The Nicene Creed a Turning Point

7/23/2019 The Nicene Creed a Turning Point

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-nicene-creed-a-turning-point 1/12

Scottish Journal of Theologyhttp://journals.cambridge.org/SJT

Additional services for Scottish Journal of Theology:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

The Nicene Creed: A Turning Point

Canon J. N. D. Kelly

Scottish Journal of Theology / Volume 36 / Issue 01 / February 1983, pp 29 - 39

DOI: 10.1017/S0036930600016240, Published online: 02 February 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0036930600016240

How to cite this article:Canon J. N. D. Kelly (1983). The Nicene Creed: A Turning Point.Scottish Journal of Theology, 36, pp 29-39 doi:10.1017/S0036930600016240

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/SJT, IP address: 130.56.64.29 on 16 Mar 2015



Scot. Journ. of Theol. Vol.

36, pp.

29-39.

THE NICENE CREED:

ATURNING POINT

1

by

T H E

R E V .

CANON J . N . D. K E L L Y

I

W

HILE

the

other lectures

at

this Conference have explored

the

deep er theological issues raised by the N icene Creed , the aims of

this lecture are primarily historical.

I

should like to tell you something

of the origins of the creed, and how it came to be adop ted — or at least

used

— at the

First Cou ncil

of

Constantinople

in

October 381.

Theology will of course mak e its ap pearan ce , for it was in the con text of

the acrimonious theological debates

of

the fourth century tha t

the

creed emerged; and there is

a

profound sense in which, as

I

shall very

briefly suggest, its adoption marked

a

significant turn ing -po int. But

my treatment

of

the theological backgro und , and

of

the theological

revolution of which it was the token, will remain historical.

There is one misund erstand ing, not I imagine shared by professional

scholars

or

experts

in

Ch ristian institutions who m ay be present but

certainly widespread among educated people, which I must clear out

of the way at the outset. The creed we are considering is not only

widely known in a general w ay, being used by all the major bran ches of

the Christian Church, but is probably as familiar to people withou t

theological training as to trained scholars through its liturgical use at

the eucha rist. And the title we all give it, and by which the orig inato rs

of this Conference have chosen to describe it, is the Nicene Creed. In

fact, however, while it can fairly be described as a Nicene creed, as a

creed em bod ying the Nicene theology, it is not in strictness of lang uage

the Nicene Creed . T he council of Nicaea, the first of the so-called

ecumenical councils, was held at Nicaea in Bithynia in June 325,

almost sixty years before the council of Co nsta ntinop le. Its purpose, in

the mind of the emperor Con stan tine and his advisers, was to establish

a common Christian faith against the divisive allegations of Arius and

his talented coterie of friends tha t the W ord or Son was not God in the

1

A lecture delivered at the Colloquium in Com mem oration of the Nicene Creed, at

New College, University of Edinburgh, 2nd May 1981. Much ofihis lecture reproduces,

in a form ad apte d to a non-specialist au dienc e, the argu me nt developed in cha p, x of my

Early Christian Creeds (3rd edition).

29



30 SCO TTI SH JO UR NA L

OF

THEOLOGY

full sense

but a

kind of demigod,

far

superior

to

ordinary human beings

but inferior

to the

ineffable

God.

This

aim the

council achieved

by

publishing

a

creed which

all the

bishops present were required,

on

pain

of excommunication,

to

sign. This

is of

course

the

authentic Nicene

Creed, and for convenience scholars distinguish it from other creeds

(including

the one we are

considering)

by the

initial letter

N.

While

it

bears (especially

in

translation,

in

which subtle details

are

lost)

a

superficial resemblance

to our

creed,

it is a

much shorter statement,

as

is illustrated most strikingly

by its

closing section. While

the

closing

section

of our

creed

has a

full-dress exposition concerning

the

Holy

Spirit

and

then goes

on to

affirm belief

in the one

baptism,

the

resurrection

of

the dead,

etc., the

third

or

closing article of the original

Nicene creed consists

of a

single terse clause,

and in the

Holy Spirit .

The reason

for its

reticence

is

that

the

bishops attending

the

council

were

not

concerned

to

elaborate

a

full doctrine

of the

Spirit

or to go

into the other items later to be dwelt on by our creed. They were

interested

in one

thing only,

the

refutation of Arius

and

his friends;

and

this they accomplished

— or,

rather,

a

small, determined group

of

them accomplished

— by

thrusting awkwardly into

a

sample creed

they

had in

front

of

them affirmations which they knew would

be

totally unacceptable

to the

heretics , notably

the

affirmations that

the

Son was derived from the essence

or

being of the Father,

and

was one

in

being (homoousion) with

him.

They rammed this message home

by

appending

a

string

of

anathemas which were

an

integral part

of the

creed: whereas

our

creed

has no

anathemas

and

ends triumphantly

with

the

proclamation

of

life

in the

world

to

come.

II

Let us direct our attention now specifically to our creed, which the

liturgies name the Nicene creed but for which scholars prefer, for

reasons which will become clear, the cumbrous but revealing

designation of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed. For convenience

we shall label it C. The question which concerns us is its history, and

more particularly its connexion with the council held at

Constantinople in October

381.

This council, may I remind you, was

convened by the emperor Theodosius I to restore unity in the Eastern

Church — and to restore it on the basis of the Nicene faith that the Son

was one in being with the Father. Although neither Western bishops

nor representatives of the pope (Damasus I) were present, its



TH E NICE NE CREED 31

achievement was sufficiently significant for it to come eventually to be

regarded as the second ecumenical council.

The anc ient answer to our question , an answer going back (as I shall

explain in a mom ent) to the middle of the fifth cen tury at any rate , was

that our creed C was the definition of faith formulated and published

by the council of Constantinople. Until recently most modern scholars

have felt unable to accept this answer, although there have been three

or four eminent ones this century who have thrust their necks out and

done so. Nevertheless the traditional description of C, from the fifth

cen tury until the birth of scientific investigation of credal origins, was

'the faith pistis) of the 150 fathers' (one hundred and fifty being the

accepted figure for the participating members of the council). This

explanation of the creed's origins goes back at least to the council of

Chalcedon, which as you recall met in 451 and formulated what has

ever since been the orthodox definition of the union of divine and

human in Christ the God-man. At that council, the minutes of which

survive and can be studied in Schwartz's magisterial edition, the

original Nicene creed (N) was publicly read out and acclaimed at the

second session (10th October), and then the imperial commissioners

ordered 'the faith of the 150 fathers' to be read out too. The

archdeacon of Constantinople, Aetius, immediately got up and

recited our creed (C) from a written text. It again played a prominent

part at the fifth and sixth sessions (22nd and 25th October), when it

was incorporated along with N in the definition adopted by the

council.

11 is

imp orta nt to emphasise that, when C was read ou t as the symbol

of the council of Constantinople, no one at Chalcedon raised the

slightest objection or protest. Admittedly, the applause with which it

was greeted (as the minutes betray) was cooler, less enthusiastic than

the cheers with which N was received; but that is entirely compre-

hensible in view of N's extraordinary and universal prestige.

Nevertheless the majority of critics, in both the last century and the

present one, have rejected the view that C is a creed promulgated at

Co nstantino ple in 38 1. The reasons for their scepticism can be briefly

sum marised. First, as these scholars read it, the surviving evidence for

the counc il's work does not seem to suggest that it published any creed

or formal definition of its own. Secondly, all the reports of

contemporary or near-contemporary historians and other writers

agree that the object of the council was 'to ratify the Nicene faith' (so

Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, etc.), and this has been taken, not



32 S C O T T I S H J O U R N A L O F T H E O L O G Y

un na tur a l l y , to m ean the reaf fi rmat ion of the or ig ina l Nicene c reed

( N ) . Th ird ly , these schola r s po in t ou t th a t there is a seemingly abso lu te

s i lence reg ard i ng a Co ns t an t ino po l i tan c reed be twee n 381 an d 451 , in

spite of the fact tha t a nu m b er of syno ds an d co uncils were held a t

w hic h a reference to it , if it in fact existe d, wou ld h av e been n at u ra l.

Thus Harnack a rgued long ago tha t there was no t the s l igh tes t t r ace in

the period 381

-451,

w h et he r in the official reco rds of syn ods east ern or

western or in the writ ings of theologians or thodox or heterodox, of the

existence of C, much less any hint of its being the ekthesis sponsored by

the fa thers of Co ns t an t ino ple . T h e coup de grace seemed to hav e been

dec is ive ly , and humil ia t ing ly , adminis te red when i t was po in ted out

tha t ou r creed C featured as a rec om m en de d ba pti sm al confess ion in

the Ancoratus publ ished by Epip ha niu s of Sa lam is a lmos t a de cad e

before the counc i l o f Cons tan t inople .

Such cons idera t ions might seem fa ta l to the t rad i t iona l hypothes is ,

but they themselves suffer f rom ser ious weaknesses . Perhaps the most

im po r ta n t is tha t , if the t rad i t io na l a cco un t is ab an do ne d , we s ti ll ha ve

the prob lem of exp la in in g the a t t i tu de of the C ha lce do ni an fa thers.

A l tho ugh C was m uch less w arm ly rece ived by the ma jor i ty tha n the

ancient Nicene creed, no one ventured to question i ts c la im to be the

publ ica t ion of the counc i l o f Cons tan t inople . The ir acceptance of i t i s

incredible unless they were satisfied that it was, and since it was

rehearsed by the a rc hd eac on of Co ns ta n t i no ple they could in case of

do ub t consu lt the archi ves f rom wh ich he dre w his text . T h e cr i t ics

admi t tha t C mus t have had some connex ion wi th Cons tan t inop le , bu t

unt i l com para t ive ly recent t imes the i r a t t em pts to show wh at th is was

hav e tend ed to suggest an ar tif ic ia l or largely for tui tous l ink age . Ag ain ,

the a r g um en t wh ich I c a ll ed the hum i l i a t ing coup de grace has itself been

exposed as an insubstantia l bogy, for i t has been es tablished beyond

an y shado w of do ub t th at the creed whic h stood in the or igin al text of

E p i p h a n i u s ' s

Ancoratus

published several years before our council , was

not in fact C but N. Finally , the c la im that there is not a par t ic le of

four th - or f if th-century evid ence ( ap ar t of course f rom the C ha lce -

don ian m inu te s ) ind ica t ing tha t the counc i l o f Co ns tan t inop le had

shown any in te res t in c reed-making has been ca l led in ques t ion . Both

Ed . Schw ar tz and o the r s have d r aw n a t t en t ion to a nu m be r of pa t r i s ti c

passages dating f rom the per iod 381 451 which s ta te or imply that the

150 fa thers of C on s tan t ino ple w ere und ers too d to hav e m ad e add i t ion s

to the sacro sanct text of N w ith the object of de alin g with theolog ical

issues which had not been ra ised at the t ime of Nicaea.



T H E N I C E N E C R E E D 33

I I I

At this point scholarly debate about the creed and its provenance

seemed to have reached an impasse. Although important difficulties

had been disposed of, there still remained, as an apparently

unsurmountable obstacle to accepting the tradition that C was the

creed of the council of 381, the fact that the weight of contemporary

evidence , as well as the reports of historians, clearly suggested tha t the

work of the council was confined to endorsing or confirming the Nicene

faith. The first and necessary step to finding a way out of this impasse

was taken in this country in the first edition of my Early Christian Creeds

(1950) in which, working on suggestions put forward by the

distinguished Belgian scholar, Pere J . L ebo n, I drew at ten tion to an

important fact which had hitherto passed unnoticed. It is a

circu ms tance of imm ense significance that, from the time of the council

of Constantinople and probably well before that, and also for

generations after Chalcedon, the description 'the faith of Nicaea', or

'the faith, symbol, or ekthesis of the 318 fathers' (the num ber

traditionally held to have been present at N icaea ), was not in o rdina ry

patristic usage applied solely to N in its pu re, au the ntic form. It could

equa lly well be used of a creed, local or otherwise, which w as pa tent ly

Nicene in its general character and import, even although it might

differ from N in mu ch of its phraseo logy . It is of course impossible, in a

lecture like this, to set out the evidence for this in full; I must content

myself with selecting for you one single, rather striking item of it. We

possess the catechetical lectures which Theodore, bishop of Mopsues-

tia in Cilicia, delivered around 400 to candidates preparing for

baptism. In these he expounds the creed, and it is possible to

reconstruct the formula he was using with a high degree of accuracy.

Now the study of this formula reveals two interesting and relevant

facts.

First, while it includes prominently the Nicene key-phrases

'begotten from the Father', 'not made', and 'of one substance with his

Father', it is in language, content and general style a very different

creed from N; indeed, it is much closer in wording and manner to our

creed C, and like it not only lays stress on the Lord's birth from the

Virgin and crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, but has a third article

dwelling on the procession of the Holy Spirit the life-giver, the one

baptism, the one holy catholic church, remission of sins, and

resurrection to eternal life. Secondly, in spite of its great and manifest



34 SCO TTIS H JO UR NA L OF THE OLO GY

divergence from the original Nicene creed, this elaborate confession

was designated the Nicene creed by Theodore in his lectures. The

inescapable inference is that any orthodox credal formula which

embodied the full-blooded Nicene theology in the characteristic

terminology of N qualified, in the accepted usage of fourth- and fifth-

century writers, for the title of Nicene creed.

A revealing illustration, from a rather different point of view, of the

readiness of fifth-century churchmen to apply expressions like the

faith of Nicaea much more loosely than scholars previously allowed or

appreciated is provided by the minutes of the third session of

Chalcedon. When the Nicene creed in its original wording had been

recited, the assembled fathers hailed it with excited shouts: In this we

were baptized, in this we baptize. Now it is pretty certain that N was

hardly ever, if indeed ever normally, employed for baptism; no one in

any case could possibly believe that it was at any stage the exclusive

baptismal formula of the church. The clear implication of the bishops

acclamation is that they were prepared to treat any baptismal creed

which contained the Nicene theology and the characteristic Nicene

slogans as identical with the Nicene creed proper.

With this important discovery as our guide we can descry, in a

general way at any rate, a way out of the impasse. The explanation

which fits the apparently contradictory facts is that the council of

Constantinople did in fact, at some stage in its proceedings, endorse

and use our creed C, but in doing so it did not conceive of itself as

promulgating a new creed. Its sincere intention, perfectly understood

by contemporary churchmen, was simply to confirm and ratify the

Nicene faith. That it should do this by adopting what was really a

different formula from that of Nicaea may appear paradoxical to us,

until we recall that at this stage importance attached to the Nicene

teaching and the Nicene controversial key-words rather than to the literal

text of N. It is improbable that the council actually composed C. The

whole style of the creed, its graceful balance and smooth flow, convey

the impression of a liturgical piece which had emerged naturally in the

life and worship of the Church, rather than of a conciliar artefact. C

was probably already in existence when the council took it up,

although it is likely that the fathers touched it up here and there to suit

their purposes. In settling on C as a suitable formulary the council

assumed without question that it was reaffirming the Nicene faith, but

it was no doubt guided in its choice by the conviction that this

particular formulation of the Nicene teaching, as modified by



TH E NIC EN E CR EE D 35

whatever additions it had thought fit to make, was peculiarly well

adapted to meet the special situation with which it was dealing.

IV

Can we take a further, final step and identify both the special

situation in which the council came to adopt C and the form of

endorsement it gave it? Hitherto scholars had to be content with

vague, general suppositions, but in 1965 an attractive and satisfying

solution was propounded by a brilliant German researcher, A. M.

Ritter, in his masterly study of the council and its creed.

2

Briefly, his

proposal was that the creed was put forward officially at the council

during discussions with a delegation of Macedonian or Pneumatoma-

chian bishops led by Eleusius of Cyzicus. The object of these

discussions, as we learn from Socrates and Sozomen, was to bring

about an accommodation between the orthodox majority, who

accepted the divinity and consubstantiality of the Spirit, and the

Macedonians, who contested this doctrine; and Ritter gave good

reasons for our believing

(a)

that they should be placed, not at the

commencement of the council (as had been generally supposed), but

after the death of bishop Meletius, the first president, when Gregory of

Nazianzus was acting as president; and

(b)

that the initiative both for

getting them going and for indicating the line to be followed must have

lain with emperor Theodosius

himself.

Flying in the face of all

reasonable probability, he must have hoped, in his keenness to

establish church unity on as wide a basis as possible, that at least the

less intransigent Macedonians could be won over; and to this end he

must have induced the reluctant majority to hold out an olive branch

to them.

That this is not guess-work but fact, and that in all probability the

olive branch took the form of C, Ritter effectively argued by drawing

attention to a striking passage in the long autobiographical poem

which Gregory of Nazianzus composed in his retirement and which

(although its importance has been generally neglected) constitutes in

the relevant sections an eye-witness, if heavily prejudiced, account of

events at the council. In this passage

3

Gregory bitterly complains that

at the council he had been compelled to witness the sweet and

1

Das Konzil vo n Konstantinopel undsein Symbol (G ottingen).

Carm. hist,

x i , 1 7 0 3 - 1 4 P G 3 7 , 1 1 4 8 f ) .



36 S C O T T I S H J O U R N A L O F T H E O L O G Y

bea uteo us spr ing of our anc ien t fai th , wh ich ga the red in un i ty the

ad ora ble na t ur e of the T r in i ty , be in g w re tche dly befouled wi th b r iny

infusions poured into i t by double-minded men shar ing the beliefs

favoured by augus t Majes ty who c la im to be media tors — how

ad m ira b le i f they rea lly were m edia tors and no t b la tan t ly adh ere n ts of

the co ntr a ry cause ' S t r ip ped of d ip lom at ic an d po e t ic obscur i t ies , the

obvious implication of these l ines is that the Nicene creed, the

pa l l ad ium o f Nicene o r thod oxy , had been t amp er ed wi th and , in the

supp osed interes ts of uni ty an d to sat is fy the imp er ia l w il l , had had

add i t ions in t r uded in to i t wh ich , in Gr egor y ' s op in ion , we r e

unsa t is fac tory to the po in t o f b las phe m y. T h a t these me dia t in g

concess ions were designed to p laca te M ac ed on ian s is c lear ly ind ica ted

by Gregory ' s la te r s ta tement tha t , as a resu l t , the church had now

open ed i t s doors to 'M oa bi t es an d A m m on i tes ' , fo r th is was the

uncompl imen ta r y desc r ip t ion he l iked to app ly to the con ten t ious

people who questioned the divinity of the Holy Spir i t . As is well

known, he himself not only believed in the divinity and consub-

s tan t ia l i ty of the Spir i t ( as d id the o th er Ca pp ad oc ian s ) , bu t w as

con ten t w i th no th i ng less tha n the i r fu ll and f rank p roc lam at io n an d

had no use for the i r d ip lom at ic wa te r in g d ow n.

W e m ay con clu de, the n, th at in the course of the discussions w ith the

Macedonians the counc i l pu t forward , as a s ta tement of be l ie f which

might be acceptable to a l l par t ies , a vers ion of ' the Nicene creed '

modif ied by addi t iona l mat te r concern ing the Holy Spir i t which fe l l

shor t of w ha t G reg ory (wh o was fu lly aw ar e tha t N ne eded

sup ple m ent ing a t th is po in t ) dee m ed ad eq ua te . Fro m th is i t is an easy

step to identify th e form ula p ropo sed with C, w hich by s tudio usly

re f ra in ing from ca l l ing the Spir i t 'Go d ' and ' co nsu bs ta n t ia l ' m ight

seem to be s tre tching out an irenical hand to Chris t ians , l ike the

M ac ed on ian gro up , who re jected h is fu lly d iv ine s ta tus . T o be sure ,

Gregory did less than jus t ice to i ts sponsors by condemning i t so

sharply as a betrayal of the true faith. A careful analysis of the section

on the Holy Spir i t reveals that , for a l l i ts tactful avoidance of language

tha t would a rouse Macedonian pre jud ices , i t in fac t conta ined a

pn eum ato log y th a t was in subs tan ce al l tha t G rego ry could hav e

des i red . For example , the a l l - impor tan t c lause

WHO WITH THE FATHER

AND THE SON IS TOGETHER WORSHIPPED AND TOGETHER GLORIFIED p re -

cisely reflects Basil the Great 's view that the Spirit should be glorif ied

along with the Father and the Son because of the convict ion that he is

not a l ien to them bu t shares the div ine na tu re . As is well kn ow n, the



TH E NICE NE CR EED 37

council was dete rmin ed to assert the full con subs tantiality of the Sp irit,

but many in the orthodox camp were still uneasy about the frank

description of him as God and consubstantial with the Fath er and the

Son which was becoming de rigueur and preferred, as Basil had done,

more cautious modes of expression. Bearing this in mind, and also

recalling that the aim ofTheodosius at this phase of the council was the

conciliatory one of uniting as many as possible on the basis of the

Nicene faith, we can ap prec iate that C's firm but temperately w orded

theology of the Spirit corresponded, so far as its substance was

concerned, with the real convictions of the orthodox majority, and in

its expression went so far as they deemed prudent to meet the

susceptibilities of

the

Macedonian delegation.

Not surprisingly, the delegation soon decided that no worthwhile

com prom ise was being offered them, for the supposed concessions were

pace Gregory) largely verbal. The negotiations broke down, the

dissatisfied Macedonians packed their bags and departed, and the

creed lost its original raison

d etre.

But since the council had adopted

and used it in the abo rtive discussions, it was the council's creed. Th is

account of its origins also explains the curious silence about it as an

independent confession. If the council really had framed a new creed

and published it as such under its own name, it is inconceivable that

every trace of such a mom entous h app enin g should h ave d isappea red.

On the other hand, if what the council did was to reaffirm the Nicene

faith in the form of C in the context of its unsuccessful neg otiations w ith

the Macedonian group, everything becomes clear. We should not

expect to come across sep ara te references to C u ntil the original text of

N began to be disentangled from the ambiguous formula 'the faith of

the Nicene fathers'. Nevertheless, since the council had ado pted C at a

critical juncture in its proceedings and had used it as a negotiating

instrum ent, C can with justification claim to be the creed of the 150

fathers of the council, and all the more so as they had promulga ted no

other.

V

This is all I propose to say about the history of the creed which is

awkwardly but, I think, accurately described as Niceho-

Constantinopolitan. In the few minutes still at my disposal I must try

to say something abo ut the claim advanced in the title that it marks a

turning point.



38 SCO TTI SH JO UR NA L OF THE OLO GY

Throughout the fourth century a fateful intellectual debate

continued, with Nicaea and Constantinople as the focal points and

their two creeds, N and C, as the public tokens of the great shift in

theological emphasis that was taking place. The subject of the debate

was the understanding of God and the conceptual devices by which the

cardinal features of the Christian revelation were to be accommodated

in it. From the external point of view the debate appeared to be a

struggle between the orthodox tradition of the full divinity of Christ on

the one hand and the manifold forms of Arianism on the other; and so

it tends to be represented in histories both of the development of

doctrine and of the Church. But deeper issues were also at stake. At

Nicaea a small, determined minority succeeded in getting the

homoousion inserted in the creed, and for generations this was the bone

of contention between the fiercely warring theological parties. At

Constantinople the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son was

finally vindicated, and the homoousion was extended, in guarded

language in the creed but openly in the council s public teaching,

4

to

the Holy Spirit. Arianism was therefore finally crushed in the great

church, although it continued, usually in moderate forms, to retain the

allegiance of millions among the barbarians outside or in the frontier

provinces of the empire. All this is a familiar story. What is not always

noticed, however, is the profound intellectual revolution which the

triumph of the new orthodoxy at the two great councils implied. To

make my point as clearly and as simply as I can, prior to Nicaea the

accepted Christian doctrine of God was an Origenistic one of a holy

Triad, of an ineffable Godhead with two subordinate and, in the last

resort, disparate hypostases; but after Nicaea the pressure group which

pushed through the introduction of the homoousion dragged, if you will

forgive the crude metaphor, these two inferior hypostases within

the divine essence. During the four or five decades following Nicaea

the predominant view in the church continued to be Origenistic,

pluralistic; that applies as much to an orthodox leader such as Cyril

of Jerusalem as to Eusebius of Caesarea and Arians of right and left

wing. But once the creed of Constantinople both reaffirmed and

supplemented the Nicene creed proper, there could be no future

for such pluralism. Th e Son and the Spirit were one in being (as

we now translate homoousion) with the Father, and the Godhead

was an indivisible unity expressing itself in three eternal modes differ-

4

cf. the tomos of the council of 382: Theodoret,

hist. ecct.

5, 9, iof. (GCS 44, 292).



TH E NICE NE CR EED 39

ing only in their relations. The Nicene creed, in its original form N

and its more mature development C, symbolised this far-reaching

revolution.

J. N. D. KELLY

St. Edmund Hall

Oxford

Date post:	17-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	victorvictorin
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

The Nicene Creed a Turning Point

Documents