[Image]  [Hi-Res Image]

Page 201

theologians, however, especially Vincent of Lerins (q.v.), spoke of the symbol rather as a single portion of tradition, agreeing with the Scriptures but not sufficient as a guide through them; and their view prevailed in time over Augustine's: But though the Scriptures gradually won the superior rank as the rule of faith, yet it was in conjunction with the untested ecclesiastical tradition and the .operation of the episcopal or papal teaching office; so that practically the rule of faith came to be the propositio ecclesice, that which is put forth by the Church, in which the creeds have their place. In modern Roman Catholic usage the Protestant term, " symbolic books," has been adopted (KL, xi. 1050 sqq.). A distinction is made between symbolic writings of the first and of the second class; the former including the creeds proper, the definitions of the ecumenical councils, and ex cathedra papal decisions in matters of faith, while the latter are such documents as the Tridentine Profession and the Roman Catechism.

In the Reformation period the term " symbol " departed wholly from its original liturgical basis, and acquired an almost exclusively theological meaning, in spite of the fact that T

Reforma- employed in cultic functions. The tion Creeds. personal character of the primitive creeds also disappeared; the formulas became professions of groups or churches. Thus a distinction begins to be made between " ecumenical" creeds and those of the Protestant communions, especially of the Lutherans. With the Reformed bodies the name " symbol " did not become customary; the term " confessions " was preferred, being better adapted to denote the formulas as the expressions of faith and the determination of doctrine on the part of the churches. The part performed by each, however, was practically the same. In the Formula of Concord (q.v.) the term symbol is first applied to the Augustana (see AUGSBURG CONFESSION AND APOLOGY) on the same plane with the ecumenical creeds, to which was added the " Apology and Articles of Schmalkald " (see SCHMALKALD ARTICLES). Neither in itself nor in the Book of Concord was the Formula included as a symbol. The history of the internal effect of the symbols upon the development of Protestantism has not yet been written. Indeed, they performed a much smaller part in orthodox dogmatism than might have been expected. The doctrine of the Bible as the only rule of faith reduced the authority of all creeds. This supremacy of Scripture was due to its own inner authority and not to that of the Church, as before. The symbols subordinated to Scripture were obligatory only in so far as they accorded with it. They were regarded not as having dogmatic value, but as polemical and political or juridical. There remained also the consciousness that they were confessions, in the sense of witnesses to Biblical truth. In the Syncretistic Controversies (see SYNCRETISM, SYNCRETISTIC CONTROVERSIES) the orthodox Lutherans were disposed to emphasize the insufficiency of all extant symbols as compared with the completeness of the entire faith; this was especially the case with regard to the ecumenical

creeds, which Georg Calixtus (q.v.) and his school wished to use as a basis of union between the conflicting churches. Attempts were even made from this standpoint to formulate a new creed among the orthodox Lutherans; but the point was never actually reached. Among the Reformed, on the other hand, the production of new formulas was incessant, nor has the tendency to revision or new creation yet ceased.

The authority of the creeds, strongly enforced in the period of Pietism, declined notably under the influence of rationalism. In the history of Protestantism they belong essentially to established or territorial organizations, except in certain Reformed confessions in North America and free churches elsewhere; but the relation between Church and State was really as close in the Reformed system as in the Lutheran, only somewhat differently defined, while the " free " churches, the first type of which is the English Independent, are essentially modern. In the old political systems, which contemplated only one Church (a conception not yet entirely done away; see LIBERTY, RELIGIOUS; and UNION OF THE CHURCHES), the creeds were among the foundations of the constitution; and citizens, especially officials and most of all clericals, were strictly bound by them, at least so far as their public teaching was concerned. In what measure they should be binding upon the conscience was difficult to determine in Protestant states and churches. The nineteenth century has for the most part brought forth an unhistorical abstract idealizing of the symbols in Protestantism. A result of the methods of Schleiermacher is a confessional theology which regards itself bound in advance by the symbols, as over against the Bible. To this the a priori justification of symbols, of that view of the history of dogma resting upon Hegel, is to be added. The obligation of teaching with reference to them has long since been restricted to theologians, and frequently to pastors alone. The idea of this obligation, by virtue of the development assumed by theology as the science of Christianity, is everywhere in a state of uncertainty.

II. Comparative Symbolics: The Symbolics of modern times is partly a substitute for, and partly an amplification of, older disciplines. The latter reverts for its origin to a department of knowledge first introduced in the seventeenth