the Spirit which is Holy, which is Lord, which is Lifegiving”*. Another clause sets forth His relation to the Father; a third His equality with the Father and the Son as confessed in worship, But the clear purpose which may thus be traced was directed less to 1 The four copies of the Creed in Mansi’s Concilia have severally ro KUptov TO , das ex hwtos, Oeov adnOwov éx Oeod arnOwoid, yevvybévta, ov troinbévta, / OMoovaLov T@ TraTpl, ’ - \ if eed 8&0 od Ta Tavta éyéveTo, re > lel 3 a ‘ \ +] iS A rf TQ TE EV TW OVPAVM@ KAL TA ETL TNS YNS, 7 Opata Te Kal aopata’ A ’ e an \ ’ , \ \ \ € , ¥, Tov Oe nuds Teds avOperors Kai Sid THY TueTépay owTHpLAY lel > al KaTerOovta é« Tov ovpaver’, Caspari (ii 31ff.); but it has needed much revision on account of errone- ous theory as well as imperfect eyi- dence. 1 At the end of the volume the Cap- padocian Creed is reprinted with the elements common to it with the Nicene Creed distinguished by uncial type. 2 So Malan and Steck, assuredly rightly. The Greek forms (Interpr., Epiph.) omit ovpavov cai y7s and insert mavrwy, in both respects with Nicen.: the other Armenian forms (Neale, Mechit.) have both ovpavod cal yns and mdavrwv, with Jerus. and CP. (i.e. the ‘Constantinopolitan’ Creed). Thus the corruptions by assimilation to Nic. present themselves in the Greek forms, written in the fourth century; and as- similation to CP. belongs to the com- paratively modern corruptions of the Armenian forms; just as we should expect. 3 So Malan (distinctly in litt.), with Int. and Ep., and with Nic. Steck, Neale, and Mech. substitute mpo mdv- Tuy Tov alwvwy with CP., and the two last likewise throw back povoyer7 to the preceding clause with Jer. and CP. The Vatican MS. of Int. has lost povoyevy Tour’ éariv éx THs ovolas Tov matpos by home@oteleuton owing to the preceding rov marpés: the missing words are retained in the Paris MS. 4 Int. and Ep. omit éx ray ovpavay with Nie. ( if AND OTHER EASTERN CREEDS 121 / sapxwberta, evavOpwrncarta, yevynBévta Tedeiws' éx Mapias a ene, t 2 \ , eee THS ayias tapbévov” Sia tvevpatos ayiou, > U 3 a ‘ See? \ a \ , eo [éx tavtns*] copa Kai vuyny” Kat vouvy Kal TavTa Oca €otw avOpwros(2)® adnOds Kat ov dSoxnoes €oXNKOTA, mabovta, ctavpwhévta®, tadévta, > / a ! Be 7 avacTavTa 7?) TPlLTH KEP ) 3 ‘ > \ 8 3 ‘ ’ ’ lel lal , avehOovra eis [Tovs|* ovpavods év aUT@® TO THOLATL, / > , lal , kabicavta év SeEia Tod tratpos, > f 3 > lal fa , 19 , A ’ A €pxXomevov ev avT® TO cowparte [Kat]’ ev TH dSo—n Tov Ta- \ 0 lal lol Tpos’ Kpivat Edvtas Kal vexpors, 1 So Malan. Steck omits yevynbra: Neale omits évavOpwrjcavra: Int. in- serts totr’ éoriv between évavOpwr7- gavra and yerwvnbévra: Ep. reads cap- KwOévra Totr’ éorl yevynbévra Tedelws ex k.7.., deferring évavOpwrjcavra till after mvetuaros dylov (where, with Tour éoriy added, it is prefixed ‘to an altered amplification of the following explanatory clause): Mech. both defers évavOpwrjcavra and omits yevyybévTa Tedelws, thus following CP. 2 So Malan (in litt.) and Steck, as- suredly rightly. Int. has ék M. ris decrapbévov, Ep. éx tys aylas M. ris demapOévov: Neale and Mech. omit ayias, with CP., and invert the positions of the Virgin and the Holy Spirit, likewise with CP. 3 The presence of ék rairys or some equivalent is attested by Malan and Steck (‘from whom he”) and Mech. (“and who took from her”), though omitted apparently by Neale (‘ as- sumed”) as by Int. (écoxyxéra) and by Ep.: Ep. however likewise omits é- oxnxéra, substituting réNevoy dvOpwmrov AaBovra before Wuxhv Kal cdua. 4 So Int. and as to the order all the Armenian forms. Malan and Neale have “body”, Steck and Neale ‘‘ flesh”’, but apparently the Armenian is am- biguous: Ep. has puxiv kal coua. 5 So Ep.: Malan, Neale, Mech., and apparently Steck have ‘‘in man”: Int. (if rightly printed) has dv@paémas. That dv@pwros is at least not a clerical error is proved by various passages of Epiphanius cited by Caspari (i 11); it may have been substituted for dvOpi- mots in the second Greek (Epiphanian) recension, but was more probably the original reading changed by scribes to an easier form. The Armenian rendering might stand for either read- ing: an original & avOpdérw would hardly have been altered. 6 This and other participles have kat prefixed in various authorities. I have followed Malan and Steck. 7 Ep. omits rq rpirn nuépa: Malan (also in litt.) prefixes it to dvacrdyra. 8 So Ep. with Nic. and CP.. Int. omits Tovs. 9 So Malan (also in litt.) and Neale. Steck and Mech. apparently omit xal, as do Int, and Ep.: but see next note. 10 So all the Armenian forms: ef. Mat. xvi 27; Mark viii 38. Int. and Ep. have only év ddfy, but they add évdoéws to the first & atitG 7G od- pare (see p. 117 n. 2). The probably Asiatic Creed of Irenezus (48: cf. 206) had é rq 5d&y Tod rarpés, as also the third formulary of Sirmium 79 doty 7H marpiky, that of Nicé pera ddéns 122 ON THE ‘CONSTANTINOPOLITAN’ CREED ov 75 BaciNelas ovK Eotat TEXoS. K \ , > \ a Wire: Nw X t 1 at TLOTEVOLEV €LS TO TTVEVLA TO aylov TO AKTLOTOV TO TENELOV > \ lel > , tae | / are b] fd TO NaNjoav €v VOUM Kal EV TPOPHTals Kal EV EVayyENLOLS, KkataBav él tev “lopdavny, > / ° Knpv&av Tov atroaToXov (or atrocTONoLs)’, >A > a 3 2 Cre oixioav (or oiKody)* év aryiots. marpixfs, and its Constantinopolitan recension of 360 év 77 marpixy 50én. 1 So all the Armenian forms, the Uniat adding the Latin CP. clause on the Procession. So also virtually Int. and Ep., but with various additions and transpositions, [7d] rapd«Anrov be- ing the only added element common to both. The critical phrase of Int. is obk GANbrpltov...d\N’ duoovoroy, in this place; of Ep. éx tod warpés exmopevope- vov kal éx:Tod viod AduBavoy (so rightly Caspari, i5f., after John xvi 14f., for AapBavopevor, the whole phrase, as he points out, being much used by Epi- phanius), in a sentence added after dylous. 2 Malan (also in litt.), Steck, Neale, and Mech. have xnpvéav Tov drdoToXov: Ep. has \adoiv év daroorddos, having already inserted xyptiav before év rots mpopyras: Cod. Reg. of Int. (with the Armenian form given by Nerses of Lampron in the twelfth century, ac- cording to Mr Malan) has xypvéay dmocrédos, Cod. Vat. xnpvidmevor atro- crodos. Tov drdcronor, if right, must denote our Lord (Heb. iii 1: cf. Just. Mart. Ap. i 12 p. 604; 63 pp. 95D, 96 ac; Orig. on Jo. xiii 20 p. 430 Ru.; Cyr. Al. Expl. xii Capp. p. 148n=245 Pusey), with reference to the Baptism. The reading is difficult, especially through the absence of kat to connect this clause with the descent on the Jordan. ‘O dmécroXos is also a singu- lar term to be selected for absolute use; nor can it be explained by so remote and isolated a rendering of Shiloh in Gen, xlix 10 as Jerome’s qui mittendus est. Yet it has in its favour the chief Armenian evidence, and it was far more likely to be altered than the other readings. It is moreover supported by the injunction in the Apostolic Constitutions (vii 22 1) for baptism in the threefold Name rod amooreihavTos maTpobs, ToU éNPdvTos xpt- oTOU, TOU LapTUphoavTos mapakAyrou (ch. 261, 6 dmoorel\as emt yhs "Incoty rov xpioTéy cov x.T.d.); and Cyr. Hier, xvi 3 &y mvetua ay.ov, bua mpopyray pev mept Tou xpicrod Kynpviav, éNOovTos 6é Tov xpicrov KaraBav Kal émdetiav adrav. For xyptéav cf. Clem. Strom. ii p. 449 mapérket 6 dudkovos avrots [Basilidians] Kal TOKHpuywa Kal 76 Badricua, Where the dudkovos, and therefore the xjpuypa, is proved by Zac. Theod. 16 p. 972 to belong to the Baptism. Yet xnpvéav admogrddos, Which is not without Ar- menian as well as Greek authority, cannot well be neglected. It is at least less obvious than the somewhat feeble xnpiéav év drocrodos, and gives an intelligible sense as a compendious reference to John xvi 13 ff., where the truer but less pictorial word dvayycXet is used three times. 3 Olxfioay (Malan, Steck, and Mech.) is probably right (cf. Ap. Const. 70 évepyjoay év maou Tots am’ aldvos d-ylo.s), but may be due to assimilation: olxovv (Neale, Int., and Ep.) gives a more obyious sense. AND OTHER EASTERN CREEDS 123 \ ‘ > \ Kai muctrevouev eis piav povnv' caodKnv Kat aTrooToNLKnY exxAnalar, > a , / els €v Barticpa petavolas, els > els iNacpov (2?) Kat adeow" apwaptiar, avactacw veKpar, > / 2 a \ , 8 els Kpioww aiw@viov Wuxav TE Kal TwpmaTor’*, > / , a els Bactelav ovpaver, Nees 4 \ oF Kab els Swrv aiwviov. 9 "Hp "KE ovK bvtwp éyéveTo, 7 > ’ > c Tovs dé Aéyovtas Ore "Hv morte bre ovK HY 6 VIOs, MOTE OTE OVK HV TO AYLOY TYEDMA, 1% OTL ) €& étépas Uroctacews 1) ovcias pacKovTas Elvat TOY vioY TOD Geod 7) TO TvEDMA TO AyLov, TpETTOV 7) GANOLwWTOY, TOUTOUS ava- Beparifer 7° Kkaortx) Kai atroaotoNKn éxkrnaoia’. The most marked feature of the Cappadocian Creed, as distinguished from the revised Creed of Jerusalem, is the clear and copious language by which Apollinarianism is precluded. The doctrine itself, as we have seen (p. 95), had certainly arisen before the Council of Alexandria in 362. On the other hand it is in 871 and the following years that we begin to hear it widely spoken of, and to find the name of Apollinaris attached to it. This one indication would point to 371—3, while on the other hand so late a date does not leave much time for the modifications introduced before the Creed was transcribed 1 So Malan, Steck, and (with ratryy added) Int.: Mech. and Ep. omit povyy, Neale substitutes dylay, on which see Mr Malan’s note. 2 So apparently Malan, Steck, and Mech., the renderings of the first sub- stantive being expiation and Vergebung (followed by Nachlassung). Neale has only els dpeow dyu.; Int. cal adécews éu.; and Ep. omits all after peravolas. Notwithstanding Acts ii 38 it is best not to join this clause to the preceding, which the example of the early Jeru- salem Creed shews to need no supple- ment, while the separate Western Re- missionem peccatorum justifies a like separation here, and idacuov almost enforces it. The ‘Constantinopolitan’ analogy has little foree on the other side, as weravolas is wanting there. 3 Nerses omits Yuxydv re kal cwpd- TWY. 4 So Malan, Steck, Mech., and Ep.: Int. omits eds, as also Neale, who how- ever omits eds throughout this division. 5 Malan inserts dyla. 6 Nerses of Lampron (Malan) omits the whole Anathematism, substituting Amen. 124 ON THE ‘CONSTANTINOPOLITAN’ CREED by Epiphanius in 374. From the autumn of 370° Basil was bishop of Cezsarea, and thus at the head of the Cappadocian churches: but though the Creed is in harmony with his doctrine, no such repetitions of its phrases are perceptible in his writings as might have been anticipated if he were the compiler”: so that we are led to look back to the preceding Basil’s immediate predecessor Eusebius, an unbaptized civil official raised to the episcopate by popular acclamation shortly after the accession of Julian, shewed some excellent qualities in trying times, but evidently had neither the inclina- tion nor the capacity for such a work. Among known names that of Silvanus of Tarsus has the best claim to consideration. Next to Basil of Ancyra, Silvanus held the chief place among the Homeeousian bishops of Asia Minor who suffered persecution years. under Constantius, welcomed Cyril in his exile*, and gave Basil He formed one of the deputation from the East which sought communion with Liberius in 366 on the his early training. basis of the Nicene Creed‘. 1 This is the date determined by Tillemont, Prud. Maranus, and Klose, in conjunction with Jan. 1 379 for the death of Basil, and the following autumn for the synod of Antioch. Pagi and Clinton place all three events a year later; but on untrustworthy authority. 2 What is said here refers to Basil’s writings generally, not merely to the Confession of Faith included in the piece De Fide, which seems to have been written comparatively early, whether it properly belongs to the preface to the Ethica or not (cf. Tille- mont ix 28, 634f:; Schréckh xiii 16). The leading terms on the Holy Spirit in the Confession (Opp. ii 227p) are Kal & povov mvevua dyov 7d (or Tov) mapdKAnrov..., TO mvetpa THs dhyGelas..., rd mvevua THs vioWeclas K.7.d.: two of them we shall meet in the Philadel- phian Creed. Eustathius, whose name stands 3 Cyril had indeed closer relations with Silvanus than with the rest. On his expulsion by Acacius, it was at Tarsus that he sought and found refuge, and there he took part in the public services and teaching. Acacius remonstrated; but failed to overcome Silvanus’s personal respect (aidovmevos) for Cyril and unwillingness to offend the people, who delighted in his ser- mons. Theodoret H.E. ii 22 (26). 4 Tarsus itself was to have been the place of meeting for a great synod to be held in the spring of 367, for which the bishops chiefly concerned in this deputation sent forth invitations, its purpose being the confirmation of the Nicene faith with a view to reconcilia- tion. Difficulties were created by some dissentient Homcousians in Caria; and it was finally forbidden by Valens under the influence of Eudoxius. Soer. iv 12 34f.; Soz. vi 12 3 ff. AND OTHER EASTERN CREEDS 125 first as his colleague, an erratic and unstable person, is known to have receded afterwards from this position: but we hear no similar tidings of Silvanus, and Basil always speaks of him with unqualified reverence. Indeed as early as the end of 359 he had defended even the term djoovavos at Constantinople, in the presence of the indignant emperor’, and it is morally cer- tain that he would not hold aloof in later years. He died apparently in 369°. After an interval of some years, during which the Arians had the upper hand at Tarsus, he was suc- ceeded by his own pupil® Diodorus, probably the greatest theo- logian, Gregory of Nyssa excepted, who took part in the Council of Constantinople in 381, the cherished teacher of Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia’‘. Creed to have been made by an eminent bishop of Tarsus, it was likely to find ready acceptance in Cappadocia, with which Supposing the revision of the Cilicia was closely connected. The ancient fame for learning was but one of the prerogatives of Tarsus ; bewailing the con- dition of its church after the death of Silvanus, Basil described the city as “having such happy opportunities that it was itself a means of linking together Isaurians and Cilicians with Cap- 5» padocians and Syrians’”. ‘I'wo other geographical contigui- ties deserve mention. A sail of 120 miles across the Gulf 1°ANAG ouvAd\oyioTiKGs Te Kal ddnOcs 6 ZiABavds mpds Te abrods Kal Tov Ba- ottéa épn Hi éf ov dvrwy ovK eorw ov're kriopa ore €& érépas ovclas 6 Oeds Aéyos, Guoovctos dpa earl TO yeyerynxire Oe® ws Oeds éx Oeod cal pws éx gwrds, Kal THY "ANG Tadra pev kal Suvards kat ddnOds aitny exer TO yervnrope Ppvow. elpnxer’ érelOero 6¢ Tv wapébyTwy ovdels, ada Bon Te TOA} Tv epl Akdxioy Kal Hvddéitov éyivero, kal 6 Bactheds éxadé- mnve kal Tov éexk\nordv éfeXdoew yrel- Anoev. Theodoret H.E. ii 23 (27). 2 So Prud. Maranus Vita S. Bas. xii 6. Tillemont gives 373 (vi 592; ix 211). The evidence is not decisive. 3 Basil writes in 376 (Ep. 244 p. 378 8B): Avddwpov 6é ws Opéuma rod pma- Kaptov Zidovavod 7d e€& dpxis bredetd- MeOa, viv dé kal dyardpev Kal mepiémro- fev Oia Ti rpocovcay avT@ Tov Adbyou xdpw, S60 As wodXNol Tay évrvyxavdvrwy BeXrious ylvovra 4 Two facts respecting Diodorus are worthy of note for our purpose, that he owed to Meletius his elevation to the see of Tarsus, and that he shewed especial zeal against Apollinaris, 5 Ep. 34 p. 1134. By ‘Syrians’ Basil probably means here the Syri of Cappadocia: but his language might be safely applied to the natives of Syria likewise, who had much inter- course with Cilicia, | 126 ON THE ‘CONSTANTINOPOLITAN’ CREED of Issus would conduct from Laodicea, the home of Apollinaris, to Tarsus; and a sail of 150 miles, over almost the same waters, from Tarsus to Constantia, the see of Epiphanius. It would accordingly be no wonder if Apollinarian doctrine were known and dreaded at Tarsus before it spread to more distant churches: and as Epiphanius appears to have brought with him to Cyprus his shorter Creed from the neighbourhood of Jerusa- lem, in like manner his longer Creed could reach him in Cyprus from no nearer mainland capital than Tarsus, unless Antioch be excepted. According to the conjecture here hasarded, the probable date of the Creed would be 366—9: but neither time nor authorship admit of secure determi- nation, Next in order must be named the revised Antiochian Creed, The first two divisions have been preserved in a Latin dress by Cassianus’, as has been well known since the days of Ussher. Caspari has pointed out (i 73 ff.) that a few clauses of the same portion sur- vive in Greek in a Contestatio comparing Nestorius to Paul of Samosata, dating from 429 or 430, which is said by Leontius (Contra Nest. et Eutych. iii, t. 86 p. 1389 Migne) to have been attributed to Eusebius afterwards bishop of Doryleum*® Other clauses near the end have been recovered by Dr Heurtley and I have thought it worth while to try to restore the original of this Creed so far as the evidence goes (see p. 148): but some points must be left doubtful* We do not possess any direct evidence as to the 1 De incarnatione Domini vi 3 f., which has unfortunately reached us imperfect. Caspari from Chrysostom’s Homilies®. 3 See pp. 75 n.1; 80n. 1. with some repetitions in the following chapters. 2 Printed among Ephesine docu- ments in Mansi Conc. iv 1109. An ancient Latin version is also extant (Theodoreti Opp. v 624 Schulze). The quotation extends from dedv ddOuwdy to I:Adrov: some earlier words are cited freely (see p. 64 n. 3). 4 The Credo of Cassianus is possibly a reminiscence of the Latin singular. The same may be said of Dominum nostrum, which indeed loses nostrum in cc. 6, 7,9: Eus.Dor. refers with apparent emphasis to éva, which is moreover present in the Lucianic Creed. Not xaredOdvra of the Greek text of Eus.Dor. (so also Luc. and AND OTHER EASTERN CREEDS 127 Creed of Antioch in the early part of the fourth century, that is, in its condition intermediate between the Lucianic and the later forms’. It is thus impossible to say what changes, if any, were made at the final revision, beyond the insertion of Nic.) but ¢ed@ovra (venit Eus.Dor. Latine and Cass.) seems to be right: so Caspari 79. Again the printed text of the Greek Eus.Dor. has éx Maplas Ths aylas THs devmapOévov, the Munich MS. and the Latin ék M. r. aylas map- Gévov, Cassianus ex Maria Virgine; Lucianus having had merely ex rap0é- vou: doubtless éx ris aylas 7m. is right. Though distrusting the order in Cas- sianus, I have not ventured to write dvacrdvta TH TpliTn Nuépa OY avel- Odvra els Tods ovpavovs. Speculation as to the missing clauses after vexpovs must be precarious. The clauses on the Holy Spirit most likely to have been present are rév mapdxAnrov and 7d mvedua THS adAnOelas, both found in various formularies of 341—360 in which Antiochene language would be gladly adopted, (among which that of Niecé has an identical beginning, the Third Sirmian almost the same, and also the characteristic 6’ of of aldves karnpticOnoay,) the former title occurs moreover in the early Creed of Jeru- salem, in that of the Apostolic Con- stitutions, and in a Creed used by Lucifer (see next note); and both in the Philadelphian Creed, as also in Basil’s Confession (Opp. ii 227). Yet further, 7d mvetua ris adnGeias stands in the daughter Creed of Mesopotamia, some of the other language of which on the Holy Spirit, and in the clauses following, may likewise be Antiochian. 1 This is perhaps. the best place to mention a form of Creed used by Lucifer in 358 (Pro Ath. ii p. 132 Coleti), which has apparently escaped the notice of editors. It exhibits a combination of Nicene with other Eastern language, but is unfortu- .nately imperfect: ‘“...qui catholicam damnaveris fidem, qui Dewm Patrem negaveris verum Patrem, qui unicum ejus Filium dixeris non esse verwm Filium, Spiritum quoque Sanctum Paracletum asseveraveris non esse ve- rum Dei Spiritum; cum te contra et contra omnes Dei inimicos clamet sanctae ecclesiae fides credere se in Deum verum Patrem innatum, et in unicum Filium ejus natum ex innato et vero Patre, hoc est, de substantia Patris, Deum de Deo, lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, natum, non factwm, unius substantiae cum Patre, (quod Graeci dicunt omousion,) per quem om- nia facta sunt, et sine quo factum est nihil; et in Spiritum Paracletum, ver- um Dei Spiritum.” The transcription of the Greek term, with an explanatory parenthesis added, is common in early Latin copies of the Nicene Creed. Elsewhere about 360 (De non pare. in D. deling. p. 204) Lucifer gives the Nicene Creed pretty exactly, (omitting however povoyer7},) as the “ belief of the Holy Church ;” cf. Mor. esse pro D. F. p. 245: so that the combination quoted above may possibly have been un- conscious and extemporaneous, But the peculiar phrases were certainly derived from some Creed, for that of the Apostolic Constitutions has eds éva dyévynrov povoy adnOuwov Oedv, that of Alexandria according to Alexander has dyévyynrov, and that of Antioch ac- cording to Cassianus verum Deum Patrem omnipotentem: the explanation subjoined to the Lucianic Creed like- wise combines d\70ds with each Person of the Trinity. 128 ON THE ‘CONSTANTINOPOLITAN’ CREED the three Nicene phrases, ov mounOévta, Oedv adyOiviev éx Oeod adnOwvob, opoova.ov TS Twatpi. Judging by internal evidence, we might suspect these to have been the only innovations. It has been suggested that the revision took place at the synod held at Antioch under Meletius late in 363 (see p. 96). A gathering however of scattered bishops, including men like Acacius, assembled to express acquiescence in the terms of communion arranged by Meletius, was hardly a body to which he would commit the revision of the Creed of Antioch, and there is no evidence or probability that the later Antiochian Creed was intended for any such purposes as the formularies of 341—360. To regard either this or any other of the five known revised Creeds as lowerings of the Nicene standard for the sake of dogmatic compromise is to mistake their whole nature: the process in each case consisted in the enrichment of a local Symbol for local use. That Meletius was responsible for the Antiochian revision, and that it took place in one of the early years of his episcopate, is likely enough. We come next to a Creed which has for its base the revised Antiochian Creed, into which it introduces some fresh Nicene elements, with other additions of unknown origin. Our know- ledge of it is again chiefly due to Caspari (i 113 ff), who has for the first time published it entire in Syriac from a Munich MS., accompanying it with some useful illustrations, in which he points out some of the Antiochian affinities. Dr Wright has been good enough to examine two MSS. in the Cambridge Uni- versity Library, and two others in the British Museum; and has enabled me to introduce some corrections into Caspari’s Greek rendering. This Creed is no other than the Creed in general use among the Nestorians. Some particles of it” were given 1 Orient. 147: the extract was fur- Library at Paris, Suppl. 56, No 24 in nished to him by Schonfelder. Dr Zotenberg’s catalogue. Wright observes that there is another 2 JT find mpwrédroxoy macys xrloews MS. of this Creed in the National mentioned as in the ‘‘ Nicene Creed” AND OTHER EASTERN CREEDS 129 by Renaudot (Z. O. i 219) from a tract by Severus of Ashmonin against the Nestorian metropolitan of Damascus, and the clauses on the Holy Spirit by Dr Badger (The Nestorians and their Rituals ii 78 f.: cf. 92): but it has not been printed as a whole till 1866, and then only at Christiania. As might be expected, it has nothing to do with distinctive Nestorian doc- trine, but is simply a monument of the days before 431, pre- served by the independence of the Nestorian Communion from being superseded by the ‘Constantinopolitan’ Creed, just as the Cappadocian Creed was preserved by the Armenian in- dependence. Its home was doubtless Mesopotamia and the neighbouring ceuntries, the great inland region where the Syriac language was supreme, .and the decrees of emperors and Greek councils were not readily accepted. Over this region no Greek capital exercised such influence as Antioch; and it is natural that we find the Mesopotamian Creed to be a careful enlargement of the revised Creed of Antioch’. The analogies with the revised Creed of Jerusalem only illustrate the mutual independence of the two documents. There is enough of verbal coincidence to establish a limited community of ma- terials: but it is incredible that the Mesopotamian compiler should have had the other composition in his hands without making larger use of it% There is little variation of text on which the Nestorian Elijah of Nisi- bis wrote a commentary in the eleventh century (Assemani B.0O. iii 271 f.); and this and other distinctive phrases are similarly recorded as given in another anonymous commentary (ib. 280). 1 A few Antiochian words are drop- ped in the process. They are cal povov adnOwor, kricpdrwy, and aylas. 2 The Mesopotamian phrases nei- ther Antiochian nor Nicene in the first two divisions (neglecting éxric8n and particles) are éx [rv] otpavay, éx mvevparos aylov after capxwhévra, dv- Opwmrov yevouevoy (sic) for évavApwiri- H. cavra, kal ov\dAndOévra, and kal xadl- cavra é£ defy Tov marpos [avrod]. In the first, second, and fifth there is a coincidence with ‘CP.’ language, and the absence of Mapias r7s mapévou in the second might be due only to its presence in a later Antiochian clause. But xaicavra is the form which pre- ceded the ‘CP.’ caBefopevov; avOpwirov yevouevoy is probably ancient, certainly not ‘Constantinopolitan’; and cvAd7- p0évra, comparatively late (replacing capxw0évra) in Latin Creeds (first at Ariminum in 359 [Hier. Dial. in Lucif. 17, cited by Caspari ii 203 f.], this part of the Creed being apparently 9 130 ON THE ‘CONSTANTINOPOLITAN’ CREED in the MSS.* except as to the presence or absence of the Filioque’. Conjectures as to authorship are even more hasardous here than in the case of the Cappadocian Creed’*. Western, though what precedes fol- lows the formulary of Nicé), seems to be unique in Greek Creeds. From Kal eis &y dytov mvedua to év Bamriopa the Antiochian text is not extant for com- parison. The three ‘CP.’ phrases 76 €k TOU marpos Exmopevopevory, TO (woTo.dr, and duodoyotmev ev Bdrricua [els dpeow duapTiav] cannot have come together by accident. But the collocations of the two former are altogether different in the two Creeds; and the ‘CP.’ sen- tence would assuredly have been used to better purpose if used at all. An inversion of the process is conceivable: but it is far more likely that both compilers used a common document, now unknown, and that it provided them likewise with the additions in the first two divisions. Except the three Nicene phrases selected at An- tioch, the Mesopotamian Creed does not contain a word which distinctly savours of the controversies of the fourth century. 1 One London MS. has ‘the Spirit our Life-giver.” The suffix translated by av’rod after marpés in two places cannot be relied on, such pronominal supplements being congenial to Syriac usage, There is perhaps some confu- sion in the clause on the Church; but the MSS. give no help: Alexander’s paraphrase of the Alexandrine Creed (ulav kal povny KabodtKhy Thy drocToN- knv) suggests that ryvy should possibly be inserted before cadodixijy. 2 Tt is absent altogether from the elder London MS., and prima manu from the Munich MS. and the Cam- bridge MS. next mentioned: it is pre- sent in the two other MSS, Whether If however, as the phrase on the Procession of the Holy Spirit retained the relative and finite verb of St John or, as at Jerusa- lem, assumed a participial form, can- not be determined from the Syriac; the preposition seems to be éx, not mapa: but in either case this phrase must certainly be taken with the pre- ceding To mvedua THs GdnOelas, as in St John (xv 26): the repetition of rd mvevua before td (woroov removes all possible doubt. 3 Nothing, I fear, of importance as to the early history, much less the origin, of the Creed can be elicited from the title given in one of the Cambridge MSS., which came from Malabar, and was probably written in the fifteenth century. Itruns ‘‘ The orthodox Faith of the Church which was composed [or ‘ordained’] by the 318 Fathers and Bishops who were assembled at the city of Nicwa: and it is to be said at the time of the mysteries: Joseph, who was dismissed from the patri- archate, ordained it to be said at the time of the mysteries.” The Joseph intended is Joseph I, patriarch of the ‘Nestorians in 552—5. His name, though just legible, has been erased, as often occurs, Dr Wright tells me, in Syriac MSS. with names of evil repute. He was a physician, made patriarch for curing the Persian king Chosru; but, breaking out after three years into acts of strange violence towards other bishops, was deposed by a synod. It is said that in the dis- turbed state of the Church he held a synod by request of the bishops to confirm the canons, when a confession of faith (certainly not our Creed, as AND OTHER EASTERN CREEDS 131 seems likely, the Creed of Mesopotamia attained its present form not many years before or after the beginning of the last third of the fourth century, it is at least easy to single out the greatest and most honoured name among the heads of sees to the East of Antioch throughout the period. Eusebius of Samosata first comes into view at the election of Meletius in 361, when the two parties, having united in a common vote, concurred in depositing the subscribed instrument in his hands. When the Arians, repenting of their choice, endeavoured with the support of Constantius to substitute Euzoius for Meletius, no threats of personal violence could induce Eusebius to sur- render the deposit, and his courage, we are told, won even the emperor's admiration (Theodoret H. #. 11 27 f. [31f.]*). In 363 he took part in the synod at Antioch which subscribed the 6uoovevoy with an explanation; and in the memorial to Jovian his name stands second, next to that of Meletius (Soer. 11 2516). On the death of Eusebius of the Cappadocian Cesarea in 370 he was invited by the elder Gregory of Nazianzus to assist him in providing a worthy bishop for so important a see, and by his efforts and influence Basil was placed in the vacant throne in the face of a vigorous political agitation (Greg. Naz. Epp. 42, 44; Or. 18 p. 356 f.: cf 43 p. 799; Bas. Hp. 145). Basil’s cor- the description shews) was agreed to. This statement receives some illus- tration from the fact that his prede- cessor Aba, a convert from the Magi- ans, a vigorous patriarch of much literary activity, author of ‘‘Synodical Epistles”, ‘‘ Canons”, and “ Constitu- tions” on Church matters, and co- translator of the Old Testament and of a *“prolix Liturgy of Nestorius”, suffered persecution at the king’s hands for his faith, and died in prison. Joseph may thus have consented in the beginning of his episcopate to complete and consolidate Aba’s work, interrupted and suspended by the per- secution; and the introduction of the Creed into the Eucharistic service may have been one of the ordinances, The Liturgical history of the ‘ Constanti- nopolitan’ Creed in the Greek Church seems to be hardly less obseure. The above particulars about Joseph and Aba come from Assemani B.O.ii411ff., 434; iii 36, 75 ff., 432 ff. The title of the Creed in the Munich and other MSS. merely describes it in elaborate language as the Creed of the 318 as- sembled at Nica. 1 Theodoret seems to have been especially glad to collect particulars concerning Eusebius. Cyrrhus, his own episcopal seat, lay between Antioch and Samosata, 9—2 132 ON THE ‘CONSTANTINOPOLITAN’ CREED respondence throughout his episcopate shews Eusebius as his most intimate and trusted friend: the twenty-two extant letters addressed to him attest at once the sympathy which met all Basil’s private cares, and the counsel and laborious help which Basil was accustomed to expect from him in public affairs, whether local or affecting the whole East. At one time of desolation he is said to have put on a military dress and tiara, and to have traversed Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine, ordaining clergy, and otherwise providing for the wants of the churches (Theodoret H. £. iv 12 [13]). In 372 his name stands second, between those of Meletius and Basil, in a letter from the Eastern bishops asking the help of their brethren of Italy and Gaul (Bas. Ep. 92): and five years later Basil had the grief of learning that in a conference between Peter of Alexandria and Damasus of Rome Meletius and Eusebius had been reckoned among Arians (Zp. 266), in evident reference to their early associations, with which in spite of Athanasius’s counsels of 362 the West and its allies were determined to brand them for life. In the persecution of Valens, memorable for Basil’s successful resistance at Czesarea, Meletius, Eusebius, and Pelagius of Laodicea were selected for banishment to different countries (Theodoret H. E. iv 12 [13]}); and the story of Eusebius’s de- parture for his exile in Thrace bears equal witness to the vene- ration with which he was regarded and to his own generous patience (ib. 13f [14f]). Being restored on the death of Valens in 378, he ordained bishops to several important sees, including Edessa; but perished by the fanaticism of an Arian woman who threw down a tile upon his head as he was entering a petty town to instal its bishop, and in his last moments he bound his attendant friends to exact no retribution for the murder (ib. v 4). As bishop of Samosata, Eusebius was well placed for exerting influence over Mesopotamia. Samosata was the capital of Commagene, situated at the bridge over the Euphrates on the road from Edessa into Cappadocia and the interior of Asia Minor, and apparently on the frontier of Greek and Syrian civilisation, about 25 miles from Edessa the Christian AND OTHER EASTERN CREEDS 133 metropolis of Mesopotamia: it was thus favourably situated for introducing a formulary of Greek origin into the regions to the East of the Euphrates. Other sees in the same region had bishops of some distinction during at least the latter years of the reign of Valens, as Edessa itself, Batnee, and Carrhe ; and the possibility of the Mesopotamian Creed having been framed in some one of them is not to be overlooked. But in the total absence of direct evidence the personal qualities, the associates, and the reputation of Eusebius of Samosata mark him out as a fitter provisional representative of the Creed than any of his contemporaries. The fifth revised Creed is that known as the Creed of Charisius, and is preserved in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (Mansi iv 1348). At the sixth session of the Council, when the Nicene Creed was being read and entered in the Acts, a certain Charisius, presbyter and oeconomus of Philadelphia in Lydia, came forward and made a statement, which he supported by a formal memorial and some other accompanying documents. It seems that a little knot of Quartodecimans and Novatians in Philadelphia and the neighbourhood had resolved to join the Church. They had been instructed and admitted by two men called presbyters, Antonius and Jacobus, and by their direction had subscribed an exposition of faith somewhat in the form of a Creed’, Antonius and Jacobus had commendatory letters to the bishops of Lydia from Anastasius and Photius, men likewise called presbyters, who were at that time consorting with Nesto- rius at Constantinople®; and the exposition, Charisius said, was full of heretical blasphemy. He prayed that the exposition might be read, and also the letters in which the orthodoxy of Jacobus was attested, and himself, Charisius, a man of pious 1 TIpocekémucav éxOeoty twa doyudrwy with an onslaught on various heretics, docBav, ws év Taker cuuBodrov TeOemévyvy. among whom the Quartodecimans of The resemblance is slight enough, but Lydia and Caria and the Novatians are in the first few lines it is perceptible. specially named (Soer. vii 29). Chry- ? Nestorius began his episcopate sostom had set the example (vi 19 7). 1384 ON THE ‘CONSTANTINOPOLITAN’ CREED belief (evceBas dpovodvta), was excluded from the communion and services of the Church as a heretic. lowed by the exposition, of which Theodore of Mopsuestia was the author’, and by the subscriptions of the converts at full length®. When all had been read, the Council decreed that no one should present or write or compose any other faith than the Nicene Creed, specially forbade the inculcation of any such faith upon new converts, and anathematised those who believed The memorial is fol- or taught the contents of the exposition or the doctrines of Nestorius, The place where the Creed stands is at the end of the memorial, followed only by the formal signature of Charisius to the whole document (rods. AuBéAXous), after which came the It is headed “Oporoyla mi- . otews Xapiciov mpecBvrépov, and is not accompanied by a word exposition and the subscriptions. of explanation®. None of the Constantinople letters are pre- served in the Acts; and as they are said to have contained an 1 Reprinted by Walch 203 ff., and Hahn 202 ff. Both editors neglect to detach the last two sentences, which must have been added at Philadelphia for the abjuring Noyatians and Quar- todecimans: mds 6 py Sexduevos. Thy TwTHpLoy peTdvoray avdbeua éorw: was 6 BH Toay Thy aylav juépay Tod: macxa Kara Tov THs aylas Kal KaBoduKys éx- kAynolas Becuiv dvdbepa eorw. In- deed it is not improbable that the preceding anathema in general terms was added at the same time, though: unlike the others it is found in Marius Merecator’s version: atirn rév éxxAyova- otikwy Soyudrwy ) didackaNla,. Kal mas o: évdvria Tovros ppovisy dvdOena eorw: The exposition itself, an interesting monument of the Antiochian contest with Apollinarianism, apparently sup: plied the ultimate original of a familiar Latin formula: at least perfectus homo ex anima rationali et hwmana carne subsistens is nearer to dvOpwiov réXevov Thy plow, ék Wuxijs Te voepas (rationali M. Mere.) kal capkds cuverrdra dvOpw- mlyns than to the rédevov rov avrov év dvOpwmrornrt,...€x Wuxis hoyikys Kal ow- patos of Chalcedon, or the plena in- quam humanitas,. quippe quae animam simul habeat et carnem, sed carnem veram, nostram, maternam, animam vero intellectu praeditam, mente ac ratione pollentem of Vincentius (Com- mon. 13). But the formula may have passed though several hands as well as changed-its context. 2 These subscriptions disclose (1) that nearly all the converts in abjuring their heresies had made application to (rapaxadécas- passim) Theophanes the holy bishop of Philadelphia, (2) that three of them had thus made applica- tion to Charisius himself along with Theophanes, and (3) that Jacobus, to whom two of. these three, and these alone, had likewise made application, was cherepiscopus.. Evidently the zealous oeconomus of Philadelphia did not choose to tell the whole story. 3 Reprinted at p. 150; also by Walch, p. 215, and Hahn, p. 191. AND OTHER EASTERN CREEDS 135 imputation against Charisius’s orthodoxy, the Creed may have been imbedded in some lost accompanying reply of his, which would have made known its purpose. That he composed it is on every ground improbable: analogy suggests that he recited it as the Creed in which he had been baptised, and which he still accepted as a true statement of his faith. It may then be reasonably taken as the Creed of Philadelphia about the begin- ning of the fifth century. The general brevity of the somewhat numerous clauses of this Creed has been already noticed. The second clause has an Antiochian sound’, as have also the first two on the Holy Spirit, TO TvEebpa THS adnOelas TO TapaKxAnTor (see p. 126 n. 4); but from such coincidences” it is impossible to infer immediate connexion: of the revised Antiochian Creed there is not the slightest vestige. On the other hand several phrases have been copied from the Nicene Creed. In two respects the article on the Holy Spirit is unique: it omits dyov and inserts e , 3 O«oovclov’. 1 Printed krioryy dravrwv dparav Te kal dopatwy rouriy: but xriornv in this arrangement is harsh, and pro- bably a corruption of xrioréy or Krioud- twy, though kricrny Kal rovnrqy occurs in several formularies of 341—360. The Antiochian Creed in Cassianus has Creatorem omnium visibilium et invisibilium creaturarum. 2 To which yevynbévra éx THs dylas mapbévov might be added, were it not so obvious: the omission of Mary’s name is probably due to the studied brevity. 3 The presence of this epithet in one of the interpolations made in the Cap- padocian Creed by the Interpretatio in Symbolum is not a true exception. It had been used in the first instance by Athanasius (Ep. ad Ser. i 27 p. 676¢), ovK G&Sndov bre ovK tore THY To\NWY TO mvevpa, GAN ovdé dyyedos, GAN éy "ON, uadrov 6é Tov Novyou évos bvToOs tdiov kal rov Oeo0 évds bvros Vdioy Kal 6 po- ovatov éorw: compare his alternative language on the part of the Council of Alexandria (Tom. ad Ant. 5 p. 773 D), kal viov pev opoovc.oy T@ TarTpl, ws elrov of marépes, To 5é dyLov mvevua ov Kticua ovdé Eévov aXN tdcov kal ddcalperov THs ovaias Tov vlov kaltot rarpos. The Nicene phrases and dpootctov marpl cal vig are the only elements of the Philadelphian Creed apparently due to recent controversy. It is on the whole best to take the rest of the articles on the Holy Spirit as a single clause, xal els TO mvevua THs adnbelas TO tmapaxAyTov, as John xv 26 might suggest the combination of its two members, and an adequate motive is thus found for the neuter 7rd rapda- K\nrov, Which sometimes occurs, but always I think with a distinctly adjec- tival force. The neuter may however be a corruption here, and in that case Tov mapdxAnrov might stand separately, 136 ON THE ‘CONSTANTINOPOLITAN’ CREED Hardly any historical associations exist, which it is possible to attach, however doubtfully, to the Creed of Philadelphia. We know little of the affairs of Western Asia Minor during the time when the revisions appear to have taken place. At Smyrna, the nearest maritime city, was held one of the synods by which the often mentioned deputation to Liberius was sent in 366 (Socr. vi 12 8, 10, 17); and Heortasius bishop of Sardis, the immediate metropolis, was one of those to whom Liberius’s answer was. addressed (ib. 20). He was previously acting in conjunction with Silvanus of Tarsus, and like him and Cyril of Jerusalem was deposed by the Acacians at Constantinople in 360’, ostensibly on grounds of discipline, but undoubtedly from doctrinal motives.(Hil. Op. Hist. Fr. 10 p. 693 C; Soz. iv 24 3, 11,13; 251). It is thus certain that Lydia had a share in the Homeeousian adoption of the Nicene faith in the period with which we are concerned: but this is all that can be said. No exact determination of authorship or locality is needed for ascertaining the more essential facts respecting the origin and purpose of the later Eastern Creeds. The obvious uncer- tainty as to details cannot lessen the interest of the particulars brought together in the last few pages, in so far as they illustrate the distinctive features of the time which gave birth to these formularies, and the temper and policy of its represen- tative bishops in Syria and Asia Minor. A simple scrutiny of the language which distinguishes the Revised Creed of Jeru- salem from its predecessor affords some insight into the counsels of those from whom it proceeded. When however it is set side by side with the contemporary Creeds of somewhat similar composition, its true intention becomes yet clearer. The tradi- as in the earlier Creed of Jerusalem. tion,) was probably derived from some The Eunomian formula cited before Creed allied to the Philadelphian. (p. 91 n. 4), Leorevouev els tov mapdxdn- 1 In the preceding autumn Theo- Tov TO mvevua THS aAnOelas, (in which dosius bishop of Philadelphia itself the absence of dyov is proved by vari- had been deposed at Seleucia as an ous passages of Hunomius, Apol. 5, Acacian (Socr. ii 40 43). 26 ff., to have had no doctrinal inten- AND OTHER EASTERN CREEDS 137 tion which invested it with associations borrowed from Nica has already been independently negatived by historical evi- dence: but comparison with the revised Creeds of other churches clothes it afresh with new and better associations, belonging to peaceful life and growth renewed after tragical interruption. The short age of Cappadocian and Antiochian supremacy stands out in welcome contrast between the devas- tating strifes on either hand: and its opening years have left no more characteristic monument than the one Creed which unites East and West by the confession of a true faith as read by the light of the highest Greek theology. The Creeds in the following pages are arranged with a view to shewing as far as possible their relation to each other. Cown- cidences with an earlier Creed assumed as the basis are marked by larger type where the order remains the same: coincident words which have changed their place retain the smaller type, but are spaced. In the Cappadocian, Antiochian, Mesopotamian, and Philadelphian Creeds uncial type designates coincidence with Nicene language. The threefold notation in pp. 144, 148 explains itself. It must be remembered that the Creeds of Cappadocia, An- ‘tioch, and Mesopotamia owe the Greek form in which they are exhibited here to a critical reconstruction. The Earlier Creed of Jerusalem is put together from fragments scattered through Cyrils Lectures. The other Creeds are preserved in continuous Greek texts, which in the case of the Nicene Creed differ much in minor details. The Nicene teat here given, in which some points are unavoidably left doubtful, has been constructed by a com- parison of the primary ancient authorities. 138 THE CREED OF CASAREA / >’ / Iliotevopev eis Eva Ody tratépa twavtoKpatopa, Kai TOV TOY aTaVTWY OpaTaV TE Kal aopaT@V ToLNnTHD. els Eva KUpiov “Inoody Xpiorév, TOV TOU Oeod Noyor, Oeov éx Oeod, gas ex hwtos, Sony éx Cwijs, viovy povoryevn, TPWTOTCKOY TaTNS KTITEWS, TpO TavTwY TOV ai@vev ex TOD TaTpos yeyevvnpévor, dv ov Kal éyéveto Ta TavtTa’ TOV Ola THY NuETépavy GwTnpiay capKwbérTa, / Kai év avOpwrois TotTEvoapevor, Kat twaGovta, A ¢ / kal avactavTa TH TpiTn nwépa, kal aveNOovta pos Tov TaTépa, vA , b / a A \ , kal n€ovta madw év S6€n Kpivar Cdvtas Kal vexpovs. ese [Wiorevowev dé] kal eis ev veda ayov. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 139 THE NICENE CREED, exhibited with the Creed of Cesarea as its base , > / \ 7 / Iliotevopev eis Eva Oeov matTépa ravToKpaTopa, t -~ \ , , TAVTWY OPAaTWY TE Kal adopaTwy TroLNTHY. \ > e/ , 2 - , Kai eis Eva Kupiov “Incovv Xpioctov, \ e ~ qn Tov viov tou OGeou, yevynOévta €x TOU TaTpOS pmovoyeErh- TOUT €oTiy Ex THS Ovcias TOU TaTpos - \ . ~ @eov é€x Geou, ro / dws €x PwTos, Gcov adnOivov é« Oeod arnOivoi, yevynbévta, ov troinbérta, Of00VGLOV TO TATPpi, e \ / ! - ov ov Ta TavTa éyEevEToO?s, Ta TE €v TO OVPaV@® Kal Ta ev TH YH (or emt THS ys)" \ Sy on \ > \ , TOV Sv pas Tods avOpdrous Kal Oia THY HuETEepay Tw- / , Tuplav KaterOcvta Kal capKwlerTa, , , ‘ , a évavOpwrycavta, maGovta, Kal dvactavTa TH / ¢ / TplTN nMEPC, z aveNOovta eis [rods] ovpavors, , ~ - \ 7 epxouevov Kpivat CwvTas Kal veKpous. \ > lol Kai eis 7o &ycov mvevma. Tots dé A€éyovras "Hv mote ote ovK HY Kal TpW yevvnOjvat ’ s MS 67; > > v a. sf, Ce ae cia f ¢ ‘ ovK nV, Kai OTe "EE ove dvtwy éyéveTo, 7 €& ETépas UTTOTTATEWS xa , i , 3 xX \ Dy # \ a > \ n ovolas pacKkovtas eivar [7 KTLoTOV] 4 TpeTTOY N addoLwTOV Tv viov Tod Oeod, [TovTous] avaBewatifes 7 KaOordKn [Kal atro- oToNLK?)| ExKAnoia. + Denotes phrases having an unimportant deviation from the order of words in the Creed taken as the base. 140 THE NICENE CREED , IIcorevopev eis Eva Oedv Tatépa tavtoKpatopa, TaVT@OY OpaTav TE Kal aopaTwY TroLNTHY. \ > A , ’ lal r f Kat eis eva Kiptov ‘Inoovv Xpiotor, Tcv viov Tov Geod, , fa] lal yevunbévta ék Tov TaTpcs pmovoryEvy - lal an ’ a ld TodT é€otly éx THs ovalas Tod TaTpos - Geov éx Oeod, ~ > ld das €x PwTos, la) ? lo) Ocov adnOwov é« Oeod adnOwoid, tA ? / ryevynGévta, ov mronévta, ¢ A Omoovalov TH TarTpl, &e ov Ta Tavta éyéverTo, , > A 2 A \ A =! A lel a 3 \ nr A 5 Ta Te €v TO Opava Kal Ta ev TH yH (or emt THS yYiNs) A ns bd \ € / Tov Ov nas Tos avOpwrous Kai Sua THY juEeTépavy owTHpiav / KaterOorvta Kal capkwbévta, x U lel c evavOpwrynaavta, Tabovta, Kal avactavTa TH TpiTn nméepa, 2? / > \ 2: f aveNOovta eis [Tovs]| ovpavors, lal a id epxomevov Kpivat Covtas Kal vexpous. \ us a Kai eis To Gyvov Treva. = / ’ a X X Tods dé Xéyovtas "Hv arote ote ovK Hv Kat Tply yevrynOjvas ’ a oy Led al EY ’ v BI / nv 9 € / = € U ovK nv, Kal ote “KE ovx bvtwy éyéveto, 1 €& ETépas UTOaTAaTEws aA ’ / i a x \ x \ wn 3 \ ovclas pacKovtas eivar [7 KTLoTOv|] 7) TpeTTOV 7) AANOLwWTOV \ aN a a 7 , / ¢ \ ‘ > Tov viov Tov Oeod, [TovTovs| avaeuarifer 7 KaGodiKn [Kai atro- \ oTONK) | EXKNHTIA. Continued from the opposite page [The Anathematism added to the ‘ Constantinopolitan’ Creed in the Epiphanian recension] Tods 6¢ Néyovras “lv wore bre ovK Hy Kal rply yevynOjvac ovK HY, m7 Ott “HE ovK bvTwy éyéveto, €& Erépas broactdcews } ovolas Pd- oKxovras elvat, pevoriv 7 d\NoLwWTdY, TOY TOU Oeovd vid», ToUTOUS dva- Oeparlfer 7 KafoALKYH Kal drogroANtKky Exkdyola, 141 THE ‘CONSTANTINOPOLITAN’ CREED OR REVISED CREED OF JERUSALEM, exhibited with the Nicene Creed as its assumed base / > e/ \ / , Iliorevopev ets eva Oeov ratéepa mavToKpatopa, ToLntnv ovpavovd’ Kal yijs, - , \ y OpaTwVv TE TavTwY Kal dopaTwv. \ > 4 Le ? > , Kai eis eva xuptov ‘Incovv Xpiotov, A A | lod rt in Tov viov Tov Oeou tov povoyerh, TO €k TOD TaTpos yevynbévtTa TPO TavTwY TeV aiaver’, ~ bs 7 dws ex PwrTos, \ > \ > lo ~ Geov arArnOwwov éx Ceov arnO.vov, , ? & yevvnOevta, ov momlervTa, € / ~ / OMO0VGLOYV Tw TAT Pl, Cy \ 7 > i 3 Ov ov Ta TavTa éyévEeTO * ‘ me - val \ > / A \ \ e , Tov Ot pads Tos avOpwrrous Kal dia THY HMETEPAV Tw- / / a A Tnpiay KaTteNOovTa éx tadv ovpavar, A / ag Lal Kal ocapkwlevTa €x qTvevpatos aylou Kat Mapias tis mapévou, / Kah éevavOpwmncavTa, otavpwbévta Te vTép nuav emt Tovriov Tdatov, kal madovre, Kal Tapevra, Kal avacrayta TH TpiTn rimepa kata Tas ypagas, / kal dveNOcvTa eis Tous oupavous, Kat Kabefcuevov ex SeEtav tod tratpos, , - ae \ kal Tadw €pxomevov pera S0fns Kpivat CwvTas Kal od VEKPOUS, e lal / >’ bya / ov THs Baowrelas ove éoTat TéXos. \ ? \ lod Q Kai els To TMVEVMa 76 aycov TO KUptov TO CwotroLor*, 76 €K TOU TAT pos eXTrOPEVOMEVOY, TO avy TaTpt Kal vid ouYTpocKuvovpevoy Kal auvdo~a- Somevov, TO Aadjjcav dua TOV mpopntav. Eis piav ayiav calomeny Kal ATOTTONENY éxkdyotay’ OpmonXoyoupev ey Barricpa eis apeow apapriay TpooSoKapev avacTacw veKpan, Kal Conv tod péAXovtos aidvos. "Apny’. 1 Epiphanius inserts re. 2B. adds rotr’ éorly éx rhs ovclas Tob TAT pos. 3B, adds rd re é€v rots obpavois kalraévtq yy. 4H. [7d] kdprov Kal wordy. 5 EH. adds an Anathematism, for which see the opposite page. THE EARLIER CREED OF JERUSALEM I iF. ’ ae \ / , waTevomev els Eva Gedy TaTépa TavToKpaTopa, Towntry ovpavod Kal Ys, opat@v Te TavTwY Kal aopaTov. \ > A [/ > fal Oa / Kat ets €va xvpiov “Inoodv Xpuictov, Tov vicv Tov Deod Tov povoyern, \ > fal ‘ / \ > \ \ , Tov €k TOD TaTpos yevvnGévta Oedv adyOivov pO TavTwY TOV aAiwvor, tae X , 27 i dev ov Ta TavTa éyéveTo capkwbévta kal évavOpwrncarta, otavpwlévta Kat Tadpévta, avactavta TH TpiTn NMEpa, AR S) / > ‘\ ° r Kal avedOovta eis Tovs ovpavovs, Kat Kablcavta éx SeEav Tod TaTpos, a “a U Kat épyopevoy év S0En xpivar Cavtas Kai vexpovs, ka fal Ig ’ v / ov Ths Bacirelas ove Eotat TEXOS. K si 2) a ivd fol al eis Ev aytov Tvedua, TOV TAapaKANTOP, \ a b] Lal / TO AaAnoay ev Tols mpodnTats. a e a Kal eis év Barticpa uetavoias eis ideow apapTiar, \ > Ul ¢ / \ > / Kab eis pilav aylav KaBoruKny exKdyCLar, - ° Kal els capkos avactacw, \ > \ 77 Kai els Gwry aiwviov. 143 THE ‘CONSTANTINOPOLITAN’ CREED OR REVISED CREED OF JERUSALEM, exhibited with the earlier Creed of Jerusalem as its base , J \ , , Tliorevomev eis Eva Oeov watéepa mayvtToKpaTopa, \ =~1 \ = TOWNTHY OVpavov Kal YNS, a , \ 7 oparav TE WavTwY Kat doparwy. Kai ets eva KUpLOV ‘Incouv Xpirrov, Tov viov Tov OEov TOV [LOVOYEN I, \ 7 Tov €K TOU TaTpos yevynOevTa TpO TavTwY ~ / 2 TMV AlWYwWY', A > / das €x hwtos, Oedv arnOuvov éx Beod arnOivod, yevunderra, ou _Tombevra, éwoova Lov Te marpt, oS: ov Ta wavta eyeveTo** Tov Ov pds Tods avOpwrous Kail Sia THY nueTépay owTNpiaV KateAOovta €k TaV ovpavan, xa capkwlevTa €K ‘TVEVLATOS ayiou Kab Mapias THS mapOévov, kal évavOpwrncavta, otavpwlevTa te irép ijuav éxt Tovtiov TAatov, wai mraQovra, Kal TapevTa, kal dvacTavTa TH TpiTn MEE KaTa Tas ypadas, kau aveNOovta €is Tous ovpavous, kal xabeCopuevov éx defy TOU TaTpos, kal madkw épxouevoy peta SOEs Kptvac CwvTas Kal VEKpOUS, ov Tis BaciNelas oUK ExTat TéXoOS. Kal eis 16 TVEU AG TO aytov TO KUptov TO CworroLoy*, To eK TOU TAT pos Ex TrOpEvOMEVOV, TO ov TAaTpl Kab via OUVT POT KUVOUMEVOV Kab ovvdoea- Somevor, TO Aadnoav dua Tay ils duos Eis piav dyiav KaBoNKyv Kai dirooToNKnyy éxkAnoiay’ Ouoroyodmev ey Barticpa eis adecw apapTiav’ mpoq bond ney dvarTacw veKiasiy, Kal Cony TOU wédXovtos aidvos. “Apnp’*. 1 Epiphanius inserts re. 2 E. adds rotr’ éoriv éx ris ovelas TOU Tarpos. 3 EB. adds rd re év rots ovpavois kal ta ev tH yf. 4 E. [ro] xvpiov Kal fworo.dv. 5 E. adds an Anathematism, for which see p. 140. 144 THE ‘CONSTANTINOPOLITAN’ CREED OR REVISED CREED OF JERUSALEM, exhibited with the earlier Creed of Jerusalem as its base, and with the Nicene insertion distinguished from the other alterations 7 J Tluorevopev eis Eva Ocov watépa mavToKpaTtopa, \ lod \ a TOMTHY OVpavoU Kal YNS, Cr y id OpaTwV TE TaVTWY Kal dopaTwy. c/ y > ~ Kai eis €va kupiov “Inociv Xpicrov, TON \ Lah lod lanl sf ~ Tov viov Tov Heov Tov povoyern, \ ~ \ / \ / TOV €K TOU TaTpos yevynfevTa mpO TavTwY on / TMV alwVywy, mac EK Matoc, 8EON AAHOINON €K O€E0¥ &AHOINOY, FENNHUENTA, OY TIOIHOENTA, OMOOYCION: TQ TIATPI, NM OF Pe TANT A. Erene To Ar Hméc Toyc ANOparroyc Kal AIA THN HMETEPAN COTHPIAN KATEAQUNTA EK TOY OUpAaVaY, , ’ a kat capkwlevta é« mvevpatos ayiov Kai Mapias ris mapOévou, \ f Kal evavOpwmnravra, oTaupwhevta te wep nuov emt Iovriov Iiatou, Kat ee Kal Tapevra, a advacTtavTa ™ TpITH ri ME pe KaTa Tas ypadas, Kal dveNOovTa Els ToUs ovpavous, 4 Kal xabcfopevov €k Oe€wy TOU TATPOS, \ / =~ a kal mddw €pxouevoy peta Sons Kptvat CwvTas \ / Kal VEKPOUS, Ox ”~ / > / / ov THs BaoiWelas ovK EoTat TEXoOSs. \ ‘ \ a Neh \ , \ , Kai €is 10 EI IR SR Me Cworrovov Eis TO eK TOU TAT pos EKTFOPEVOMEVOY, TO ov Tatpl Kal vid cUVTpoTKUVOUpEVoY Kal ovvdokato- EVO), TO Aadnoay dia TOV mpopntar, play dyiav | KaQoArkny xar dmroaroNuicyy exkAnolav Omoroyodpev Ev Barticpa eis apeciv apaptiov’ T poo OoK@ LEV aVaTTATW veKpar, Kal Conv Tov pé\Novtos aiavos. “Apip. 145 THE INTERPOLATED NICENE CREED AS RECITED IN THE DEFINITION OF CHALCEDON, exhibited with the interpolations distinguished from the original Creed Torevopev ets Eva Oeov marepa TAVTOKPATOPA, TavT OV opatav TE Kal doparwy TOMTHV- Kai eis €va kvpiov “Incovv Xpirtov, \ land cod Tov vidv tov Geou, 7 ad A ~ to yevynOevta Ex TOU TaTpOS MovoyEH — Lo ~ cond , TOUT éoTiv €k THS OvTias TOV TATPpOS — A od @eov éx Geov, ~ > y dws ek PwrTos, A > \ > ~ ’ cs Gedy arnOwov éx Ceov a&rnOivov, , / yevinbevta, ov rombevTa, e f -~ 4 _ _Soovatov TH TaTpl, ov ov Ta TavTa éyévETo" A GQ ~ a ] / \ A ‘ e , Tov OL Huas TOUS dvOpwrous Kal Ola THY riMETEpay OW- THpiav KkaTeNOovta ex rev ovpavar, Kat capkwbévta éx mvevuatos aylov Kat Mapias THs nmapOévou, 7 Kal évavOpwmicavra, otavpobévta te vrép rev eri Lovtiov Tlcddrou, Kal mabovra, Kal tadéevta, Kal advacTavTa TH TptTH TPE DE Kata Tas ypadas, kat adveNOovTa eis Tous ovpavous, Kat xabeCowevov év SeEia tod tratpos, y , nn Cad kal mddw épxomevov pera SoEns Kpivar CwvTas Kal / VEKpous, 2 lel , b] ” r ov THs Bactrelas ovK Eotat TEXoS. > \ ~ Kal eis TO mvevpa ro &ycov Td Kipiov TO Cworrordr. \ \ | 4 Ss 74 > > \ \ Tous d€ A€yovtas “Hy rote ote ovK qv Kal mpi -~ 7 Y 7 af , yevnOnvat OUK NV, Kal OTe EE OUK OVTWY EYEVETO, i é€& éTEpas UTOTTATEWS i) ovotas packovtas eva y TpeTTOV 4 aNAoiwTov TOV vloV TOU Oeow, TOUTOUS dvabeuatiCe 7 Ka0oXkn Kal a7ooToNKn €kKAncia. H. 10 146 THE CREED OF CAPPADOCIA NOW USED BY THE ARMENIAN CHURCHES, exhibited with the Nicene Creed as its base TlicTeyOMeN €iC ENA OEON TIATEPA TIANTOKPATOPA, ToLnTHY ovpavovd Kal y7s, OPAT@N TE KAI AOPATODN. Kai eic Ena KyYpION ‘IHcofN Xpicton, TON YION TOY 6€0Y, TENNHOENTA €K TOY TIATPOC MONOTENA — ToYT €cTIN €K TAC oOyciac TOY MaTpdc — ®EON EK OE0Y, doc €K wroc, EON AAHBINON €K OE0Y AAHOINOY, TENNHOENTA, OY TIOIHBENTA, OMOOYCION TQ TATPI, A’ OY TA TIANTA €feENETO, TA Te EN TH OYPANG Kal TA EN TH FH (or em TAc LAC), dpata Te Kal acpata’ ‘ ? Lal \ > , 4 \ ‘ c ld ’ TON Al HMAC TOYC ANOPOdTTOYC Kal Ala THN HMETEPAN COTHPIAN KATEADONTA €& TOV OUvpavar, ’ ? , td f > CAPKWOENTA, ENANOPWITHCANTA, yevyndevTa Terelws ex Ma- plas THs aylas tapévov Sia mvevparos aryiou, [é« ravTns] cdpa Kal Woy Kal vodv Kal TavTa 60a é- x Ld rd a \ % U > la otly avOpwmos(?) adknOas Kai ov Soxycer €oynkoTa, TIAQGNTA, oTavpwHévTa, TadévTa, ANACTANTA TH TPITH HMeEpa, > t > \ > \ b] cS a | A ANEADONTA eElc [TOyc] OYpaNoyc €v avT@ TO owparti, Kabicavta év SeEia tod matpos, > , > TSN a / \ > A 4 A \ EPYOMENON EV aUT@ TO coparti [Kal] év TH ddEn TOD TaTpos KPINAl Z@NTAC Kal NEKPOYC, @ A f ’ ” I ov THs Factrdelas ovK Eotat TéXos. 147 ‘ a 6 A Kai micrevowey cic TO TNEYMA TO GYLOY TO GKTLOTOY TO Té- ELOY, TO Aadjoav év vonw Kal év mpodyrais Kal ev evayyeniots, kataBav émi tov ‘lopdavny, / A r! r z f + anpvEav Tov amdooToXov (or amrocToNois), oixnoay (or oiKodyv) év ayiois. Kal mictevouev eis piav povnv KadodKyy Kal atootoALKny exkAnolay, > A , / eis é€vy Bamticopa pmeTtavoias, > ¢. \ y) \ v id A els thacpov(?) kal adeow apaptior, els avacTacw vEKpar, . eis Kpiow aidvioy uydy TE Kal TouaTwD, els Sacirelay ovpaver, \ > \ 7 Kal eis Conv aiwviov. Teyc Aé A€rontac Ott "HN mote OTe oYK HN 6 yidc, 7 "Hy MOTE UTE OUK HY TO ayLov Tvedua, 1) StI EZ OYK ONTWN EféNETO, H éZ étépac yYroctTacewc H OYCiAc ACKONTAC EINAl TON YION TOY 8e0f 7) TO TVvEDUA TO Gyov, TpeTTON H AAAOIWTON, TOYTOYC ANd - @EMATIZE! H KADOAIKH Kal ATTOCTOAIKH @KKAHCIA. 148 THE REVISED CREED OF ANTIOCH, exhibited with the Nicene elements distinguished from the rest, and the three phrases of certain Nicene origin specially marked’ Tlictey@ (?Tlicteyomen) eic Ena cal povoy adnOwov 8eON TATEpA TIANTOPATOPA, KTLOTHY TIANTWN OpaT@n Tet Kal AopaATON KTLTWAT@D. Kai cic Tov KYpION nu@v (ZEic ENA KYPION) “IHCOYN XpicTON, TON YION auTOU TOY pLovoyern, Kal TOV TPwTOTOKOY Taos KTICEWS, €& avtod PeNNHOENTA TPO TavT@Y TeV aiwver, kat OY TIOIHOENTA, OEON AAHOINON EK OEOY AAHOINOY, OMOOYSION TQ TIATPI, Ai oy Kal of aidves KatnpticOnoav Kal TA TANTO EfENETO TON AP Hmdc €AOdvTa (or KaTEAOdNTA), Kai yevvnbévta éx Mapias tis ayias tapQévov, kal otavpwlévta émt Movriov IliXartov, Kal tadpévta, Kal TH TpitH HMépa AnacTANTat Kata Tas ypadas, Kal €lC TOYC OYpaNoyc ANEAOONTAS, kal may EPYOMENON KPINAI ZNTAC Kal NEKPOYC. * ¥ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * [kat] [eis] awaptidy adeow, [cal] [eis] vexpav avactacw, kat| [eis] Sonv aiwvov. [ ” 149 THE CREED OF MESOPOTAMIA, NOW USED BY THE NESTORIAN CHURCHES, exhibited with the Revised Creed of Antioch as its base, and the additional elements of Nicene origin distinguished from the rest Thhorevouer* eis Eva Oeov matépa mavtoKpaTopa, KTLOTHY TaVTWY SpaTwV TE Kal dopaTwv. Kal eis éna* xupiov “Incovv Xpiorov, TOV vLOV TOY Geof TOY MOVoYEVI, [ror] ™pwTOTOKOV TACNS KTICEWS, [ov] €K tof matpdc [avrod] yevonBevra ™po mav- TWY TWY alwrywr, Kal ov qomblevta, Geov addAnOwov éx Oeov adrnOivov~" Omoovatoy Tw TAaTpi, Oe ov [kai] karapTic Onoay ol aiwvest ka éexticOn Ta TavTat TOV Ot 1uas Toye dnOpdtoye Kal Ala THN HMETEPAN comeiee ’ KxateMOovTa é« [rav] otpavar, kal CAPKODBENTA ex TVEULATOS aryioU, Kal ANOPOTIOV ‘Yevopevor, kat ovrdndberta Kat yevvnbevta éx Mapias tis mapOevou, Kal TIAQONTA KALE oTavpwhévTa €mit Hovtiouv IiXatou Kal Taperre, Kal dvacTavTa TH TpLTN npepat KaTa Tas ype gas, kal ANEABONTA EIC TOYC OYPANOYC, Kal kabicavra eK deEav TOD TaTpos [avrod], Kal Tadw €pxomuevov (or £ovra) Kpivat veKpous Kat Cavrast, Kai eic év Srion INEM, TO Tvedua THS adnOelas TO (or 0) ex TOU maTpds éxrro- peucwevov (or -peverat), TO Tvetua TO LworroLov. > / > / c £ \ ’ \ XS ’ els Lay scat naik aylav Kab amogToMany [tv] Kabortxnv® ouohoyor jay év Barticpa eis* apeow duapTiovt, xai* dvaoracw vekpwvt, Kal * Conv aiwy.ov. * Denotes words’ which may possibly be Antiochian, the reading in the Revised Creed of Antioch being doubtful. Kai i 150 THE CREED OF PHILADELPHIA, AS RECITED BY CHARISIUS AT EPHESUS, exhibited with the Nicene elements distinguished from the rest Tlictey@ eic Ena G€dN TIATEpA TANTOKPATOPA, KTioTHY (2 KTLTTAY) ATIANTON OPATAN TE KAl AOPATWN TIOIH THN. Kai eic ENA KYpION *lHcOfN XPICTON, TON YION avTod Tov povoyerh, @E0N EK E07, OAc Ek Pwrvc, 8E€ON AAHOINON €kK OE0F AAHOINOY, OMOOYCION TH TIATpI" TON Al HMAC Kal THN HMETEPAN CWTHPIAN KATEAOONTA ex TOV oupaver, CAPKWBENTA, a > a eg , yevvnbevta éx« Tis aylas twapOévov, ENANOPOOTIHCANTA, otaupwbévta Umép uar, atro0avovta, ANACTANTA TH TPITH HMépa, ANEAOONTA EIC TOYC OYPANOYC, Kal Tadtv EPYOMENON KPINAl Z@NTAC Kal NEKPOYC. Kai €ic TO TNEYMA THs GAnOelas TO WapdKAyTOP, Omoovcioy Tratpt Kal vie. \ > c , ‘ ’ / Kai es aylav xaBorxny éxxdnotar, eis avacTacw veKpar, > \ oF els Conv aiwviov. CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.