Irenaeus

Stewart—“The Rule of Truth... which He Received through Baptism” 155

between the three-part Roman creed and the christological sequence, the reverse is
true, namely, that a christological confession has been supplemented in order to form
a threefold interrogation.^26
Before turning to Irenaeus, we may note other examples of the manner in which
the assumption that baptismal creeds are necessarily trinitarian and interrogatory has
skewed the reading of eastern liturgical sources. The baptismal rites lying behind the
Jerusalem Catecheses mystagogicae know a renunciation and a profession—apotaxis
and syntaxis—taking place immediately before baptism,^27 the syntaxis consisting of
a trinitarian declaratory creed whereas a second, interrogatory, credal assertion then
takes place within the water.^28 Whereas the complex of apotaxis and syntaxis here may
be an importation from another rite, it is also possible that the interrogatory creed
is an accretion which has come about as the apotaxis-syntaxis has been moved away
from the waters. The prevailing assumption, however, is that the interrogatory creed
is original.^29
Similarly, it is suggested that in the rites known to Chrysostom in Antioch there
was an interrogatory creed. Wenger alludes to a passage in the fortieth Homilia in I
Cor. in which Chrysostom states that “when we are to baptize we command them
to say [κελευόντες εἰπεῖν] ‘I believe in the resurrection of the dead’ and they are bap-
tized on the basis of this faith,”^30 and he is followed by Finn in suggesting that this is
a response to an interrogatory creed.^31 However, the statement that they are “com-
manded to say” the words is more indicative of a declaration. Although we cannot
say whether this is an allusion to a declaration of faith at the syntaxis or to the redditio
symboli when the candidate formally repeated the newly learned credal formula (we
confront here the problem, yet again, of knowing whether a reference to a creed relates
to pre-baptismal catechesis and its associated ritual or to the act of baptism itself ),^32
this homily is Antiochene; the fact that the baptizer in Antioch employs a baptismal
formula^33 makes it likely that baptism was accompanied by a declaratory creed, since
were baptism administered on the basis of interrogation, as in the West, then a for-
mula is unnecessary.^34 The situation with regard to Constantinople is equally unclear;
however, the evidence of a later period likewise points away from any interrogatory
formula, as there is no absolutely no basis in the writings of Proclus of Constantinople
to assert, as do Finn and Wenger, that the formula of baptismal profession “is a ques-
tion and answer dialogue.”^35 Rather, the candidate makes a statement, a confession that
she has learned in the course of catechesis.^36

The Evidence of Irenaeus
Thus to turn to Irenaeus, we may observe the classic discussion of Kelly. He begins by
noting two statements from the Demonstration. “First of all it bids us bear in mind that
we have received baptism for the remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in
the name of Jesus Christ the Son of God, who was incarnate and rose again, and in the
Holy Spirit of God”^37 and the statement that “the baptism of our regeneration proceeds
through three points, God the Father bestowing upon us regeneration through his Son
by the Holy Spirit.”^38 Finally, Kelly notes Irenaeus’s restatement of the three points of
baptism in Dem. 6. From this he deduces a threefold series of baptismal questions: