Tractatus symboli:

A Brief Pre-Baptismal Explanation of the Creed

Tarmo Toom, Washington, DC, USA

Abstract: Tractatus symboli is an anonymous brief commentary on the Apostles’ Creed.

Compared with other creedal sermons and/or commentaries of the same time and provenance, it

demonstrates certain theological autonomy. Thus and despite its brevity, Tractatus symboli

should be taken as a relatively independent witness to the rite of traditio symboli. It also includes

a full text of the creed which enables a comparison with other contemporary forms of the same

creed. This article detects a particular closeness of the subject-matter of the Tractatus symboli to

that of the creedal sermons of Peter Chrysologus. Yet, the treatise is theologically different

enough for not being a mere eclectic compilation of ideas found in Chysologus’ sermons.

Every bishop was supposed to teach the creed, in whatever form it was known to him, at

least a few times a year (i.e., on the occasions of traditio and redditio symboli). Yet only a

fraction of patristic creedal sermons and/or commentaries in Latin are extant. There are over 40

expositiones of the Apostles’ Creed which are still available,1 and about one third of these are

anonymous and of uncertain provenance.

1 Liuwe H. Westra, ‘Enigma Variations in Latin Patristics: Fourteen Anonymous Sermons de

symbolo and the Original Form of the Apostles’ Creed’, SP 29 (1997), 414-20, 414-5. Only one

anonymous Latin patristic commentary of the Nicene Creed is extant: Commentarius in

symbolum Nicaenum X-XIII, in Cuthbert H. Turner, Ecclesiae Occidentalis iuris antiquissima

1/2 (Oxford, 1913), 229-354.

Tractatus symboli is one of those brief anonymous explanations of the Apostles’ Creed

which is without a clear date or place of origin. Apart from a few studies of the provenance of

the text and the form of its creed, the document as a whole has not been much discussed.

However, a new critical text based on two independent twelfth-century manuscripts2 was

published in 2002.3 This enables one to study a more reliable text of Tractatus symboli and

assess its theological content more securely. I will argue that despite its similarity to the other

creedal sermons/commentaries of similar provenance, Tractatus symboli demonstrates its

theological independence and thus, should be taken as a relatively autonomous witness to the

instruction of catechumens in the early church.

Westra has contended that Tractatus symboli provides ‘a complete liturgy for the traditio

symboli’.4 On one hand, in Tract. sym. 5, the catechumens are commended to hear ‘what we

hand on to you today in the sight of God . . . the creed (quod tradimus uobis hodie in conspectus

dei . . . symbolum)’.5 Thereafter, one of the manuscripts, Codex Oxoniensis (B), provides the text

of the whole creed. All this fits quite well with the liturgy of traditio symboli. On the other hand,

the catechumens ‘have already heard (audistis)’ the ‘explanation (rationem)’ of the words of the

2 Codex Oxoniensis, Bodleian Library, Ms. Canonici Lit. 345 (B); and Codex Florentius,

Bibliotheca Laurentiana, Plut. 16.8 (L).

3 Liuwe H. Westra, The Apostles’ Creed: Origin, History, and Some Early Commentaries, in

Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia (Turnhout, 2002), 466-73. An earlier edition of Tractatus

symboli, based on Codex Florentius (L) only, can be found in Carl P. Caspari, Alte und neue

Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel (Christiania, 1879), 291-304.

4 L. Westra, The Apostles’ Creed (2002), 361.

5 Twice the catechumens are urged to hear (audite) the creed again (Tract. sym. 10 and 14).

creed (7). That is, the first occurrence of the verb form audistis comes before the creed is cited in

the text.6 In addition, if one follows the narrative order of the text, it does not seem to be the

catechumens’ initial reception of the creed. In fact, the ‘they’ who have to return (repetunt) the

creed (10) are arguably the competentes (2), who are blessed in order to become the digni and

accept baptism.7 Consequently, one can detect a certain discrepancy between the first (1-6) and

the second part of the text (7-17) and this has allowed the conjecture that Tractatus symboli is, at

least partially, a compilation of liturgies.8 Yet, the question remains whether any conclusions can

be drawn from the particular form of the verb audire and the order of statements in Tractatus

symboli. If the document is a collection of notes,9 one should not expect to encounter a polished

coherence of all grammatical details.

A unique feature in Tractatus symboli is that it provides the actual text of the creed.

According to Westra’s geographical typology, the creed in Tractatus symboli matches best with

the creedal variants found in fifth century northern Italy.10

In particular, the creed seems to be an

6 The word audistis also occurs four times in Tract. sym. 8 and once in Tract. sym. 11.

7 This benediction is not part of the critical text, but is to be found in Codex Oxoniensis (B) (see

Germain Morin, ‘Textes inédits relatifs au Symbole et à la vie chrétienne’, RevBen 22/4 [1905],

505-24, 507).

8 Caspari suggested that Tractatus symboli might have been a seventh or eighth century

compilation (C. Caspari, Alte und neue Quellen [1879], 307-8).

9 I am grateful to Wolfram Kinzig for his comment about the exact nature of this document.

10 L. Westra, The Apostles’ Creed (2002), 181-207, 367-9, 559. For this reason, I will limit my

comparisons mainly to the contemporaneous creedal commentaries coming from northern Italy,

such as Rufinus of Aquileia’s Expositio symboli (CCL 20, ed. Manlio Simonetti [Turnhout,

especially good match with that of Peter Chrysologus.11

One should notice the presence of the

same clauses (including uitam eternam), the uncommon use of the article in in front of the

clauses sanctam ecclesiam and remissionem peccatorum,12

and the absence of the words passus

est and catholicam.13

1961], 133-82), an anonymous Explanatio symboli (Milan) (Richard H. Connolly, The

Explanatio symboli ad initiandos: A Work of Saint Ambrose [Cambridge, 1952], 6-13 [Latin]),

the anonymous Expositio symboli (northern Italy) (L. Westra, The Apostles’ Creed [2002], 424-

5), Chromatius of Aquileia, Tractatus in Mathaeum (CCL 9A, ed. Raymond Étaix and Joseph

Lemarié [Turnhout, 1974], 185-498), and the sermons of Peter Chrysologus (Ravenna) (CCL 24,

ed. Alexander Olivar [Turnhout, 1975], 314-55).

11 Suggested, in passing, by Ferdinand Kattenbusch, Das apostolische Symbol, vol. 1 (Leipzig,

1894), 133. There are several recent but slightly different reconstructions of Chrysologus’ creed.

The differences are due to the fact that, in his sermons, Chrysologus cited the creedal clauses in

slightly different ways. See Harold W. Moore, ‘The Baptismal Creed of St. Peter Chrysologus: A

Translation of Seven Sermons of St. Peter Chrysologus on the Creed’, STL thesis, St. Mary’s

Seminary, Baltimore (1950), 78, n. 106; Olivar, CCL 24:312; L. Westra, The Apostles’ Creed

(2002), 199-206, 552-3; Id., ‘The Authorship of an Anonymous Expoositio symboli (CPL

229A)’, Augustinianum 36/2 (1996), 525-42, 528-9. The form I have used in the chart is the

closest possible reconstruction of Chrysologus’ creed to that of Tractatus symboli. It should be

added though that it is not only the formal similarities between the respective creeds, but also

their expositions which demonstrate certain affinities.

12 Although in sanctam ecclesiam occurs in Chrysologus’ s. 61.13 and 62.15, and in remissionem

peccatorum in s. 57.14; 58.13; 59.15 (also in resurrectionem mortuorum); 61.14; and 62.16, I

The Creed in Tractatus symboli The Creed of Peter Chrysologus

Credo in deum patrem omnipotentem Credo in deum patrem omnipotentem

et in Iesum Christum

filium eius unicum

dominum nostrum

et in Christum Iesum14

filium eius unicum

dominum nostrum

have used brackets because the occurrence of the preposition in is probably due to the smoother

flow of Chrysologus’ sermons (L. Westra, The Apostles’ Creed [2002], 203-5). (For the

occurrences of the preposition in in Expl. sym. 9, see L. Westra, The Apostles’ Creed [2002],

187). The creedal forms in sanctam ecclesiam and in remissionem peccatorum are unique, for

Rufinus adamantly argues that the preposition in should be used only in connection with the

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For this reason, the creed non dixit: in sanctam ecclesiam (Exp. 34).

13 Although the words passus est occur in the commentary (Tract. sym. 11), these are missing in

other northern Italian creeds (see L. Westra, The Apostles’ Creed [2002], 234). The word

catholicam is missing at least in one of the manuscripts of Tractatus symboli, in Codex

Florentius (L), as well as in the northern Italian creeds (see L. Westra, The Apostles’ Creed

[2002], 248) and in Chrysologus’ s. 57.13; 58.12; 59.14; 60.14; 61.13; 62.15. While Tract. sym.

7 says in sanctam ecclesiam, paragraph 16 also mentions a possible creedal clause sanctorum

communionem.

14 Once, in s. 60.5, the word order that Chrysologus uses is et in Iesum Christum, but his

commentary considers ‘Christ’ before ‘Jesus’.

qui natus est de spiritu sancto

et Maria uirgine

qui sub Pontio Pilato

crucifixus est et sepultus

tertia die resurrexit a mortuis

ascendit in caelis

sedet ad dexteram patris

inde uenturus est iudicare uiuos et mortuos

qui natus est de spiritu sancto

et Maria uirgine

qui sub Pontio Pilato

crucifixus est et sepultus

tertia die resurrexit (a mortuis)15

ascendit in caelos

sedet ad dexteram patris

inde uenturus iudicare uiuos et mortuos16

et in spiritum sanctum credo in sanctum spiritum17

in sanctam ecclesiam (in)18

sanctam ecclesiam

in remissionem peccatorum (in) remissionem peccatorum

carnis resurrectionem carnis resurrectionem

et uitam aeternam uitam aeternam19

There are several factors which seriously complicate the reconstruction of the wording of

ancient creeds with any confidence, even if a particular creed is unmistakably a variant of the

Apostles’ Creed (R). Expositions often did not provide the full text of the creed. Instead, the

15

While s. 57.8 includes the words a mortuis, other shorter but more numerous citations of the

clause may be abbreviations.

16 On two occasions, s. 58.10 and 61.11, it reads inde uenturus est iudicare uiuos et mortuos.

Yet, as Westra contends, because the word est occurs in Textus receptus (T), it ‘was probably

more apt to be added than omitted’ (L. Westra, The Apostles’ Creed [2002], 203).

17 The word order in spiritum sanctum occurs in s. 57.12; 60.13; and 61.12, but again, since it

concurs with T, it is less likely to be original (L. Westra, The Apostles’ Creed [2002], 203).

18 For the preposition in in front of the clauses sancta ecclesiam and remissionem peccatorum,

see Liuwe H. Westra, ‘Creating a Theological Difference: The Myth of Two Grammatical

Constructions with Latin Credo’, SP (forthcoming).

19 This clause is absent in Chrysologus’ s. 61. However, it is found in other northern Italian

creedal examples, such as Chromatius, Tract. in Math. 41.8, and in the Anon. Exp. 14.

clauses were merely indicated by the opening words or cited partially.20

Furthermore, certain

discrepancy between the underlying creed and its clauses in the expository part was a fairly

common feature as well, although this is arguably not the case in Tractatus symboli.21

Other

times the creedal clauses were either paraphrased or adapted for the narrative text. Such changes

for the sake of a better flow of a text cannot be taken as indicators of the exact wording of the

creed. In short, there is no automatic guarantee that collecting creedal clauses from the

interpretative remarks of an expositor would give an adequate basis for reconstructing the actual

wording of a creed.

Yet another complicating factor is that, in its liturgical function, a creed was memorized,

learned by heart, and made one’s own, rather than written down22

and carefully preserved for the

satisfaction of the curiosity of later creedal scholars. After all, a creed was meant only for those

desiring to be initiated to the Christian faith.23

Outsiders had no business in knowing the creed—

20

A good example of this phenomenon is the so-called ‘skeleton citations’, where only the first

and last words of a clause are given (Expl. sym. 8-11).

21 Caspari suspects that the commentary may be later than the underlying creed (C. Caspari, Alte

und neue Quellen [1879], 305-8). Westra, however, has judged the formal differences between

the creed and its commentary as relatively insignificant (L. Westra, The Apostles’ Creed [2002],

362-4).

22 Warnings against writing the creed down can be found in Expl. sym. 12 and Chrysologus, s.

56.5; 57.16; 58.1; 59.18; 60.18; 61.1, 15.

23 Among others, Sozomen witnesses to the disciplina arcani, ‘Only the initiates and the

mystagogues have the right to recite and hear [the creed]’ (Hist. eccl. 1.20; cf. Matt. 7:6). Yet

such secrecy was hardly ever absolute, for Christian creeds were never considered some sort of

the mystery (sacramentum or mysterium) of faith.24

Tract. sym. 4 reads , ‘Stay away from here, I

insist, all stranger(s), all profane; hear the mystery of faith the unfaithful may not hear (Absistat

omnis hinc, quaeso, alienus, absistat omnis profanes, audite mysterium fidei, non audiat

infidelis)’. This might also be the reason why at least the manuscript Codex Florentius (L) of

Tractatus symboli does not provide the full text of the creed. However, the very fact that Codex

Oxoniensis (B) does, is quite exceptional in the light of the prevalent disciplina arcani.

The introductory part (1-6) focuses on faith. While not attempting to read a later

distinction back into Tractatus symboli, the question for a modern interpreter is inevitably

whether the commentator means the act of faith (fides qua creditor), or the content of faith (fides

quae creditor). Its first sentence employs the expression fidem catholicam and, as it applies to

the creed, it should be understood as the content of faith. In fact, in Tract. sym. 6, the creed is

explicitly called ‘a brief account of the whole faith (totius fidei breviarium quoddam)’.25

At the

same time, because the first word in a creed is credo, expositions often elaborate on faith as the

secret, magic formulae. See Juliette Day, ‘Adherence to the Disciplina Arcani in the Fourth

Century’, SP 35 (2001), 206-10; Daniel L. Schwartz, Paideia and Cult: Christian Initiation in

Theodore of Mopsuestia (Washington DC, 2013), 47-69.

24 Explaining the meaning of the word symbolum, Tract. sym. 6 calls the creed pactum and

indicium (cf. Rufinus, Exp. 2; Chrysologus, s. 62.3). As a token or a password, the creed had to

be protected and kept hidden from the uninitiated public. For critical discussion, which points out

that Rufinus’ ‘password explanation’ is but one of the later explanations, see Harry J. Carpenter,

‘Creeds and Baptismal Rites in the First Four Centuries’, JTS 44 (1943), 1-11; and John N.D.

Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 3d ed. (Essex, 1993), 52-61.

25 Expl. sym. 3 calls the creed breuiarium fidei as well.

act of believing.26

Immediately after employing the phrase fidem catholicam, Tract. sym. 1 refers

to Heb. 11:3, which is indeed about the act of believing. Furthermore, the explanation of the final

clause of the creed is connected with John 20:31, ‘So that those who believe may have eternal

life (ut credentes habeatis uitam aeternam)’ (17). The last injunction of the commentary says,

Credite (creditur L) ergo ex fide (17). It can be rendered as ‘believe by faith’ or ‘believe

according to faith’ and may suggest that an either/or solution in this case is not adequate after all.

Rather, it is a combination of the act and the content of faith that is emphasized here.27

After the introductory part, a deacon28

commands, Signate uos,29

audite symbolum (7).

Such a command is evidently a liturgical-structural marker in Tractatus symboli.30

While the first

and the third occurrences of this command appear in expected places,31

the second one comes in

Tract. sym. 10, after et Maria uirgine and before qui sub Pontio Pilato. However, such

26

Rufinus, Exp. 3; Chrysologus, s. 56.4; 58.1; 60.1; 61.2.

27 Chrysologus certainly combines the two senses of faith when he preaches, ‘Receive, then, this

profession of faith by faith alone (Accipite ergo fidem sola fide)!’ (s. 58.1).

28 Only Codex Florentius (L) identifies the one giving orders as diaconus and the one reading the

creed presbyter.

29 The injunction signate uos occurs in Expl. sym. 4 and in Chrysologus’ sermons 56.5, 57.16;

59.18; 60.2, 18; 62.3, 4. Thus, there is no need to link Tractatus symboli with the later, seventh

century Ordo romanus XI which uses the command signate illos (12, 27, and 41).

30 Other markers, which identify the main constituent parts of the creed, are the word sequitur

(Tract. sym. 9, 11, 13, 15, and 16) and the word inquit (10).

31 In Expl. sym. 4, the command signate uos likewise occurs immediately before the saying of the

creed.

placement does not seem to question the traditional three-fold Trinitarian division of the creed.

Rather, and speaking theologically, it may underline the Cyrillian point that the one born from

Mary the Theotokos was the Logos. The continuity of the subject of Christ is emphatically

reiterated in Tract. sym. 13, ‘The very same ascended who descended (Ascendit ipse qui

descenderat)’.32

Such placement of the marker signate uos also divides—just as it is stated in

the previous sentence—between that which pertains to divinity (i.e., miraculous conception,

virgin birth)33

and that which pertains to humanity (suffering and death). Further reinforcement

of this idea comes in Tract. sym. 10. Affirming the ‘double birth’ of the Son (de patre, ex

uirgine),34

the commentator states explicitly that ‘while Christ’s humanity is acknowledged from

32

The statement in Tract. sym. 10, ‘Because just as the humanity is acknowledged from his

sufferings, so deity is attested by his divine operations (quia sicut ex passionibus homo

agnoscitur ita deus ex diuinis operationibus comprobatur)’ (10) does not necessarily contradict

Cyril’s point. Cyril insisted that Christ’s sayings and deeds could be attributed notionally to the

underlying nature-referents, but never to the postulated two subject-referents (ep. 17.8; 44.6-7).

33 Although the anonymous Explanatio symboli does not repeat the command signate uos after

mentioning the virgin birth, it too has an ‘unexpected’ injunction, ‘So let us say the symbol

(Ergo dicamus symbolum)’ in this particular place (5). Chrysologus explicates, ‘Everything that

takes place here [e.g., qui natus est . . .] is the work of God (totum diuinum geritur), not the work

of man’ (s. 57.6; cf. 58.5; 59.7).

34 While the creed says qui natus est de spiritu sancto et Maria uirgine (7), the commentary

employs the expression ex uirgine instead (10). Since the creed of Aquileia reads qui natus est de

Spiritu Sancto ex Maria uirgine (Rufinus, Exp. 8, and so arguably also a variant of the creed of

Milan [Expl. sym. 5; Augustine, s. 213]), the different prepositions may have attempted to

his sufferings, his divinity is attested to by his divine operations (Qui sicut ex passionibus homo

agnoscitur ita deus ex diuinis operationibus comprobatur)’ (10). As is well known, in the

beginning of the twentieth century, Karl Holl proposed that the two clauses of the creed, which

start with the definite article ton in Greek, correspond to the two titles of Jesus Christ—the ‘Son

of God’ and the ‘Lord’.35

Whether his theory as such holds or not, in Tract. sym. 10-11, signate

uos divides the two clauses beginning with the Latin word qui into the theological and

economical aspects of Christology.

After the first structural marker signate uos and the citation of the creed comes the

instructional elaboration on the creed.

To begin with, it should be noticed that the first creedal clause, which is called the

initium fidei (8; cf. Heb. 11:6), exists in both a declaratory and in an interrogatory form: Credo in

deum patrem omnipotentem (7) and Credis in deum patrem ominpotentem? (8).36

Rather than

being a mere adjustment of grammar for the sake of the narrative flow, the interrogatory form

may anticipate the triple questioning at the baptismal ceremony.37

differentiate between Christ being of the Holy Spirit and from the Virgin Mary. That is, the Son

of God is related to the Spirit differently than he is related to his virgin mother.

35 Karl Holl, ‘Zur Auslegung des 2. Artikels des sog. Apostolischen Glaubensbekenntnisses’, in

esammelte A s t e r ir hengeschichte II: Der Osten (T bingen, 1928), 115-22 (originally

published in 1919). Chrysologus’ s. 60.6 also elaborates on the two titles.

36 An early eighth century Dicta Abbatis Priminii de singulis libris canonicis scarapsus provides

both the declaratory (10) and interrogatory (12) forms of the Apostles’ Creed.

37 E.g., (pseudo-)Ambrose, sacr. 2.7.20.

It is followed by a clarification that to speak about the Father (pater) necessarily implies

the existence of the Son (filius).38

This is a traditional pro-Nicene argument against those who

contended that at some point of (a pre-temporal) ‘time’ God began to be a Father.39

The

competentes are also urged to understand the ‘very nature (naturam ipsam)’ (8) of God,

apparently without any apophatic reservations. However, in its immediate literary context, the

issue is not apophaticism. Instead, the mentioning of God’s ‘very nature’ next to what is not God

(i.e., the creation) may highlight the so-called ‘basic Christian distinction’—God and the creation

are ontologically different.40

In fact, the juxtaposition of the two titles ‘Father’ and ‘Almighty’

underlines the important point that the Son is begotten from the Father’s nature and not made as

a creature.41

The sentence, ‘Therefore, who looks at the Son is the Father, and who (looks at) the

creation is the Almighty (Quod ergo ad filium spectat pater est, quod ad creaturam omnipotens)’

(7) makes the difference between the respective relationships explicit.

The first thing said about Jesus Christ is that his name means ‘savior (saluator)’ and ‘the

anointed regal one (unguendum regale)’ in Hebrew (9). Such explanation is consistent with the

heightened attention to the economical part of the creed that the exposition demonstrates (9-13).

38

See Rufinus, Exp. 4; Chrysologus, s. 57.4; 58.3; 59.4; 60.4; 61.3.

39 E.g., Arius, ep. Alex. 3-4 (Urk. 6). Chrysologus says explicitly that the Son did not have ‘any

beginning (non conceptu inchoatum)’ (s. 59.4; cf. 60.4, which includes the words principium and

initium; 61.3; 62.6) and adds that the one who contends that God ‘has not always been a Father

(ne patrem semper non fuisse)’, blasphemes (s. 62.6).

40 Robert Sokolowski, The God of Faith and Reason: Foundations of Christian Theology, rev.

ed. (Washington DC, 1995), xi-xvi, 31-4; cf. Rufinus, Exp. 7.

41 Perhaps this is a veiled reference to the Nicene natum non factum; cf. Chrysologus, s. 57.4.

It is also consistent with other commentaries from northern Italy, which provide a similar

explanation of the name Jesus Christ.42

Following 1Cor. 1:24 (cited in the end of Tract. sym. 9), the expositor identifies the Son

primarily as the ‘power (uirtus)’ of God. The Son/‘power’ is born (nascitur) as well as proceeds

(procedit)43

from God the Father. Here the intra-Trinitarian relationships are carefully noted, so

that the Father alone remains the ‘first principle’, the ‘unbegotten (ingenitus)’, the ‘source (fons)’

and ‘origin (origio)’ of the ‘Godhead (deitatis)’ (8-9). Whether this claim is ‘orthodox’ in all

aspects is a matter of argumentation,44

but the point that the Son is unicum in the sense of being

divine, yet caused and begotten, is definitely communicated. It should be observed here that the

strong emphasis on the monarchy of the Father and the clear affirmation of the Son’s hypostatic

existence45

in Tractatus symboli do not enable an assertion that the anonymous commentary is

42

Cf. Anon. Exp. 2; Rufinus, Exp. 6; Chrysologus, s. 59.5; 60.5; 61.4.

43 Chrysologus’ s. 57.4 has processit filius.

44 One would expect the author to say that the Father is the source and origin of the Son, rather

than Godhead. Likewise, in Tract. sym. 8, God (deus) is confusingly said to be the ‘source of

divinity (fontem diuinitatis)’. However, because of the brevity of the remarks, it is hard to say

whether the commentator indentified God with the Father (vis-à-vis the Trinity) (cf. the

benediction coming from 1Thess. 3:11, ‘May God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ make

you . . . [Deus et pater domini nostri Iesu Christi uos faciat . . .]’), or postulated a divinity apart

from the divine persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

45 The Son is said to have existed ‘before the ages’ ‘with (cum)’ and ‘in the presence (apud)’ of

the Father (9).

some sort of ‘Cliff-notes to Chrysologus’. While Tractatus is quite anti-modalist46

and cautiously

pro-Nicene, Chrysologus seems to be more explicitly anti-‘Arian’/Homoean. This impression

can be substantiated further by observing the telling end of paragraph nine, where the author

makes an intriguing statement, ‘He was the only-begotten Son of God who was before all ages

[emphasis mine] with the Father and in the presence the Father (Ipse unigenitus dei filius qui erat

ante saecula cum patre et apud patrem)’.47

Instead of saying outright that the Son was eternal or

co-eternal48

with the Father (as Chrysologus, for example did49

), the commentator uses a biblical

phrase pro ( hronōn) aiōniōn,50

which can and at times did serve a subtly anti-modalist,

subordinationist agenda.51

The economical section of the creed is introduced already before the clause qui natus est .

. . is mentioned. Namely, paragraph nine states that ‘the Son assumed the squandering of the

flesh in order to save us (filius dissipationem carnis assumpsit ut nos redimeret)’. Again, the

46

It was because of the error of Sabellius (i.e., modalism) that the Creed of Aquileia added the

words inuisibilem et impassibilem to the Roman creed (Rufinus, Exp. 3 and 5). Although these

words are not part of the creed, in Tract. sym. 7, the commentator nevertheless later states that

the Father is inuisibilis et impassibilis (9).

47 The phrase ante saecula occurs also in Tract. sym. 10.

48 In Tract. sym. 15, the Holy Spirit is said to be coaeternus with the Son, but the two are never

said to be coaeternus with the Father. It is hard to decide whether this is deliberate or not.

49 S. 58.3.

50 Ps. 55:19 (LXX 54:20); Prov. 8:23; 1Cor. 2:7; Titus 1:2.

51 For example, Arius contended that the Son had a beginning, although this ‘beginning’ was

‘before’ the time (ep. Alex. 4 [Urk. 6] and ep. Euseb. Nicom. 4 [Urk. 1]).

unusual placement of the second structural marker signate uos arguably highlights the pro nobis

character of the incarnation. Immediately after introducing the clause qui sub Pontio Pilato

crucifixus est et sepultus, the anonymous commentator points out that ‘Our Lord suffered in

order to free us from bodily passions, died in order to dissolve the law of death (passus est

Dominus noster ut nos a passionibus corporalibus liberaret, mortuus est ut mortis iura

dissolueret)’. Christ’s resurrection is likewise for the purpose of ‘demonstrating for us the

mystery of the future resurrection in his body (ut nobis future resurrectionis mysterium in suo

corpora demonstraret)’ (12).

The clause on final judgment has merited a biblical comment. The catechumens, who are

about to become the faithful (ex catechumeno fidelem . . . faciet) (1), are foreknown, predestined,

called, and justified (Vos . . . quos praesciuit deus et praedestinauit, quos uocauit et iustificauit)

(Rom. 8:29-30) (5), yet the judgment on each one is rendered ‘according to his/her works (Prov.

24:12)’ (14). No particular colors of Augustine’s theology can be detected here, although earlier

faith is said to be ‘a part of the divine gift (fides diuini muneris portio est)’ (1).52

After the third signate uos comes the creedal clause on the Holy Spirit. At least two

things are significant here. First, the intriguing phrase, ‘Who proceeds from the Father and is

coeternal with the Son (qui de patre procedit et filio coaeternus)’ (15) defines the intra-

Trinitarian relation of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son.53

However and earlier, in

paragraph nine, the Son too was said to proceed from the Father ‘as splendor proceeds from true

52

In Tract. sym. 2, faith is called donum dei.

53 True, being coeternal does not define a relationship. Because of the brevity of the statement, it

is impossible to figure out how exactly the commentator perceived the intra-Trinitarian

relationships of the divine persons.

light (et unus splendor ex uera luce procedit)’. The verb procedere may simply be a suitable

word for the light metaphor. Even if this is not the case, it still does not seem to be a terminus

technicus yet, used exclusively for the theological ‘proceeding’ (vis-à-vis the economical

‘sending’) of the Holy Spirit.54

The lack of technical discourse characteristic to the filioque

controversy argues again against a later date of the commentary. Second, the Holy Spirit is said

to be the ‘unity (unitas)’ of both the Father and the Son.55

It is even put in rather strong terms:

‘With the Holy Spirit, the Trinity remains undivided (Cum spirit sancto indiuisa manet trinitas)’

(15). Because of the lacuna, however, the explication of this idea too—if it ever existed—

remains inaccessible.

The last creedal clauses have merited only one-sentence paraphrases. Significant among

these is perhaps the claim that resurrection concerns ‘this flesh (huius carnis)’ (16).56

The word

huius emphasizes that the resurrected body of Christ was the same body that Christ had in his

incarnation.

In conclusion, based on the theology of Tractatus symboli, as well as on the creedal form

it uses, the treatise fits well into the context of the fifth century northern Italian creedal

sermons/commentaries. At the same time, it is theologically independent enough not to be a mere

summary or compilation of the other extant texts.

54

Cf. John 15:26. For ‘proceeding’, see Rufinus, Exp. 33.

55 While Tract. sym. 15 uses the single words unus and unitas in connection with the Holy Spirit,

Chrysologus uses a more explicit unius cum patre et filio substantiae language (s. 58.11).

56 Rufinus, Exp. 41-3. Huius carnis resurrectionem is also found in Chromatius’ Tract. in Math.

41.8.