i-rt-'-.-r-:-' >-. -^;n!^£Cs;.^*%.'5 YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THE APOSTLES' CREED Its Origin, Its Purpose, and Its Historical Interpretation 0 llecture, iuitt) Critical ipioWfi BY ARTHUR CUSHMAN McGIFFERT *>• Washburn Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Seminary, New York NEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 1902 Copyright, 1902, By Charles Scribner's Sons. PiMished January, 1902. UNIVERSITY PRESS • JOHN WILSON AND SON • CAMBRIDGE, U.S.A. PREFACE THE lecture with which this volume opens was first given at the Harvard University Summer School of Theology in July, 1899. It has been given since at the University of Chicago, and a part of it was read at the meeting of the American Historical Association held in Detroit in December, 1900. The lecture is printed sub stantially in its original form, though at a few points changes have been made as a result of fur ther study. Its publication has been deferred until the present time because it contains some conclusions at variance with those commonly ac cepted by modern scholars, which it seemed best to withhold until the reasons for them could be stated in detail. Those reasons will be found in the critical notes, which fill the greater part of the volume, and contain discussions of the most important questions connected with the origin, the text, the purpose and historical inter pretation of the creed. Since the appearance last year of the final volume of Kattenbusch's elabo- yi PREFACE rate monograph on the Apostles' Creed I have worked over the whole subject again and have tested my conclusions in its light. As I am compelled to disagree with Kattenbusch at many points I wish to bear testimony here to the value of his work, which is the most exhaustive treat ment of the subject we have and, in spite of some serious defects in method, will be indispensable to all future workers in this particular field. It will be seen that the notes deal largely with the Old Eoman Symbol and not with the present text of the creed. This is due not only to the greater relative importance of the former, but also to the fact that my own inde pendent investigations have been confined to questions connected with the older symbol, and I have not cared to burden the notes with second hand results. The conclusions touching the origin and history of the present text of the creed which are given in the latter part of the lecture are based wholly upon the investigations of others, especially Caspar! and Kattenbusch. To my colleague, Prof. James Everett Erame, my hearty thanks are due for the valuable as sistance he has rendered me in connection with the revision of the proof sheets. CONTENTS LECTURE 3 CRITICAL NOTES: I. The Text op the Old Roman Symbol in the Fourth Century 39 II. The Date op the Old Roman Symbol . . 46 III. The Original Text op the Old Roman Symbol 84 IV. The Place of Composition of the Old Roman Symbol 101 V. The Purpose op the Old Roman Symbol AND ITS Historical Interpretation . . 105 VI. The Old Roman Symbol and the Baptismal Formula 175 VII. The Present Text of the Apostles' Creed 187 THE APOSTLES' CREED A LECTURE THE APOSTLES' CREED LIKE many another ancient document, the Apostles' Creed has had an interesting and complicated history. The form which we now have originated in western Europe, probably about the sixth century. But the present form is simply an expansion of a briefer creed which dates from a much earlier period and is commonly known among scholars as the " Old Eoman Symbol." Our study of the Apostles' Creed, then, must con cern itself largely with this Old Roman Symbol. Our sources for a knowledge of the older creed are fragmentary and scattered, but they have been subjected during recent years to the most careful and elaborate investigation and an im mense amount of new light has been thrown upon them with the most gratifying results. Eew bet ter illustrations are to be found of the fruitfulness of modern historical and literary criticism than the recent advances in our knowledge along this line. Professor Caspari of Norway, who died in 1892, devoted years to the collection and investi gation of the sources, and his minute and pains- 4 THE APOSTLES' CREED taking studies, published in a number of volumes, first brought the matter upon a genuinely scientific basis.* His work has been taken up more recently by Professor Kattenbusch of Tubingen, who has published a large work in two volumes, the first volume being devoted chiefly to the reconstruction of the text, and the second to the origin and in terpretation both of the older symbol and of the present creed.^ Kattenbusch's work(i§)of a most exhaustive character,\but) it leaves many impor tant questions unanswered, and I am convinced will have to be corrected at many points, particu larly in connection with the origin, the purpose, and the historical interpretation of the Old Eoman Symbol. A great many more or less elaborate pamphlets appeared in Germany a few years ago in connection with the controversy touching the use of the Apostles' Creed in the services of the church. Most of them are of a practical character and few of any scientific value, but the lecture of Professor Harnack,^ which gave rise to the con- ^ Caspari's principal works upon the subject are Ungedruckle, unbeacliieie und wenig beachtete Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel : in three volumes, 1866, 1869, 1875, Chris- tiania; and AUe und neue Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel, Christiania, 1879. ^ Das apostolische Symbol : seine Entstehung, sein geschichtlicher Sinn, seine ursprungliche Stetlung im Kultus und in der Theologie der Kirche. Bd. I : Die Grundgestalt des Taufsymbols, Leipzig, 1894 ; Bd. II : Verbreitung und Bedeutung des Taufsymbols, 19D0. ' Das apostolische Glauhensbekenntniss, ein geschichtlicher Bericht, nebst einem Nachivort, Berlin, 1892 ; English translation by Mrs- THE APOSTLES' CREED 5 troversy, is an interesting and suggestive sketch of the origin and history of the creed, and the pamphlet of Professor Zahn * contains much ma terial of value. Hahn's BibliotJiek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der alien Kirche, which appeared in a third and greatly improved edition in 1897, is indispensable to any one who wishes to make a study of the Old Eoman Symbol and the Apostles' Creed, or indeed of any of the creeds of the early church. It is the most complete collection we have of the texts of ancient creeds both public and private, but it needs to be used with caution, as its texts are not always to be relied upon, and it should be tested in every case by Kattenbusch.^ Humphry Ward in the Nineteenth Century for July 1893. The little book by H. B. Swete (The Apostles' Creed: its Relation to Primitive Christianity, London, 1894) is in the main a defence of the primitive character of the creed over against Harnack. Harnack has written upon one or another phase of the subject in numerous periodicals. His admirable summary in Herzog's Encyclopaedia, third edition (s. v. Das apostolische Symbol) and his Chronologic der alt-christlichen Litteratur, Bd. I, S. 524 seq., should also be referred to, as well as his convenient collection of illustra tive matter from the literature of the first two centuries in the appendix to the third edition of Hahn's Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der alien Kirche, Breslau, 1897. ^ Das apostolische Symbolum. Eine Skizze seiner Geschichte und eine Priifung seines Inhalts, Erlangen and Leipzig, 1893 ; English translation under the title The Articles of the Apostles' Creed, by A. E. Burn, London 1899. Burn is himself the author of a recent work (An Introduction to the Creeds and to the Te Deum, London, 1899) which deals in part with the origin and history of the Apostles' Creed, and contains some new material. 2 An elaborate conspectus of the literature upon the Apostles' 6 THE APOSTLES' CREED I have said that a briefer creed, commonly known as the Old Roman Symbol, underlies our present Apostles' Creed. From a work by Eufinus of Aquileia, written about 400 a.d., we learn that that symbol was in use in the church of Eome in the fourth century and a comparison of Eufinus' work with a letter of Marcellus of Ancyra, written some sixty years earlier, shows that the symbol at that time ran as follows : " I believe in God the Father almighty and in Christ Jesus his only begotten son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin, was crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried, on the third day rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, sitteth on the right hand of the Father, from whence he cometh to judge quick and dead ; and in Holy Spirit, holy church, remission of sins, resurrection of flesh." 1 This symbol, with the exception of two or three phrases, can be traced back to the latter part of the second century, our earliest witnesses to its existence being Tertullian of North Africa^ and his older contemporary Irenasus of Southern Gaul.' There is some diflficulty in reconstructing the exact text of the symbol as known to thera. Creed both old and new is given by Kattenbusch, I., p. 1 seq. and IL, p. 729 seq. and 967 seq. 1 Upon the text of the Old Roman Symbol in the fourth cen tury, see p. 39 seq. 2 See p. 47 seq. s See p. 48 seq. THE APOSTLES' CREED 7 Many scholars maintain that it was the same as that known to Eufinus, but I think it can be shown that the phrases " only begotten " after " Christ Jesus," "of the Holy Spirit" after "born," "forgiveness of sins," and very likely also the article on the church, and possibly the phrase " our Lord " after " Christ Jesus his Son " were not a part of it in their time, so that it ran then sub stantially : " I believe in God the Father almighty and in Christ Jesus his son, who was born of Mary the Virgin, was crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried, on the third day rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, sitteth on the right hand of the Father, from whence he cometh to judge quick and dead ; and in Holy Spirit, resurrection of flesh." 1 I have said that Irenaeus and Tertullian are our earliest witnesses to the existence of this symbol. It is true that some scholars think they can trace it still further back, finding evidences that it was already in use in Eome when Marcion came thither, and that it was known to Justin Martyr and even to some of the apostolic fathers. But after a very careful study of all our sources for a knowledge of Marcion's career and of the entire pre-Irenaean literature I am unable to find a single trace of the existence of our creed or of any I similar creed before the time of Irenaeus. It is 1 On the original text of the Old Roman Symbol, see p. 84 seq. 8 THE APOSTLES' CREED true that many of the phrases which occur in thie creed are common in the earliest fathers, but that proves nothing. It has been altogether too com mon to assume a knowledge of the creed wherever one of its phrases, or even phraseology remotely resembling any part of it has been found, as if the framer of the creed was himself the author of all its statements and did not rather gather them together from the common Christian thought and language of the day. Certainly a creed could hardly have hoped to find general acceptance which contained new and unfamiliar phraseology from beginning to end. In the complete absence of statements implying the existence of any creed whatever, there should be found at least such a collocation of creedal phrases and in such a connec tion as to make a creedal origin probable. It is not enough, as some have thought, to show that there is no conclusive evidence against the exist ence of the creed before the middle of the second century. The mere fact that it existed in 175 A.D. does not warrant us in pushing it back fifty or seventy-five years further unless there is posi tive evidence of an afl&rmative character. But as a matter of fact not simply is no such evidence forthcoming, there are on the contrary not a few indications of an opposite character. I cannot go into the details of the matter in this lecture. I may simply remark that the elaborate account of THE APOSTLES' CREED 9 the rite of baptism which Justin Martyr gives in his first Apology makes decidedly against the use of a creed in Eome in his time, and the absence of any reference to a creed in the Didache, which has so much to say about pre-baptisrnal instruction, is conclusive proof that none was used in the part of the church to which the Didache belongs in the first quarter of the second century.* Tertullian and Irenaeus, then, are our earliest witnesses to the existence of a creed. Their testi mony carries us back some years beyond (175 a.d^ but not beyond the middle of the century. It would seem, in fact, that the creed known_as the Old Eoman Symbol niust have originated between 150 and 175, a time when there was every reason for the formation of some creedal state ment to guard against the misconceptions of Chris tianity which were widely prevalent and were causing serious trouble. It would seem, still fur ther, that it must have originated in Eorae, whence the other churches of the west certainly derived it. In Eome we can trace its existence as far back as 150-175, while there is no certain proof of any similar creed in any part of the east until well on in the third century. At this point I am glad to find myself in agreement with Katten busch, who maintains the Roman origin of the 1 On the date of the Old Roman Symbol, see p. 46 seq. 10 THE APOSTLES' CREED r- creed over » against the older view of Caspari that it took its rise in the east.* The authorship of the Old Eoman Symbol and the exact occasion of its composition we do not know, but it is quite clear that it was designed as a baptismal confession — a form of words in which the convert should declare his faith.^ It seems natural enough now to use such a confession, but when one realizes the original Christian custom, the existence of the confession seems very strange. Peter at Pentecost said to his converts simply " Eepent and be baptized." In the Didache only ethical instruction is given the candidate for bap tism ; and we learn from other sources that it was common in many quarters in the primitive church for the converts simply to pledge themselves at the time of baptism to commit no murder or theft or other crime and to live as became a follower of Christ.^ How, then, are we to account for the existence in the late second century of an elaborate baptismal confession in which all the emphasis is on belief and not a word is said about conduct ? We do not need to search long in the literature of the second century to find an adequate answer. 1 On the place of composition of the Old Eoman Symbol, see p. 101 seq. ^ Cf. Irenceus, I., 9, 4 ; 10, 1 ; and Tertullian, De Corona, 3. 8 Cf., e. g., Pliny's Epistle to Trajan, No. 96 (97) ; and Hip polytus, Phil., IX. 10. THE APOSTLES' CREED 11 Before the middle of that century there were Christians who were preaching views which most of the disciples regarded as the worst __of heresies ; views which appeared to be thoroughly heathen in their character and which it seemed that every true Christian believer must repudiate if he would remain true to Christ. Up to this time it had apparently been taken for granted that all con verts from heathenism in receiving Christian baptism and casting in their lot with the dis ciples of Christ, would inevitably renounce all heathen errors opposed to the teaching of Christ and the spirit of the gospel. But it was becom ing manifest in the second century that the as sumption was unfounded, that there were many Christians who were bringing over with them into the church views about God and the world and Christ which seemed absolutely destructive of the Christian faith and life. And so the custom arose of inquiring, when new converts wished to be baptized, whether they renounced the false and pernicious ideas of the heathen and heretics, and it was apparently in order to insure such renunciation that the positive statement of faith which we know as the Old Eoman Symbol was framed, and all candidates for baptism in Eome were required to learn it by heart and repeat it in the most solemn manner at the time of their baptism. At this point I must confess myself to be 12 THE APOSTLES' CREED out of agreement with the opinion commonly pre valent among recent scholars, including even Harnack and Kattenbusch. Most of them regard the Old Eoman Symbol as a positive statement of the Christian faith framed quite independently of existing errors and with a primarily evangelistic or missionary purpose. This opinion I was com pelled some years ago to abandon, and continued study has only confirmed me in my abandonment of it. The structure of the creed, its omissions as well as its assertions, the date at which it arose and the contrast between its use at baptism and the earlier custom, when the churcii had hardly begun to be troubled by false teaching and was chiefly interested in evangelism — all point in the same direction, and seem to me to make it certain that the Old Eoman Syrnbol, like most of the great historic creeds, arose as a protest against error.^ It is in the light, then, of the errors against which it was directed that it must be interpreted.^ But it is to be noticed that the Old Eoman Symbol is not a general statement of the faith of the Christians of the second century over against all the errors of the day. There are many essential elements in their faith which have no place in the symbol, and there were not a few common errors 1 Upon the purpose of the Old Roman Symbol, see p. 106 seq. ^ For a detailed interpretation of the Old Roman Symbol, see p. 108 seq. THE APOSTLES' CREED 13 which are passed by without notice. The symbol, in fact, as is quite evident, is in the main a simple enlargement of the baptismal formula, and it is concerned chiefly to state the true Christian faith touching the persons into whose names the convert is baptized. The movement which was making most trouble in Eome at the time the Old Eoman Symbol was framed was that of Marcion, the would-be Pauline reformer. Marcion's radical Paulinism led him to repudiate not only the law but the law-giver ; and so he drew a sharp distinction between the God of the Jews and the God of the Christians, and denied that the latter was the creator and ruler of the world revealed in the Old Testament — denied, in fact, that he had anything to do with making and governing the material universe. Marcion thus cut the root of the belief in providence upon which Jesus laid so great stress, and which is really essential to genuine and healthy Christian living. ( 1 It was over against this error that the first article in the Old Eoman sj^mbol seems to have been framed : "I believe in God the Father almighty." The word in the original Greek — iravTOKpaToyp — means not "almighty" but "all controlling ," or " all governing," the reference being to God as the one who holds and con trols and governs the universe. The connection 14 THE APOSTLES' CREED then makes it clear that the word Father meant " Father of the universe," Father being used in the sense of Author or Maker as it was commonly used by the Christians of the second century. Thus when the early Christians uttered the first article of the creed they were not asserting their faith in the Father as the first person of the Trinity, or in God as the loving and merciful Father of men, whom Christ preached ; but in God the creator and ruler of the universe, a belief which is Christian, but not distinctively so, for it is much older than Christ and has always been shared by many quite without the circle of Christian influence. The second article of the creed — the article on Christ — is not simply the most elaborate but the most striking part of it. It is significant as well for its omissions as for its assertions. Nothing is said about the baptism of Christ, of which so much is made in the gospels and which we know was emphasized in many quarters in the second century ; nothing is said of Christ's teaching, or of his works of mercy and of power ; nothing of his fulfilment of messianic prophecy, upon which all the early missionaries, whether addressing Jews or gentiles, laid the very greatest stress, upon which in fact they chiefly based their claim that Christ was a messenger sent from God ; nothing is said of the salvation brought by Jesus and nothing THE APOSTLES' CREED 15 of the purpose of his life or death. It does not help matters to say that the brevity of the creed required the omission of these things, for they are of primary importance, and some of them certainly occupy a far larger place in the New Testament and in the preaching of the missionaries of the first and second centuries than some of the things that are mentioned, than the virgin birth, for in stance, and the ascension. And the insertion of the word " buried " after " crucified " shows that brevity was not the only consideration. Evidently the second article was not intended as a summary, even of the briefest character, of what the Christians of the second century believed about Christ. It was rather a statement designed particularly to meet certain specific difl&culties and errors. Among the teachings of Marcion which were most offensive to Christians in general was the assertion that Jesus Christ is not the son of the creator and ruler of the world — the God of the Old Testament — but of another being altogether, who was entirely ¦ unknown until the coming of Christ. One can hardly resist the conclusion that the author of the Old Eoman Symbol had this in mind when he de clared that the Jesus Christ into whose name the convert is baptized is the son of the creator and ruler of the universe mentioned in the first article. The sentences which immediately follow seem to be primarily intended as an assertion of the reality 16 THE APOSTLES' CREED of Christ's earthly life: He was born of a woman — the Virgin Mary — a birth which Marcion abso lutely denied ; he was crucified, buried, rose again, and ascended. The docetism of Marcion and the Gnostics and many other Christians of the second century is familiar to all of us, their denial of the reality of Christ's earthly life, which took the form either of a denial of the material reality of his body or of the assertion that the spiritual heavenly Christ, and the man Jesus, were two distinct beings, so that it could not be said that Christ himself was crucified and buried and rose again. The creed in asserting that Christ Jesus was born and was crucified and buried and rose again, and that it was the crucified and buried one that ascended to heaven, repudiates in the most explicit terms the whole docetic conception. The omission of the baptism is also worth noting in this connection. Of the baptism many of the docetic sects made a great deal, holding that it was at the time of the baptism that the heavenly Christ came down upon the man Jesus to abide with him during his public ministry, and to leave him again just before his crucifixion. It was found difficult in view of the account of the baptism in the gospels to meet the arguments of the docetists and so the tendency arose to mini mize the baptism, and the result was that it found an entrance into none of the historic creeds. As THE APOSTLES' CREED 17 the baptism received less emphasis the virgin birth received proportionately more. The belief in the virgin birth, though certainly not common in the earliest days, had become widespread before the end of the first century, as is shown by the gospels of Matthew and Luke and by the epistles of Ignatius, and was a part of the general faith of the church before the Old Eoman Symbol was framed. At the same time the interest underly ing the statement " born of Mary the Virgin " in the symbol, must be recognized to have been^ not the uniqueness of Christ's birth so much as the reality of it. What the convert was asked to do was to declare his belief that Christ was born of a . woman, and this doubtless he might have done in the words of the original symbol even had he not believed that Christ's birth was different from that of other men. But the subsequent insertign of the words " of the Holy Spirit " marks a change of interest and of emphasis. Just when the words were added we do not know, probably at the latest not long after the beginning of the third century. They were, of course, not supposed to add anything new to the creed, for the phrase " born of Mary the Virgin " seemed to carry with it by implication the agency of the Holy Spirit as recounted in Matthew and Luke. At the same time their addition does indicate a desire to emphasize the divineness of Christ's origin, which 18 THE APOSTLES' CREED seemed to the original framers of the creed in less need of emphasis than the reality of his hu manity.* I spoke a few moments ago of Marcion's denial of the identity of the God of the Jews and the God of the Christians, and of his assertion that Jesus Christ is the son, not of the former but of the latter, not of the creator and ruler of the world, but of a God entirely unknown until the coming of Christ. I spoke also of his docetism, which took all reality out of the earthly life of Christ. Another Marcionitic tenet which gave widespread offence, and was regarded by Christians in general as peculiarly dangerous, was the denial of the last judgment. Marcion con ceived of the Christian God, the God of redemp tion revealed by Christ, as pure love and mercy, and denied that he or his son, Jesus Christ, would judge any one. In the article on the judgment in the Old Roman Symbol, joined as it is to the session at the right hand of the Father, the Mar cionitic position is repudiated in the most em phatic way. Christ will come again from the right hand of the Father, that is, with his authority and as his agent, to judge the living and the dead. The article on the Holy Spirit which follows the article on the judgment was not called forth by any anti-heathen or anti-heretical interest, for ^ See p. 122 seq. THE APOSTLES' CREED 19 neither heathen nor heretics had any difficulty in believing in one or in many divine spirits. It is noticeable that the creed does not say " One Holy Spirit" or even "The Holy Spirit," at least not in the best text, but simply TTvevfLa ayiov with out article or qualifying phrase. Evidently the mention of the Holy Spirit in the creed was due simply to its occurrence in the baptismal formula upon which the creed was based. I have said that the creed is an enlargement of the baptismal formula, and it is commonly, I may say universally assumed that it is an en largement of the formula found in Matt, xxviii. 19: "Into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." But I think it can be shown, though I cannot stop to discuss the matter here, that the formula upon which it is based was rather "Into the name of God and of Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit" a formula which, as I think it can also be shown, is older than the triune formula of Matthew. It is found in 2 Cor.2yii...l3...as a formula of benediction, and its use in Eome in the middle of the second cen tury in connection with baptism is testified to by Justin Martyr, who throws more light than any other father upon the conditions existing in Eome just before the time when the creed originated.* 1 Upon the baptismal formula and its relation to the Old Roman Symbol, see p. 175 seq. 20 THE APOSTLES' CREED But this conclusion is in line with a conclusion which may be drawn independently from the creed itself, and that is that in the creed the convert declared his faith not in the three persons of the Trinity — God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit — but in God, and in the historic person Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit. Neither the deity of Christ nor his pre-existence was referred to in the original symbol, nor did that symbol contain any reference to an incarna tion. For a creedal statement of Christ's pre-exist ence, deity, and incarnation the church had to wait until Nicsea. In the declaration of belief in God the Father almighty and in his Son Jesus Christ and in the Jloly Spirit the content of the baptismal formula is fully reproduced. What follows is not based upon the baptismal formula, but is added appar ently in order to repudiate other particularly troublesome errors. The article 'on the resurrection of the flesh, phrased as it is with the emphasis upon the flesh, would seem to be a protest against the Marcionitic denial of the salvability of the flesh, a denial which was regarded as one of the worst and most dangerous of all heresies in the second century. The church at large was not satisfied with Paul's doctrine of a spiritual body, which the Marcionites and many of the Gnostics made their own, but THE APOSTLES' CREED 21 insisted upon the resurrection of this very flesh, with all its particles intact and unchanged, in order to prepare the believer for the earthly mil lennial kingdom which Christ was to return and establish. The original significance of this article is somewhat obscured in our English translation of it : " Eesurrection of the body." The word body, of course, admits of the Pauline interpreta tion, the resurrection namely of a spiritual body which amounts to no more than personal immor tality. But in its original form the fleshly char acter of the resurrection was asserted and even emphasized, and so the article had a distinctly, though not of course consciously anti-Pauline meaning." * One of the most interesting articles in the creed is the " forgiveness of sins." It was apparently not a part of the original symbol, for neither Irenteus nor Tertullian mentions it ; but it seems to have been added soon after 200, and I cannot resist the conclusion that it was inserted with a reference to the controversy which was then going on in Rome over the question whether the forgiveness of post- baptismal sins is possible. So that while the statement itself is general and preserves what has always been regarded as one of the most precious and fundamental truths of the gospel of Christ, it would seem to have been put into the creed with a 1 On this article, see p. 164 seq. 22 THE APOSTLES' CREED distinctly hierarchical reference, to commit the convert to the Catholic principle of absolution, upon which Bishop Callixtus of Eome took his stand over against the earlier principle that the church is a community of saints and that there is no absolution but only excommunication for those who commit mortal sins after baptism.* The article on the church may not have been in the original symbol, as Irenaeus does not refer to it and Tertullian does not give it in his repro ductions of the creed. If it did actually constitute a part of the original text it may possibly have been intended as a protest against the Gnostics' denial of the holiness of the church at large and their assertion that only they themselves, an elect few within the church, are really holy and really saved. On the other hand, if the article was added, as it perhaps was, early in the third century, it must have been a fruit of the controversy just referred to touching the forgiveness of post-baptismal sins, and connected as it is with the article on the for giveness of sins it must have been intended, in that case, to assert that though the church receives back into communion excommunicated offenders, and so is composed of sinners as well as saints, yet the church is a holy church.^ This completes the interpretation of the Old 1 See p. 155 seq. = ggg p_ ^^gj ggq_ THE APOSTLES' CREED 23 Roman Symbol. But our present Apostles' Creed contains other clauses not found in the older sym bol. Before attempting to interpret them let us look at the origin of the enlarged creed.* An" examination of the various western texts given by Hahn and Kattenbusch shows that three general types of creed may be distinguished : first the Italian type, which is nearest to the Old Eoman Sym bol and reproduces it with only slight variations ; secondly the North African type, which reproduces the Old Eoman Symbol with certain common and stereotyped additions ; and thirdly the west Euro pean type, which is farthest from the Old Eoman symbol and is characterized by greater free dom and variety than either of the other types, additions being made apparently to meet local needs and without much regard to the forms in use in neighboring churches.^ The general difference in these, three types is just what we should expect. In Italy. Eome was dominant and it was natural that its creed should be used with few changes. In 1 See Kattenbusch, II. , p. 759 seq., for an elaborate discussion of this question. ^ See Kattenbusch, I., p. 194 seq. Harnack distinguishes four types (Italian, North African, Spanish, and Gallic), and assigns our present text to the last (see his article in the third edition of Herzog, p. 746, and cf. Kattenbusch, IL, p. 778). That there are some characteristic differences between the known Spanish and Gallic creeds is true, but in the present uncertainty as to the exact home of many western texts we can hardly distinguish between two western types with the same sharpness as between the Italian, North African, and Western. 24 THE APOSTLES' CREED Africa the church of Carthage had paramount ¦influence, and it was natural that while additions to the Eoman symbol should be more freely made than in Italy they should all conform closely to the Carthaginian type. In western Europe, on the other hand, there was no central authority and no dominating church or bishop. The west felt the influence both of Eome and of North Africa, but the several churches developed with considerable freedom and independence, and so we should expect to find variety in the texts of their creeds, the only common element being the Eoman original upon which they were all built. Our present Apostles' Creed belongs evidently to the western type. One of the additions which it contains (descended into Hades) appeared first in Italy ; another (eternal life) in North Africa, but both are found also a little later in the texts of western Europe, and there are others which are found first in those texts ; as for instance : " crea- torem coeli et terrae ; " "qui conceptus est;" " passus et mortuus ;" " Dei omnipotentis " (in the article on the session); "catholicam" (with church) ; and " communionem sanctorum." Indeed only in western texts are all the additions to the Old Eoman Symbol found before our Apostles' Creed appears in exactly its present form. There can thus be practically no doubt that the present form originated in western Europe even though THE APOSTLES' CREED 26 we cannot fix the exact time or place of its formation.* But though our present creed is of the western type, it is not the fullest and richest form of that type. It is simply one of a number of forms, some of which are even more elaborate than it. For instance, we find in other western texts " Deum et Dominum" with "Jesum Christum ;" " vivus " with " resurrexit ; " " victor " with "ascendit in coelos; " "omnium" with "peccatorum ; " " per baptismum " with " remissionem ; " " hujus " with " carnis," and so on. Moreover the additions which are found in our present text cannot be pronounced superior to those that occur in other texts, nor does a single principle underlie them, so that they can be said to belong naturally together. There seems in fact to have been no reason in the nature of the case why other additions instead of these might not have been permanently adopted. The present form is not the one legitimate and final result of the devel opment of the Old Eoman Symbol.^ It is simply 1 The common and probably the correct opinion is that the present form of the Apostles' Creed originated in Gaul (cf. Harnack's article in Herzog). In the first volume of his work (p. 196 seq.) Kattenbusch says that we have no means of determin ing the place of its origin, beyond the fact that it belongs to Western Europe, but in the second volume (p. 790 seq.) he gives reasons for thinking that it may have originated in the province of Burgundy. Burn (Introduction to the Creeds, p. 221 seq.) assigns it to Rome, but without sufficient reason (cf. Kattenbusch, H., p. 784 seq.). ^ Cf. Kattenbusch, I., p. 195 seq., and also II. , p. 779, where 26 THE APOSTLES' CREED one of the many enlarged forms of it, and why it persisted rather than one of the others, or in other words why it rather than one of the others became in the early middle ages the creed of Eome and so finally the creed of the whole western church, we do not know. Possibly it was the form, among the many current in the west, which happened to be in use at the Frankish court in the eighth century when the Franks were beginning to domi nate Eome.* The way in which this western form of the Old Eoman Symbol became itself the baptismal creed of the Eoman church and was handed down to subsequent centuries as the Apostles' Creed, and the hereditary symbol of Eome, is very interesting, though it has not yet been fully cleared up. We know that in the fifth or sixth century the Old Eoman Symbol fell into disuse in Eome and the so-called Nicene creed became the chief baptismal symbol of the church of that city.^ Just why this happened is uncertain. Possibly it was because of the dominating influence of the Elastern empire ; possibly because of the Arianism of the Goths and the Lombards, against which it seemed important to guard the convert. At any rate, the Nicene he answers the criticisms of Harnack in the third edition of Herzog's Encyclopaedia, s. v. Apostolisches Symbol. 1 Cf. Kattenbusch, IL, p. 967. 2 See Caspari, Quellen, IL, p. 114, note 88 ; and compare Kat tenbusch, IL, p. 796 seq. THE APOSTLES' CREED 27 creed continued in use for some two centuries or more and by that time the Old Eoman Symbol which had been exclusively employed until the fifth or sixth century seems to have been generally though not altogether forgotten. Meanwhile, in the eighth or ninth century, our present form of the Apostles' Creed came into use in Eome in con nection with baptism and ultimately crowded out I "the Nicene Creed altogether.* The process by which this second displacement was brought about is even more obscure than the first. We only know that the enlarged form was current among the Franks in the eighth century, and as Frankish influence began at that time to be strongly felt in Eome, and as the pope was drawing ever further away from the Eastern empire and was beginning to form an alliance with the Franks, it may well be that the substitution of the present Apostles' Creed for the Nicene was simply a part of the general papal policy. But there is still more to be told in this roman tic chapter of symbolics. The Old Eoman Symbol which was framed in the second century was re garded before the end of that century as an apos tolic rule of faith, as a standard and norm of 1 See Caspari, IH., pp. 201 seq. , 226 ; and compare Kattenbusch, II., pp. 794 seq., 967. Just when this displacement was accom- , plished we do not know. In the ninth century both the Nicene and the present Apostles' Creed were in use in Rome in connection with baptism. See Kattenbusch, II. , p. 800. 28 THE APOSTLES' CREED apostolic truth possessing equal authority with the apostolic scripture canon.* In course of time this belief in its general apostolic origin was made definite and vivid by the ascription of the several articles of the creed to the several apostles, one article to each. This is found first in a work of the late fourth or early fifth century ascribed to Ambrose, in which it is said that the apostles gathered together after the ascension of Christ and published a symbol, which was made brief that it might be easily remembered, and which was composed of twelve sentences as there .were twelve apostles. It is also said that this was the symbol which had been preserved in the church of Eome and that it was worse to add or subtract anything than in the case of the Apocalypse, for it was the work of twelve apostles, but the Apoc alypse of only one.^ When this legend arose we do not know. It was evidently due only to the desire to make the general belief in the apostolic origin of the symbol vivid and realistic. But now comes the striking part of the story. After the western creed had supplanted the Nicene creed in ^ Cf., e. g., TertuUian's De Praescriptione Haereticorum. ^ Explanatio Symboli ad initiandos, Migne, Patr. Lat., xvii. 1155- 59. Cf . also Rufinus {Expositio Symboli, chap, ii.), who says : " Be ing all therefore met together they [i. e., the apostles] composed this brief formulary of their future preaching, by gathering to gether into one what each thought." Upon the authorship of the Explanatio Symboli ad initiandos, see Kattenbusch, I., p. 84 seq., and upon the legend of Apostolic authorship, ibid., IL, p. 1 seq. THE APOSTLES' CREED 29 Eome, the legend which had attached in earlier days to the Old Eoman Symbol attached itself to the new creed, and from that time until the fif teenth century it was believed that the creed in the form which we still use was the direct com position of the several apostles, each contributing his respective clause. The legend first appears at tached to our present Apostles' Creed in a discourse of the early middle ages whose author, date, and place of composition are unknown. The passage containing the creed is given by Hahn (§ 42) and runs as follows : " On the tenth day after the ascension when the disciples were gathered for fear of the Jews, the Lord sent the promised Para clete. And when he had come as a flaming fire and they were filled with the knowledge of all tongues they composed the symbol. Peter said : I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth. Andrew said : And in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord. James said : Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of Mary the Virgin. John said : Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried. Thomas said : Descended into Hades, on the third day rose from the dead. James said : Ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father almighty. Philip said : Thence he is about to come to judge quick and dead. Bartholomew said : I believe in the Holy Spirit. Matthew said : 30 THE APOSTLES' CREED Holy catholic church, communion of saints. Simon said : Remission of sins. ThaddsBus said : Resur rection of the flesh. Matthias said : , Life eternal." * The truth of the legend was first questioned by Laurentius Valla in the fifteenth century,^ and was finally given up by both Protestants and Roman Catholics, though the latter still claim for the creed apostolic authorship in a general sense.^ I have left myself little time to speak of the additions which distinguish the western creed — our present Apostles' Creed — from the Old Roman Symbol. Only four of them are of particular im portance : "Descended into Hades"; the word " Catholic " in the article on the church ; " Com munion of saints," and " Life eternal." * " Descended into Hades " first appears as a part of the Apostles' Creed in the version of the Aqui- 1 On this text see Kattenbusch, I., p. 192, IL, p. 777. 2 At the Council of Florence, in 1488, where attempts were made to bring about a union of the Greek and Roman churches, the eastern theologians declared that the eastern church had no Apostles' Creed and knew nothing about such a creed. As a matter of fact, the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan creed had been the baptismal symbol of the Eastern church since the fifth century, and the Apostles' Creed was neither known nor used there. It was probably as a result of the discussions at this Council that Laurentius Valla threw doubt upon the truth of the legend concerning apostolic authorship which had grown up in the West but had never had a place in the East. See Kattenbusch, I. , p. 1 seq. ^ See the Catechismus Romanus, Caput I., Quaestio II. * See p. 187 seq. for a discussion of all the articles and phrases that distinguish the present Apostles' Creed from the Old Roman Symbol. THE APOSTLES' CREED 31 leian symbol given by Rufinus, who distinctly says that it was not in the Roman symbol of his day, that is, 400 a. d. It appears occasionally in west ern texts of the next two or three centuries, in cluding the text of our present Apostles' Creed. The purpose of its insertion in the creed we do not know. It was perhaps intended to emphasize the completeness of Christ's death over against the subtle docetism of the third and fourth cen turies, which had resulted from the spread of the Logos christology, and which tended to confine the human nature of Christ to his material body, and so take away from his death all spiritual significance. But if this was the reason for the insertion of the article the reason had been for gotten in Aquileia when Rufinus wrote, for he finds in the words only a repetition of the state ment that Christ was buried. The article does not mean that Christ descended into hell, or the place of punishment for lost souls, but into the underworld, or abode of the dead. The belief that Christ thus descended into Hades between his death and resurrection is as old as the first century and all sorts of ideas had attached themselves to it, the commonest being that Christ had descended in order to preach to the dead, or in order to destroy the power of Satan. But the article as it stands in the creed has nothing to say about the purpose of the 32 THE APOSTLES' CREED Descent, and there is no reason to think that its author reflected particularly upon that purpose. He was interested apparently only in the fact. The adjective " catholic " in the article on the church appears in the creed as early as the fourth century and was very common from the fifth cen tury on. The addition of the word was very natu ral, as the phrase " Holy catholic church " was a current phrase. At^the time when it was inserted in the creed it had already acquired an exclusive meaning and it was that meaning therefore which attached to it in the creed ; belief being expressed not in the holy church universal, but in the parti cular institution which was known as the Catholic Church and was distinguished from all schismatic and heretical bodies, the orthodox catholic church which was in communion with the church of Rome. The common Protestant interpretation of the article in . the . creed^ which makes it refer to the holy church universal, is therefore historically incorrect. The article on the communion of saints is very obscure. It appears in various western texts of the fifth and following centuries, but why it was inserted and what it was intended to express we cannot be sure. The phrase was a common one in the west from the fifth century on. It was used sometimes to denote participation in sacred things, that is the sacraments, sometimes to denote com- THE APOSTLES' CREED 33 munion with departed saints. And one or the other of these meanings probably attaches to the article in the creed. There is no sign that the article was intended to express the com munion or fellowship of believers with each other, or that it was meant as a closer definition of the word " church," as we so commonly interpret it to-day. The article " Eternal life " appears frequently in texts of the fourth and following centuries. The phrase needs no special interpretation. It was a most natural addition after the article on the resurrection and it is not necessary to seek for any particular occasion for its insertion. It sup plies a lack in the Old Roman Symbol which must have been widely felt when the original polemic purpose of that symbol was forgotten. The earlier symbol closed abruptly with the resurrec tion of the flesh. The conclusion of the present creed is far more satisfactory and expresses far more adequately the Christian hope. Before closing this lecture permit me to call attention briefly to three or four points sug gested by the account I have given of the origin and early history of the creed. In the first place the Apostles^Creed__is_not a monument, of the apostolic or early post-apostolic age. It belongs even in its earliest form to the age when the catholic spirit was beginning to displace the 3 34 THE APOSTLES' CREED primitive spirit and when the interest in sound doctrine was beginning to crowd out the interest in the evangelization and salvation of the world. It is primarily a doctrinal and polemical creed^ not an evangelistic or missionary symbol. In the second place, belonging as it does to another age, it_is very far from reproducing the original Christian gospel. There is nothing in it of the personal fatherhood of God : nothing of the Messiahship of Jesus ; nothing of the king dom of God ; nothing of repentance and faith ; nothing of love for God and one's neighbors; nothing of following Christ ; nothing of the for giveness of sin (at least in the original text). Moreover in its account of Christ's life it omits his baptism, which is emphasized by all the gospels ; his works of mercy and power ; his ful filment of prophecy ; his preaching and founding of the kingdom. While on the other hand it contains the virgin birth, which was believed at a comparatively early day, to be sure, but certainly did not constitute a part of the original preaching of the disciples. In the third place not simply does the creed fail to reproduce the original Christian gospel in its true proportions and in some of its essential elements ; it represents only a small part of the thinking even of the age which gave it birth and it omits much that was most essential in that THE APOSTLES' CREED 35 thinking. Nothing is said in it about the pre- existence of Christ or about salvation through him ; nothing about the nature of Christianity and the Christian life ; nothing about the authority of the Old Testament ; nothing about the coming kingdom; nothing about the life eternal, at least in the original text. Evidently it is not a summary of the faith of the church either of the second or of any other century. In the fourth place, while we of to-day can re peat parts of it, probably not qne_o^_us can repeat the whole of it in the sense which was originally intended. The interpretation of creeds inevitably changes with time and the changed interpretation must be recognized as legitimate, or the historic creeds must be repudiated altogether. Finally the great value of the creed above all other creeds which the church possesses is its emphasis_upon the historic figure, Jesus. Christ. We may well congratulate ourselves that the great heresy of the second century was the denial of the reality of Christ's humanity, for we owe to it a distinct and unequivocal statement of Christ's real manhood in a creed which for simplicity and compactness has never been surpassed, and whiclr has been handed down through the centuries and has been reverenced by half of Christendom as the creed of the apostles themselves. /Perhaps to it more than to anything else — more even than 36 THE APOSTLES' CREED to the gospels, which were not widely read in the middle ages — we owe the fact that Jesus Christ is and always has been the object of the Chris tian's faith, and that his figure has never been completely lost even when the true gospel has been most overlaid with scholastic philosophy or with sacramentarianism and ecclesiasticism!\ CRITICAL NOTES CRITICAL NOTES The Text of the Old Roman Symbol in the Fourth Century The most explicit and definite testimony which we have to the existence and form of the Old Roman Symbol is in Rufinus' Expositio Symboli^ which was written about 400 a.d. In this work, which is a commentary upon the creed as used in the church of Aquileia in Rufinus' time, the author gives the text of the Aquileian creed and points out its variations from the creed of the church of Rome. It is thus possible to reconstruct the latter as it existed in Rufinus' day, at least so far as its substance goes. It is evident that Rufinus calls attention to all the variations that are of any importance, but there may have been differences of mere verbiage which he says nothing about. His creed is given by Hahn, § 36, with the addi tions to the Roman creed indicated by italics. Compare also Kattenbusch, I. p. 60 seq. 1 Migne, Patr. Lat, Vol. XXL, col. 335-386 ; English translation in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Vol. IIL, p. 541 seq. 40 THE APOSTLES' CREED About the year 337 a.d. Marcellus of Ancyra wrote a letter to Julius, Bishop of Rome, which has been preserved by Epiphanius, Haer., 72. The letter was written by Marcellus to defend himself from charges of heresy which had been preferred against him, and contains a creed, which is given by Hahn, § 17 (cf. also Kattenbusch, I. p. 64 seq.). Marcellus does not say where he got this creed. Indeed, he introduces it abruptly without preface of any kind. But it is clear that he did not compose it for the occasion as a summary of his own personal faith, for it has no direct bearing upon the questions at issue between him and his oppo nents, and one might accept the whole of it and still take either side in the controversy. The only plausible explanation of the insertion of the creed without preface or description is that it was the recognized creed of the church of Rome, and that Marcellus hoped to establish his orthodoxy to the satisfaction of the Roman bishop by declaring his acceptance of it in full. And a comparison of it with the Roman creed as found in Rufinus con firms this conclusion, for the two agree almost verbatim ; the only important differences being the omission of irarepa in the first article of Mar cellus' creed and the addition of Icd'tjv alaviov at the end. Three other witnesses to the text of the Old Roman Symbol are found in three manuscripts of FOURTH CENTURY TEXT 41 the early middle ages, one Greek and two Latin, the first known as the Psalterium ^thelstani, the second as the Codex Laudianus, and the third called by Kattenbusch the Codex Swainsonii, be cause discovered by Swainson. (See Hahn, §§ 18, 20, 23 ; and Kattenbusch, I. p. 64 seq.) The manu scripts say nothing about the source from whence they draw the creed, but the agreement is so complete between the three texts and the text of the Old Roman Symbol given by Rufinus that there can be no doubt that they are reproducing the same symbol. These five witnesses enable us to reconstruct with considerable accuracy the text of the Old Roman Symbol as it existed in the fourth century. The Psalterium ^thelstani, the Codex Laudianus and the Codex Swainsonii agree with Rufinus over against Marcellus in having TTarepa (patrem) in the first article and in omitting ^oi'Tjv aicovLov in the last. The text of Epiphanius is very corrupt just at the point where the letter of Marcellus is quoted, so that the variations may be due to textual errors in Epiphanius ; or Marcel lus, who had very likely first seen the Roman creed during a recent visit in Rome and now quoted it from memory, may have misquoted it at the two points in question. At any rate it may be regarded as certain that the phrase [,a)rjv aldvLov was not in the Old Roman Symbol at the time Marcellus wrote, for the three later witnesses all omit it, and it is 42 THE APOSTLES' CREED inconceivable that it should have been in the creed originally and have been later omitted and then found a place again in the enlarged form of the creed which we now know as the Apostles' creed. As the phrase had a place in all the east ern creeds of Marcellus' day it was easy for it to slip in inadvertently when he quoted the Roman symbol. So far as the omission of iraripa is concerned it is possible, of course, that the word did not belong to the creed when Marcel lus wrote, but was added before the time of Rufinus. But, as will be shown later (see p. 99), it is altogether probable that it was in the ori ginal text of the creed and its omission, there fore, was doubtless due to an oversight on the part of Marcellus himself or of some scribe. ¦ We may assume then that the Old Roman Symbol ran substantially as follows in the time of Marcellus and Rufinus : TTKTTeua) et? %eov Trarepa* nravTOKparopa ' Kal ets ^picTTov 'Irjcrovv, tov^ vlbv ovtov tov povoyevrj, tov Kvpiov -fipcov, TOV yevvTjOevTa e/c TrveupaTO^ ayiov Kal Maptas r^s irapdevov, tov iirl Hovtlov IltXaTOU aravpoidevTa Kal Ta(f>evTa,^ r^ TpiT'Tj rjpepa dva- (TTavTa Ik veKpS>v, dva/3dvTa eis rows o-vpavov'i, Kadyjpevov^ iv Sefta tou TraT/Jos, o6ev ep^eTai Kplvax^ 1 Marcellus omits irarepa. ^ Psalterium .2Ethelstani omits toi/. * Marcellus has Kal before t^ ¦rpirij fjfiipa. * Marcellus has tS>v before vcKpav. ^ Marcellus has xal before Kadfip.emv. " Marcellus FOURTH CENTURY TEXT 43 CwvTas Kal ve/cpous " /cat ets TTvevpa dyiov^ dy'iav iKKXrjCTLav, a(j)ev by I. 10 : 1 and II. 32 : 3. 6. 'Ava\'r]p6evTa ets tows ovpavov'?. The ascension is mentioned only in I. 10 : 1 (fcat TTjv evcrapKov ets Toi»s ovpavovs dvdXrj^Lv : et in carne in coelos ascensionem), III. 4 : 2 (et in clari- tate receptus), and II. 32 : 3 (receptus est in coelmn) ; but the reference to it in these passages is sufficient evidence of its occurrence in the creed. The use of dvdXrjxjjLv in 1. 10 : 1 and of the passive participle receptus in the two other passages points to the passive participle dvaXiqpcfidevTa instead of the active dva^dvTa. 7. 'Ev T7J 80^17 TOU IlaTpos ipxop'^vov dvaa-Trjaai. Kal Kplvat, TravTas dvOpcoirov?. That Irenasus' creed contained a reference to the second coming of Christ cannot be doubted, but the form of the article is very uncertain. In I. 10: 1 we have the elaborate passage : " et de coelis in gloria Patris adventum ejus (e'v t^ So^'tjtov IlaT/aos vapova-Cav avTov), ad recapitulanda universa, et resuscitandam omnem carnem humani generis (dvacTTrjcrai irdcrav crdpKa ttcccttjs dvdpoiiroT'qTos), ut Christo Jesu domino nostro, et deo, et salvatori, et regi, secundum placitum Patris invisibilis omne genu curvet coelestium, et terrestrium, et inferno- rum, et omnis lingua confiteatur ei, et judicium jus tum in omnibus faciat : spiritalia quidem nequitiae, et angelos transgressos, atque apostatas factos, DATE OF THE OLD ROMAN SYMBOL 65 et impios, et injustos, et iniquos, et blasphemes homines in aeternum ignem mittat : justis autem et acquis, et praecepta ejus servantibus, et in dilec- tione ejus perseverantibus, quibusdam quidem ab initio, quibusdam autem ex poenitentia, vitam donans incorruptelam loco muneris conferat, et claritatem aeternam circumdet ; " in III. 4:2: "in gloria venturus salvator eorum qui salvantur, et judex eorum qui judicantur, et mittens in ignem aeternum transfiguratores veritatis, et contemtores Patris sui et adventus ejus ; " in III. 16 : 6 : " et rursus venturus est in gloria Patris, ad resuscitan dam universam carnem, et ad ostensionem salutis, et regulam justi judicii ostendere omnibus qui sub ipso facti sunt ; " and in V. 20 : 1 : " et eundem exspectantibus adventum domini, et eandem salu tem totius hominis, id est animae et corporis, susti- nentibus." That Irenaeus' creed contained a reference to the resurrection of the flesh is rendered practically certain by I. 10 : 1 and III. 16 : 6, where it is mentioned as one of the purposes of the return of Christ (1. 10 : 1 : adventum ejus ad recapitulanda uni versa, et resuscitandam omnem carnem humani generis ; III. 16 : 6 : et rursus venturus est in gloria Patris, ad resuscitandam universam carnem), and also by V. 20 : 1, where it is mentioned separately, but immediately after a reference to Christ's coming (et eundem exspectantibus adventum domini, et eandem saluiem 56 THE APOSTLES' CREED totius hominis, id est animae et cotporis, sustinentibus). In III. 4 : 2, the only other passage where the return of Christ is raentioned, there is a reference only to salvation, not specifically to the resurrec tion. Though the article without doubt had a place in the creed used by Irenaeus, it is quite im possible to determine from his writings its form or its position in the creed. 8. Ets TTvevpa aytov. That the Holy Spirit had a place in Irenseus' creed is clear from I. 10 : 1 (ets nvevpa dyiov), IV. 33 : 7 (ets TO TTvevpa tov Oeov), and V. 20 : 1 (et eandem donationem Spiritus scientibus). That he failed to mention the Spirit in the many other passages which we have been dealing with was due doubtless to the fact that the heretics whom he was combating raised no difficulties in connec tion with the Spirit. Having thus tentatively reconstructed the creed used by Irenaeus, let us ask what is its relation to the Old Roman Symbol known to Rufinus and Marcellus. The creed of Irenaeus agrees with R * in mention ing God Father almighty ; Christ Jesus his son ; the birth from a virgin ; the passion (in R the crucifixion) immediately after the birth ; the resur rection of Christ ; the ascension ; the return of Christ to judge ; the resurrection of the flesh ; the 1 I. e., the Old Roman Symbol. DATE OF THE OLD ROMAN SYMBOL 67 Holy Spirit. It omits altogether the articles on the session at the right hand of the Father, on the church and on the forgiveness of sins. It omits also povoyevrj in article 2 ; eK wevpaTo? dyiov in article 3 ; crravpoidevTa /cat Ta(j>evTa in article 4 (iradovTa occurring instead) ; and e'v t/ditj- ¦qpepa in article 5. It has no articles which are not found in R, but in article 1 it adds eva before deov ; in article 4 it has iradovTa (instead of crravpcodevTa kol Ta<^evTa) ; in article 6 dvaXripepeTo, Luke XXIV. 51 ; eTrrtpd-q, Acts I. 9) it seems probable that R had the active dva/3dvTa which Irenaeus, followed by Tertullian, changed to the passive under the influence of the 90 THE APOSTLES' CREED New Testament. The point is of small import ance, and no positive conclusion can be reached, but it is easier to explain this change than the opposite. 4. In both Irenaeus and Tertullian povoyev-q'? is wanting in the second article ; and as both believe that Christ is povoyevqs (unigenitus), and use the word frequently in connection with him, and as there is no apparent reason for omitting the word in their reproductions of the creed if it actually constituted a part of the symbol, we may fairly conclude that it was not in the creed used by them and so not in the original text of R. The word is also omitted in some western recensions of R (see Hahn, §§ 40, 48, 51, 63, 57, 61, 70), but the omis sion even where textually certain, as it is not in the first four (cf. Kattenbusch, I. p. 110, 138, 160, 157), has little significance owing to the composite origin or late date of the texts in question (cf . ibid., p. 399, 158, 181). The word is wanting too in the creed of the Syriac Didascalia, of the third century, if Zahn's conjectural reconstruction of it is to be relied upon (see his Neuere Beitrage zur Geschichte des apostolischen Symbolums in the Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, 1896, p. 22 seq.). Zahn also thinks that povoyevq<; was not a part of the origi nal text of R and suggests (Das apostolische Symbo lum, p. 45) that the word was inserted in the time of Zephyrinus, when according to his view eva was THE ORIGINAL TEXT 91 omitted from the first article and narepa added to it. 5. In both Tertullian and Irenaeus tov Kvpiov ¦qpajv is wanting in the second article ; and though, as was remarked on p. 61, the phrase may have constituted a part of the creed as known to Irenaeus, its omission by Tertullian in all his state ments of the creed makes it probable that it did not, but was added later, as was the case with various other phrases. 6. 'E/c TTvevpaTos dyiov is wanting in the third article both in Irenaeus and Tertullian. But in the second of the passages quoted just above from Ter tullian (Adv. Prax., 2) we have : missum a patre in virginem et ex ea natum; and in the third (De Prae scriptione, 13) : delatum ex spiritu patris deiet virtute in virginem Mariam ; and in Adv. Marc, V. 17 we have natum ex virgine dei spiritu (cf . also De Carne Christi, passim). The wide variations in forra in these and many others of TertuUian's references to the agency of the Holy Spirit in connection with the birth of Christ go to confirm the conclusion sug gested by their omission in De Virg. Vel., 1 and De Praescriptione, 36, that the words de Spiritu Sancto did not form a part of the creed used by him, and as they are not testified to by Irenseus, it may fairly be assumed that they were not in the origi nal text of R. This assumption is still further strengthened by the fact that the reference to the 92 THE APOSTLES' CREED agency of the Holy Spirit in connection with the birth of Jesus is lacking also in the creeds of Lucian the Martyr (see Hahn, §§ 129 and 166, and Katten busch, I. p. 262 seq. and 262 seq.), of Antioch (Hahn, § 130 ; Kattenbusch, I. p. 220 seq.), and of Laodicea (Hahn, § 131 ; cf. Kattenbusch, I. p. 223), — a fact which makes it altogether probable that they were lacking in the original symbol of Syria-Palestine, which there is good reason for thinking was based upon R (see below, p. 103). It is perhaps worth noting in this connection that both Hippolytus and Origen, the former of whom certainly and the latter possibly knew R as it existed early in the third century, in referring to the virgin birth mention Mary first and the Spirit afterward (see Kattenbusch, II. p. 141 and 368). It is not impossible that there is a hint here that R at that time contained no mention of the agency of the Spirit or that the reference had been recently added and the form of the article was not yet securely fixed.* 7. The article on the Holy Church is wanting both in Irenaeus and Tertullian. In his tract on Baptisra, chapter 6, TertuUian says " Cura autem sub tribus et testatio fidei et sponsio salutis pigne- ^ The creed of the Marcionite Apelles, as reconstructed by Harnack (see above, p. 69), has aTro Mapias rrjs rrapBevov, but no reference to the Spirit. If the creed was based upon R, as Har nack thinks, it may be used as another witness against the presence of the phrase « ¦jrvevfiaros &-ytov in the original text. THE ORIGINAL TEXT 93 rentur, necessario adjicitur ecclesiae mentio, quo niam ubi tres, id est Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, ibi ecclesia, quae trium corpus est." These words are commonly taken to prove that the Old Roman Symbol contained an article on the church in the time of Tertullian. In TertuUian's various statements of the creed no such article occurs, and the same is true of Irenaeus. It is of course possible that the creed they used contained the article in question (dyCav eKKXrjo-iav, as in the fourth century text of R, or simply e'/c/cXT/o-tav, which is the most that Tertullian implies in De Bapt., 6), and that both Irenaeus and Tertullian omitted it in their statements of the creed because it was of no particular importance to them. But on the other hand it is equally possible that in speaking of the church in De Bapt., 6, TertuUian was not thinking of the creed, and that the men tion of the church with the names of Father, Son and Spirit had nothing to do with the creed. If the church was thus mentioned in connection with Father, Son, and Spirit as the representative of God on earth or the earthly embodiment of the divine (quoniam ubi tres, id est Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, ibi ecclesia, quae trium corpus est), it would be natural for an article upon the church to make its way later into the creed. Such an article was already in it at the time of Cyprian, but there it has the peculiar form in remissionem 94 THE APOSTLES' CREED peccatorum et vitam aeternam per sanctam ecclesiam, a form which persisted for some time in North Africa (see Hahn, §§ 47, 48, 49). In this particu lar case it is easier to understand the addition of the article in the early third century, when there was much controversy touching the nature of the church, than its insertion at the time of the com position of the creed, fifty or seventy-five years earlier. Under the circumstances it would seem that the possibility must be recognized that the article on the church in the fourth century text of R may be a third century addition, like the article on the remission of sins, the word povoyevq? and the phrase e/c Trvevparos dyiov. It may be added that the article on the church is apparently want ing in the creed of the Didascalia mentioned above on p. 90. 8. The article on the remission of sins is also wanting in both Irenaeus' and TertuUian's repro ductions of the creed, and there is consequently good reason for supposing that it too was lacking in the original text of R. The article is wanting likewise in the creed of the Didascalia. It should also be added that Origen in his reproductions of the Rule of Faith nowhere refers to the remission of sins (see Kattenbusch, II. p. 717). If he knew R, as maintained by Kattenbusch, his faUure to raention this article raay go to confirm the lack of it in the original text of R. THE ORIGINAL TEXT 95 In the second place Tertullian disagrees with Irenaeus and agrees with the fourth century text of R in the following particulars : 1. Tertullian has crucifixus in the fourth article in the passages quoted above from De Virg. Vel, 1, and De Praescriptio7ie, 13, while Irenasus has passus. It is true that Tertullian has passus instead of cruci fixus in Adv. Prax., 2, but in that passage he adds mortuum et sepultum secundum scripturas, which was certainly not in his creed nor in R. And so the occurrence of passus in this passage cannot be taken as evidence of its presence in R. Moreover, it is to be noticed that Irenaeus' theological interest is such that passus receives great emphasis in his writings, and so it is easy to explain its substitu tion for ci'ucifixus in his reproductions of the creed (as he substitutes it for mortuus in his quotations from Paul in III. 17 : 9 and III. 19 : 3), much easier than to explain the substitution of crucifixus for an original passus. It may therefore be con cluded that the fourth century text of R is true to the original form in reading crucifixus instead of passus. 2. In the fourth article, Tertullian in one pas sage (Adv. Prax., 2 ; cf . also De Carne Christi, 5) agrees with the fourth century text of R in giving the word sepultus which is omitted by Irengeus. It is true that the word mortuus which precedes and the phrase secundum scripturas which follows 96 THE APOSTLES' CREED (neither of which is in the fourth century text of R) suggest that the occurrence of sepultus here is due to the influence of 1 Cor. XV. 4 rather than of R. But in De Carne Christi, 6, we have also cru cifixus (" crucifixus est dei filius . . . et raortuus est dei filius . . . et sepultus resurrexit") which is not in 1 Cor. XV. 4. Moreover, the word sepultus in itself is so insignificant that it is very difl&cult to account for its insertion in R without the mor tuus with which it is connected in 1 Cor. XV. 4, if it was not originally a part of R ; while, on the other hand, it is easy to understand its omission by Irenaeus, and by Tertullian in most of his repro ductions of the symbol, because of its apparent insignificance. We shall see when we come to the interpretation of the creed that there may have been good reason for the use of the word in the original text of R, a reason which was lacking at a later date. Under these circumstances we may fairly conclude that it was a part of the original R.* 3. In the first three passages quoted above Ter tullian has a reference to the " session " of Christ which is wanting in Irenaeus' formulations of the 1 It should be added, as possibly a further confirmation of the presence of sepultus in the original text of R, that the creed of Apelles, according to Harnack (see above p. 69), contained a refer ence to the burial as well as to the crucifixion and resurrection : Kai ecrravp&dt] iv okTjBela Ka\ irdfjiri iu aXrjdeLa Kal avearrjafv iv dXrjdfla. THE ORIGINAL TEXT 97 creed ; and in each case the phrase used is identi cal with that found in the fourth century text of R : ad dexteram patris. It might be thought that the article was added to the original text of R by Tertullian under the influence of the New Testa ment, but it is to be noticed that it does not occur there in this form. Instead of TraT/Dos we have in the New Testament Swd/Aews or deov. The phrase e'v Sefta tov vraT/Dos occurs before Tertullian only in Irenaeus III. 16 : 9 (in dextera patris), and though there is no formal creed in that passage the occurrence of the phrase is significant, for just above Irenaeus has quoted Rom, VIII. 34, in which are found the words ev Sefta tov 0eov. The change from ^eos to TraT-qp may well have been due to the influence of a familiar formula, and that formula raay well have been R. Under these circurastances there can be little doubt that ad dexteram patris (e'v Sefta tov iraTpo';) constituted a part of the original text of R. 4. TertuUian gives the return of Christ for judgraent, in the first two passages quoted above, in the simple form which it has in the fourth cen tury text of R : venturum judicare vivos et mortuos. In the third passage (De Praescriptione, 13) he has a much more elaborate reference to the second coming which agrees in substance with the paral lel statements in Irenaeus, but is not verbally identical with any of them. It seems altogether 7 98 THE APOSTLES' CREED probable in view of the greater simplicity of the article as found in the fourth century text of R and in the two passages of Tertullian, and in view of the variations in the article as reproduced by Irenaeus, that the former represents the original text and that Irenaeus' statements contain his own theological reflections. That Irenaeus should have worked his theological reflections into the creed at this point, as also at some other points, is entirely natural, for he was interested always to emphasize the salvation or real redemption of man by Christ. On the other hand, it would be exceed ingly difficult to understand the later omission from the creed of the references to salvation which we find in Irenaeus if they constituted originally a part of the symbol. The conclusion that the fourth century text of R represents the original form of this article is still further confirmed by the occurrence of the exact phraseology of R in a fragment from Irenaeus' work On the Ogdoad quoted by Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. V. 20 : 2, where we have the words ep-)(eTai Kplvat, ^wvTas /cat veKpovs. These precise words are not found in the New Testament or in the writings of the Fathers before Irenaeus. In 2 Tim. IV. 1 and Barnabas 7, we have peXXcov (/Lte'XXovTos) KpLveiv ^olvTas /cat veKpovs ; in Polycarp 2, epx^rat Kpirr]'? {wvtwv /cat veKpwv; in Acts X. 42 and Justin, Dial 118, Kpirfj-i ^wvtcdv /cat veKpwv (cf. also 1 Pet. IV. 6 and 2 Clement 1). THE ORIGINAL TEXT 99 In the third place Tertullian disagrees both with the fourth century text of R and with Iren aeus in the omission of patrem in the first article of the creed. Taking TertuUian alone we should say that patrem was not in the creed known to him ; and this is maintained by Zahn, Das apostolische Symbolum, p. 27 sq. But Ireneeus confirms its pres ence in the original text of R, for it is to be noticed that there is no apparent reason for the insertion of the word by Irenaeus if it did not con stitute a part of the creed which he was using. He thought of God as the father of Christ rather than of the universe, and so the term iraT'qp was not natural to him in connection with iravTOKpaTcop and TTOL'qT'q'i. And yet he so uses it in I. 10 : 1, where we find the exact phrase of R (Oeov irarepa TTavTOKpdropa). On the other hand, it is not im possible to explain the omission of patrem by Ter tuUian in his reproductions of the creed, for like Irenaeus he thought of God as father in relation to Christ, not to the universe, and especially in his controversy with the Patripassianists he must find iraT'qp iravTOKpaTcop awkward. Still further, there are in Adv. Prax. 1, 2, 9, and in De Corona, 3, pos sible hints of the presence of irarepa in the creed known to Tertullian, and it should be added that the word is found in all the other North African forms of the symbol. Finally, it is much more difficult to account for the insertion of the word 100 THE APOSTLES' CREED irarepa in immediate juxtaposition to iravTOKparopa in the third century after the word had come to be used chiefly of the relation of God to Christ than in the middle of the second century, when the term was very commonly used to denote God's relation to the universe. Taking all things into consideration, it seems to me practically certain that irarepa was in the original creed, and that its omission by Tertullian was due to the special theo logical interest which controlled him. (Compare upon this point Harnack, Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche, 1894, p. 130 seq., and Kattenbusch II. p. 87 seq., both of whom maintain over against Zahn that irarepa was in the original text of R). In the light of this comparison of the testimony of Irenaeus and TertuUian with the fourth century text of R we may with more or less confidence reconstruct the original text as follows : TTtCTTevw ets ^eov irarepa iravTOKpdropa ' /cat ets l^pLCTTOv Itjctovv TOV vlov avTOv, TOV yevvTjdevTa eK M.apCa<; r-q? irapdevov, tov iirl IIovTtov XltXaTov crTau- patOevTa Kai ratpevra, T'rj TpiTrj rjpepa dvacrravra eK veKpwv, dvafidvTa ets tovs ovpavov?, Kadyjpevov iv Sefta TOV TTttTpos, o6ev ep-^erai Kplvai ^wvTas Kat veKpovs ' Kal ets irvevpa dyiov, crapKo<; dvdcrTacrtv. THE PLACE OF COMPOSITION 101 IV The Place of Composition op the Old Roman Symbol That Rome was the centre from which R made its way throughout the western church is admitted by all. Tertullian testifies that his creed came from Rome (see above, p. 47) and an examina tion of the various western creeds given by Hahn, p. 22 seq., shows that R is the basis of them all and that the closer the connection be tween any church and Rome the closer the identity between its creed and R, and on the other hand the less intimate the relation the greater the diver gence from R (cf. Kattenbusch, I. p. 78 seq.). But there is a marked difference of opinion among scholars as to whether R originated in Rome itself or in the east. The former view is maintained by Harnack and Kattenbusch (see Harnack's article in the third edition of Herzog and his Chronologie der alt-christlichen Litteratur I. p. 624, and see Kattenbusch, TL p. 321 seq. and 960) ; the latter among others by Caspari (cf . his Quellen, Bd. III. p. 161), Zahn (Das apostolische Symbolum, p. 37 seq.), and most recently Sanday (Journal of Theological Studies, October, 1899, p. 3 seq.). Caspari seems to have made no special 102 THE APOSTLES' CREED investigation of the question, but apparently took it for granted that R originated in the east, and because of the occurrence of povoyevq<; assigned it to the Johannine circle. Zahn's view is wrapped up with his contention that a symbol of which R is an outgrowth existed even in the time of the apostles. But this is utterly irreconcilable with the testimony of primitive Christian literature (see above, p. 78 seq.). Sanday's article is chiefly devoted to showing that the eastern type of creed, which in agreement with many others he regards not as a development of R itself, but as a parallel recension of an earlier eastern original, existed already before the latter part of the third century, and that therefore the suggestion of Kattenbusch that R may have found official entrance into the east in connection with the condemnation of Paul of Samosata is unsound. But to show that that suggestion is of doubtful value, or even to show that the eastern type of creed was in existence before the time in question is not to disprove the thesis that R originated in the west and was the parent of the eastern symbols as Harnack and Kattenbusch maintain, for it may easily have found its way to the east long before. However that may be — whether it is true that the eastern type was developed before the time of Paul of Samosata or not — raany indications point in the direction of a western original for R. There is in THE PLACE OF COMPOSITION 103 the first place no trace of R or of any similar symbol in the east until at any rate well on in the third century, except in a doubtful fragment of Melito's writings (see above, p. 77), which proves nothing.* In the west, on the other hand, we have clear and definite testimony to the existence of R before the end of the second century. Again, the symbol in use in Syria and Palestine at the end of the third century, which can be reconstructed in its main lines from the symbols of Cyril of Jerusalem, of Lucian and of the churches of Laodicea and Antioch (see Kattenbusch, II. p. 192 seq.), is evidently, as admitted by all, an enlargement either of R itself or of an older creed upon which R too is based, and it is noticeable that the additions to the common stock in the east are of an entirely different character from the original text, while the addi tions in the west whether in R or in our present Apostles' Creed are of the same nature as the original to which they are added. The western character of the parent symbol is thus strikingly shown. On the other hand, aside from the presumption that all Christian institutions of the earliest days 1 If Origen knew R, as maintained by Kattenbu.3ch (see his careful discussion in Vol. II. p. 134 seq.), the fact proves no more, as Kattenbusch shows, than that he may have become acquainted with it during his visit to Rome in the time of Zephyrinus. 104 THE APOSTLES' CREED originated in the east and were carried thence to Rome — a presumption which should be allowed no weight in the present case — the only argument which can be urged in favor of an eastern origin for R is the occurrence in the oriental creeds of the fourth century of certain words and phrases which are wanting in R, but are found in Irenaeus' reproductions of the symbol. Thus eva with Oeov and with Xpiarov 'Itjctovv ; TrofrjTifs k.t.X. after Oeov ; TTaOovra, virep rrj^ -qperepa's crwTTj/ataSj and vnep rjpwv (or Std rjpd?) in the article on Christ ; e'v 80^17 K.T.X. in connection with the Second Com ing. The assumption is that Irenaeus brought the creed with him from the east and that his state ments of it represent its eastern and original form (cf. Sanday, p. 21). But it is to be said in reply, that the phrases referred to are of such a char acter as to betray their later origin. They are certainly additions to R and not a part of its original text, as the theological character at any rate of most of them plainly shows. Moreover, if they belonged originally to R, their subsequent omission is very difficult to explain. It is quite possible that the phrases which Irenaeus has in common with the eastern symbols of a later day were already current in the east and were brought thence by him without yet having been incorporated into a creed. Or it is equally possible that they took their rise with him and THE PLACE OF COMPOSITION 105 found their way into the eastern creed under his influence. All of them have their explanation in Irenaeus' own theology or in his polemics, and it is easier to understand them as originating with him than with anybody else. In the light of these considerations, it may fairly be concluded, in agreement with Harnack and Kattenbusch, that R originated in Rome, not in the orient. 106 THE APOSTLES' CREED The Purpose of the Old Roman Symbol and its Historical Interpretation The purpose for which the Old Roman Symbol was composed cannot be finally determined until we have completed our study of its contents. But it is important before we take up the several articles in detail, to notice the situation that existed in Rome at the tirae the creed was fraraed, that we may see whether it throws any light upon the matter. Our study has led to the conclusion that R originated in Rome about the middle of the second century, or not long thereafter. But heresy was then rife in Rome, and was causing serious alarm within the church. If a creed was framed there at that particular tirae, we should expect it to take some notice of the errors which were making so much trouble ; and if no creed existed before, so that its formation constituted an inno vation, it would be natural to see in the false teachings, which were now for the first time caus ing alarm, the primary reason for its composition. We come then to our study of the contents of the creed with a presumption in favor of its anti- HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 107 heretical purpose. The question is, does the creed itself bear out this presumption. The movement which was making most trouble in the church of Rorae at the middle of the second century, was Marcionism, and so an anti-heretical creed framed at that tirae could hardly fail to take account of Marcion's teachings. The Mar cionitic tenets which were most offensive to Christ ians in general may be gathered from TertuUian's elaborate work against Marcion. Those tenets were, first, that the God of the Christians is not the Creator and ruler of the universe, who is hard, stern, and severe, but another being, the God of redemption, who is pure love and mercy and was entirely unknown until revealed by Jesus. Christ (cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc, especially Bks. I. II. and IV. ; also Justin Martyr, Apol., I. 26 and 68 ; and Irenaeus, I. 27) ; secondly, that Jesus Christ is the son of the latter being, and not of the creator and ruler of the universe (cf. Tertullian, ibid., Bks. III. IV. V. -passim) ; thirdly, that God, the father of Christ, being pure love and mercy will judge no one (ibid., I. 6, 26 seq.; IL 11 seq.; IV. 8, 15, 17, 19, 21 seq., 29, 36 seq. ; V. 4, 7 seq., 13, 16) ; fourthly, that the life of Christ was that of a spirit only, and his bodily form a mere phantom (ibid., I. 24 ; II. 28; III. 8 seq. ; IV. 9 seq., 19 ; V. 4 seq., 13, 14, 17, 19 seq., and De Carne Christi, 1 seq., 5 ); and finally 108 THE APOSTLES' CREED that the flesh of man does not rise again (Adv. Marc. IV. 37 ; V. 7, 9 seq., 14 seq., 18 seq. ; De Carne Christi, 1 ; De Resurrectione Carnis, 1 seq.). A creed composed in Rome at the middle of the second century, if it was framed with an anti- heretical purpose, must at any rate rule out these beliefs, and so we can test the purpose of the Old Roman Symbol in their light. Let us then examine the several articles of the symbol in detail. IltcrTevft) ets Oeov irarepa iravroKparopa. The first article of the creed was probably formed by adding to the ^eos of the baptismal formula (see p. 184), the phrase irar-qp iravTOKpdTcop. Uar-qp is used of God very frequently in the Christian literature of the second century, with the meaning of author or creator of the world or the universe. Thus for instance irarepa /cat ktio-ttiv TOV avpiravTo? Kocrpov, 1 Clement 19 ; Srjpiovpyo? Kai irarrip tcov aicovcov, 1 Clement 36 ; irar-qp irdvrcnv or Tc3v oXoiv (with or without Seo-TroTTjs, K-upioevra occurs in R because the author was following 1 Cor. XV. 4. On the contrary, the use of the word can be satisfactorily accounted for only on the assumption of an anti-docetic interest. The article on the resurrection appears in the form it has in R nowhere else prior to the compo sition of the Old Roman Symbol. The nearest approach to it is in Justin, Dial 61, 76, and 100, where we have rfj rpirrj rjpepa dvaa-rdvra, without e/c veKpatv. The phrase ttj TpiTi7 rjpepa (or t^ W^pq- "ry rpirrj, as it is in Luke XVIII. 33 and 1 Cor. XV. 4) occurs three tiraes in Matthew with iyeipu, twice in Luke with dviarrjpi (once possibly with HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 133 iyeipca), once in Acts and once in 1 Corinthians, both times with iyeipco. In Mark we have uni formly jLteTd Tpets rjpepa';, in each case with dv- icrrripi. Though the resurrection of Christ is referred to very frequently, the " third day " is not mentioned elsewhere in Christian literature prior to R except in Justin's Dialogue, where it occurs five times, always with dviarrjpi (Dial. 51, 76, 97, 100, 107). The phrase in the form pera Tpets ripepa<; was probably used originally to emphasize the brevity of the time between Christ's death and resurrection (cf. my Apostolic Age, p. 37, note), but outside of the gospels it appears simply as a stereotyped phrase, with no special significance, except in Justin's Dialogue, (chap. 107), where it is connected with the " three days" of Jonah; and perhaps Paul had this in mind when he said Kara Tds ypa^ds (1 Cor. XV. 4). In the light of its use in early Christian liter ature it is evident that the phrase may have been used in R simply as part of a stereotyped formula, without any special meaning attaching to it, but in view of the same considerations that were urged in connection with inl Hovriov IliXdrov (the compactness of R, and the emphatic position of the phrase in question), it seems probable that the author inserted the words with the definite pur pose of making the fact of the resurrection more 134 THE APOSTLES' CREED real by stating precisely the time at which it occurred. Not merely did Christ rise at some in definite tirae, but " on the third day." The refer ence was very likely intended also to carry with it the acceptance of the account in the Gospels and so the repudiation of the idea of a mere spiritual resurrection. It has been suggested that the interval of three days was mentioned in order to make cer tain the reality of the death of Christ by ex cluding the supposition of a mere swoon or trance ; but so far as I am aware the phrase was never used in the early church to emphasize length of time, and there is no sign of such a use of it here. The resurrection is referred to in primitive Christian literature both within and without the New Testament either by the single word dvicmipi or iyeipo), or by the full phrase dvicrrripi (or iyeipa) iK veKpSiv (less often diro twv veKpcov), and appar ently without any difference in meaning or empha sis (cf., e. g., Ignatius, Trail 9 and Smyrn. 2). The words e/c veKpcov in R, therefore, are perhaps without any special significance, the phrase dva- crravra iK veKpcov meaning no more than dvacrrdvra alone. At the same tirae it is possible that the author added them purposely in order to render still more emphatic the reality of the resurrection. It was not that Christ Jesus appeared to his dis- HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 135 ciples out of heaven, whither he had gone after his crucifixion, but that he actually arose from the realm of the dead. In view of the emphasis which was apparently laid by the author of R not upon the significance and value, but upon the reality of the death and resurrection of Christ, it would seem that he must have had in mind the denial of their reality, and felt the need of meeting it. As a matter of fact there were many docetists in his day who believed that Christ had neither died nor risen again. Ignatius in his opposition to such docetists some decades earlier found himself obliged to lay stress upon the truth both of the death and of the resur rection. Thus in Trail. 9 he says : " Be ye deaf therefore when any man speaketh unto you apart from Jesus Christ, who was of the race of David, who was son of Mary, who was truly born, ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died, in the sight of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth ; who also was truly raised from the dead, his father having raised him ; who in like manner will also raise us who believe on him ; " and still more clearly in Smyrn. 2 : " For he suffered all these things for our sakes ; and he suffered truly, as also he raised himself truly ; not as certain unbe lievers say that he suffered in semblance, being themselves semblance. And according as their 136 THE APOSTLES' CREED opinions are, so shall it happen to them, for they are without body and demon like." Marcion, strangely enough in view of his docet ism, did not question the fact of Christ's death. On the contrary he followed Paul in accepting it, as also the resurrection of Christ and his subsequent appearances to his disciples (cf. Ter tuUian, Adv. Marc, I. 11 ; II. 27, 28 ; IIL 11, 19, 23 ; IV. 41 seq.) At the same time his docetism was such that it was felt by his opponents, or at any rate by Tertullian, that he could not truly believe in the death and resurrection, that he could not look upon either event as actually real. And so Tertullian frequently represents Marcion as holding that Christ died and rose again only in appearance, and he thinks it necessary to insist over against him upon the reality not only of Christ's birth and of his human flesh, but also of his death and resurrection (cf. Adv. Marc, II. 27; IIL 8, 11, 19; IV. 21, 42, 43; V. 6, 7, 20; and De Carne Christi, 5). It is possible that the same consideration led the author of R to assert that Christ Jesus, the son of the creator and ruler of the universe (cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc. III. 19, 23), was crucified and buried and rose again. Or it may be that it was popularly supposed, or taken for granted at the time R was written, that Marcion denied the death and resurrection of Christ alto gether; as so many docetists were doing; and it HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 137 may be that the author of R shared the supposition, for there is no reason to believe that he had read the Antitheses, as Tertullian had. The symbol in this as in other parts was probably framed, not in the light of a careful study of Marcion's system, but only under the influence of the popular concep tion of his views. In any case, whether or not the author was aware, as Tertullian was, of Marcion's inconsistent acceptance of the death and resurrec tion, the assertion that Christ was crucified and buried and rose again, was most natural, indeed we may fairly say indispensable in an anti- Marcionitic" creed. 'Ava/Sdvra ets tovs ovpavovs- References to the ascension are not so common in early Christian literature as to justify the expec tation that it must inevitably be mentioned in a Christian creed of the second century. The exal tation of Christ to the right hand of God formed an important part of the earliest Christian tra dition, and of course the exaltation presupposes the ascension, but the special mention of the latter is rare. It is possible that in the original form of the gospel tradition the ascension was not reported at all, and that a final departure of Christ from his disciples, such' as is recorded in Acts I. 9, was marked off frora his many sudden departures only after reflection upon his exaltation and second coming (cf. my Apostolic Age, p. 39). 138 THE APOSTLES' CREED The ascension is referred to rarely in the New Testament (in Mark XVI. 19, Acts I. 2, 9, and in some manuscripts of Luke XXIV. 51 ; cf. also John VI. 62, XX. 17 ; Eph. IV. 8 ; I. Tim. III. 16), only once in the Apostolic fathers (Barnabas 15), once in Aristides (Apol., 2), and a number of times in Justin (Apol, I. 26, 31, 42, 46, 46, 60, 61, 64; Dial, 17, 32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 68, 82, 86, 132). While the ascension is thus men tioned frequently in Justin, the four items which occur in R (Resurrection, Ascension, Session, and Second coming) are not once found together in Justin, or in any other writer prior to R. Resur rection, ascension and session are found in Justin, Dial, 36 (cf. also Apol., 42 and 46) ; resurrection, ascension, and second coming in Justin, Dial, 136 ; resurrection and ascension in Barnabas 15, Aris tides 2, and Justin, Apol, 31, 46, 60; Dial. ,11, 32, 68, 82, 86 ; ascension and second coming in Justin, Dial, 34. It is worth noticing in this connection, as indi cating how slowly the tradition of the ascension became fixed, that the word for ascension varies greatly in the passages where the fact is referred to (dvakapftdvQ), dvacjtepoj, iiraipco, dydyco, dviripi, dvafiatvo) in Barnabas and three times in Justin, and oftenest of all in Justin dvep^opai), and that there was no certainty in the second cen tury as to the length of time that had elapsed HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 139 between the resurrection and ascension, some placing the ascension on the day of the resurrec tion (Barnabas 16), some forty days later (Acts I. 9), some many months and even ten years later (the Valentinians, Ophites and other Gnostics, see Harnack in Hahn, p. 382). In view of the facts referred to we may con clude that the mention of the ascension in R, while conceivably due to a mere desire to state in detail the raost important events in Christ's career, was more probably the result of some special interest, and that interest was very likely identical with that which controlled the earlier part of the creed ; for, taken in connection with the crucifixion, burial, and resurrection, the reference to the ascension, which doubtless im plies a literal, visible phenomenon as in Acts I. 9, may well have been due to the Marcionitic view that the Christ Jesus who ascended to heaven was a mere spiritual being without a real human body. It also serves, whether the author intended it or not, to make it impossible to interpret " cruci fied and buried " as referring only to the man Jesus as distinguished from the spiritual seon Christ, which was supposed by many docetists to have ascended to heaven directly from the cross, leaving the man Jesus to die and be buried. KaOrjpevov iv Se£ta rov irarp6<;. Christ's session at the right hand of God is 140 THE APOSTLES' CREED referred to very frequently in the New Testament, and a few times in post-canonical literature prior to R (e. g., in 1 Clement 36 ; Polycarp 2 ; Justin, Apol., 46, and Dial, 32, 36. Compare also Apol, 42, where it is said " Our Jesus Christ, being cru cified and dead, rose again, and having ascended to heaven, reigned"). The phrase comraonly used is e'v Sefta (or e'/c Seftwv as in Psalm 110) rov Oeov (in Matthew XXVI. 64 and parallels Swdynews). The words of R, e'v Sefta tov irarpos, occur no where else in Christian literature prior to R, except in Justin, Dial, 36. The phrase, which came from Psalm 110 (cf. Acts II. 33 seq.; Heb. I. 13 ; Justin, Dial, 36 ; Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV. 41, 42) was used to express the glory and especially the power of the exalted Christ. His victory over his enemies, the demons, is the fact which Justin emphasizes in Apol 45, Dial 32 and 36. While the Session is not mentioned frequently in early Christian literature outside of the New Testament its repeated occurrence there would make its insertion in a Christian creed of the second century quite natural, whether the desire was simply to state the most iraportant events in Christ's career, or to emphasize his exaltation and dignity and power over against heathen and unbe lievers. At the same time, it too is entirely in place in an anti-Marcionitic creed and has spec- HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 141 ial significance in such a creed. It is not to be taken by itself, but in connection with the article on the judgment which immediately follows, and for which it prepares the way. It is not simply that Christ ascended into heaven and will come thence to judge men, but that he is at the right hand of the Father — the same God referred to in the first article — at once father of the universe and father of Christ (the words tov irarpo? here having a definiteness of meaning that tov Oeov would lack), and that it is from his right hand, that is with his commission and by his authority, that he will come as judge. The reference to the Session thus makes the matter much more definite than it would otherwise be and prevents any quib bling on the part of Marcion and his followers touching the relation between Christ and the crea tor and ruler of the universe after the close of Christ's earthly career, as the first and second arti cle made impossible any doubt touching his origin. The use of an expression taken from the Old Testament is also significant, for it emphasizes again, in passing, the identity between the God of the Old Testament — the creator and ruler of the world — and the Father of Jesus Christ. "OOev epx^rai Kplvai ^wvTas /cat veKpov<;. The article on the judgment is found in this exact form nowhere else before Irenaeus, though we have language very closely approaching it 142 THE APOSTLES' CREED (see above, p. 98). The phrase {clvTes Kal ve/cpot occurs frequently in early Christian literature in connection with the judgment : for instance in Acts X. 42; 2 Tim. IV. 1; 1 Peter IV. 5 ; 2 Clement 1 ; Barnabas 7 ; Polycarp 2 ; Justin, Dial, 118. The belief that Christ would come again to judge the world was very comraon in the church from an early day (cf., e. g.. Matt. XXV. 31 seq., 2 Tim. IV. 1, Jude 14, Barnabas 15, Polycarp 2, Justin, Dial, 31, 36, 49, 132). Christ is spoken of as judge, without any explicit reference to his second coraing, which however may be regarded as always assumed, in many other passages, thus in John V. 22 seq., Acts X. 42, XVII. 31, Rom. IL 16, Barnabas 5, 7, Polycarp 6, 2 Clement 1, Justin, Apol 63, Dial, 46, 47, 58, 118. On the other hand, God is spoken of as judge in a number of passages, for instance in Rom. III. 6 ; 1 Peter I. 17, IV. 6; Justin, Dial, 141. The two concep tions are not inconsistent, for Christ was thought of as the agent of God in executing judgment, and so the judgment might be spoken of indiffer ently as God's or Christ's. Compare Acts XVII. 31, Rom. II. 16, and Justin, Dial. 68 ("the judg ment which God the maker of all things shall hold through my Lord Jesus Christ"), where the relation between God and Christ in the act of judging is brought out very clearly. HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 143 Other purposes than the judgment are often connected with the second coming of Christ in early Christian literature : thus for example Christ comes to save (1 Thess. I. 10, 2 Clement 17) ; to save and condemn (Justin, Apol, 62 ; Dial, 36, 46, 121) ; to reward men according to their works (Matt. XVI. 27 ; Barnabas 21) ; to condemn the wicked (2 Thess. I. 7 ; Justin, Dial, 39) ; to receive or establish a kingdom (2 Clement 17 ; Justin, Dial, 39). The second coming is also spoken of fre quently without any indication of its purpose, for instance in Matt. XXIV. 30, XXVL 64 and parallels; Mark VIII. 38; Acts L 11 ; 1 Cor. XV. 23 ; 1 Thess. II. 19, IIL 13, IV. 16 seq., V. 23 ; 2 Thess. IL 1, 8 ; Jas. V. 7 ; 2 Peter III. 4 ; 1 John II. 28 ; Didache, 16 ; Justin, Apol, 61 ; Dial., 14, 34, 64, 83, etc. It is evident therefore that the allusion to the judgment in the present article is intentional, and that we are not to in terpret it siraply as part of a traditional formula relating to the parousia. It is not that the author refers simply to Christ's second coming, but that he refers to the coming for judgraent, the purpose being indicated as well as the act itself. This is a very significant fact, for in no other article of the creed is there a reference to purpose of any kind. Why then have we such a reference here ? It might be thought that the practical importance of the belief in a judgment 144 THE APOSTLES' CREED led to its inclusion. It is true that the judgment is made much of by nearly all early Christian writers, but why should this single practical truth be mentioned in R and no other ? Why is there no reference to faith, to love, to good works, to conduct of any kind, to the law of Christ, to sal vation by him, to heaven and hell ? Evidently the author of the creed was not concerned with prac tical truths as such, and it is impossible, unless we attribute to him a degree of carelessness and loose ness of thought which the structure of the creed as a whole by no means justifies, to suppose that this single article was inserted with a practical purpose. Again it might be suggested that the author refers to the judgraent simply to increase the em phasis upon the majesty and authority of Christ over against heathen and unbelievers. Not that he is interested in the judgment as such, but in the fact that Christ is judge. This is a possible explanation, but if this were the author's design he might fairly have been expected to add a refer ence to the glory in which Christ should return, or to the fact that he was to rule the world. Ref erences of this kind are very numerous both within and without the New Testament in connection with the second coraing, and especially the fact that he was to come as a king, and reign over all, would have met the author's purpose capitally. HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 145 On the other hand, if the creed was anti-Mar cionitic in interest and purpose, there was the best reason in the world for the insertion of an article on the judgment and in exactly the form which we have in R. Marcion, as we learn frora many passages in TertuUian's work against him (Adv. Marc, I. 26, 27 ; IV. 8, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 29, 35 seq.; V. 4, 7, 8, 13, 16), denied that Jesus Christ, or his Father — a God of pure love and mercy — would execute judgment. And Ter tullian regards the denial as so serious that he argues the question at great length. It is evi dent from his attitude in the matter that an article upon the judgment could not well be want ing in an anti-Marcionitic creed. The article in R with its assertion not simply that there will be a judgment, but that Christ Jesus, who is now at the right hand of the Father, will come from thence, that is with the Father's authority and as his agent, to judge all men, repudiates the position of Marcion in the most definite and thoroughgoing way. Kat ets irvevpa dyiov. ILvevpa dyiov is the reading of the Psalterium JSthelstani and is to be preferred to Marcellus' to dytov irvevpa, because in all the Latin texts of R we have the order Spiritum Sanctum (see above, p. 43). In the . New Testament and early Christian liter ature the form varies between irvevpa dyiov, to 10 146 THE APOSTLES' CREED irvevpa to dyiov, and ro dyiov irvevpa. The first is most common, the third least so, but the three are used indifferently by the same writers, with out any distinction of meaning. In the baptismal formula of Matthew and the Didache, and in the benediction of 2 Cor. XIII. 13, we have ro dyiov irvevpa, but in the baptismal formula of Justin Martyr (Apol, 61) irvevpa dyiov occurs. The Spirit was called dytov to indicate its con nection with God, and to distinguish it from human and other spirits. The word does not signify primarily pure or holy in an ethical sense, but reverend or worthy of veneration and so belonging to God, divine, heavenly. The Holy Spirit was referred to in early Christian literature, with no suggestion of a difference in meaning, as irvevpa dyiov, irvevpa Oeov, irvevpa irpocftriTiKov, etc., or irvevpa alone. Compare for instance the three parallel passages : Matt. III. 16 (irvevpa Oeov), Mark I. 10 (to irvevpa), and Luke III. 22 (ro irvevpa ro dyiov). In the Epistle of Barnabas, though the Spirit is referred to four times, the phrase " Holy Spirit " does not occur. In the epistles of Paul it occurs twelve times out of some ninety references to the Spirit ; in the remainder of the New Testament frequently; in 1 Clement eight times out of ten ; in Ignatius three times out of ten; in the Didache twice out of seven times ; in the Martyrdom of Poly- HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 147 carp three times, in Hermas and Justin very often. That we have in R the phrase irvevpa dyiov instead of irvevpa alone, or irvevpa Oeov, or sorae sirailar phrase, is doubtless due simply to the fact that that particular phrase was in the baptismal formula upon which R was based. The author of R was evidently interested not to make any special statements about the Spirit or to emphasize his character and nature, but merely to reproduce the reference in the formula, and if the latter had said irvevpa Oeov, or irvevpa Xpicrrov, or irvevpa irpocjjriTiKov, or irvevpa alone, we should doubtless have had the same expression in R. The lack of qualifying phrases and of references to character, nature, and activity in connection with the article on the Spirit is very significant. It is evident that there was no special reason for the mention of the Spirit in R, as there was for the mention of God and of Christ, beyond the fact that it had a place in the baptismal formula upon which the creed was based. (Upon the reason for the reference to the Spirit in the bap tismal formula, see below, p. 183). But this fact throws light upon the purpose of the creed as a whole. If its purpose had been to give general expression to the faith of the church, or to expound the baptismal formula in all its parts, more must have been said concerning the Holy Spirit. It is true that there was some uncertainty as to the nature 148 THE APOSTLES' CREED of the Spirit and his relation to God and Christ, but his activity was universally recognized, and the literature of the period shows that the Christians of the day had enough to say on the subject. The only reasonable explanation of the silence of R is that the author was concerned to state the com mon faith of the church only in so far as it had been impugned, and as there was no heresy abroad touching the Holy Spirit — as every Christian believed in him — it was unnecessary to say any thing upon the subject. Had the creed not been based upon the baptismal formula probably the Spirit would not have been mentioned at all. As it was, the formula was reproduced, but expounded only in so far as the spread of false teaching made necessary. The conception of the Holy Spirit was received by the Christians from the Jews. It originated among the latter and was one of the consequences of the effort to find some means of communication between the transcendent God and the universe. The distance and separation of God from the world were increasingly emphasized by post-exilic Judaism, and the emphasis led to the need of intermediate beings or forces or principles. At the time of Christ the conception of the Holy Spirit, which was not thought of as an independent personality, but as the power of God working especially in inspiration and salvation, was the HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 149 general possession of the Jews, and whenever the divine activity, inspiring and saving raen, was thought of, it was common to use the term Holy Spirit or Spirit of God. And so the prophecy of Joel, that in the last times God would pour out of his Spirit upon all flesh, meant that the enlighten ing and saving influence of God would be felt as it had not been before. The conception of the Spirit passed over into the Christian church, and it was believed by all Christians, whether they shared the Jewish conception of the divine tran scendence or not, that the Spirit was now especially active ; that the age in which they lived, the age which the prophets had foretold, was the age of the Spirit in an especial degree, which meant sim ply that it was an age of peculiar and immediate divine activity, inspiring, enlightening, blessing, saving. The early Christians did not speculate touching the nature of the Spirit and his relation to God and to Christ, but when they spoke of the Spirit they meant commonly, not a special person or hypostasis, but the divine power work ing in the world, or among raen, or especially within the Christian church, the peculiar sphere of his activity. Paul frequently uses the terms God, Christ, and Spirit interchangeably. Evidently the term Spirit meant to him the spiritual nature of God, which could be separated from God of course only in thought. In that spiritual nature Christ 150 THE APOSTLES' CREED also shared, and so he too could be spoken of as Spirit. Most of the early Christian writers who refer to the Spirit leave us quite in the dark as to their conception of his relation to God and to Christ. Hennas of Rome is the first of the fathers to attempt to define the matter, and he represents the Spirit as the son of God (S., IX. 1), and says that God " made the Holy pre-existent Spirit, which created the whole creation, to dwell in flesh which he desired" (S., V. 6); so that Christ was thought of by him as a raan in whom the Spirit of God dwelt, setting him apart from and raising him above all other men, and raaking him Saviour and Lord. The Holy Spirit araong the Jews represented an interest soraewhat similar to that which led to the Logos conception among the Greeks ; and in Justin Martyr, who made large use of the Logos conception, we find considerable confusion as to the relation between the Logos and the Holy Spirit. Justin distinctly says that the Logos, or Son of God, and the Spirit are the same (Apol, 33 ; so also Theophilus, II. 10 ; and compare Justin, Apol, 36, where the Logos is represented as inspiring the prophets, a function commonly ascribed to the Spirit, e. g., ibid., 38, 39, etc.) ; and yet under the influence of Christian tradition, which spoke of God and Christ and the Holy Spirit, as for HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 151 instance in the baptismal formula, Justin found it necessary to distinguish between Christ and the Holy Spirit, and as the forraer was the Son of God, and so the incarnate Logos, he had to dis tinguish between the Spirit and the Logos ; but what the distinction was he could not say and the result was serious confusion. Had it not been for the threefold baptisraal forraula, the church would possibly have contented itself with a dual ity : God the Father and the Logos, or Spirit, or Son of God, who became incarnate in Christ. It is significant that in R we have neither the dual conception, which identifies the Spirit with the Son of God incarnate in Christ, nor the trinal conception, which distinguishes the two and makes two divine hypostases in addition to God the Father. What we have in R is simply God, and his Son, the historic Christ, and the Holy Spirit, without any hint of the relation between the Spirit and God or Christ, without any hint that the author had thought at all about that relationship, though it was engaging the attention of at least some of his contemporaries in Rome. That he simply reproduces the baptismal formula with out any suggestion of the problem involved is certainly, under existing circumstances, strong evi dence of the exclusively anti-heretical or anti- Marcionitic character of the creed. So far, then, as the Old Roman Symbol goes, a Christian who 152 THE APOSTLES' CREED accepted it might hold any opinion he chose, or might have no opinion, touching the relation of the Spirit to God or to Jesus Christ. 'AyCav eKKhqcriav. As shown above, p. 92 seq., these words very likely formed no part of the original text of R, but were added some time before the middle of the third century. The phrase is not found in the New Testament, though we have in Eph. V. 27 the words " that he may present it to himself a glori ous church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it may be holy and without blemish (dyta Kat dpcopo<;)," and in 1 Peter II. 5 Christians are spoken of as "a holy priest hood" (lepdrevpa dyiov), and in II. 9 as "a holy nation " (e^vos dytov). The phrase occurs in the writings of the first and second centuries only in Hermas, Vis., I. 1, 3 ; in Ignatius, Trail, inscr. ; in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, inscr. (t'Jjs dytas Kat KaOoXiK'qs iKKXrjcrias) ; in Theophilus II. 14 ; in ApoUonius, according to Eusebius, H. E., V. 18 ; and in Clement of Alexandria, Strom. VII. 14 (see Kattenbusch, II. p. 703 seq.). We have also Xaos dytos used of the Christians in Barnabas 14 and Justin, Dial., 119 ; and in the Didache, chap. 10, the church is spoken of as sanctified (ttjv dyiacr- Oelcrav ets r^qv arjv ySacrtXetav). Though the phrase dyta iKKXrjcria is so rare in early Christian literature, its raeaning, if it formed HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 153 a part of the original text of R, can hardly be doubtful. The adjective dytos whether used with persons or things, meant properly not pure but sacred, that is, set apart for or belonging to God.^ And the phrase dyta iKKkricria in the first or early second century would naturally express, not the ethical purity or sinlessness of the church or of Christians, but the belief that the church was an institution founded by and belonging to God, not man. This conception of the Christian church was comraon among Christians from an early day. The church was thought of not as a mere voluntary association of disciples of Christ, but as a divine institution established and sustained by God, an institution coraposed of men and women called and set apart by God to be his own elect people. The conception that Christian believers were called and set apart by God was very natural on Jewish ground. For sharing as the early Jewish disciples did in the ancestral consciousness of belonging to God's cove nant people, they could hardly do otherwise than see in themselves, and in those who should become associated with thera as followers of Jesus the Messiah, the real kernel of the Jewish race and the true object of God's covenant (cf. Acts II. 1 It is in this sense that the early Christians were commonly called ayioi, not as sinless, but as called and set apart by God. Compare for instance Hermas, Vis., I. 1, II. 2, III. 8, where the sins of the aytot are spoken of. 164 THE APOSTLES' CREED 39, III. 25). But there is no hint in our sources and it is altogether unlikely that they thought of themselves as constituting a new people, or that they called themselves a church as distinguished from their unbelieving countrymen, and separated themselves even in thought from the household of faith to which they belonged by birth. But when Christianity passed the boundaries of the Jewish people and made a home for itself on Gen tile soil, and when new Christian communities grew up divorced entirely from Judaism, the basis was given for the idea that the Christian family constituted the true Israel of God, a new covenant people taking the place of the old and inheriting all the privileges which the Jews by their rejec tion of Christ had forfeited. Compare for instance I Clement 29, 30, 59, 64 ; 2 Clement 2 ; Barna bas 6, 13, 14; Justin, Dial, 11, 24, 26, 110, 116, 118 seq., 130, etc. According to Hermas the church was created before all things, and even the world was framed for its sake ( Vis., II. 4) ; and a similar belief is expressed by his contemporary the author of 2 Cleraent (chap. 14). If R was intended to be a general statement of the faith of Christians at the time it was framed, there would be nothing strange in the insertion of the article on the church, but the character and general purpose of the creed being what they are it is difficult to understand the presence of the HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 156 article. It raight possibly be explained as a pro test against the Gnostic and Marcionitic denial of the holiness of the church at large, and their assertion that only a select few within the church were elected to salvation, but it is too general in its form to lend itself easily to such an interpretation. On the other hand, as will be shown a little later, there are the best of reasons for the inser tion of such an article in the early part of the third century, the period to which external testi mony would lead us to assign it. In the mean time let us examine the next article, which is closely connected with the article on the church and throws light back upon its interpretation. Acjyecriv dpapriatv. External testimony is against the presence of this article in the original text of R (see p. 94). Does the internal evidence confirm or contradict the external ? And, first, was there reason for the insertion of such an article at the tirae the creed was framed ? We have already seen that it is impossible to explain the creed satisfactorily as a general sura mary of the faith of the church, or as an enumera tion of the blessings of Christianity. Opposition to false teaching alone accounts adequately for the portion which we have already studied. It is unlikely therefore that the present article was 156 THE APOSTLES' CREED added without any polemic reference, simply as a positive statement of one of the blessings of Chris tianity. But even if this consideration, drawn from the nature of the creed as a whole, were waived, and it were assumed that one of the purposes of the creed was to enumerate the blessings of Christian ity, an examination of the literature of the period shows that forgiveness of sins was not a blessing which we raight expect to find raentioned. It is true that the forgiveness of sins constituted an important element in the gospel of Christ ; that his emphasis was upon the love rather than the severity of God ; that he preached God rather as a father than a judge. But what was true of Christ was not true of the church of the second century. The phrase dcjjeais dpapriwv is very rare in early Christian literature. Outside of the New Testament, where it occurs about a dozen times, it is found before Irenaeus only in Barnabas (six times), in Justin Martyr (the sarae number of times), and in Hermas (only once, M., IV. 3, 3). But it is not simply that the phrase is rare ; the idea of the forgiveness of sins is very little em phasized in the literature of the second century. There is only one reference to forgiveness in Ignatius (Phil. 8), only one in the Didache (XL), and none in Polycarp and 2 Clement. While the love of God is occasionaUy referred to it is HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 157 as lawgiver and judge that the early Christians chiefly think of him, and the forgiveness of sins is not commonly represented as one of the bless ings that distinguish Christianity from other re ligions. On the contrary, it is the ethical rigor of Christianity that is chiefly emphasized. The Christian is judged more severely than other raen, not less so. The man who becomes a Chris tian assumes ethical responsibilities which he did not have before, and if he does not live as he should he can hope only for conderanation, not forgiveness. Compare for instance Hennas, Vis., IL 2; M., IV. 1; Sim. Y.I; 2 Clement 6 seq; Aristides, Apol, 17. Ecclesiastical discipline was accordingly very strict. Serious offenders were excommunicated, and once excommunicated they could not ordinarily be received back again into comraunion. Compare Heb. VI. 4 seq., X. 26 seq. ; Hermas, M., IV. 3. It is true that there was gen eral agreement araong Christians that repentance and baptism effected the remission of a man's pre baptismal sins, and enabled him to start upon the Christian life with a clean record, but thenceforth it was judgraent, not forgiveness, which the Christian was to look for, and it was the thought of the divine severity, not the divine mercy, which was to control his life. And so the unqualified phrase d(^ecrts dpapricov does not express the faith of the church of the early second century. One 168 THE APOSTLES' CREED might almost say that its faith would be more accurately expressed by a denial of the forgive ness of sins than by an unqualified assertion of it ! It is thus impossible to explain the article as giving utterance to one of the important ele ments in the common belief of the church at the time of the coraposition of R. Was there then any special reason in the situation in which the author was placed when he wrote the creed that would account for its insertion ? It cannot have been introduced with an anti-Marcionitic purpose, for one of the principal indictments brought against Marcion by his opponents was that he emphasized the forgiving love of God at the expense of his avenging justice. But we learn from the Shepherd of Hermas that the subject of the forgiveness of sins was under discussion at about the time R was composed, the question as to whether there is forgiveness for post-baptismal sins being apparently a burning question then in Rome (cf. M., IV.). It might be thought that it was this discussion which led to the addition of the article. But in the light of the writings of Hermas himself, of 2 Clement, and of Justin Martyr, all of which belong to about this period, and in the light of the controversy caused more than half a century later by the disciplinary laxity of Bishop Callixtus, it is impossible to suppose that the church of Rome committed itself at or soon after the middle of the HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 169 second century to the advanced position touching post-baptismal sins which is involved in the sweep ing and unconditioned phrase d^ecrts dpapriav. Is there then any other period at which such an article might naturally have been added ? As already seen, the article forraed a part of the creed of Cyprian and Novatian, so that it must have been added before the middle of the third century. And as a matter of fact in the early part of that century conditions existed in Rome which fully explain its introduction. One of the results of the Gnostic and Montanistic conflicts was a radical change in the conception of the church. Instead of being regarded as a community of saints, it was now thought of as an ark of salvation, an in stitution containing both good and evil, outside of which salvation was impossible. Whereas, therefore, the effort had formerly been to keep the church pure by excluding permanently all un worthy members, the effort now was to induce all that would to enter the church in order to make their salvation possible. Lender these cir cumstances the old disciplinary rigor was relaxed and the church definitely adopted the principle that all post-baptismal sins may be forgiven after repentance and suitable penance. Callixtus, Bishop of Rome from 217 to 222, first publicly enunciated the new principle, in an edict in which he declared that he would pardon and receive back 160 THE APOSTLES' CREED into the church all offenders, except murderers and apostates. (See TertuUian's De Paenitentia and De Pudicitia ; and compare Preuschen : TertuUian's Schriften De Paenitentia und De Pudicitia mit Ruck- sicht auf die Bussdisciplin ; Rolffs : IndulgenzediM des Kallistus ; and Harnack : Dogmengeschichte, I., p. 331 seq., English translation, II. 108 seq.) His action caused a schism in the church of Rome — Hippolytus leading the opposition — but the church sustained hira, and the principle which he enunciated was ultimately made general, so as to cover all sins. This controversy in Rome sup plies a sufficient motive for the insertion in the creed of the article d^ecrts dpapricov. The ques tion between the two parties was not a question of detail, as to whether more or fewer sins should be regarded as mortal sins, but a ques tion of principle, as to whether the church is a community of saints or an ark of salvation, as to whether therefore the old disciplinary rigor should be maintained, and pardon for flagrant sins coraraitted after baptism be refused, or the lax principle adopted of opening even to serious offenders the possibility of readmission to the church. Throughout the controversy the one party appealed to the forgiving love,^ the other 1 Such passages as Ex. XXXIV. 6, Ezek. XVIII. 23, XXIII. 11, Hos. VI. 6, Matt. XL 19, XIII. 29, Luke VI. 36 seq., XV., Rom. XIV. 4,2Cor.II. 6 seq., lTim.V. 10, lJohnL7, were appealed to HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 161 to the stern justice of God, and so the addition of the general phrase d^eo-ts dpapriav to the creed would express in the clearest possible way the principles of the laxer party, the party of the majority, which prevailed over Hippolytus and his supporters. In the light of what has been said we can hardly hesitate to accept the conclusion to which the external testimony also points, that d(^ecrts dpapriSiv did not constitute a part of the origi nal text of R, but was added in the first half of the third century.^ The interpretation of the article, if added then, is abundantly clear, as has been shown. Our interpretation of the article on the forgive ness of sins throws light upon the article on the by the Callixtine party. See Hippolytus, Phil. IX. 7 (12) ; and Tertullian, De Paenitentia 8, De Pudicitia 2, 7 seq., 9 seq., 13, 18 seq.^ Attention should have been called on p. 94 to the fact that the article on the remission of sins is wanting in the baptismal interrogatories of the Canones Hippolyti (Hahn, § 31d ; cf . Katten busch, I. p. 320 seq.), of the newly discovered Latin translation of the Egyptian Church Order (see Funk in the Theologische Quartal- schrift, 1890, p. 174 seq. and Kattenbusch, II. p. 732 seq.), and of the Testamentum Jesu Christi (see the editio princeps of Rahmani, 1899, p. 129). In all these forms ixovoyevrj and tov Kvpiov fjnav are also wanting ; while dyiav iKxKTjoiav is lacking in the first but present in the two others, and a-apKos avda-raa-iv is found only in the second. It seems altogether probable that these tests are based upon R, but as the date and place of composition of the documents con taining them are very uncertain we cannot be sure of the signifi cance of the omissions referred to, or whether they have any significance at all. 11 162 THE APOSTLES' CREED church. As already seen, external testimony is against its existence in the original text of the creed, and it is difficult to explain its purpose if it was a part of R in the beginning. But the situation in Rome in the early third century would account for the addition of an article on the church as well as on the forgiveness of sins. In the priraitive period excoramunicated offenders were commonly left to the mercy of God, who might forgive them if he chose, forgiveness being in the hands of God, not of the church. But the changed conception of the church, which has been referred to, involved the assumption that the church has the power to forgive sins. Compare the words of Callixtus' edict, " habet potestatem ecclesia delicta donandi " (see Tertullian : De Pudicitia, 21, and RolfFs, op. cit., p. 114) ; and com pare also Cyprian's " remissionem peccatorura per sanctam ecclesiam" (Ep. 69, 70). Moreover, the readmission of gross offenders led naturally to the accusation that the holiness or purity of the church was thus sacrificed, and that it became an unholy institution. Over against such accusations the supporters of the new conception maintained that the church is a holy institution, not because its members are holy, but because it has the means of grace, and so the power of promoting their holiness and saving them (cf. Hippolytus, Phil, IX. 7 ; Tertullian, De Pudicitia, 21 ; Cyprian, HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 163 Ep., 69). And so the conjunction of the two phrases dytav iKKXrjcriav and dcftecnv dpapricjv must express, in the early part of the third century, at once the belief that there is forgive ness of sins through the church, and the belief that the church is holy even though she forgives sins. The form in which the two articles are phrased by Cyprian — I'einissionem peccatorum per sanctam ecclesiam — expresses the former belief more clearly, but lays the emphasis upon it at the expense of the latter, while the juxtaposition of the two in R emphasizes equally the holiness of the church and the forgiveness of sins, and at least suggests the connection between them, which Cyprian, because of his controversy with Nova tian, was concerned to emphasize particularly. That these two articles were inserted immedi ately after " Holy Spirit " and before " Resurrec tion of the flesh," instead of being added at the end of the creed, was due doubtless in part to the fact that they belong logically before the mention of the resurrection, and in part to the dytov of the article on the Spirit, with which dytav of the arti cle on the church naturally connected itself.' 1 Confirmatory evidence of the conclusion that the articles on the remission of sins and the holy charch were added to R in the early third century under the influence of the controversy touching the forgiveness of post-baptismal sins may possibly be found in the surprisingly sparing use made of R by Hippolytus and Nova tian. 164 THE APOSTLES' CREED SapKos avdcrracrtv. There is no reason to doubt that this article constituted a part of the original text of R (see above, pp. 66, 86 seq.), but the testimony of Irenaeus and Tertullian leaves its place in the creed, and its connection with what precedes, somewhat uncertain. Thus in Irenceus we have it connected twice with the return of Christ : ad resuscitandam omnem carnem. In Tertullian we have judicare . . . per carnis etiam resurrectionem ( Virg. Vel, 1) ; profanos judicandos . . . facta utriusque partis resuscitatione, cum carnis resurrectione (De Praescriptione, 13) ; unum deum . . . et Christum Jesum . . . et carnis resurrectionem (De Praescrip tione, 36). But this variety was doubtless due to the fact that in the original R the article stood by itself at the close of the creed, and so could be displaced, and brought in elsewhere at will, with out interfering with the general structure of the symbol. That there should be appended to a three-mem- bered creed, based upon the threefold baptismal formula, an article entirely unrelated to what precedes, shows the tremendous importance of the article in the eyes of the author of R. It would have been easy to work it into the section on Christ (as Irenaeus and Tertullian do), and thus preserve the symmetry of the creed, and its char acter as an exposition of the baptismal formula. HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 165 but evidently the author wished to give especial emphasis to the resurrection of the flesh, and so added it as a separate article. This must be kept in mind in our interpretation of it. The phrase crapKos dvdo-Tacrts is found nowhere in Christian literature before the composition of R, except in Justin's Dialogue, chapter 80 ; but the belief in the resurrection of the flesh was wide spread from an early day. In fact the belief in a resurrection, which was practically universal, com monly, though not always, meant among the early Christians a belief in the resurrection of the flesh, that is, of the present material body. This is clearly indicated in Rev. XX. 4 seq. ; 1 Clement, 24 seq. ; 2 Clement, 9, 14 ; Hermas, Sim., V. 7, 2 ; Ignatius, Eph. 7, Smyrn. 2 ; Mart. Polyc. 14 ; Justin Martyr, Apol. I. 18 seq.. Dial. 80 ; and there can be little doubt that in raany other cases where the resurrection is referred to with out specification as to its character, it is a fleshly resurrection that is in mind, for that was the kind of resurrection that was believed among the Jews as a preliminary condition of entrance into the kingdom of the Messiah. (Cf. my Apos tolic Age, p. 462 seq.) The twenty-fourth chapter of First Clement is instructive in this connection, for while Clement does not speak particularly of a resurrection of the flesh, it is clear that the very term resurrection means to him a fleshly 166 THE APOSTLES' CREED resurrection, and that he does not think of any other kind. This is all the more significant in view of Paul's explicit denial that the flesh rises again. To Paul the resurrection is a spiritual, not a fleshly matter (cf. my Apostolic Age, p. 134 seq., 309 seq.), and yet to most of the early Christians the idea of a resurrection was so in separable from the idea of the flesh that it was impossible for them to understand Paul, and his notion of the resurrection was taken to be the same as theirs. But there were sorae Christians, who on one ground or another denied the doctrine and accepted a spiritual resurrection only, and whether they owed their bejief to Paul or not they commonly appealed to his authority in sup port of their position (cf. my Apostolic Age, p. 602). Chief araong these Christians were Marcion and the Gnostics. They were dualists, and their con ception of the flesh was such that its rederaption seemed to them impossible, and eternal life must consist in escape from it. In this they agreed with Paul, and of course they made rauch of his teaching upon the subject. The result was that the nature of the resurrection became a burn ing question, and over against Marcion and the Gnostics, Christians began to emphasize the resur rection of the flesh, and to see in it one of the cornerstones of the Christian faith. And so that which was commonly implicit in the begin- HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 167 ning became now explicit. It was not enough to assert a resurrection merely ; its fleshly char acter raust be emphasized. This insistence upon a fleshly resurrection over against the denial of it was due not only to the feeling on the part of many Christians that a future life was impossible without a resurrection of the material body (cf. Ignatius, Smyrn., 2 seq.), but also to the fear that the loss of the belief in the resurrection of the present flesh for judgment would lead to immoral ity and impurity (cf ., e. g., 2 Clement 9 ; Hermas, Sim., V. 7. 2 ; TertuUian, Adv. Marc. V. 7). It was thus regarded as a very practical matter. The importance attaching to the belief, and the hostility of Christians to the Marcionitic and Gnostic denial of it, may be seen in TertuUian's tracts De Carne Christi (cf. especially chap. 1) and De Resurrectione Carnis, and in his work against Marcion, IV. 37 ; V. 7, 9 seq., 14, 18 seq. ; and also in many passages in Irenaeus, e. g., II. 29 seq.,V. I 18, V. 2 seq., 11 seq., 31 seq. TertuUian's work against Marcion also shows how important a place the denial of the resurrection of the flesh had in Marcion's teaching (compare especially V. 19). In the light of what has been said there can be little doubt that the article crapKos avdcrraaiv, whose very position gives it special eraphasis, was added with a distinctly polemic purpose, to em phasize the resurrection particularly of the flesh, 168 THE APOSTLES' CREED over against the current denial of it. If R read simply dvdcTTao-tv, or dvdaracriv veKpcov, or ck veKpcov, all of which are common in the literature of the period, or even dvdaracriv crcoparo? it would be a different matter altogether. But the striking and unusual phrase o-apKos avdcrTacrtv, with the emphasis upon crapKos, admits of only one explana tion. Here certainly, if anywhere in the creed, the polemic interest is evident. It is significant that nothing is said of the purpose of the resurrection and nothing of what follows it. Judgment, salvation, messianic king dom, eternal life — the last three are not men tioned at all, and the first in another connection altogether. Nor is it said whether all men rise or only the saved.^ Evidently it is not the pur pose or consequence of the resurrection that the author is concerned to emphasize ; nor does he speak of it because he wants to enumerate the blessings of Christianity, for not resurrection, which might be shared by bad as well as good, but eternal life, which was the privilege of the saved alone, was the great blessing brought by Christ (cf. John, 1 Timothy, Jude, Didache, 2 Clement, Hermas, Ignatius, passim). Clearly the 1 In John, Acts, Revelation, 2 Clement, Justin Martyr, Tatian, and Athenagoras, the resurrection of the bad as well as the good is explicitly mentioned. In other cases, before Irenseus, only the resurrection of the good (as in Paul and Ignatius), or resurrection in general without specification of good or bad, is referred to. HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 169 author was interested only to repudiate the heret ical and dangerous assertion that the_^esA rises not. The original interest of the creed in the resur rection of the flesh, as distinguished from the fact of resurrection in general, is somewhat obscured in our English version, which dates from the time of Henry VIII. It is probable that the phrase " res urrection of the body " was intended to mean the same thing as resurrection of the flesh, but in view of Paul's use of the phrase "spiritual body," the word " body " is less explicit than the word " flesh," and so the original emphasis is in part lost. The English phrase makes it possible to interpret the article in the Pauline sense, while the Greek crapKos dvdo-racrtv and the Latin carnis resurrectionem are distinctly, though not of course intentionally, anti-Pauline.^ 1 In the Institution of a Christian Man, commonly known as the Bishops' Book, which was published iu 1537, the article on the resurrection is given in the following enlarged form : "I believe that at doomsday all the people of the world that ever was or ever shall be unto that day shall then arise in the selfsame flesh and body which they had while they lived on earth " (see the volume entitled Formularies ofthe Faith put forth by authority during the reign of Henry VIIL, Oxford, 1825; p. 29). In A Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christian Man, commonly known as the King's Book, and published in 1543, the article reads simply, " the resurrection of the body " (ibid. p. 226), so far as I am aware, its first appearance in this form. In the second prayer book of Edward VI. (1552), where the Apostles' Creed was first printed in fuU in the order for morning prayer the article reads in the same way, " the resurrection of the body," and this form now appears both in the order for morning and evening prayers and in the cate- 170 THE APOSTLES' CREED On the early Christian belief in the resurrection of the flesh, see Haller : Lehre von der Auferstehung des Fleisches bis auf Tertullian ; Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche, 1892, p. 274 seq. Looking back over the several articles of the original text of R we see that practically the whole symbol may be interpreted as anti-Marcionitic in its purpose, and that parts of it can be satisfac torily interpreted in no other way. The only words which cannot be thus explained are irvevpa dyiov. But these words constituted a part of the baptismal formula upon which the symbol was based and so could not well be omitted. The very fact that no qualifying or descriptive phrases are added goes to confirm the anti-heretical interest of the creed as a whole, for it shows that where there was no heresy — as there was none in refer ence to the Spirit — the need was not felt of adding anything to the baptismal formula. On the other hand not only can the whole creed be explained as inspired by hostility to the views chism, and has passed into common use among English-speaking Christians. In the order for baptism, on the other hand, the English prayer book retains the original form, " the resurrection of the flesh," while the American edition simply refers to the creed without quoting it. In Oriental symbols, avaaraa-iv veKpmv, " resurrection of the dead," as in the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan creed, is common, but aapKos avda-Tua-iv is found in the symbols of Cyril of Jerusalem, of the Apostolic Constitutions, and of Laodicea (Hahn, §§ 124, 129, 131 ; cf. also §§ 140 and 141). HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 171 of Marcion, there is nothing lacking which an anti-Marcionitic symbol must necessarily contain. The only important Marcionitic tenet which is not directly met in R is the rejection of the Old Testament. It would seem as if a declaration of belief in the Old Testaraent might have been inserted, either explicitly, or by means of a refer ence to the fulfilment of prophecy by Christ. But a perusal of TertuUian's work against Marcion shows that it was not the repudiation of the Old Testament in itself that was the serious thing in the eyes of Marcion's opponents, but the separa tion thus brought about between Christ and the creator and ruler of the universe. And so R, with its eraphasis upon the fact that Christ is the son of ^eos irarrjp rravroKpdrcop, is true to the real interest of Marcion's opponents, even without mentioning the Old Testament. It should be noticed too that in the reference to the birth from a virgin, and especially to the session at the right hand of the Father, there is clearly implied the acceptance of Old Testament prophecy, for both of these events were prominent among the mes sianic prophecies in current use at that time. Of course R might have been raade rauch raore elaborate, and some of the tenets of Marcion might have been met in more explicit terras. But the creed was intended for use as a baptis mal symbol, and therefore was necessarily made 172 :'mi$M'tlDSTLES' CREED simple, brief, and compact, that it might be easily learned and repeated, and was naturally phrased in positive not negative forra. It is difficult to see how Marcion's positions, so far as they were of practical, not merely speculative, interest, could have been more effectively repudiated in such a baptismal symbol than they actually are. Kat tenbusch says that R " ist nicht antithetisch ge- dacht, sondern lediglich thetisch " (II. p. 327). If he means by this only that R is phrased in posi tive not negative form, of course he is right. But if he means, as he evidently does, that R was constructed without any regard to heresy, it is another matter altogether. He continues " Weder die Einheit Gottes, noch seine Schopferstellung werden betont, so unzweifelhaft sie in ihm mit- gedacht und, wenn man den ersten Artikel un- befangen iiberlegt, auch ausgedriickt." Why eraphasis upon the unity of God, and upon crea tion, should make R any more truly "antithet isch " than it is now it is difficult to see. A symbol directed against Gnosticism would natur ally have borne a more theological character than R has, but Marcionism was a practical not a spec ulative systera, and is fully met by the simple but pregnant statements of R.^ 1 Harnack is quite right in saying that R is too simple and untheological to have been framed in opposition to the Gnostics (Chronologie der altchristliehen Litteratur, vol. I. p. 529), but he seems HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION 173 In a regula fidei, moreover, designed as a standard and test of orthodoxy, something else, both in form and content, might perhaps have been expected, but I am not maintaining that R was framed as a regula fidei. I hold that it was originally intended as a baptismal symbol pure and simple. The only question is whether the irapulse which led to its composition was or was not due to the prevalence of error — to the conviction that it was impor tant to irapress upon candidates for baptism par ticularly those facts and truths which were most widely doubted or denied within circles that called themselves Christian. Those who think not must answer the following questions : First, why are so many things omitted in thei original text of R which constituted an essential part of the faith of the church of the first and second centuries, while other things are mentioned which are less important in themselves and bulk far less largely in the Christian literature of the period ? Secondly, how does it happen that all ' the views of Marcion which were most offensive to the church at large are ruled out by R ? And thirdly, what was it that made such a baptismal symbol necessary in the second century when the church up to that tirae had got on without any- not to have considered the possibility of its having been directed against Marcion. As a matter of fact Marcionism was a very dif ferent thing from Gnosticism, and R fills all the requirements of an anti-Marcionitic baptismal confession. 174 THE APOSTLES' CREED thing of the kind ? Most scholars that have dealt with the Apostles' creed have evidently quite failed to realize the gravity of this last question. It was no light thing for a church to adopt a baptismal symbol when nothing of the kind had existed before. Why should it suddenly find the formula of baptism which had answered for some generations insufficient ? It would seem that the composition of R is just such an event as needs a crisis like that which Marcion precipitated to ex plain it. That Kattenbusch and others, who put the composition of R as early as the beginning of the second century, or even earlier, should take the position they do is not perhaps surprising, but that Harnack, who recognizes so clearly the sig nificance of the crisis in the middle of the second century, and who puts the composition of R as late as 140 or 150, should still maintain that R was not called forth by false teaching of any kind is very strange. THE BAPTISMAL FORMULA 175 VI. The Old Roman Symbol and the Baptismal Formula. Christian baptism was an outgrowth of the baptism practised by John the Baptist. John's baptism was siraply a symbolic ceremony sug gested undoubtedly by the various baptisms or rites of purification which were prevalent among the Jews, and was employed with the purpose of im pressing vividly upon his hearers the need of that purification of life which he was preaching and of committing them by their own voluntary act to the effort to make the desired amendment. We have no record in the synoptic gospels that Jesus himself ever baptized, or that baptism was per formed during his lifetime by his disciples. But it is distinctly stated in John IV. 2 that though Jesus himself did not baptize, his disciples did, and the naturalness of the rite in the light of John's baptism, and its general prevalence in the aposto lic church confirm the report and make it practi cally certain that the rite was not introduced as an innovation after Jesus' departure. But if practised during his lifetime by his disciples it is altogether probable, in view of his uniform 176 THE APOSTLES' CREED policy touching the announcement of his Messiah- ship, and in view of the fact that it was long before even his own disciples believed him to be the Messiah, that baptisra had the usual Johan nine form, and that it was not a baptism into or in his own name ; that it was in fact simply a continuation of the practice of John with the same purpose of impressing the need of moral and religious reformation in view of the approach ing kingdom, and of committing others to such reformation. But after the departure of Jesus conditions were changed, and if baptism was continued at all it was not unnatural that it should take on a new significance. According to Acts II. 38 seq., the converts secured on the day of Pentecost were baptized, and raore than that, they were baptized into the name of Jesus Christ — the first time, so far as we know, that his name was con nected with the rite. This did not mean that it ceased to be a baptisra of repentance, but it did mean that the repentance to which it gave ex pression was based upon and due to the recogni tion that Jesus was the Messiah, being primarily repentance for the terrible crime committed by the Jewish people in putting Jesus to death. It was most natural that a ceremony which had come into use araong Jesus' disciples during his lifetime as a symbol of repentance on the part THE BAPTISMAL FORMULA 177 of those who wished to prepare themselves for the coraing of the kingdora, should after his death be regarded as a means of declaring one's belief in his Messiahship — the fundamental truth upon which his disciples laid all the emphasis after his departure — and should thus become a symbol not simply of repentance but of acceptance of Jesus as the Christ. And so we find that the Christian formula, " Into the name of Jesus Christ" or "of the Lord Jesus," which we first hear of in connection with Pentecost, was in com mon use in the time of Paul, and it is altogether probable that it was in common use from the day of Pentecost on. It is generally supposed that Christian baptism was instituted by Christ hiraself after his resur rection. According to the account in Matt. XXVIII. 19, he commanded his eleven apostles, as he was upon the point of leaving them finally, to " go and make disciples of all the nations, baptiz ing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost ; " while according to the account in the appendix of Mark's gospel, he said to them " Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that be lieveth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned." But the his toric accuracy of these passages is beset with serious difficulties. Of the appendix of Mark 12 178 THE APOSTLES' CREED it is unnecessary to speak. It is siraply a late compilation and has no independent authority. The passage in Matthew therefore stands alone. There is no sufficient reason for questioning the authenticity of vs. 19a, " Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations," for it finds confirma tion in Acts I. 8 (cf. also X. 42) ; but of the latter part of the verse, " baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," we cannot be so sure, as appears from the following considerations : In the first place the reference to baptism is wanting both in the Gospel of Luke and in the first chapter of Acts, where other post-resurrection utterances of Christ are recorded. It is true that the words are found in all the manuscripts cover ing the conclusion of Matthew, and there is there fore no support in textual criticism for their omission. But even if it be assumed that they constituted an integral part of the Gospel, it is still uncertain whether they were uttered by Christ, for the evidence of Matthew alone unsup ported by any other Gospel is inconclusive. Still further, the command respecting baptism seems out of line with Christ's general course as indicated in the Gospels. He was concerned all the time with the spiritual and the ethical, and had very little to say about the external and formal, and laid absolutely no stress upon it. He did not THE BAPTISMAL FORMULA 179 commonly speak and act as if he had in mind the foundation of a visible society or church with its outward conditions of membership ; and that at the end he should give to a formal rite, to which he seems to have paid no attention during his ministry, so prominent a place, making its adrain istration a part of the permanent and constant duty of the apostles, is very surprising. Again Paul says in 1 Cor. I. 17 that Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the gospel — a stateraent not easy to understand in one who claimed so strenuously to be on an equality with the older apostles, if Christ gave baptism so prorai nent a place as is given it in Matt. XXVIII. 19, and laid upon the Eleven the specific injunction quoted there. It would seem, if that injunction be authentic, that baptizing must have been regarded as a very important part of every apostle's work, and it is difficult to see how Paul could speak of it so slightingly, or at any rate with such in difference. And when we consider the baptisraal formula enjoined by Christ, according to Matt. XXVIII. 19, the difficulty increases. The collocation " Father, Son, and Holy Spirit " sounds strange on Christ's lips, and suggests a conception of baptism entirely foreign to the thought of his immediate disciples, and equally foreign to the thought of Paul, whose idea of baptism seems in 180 THE APOSTLES' CREED harmony only with the use of a single name, the narae of Christ, in the formula. There is moreover no sign that the triune for mula was ever employed in the apostolic age. So far as our sources enable us to judge, baptism in the earliest days was commonly into the narae of Christ without mention of God and the Holy Spirit. Thus we have "Into the narae of Jesus Christ " in Acts IL 38, X. 48 ; " Into the name of the Lord Jesus" in Acts VIII. 16, XIX. 5; "Into Christ Jesus " in Rom. VI. 3 ; " Into Christ " in Gal. III. 27; "Into the name of the Lord" in Did. XI. ; Hermas, Vis. III. 7, 3 ; " Into the death of the Lord " in the Apostolic Constitutions, VIL 25 (a passage based upon Did. XL), and Apostolic Canons, 50 ; " Into the name of the Son of God " in Hermas, Sim. IX. 13, 16, 17. Compare also Col. IL 2 ; 1 Cor. L 13, 16 ; X. 2 ; XII. 13; Barnabas 11. There is no reference to the triune forraula in the literature of the apostolic or sub-apostolic age, except in Matt. XXVIII. 19 and in the Didache, chap. 7. The formula was in comnion use before the end of the second century, but there were many Christians even as late as the middle of the third century and some at the very end of the fourth who refused to use it and insisted on bap tizing in the name of Christ alone, and their attitude is difficult to explain unless they were following an earlier custom which the church at THE BAPTISMAL FORMULA 181 large had outgrown. Compare Cyprian's Epistle to Jubaianus (No. 73) ; Pseudo-Cyprian, De Rebap- tismate, 1, 6, 7 ; Apostolic Canons, 51, which finds it necessary to forbid the use of any but the triune formula ; and Ambrose, De Spiritu Sancto, bk. I. chap. 3, who defends the validity of the shorter formula. When and how the triune formula arose, if it was not enjoined by Christ under the circum stances described in Matthew, we do not know. From the simple formula " Into the name of Jesus Christ" the step is a long one to the forraula " Into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holj'- Spirit." But it is possible that there was an intermediate formula in which the naraes of God, of Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit were used. Such a formula we find em ployed by Paul in the familiar benediction of 2 Cor. XIIL 13 — "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all" — which is not the same as "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," though commonly treated as the sarae. Still more significantly we find a similar formula given twice by Justin Martyr in connection with his account of Christian baptisra in his first Apology, chap. 61 (iir ovoparos yap rov irarpo? rcov oXcov Kal SecTTTOTOv ^eov, Kat rov crcorripo<; -qpcov 'Irjcrov Xpicrrov Kal irvevparo'; dyiov. And later in the 182 THE APOSTLES' CREED same chapter : to rov irarpos rcov oXcov Kat Seo-iroTov Oeov ovopa. . . koX iir' ovoparos Se 'Itjo"ov XptcTTOv, rov cxravpcoOevTO'i iirl IIovTtov IltXdTov, Kat iir' 6v6paro<; irvevparo^ dyiov). The collocation " God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit " is much commoner in the litera ture of the late first and early second centuries than " Father, Son, and Holy Spirit " (cf. Jude 20, 21 ; Ignatius, Eph. 9 ; Martyrdom of Polycarp, 14, 22 ; Justin Martyr, Apology, 1. 67), and that it was the current formula, at any rate in Rome, would seem to be indicated not only by its occur rence in Justin's Apology, but also by Clement's frequent and exclusive use of it in different con nections (compare chap. 46 : rj ov)(l eva Oeov e)(opev Kal eva Xpicrrov Kai ev irvevpa ttj'S ^aptTos ro eKXvOev i(f)' ¦qpds ; chap. 58 : ^77 yap 6 Oeb? Kal ^Tj 6 Kvptos 'Itjctovs Xpto^Tos Kal rb irvevpa to dyiov K. T. X. Compare also chap. 16 and 42).^ The rise of such a threefold formula it is not difficult to understand. The conversion of the Jews to Christianity meant only their accept ance of Jesus as the Messiah, and so their bap- 1 Reference may also be made in this connection to the third century Didascalia, in which it is said that the twelve apostles being assembled in Jerusalem composed the said Didascalia with the purpose of guarding against heresy, and directed that Christians should worship " God Almighty and Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit" (see Didascalia Apostolorum Syriace, ed. Lagarde, p. 102; Zahn in the Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, 1896, p. 23 ; and Funk, Die Apostolischen Konstitutionen, p. 61). THE BAPTISMAL FORMULA 183 tism into the name of Jesus Christ was a full and adequate profession of their Christian faith. The God of the Christians was their God, and no con fession of their belief in him was needed. But when the gospel went to the heathen the case was different. Their acceptance of Christianity meant the acceptance of the one God of the Christians, a God commonly hitherto unknown to them. And hence it would be quite natural for the custom to grow up of having the new convert declare his belief in the Christian God, as well as in Christ, in the very act of baptism. The raention of the name of the Holy Spirit was natural enough in connection with baptism both on Jewish and Gentile soil, for Christ's baptism was thought of from the beginning as a baptism in the Holy Spirit, whom he had promised to bestow upon his disciples after his departure. (Cf. Matt. III. 11, Mark I. 8, Luke III. 16, John L 26, 33, Acts I. 6, XIX. 1 seq. ; and compare also Acts VIII. 15 seq., IX. 17, X. 44 seq.) And so the addition of the name of the Holy Spirit, whatever the con ception of the Spirit might be, would not be strange at any time. But inasmuch as we find no trace of its use in the baptismal formula either by the early Jewish Christians or by Paul, it seeras likely that it first carae into currency somewhat later in the gentile or world church, Paul's forraula of benediction perhaps contributing to it. 184 THE APOSTLES' CREED There are reasons for thinking that it was upon this threefold baptismal formula ("God, Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit") that the Old Roman Symbol was based, rather than upon the triune formula of Matthew and the Didache. For, in the first place, the formula was apparently in use in Rome in the time of Justin Martyr, that is just about or not long before the time that the syrabol was coraposed. In the second place the phrase irvevpa dyiov, which occurs in R, suggests Justin's formula rather than that of Matthew and the Didache, for Justin reads irvevpa dyiov in his statements of the baptismal forraula, while Mat thew and the Didache both read ro dyiov irvevpa. In the third place the order of the words in the first and second articles of R is easier to explain if R was based on the formula of Justin than if it was based on the Matthew formula. If R were based on the latter we should expect Oeov iravTOKpdropa, a familiar phrase, to follow irarepa in the first article, and Xpicrrov 'lyjcrovv to follow vtov in the second. As it is, the order in R is just what we should expect if the formula was ^eos Kat 'irjcrov? XptcrTos or XptcTTos 'irjcrovs, the elaboration of the forraula being accomplished by the simple addition of the qualifying phrases. In the fourth place, and most decisive of all, the theology of R agrees with the theology of the baptismal formula of Justin, but not with THE BAPTISMAL FORMULA 185 that of the Matthew formula. In the latter the word "Father" looks forward to the word "Son." It is the Father of the Son into whom the convert is baptized, while in R the term "Father" is used to express, not God's relation to Christ, but his relation to the universe. It is God the author and ruler of the universe who is named in the first article, and his relation to Christ is expressed only in the second article by the phrase tov vtov avTov. R as it stands ex pounds correctly the formula of Justin — "God the father of the universe, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit " — but not the formula of Matthew, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." In the light of these considerations it may fairly be concluded, as it seems to me, that R was based upon the former rather than the lat ter formula. And the last two considerations go in turn to confirm the existence and use of the formula in question at the middle of the second century in Rome. But that formula was finally displaced by the triune formula of Matthew, which is in line with Johannine conceptions and forms of expression, and which is perhaps due to the influence of the Johan nine type of thought. At any rate, it appears before the latter part of the second century only in the Gospel of Matthew and in the Didache, in connection with baptism, and in other connections 186 THE APOSTLES' CREED only in Ignatius' Epistle to the Magnesians (chap. 13 : " That ye raay prosper in all things what soever ye do, in flesh and spirit, faith and love, in Son and Father and in Spirit : " e'v vtw Kat TraTpt Kat e'v irvevpari).^ All of these writings belong to the same part of the world, and in Ignatius there are certainly, in Matthew possibly other traces of the influence of the Johannine type of thought, while the author of the Didache was well acquainted with the Gospel of Matthew, and very likely took the triune formula from him. The Gospel of Matthew early got into general circulation both east and west, and of course the command of Christ recorded in it would inevitably influence the baptismal formula and ultimately crowd all other forms out of use. It is an interesting fact that Irenaeus and Tertullian, the first westerners in whose writings we find a reference to the bap tismal forraula in the Matthew forra, both quote the passage in Matthew's Gospel (cf. Irenaeus, III. 17, 1 ; TertuUian, Adv. Prax., 26). ^ Justin, Apol., 65, may perhaps also be mentioned in this con nection. In speaking there of the Eucharist he says that praise is offered rto rrarpX rwv oKcov Stot tov dvop.aros tov vlov kol tov ¦Kvcvp.aros TOV &yiov. But on the other hand, in chap. 67 he says : fvKo-yovjuv TOV TvoiTjTTiv Tav TTavTav, 8ta TOV vlov avTov 'irjo'ov X/jioToO Kal 8ia jrvev- p.aTos TOV ayiov. THE PRESENT TEXT 187 VIL The Present Text of The Apostles' Creed. The Textus Receptus of our present Apostles' Creed runs as follows : " Credo in Deura Patrera oranipotentem, creatorera coeli et terrae, et in Jesum Christum filium ejus unicum, dominum nostrum ; qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus et sepultus, descendit ad in ferna, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit ad coelos, sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis, inde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum, sanctam ecclesiam catholi cam, sanctorum comraunionera, remissionem pec catorum, carnis resurrectionem, vitam aeternam.^ The additions which distinguish this creed from R are 1, Creator em coeli et terrae in the first article ; 2, Conceptus est in the article on the birth; 3, Passus and mortuus in the article on the cruci fixion ; 4, Descendit ad inferna after sepultus ; 5, Dei and omnipotentis in the article on the session ; 6, Catholicam in the article on the church ; 7, 1 There exist a few Greek texts of this creed (Hahn, §§ 24 b, 26, 27, 28, 30, 43), but they are all translations, more or less exact, of the Latin original. See Kattenbusch, II. p. 803 seq. 188 THE APOSTLES' CREED Sanctorum communionem after the article on the church ; 8, Vitam aeternam at the end of the creed. Upon the interpretation of these additions see in general Kattenbusch, II. p. 874-956. 1. The phrase creator em coeli et terrae probably appears first in this exact forra in the completed creed (cf. Hahn, §§ 24, 25, 42, 92),^ but phrases of sirailar import were much earlier. Thus we find them already in Irenseus and Tertullian (see above, p. 89), who emphasized the creative activ ity of God over against the Gnostics ; in Augus tine and other North African writers ; and in most of the Eastern symbols, including the Nicene and the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan creeds. The phrase may have been coined by the author of our present text, or it may have been translated from the last named creed (irouirriv ovpavov koI yjjs). In any case the original anti-heretical interest which had led to the emphasis upon creation by Irenaeus and Tertullian no longer existed, when the present text of the creed took shape, and the addition of the phrase was doubtless due simply to the influence of earlier formulae. See Katten busch, II. p. 875 seq. 2. The addition conceptus est appears first in the confession of the orthodox bishops assembled at the 1 Whether the texts in the Sacramentarium Gallicanum and Missale Gallicanum (Hahn, §§ 66 and 67) are earlier or later than our Textus Receptus is uncertain. See Kattenbusch, II. p. 774 seq. THE PRESENT TEXT 189 councU of Ariminum in 359 A. D. (Hahn, § 166). It appears also in a symbol of uncertain date ascribed to Bishop Damasus of Rome (Hahn, § 200) ; in the symbols of Faustus of Riez and Caesarius of Aries (Hahn, §§ 61, 62); and from the sixth cen tury on is common in Gallic forms of the creed, but is apparently confined to them (see Katten busch, II. p. 881). As there is reason to think that the confession of the bishops at Ariminum may have been the work of Phoebadius of Agen in Gaul (see Kattenbusch, I. p. 173 seq.), the evidence points to Gaul as the home of the phrase. It was suggested perhaps by Luke I. 31, 36, and represents probably merely the desire to make raore vivid and precise the reference to the birth of Christ. There is no reason to think that heresy had any thing to do with its addition to the creed. See Kattenbusch, II. p. 879 seq. 3. When the words passus and mortuus were first added to the creed is uncertain. Passus appears both in Spanish and Gallic formulae (before sui Pontio Pilato and without qui, as in the present text of the creed), probably as early as the fourth century, while mortuus seems to have been con fined to Gaul. The two words occur together, with crucifixus and sepultus, as in our present text, apparently first in Caesarius of Aries (Hahn, § 62). Whether he is himself responsible for them we do not know, but at any rate the double addition is 190 THE APOSTLES' CREED doubtless to be traced back to Gaul (cf. Katten busch, II. p. 887 seq.). There is no sign that either word was added on account of heresy. Passus may have been inserted for the purpose of laying especial emphasis upon Christ's suffer ings, with the same interest which led Irenaeus to put it in the place of the crucifixus of R (see above p. 96), or it may have been added without any specific interest, under the influence of the original Nicene creed, which followed the symbol of Eusebius in mentioning, as Irenaeus had done, only the passion between the birth and the resurrection. Whatever the purpose of the addition the con nection of passus with sub Pontio Pilato indicates that it was not to the life of Christ as a whole that the word was intended to refer, but only to the passion in its narrower sense — the suffer ing endured under Pontius Pilate ; and that suf fering was apparently understood not as a fact additional or preliminary to the crucifixion, death, and burial, but as a general fact including all the others, so that the article is to be paraphrased, not " suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was cru cified and died and was buried " but " suffered under Pontius Pilate, that is, was crucified and died and was buried " (see Kattenbusch, II. p. 890 seq.) So far as the word mortuus is concerned there was apparently no other reason for its addition THE PRESENT TEXT 191 than the desire for completeness of statement. It adds nothing of course to the sense, for crucifixion and burial necessarily imply death. 4. The words Descendit ad inferna constituted a part of the creed in use in the church of Aquileia at the beginning of the fifth century, as we learn from Rufinus' Expositio Symboli, chap. 18. The Aquileian creed was a slightly enlarged recension of the Old Roman Symbol, and is the earliest known recension of that syrabol to contain an article on the Descent into Hades. The article occurs in no other baptismal symbol of the west before the fifth century, and in none in the east at any time. It appeared, however, nearly half a century before Rufinus wrote his Expositio in three conciliar formulae of the fourth century, that of Sirmium, which was written originally in Latin but of which we have only a Greek translation (Hahn, § 163), of Nice in Thrace (Hahn, § 164), and of Constantinople (Hahn, § 167). The three are practically identical, the last two, which date respectively from 359 and 360 a. d., being in great part translations from^ the Latin original of the first, which was composed by Marcus Arethusa in 369, under the influence of the Antiochian symbol and perhaps also of the baptisraal symbol in use in Sirmium (cf. Kattenbusch, I. p. 260, 398). As Sirmiura and Aquileia were not far apart, and the relations between them were very 192 THE APOSTLES' CREED close, it is quite possible that the two churches had the same baptismal symbol, namely the Old Roman Syrabol slightly enlarged. The article on the Descent into Hades may have found its way into that symbol either in AquUeia or in Sirmium, or for that matter in some other place in the same part of the world. That it got into the baptismal symbol first and was taken thence into the Sirmian formula composed by Marcus Arethusa seems more probable than that it was first a part of the Sir mian formula and passed from it to the baptismal symbol, for the formula contains other items which would naturally have been incorporated into the baptismal symbol if anything was ; thus, for instance, diroOavovra after crravpcoOevra ; Kat Ta iKelcre o'lKovoprjcravra, ov irvXcopol dSov tSovTes er. Creorge P. Fisher, of Yale University. Of them all we are tempted to regard the work of Professor McGiffert as on the whole worthy of the most consideration, both for the sweep of its treatment and use of historical criticism. . . . Taking the volume as a whole, we are impressed with its importance as a contribution to the litera ture of its subject, and may well congratulate American scholarship that it has produced a work conceived in the modern spirit which, though per haps less original than that work, cannot unfairly be classed with that of Weizsaeker. — The Dial. The author's work is ably done. . . . This vol ume is worthy of its place in the series. — The CongregaUonalist. For a work of such wide learning and critical accuracy, and which deals with so many difficult and abstruse problems of Christian history, this is remarkably readable. — The Independent. It is certain that Professor McGiffert's work has set the mark for future effort in the obscure fields of research into Christian origin. — New Yorle Tribune. Charles Scribner's Sons, Publishers 153-157 Fifth Avenue - - New York YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 03100 1382 I'i^i'^