Commentary on the Apostles' Creed 1–12

For my part, most faithful Pope Laurentius, my mind is as little eager to write as it is fit to do so, since I know that it is not without danger to commit a slender and meagre talent to the judgments of many. But since (if you will pardon my saying so) you rashly bind me in your letter by the sacraments of Christ, which we receive with the greatest reverence, to compose something for you on the faith according to the tradition and meaning of the Creed, although the weight of the command is beyond our strength (for I am not unaware of that saying of the wise, which says very rightly that even to say true things about God is dangerous), yet if you help by your prayers the necessity of the request you have laid on me, we will try to say something, more out of reverence for obedience than from presumption of talent; things which may seem fit not so much for the exercises of the perfect as to be weighed for the hearing of little ones in Christ and beginners. I have indeed found that some distinguished expounders have published something on these matters piously and briefly. I know, however, that the heretic Photinus wrote on them, not so as to explain to his hearers the meaning of the words, but to draw words spoken simply and faithfully into an argument for his own doctrine; whereas in these words the Holy Spirit has provided that nothing ambiguous, nothing obscure, nothing at variance with the rest should be set down, since in them is truly fulfilled the prophecy which says: "For he is completing and cutting short the word in equity, because the Lord will make a shortened word upon the earth." We, then, will try both to restore and seal their simplicity with apostolic words, and to fill in what seems to have been left out by those before us. But to make the argument of this shortened word, as we have called it, plainer, we will go back to the beginning to the reason why this tradition was given to the churches.

Our forebears hand down that after the Lord's ascension, when, through the coming of the Holy Spirit, tongues of fire had settled on each of the apostles, so that they spoke in different and various languages (by which no foreign nation, no barbarous tongue, seemed to them inaccessible and impassable), they were given a command by the Lord to set out to the different nations, each of them, to preach the word of God. So, being about to separate from one another, they first agreed together on a standard of their future preaching, lest, led off to different places, they should set forth anything different to those who were being invited to the faith of Christ. So all of them, being together in one place and filled with the Holy Spirit, composed this brief token, as we have said, of their future preaching, each contributing to one whole what he thought; and they decided that this should be given as a rule to believers. They wished this to be called the Symbol, for many and very just reasons. For symbolum in Greek can mean both "token" and "collation", that is, what several bring together into one. For this is what the apostles did in these words, each bringing together into one what he thought. It is called a token, or sign, because at that time, as the apostle Paul says, and as is related in the Acts of the Apostles, many of the Jews going about pretended to be apostles of Christ and set out to preach for the sake of some gain or for their belly, naming Christ indeed but not proclaiming him according to the complete lines of the tradition. So they set up this token, by which one who truly preached Christ according to the apostolic rules might be recognized. Finally, they say that this is also observed in civil wars: since the dress of the armour is alike, the sound of the voice the same, the custom one, and the methods of warfare the same, so that no treachery may creep in, each commander gives his soldiers distinct symbols, which in Latin are called signs or tokens, so that if anyone is met about whom there is doubt, being asked for the symbol, he may show whether he is an enemy or an ally. For this reason, too, they handed down that these words should not be written on paper or parchment, but kept in the hearts of believers, so that it might be certain that no one had learned them from reading, which sometimes reaches even unbelievers, but from the apostles' tradition. So, being about to separate to preach, as we have said, the apostles set up this token of their unanimity and faith; not like the sons of Noah who, about to separate from one another, built a tower of baked brick and pitch whose top should reach to heaven, but building monuments of faith to stand against the face of the enemy, of living stones and the Lord's pearls, which neither winds could drive nor lightning undermine nor the whirlwinds of storms and tempests move. Rightly, then, those who were to be separated from one another, building a tower of pride, were condemned with confusion of tongues, so that none could understand his neighbour's speech; but these who were building a tower of faith were given the knowledge and understanding of all languages, so that the one might be proved a token of sin, the other of faith. But now we must treat something of these pearls themselves, among which in the first place is set the fount and origin of all, when it is said:

"I believe in God the Father almighty." But before I begin to discuss the force of these words, I think it not out of place to point out that in different churches some additions are found in these words. In the church of the city of Rome, however, this is not found to have happened; and the reason, I think, is that no heresy took its rise there, and the ancient custom is kept there that those who are about to receive the grace of baptism recite the Creed publicly, that is, in the hearing of the congregation of the faithful; and the hearing of those who have gone before in the faith does not admit the addition even of a single word. In other places, however, as far as one can understand, certain things seem to have been added because of some heretics, by which the sense of a new doctrine was believed to be excluded. We, however, follow that order which we received in the church of Aquileia through the grace of the washing. "I believe", then, is placed first of all, as the apostle Paul, writing to the Hebrews, says: "For whoever comes to God must first of all believe that he is, and that he becomes a rewarder of those who believe in him." And the prophet too says: "Unless you believe, you will not understand." So that the way to understanding may lie open to you, you rightly profess first of all that you believe. For no one goes to sea and commits himself to that liquid and deep element unless he first believes he can be saved; nor does the farmer bury seed in the furrows and scatter grain on the ground unless he believes the rains will come and the warmth of the sun will be present, by which the earth, made ready, may produce crops with multiplied fruit and nourish them with breathing winds. In short, there is nothing that can be done in life unless belief has gone before. What wonder, then, if, coming to God, we profess first of all that we believe, since without this not even common life can be carried on? We have put this first at the beginning because the pagans usually object to us that our religion, because it lacks reasons, consists only in a persuasion to believe; and so we have shown that nothing can be done or stand unless the force of believing has gone before. Marriages, finally, are contracted because it is believed that offspring will follow; and boys are handed over to learn arts because it is believed that the teachers' learning will be passed on to the pupils; and one man takes up the insignia of empire, believing that peoples and cities and even an armed army will obey him. But if no one undertakes any of these things without first believing they will come about, how much more is the knowledge of God to be reached by believing? But let us see now what this shortened word of the Creed proposes.

"I believe," it says, "in God the Father almighty." Almost all the Eastern churches hand it down thus: "I believe in one God the Father almighty." And again in the following clause, where we say, "and in Christ Jesus, his only Son, our Lord", they hand it down: "And in one Lord our Jesus Christ, his only Son", confessing, that is, one God and one Lord according to the authority of the apostle Paul. But we will come back to this in the following places; now, meanwhile, let us look at what it says: "in God the Father almighty." "God," as far as the human mind can conceive, is the name of that nature or substance which is above all things. "Father" is the word for a hidden and ineffable mystery. When you hear "God", understand a substance without beginning, without end, simple, without any admixture, invisible, incorporeal, ineffable, inestimable, in which nothing is added, nothing created. For he who is the author of all things without exception is himself without author. When you hear "Father", understand the Father of a Son, who is the image of the aforesaid substance. For as no one is called a lord unless he has either a possession or a slave over whom he is lord, and as no one is called a master unless he has a disciple, so no one can in any way be called a father unless he has a son. By this very name, then, by which God is called Father, it is shown that the Son also subsists together with the Father. But how God the Father begot the Son, I would not have you discuss, nor thrust yourself too curiously into the depth of the mystery, lest perhaps, while you search too persistently into the brightness of the inaccessible light, you lose the very slight sight that has been granted to mortals by divine gift. Or if you think that every kind of inquiry should be used in this, first set before yourself the things that are ours; and if you can solve them consistently, then hurry on from earthly things to heavenly, from visible to invisible. First explain, if you can, how the mind that is within you begets a word, and what the spirit of memory in it is; how these, though different in reality and in action, are yet one in substance or nature, and though they proceed from the mind are never separated from it. And if these things, though they are in us and in the substance of our soul, seem as hidden from us as they are invisible to bodily sight, let us inquire into plainer things. How does a spring beget a river from itself, and by what force is it carried swiftly into a stream? How is it that, though the river and the spring are one and inseparable, yet the river cannot be understood or called the spring, nor the spring the river; and yet whoever has seen the river sees the spring too? Exercise yourself first in explaining these things, and discuss, if you can, what you have in your hands; and then you will come to things higher than these. Do not think that I am urging you at once to rise from earth above the heavens; but first, if you please, I will lead you to this firmament which the eyes see, and there, if you can, discuss the nature of this visible light: how that heavenly fire begets from itself the brightness of light, how it also produces heat; and though they are three in reality, they are yet one in substance. And even if you could investigate each of these, know that the mystery of the divine generation is as much more different and more eminent as the Creator is more powerful than his creatures, as the craftsman is more excellent than his work, as he who always is is nobler than that which began to be out of nothing. God, then, is to be believed to be the Father of his only Son our Lord, not to be discussed. For it is not right for a slave to dispute about his master's birth. The Father bore witness from heaven, saying: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear him." The Father says that he is his Son and commands that he be heard. The Son says: "Whoever sees me sees the Father also", and "I and the Father are one", and "I came forth from God and came into this world." Who is there who would put himself between these voices of the Father and the Son as a discussant, and divide the Godhead, separate the affection, break the substance, cut the Spirit, and deny that what the Truth says is true? God, then, is the true Father, as the Father of Truth, not creating from outside but begetting the Son from what he himself is: that is, as the wise begets wisdom, the just justice, the everlasting the everlasting, the immortal the immortal, the invisible the invisible; for he begets as light its brightness, as mind its word.

As for what we said, that the churches of the East hand down "one God the Father almighty" and "one Lord", "one" here is not to be understood as said of number but of totality. For example, if someone says "one man" or "one horse", he has used "one" of number: for there can be another man, and a third, or horse. But where a second or third cannot be added, "one", if it is said, is a word not of number but of totality. As if, for example, we say "one sun": here "one" is said in such a way that a second or third cannot be added; for the sun is one. Much more, then, when God is called one, "one" is a word not of number but of totality: that is, he is called one because there is no other. The same is to be understood of the Lord: that the Lord Jesus Christ is one, through whom God the Father holds dominion over all things. Hence the following word too declares God "almighty". He is called almighty because he holds power over all things. And the Father holds all things through the Son, as the Apostle says: "For through him all things were created, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers." And again, writing to the Hebrews, he says: "For through him he made the ages, and he appointed him heir of all things." By "appointed" he is understood to mean "begot". If, then, the Father made the ages through him, and through him all things were created, and he is heir of all, then through him he also holds power over all. For as light from light and truth from truth, so almighty was born from almighty; as is written in the Apocalypse of John of the seraphim: "And they had no rest day and night, saying: Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts, who was and who is and who is to come, the Almighty." He who is to come, then, is called almighty; and who else is to come but Christ the Son of God? To these is added "invisible and impassible". It should be known that these two words are not found in the Creed of the Roman church. It is clear that they were added among us because of the heresy of Sabellius, that, namely, which our people call Patripassian, which says that the Father himself was born of the Virgin and became visible, or affirms that he suffered in the flesh. So, to exclude such an impiety concerning the Father, our forebears seem to have added these words and called the Father invisible and impassible. For it is clear that the Son, not the Father, was made flesh and born from the flesh; and that from his birth in the flesh the Son became visible and passible. But as regards that immortal substance of the Godhead which is one and the same with the Father, there neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit is believed to be visible or passible. But according to his condescension in the flesh he took, the Son was both seen and suffered in the flesh. The prophet had foretold this, where he says: "This is our God; no other shall be reckoned beside him. He found every way of knowledge and gave it to Jacob his servant and to Israel his beloved. After this he was seen on earth and lived among men." After this follows:

"And in Christ Jesus, his only Son, our Lord." "Jesus" is a name of a Hebrew word which among us is called "Saviour". "Christ" is named from chrism, that is, from anointing. For we read in the books of Moses that Auses the son of Nave, when he had been chosen as leader of the people, had his name changed and was called Jesus instead of Auses, to show, namely, that this is a name fitting for princes and leaders, at least for those who give salvation to the peoples following them. And so that Jesus was so called who brought the people out of the land of Egypt, freed from the wanderings of the desert, into the land of promise; and this Jesus, who brought the people out of the darkness of ignorance and called them back from the errors of the world, and led them into the kingdom of heaven. "Christ", too, is a name either of priesthood or of kingship. For formerly both high priests and kings were consecrated with the ointment of chrism. But they, being mortal and corruptible, were anointed with an ointment of corruptible matter; this one, anointed with the Holy Spirit, is made Christ, as Scripture says of him: "whom the Father anointed with the Holy Spirit sent from heaven". And Isaiah had foreshadowed it, saying in the person of the Son: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the poor." Since, then, we have shown what Jesus is, who saves the people, and what Christ is, who has been made high priest for ever, let us now see from what follows of whom these things are said. "His only Son," it says, "our Lord." By this it teaches us that this Jesus of whom we have spoken, and Christ whom we have explained, is the only Son of God and our Lord. So that you may not think that these human words teach you something earthly, it adds that he is the only Son of God, our Lord. For one is born of one, since the brightness of light is one, and the word of the heart is one; and incorporeal generation does not flow down into plural number, nor fall into division, where the one born is in no way separated from the one begetting. He is only, as sense to mind, as word to heart, as strength to the strong, as wisdom to the wise. For as the Father alone is called wise by the Apostle, so the Son alone is called Wisdom. He is, then, the only Son; and though in glory, eternity, power, kingdom and might he is what the Father is, yet he has all these not without an author, as the Father does, but from the Father, as Son, without beginning and equal; and though he himself is the head of all things, yet the head of him is the Father. For so it is written: "The head of Christ is God."

When you hear "Son", I would not have you take up the thought of a fleshly birth, but remember that this is said of an incorporeal substance and of a simple nature. For if, as we said above, when the heart begets a word, or the mind a thought, or light brings forth brightness from itself, none of these things is looked for and no weakness is thought of in such generation, how much more purely and sacredly must we think of the Creator of all these? But perhaps you will say: this generation you mention has no substance; for light does not make a substantial brightness, nor does the heart beget a substantial word; but the Son of God is asserted to have been begotten substantially. To this we say first of all that, even when examples are brought forward in other matters, they cannot keep a likeness in every respect to the thing for which they are thought to provide an example, but hold a likeness in some one part, for which they seem to have been taken. For example, when it is said in the Gospel: "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman hid in three measures of meal." Shall we think the kingdom of heaven like leaven in everything, so that that substance is so palpable and fragile that it can become sour and corrupt? This example seems to be taken only to show that from a small preaching of the word of God human minds can grow together by the leaven of faith. Likewise when it is said: "The kingdom of heaven is like a net cast into the sea, which draws in fish of every kind." Are we to think here too that the substance of the kingdom of heaven is compared in everything to the nature of the flax of which we make nets and to the knots by which the meshes are tied? The comparison seems to be taken only to show that, as the net brings fish from the depth of the sea to the shore, so human souls are freed from the depth of the error of this world by the preaching of the kingdom of heaven. From this it is clear that examples are not alike in everything to the things of which they are examples; otherwise, if everything were the same, they would no longer be called examples but would seem to be the very things in question. Then this too must be said: that no creature can be such as its Creator; and so, as the divine substance is without example, so is the Godhead without example. We add this too: that every creature is from nothing. If, then, a spark, which is fire and has no substance of its own, begets from itself a creature which was made from nothing, and keeps in this the condition of its origin, why could not the substance of that eternal light, which always was, since it had in itself nothing without substance, bring forth from itself a substantial brightness? And therefore he is rightly called the only Son. For he is only and alone who was so born, and what is only can have no comparison; nor can he who is the maker of all things have a likeness in substance with the things he has made. This, then, is Christ Jesus, the only Son of God, who is also our Lord. "Only" can be referred both to Son and to Lord. For he is only and truly Son, and one Lord Jesus Christ. Others, though they are called sons, are called so by the grace of adoption, not by the truth of nature. And if others are called lords, they are called so by a power granted, not inborn. But he alone is the only Son, and alone the only Lord; as the Apostle too says: "And one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things." So, after the order of faith set forth has explained the ineffable mystery of the Son's birth from the Father, it now comes down to the condescension and dispensation of human salvation; and he whom above it called the only Son of God and our Lord, it now says:

"Who was born by the Holy Spirit from the Virgin Mary." This now is the birth of the dispensation among men; that was the birth of the divine substance; this is of condescension, that of nature. He is born by the Holy Spirit from the Virgin; and here a cleaner hearing and a purer understanding are needed. For understand that for him, whom you learned a little earlier to have been born ineffably of the Father, a temple has now been built by the Holy Spirit within the secret places of a virgin's womb; and as in the sanctification of the Holy Spirit no weakness is to be thought of, so in the Virgin's giving birth no corruption is to be understood. For this birth given to the world is new, and rightly so. For he who in heaven is the only Son is consequently only on earth too, and is born uniquely. The writings of the prophets about this are known to all and sung in the Gospels, which say that a virgin will conceive and bear a son. And the prophet Ezekiel had foreshadowed the wonderful manner of his birth, calling Mary figuratively the gate of the Lord, through which, namely, the Lord entered the world. He says thus: "But the gate that looks toward the east shall be shut, and shall not be opened, and no one shall pass through it, because the Lord God of Israel shall pass through it, and it shall be shut." What could be said more plainly of the preservation of the Virgin? That gate of virginity was shut; through it the Lord God of Israel entered, through it he came forth from the Virgin's womb into this world, and the Virgin's gate remained shut for ever, her virginity preserved. The Holy Spirit, then, is said to be the creator of the Lord's flesh and of his temple. Begin from here to understand also the majesty of the Holy Spirit. For the Gospel word too bears witness about him that when the angel spoke to the Virgin and said, "You will bear a son and call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins", and she answered, "How will this be, since I do not know a man?", the angel said to her: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and therefore the holy one to be born of you will be called the Son of God." See, then, the Trinity working together. The Holy Spirit is said to come upon the Virgin, and the power of the Most High to overshadow her. And what is the power of the Most High but Christ himself, who is the power of God and the wisdom of God? And whose power is this? Of the Most High, it says. The Most High, then, is present; the power of the Most High is present; and the Holy Spirit is present. This is the Trinity, everywhere hidden and everywhere appearing, distinct in names and persons, but inseparable in the substance of the Godhead; and though the Son alone is born of the Virgin, the Most High is present too, and the Holy Spirit is present, so that both the Virgin's conception and her giving birth may be sanctified.

But because these things are asserted from the prophetic Scriptures, they may perhaps refute the Jews, unbelieving and incredulous as they are. But the pagans usually laugh at us when they hear us preach the Virgin's giving birth; so a brief answer must be given to their slanders. Every birth (I think) depends on three things: that the woman be of adult age, that she go to a man, and that her womb not be closed by the defect of barrenness. Of these three, in this birth which we preach, one was lacking, namely the man; and this part (since the one being born was not of earthly but of heavenly origin) we say was supplied by the heavenly Spirit, the Virgin's incorruption being preserved. And yet what seems so wonderful if a virgin conceived, when it is established that the bird of the East which they call the phoenix is born, or reborn, without a mate in such a way that there is always one, and it always succeeds itself by being born or reborn? Bees certainly know no marriages and do not bring forth their young with labour; this is plain to all. And some other things are found to have this kind of birth. Will this, then, seem incredible, done by divine power for the restoration of the whole world, examples of which are seen even in the birth of animals? And yet it is a wonder why this seems impossible to the pagans, who believe that their Minerva was born from the brain of Jupiter. What is harder to believe, or what is more against nature? Here there is a woman, here the order of nature is kept, here conception and birth come at their due times; there, no female sex anywhere, but a man alone, and a birth. Whoever believes that, why does he wonder at this? They also say that Father Liber was born from his thigh. See another kind of monstrosity, and yet it is believed. Venus too, whom they call Aphrodite, they believe was produced from the foam of the sea, as her whole name shows. They affirm that Castor and Pollux were born from an egg, and the Myrmidons from an ant; and there are a thousand other things which, though they go against the nature of things, have seemed credible to them, such as the stones thrown by Deucalion and Pyrrha, and the crop of men born from them. And though they have believed these and so many other fictions, one thing seems impossible to them: that a young woman conceived a divine offspring, not by a man's defilement but by God breathing. If they are slow to believe, they ought by no means to have given their faith to so many and such shameful monsters. But if they are ready to believe, they ought much more readily to have accepted these things of ours, so honourable and so holy, than to have believed those things so unworthy and so foul.

But perhaps they say that, if it was possible for God that a virgin should conceive, it was possible also that she should give birth; but that it seems unworthy to them that so great a majesty should pass through the genital outlets of a woman, where, even if there was no contagion from union with a man, there was yet the injury of the indecent handling of childbirth itself. To this let us answer them for a little according to their own way of thinking. If someone should see a little child drowning in the depth of a mire, and, though he is a great and powerful man, should step into the edge of the mire, so to speak, to free the dying child, will this man be accused by you as polluted for having trodden a little mud, or praised as merciful for having given life to one about to die? But this is said of an ordinary man. Let us return now to the nature of him who was born. How far inferior do you think the nature of the sun is to him? As far, no doubt, as a creature to the Creator. Look now: if a ray of the sun is sent down into some pit of mire, does it acquire any pollution from it? Or is the lighting up of foul things counted an injury to the sun? Fire, too, how inferior it is in nature to those of whom we are speaking! And yet no foul or filthy matter put to it is believed to have polluted the fire. Since, then, it is established that this is so in material things, do you think that any pollution or foulness can fall upon that supereminent and incorporeal nature which is above all fire and above all light? Then consider this too. We say that man was created by God from the slime of the earth. But if foulness is laid to God's account when he seeks his own work, much more will it be laid to his account for making that work in the beginning. And it is superfluous to ask why he passed through foul things when you cannot ask why he made foul things. And so it is not nature but custom that has taught that these things are foul. For the rest, all the things in the body, formed from one and the same clay, are distinguished only by their uses and natural functions.