154 Irenaeus: Life, Scripture, Legacywhen Kelly suggests that “it has all the air of having once existed as an independent
one-clause confession,”^19 the evidence for christological affirmations in baptism indi-
cates that his instincts here are sound. Whereas this evidence, apart from the debatable
instance in Pliny, is from the third century or later, we may nonetheless note the old
suggestion of Haussleiter that, deriving from the original mission within forming Juda-
ism, the christological confession is primary in the development of credal forms, and
may thus derive from the original Christian proclamation.^20
In recognizing the christological confession as distinct, we may escape from Smul-
ders’s strictures, as from the similar point made pertinently by Bradshaw, namely, that
we should be careful not to assume that all catechetical material is to be found repeated
in the baptismal rite.^21 The trinitarian regula, we may suggest, is a reflection of cateche-
sis but the peculiar manner in which the christological section is appended reflects the
baptismal ritual known to Irenaeus.
Interrogation or Declaration?
It is here that we must pause to consider a significant issue. For if there is a christologi-
cal declaration as part of this rite, then this runs counter to the underlying assumption
in credal research that interrogatory creeds preceded declaratory creeds.^22 Of this I am
far from sure; rather, in agreement with Bradshaw on broad lines, even if with some
difference in detail, I suggest that there are two distinct forms, one of which knew a
threefold interrogation in the waters, the other of which involved a renunciation and
a confession by the waters.^23 However, the assumption that a creed must be trinitarian
and interrogatory, delivered in the waters, has skewed the reading of Irenaeus here.
Credal research is largely dominated by the influence of Lietzmann. Building on the
work of Holl and Harnack, Lietzmann argued that the Roman creed was constructed
from the fusion of two formulae, a christological sequence and a basic trinitarian
creed.^24 In support of his argument, Lietzmann notes instances of credal statements
in which a brief trinitarian formula is supplemented by more extensive christologi-
cal material provided as a postscript. Among these we may note that this passage in
Irenaeus appears. Beyond Irenaeus, Lietzmann notes a confession of Alexander of
Alexandria (apud Theodoret, HE I.4.46) and a confession of Apollinaris.^25 Lietzmann’s
explanation is that the christological content of the creeds had been separately gener-
ated and that original trinitarian creeds were only subsequently filled out with this
additional material. We may perhaps put aside the fourth century confessions as, since
they are motivated by christological controversy, it is possible that their postscripts
are explanatory glosses on what has gone before, but this cannot be said of Irenaeus.
However, rather than being a trinitarian creed that was subsequently expanded with
christological material we may suggest, on the basis of the argument already presented,
that we have a christological confession generated by baptismal ritual and that this is
preceded by a trinitarian statement that has been generated entirely independently,
namely catechetically. Lietzmann does not, to my knowledge, identify the source of
the christological sequence; here it is suggested that the sequence is generated baptis-
mally. This in turn means that the Roman creed is not the product of a trinitarian creed
supplemented with a christological confession but rather that, if there is a relationship