BOOKS BY CHARLES A. BEIGGS, D.D., D.Litt.
Published bt CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS

Fundamental Christian Faith. . net $1.50
Church Unity  nel 2.50
The Book of Psalms. (International Criti
cal Commentary.) 2 vols. . . nel 6.00
The Ethical Teaching of Jesus. net 1.50
New Light on the Life of Jesus. . nel 1.50
The Incarnation of the Lord. . . nel 1.50
General Introduction, to the Study of
Holy Scripture  net 3.00
Higher Criticism of the Hexateuch. net 2.50
The Messiah of the Apostles. . . net 3.00
The Messiah of the Gospels. . . net 2.00
The Bible, the Church and the Reason, net 1.75
American Presbyterianism. . . net 3.00

THE
FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIAN
FAITH

THE
FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIAN
FAITH

THE ORIGIN, HISTORY
AND INTERPRETATION OF THE APOSTLES'
AND NICENE CREEDS

BY
CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt.
Charles Butler Graduate Professor of Theological Encyclopedia and Symbolics,
Union Theological Seminary, New York

NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
19*3

3KZ0

COPYRIGHT, 1913, BY
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS

Published March, 1913

MY DEAR FRIEND
MISS EMILY OGDEN BUTLER
FAITHFUL DAUGHTER
OF AN HONORED FATHER

PREFACE
For some years the author has been engaged in
teaching Symbolics in the Union Theological Sem
inary. He has made a careful study of all the Sym
bols of the Christian Church by the use of the best
methods of Historical Criticism and Interpretation.
There are several theological tendencies in these
times. There is the reactionary tendency, which still
insists upon the whole doctrine of the Confessions of
Faith of the seventeenth century, at the cost of the
perpetuation of theological warfare within the Church
as well as without. There is the radical tendency,
which would do away with all credal statements, and
construct an eclectic, syncretistic theology out of a
comparative study of all Religions and in the form of
recent undigested philosophical speculations. These
would give us a merely speculative theology, with
no other authority to sustain it than the private opin
ions of this or that writer or his school of thought, and
so set us adrift on a sea of boundless speculation.
There is also the wholesome Irenic tendency which
seeks to reunite the separated Churches on the basis
of the fundamental principles of Historical Christi
anity, without intruding upon denominational pref
erences, or private opinion in other matters. These
principles of Faith are to be found in the ancient

viii PREFACE
Creeds, the official expression of the Faith of the an
cient Church, to which all Churches, which are legiti
mate descendants of Historical Christianity, adhere.
I have endeavored in this volume to give an account
of the origin and history of these Creeds in the light
of Historical Criticism, and to explain them in ac
cordance with scientific principles of interpretation
in the light of the Holy Scriptures upon which they
are based, and of the writings of the Christian
Fathers of the time of their composition.
We must apply the same principles of Criticism and
Interpretation to the Creeds as to the Holy Script
ures. We cannot tolerate in the one case, any more
than in the other, misinterpretation in the interests
of any modern theories whatever. These Creeds
have their historic meaning which we must either ac
cept or reject. We cannot honestly accept them in
form and reject them in substance.

CONTENTS

PAGE

The Fundamental Christian Faith  i
PART I
the apostles' creed
CHAPTER
I. Historical Introduction  9
II. God the Father Almighty  24
III. Jesus Christ, Son of God, Our Lord . 38
IV. Saviour  54
V. Born of the Virgin Mary  59
VI. Crucified and Buried  113
VII. Risen from the Dead  137
VIII. Ascended into Heaven  155
IX. Enthroned at the Right Hand of the
Father  158
X. Second Advent  164
XI. The Holy Spirit  173
XII. Holy Catholic Church  184
XIII. Remission of Sins  196
XIV. The Resurrection of the Body . . . 205
ix

x CONTENTS PART II
the nicene creed

CHAPTER

PAGE

I. Historical Introduction  211
II. Maker of all Things, Visible and In
visible  224
III. Consubstantial with the Father. . . 226
IV. The Incarnation  253
V. The Procession of the Holy Spirit . . 257
VI. The Athanasian Creed  268
VII. The Faith of Chalcedon  286
VIII. The Final Christological Definitions. 307
Index  321

THE
FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIAN
FAITH

THE
FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIAN FAITH
The Christian Faith is essentially faith in Jesus
Christ, God's Son, Saviour.
This Faith was preached by the Twelve Apostles
chosen by Jesus Himself, and trained by Him for
the purpose. They were specially commissioned by
Jesus several times during His ministry on earth
and after His resurrection, to make disciples of all
nations, to teach the commands of their Lord, to
baptize into His name, to celebrate the Eucharist
of His body and blood, and to organize His Church
for the perpetuation and propagation of the Chris
tian Faith, and the maintenance of "unity and con
cord." 1
The Apostles and their associates were endowed
by the Holy Spirit with charisms suited to their
commission both by external theophahic manifesta
tion on the day of Pentecost, and subsequently by
His internal presence and guidance. They imme
diately acted, in the terms of their commission, under
the guidance of the divine Spirit, in the organiza
tion of the Church and its institutions, and in the
teaching and preaching of the Christian Faith.
1 V. Briggs, Apostolic Commission, in Studies in Honor of Basil L.
Gildersleeve, 1902. 1

2 FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIAN FAITH
St. Paul, the highly educated and gifted Jewish
rabbi and zealous persecutor of Christians, was con
verted by the christophany on the journey to Damas
cus into a Christian scholar and ardent missionary of
the Gospel; and by our Lord's own special appoint
ment, as well as that of the church at Antioch, com
missioned as the apostle to the Gentiles. Other apos
tles, evangelists, and teachers were ordained by the
Apostles to share in their ministry.
The primitive disciples received their Faith from
the oral teaching of the Apostles and their associates,
confirmed by miracles and manifestations of the di
vine Spirit, both objective and subjective. They
were as Jews already instructed in the Old Testa
ment Scriptures, which became to Christians as to
Jews a divinely inspired and authoritative Canon.
In the latter half of the first century, written in
struction was added to the oral, at first in the epis
tles of St. Paul and other teachers, then in the Gos
pels and other writings of the New Testament.
Many of these passed through several revisions at
the hands of the Apostles and their pupils. Gradu
ally those writings that were apostolic and divinely
inspired were eliminated from others and collected
as the Canon of the New Testament; the Gospels
before the middle of the second century, the Epistles
before the close of that century.1
The Church held to the apostolic teaching as the
norm of Faith and Life, whether recorded in the
Canon of the Old and New Testaments, or attested
1 Briggs, General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture, p. 134.

FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIAN FAITH 3
by the consensus of the churches established by the
Apostles. Out of this tradition there gradually
emerged a rule of Faith, a symbol or Creed, which
was required of candidates for Christian baptism.
This was based upon the Baptismal formula, and the
Symbol of the Fish, which latter represented to prim
itive Christians the essential element of their Faith,
Jesus Christ, God's Son, Saviour. This Rule of Faith
was, therefore, essentially the same in all Christian
churches throughout the world, though differing to
some extent in the number of articles and in phrase
ology. This Baptismal Faith eventually became
fixed in the form known as the Apostles' Creed,
which may first be detected as the Roman Creed of
the middle of the second century.
In the third century there was a great conflict of
opinion as to the divinity of Jesus Christ and the
Holy Trinity; and therefore the Church had to de
fine the Christian Faith over against heresies which
arose with respect to these doctrines. The Council
of Nicaea (325) adopted the Nicene Creed for this
purpose, which at once became the Eucharistic Sym
bol throughout the Christian world. It was subse
quently enlarged by taking up into itself the Eastern
form of the Apostles' Creed, and so superseded it in
the East as a baptismal symbol also. This Creed was
regarded as a sufficient statement of the Christian
Faith by the early Church; and is still so regarded
by the Greek and Anglican Churches, if rightly in
terpreted in accordance with the New Testament
and apostolic tradition. But its statements, as those

4 FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIAN FAITH
of all human documents, were capable of various
other interpretations than the normal ones. Ac
cordingly, when these erroneous interpretations arose
in the form of serious heresies, it became necessary
for the Church to rule out these heresies and to give
the official, historical interpretation of the Apostolic
Faith by oecumenical councils assembled for the pur
pose, in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries.
Another Creed was composed by some unknown
author, probably of the School of Lerins in Gaul in
the fifth century. Though private in its origin, it
won its way to official acceptance, and was ranked
with the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed dur
ing the Middle Ages in the West, and by the three
great Churches of the Reformation as well as the
Roman Church, as a third authoritative symbol. It
adds nothing to the Faith of the Church, but puts
it in a more dogmatic and Western form. It never
received recognition in the East, not because of any
objection to its doctrines, but because the East had
no part in its composition, and it never gained any
circulation there. There is no reason therefore to
doubt its oecumenical character, if not in formal
acknowledgment, at least in doctrinal consensus.
These three Creeds, as officially interpreted by an
cient oecumenical councils, constitute the fundamen
tal Christian Faith. They express officially the Faith
of the Church in that stage of the development of its
definitions which had been reached at the time they
were composed. They cover the seven fundamen
tal centuries of the Christian Church, during which

FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIAN FAITH 5
the Church suffered its severest trials and gained
its greatest victories. These centuries constituted
the heroic age of Christianity, the age of the Fathers
of the Church; and therefore the Faith of that age,
as expressed in its official Creeds, must always com
mand more respect and authority than the Faith of
any other centuries.
These Creeds are in three stages of development,
separated by considerable intervals. The Apostles'
Creed, in the earliest form known to us, dates half
a century after the death of those who had seen and
known Jesus, and during the lifetime of some who
had known the Apostles; and it is based on baptis
mal Creeds earlier still. The Nicene Creed appeared
less than two centuries later; but the interval is filled
up by numerous local creeds of the principal churches
of Christendom. The Athanasian Creed represents
a century later, when the Faith of the Church had
become fixed by three great oecumenical councils,
and put in more dogmatic forms, especially by Au
gustine in the Western Church. The interpretations
of the Nicene Creed by oecumenical councils ex
tends through the sixth and seventh centuries.
These Creeds are all essentially Christological in
character; they express the personal convictions and
religious experiences of Christians in their relation
to Jesus Christ their Saviour. They express what
these Christians regarded as the essentials of their
Christian experience, that which they must hold as
their faith in life and death for their salvation. This
is stated in bold and rigid forms in the Athanasian

6 FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIAN FAITH
Creed, but it is implied in the other Creeds. For no
one could be baptized and partake of the Christian
sacrament without the public expression of faith, in
terms of these Creeds. The Nicene Creed, as issued
from the Nicene Council, had attached to it an anath
ema on all who pretended to be Christians and yet
did not have this Faith.
These early Christians did not think that they
were making any new doctrines; they sincerely be
lieved and were firmly assured that they were simply
expressing the essential teachings of Jesus Christ and
of His Apostles. The development in these Creeds
was in form and fulness of statement, not in sub
stance of doctrine. That indeed is what the Chris
tian Church in all its branches has ever held and
now holds: that the Confession of Faith is simply
the setting forth in appropriate and timely forms of
the teaching of Jesus Christ and His Apostles — that
sacred deposit of teaching which cannot be increased
or diminished, but which may only be interpreted
and explained. The only development that is valid
is the logical unfolding of its meaning and the prac
tical application of its precepts.
There is, indeed, a difference of attitude to these
Creeds in the different denominations of Christians.
The Roman Catholics regard the Church as the in
fallible interpreter of Scripture; and therefore these
Creeds of the Church are in themselves infallible
and their authority cannot be questioned. The Prot
estant Churches recognize no infallibility save in
Holy Scripture. They claim that the Church may

FUNDAMENTAL CHRISTIAN FAITH 7
err, and often has erred in its decisions. Never
theless, all the great Churches of the Reformation
regard these three Creeds as valid interpretations
of Holy Scripture: the Lutheran, in the Augsburg
Confession (Art. i) and Formula of Concord (Epit
ome 2); the Reformed, in the Gallican Confession
(Art. 5); the Anglican, in the Articles of Religion
(Art. 8). So the separating denominations of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries regarded the
statements of these Creeds as valid, and took them
up into their own denominational Confessions, and
maintained the Christology of these Creeds as the
orthodox doctrine of the Church. There was no
dissent from this position except among a few Uni
tarians and Scamans.*

PART I
THE APOSTLES' CREED
CHAPTER I
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION
The Apostles' Creed may be traced to the middle
of the second century by distinct references to it in
Irenaeus and Tertullian. It seems then to have had
a definite form, although no official copy or exact
reproduction has been preserved.
The reason why the Apostles' Creed does not ap
pear in primitive Christian Literature is supposed
to be because of the necessity that the Church was
under, in times of persecution, of keeping her essen
tial institutions secret. The Creed as a symbol used
in the ceremony of baptism, would thus be kept se
cret. The only references to it, that we could ex
pect, would be to its statements of Faith; and these
not in such a form as to give the exact formula.
We have also to bear in mind that the early writers
were more concerned with the meaning, and less with
the exact words, than seems proper in our times of
accurate quotation.
Nevertheless, there seem to be phrases of the Creed
so fixed in usage as to imply that they were well-
known forms of words. As St. Augustine tells us:
9

10 THE APOSTLES' CREED
"The Catholic Faith in the Creed is known to the
faithful, and is committed to memory by them in
as few words as the matter admits." It was natural,
therefore, that the memory of Christian writers would
yield these words in preference to any others when
treating of the doctrines of the Creed. So it seems
probable that about the middle of the second cen
tury, in Rome, the Creed was revised into the form
which underlies the statements of the writers of the
second and third centuries. Many attempts have
been made to ascertain the exact form of the Creed
of the second century on the basis of references to
it, especially in Irenaeus and Tertullian. There are
some differences of opinion as to details, but general
agreement as to most articles. There are three ref
erences to it in Irenaeus, and three in Tertullian, as
follows :
Irenceus, in his great work against Heresies, writ
ten not later than 189 A. D., gives us no less than
three forms of the Christian Faith:
First Form. (Adv. Hcer. I, 10, §1.)
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole
world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the
apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one
God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and
the seas, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ
Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salva
tion; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the
prophets the dispensations, and the advents, and the birth
from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from
the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the
beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His parousia from
heaven in the glory of the Father 'to sum up all things in
one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION 11
race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord and God, and
Saviour, and King, according to the good pleasure of the
invisible Father, 'every knee should bow, of things in heaven,
and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that
every tongue should confess' to Him, and that He should
execute just judgment toward all; that He may send 'spir
itual powers of wickedness' and the angels who transgressed
and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and un
righteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into ever
lasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer
life and immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those
who have kept His commandments, and have persevered
in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian
course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and
may surround them with everlasting glory."
Irenaeus states that this is the unalterable truth,
proclaimed by the Church throughout the world,
which it has received from the Apostles. And in
Chapter IX, when he speaks of retaining unchange
able in the heart the rule of truth which had been received
by means of baptism, his words imply that it is the
same rule as that which he gives in Chapter X, held
unchangeable in the memory, and not recorded in
writing; as we say, committed to heart.
Irenaeus mentions the Churches of Germany, Spain,
Gaul, the East, Egypt, and Libya, as well as Rome.
In fact Irenaeus was bishop of Lyons, in Gaul. He
made an official visit to Rome in 177-8, as a priest
representing the Church of Gaul. He was born 135-
142, and trained in Asia Minor. He had listened in
his youth to the martyr bishop of Smyrna, Polycarp,
the disciple of John the Apostle; and he frequently
refers to the elders who had heard the Apostles of
our Lord. As a Christian from his youth, intimately
acquainted with Asia, and Gaul, and Rome, he could

12 THE APOSTLES' CREED
hardly have been mistaken in his statement ofthe
Christian Faith, in which there was agreement
throughout the world. He knew the immediate dis
ciples of the Apostles, and received his Christianity
from the second generation, belonging himself to the
third. Second Form. (Adv. Ecer., lib. Ill, cap. 4, § 1, 2.)
"If the Apostles had not left to us the Scriptures, would
it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which
those to whom they committed the churches handed down?
To this order many nations of barbarians give assent, those
who believe in Christ having salvation written in their
hearts by the Spirit without paper and ink, and guarding
diligently the ancient tradition, believing in One God,
Maker of Heaven and Earth, and all that in them is, through
Christ Jesus the Son of God; who, for His astounding love
toward His creatures, sustained the birth of the Virgin,
Himself uniting His manhood to God, and suffered under
Pontius Pilate, and rose again, and was received in glory,
shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved,
and the Judge of those who are judged; and sending into
eternal fire the perverters of the truth and the despisers of
His Father and His advent."
Third Form. (Adv. Ecer., lib. IV, cap. 33, § 7.)
"[The spiritual man] has a full faith in one God Almighty,
from whom are all things; and in the Son of God, Jesus
Christ, our Lord, by whom are all things, and in His dispen
sations, through which the Son of God became man; the
firm persuasion also in the Spirit of God, who furnishes us
with a knowledge of the truth, and has set forth the dis
pensations of the Father and the Son, in virtue of which He
dwells in every generation of men, according to the will of
the Father."
Tertullian also gives three credal forms.
First Form. (De Virginibus Velandis, cap. 1, writ
ten 204-8.)

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION 13
"The Rule of Faith is altogether one, sole, immovable,
and irreformable — namely, to believe in one God Almighty,
the Maker of the world; and His Son, Jesus Christ, born of
the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, on the
third day raised again from the dead, received in the heavens,
sitting now at the right hand of the Father, coming to judge
the quick and the dead, also through the resurrection of the
flesh."
Second Form. (Adv. Praxean, cap. 2, written 213-
18.) "But we believe always, and now more, being better in
structed by the Paraclete, the Leader into all truth, One
God: but under this dispensation which we call economy,
and the Son of the One God, His Word [Logos] who pro
ceeded from Him, by whom all things were made, and
without whom nothing was made. This was sent from the
Father into the Virgin, and was born of her, both man and
God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and called Jesus
Christ: He sufFered, he died and was buried, according to
the Scriptures; and raised again by the Father, and taken
up into the heavens, and sitteth at the right hand of the
Father; He shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
He thence did send, according to His promise, from the
Father, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the Sanctifier of the
faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son and
the Holy Ghost."
Third Form. (De Prcescript. Hceret., cap. 13, writ
ten c. 198.)
"The Rule of Faith is, . . . namely, that by which we
believe that there is but one God, and no other besides the
Maker of the world, who produced the universe out of noth
ing, by His Word sent forth first of all; that this Word,
called His Son, was seen in the name of God in various ways
by the patriarchs, was always heard in the prophets, at last
was sent down, from the Spirit and power of God the Father,
into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and
born of her, lived [appeared] as Jesus Christ; that then He
preached the new Law and the new promise of the kingdom
of heaven; wrought miracles; was nailed to the cross; rose

14 THE APOSTLES' CREED
again on the third day; was caught up to the heavens; and
sat down at the right hand of the Father; sent in His place
the power of the Holy Ghost, to guide the believers: He
will come again with glory to take the saints into the en
joyment of eternal life and the celestial promises, and to
judge the wicked with eternal fire, after the resuscitation
[resurrection] of both, with the restitution [restoration] of
the flesh."
The primitive usage as to baptism required a
special preparation, which consisted in committing
to memory the Christian Creed and receiving in
struction upon its articles.
Augustine tells us:
"The Catholic Faith in the Creed is known to the faith
ful, and is committed to memory by them in as few words
as the matter admits, in order that to beginners and babes,
those, namely, who have been born anew in Christ, but are
not yet strengthened and established by the diligent and
spiritual handling and knowledge of the divine Scriptures,
that should be laid down to be believed in few words, which,
to those who are advancing and rising toward the acquisi
tion of divine learning by the sure strength of humility and
charity, will have to be explained in many words" (De fide
et symbolo).
The candidates were called "catechumens" until
they had been prepared by baptism, then, in Latin,
competentes, and in Greek, (jxoTi&fievoi. The lectures
of St. Cyril of Jerusalem to candidates for baptism
confirm this for the East, and Augustine does for the
West. There is no good reason to doubt that this
usage was primitive, the only difference being in the
exact words of the Creed that were used. At the
time of baptism the candidates renounced the devil,
his pomp and his works — that is to say, all that was

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION 15
characteristic of Paganism — and declared their faith
in terms of the Creed.1
They were asked thrice: Dost thou believe (i) in
God the Father Almighty? (2) in Jesus Christ, His only
Son, our Lprd? and the several clauses with reference
to the salvation wrought by Christ; (3) in the Holy
Spirit? and the remaining clauses of the Creed.
Thrice they replied: Credo.
The division of the Creed into three parts was
original; that into twelve sections somewhat later,
but certainly not later than the middle of the sec
ond century. The division by the names of the
Trinity corresponds with the formula of baptism ac
cording to Mt. 2819: baptizing them into the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
This formula, it is true, is not in the exact words of
Jesus to the Twelve; for the parallelism and measure
of the logion and the usage of the Apostolic Church
show that baptism was originally into my name: into
the name of Jesus Christ, Acts 238, io48; the name of the
Lord Jesus, Acts 816, 195; into Christ Jesus, Rom. 63;
into Christ, Gal. 327; into the name of the Lord, Di-
dache, 11, Hermas, Vis., Ill, 7; the name of the Son
of God, Hermas, Sim., IX, 13. But the Didache, 7,
gives the Triune formula based on St. Matthew,
which throws it back into the first century; and
there is no reason to doubt that it was original in
our Gospel of Matthew, and that it represents Chris
tian usage of the last quarter of the first century.2
1 V. Duchesne, Historic ancienne de I'Eglise, I, p. 505.
2 Briggs, Apostolic Commission, in Studies in Honor of B. L. Gilder-
sleeve, pp. 1-18.

16 THE APOSTLES' CREED
The two formulas existed side by side through the
second century. The shorter one was defended as
valid by St. Ambrose, St. Thomas Aquinas, and
other fathers and doctors of the Church, and has
always been so recognized.
Dr. McGiffert thinks that the Roman form is based on
usage later than the baptismal formula of Matthew and the
Didache. He says (The Apostles' Creed, p. 182) : "The collo
cation 'God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit' is much
commoner in the literature of the late first and early sec
ond centuries than 'Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.'" But
such usage, even if true, does not determine the usage of
the Creed. It depends on what terms in the Creed one
regards as most essential. The Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit are all three in their proper order; only they
are enlarged, the Father to God, the Father Almighty, and
the Son to Jesus Christ His only Son, our Lord. The Holy
Spirit alone remains unqualified. The argument therefore
has no force except so far as the term Father of the Creed
is interpreted in the sense of Creator, rather than as Father
of the Son. But this interpretation, as I shall show later
on, is incorrect.
It is evident from the statements of the New
Testament that a confession, or profession, of Faith
was necessary in order to baptism.
The primitive Christian confession was: "I be
lieve that Jesus is the Lord, the Messiah, the Son
of God," using either one, or two, or all three of
these terms. The primitive Christians were also
Jews. All Jews held to the Shema: "Hear, O Israel:
Yahweh, our God, Yahweh is one" (Dt. 64). The
fundamental faith of Israel, the essential Creed, was
the unity of God. For Jews who became Christians,
that faith was presupposed; but when converts were
made from among the Gentiles it was necessary that

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION 17
they should confess the Unity of God as well as the
Messiahship of Christ.
The doctrine of the Holy Spirit is an Old Testa
ment doctrine. His activity is a divine activity, but
there was as yet no distinction in the one God ex
cept as to attributes and modes of action. The Sy
noptic Gospels adhere essentially to the Old Testa
ment conceptions. But the Gospel of John and the
Epistles of Paul advance to personal distinctions be
tween Father, Son, and Spirit. The Lord Jesus
promised the Apostles, according to the Synoptics
as well as John, to send the divine Spirit to guide
them in their ministry.
On the Day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit descended
upon them, and inaugurated their preaching by His
power and charisms. St. Paul in his Epistles em
phasized the gifts of the Spirit in the work of the
Church. The Holy Spirit is especially connected with bap
tism, John 34 seq. Acts ic/-7 is instructive here:
Certain disciples of John the Baptist came to St.
Paul at Ephesus. He asked them: "Did ye receive
the Holy Ghost when ye believed?" They replied:
"Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the
Holy Ghost was (given)." He then inquired: "Into
what then were ye baptized ? " They replied : " Into
John's baptism." Paul then said: "John baptized
with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the
people that they should believe on Him which should
come after him, that is, on Jesus." Then they were
"baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. And

18 THE APOSTLES' CREED
when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy
Spirit came on them."
This makes it evident that it was necessary to
believe in the Holy Spirit, in order to Christian
baptism. Thus we have in the New Testament clear evi
dence as to the three constituents of the Creed :
(i) The One God, Yahweh, of the Old Testament
religion. (2) Jesus as Lord, Christ, Son of God.
(3) The Holy Spirit.
And so we may say that all candidates for bap
tism in apostolic times must have professed their
faith in these three essential doctrines of the Chris
tian religion. These three things constitute the
Credo, or Creed; and all else is a development of
these three elements.
The most ancient Creed known, apart from the
old Roman Creed, is the short Creed of the Church
of Jerusalem.
"I believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in
the Holy Spirit, and in one baptism of repent
ance."1 This the candidate for baptism said, according to
Cyril. The fourth item simply gives what was re
quired for baptism by St. Peter on the day of Pen
tecost, and what has always been required : namely,
repentance in order to remission of sins.
Therefore we may go back of the Creed of the
second century to an original Christian Creed of the
'Cyril, Coi., XIX, 9.

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION 19
first century which was simply Trinitarian. Thus:
"I believe: I. In one God, Almighty;
II. And in Jesus Christ, God's Son, Saviour;
III. And in the Holy Spirit."
The first clause expresses the unity of God. Al
mighty = mN3X = Sabaoth is used instead of Yahweh =
Lord; because Lord had now become a special title
of Christ, and was seldom used for God among prim
itive Christians in the New Testament except in ci
tation from the Old Testament.1 The second clause
is the phrase of the symbol of the Fish, IX®T2 =
'Irja-ovs X/mo-to? ©eou uto? a-mrtjp, the secret symbol and
token of the primitive Christians = Jesus Christ, God's
Son, Saviour. The term Saviour was subsequently
expanded into the six saving acts of Jesus. The
third clause expresses faith in the Holy Spirit, which
was subsequently expanded into the three saving
acts of the divine Spirit in the organization and
guidance of the Church, in the remission of sins at
baptism, and in the final resurrection of the body.
Prof. McGifFert, in The Apostles' Creed, 1902, maintains
that the Roman Creed originated at this time, like other
official Creeds and Confessions, in opposition to heresy;
and he interprets the various clauses of the Creed as aimed
especially against the heresy of Marcion. This view, so far as
I know, has found no support among writers on the Creed.
Harnack (Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur, 1897,
I, s. 532) says that the Roman Symbol was probably com
posed before the conflict with Marcion and the great schools
of Gnosticism, c. 140.
The Creed, as Prof. McGifFert gives it, is reduced to ten
1 Briggs, Messiah of the Apostles, pp. 86-87.

20 THE APOSTLES' CREED
articles by omitting the articles on the Church and the re
mission of sins; and so it has an abrupt and unnatural con
clusion. There seems to be no clear connection between
faith in the Holy Spirit and the Resurrection of the flesh.
There is also in the structure of a Creed to be committed
to memory some significance in historic numbers. The num
ber three gives the primal trinitarian structure. There are
seven clauses for Christ and His saving acts. We should
expect four more clauses for the Holy Spirit, to make up
the apostolic number twelve. We should also look for some
proper mediating clauses to connect the Holy Spirit with
the Resurrection, and some suggestion as to the activity of
the Spirit.
The three parts of the Creed all have e!? and the accusa
tive, the accusatives that follow being in explanatory ap
position. That cannot be said of the relation of uapxb?
fa&a-caaw to eis icveDfia Sytov. There must therefore have
been some mediating clauses such as are found in early
forms of the Creed. The connection is properly mediated
by the Holy Church, which is inhabited by the divine Spirit,
according to St. Paul; and by the Forgiveness of Sins im
parted by the divine Spirit, especially in connection with
Baptism. The term Holy Church is a Roman term, which appears
in Hermas (Vis., i1, 3), and in Ignatius; and which later
passes over into the more common Catholic Church. It is
the most natural term to follow the Holy Spirit, and to pre
pare for the two remaining clauses, because the Holy Church
is the chief work of the Holy Spirit, both in its origination
on the day of Pentecost, and as the sphere of His activity.
The Forgiveness of sins, though not attested by Irenaeus
and Tertullian, is yet attested by Cyprian: Credo remis-
sionem peccatorum et vitam eternam per sanctam ecclesiam;1
and the creed of Jerusalem: and in one baptism of repent
ance? Prof. McGiffert's argument, that the Roman Church of
the second century was intolerant as regards the remission
of sins after baptism, has no application, because the remis
sion of sins here is the remission connected with baptism
itself, and that was greatly emphasized by the Roman
Church of the second century, as we see from the apostolic
father Hermas.
1 Ep. 69, 70. ' Cyril, Catechetical Lectures, XVIII, 22.

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION 21
We may therefore conclude that there were four articles
connected with the Credo of the Holy Spirit, as seven with
that of Christ, and one with that of God the Father.
The earliest form of the Roman Creed that has
been preserved, is from the middle of the fourth cen
tury.1 Rufinus, a priest of Aquileia, wrote a com
mentary on the Apostles' Creed2 in the last quarter
of the fourth century. He gives the creed of Aqui
leia, and compares it with the old Roman Creed.
He states that candidates for baptism were required
to recite it publicly, and that no alterations were al
lowed. The form had doubtless been fixed for some
time, and it remained stereotyped in that form in
Rome for nearly two centuries. A Greek form of
the same Creed is given by Marcellus of Ancyra
(341 or 337). This form of the fourth century is
confirmed by the comments of Ambrose and Augus
tine, the Psalter of iEthelstan, and many other wit
nesses. Many attempts have been made to distribute
the twelve articles of the Creed amongst the Apos
tles, but they are all artificial, and they betray un-
originality by their lack of correspondence with
the historical origin and proper distribution of the
various clauses. The traditional belief that these
articles expressed the Faith of the Apostles is suffi
cient to account for the assignment of the articles
to them. This assignment of the Creed to the Apos-
»For the form, compare Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, II, pp. 47-48;
Burn, Introduction to the Creeds, p. 200.
! The Latin original is given by Heurtley in his De fide et symbolo,
1869, translated into English in his On Faith and the Creed, 1886.

22 THE APOSTLES' CREED
ties corresponds with similar assignments of the Di-
dache, or Teaching of the Apostles, the Didascalia, the
Constitution of the Apostles, etc. There is behind the
legend the fact that Tertullian and Irenaeus regard
the Creed as apostolic in its statement of the Faith.
The Apostles' Creed in its present form can be
traced to 700 A. D., about which time it was prob
ably revised officially in Rome; for the Psalter of
Gregory III, and Pirminius, a Benedictine mission
ary, both of the middle eighth century, quote it.1
The following table gives the Apostles' Creed in
its proper divisions, and distinguishes the original
form, in small capitals, from the additions of the
fourth century, in italics, and the final additions, in
ordinary type. The original words in parentheses
were subsequently omitted.
1 For details of evidence, v. Caspari, Anecdola, p. 151; Burn, Introduc
tion to the Creeds, pp. 233 seq. For the text in Latin, Greek, and English,
see Schaff, II, p. 45; for the text in Latin, Burn, p. 240.

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION 23

THE APOSTLES' CREED
I believe I In (one) God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven
and Earth.
II (i) And in Jesus Christ, His only Son (God's Son),
our Lord,
(2) Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born OF THE
Virgin Mary
(3) Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified,
dead and buried; He descended into hell;
(4) The third day He rose again (risen) from the
dead;
(5) He ascended into heaven;
(6) And sitteth (seated) on the right hand of God
the Father Almighty;
(7) From thence He shall come to judge the quick
and the dead.
I believe III (1) (And) in the Holy Ghost,
(2) The Holy Catholic Church, the communion of
Saints
(3) The forgiveness of sins,
(4) The resurrection of the (flesh) body, and the
life everlasting. Amen.

CHAPTER II
GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY
The first article of the Creed was originally a con
fession of Faith in the one personal God of the Old
Testament, and all that was implied therein. It was
based on the Shema, so-called from its initial Hebrew
word. "Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our God, Yahweh is one.
Therefore thou shalt love Yahweh thy God with all thy
heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength"
(Dt. 64"6).
This was followed by vv.6-9, and then by Dt. n13-21
and Num. I537-41. This Shema was the Confession
of Faith, the Creed of Israel, said at morning and
evening worship with appropriate prayers, of the
nature of ascriptions to God, called Benedictions.
Josephus1 testifies that this was the custom among
the Jews from remote antiquity, therefore undoubt
edly in the time of Jesus, and of Jesus Himself. This
Shema was also written on parchment with Ex.
I3i-io, u-w Dt- j j 13-2^ an(j put jn phylacteries worn
on the head and arm at prayers. It was also written
on parchment with Dt. ii13-21, and placed in the
Mezuzah, affixed to the right-hand door-post of the
Jewish house. All these were universal customs in
the time of Jesus.
lAnt., 48. 18; cf. Schiirer, Gesch. des jiidischen Volkes, II, s. 382.
24

GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY 25
Jesus Himself attests the Shema, when, in reply to
the scribe who asks Him, " What commandment is the
first of all?" He answered: "The first is, Hear, O
Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is One; and thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with
all thy soul, (and with all thy mind), and with all thy
strength" (Mark 1228-30). Lord is the Greek kvPio<;,
which stands in Greek for Yahweh of the Old Testa
ment. There can be no doubt as to the meaning of this
Creed to Jesus and His Apostles, and to the Jews of
His time. (1) It asserted clearly and unmistakably
that the God of Israel, the God of the Old Testa
ment, was really God, Yahweh our God, which excludes
every kind of Atheism.
(2) That He was the one only God, against all and
every kind of Polytheism : Yahweh is One.
(3) That He was the personal God of Israel, Yah
weh, who had been from the most ancient times
their Saviour. This excludes every kind of Pan
theism. (4) That a relation of love was the most essential
relation between their personal God and each indi
vidual person of the people of Israel. Thou shalt love
Yahweh thy God. This represents God as the su
preme moral Being, worthy of all love.
(5) It is also quite certain that this was regarded
only as a summary of Faith, and that it implied all
that Yahweh was and had been to Israel as repre
sented in the Old Testament Scriptures.
We should bear in mind that this Creed of Israel,

26 THE APOSTLES' CREED
which was the Creed of Jesus and His Apostles, and
which therefore became the Creed of all Christians,
is but the apex of the whole religious development
set forth in the Old Testament. Yahweh, the God
of Israel, is just that God whom the Law and the
Prophets, Hebrew Psalmody and Hebrew Wisdom,
show forth in all their wondrous representations.
(i) The faith that the God of Israel was really
God, has behind it a history of religious struggle.
For example, see Elijah on Mount Carmel, and hear
his challenge : If Yahweh be God, follow Him: but if
Baal, then follow him (I Kings 1821) ; and his appeal to
God: Hear me, Yahweh! hear me, that this people may
know that Thou, Yahweh, art God (v.37). When the
people were convinced by the fire from heaven, they
fell on their faces and cried : Yahweh, He is God; Yah
weh, He is God (v. 39).
(2) The early Israelites were more concerned with
maintaining the divinity of their own God, and His
incomparable superiority to the gods of other nations,
than they were in denying the real existence of other
gods; but from the time of Jeremiah onward the
prophets insisted that Yahweh was the one only God,
and that the gods of other nations were non-realities.
Psalm 115 expresses that conviction. It comes from
a period of conflict with idolatry (cf. Is. 449"20; Je.
io1-16), probably the Babylonian period.
"Not to us, Yahweh, not to us;
But to Thine own name give glory.
Wherefore should the nations say:
'Where now is their God?'

GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY 27
"Our God is in heaven (above).
All that He pleaseth, He doeth.
Their idols are silver and gold,
The work of the hands of men.
"A mouth have they; but they cannot speak.
Eyes have they; but they cannot see.
Ears have they; but they cannot hear.
A nose have they; but they cannot smell.
"Hands have they; but they cannot feel.
Feet have they; but they cannot walk.
Like them be they that made them,
Every one that trusteth in them."
This was the first of the Hallels recited after sup
per at the Passover; and doubtless by Jesus and His
disciples. It is probably part of the hymn referred
to in the Gospels as concluding the feast before the
departure for Gethsemane (Mt. 2630).
With this history and usage behind it, there can
be no doubt that the Apostles urged this doctrine of
the Unity of God upon all their disciples to the ex
clusion of every kind of Polytheism. This is what
was at the basis of the refusal to eat of the meat
taken from the flesh of victims offered to idols (I Cor.
io18-21). This was the reason why the early Chris
tians refused to offer sacrifices to the emperor, or in
any way to recognize any other god but the one
God of Israel, even at the expense of cruel persecu
tion and martyrdom.
(3) Yahweh was from the earliest times conceived
of as a person. Yahweh is just as truly a proper name
as Joseph, Isaiah, or Jacob; and is formed by the
prefix » in precisely the same way. It probably also

28 THE APOSTLES' CREED
has a concrete meaning: The One ever with His people,
in accordance with the promise (Ex. 312), "7 shall be
with thee," that is, to save from all enemies. The
personal relation of salvation between Yahweh and
His people is the most characteristic note of the Old
Testament religion which passes over into the New
Testament religion; and this is true, notwithstanding
the transcendence of God, which became so character
istic of later Judaism; because they still retained the
conception of the divine immanence by the doctrines
of theophanies, the mediating Word, and the divine
Spirit, and also of the ministry of angels.
(4) The relation of love between Yahweh and His
people played a more important part in the relig
ious history of Israel than is commonly supposed by
modern writers. It was a tender personal relation
of individual persons to the great supreme Person.
Hosea was the first of the prophets to emphasize this
relation, which is further unfolded by Jeremiah, the
Second Isaiah, and the Psalmists.
This is well set forth in Psalm 116, another one of
the Hallels, and part of that Song sung after Pass
over and probably also by Jesus and His Apostles
just before Gethsemane. This was the environment
of religious experience, which was common to Jesus
and His Apostles with all pious Jews, and which was
transmitted by them to the Christian community
with the Christian Creed. These Hallels of the
Passover were undoubtedly sung by Christians in
their celebration of the Eucharist, which St. Paul
names the Christian Passover (I Cor. 57-8).

GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY 29
(5) It is quite common to so concentrate the atten
tion upon the express statements of the Creed as to
overlook and forget all that the Creed implies. It
was not sufficient that the Jew should say the Shema
and the Hallels, and circumscribe his religious faith
and life by them. These were simply the summary
statements, which indeed implied his faith in the
entire Old Testament and all the sacred institutions
of Israel. These were the tremendous background
of the Creed, which gave it its force and importance;
the shaft of the arrow-head or spear-point, which en
abled it to accomplish its purpose. Jew and Chris
tian agreed in regarding the Old Testament Script
ures as a Canon of Holy Scripture, divinely inspired
and authoritative, the norm of faith and life.
This faith of Israel, the fundamental faith shared
by Jesus and His Apostles, was implied in all Jewish
converts to Christianity; so of all proselytes to Juda
ism, and so of all the Gentiles who became Christians.
It was, then, necessary that it should be put in a
Christian form; and, as it was fundamental to the
faith of Jesus and His Apostles, it must precede, in
the Christian Credo, faith in Jesus Christ Himself.
The formula which would have come over from
Judaism was : Yahweh our God, Yahweh is One. This
was the Shema. Turn this into a personal state
ment of faith, and it would be: 7 believe in one God,
Yahweh. Now, Yahweh was, in the time of Jesus, a
name of God not used, but kept secret, always being
represented by Lord, as in the citation from Jesus'
words already given.

30 THE APOSTLES' CREED
And the term Lord became so attached to Jesus
by His immediate disciples that it was no longer
used, even in the Epistles of Paul, for the God of
Israel, except in citations from the Old Testament
itself.1 And this usage continues in the second and
third Christian centuries. Accordingly, another term
was necessary to indicate the God of the Old Testa
ment. The most natural one was Sabaoth, which
is usually associated with Yahweh in the Prophets.
This was favored also by its use in the New Testa
ment: II Cor. 618, Rev. i8, 48, n17, 15s, 167.14, 196.15,
2122, as iravroKparoap; and by Rom. c/9 and James 54,
as Kvpios aaftawQ.
Accordingly, we have in the Christian Creed: I
believe in One God, Almighty (eva deov travroKpaTopa).
This was in all probability the original form, and
it so appears in the third form of Irenaeus,2 and the
first form of Tertullian.3
The meaning of TravT0icpdTcop=r\'\H2'X ought to be ev
ident from Biblical usage. As I have shown,4 it first
represented the God of David as the God of the
battle-array of Israel; then later as the God of the
armies of heaven — sun, moon, and stars, and all
the heavenly host.
Prof. McGifFert thinks (p. no) that it "refers to the sov
ereignty or providence of God." But he has been misled
by a passage in Theophilus, I4, giving it this sense, which
he quotes, and because of his mistaken interpretation of
Father in the Creed as used in the sense of Creator; so that
1 V. Briggs, Messiah of the Apostles, pp. 86-87.
2 Adv.^ Hcsreses, IV, 33'. s j)e Virginibus, I.
4 Robinson's Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon, new edition, BDB.

GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY 31
the two terms give creation and providence. In fact nwas,
in the usage of the Old Testament, is quite frequently used
with reference to the creative activity of God, and does not
in itself, or in usage, refer specifically to providential rela
tions. It became a divine name as truly as Yahweh. It
was used in the Creed, simply as a substitute for nirv, and
not in any specific sense whatever. i
The Greek word means all ruler rather than al
mighty, which has come from the Latin term omni-
potentem. It is easy to draw a sharp distinction in
meaning between the Greek and Latin terms, as
Westcott and others do; and to prefer the Greek
terminology; but it is just as easy to distinguish
between the Greek and the original Hebrew, and to
prefer the Hebrew, as the original. In fact travro-
Kpdrap was a translation of niK3X, designed to bear
its meaning, and not any specific Greek meaning of
the term; so also omnipotens was designed to trans
late iravroKpaTcop and give its meaning, and not the
more specific meaning of the Latin word. The mean
ing of the Creed cannot be determined by etymolo
gies. These words bear historical, theological, and
comprehensive meanings, based on the Hebrew orig
inal. Undoubtedly Christian writers, after the orig
inal meaning of Sabaoth in the Creed had been
lost, interpreted travTOKparcop and omnipotens and
almighty in accordance with the usual meaning of
these words in these various languages, but that does
not determine the original meaning of the term in
the primitive Creed.
The baptismal formula was into the name of the
Father. It was inevitable, therefore, that Father

32 THE APOSTLES' CREED
should appear in the Creed, either as a substitute
for Almighty or as an addition to it.
The only evidence for God the Father alone is in Cyprian
(Ep. 69), where it is quite possibly an abbreviation, at a
time when rarvroxpiirnop was losing its significance. Else
where Father appears in the Creed before Almighty; so Ire-
na;us (Hcer., I, io1)* Novatian,Lucian, Arius, Eusebius, Cyril,
Epiphanius, and others. (SchaflF, II, pp. 13 seq!) This usage,
from the middle of the second century onward, makes it
evident that there is no valid reason to question that Father
was in the Creed soon after the baptismal formula appeared
in Matthew and the Didache.
The term Father is interpreted by Prof. McGifFert as
meaning "not the father of Christ or of the Son, but the
father of the world or the universe, that is, its creator,
author, or source" (p. 109). It is quite true that Father is
common in the Christian Literature of the second century
in the sense of Creator. But that was a usage common to
Greeks, Romans, Jews, and Christians, and therefore most
appropriate to Apologists. The use of Father for the Creator
is well known in the Old Testament as well as in the New
Testament, but in both it is the unusual sense. Yahweh
is more frequently the Father of Israel, or of the kings of
Israel, and later of those who follow the principles of Di
vine Wisdom. In the New Testament God is Father in the
more specific sense: first, of Jesus as His only Son; and, sec
ondarily, of the disciples of Jesus. There should be no
doubt, therefore, that Father in the baptismal formula orig
inally meant the Father of the Son Jesus Christ. Father
in the Creed, from the second century on, has been inter
preted in that sense. It is therefore altogether improbable
that Father came into the Creed in the middle of the sec
ond century, in the specific sense of Creator.
Furthermore, the use of Son, in the second section of the
Creed, by antithesis suggests the meaning of Father in the
first section, as the Father of this Son. It is improbable
that Father could be used in the first section in a sense al
together different from that antithesis; for Son implies
Father of that Son, and Father implies Son of that Father.
If Father meant nothing more than Creator, it would still
be Old Testament doctrine, and there would seem to be no

GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY 33
sufficient motive to introduce into the Creed Father in that
sense, rather than the plain, unambiguous, Old Testament
term, Maker of heaven and earth, which subsequently was
added, when certainly Father was interpreted in the specif
ically Christian sense.
The term Father is the specifically Christian ele
ment in the first article of the Creed. All else is de
rived from the Old Testament. As the One God
Sabaoth implied the entire Old Testament doctrine
of God, so the term Father implied all that was addi
tional in the New Testament doctrine of God; so
that the first article of the Creed expressed the Old
Testament and the New Testament doctrine of God
in one simple comprehensive statement.
Dr. McGiffert maintains the novel theory that the Apos
tles' Creed was prepared in antagonism to the heresy of
Marcion, and he interprets the terms Father and Almighty
as directed against them. He says that the tenets of Mar
cion "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 re
vealed by Jesus Christ. (Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc, es
pecially Bks. I, II, and IV; also Justin Martyr, Apol., I,
26 and 58; and Irenaeus, I, 27.)" (P. 107.)
Dr. McGiffert, then, in accordance with his theory that
the Creed was aimed at Marcion, interprets Father as Creator
and icoevtoxpiJTup as ruler of the universe, and so gets his
antithesis to Marcion. But if Father is the Father of Jesus
Christ, the Son, and icavcoxpifrnijp = Sabaoth, for Yahweh
Sabaoth of the Old Testament, the God who, according to
the Shema, loves His people and demands above all from
them their love, then there is no such antithesis to Marcion
in the Creed as is supposed.
Indeed, the general opinion among scholars is that Mar
cion himself and his pupils did not find the Roman Creed
against them, but really adhered to it. Their crmlWct with

34 THE APOSTLES' CREED
Christianity was rather against doctrines not expressly de
fined in the Creed. Even Harnack says that the Roman
Symbol was probably composed before the conflict with
Marcion and the great schools of Gnosticism, c. 140 A. D.
(Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur, 1897, 1, s. 532).
The Creed of the fourth century no longer has one
God, but only God; for it was not important at that
time to assert the unity of God against Polytheism,
but to maintain the Triune God over against Mo-
narchianism and Arianism, which made a misuse of
the term One God as applied to the Father.
The phrase e!? Uva 8e6v is used in Irenaeus (c. 180) in his
three forms, also in Tertullian (c. 200) in three forms,
Origen (De Principiis, c. 230), Gregory Thaumaturgus (270),
Lucian (300), Arius (328), Eusebius of Caesarea (325), Cyril
(350), Epiphanius, both forms (374). But Cyprian (250)
and Novatian (250) have only in Deum. That is all that
appears in the Old Roman Creed of Rufinus, in Marcellus,
Augustine, the Creed of Aquileia (390), Venantius Fortuna-
tus (570), and others. (V. Schaff, II, pp. 12 seq!) Some
time during the third .century it must have been omitted
from the Roman Creed for a reason. May we determine
that reason? Harnack, Kattenbusch, and McGifFert think
that ha was never in the Roman Creed, but that it was an
interpretative addition of Irenxus and Tertullian; but Zahn
and Burn give a better historic interpretation of the origin
of the Creed. It is hardly fair to claim that it was an ex
planatory addition of Irenaeus and Tertullian; for they use
it in all cases, and it was the common usage of the writers
of the East in their Creeds.
Zahn and Burn (p. 63) contend that it was dropped out
of the Creed, because of the improper use of it made by the
the modalist Monarchians.
The Monarchians maintained what is known as a
modal Trinity, affirming the unity and monarchy of
God, and that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit were

GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY 35
only modes of His manifestation. They were also
called Patripassians, because their opinion seemed to
involve the Father as suffering the passion of Christ.
They might say on the basis of the Old Roman Creed,
God the Father is one. There is only one God, who
is the Father. The Son of God cannot be another
God, for there is only one God. He cannot be a
different person from the Father, for the Father is
the only God; therefore the Son can only be the
Father in another mode of manifestation. The omis
sion of one, which could not have been ambiguous
when God the Almighty was used, but which became
ambiguous when Father was used, would not be a
yielding up of the doctrine of the unity of God, but
would be the removal of an apparent inconsistency
between that unity and the doctrine of the Trinity;
for while Father might be used as the title of the
one God, it was also used, and by Christians, more
commonly, of the first person of the Trinity as dis
tinguished from the second and third persons. It
became more and more necessary to emphasize this
in the Christological and Trinitarian conflicts of the
third and fourth centuries.
The phrase, Maker of heaven and earth, was not in
the Roman Creed of the fourth century, as is evident
from the creeds of Rufinus and Marcellus.
It is true that in the first form of Irenaeus we have: tbv
Tsitotrjufoa Tbv oipavbv xal tJ)v Tfrjv xal tdt? OaX&jaai; xal ic&VTa
•A sv afaois (Adv. Har., I, io, § i); and in the second
form, preserved only in Latin, we have: Fabricatorem casli
et term, et omnium qua in eis sunt (Adv. Hcer., Ill, 4,
§§ 1, 2). But in the third form he has: I? oi xi wivta. It

36 THE APOSTLES' CREED
is possible that Irenaeus is here, as in other articles, using
an Eastern form of the Creed, but it seems more likely that
he is enlarging the statement of the Creed in order to em
phasize the doctrine of creation implied therein. This is
certainly true of Tertullian, who, in his first form, uses mundi
conditorem (De Virg., i); in the second, attaches creation to
the Son : per quern omnia facta sunt, et sine quo factum est
nihil (Adv. Prax., 2); and, in the third form: nee alium
prater mundi conditorem, qui universa de nihilo produxerit,
per Verbum suum primo omnium demissum. It should be
evident from this that there was as yet no fixed formula as
to the creation. Only one of these forms resembles that of
the Creed, and this uses the participle for the noun, and is
much fuller in statement.
On the other hand, the earliest Oriental Creeds have the
doctrine of creation in various forms. The longer form of
Cyril (350) has xotr/rrjv oflpavou xal fr)z, 6pai:6jv zc lu&vrav xal
dtop&xtov, as it appears in the Constantinopolitan Creed
(381). The Nicene Creed of 325 has only luivcwv iporrfiv ib
xat ctop&Twv icoiyj^v. The later official text of the Apostles'
Creed, creatorem cxli et terra, does not appear in any purely
Gallican formula, that is, any west of Italy, before the
twelfth century; although the influence of the Nicene Creed
is often seen in such phrases as: omnium creaturarum visi-
bilium et invisibilium conditorem. However, the Psalterium
Latinum et Gracum Papa Gregorii (III, 731-741) contains
it, and so does the sermon of the Benedictine missionary of
the middle of the eighth century.
The opinion of Burn and Kattenbusch is, that it
may have come into the Roman Creed through the
influence of Niceta, the Bishop of Remesiana, in
Dacia, who had a great influence in Rome in the
early fifth century. He wrote an exposition of the
Creed, which has been wrongly attributed to Nice-
tas of Aquileia, entitled Explanatio Symboli (Burn,
p. 254). Niceta used the Catecheses of Cyril of
Jerusalem, and the phrase seems to have come from
Cyril's Creed. The phrase was taken from that

GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY 37
Creed into the Constantinopolitan. Naturally the
same influence would take it into the Roman Creed
at about the same time, at the beginning of the fifth
century, after Rufinus and Marcellus had passed from
history. It is, indeed, an Old Testament formula, derived
from the Sabbath section of the Ten Words, and
contained in the formula of prayer, Acts 4M.
This phrase seems to have become common in the
ritual of public prayer, as a formula of invocation
or ascription.
The interpretation of this article of the Creed un
doubtedly varies from time to time, as that which is
implicit is made explicit in interpretation and appli
cation to special times and circumstances.
Not only all the Biblical doctrine of God in the
Old Testament and the New may be considered in
the basis of the credal statement, but also all legiti
mate consequences of these doctrines, as determined
by the Church in its historical formularies and Con
fessions of Faith. This is the variable element. The
fixed element is, that which the article meant to its
authors as an explicit summary of the Biblical Faith.

CHAPTER III
JESUS CHRIST, SON OF GOD, OUR LORD
The second article of the Creed expresses faith in
Jesus as the Messiah of the Old Testament, and as
the Son of God, and Lord God of the New Testament.
I have already given reasons for the opinion that
the original form of this article corresponded with
the symbol of the fish.
Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour.
It is improbable that these two formulae, that of
the Creed and that of the Fish, identical in meaning,
should be different in form, when they both were se
cret symbols; for the memory, especially of untrained
people, would have been confused by even slight
verbal differences. The Saviour was omitted when
the salvation was described in the subordinate arti
cles that follow, and the more comprehensive our
Lord was put in its place. All this is simply the
putting together of the most characteristic titles of
Jesus ascribed to Him in the New Testament. The
fundamental confession of Faith is that of St. Peter,
the spokesman of the Apostles. This is given in the
four Gospels; in the simplest and original form:
Thou art the Messiah (Mark 829).
The Book of Acts and the Epistles have a large
number of passages which clearly show that salva
tion in apostolic preaching depended simply upon
38

JESUS CHRIST, SON OF GOD, OUR LORD 39
believing that Jesus was the Messiah, or Son of God,
or Lord, or Saviour (Acts 236-38, 531, 837, 920, 1631,
I Cor. 123, Rom. io9"10, I John 416, 51' 5). These
terms all came into the Creed.
(1) - Jesus Christ.
There is a difference of opinion among scholars as
to the order of Jesus and Christ. The weight of
evidence for the second century is Jesus Christ, and
when that is added to the order of words in the
Symbol of the Fish there should be little doubt that
this was the original order, especially as it is the
usage that prevails in the Book of Acts and the
Apostolic Fathers. It is also most natural that the
three predicates of Jesus should all follow Jesus, un
less Christ had become a proper name.
The name Jesus was the proper name of Jesus of
Nazareth, given Him at His birth, according to Luke
221, in fulfilment of the words of the angel of the an
nunciation, Luke I31, and especially Mt. I21, where it is
explained : "for it is He that shall save His people from
their sins." It doubtless, therefore, had wrapped up
in it the meaning of Saviour: but in fact it is used in
the New Testament and subsequently as a proper
name; and, when it is necessary to emphasize and
distinguish the Lord Jesus from others of the same
name, He is called Jesus of Nazareth.
The term Christ is a transliteration of ^/moto's, a
Greek translation of the Hebrew rr»tJ>D, Messiah. At
first it is used with reference to Jesus with the defi
nite article, as in the Gospels, the Messiah; then later,
in accordance with the well-known law that by famil-

40 THE APOSTLES' CREED
iar usage nouns become sufficiently definite in them
selves, the article was omitted; and finally it became
practically a secondary proper name, attached or pre
fixed to Jesus. The Latin Versions do not translate
Xpurrfc, but simply transliterate it — Christus; and
all modern languages follow the same usage. But
in this way its meaning was soon lost except to
scholars; and it became, and is now usually treated,
as a proper name. The modern Versions greatly err
in this particular. It would be better to use the He
brew term, which indicates that Jesus is just the Mes
siah of the Old Testament, the expected Saviour of
Jewish anticipation.1
There can be no doubt that the first and funda
mental conception of the early Christians was that
Jesus was the Messiah. They were a Messianic com
munity, which is precisely the same as a Christian
community; and so they were first called Christians
at Antioch, because they were there distinguished
from the Jews as holding to Jesus the Messiah, the
Christ (Acts II26).
Messiah means properly one anointed by religious
ceremony to a holy office, whether king, priest, or
prophet. It came to be attached in Jewish usage to
the one predicted by the Old Testament prophets,
usually as a son of David, but sometimes also as a
prophet. Both of these ideas came out in the New
Testament, in the passage already given, where St.
Peter makes his confession (Mt. i613-16).
1 V. Briggs, Messianic Prophecy; Messiah of the Gospels; and Messiah
of the Apostles.

JESUS CHRIST, SON OF GOD, OUR LORD 41
It is evident from the preaching of St. Peter in the
early chapters of Acts, and from the teaching of St.
Paul in his Epistles, that the apostolic preaching had
as its chief feature that Jesus was in fact the Messiah
of Prophecy, to whom all the Prophets and the Law
pointed; and that He either had fulfilled, or was
about to fulfil, all the ideals of the Old Testament.
There can be no doubt that the early Christians at
Rome, as elsewhere, when they said, 7 believe in Jesus
Christ meant that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah
of Old Testament prophecy.
(2) The second item in this clause of the Creed
was originally God's Son in accordance with the Sym
bol of the Fish. This was soon changed into Son of
God, the usual order of the words, and finally into
His Son, when Father came into the first article of
the Creed.
(a) The term Son of God was primarily a Messi
anic title, based on the use of the term both for Is
rael as a nation (Ex. 422-23, Dt. 32s seq.), and also for
the dynasty of David (II Sam. 711-16).1 In all prob
ability it is used in this sense in the recognition of
Jesus by the Father at His baptism (Mark i11).
So in the question of the high priest before the
Sanhedrim (Mt. 2663-64), when he put Jesus under
oath: "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou
tell us whether thou be the Messiah, the Son of God.
Jesus saith unto him: Thou hast said (it)."
(b) It is evident, however, that the term Son of
God, especially in the form, Son of the Father, is used
1 V. Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, pp. 101 seq., 127.

42 THE APOSTLES' CREED
in a higher, a theological sense, with the implication
of divinity.
So by Jesus Himself (Luke io22 = Mt. n27):
"All things have been delivered unto me of my Father:
And no one knoweth who the Son is, save the Father;
And who the Father is, save the Son,
And he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal (Him)."
Jesus represents in this logion that He was the
Son of His Father, God; that He was the only Son
of the Father; and that He was in possession of a
unique authority delivered unto Him by the Father,
and a unique knowledge of the Father; and that no
one could know the Father unless the Son revealed
the Father to him.1
In the Gospel of John, Jesus, in addressing God,
or speaking of God, says seventy-nine times the
Father, twenty-five times my Father, nine times
Father, and once the living Father; and in all these
passages the unique relation, already taught in the
Synoptists, is either presupposed and implied, or else
asserted in similar, or varied, or enhanced terms.2
The pre-existence of this Son, before He entered
this world, is implied in the logion given above,
but it is explicit in several passages of John. Jesus
says: "For I am come down from heaven (638); 7 am
from above — 7 am not of this world (823) ; Before Abra
ham was born, I am (858); 7 came out from the Father,
and am come into the world: again, I leave the world,
and go unto the Father" (i628).
1 V. Briggs, Incarnation of the Lord, pp. 33-34.
* V. Briggs, Incarnation, pp. 33, 34, 45.

JESUS CHRIST, SON OF GOD, OUR LORD 43
The Pauline Epistles plainly teach a pre-existence
of the Son of God before He came into this world.
This pre-existence is, moreover, definitely attached
to the term Son of God in Col. I13, an epistle written
from Rome by the apostle and therefore setting forth
his preaching to the Romans in his time. He here
mentions the Father and "the Son of His love," and
of the latter he says :
"In whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our
sins: who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all
creation: For in Him were all things created, in the heavens
and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers;
all things have been created through Him, and unto Him;
and He is before all things, and in Him all things consist"
(Col. i"-»).
So also in the Epistle to the Hebrews, an epistle
written also probably in the vicinity of Rome, not
much later, possibly by Barnabas, a similar state
ment is made:
"God . . . hath at the end of these days spoken unto us
in (His) Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through
whom also He made the worlds; who being the efFulgence
of His glory, and the very image of His substance, and up
holding all things by the word of His power, when He had
made purification of sins, sat down on the right hand of the
Majesty on high," etc. (Heb. i1"3).
It then goes on to apply to the Son passages of the
Old Testament, which definitely refer to Yahweh;
thus identifying Jesus with Yahweh.
It is quite the same with Mark and Luke, the
Gospels written especially for the Roman Christians,

44 THE APOSTLES' CREED
but subsequently to these Epistles, the one by the
assistant of Peter, the other by an assistant of Paul.
Thus Mark begins his Gospel:
" The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of
God" ; and he clearly represents the Son of God as the theo-
phanic angel of the covenant of Malachi, and as the Yahweh
of the Second Isaiah, when he says that these passages were
fulfilled in John the Baptist and Jesus. For he defines his
first statement, that Jesus was the Son of God, thus:
"Even as it is written in Isaiah the Prophet, Behold I
send my messenger before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy
way"; and
"The Voice of one crying in the wilderness,
Make ye ready the way of Yahweh,
Make His paths straight."
In so applying these passages of the Old Testa
ment, Mark makes John the Baptist the herald and
Jesus the Son of God, the theophanic angel and
Yahweh Himself.1 There should be no doubt, there
fore, that Son of God meant to the Roman Church,
taught by St. Peter and St. Paul, and using the Gos
pels of Mark and Luke as their Gospels, that the
Son of God was really and truly God.
It is not known when the phrase Son of God was
changed into His Son. The general opinion is that
it was the form of the Creed known to Tertullian,
who gives it thus in two of his three references
to the Creed. But Irenaeus favors the older form,
probably influenced, as Loofs maintains, by the
Creed of his native city in Asia. It certainly had
assumed that form long before the close of the fourth
• V. Briggs, Incarnation, pp. 175 seq.

JESUS CHRIST, SON OF GOD, OUR LORD 45
century. There was an irresistible tendency in that
direction, so soon as Father was introduced into the
first section of the Creed, and also because of the
influence of the baptismal formula, for it was impor
tant to define the Son of God as the Son of the Father
in the specifically Christian sense.
Implicitly this term contained the entire New Tes
tament doctrine of the divine sonship of Jesus, as the
term Christ the Old Testament doctrine of the Mes
siah. While the early Christians were gradually apT
propriating that teaching, especially before the New
Testament writings were all gathered into a canon,
interpretations of the phrase were quite possible
which were not altogether in accord with New Testa
ment teachings. Such interpretations were in fact
made in the various heretical sects which Catholic
Christianity threw off.
Harnack's interpretation of the Creed, and indeed of the
entire ancient Christology, is based on his peculiar theory
that primitive Christianity had two rival conceptions of
Christ, the one pneumatic, the other adoptionistic. The
pneumatic regarded Christ as a pre-existent Spirit, who be
came man. This, he thinks, was the view of the chief Apos
tolic Fathers, such as Barnabas, Clement, Ignatius, and Poly-
carp. The Adoptionists explained that Jesus was a man
chosen by God, in whom the divine Spirit dwelt, and who
was adopted by God as His Son at the baptism. This con
ception appears, Harnack thinks, in Hermas, the Roman
prophet, who conceived of the Spirit of Christ as the pre-
existent Son of God (Dogmengeschichte, I Theil, I, 36).
Loofs (P.R.E.3, IV, Christologie, s. 23) rightly chal
lenges this distinction of Harnack as impossible to carry out
in primitive Christianity, and as not productive of good re
sults. Indeed, the Adoptionists were also pneumatic, in that
they emphasized the divine Spirit dwelling in Christ. And
the term pneumatic does not distinguish between those who

46 THE APOSTLES' CREED
made a real distinction between the pre-existent Son and
God, and those who were simply Modalists. As usual, Har-
nack's distinctions are made for a purpose; and they are
used to throw into the background the doctrine of the real
ity of the divine sonship of Christ, as taught by St. Paul
and the Apostolic Fathers.
Kattenbusch (II, 577-8) thinks that there is some value
in the distinction; but objects to the term pneumatic, and
proposes the term nativistic, which brings the Biblical con
ception of the reality of the sonship of Christ again into prom
inence. He shows quite well how the Adoptionists would
develop their ideas out of the purely Messianic conception of
Jesus, thinking that at the baptism He was recognized by
God and taken possession of by the Spirit; and that at the
resurrection, in accordance with Rom. I4 seq., He was de
clared to be the Son of God by His endowment with divine
power. It is quite true that the Adoptionists get little, if
at all, beyond the Messianic conception of Jesus; whereas
the Apostolic Fathers build in the main upon St. Paul or
St. John, and think of the Son of God as truly divine, be
cause begotten by God as a pre-existent Son, a real sonship
and not merely one nominal, or ideal.

The Church at Rome was troubled in the second
and third centuries by heretical teachers, coming
chiefly from other parts, who in their doctrine of
Christ were essentially unitarian. These were named
Monarchians by Tertullian. He says: "They are
constantly throwing out the accusation that we
preach two gods, and three gods. . . . 'We hold,'
they say, 'the monarchy.'" x There were two anti
thetical kinds of these Monarchians, the dynamic and
the modalistic. The dynamic seem to have originated
in Asia Minor, in reaction against the Montanists.
As the latter built on the Gospel of John, these
opposed it, as written not by the Apostle but by
1 Adv. Prax., 3.

JESUS CHRIST, SON OF GOD, OUR LORD 47
Cerinthus, and were thus later called Alogi as op
ponents of the Logos. Theodotus, the currier, came
to Rome from Byzantium, and taught his doctrines.
He was excommunicated by Pope Victor (c. 195).
His chief disciple was another Theodotus, the money
changer, who taught that the divine Spirit was
greater than Jesus, because he not only inhabited
Jesus but also Melchizedek, and so his followers
were called Melchizedekians.
Harnack claims that he was in fact only reasserting the
views of Hermas (Similitudes, I and IX). He claims that
Hermas held that the divine Spirit and not Christ was the
pre-existent Son of God. This interpretation of Hermas is
false. F. Bauer and others held that Hermas identified
Christ with the divine Spirit. This seems likely, if we look
only at Sim., 56 and 91; but, as Dorner clearly showed in
his great work on The History of the Doctrine of the Person
of Christ (I, s. 192 seq!), Jesus Christ is, in 912"17, the Son of
God, and the Spirit identified with the Son in S6, 91, is not
the Third Person of the Trinity, but the Spirit of Christ,,
as in the II Epistle to the Corinthians; and that is clear from
the fact that He is represented as having created the whole
creation, and as having cleansed sins; which are attributes of
the Second Person of the Trinity and not of the Third.
Another representative of this school, Artemon, ap
peared in Rome (c. 230-240), and came into conflict
with Pope Zephyrinus.1 We shall meet a stronger
representative of this school later on in Paul of Sa-
mosata, Bishop of Antioch (c. 262).
The Modalists were much more powerful and in
fluential, as they were not only concerned to main
tain the unity of God, but also the divinity of Jesus
Christ. According to Tertullian, Praxeas was the
1 Eusebius, H. E., V, 28.

48 THE APOSTLES' CREED
first to import this heresy into Rome: "He drove
out the Paraclete and crucified the Father." 1 They
were called Patripassians, because they made Fa
ther, Son, and Spirit only different modes of man
ifestation of the one God. And so it was the Father
who suffered in the Son. Praxeas was at first re
ceived with favor at Rome by Victor, doubtless be
cause of his conflict with Theodotus before the seri
ous character of his views became apparent. Later
Noetus was influential at Rome through his follow
ers Epigonus and Cleomenes, and they were also fa
vored by Popes Zephyrinus and Callistus for sim
ilar reasons. This brought about a schism in the
Roman Church, in which Hippolytus contended for
the Christology of the Gospel of John against the
Modalists.2 The Modalists attained their height in Sabellius,
who worked at Rome at the beginning of the third
century, and whose name is attached to the heresy
of Sabellianism. According to this theory, there is
one God, who first manifests Himself as Father, then
becomes incarnate in the Son, then lastly comes as
the Holy Spirit to the Church.
The Roman Creed of the middle of the second
century was made before these heresies appeared to
trouble the Church. The term Son of God could be
interpreted by them in accordance with these views,
especially if they rejected the Gospel of John, and
minimized the teaching of the Synoptic Gospels and
the Pauline Epistles. But the Church of Rome
' Mv. Prax., I. 2 &./. Qmn. Hair., io".

JESUS CHRIST, SON OF GOD, OUR LORD 49
and all Christian Churches interpreted the Creed as
merely the summary of the Sacred Scriptures, to
which they adhered as the Word of God and Christ.
The change of Son of God to His Son, that is the Fa
ther's Son, in accordance with the usage of Tertullian,
would not suit the Monarchians so well. For it
might be said, that the One God appeared first as Fa
ther, then as Son, etc.; but it would not be easy to
say that, when the Son was declared to be the Son of
the Father.
(c) In the Creed of the middle of the fourth cen
tury the term the only begotten, tov /wvoyevfj, ap
pears in Marcellus and Rufinus. But it is not found
in Irenaeus or Tertullian, when they refer to the Rule
of Faith, though they use the term in conflict with
heresies. It seems that they would have used it,
therefore, in referring to the Rule of Faith, if it had
been there in their time. So also it is absent from
the Creeds of Novatian, Faustus, and even Niceta.

It is suggested by Swete that the Catholic writers did
not use it, because it had been appropriated by the Val
entinian Gnostics for their aon, vous. This seems to be
unjustified, because Irenaeus and Tertullian do use it in con
troversy, though not in citing the Creed. Burn and Kat-
tenbusch think it was in the original text of the Creed. I
agree with Zahn and McGifFert that it was not in the orig
inal Creed; but I think, with Zahn, that it was added about
the same time that 2va was omitted from the first article,
in order to exclude and overcome the heresies of the Modal
ists. The term novoYevr/s is a term derived from the Gospel of
John (l14):<!)S jiovoTfevou? icapi icaTp6s; (and I18): (lovofsvf)? 8661;
(W. H., Hort, Harnack, Plummer), or 6 (lovo-yev^s ul6? (usual
text, R. V.; cf. 316-18, I John 4').

50 THE APOSTLES' CREED
The Latin translation, unicus, doubtless was designed to
have the same meaning as u-ovorevif)?, but in fact it is weaker;
the more accurate rendering would be unigenitus.
This designation of the Son as the only begotten,
not only emphasizes His uniqueness as the only Son,
but also emphasizes the fact that He was a begotten
Son, and therefore not an adopted Son, or a manifes
tation of God as Son. It excludes both kinds of
Monarchianism. It represents that Jesus, the Mes
siah, was the Son of God in the highest sense as be
gotten, as having therefore the same nature, being,
substance as the Father who begat Him. Doubtless
the influence of the Eastern Creeds, the Johannine
writings, and the theology of the Logos is at the
basis of the insertion of this term in the Creed.
(3) Our Lord was in the Creed cited in the
middle of the fourth century. Was it in the Roman
Creed of the second century? This is affirmed by
all of the chief writers on the Creed except Mc
Giffert. McGifFert bases himself upon its omission in the refer
ences to the Rule of Faith in Irenaeus and Tertullian. How
ever, Irenaeus does give the words in his third form: tov
xuptov tul&v St' ou ti icavza (Adv. Har., IV, 33'). It is evi
dent that I Cor. 86 is in the mind of Irenaeus here, from his
use of St' o5 t4 u4vc<z; and the question is, whether the words
of the Creed suggested the passage, or the passage was used
as an addition to the first article of the Creed. It is note
worthy that in the first article eg oi t* iritvra is added to eva
6ebv lucwoxp&Topa. Is not, therefore, St' ou t4 itavra added in
precisely the same way? A reference to the passage seems
to verify it, for in the two clauses we have: el? 8eb? & rorrijp,
15 o5 Ti xdvrot, el? x.6pto? 'It)(jcu? Xptox6?, St' ou tA to4vt«. If
Irenaeus followed the passage, he would use el? xipto?, and

JESUS CHRIST, SON OF GOD, OUR LORD 51
not tbv xuptov -f]u.(av. He follows the Creed in both clauses,
simply adding the doctrine of creation to each, in accordance
with the original passage.
That which influences me very strongly in favor
of the originality of our Lord in the Creed, with ref
erence to Jesus Christ, is that this is the usage of
the New Testament writers and of writers of the
second Christian century. In Latin writers under
the influence of Augustine (f 430) and his emphasis
upon the sovereignty of God, Lord is seldom used
for Jesus Christ, but usually refers to God the
Father. I do not see what motive could have in
duced its insertion into the Creed later than the
second century. Furthermore, Lord is in all the ear
liest Eastern Creeds.
The term Lord is an indefinite term in itself, and
has many variations of meaning, from Sir, a form
of polite address, to a name of God.
(a) It is used in the Gospels in addressing Jesus,
where it means nothing more than Sir, a form of
polite address.
(b) It is also used for all those in authority,
whether rabbis, masters of estates, priests, or kings.
Naturally therefore it would be, like Son of God,
another title for Messiah, based on Psalm no, quoted
by Jesus in controversy with the Pharisees (Mt.
2241 seq.)
It might then be held that, in some of the pas
sages of the preaching of the Apostles, Lord was an
other term of Messianic dignity. It is evident, how
ever, that Lord, in the usage of the Apostles, has a

52 THE APOSTLES' CREED
much higher sense; for in fact the use of Lord as a
divine name disappears from the Epistles, and usu
ally from the Christian writers of the early Church,
except in citations from the Old Testament for God
and when used of Jesus alone. It is difficult for us
to appreciate this, even when we know that the Hel
lenistic Jews always addressed God and spoke of Him
as KvpuK, and the Palestinian Jews as WS., both
meaning lord. This sudden change of usage can only
be explained by the fact that Jesus Christ became
to the Apostles Lord in the sense that He was also
their God. The confession of Thomas (John 2028) is
doubtless given from the point of view of a writer
at the close of the first century; but in fact, when he
is represented as saying, "My Lord and my God,"
he is only saying what St. Paul and all of the Apos
tles would most certainly have said, soon after the
resurrection of Jesus.
Kattenbusch is quite correct in regarding the term
our Lord as Pauline in origin.1 So his usual saluta
tion was: "Grace to you and peace foomGod our Fa
ther and the Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. I7, 1 Cor. I3, II
Cor. I2, Gal. I3, Eph. I2, Phil. I2, Phile.3).
I cannot go so far as Kattenbusch, in the signifi
cance he gives to I Cor. 86-6, as basal for the Creed;
and yet the significance is very great with reference
to the meaning of the Lordship of Christ:
"For though there be that are called gods, whether in
heaven or on earth; as there are gods many, and lords
1 Cf. Rom. 5«-a 6» 8» is30, I Cor. i6» II Cor. i3» Gal. 6» Eph.

JESUS CHRIST, SON OF GOD, OUR LORD 53
many; yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all
things, and we unto Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through
whom are all things, and we through Him."
This passage clearly associates Jesus Christ with
the Father as Creator of all, as truly as does the
prologue of the Gospel of John. Phil. 25"11 gives the
same exalted conception of the Lordship of Christ:
"Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
who, being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be
on an equality with God, but emptied Himself. . . . Where
fore also God highly exalted Him, and gave unto Him the
name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus
every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on
earth and things under the earth; and that every tongue
should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God
the Father."
Here Jesus Christ is distinctly represented as pre-
existent in glory, equal with God in rank, and in the
form of God in His state. After His humiliation
comes exaltation, in which He is the object of universal
worship as Lord. The very fact that this requires the
confession of Him as Lord, would seem to require
some such confession in the Creed of the Church.
These three terms used for Jesus thus advance
toward a climax. He is believed in :
(i) As the Christ, the Messiah of the Old Testa
ment prophets;
(2) As the Son of God, the only begotten, pre-existent
Son of the Father of the New Testament revelation;
(3) As the Lord, God, the revealer of the Father,
both as the Yahweh of the Old Testament and the
supreme Lord of the New Testament.

CHAPTER IV
SAVIOUR
The term "Saviour" of the Symbol of the Fish,
and presumably in a very early form of the second
article of the Creed, was explained in six following
articles by six successive saving acts of the Son of
God. Articles III- VIII of the Apostles' Creed re
ceived minor modifications, as we have seen, in its
historic use; but these six articles were all without
doubt in the Creed at the middle of the second cen
tury. It is altogether probable that they all came
into the Creed at the same time; for it is difficult to
see how any early Christian, who undertook to give
a full statement of the redemptive acts of Jesus, could
have omitted any one of them. It is quite true that
one finds in the New Testament and Christian writers
of the second century, not infrequently, two or more
of them, and seldom the entire six in any one state
ment: but the reason is that the writers do not
attempt in these passages to give a credal statement,
or a complete statement of the elements of the Chris
tian Faith; but only use such of these terms as were
appropriate to their purpose at the time.
Irenaeus, in his great work, Against Heresies, gives
us, as we have seen, no less than three forms of the
Christian Faith, the fullest in Adv. Hcer., I, io (v. p.
io). He mentions (i) the birth from a Virgin, (2)
54

SAVIOUR 55
and the passion, (3) and the resurrection from the dead,
(4) and the ascension into heaven in the flesh, (6) and
His parousia or appearance from heaven in the glory
of the Father. The only one omitted is (5), the ses
sion at the right hand of the Father, and that is
implied between the ascension and the second ad
vent, as usually in the New Testament.
Justin Martyr was born in Samaria. He was in
Ephesus (135), where he came into conflict with the
Jew Trypho. He went to Rome, where he became
a teacher. He wrote his Apology in 150-3, and in
155-160 his Dialogue with Trypho. Justin received
his Christianity from the second generation, the con
verts of the Apostles. He was also familiar with
the Christianity of Asia and of Rome. It is not
certain that he knew the Old Roman Symbol, or
knew of one at Ephesus. And yet his terminology,
less so than that of Irenaeus but still sufficiently, sug
gests such symbols; and he mentions in his writings
the six saving acts.
In his Apology he says: "As many as are persuaded, and
believe, that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to
be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to
entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that
are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are
brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in
the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated.
For in the name of God, the Father, and Lord of the universe,
and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they
then receive the washing of water" (61).
The candidates for baptism were thus taught the
Christian Faith; and only after they professed their

56 THE APOSTLES' CREED
faith were they baptized by the triune formula. It
is evident that they were taught what Irenaeus and
Justin themselves had received as the Christian Faith
from the successors of the Apostles; and that could
have been no other than the six successive acts of
salvation of Jesus Christ the Saviour. Justin gives
i, 2, 3, 4 together thrice in the same order;1 and the
remaining two, 5, 6, are clearly taught elsewhere.
Indeed, the emphasis upon the two advents of Jesus;
the first and the second, is characteristic of the
Dialogue with Trypho, and the second advent is dis
cussed earlier and again later in this writing.
Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch in the first decade
of the second century. Undoubtedly he was him
self a disciple of the Apostles. He wrote his epis
tles on his way to martyrdom at Rome, in the sec
ond decade of the second century. There can be no
doubt that he mentions every one of these six
saving acts of Christ as an essential Christian
doctrine in his epistles; only 1, 2, 3 in order.2
We may now go back to the New Testament itself.
St. Peter in his preaching emphasized the resurrec
tion of Christ, but also 2, 4, 5, 6, all but the Virgin
Birth, which was omitted for valid reasons to be
given later (Acts i21"22, 222 "*-, 313 «*-, 410-12, 520-21. so-™;
v. p. 67). St. Paul also regarded the resurrection
as the fundamental principle of his teaching (I Cor.
151 "*¦); but all of the six saving acts of Christ stand
out prominently in his Epistles except the Virgin
Birth, for which, however, other terms are used (v.
1 Apology, 21, 46; Dialogue with Trypho, 63.
2 V. Ep. Smyr., 1.

SAVIOUR 57
p. 72). AH of them are not given in any one pas
sage. But there are several groups: 2, 3 (Rom. 64 seq-,
I Cor. 153-4); 1, 2, 4, 5 (Phil. 25^); cf. I Tim. 316
for a credal hymn. In the writings ascribed to St.
John the doctrine of the Incarnation became most
prominent; but the other saving acts are given either
explicitly, or implicitly, though not combined in any
single statement. The same is true of other New
Testament writings.
There is no indication of a form of Creed in the
New Testament, and probably none was formulated
until after the death of the Apostles, when a simple
Creed with the three Trinitarian Articles arose out
of the baptismal formula and the requisition for
Baptism. But the great doctrine of Faith in Christ
and His salvation was so clear and distinct, that
there could be no doubt what the specifications of
salvation would be, so soon as any attempt was made
to formulate them. If we consider the preaching of
the Apostles from the beginning, and look at the
Christian writers of the early second century, we
get this and no other result, as we find it in the
Creed. The Incarnation implies all the others: for the
entrance of the Son of God into the world implies
His return to the Father, and the work of salvation
for which He came into the world, the death and
the resurrection. The first advent implies a second,
if indeed He was the Messiah of Prophecy. The res
urrection also implies all the other saving acts. Res
urrection, in the usage of Paul, often stands for the

58 THE APOSTLES' CREED
whole transfer from the grave to the throne. The
enthronement is for the purpose of the reign and the
second advent for judgment, in all New Testament
teaching. The resurrection implies the death of the
man Jesus Christ, and that, of course, His birth into
the world.
These then are the six successive redemptive acts
or states of Jesus, the Son of God, the Messiah :
(i) Born of Mary the Virgin,
(2) Crucified under Pontius Pilate,
(3) On the third day risen from the dead,
(4) Ascended into the heavens,
(5) Seated on the right hand of the Father,
(6) Thence He shall come to judge the living and the
dead.

CHAPTER V
BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY
The Third Article of the Creed originally expressed
faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as born of
Mary the Virgin. This implied a divine agency in
His conception, which was subsequently expressed
by the addition of the phrase conceived by the
Holy Spirit.
The Creed of the eighth century was: conceived of
the Holy Spirit, born of Mary the Virgin; that of the
fourth century: born of the Holy Spirit and Mary
the Virgin; that of the second century simply: born
of Mary the Virgin.
This is evident from Tertullian's first form: natum
ex Virgine Maria (De Virginibus Vel., I).
In his second form (Adv. Prax., 2) he has enlarged
the statement thus: Hunc mis sum a Patre in vir-
ginem, et ex ea natum, hominem et Deum, filium ho
minis et filium Dei. Here the birth of the Virgin is
stated; but also that God, the Son of God, was sent
by the Father into the Virgin to be born of her; and
so, though the word conception is not used, the mean
ing is clear: that when Mary conceived, she conceived
as a virgin, without sexual intercourse; that what
she conceived was God as well as man, the Son of
God, who, Himself, sent by the Father, entered her
womb to be born. 59

60 THE APOSTLES' CREED
In his third form (De Prcescript. Hcer., 13) this is
still further enlarged upon: postremo delatum, ex
Spiritu Patris Dei et Virtute, in Virginem Mariam,
carnem factum in utero eius, et ex ea natum.
Here the Son of God was not only sent down of the
Father into the womb of Mary the Virgin; but was
made flesh there by the agency of the Spirit and
power of God. Undoubtedly, Tertullian is here in
terpreting the Rule of Faith, which, he says in these
passages, "has come down from the beginning of
the Gospel, even before any of the older heretics,
much more before Praxeas of yesterday." There can
be no doubt that at least the term, "born of the
Virgin Mary," was one of the clauses of that Rule
of Faith. Tertullian has much to say elsewhere
about the Virgin Birth, but we shall reserve that for
the present.
Irenaeus, in his first form (Adv. Har., I, io1), has
both rbv aapicatQevra virep Tr}? ¦ijp.eTepas a-cortipuv!, and
tt\v Ik irapdevov yevvrjo-iv. This is given as a state
ment of the Faith, which the Church "throughout
the whole world" has "received from the Apostles,"
and believes with "one soul."
In his second form he has (Adv. Hcer., Ill, 4s):
"who sustained the birth by the Virgin, Himself,
uniting man to God through Himself."
In his third form (Adv. Hcer., IV, 337) we have
simply: "the Son of God became man."
Thus Irenaeus does not, in either of these passages,
refer to the work of the Holy Spirit; but, besides
the birth of the Virgin, he speaks of the Son of God

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 61
being made flesh, and becoming man, and uniting man
to God.
It is evident therefore that Irenaeus, like Tertul
lian, knows of the formula, born of the Virgin Mary,
but shows no knowledge of the formula, conceived
of the Holy Ghost. In his explanation of the formula,
he follows rather the Gospel of John, and the forms
of the earliest Eastern Creeds, in his terms, made
flesh and becoming man, and in giving the purpose,
for our salvation. Irenaeus also makes much of the
Virgin Birth, in conflict with the heretics of his
time. We cannot make it any more than probable that
Justin used a definite Creed. It is, however, impor
tant to consider his views of the Virgin Birth, in
order to its interpretation; as he was contemporary
with the Creed of the middle second century.
In his Apology (21) he says: "When we say also
that the Word, who is the first-born of God, was
produced without sexual union. . . ." He here makes
it evident that he conceives of Jesus Christ as the
pre-existing Word of God, the first-born of God,
who was produced in this world of a virgin, without
sexual union with Joseph, or any other man. Jus
tin goes on to say:
"If we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a
peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this,
as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say
that Mercury is the angelic word of God. . . . And if we
even affirm that he was born of a virgin, accept this in com
mon with what you accept of Perseus" (22). He goes on to
argue that the Virgin Birth was predicted by Isaiah 7X4.

62 THE APOSTLES' CREED
"This, then, 'Behold a virgin shall conceive,' signifies that
a virgin should conceive, without intercourse. For if she
had had intercourse with any one whatever, she was no
longer a virgin: but the power of God having come upon the
Virgin, overshadowed her and caused her, while yet a vir
gin, to conceive. ... It is wrong therefore to understand
the Spirit and power of God as anything else than the Word,
who is also the first-born of God— and it was this which,
when it came upon the Virgin, overshadowed her, caused
her to conceive, not by intercourse, but by power" (33).
In his Dialogue with Trypho, which is put back in Ephe
sus before Justin came to Rome, therefore about 135, he
says: "Now it is evident to all that, in the race of Abraham,
according to the flesh, no one has been born of a virgin, or is
said to have been born, save this our Christ" (43, cf. also 66).
"This Christ, Son of God, who was before the morning stars
and the moon, and submitted to become incarnate and to
be born of this virgin of the family of David, etc." (45).
"Trypho said: 'You endeavor to prove an incredible and
wellnigh impossible thing, that God endured to be born
and become man.'" Justin says: "If I undertook to prove
this by doctrines and arguments of men, you should not
bear with me. But if I quote frequently Scriptures, and so
many of them, referring to the point, and ask you to com
prehend them, you are hard-hearted in the recognition of
the mind and will of God" (68).
"But that which is truly a sign and which was to be
made trustworthy to mankind, namely, that the first-be
gotten of all creation should become incarnate by a virgin's
womb, and be a child — this he (Isaiah 7) anticipated by the
spirit of prophecy, and predicted it, as I have often repeated
to you in various ways" (84).
"We know Him to be the first-begotten of God, and to
be before all creatures; likewise to be the son of the patri
archs, since He assumed flesh by the virgin of their family
and submitted to become a man." "And He became man
by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience, which pro
ceeded from the serpent, might receive its destruction, in the
same manner in which it derived its origin" (100). "For
I have proved that it was Jesus, who appeared to and con
versed with Moses, and Abraham, and all the patriarchs
without exception, ministering to the will of the Father;
who also, I say, came to be born man by the Virgin Mary,
and lives forever" (113).

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 63
These passages, which might be multiplied from
contemporary literature, make it evident that the
phrase, born of Mary the Virgin, cannot be weakened
into a mere assertion of the reality of the birth of
Jesus of a particular historic woman named Mary,
over against Marcion.
It is very strange that Dr. McGifFert can say: "'Born of
Mary the Virgin' . . . shows that the author wished simply
to identify her" (p. 125). For that purpose it might have
been said : Mary of Nazareth, or Mary the wife of Joseph, or
simply Mary, as does Ignatius in one passage. The phrase
Mary the Virgin, identifies Mary by the definite article as
the well-known Virgin, the Virgin of the Gospels; and implies
the virginity stated in those Gospels. It is, indeed, quite
probable that it means even more than that: namely, the
perpetual virginity of Mary, as the Roman Church has held
from the beginning.
It is difficult to see how any one can read in
succession Justin against Trypho, Irenaeus against
Heresies, Hippolytus's Refutation of all Heresies, and
Tertullian's De came Christi, writings that cover the
whole period from the third decade of the second
century to the same decade of the third century,
overlapping one another in linked succession, with
out observing that the most essential point in the
argument against Jew and heretic, during all that
period, was just the Virgin Birth of our Lord.
The Jews did not assert that Joseph was the father of
Jesus; but that His father was a soldier named Pandera,
and that Jesus was born of fornication. Cf. Origen c.
Celsus, I, 28. But it is evident that the story is a slander,
and that the name Pandera, or Pantherus, tmio p, of the
Talmud, (Levy, Chald. Worterbuch, 272), is only a forma
tion from the Greek icocpBevo?, virgin, and so Ben Parthena
is the Virgin's Son.

64 THE APOSTLES' CREED
The only Christians that denied the virgin birth
were Ebionites, who held that Jesus was only a man,
and Gnostics, who distinguished between the man,
born Jesus, and the Christ, that descended upon
him, and took possession of him subsequently. And
it was just this conflict with Jews and Ebionites which
was the earliest battle Christianity had to fight.
The argument of Justin with Trypho carries us to
Ephesus, in the third decade of the second century,
and to the cities of Asia Minor, where Polycarp, Pa-
pias, and the elders who were taught by the Apostles
were still living; and shows us clearly what were the
points of controversy between Jews and Christians
at that time: and an essential question in dispute
was just the Virgin Birth; for upon that depended
whether Jesus was simply a man, or really divine as
Justin argues. Undoubtedly the same conflict be
tween Jews and Christians was constantly going on
in Rome; and it is therefore altogether improbable
that the Roman Creed, in mentioning the birth of
Mary the Virgin, could have failed to convey the
Christian idea of Luke's, the Roman, Gospel, and
of Justin, who taught in Rome against the Jews
and Gnostics just about the time to which we can
trace the Old Roman Creed in Literature.
It is quite true that the Apostolic Fathers, with
the exception of Ignatius, do not mention the Virgin
Birth; but this is no more remarkable than its omis
sion from the Pauline Epistles in the New Testament,
and was doubtless for similar reasons. But it is
mentioned very distinctly in Ignatius:

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 65
"For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived in
the womb by Mary, according to a dispensation, of
the seed of David, but also of the Holy Ghost"
(Ep. ad. Eph., 18).
This, indeed, is nearer to the Creed of the fourth
century than anything in Tertullian, Irenaeus, or
Justin. So also : "And hidden from the prince of this
world were the virginity of Mary, and her childbear-
ing, and likewise also the death of the Lord" (19).
Again: "Persuaded as touching our Lord, that He
is truly of the race of David according to the flesh,
but Son of God by the divine will and power, truly
born of a virgin, and baptized by John," etc. (Ep.
ad. Smyrn., 1).
This certainly was the faith of the Church of An
tioch at the beginning of the second century, a
church in which St. Peter and St. Paul had min
istered; and it is certain that Ignatius knew the
disciples of these Apostles, and doubtless some of the
first generation of Christians, who were still living in
Antioch and Asia, at the close of the first century.
There can be no doubt that the doctrine of the
Virgin Birth and the conception by the Holy Spirit,
is based upon the statements of the Gospel of Luke;
although Irenaeus and Justin undoubtedly refer to
Matthew, when they represent the Virgin Birth as in
fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah 7, as Matthew
does. This doctrine is absent from Mark, and the
Pauline Epistles, and even from later writings of the
New Testament, such as Hebrews and the Johan-

66 THE APOSTLES' CREED
nine writings. This entire situation must now be
considered :
It is evident that the Virgin Birth was not in
cluded in the preaching of St. Peter and his asso
ciates in the early days of the founding of the Church
in Jerusalem and Palestine. We have already noted
in that preaching the other five redemptive acts or
states of Christ. What does this silence mean ? The
argument from silence depends for its use, first, upon
the question whether the matter came fairly within
the scope of the author's argument; and, second, upon
whether a good reason may be assigned for its omis
sion.1 We cannot say that these early preachers
were bound to preach the doctrine of the Virgin
Birth. They were witnesses of the resurrection;
they testified to what they themselves had seen and
known, and the relation of these things to the Old
Testament Scriptures, in order to show that Jesus
was indeed the Messiah of the Old Testament. It
was not necessary to mention the Virgin Birth for
that purpose. Furthermore, there were good reasons
not to mention the Virgin Birth, even if these Apos
tles were aware of it at the time; because it was not
a doctrine suitable to proclaim in public in the first
days of Christianity. It was esoteric, for the Chris
tian community; not to be made public, and so ex
pose the Virgin during her lifetime, and the early
Christians, to the blasphemous calumny which did
arise so soon as the doctrine of the Virgin Birth was
1 V. Briggs, General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture,
pp. 307 seq.

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 67
made public; and which, as any prudent man could
see, was certain to arise. I do not insist here that
the Apostles at that time knew of the Virgin Birth;
but I do say that, if they knew it, they would not
have publicly proclaimed it; but would have retained
it for esoteric teaching, on the same principle on
which Jesus acted, when He refrained from declar
ing His Messiahship till late in His ministry, and
even then commanded the Twelve to keep this
knowledge to themselves.1
The Gospel of Mark, the earliest Gospel, the Gos
pel of St. Peter, very naturally represents this situa
tion. It limits itself to the testimony of St. Peter
and to the Galilean ministry, and knows but little
of Perean, Samaritan, or Jerusalem ministries of
Jesus; and it has nothing to say of Jesus before His
baptism. What does this silence mean?
Does it mean that Mark knew nothing whatever
of the early life of Jesus before His baptism, or that
St. Peter knew nothing of it? That is incredible,
when one considers that Mark was a native of Je
rusalem, acquainted with Mary the Virgin and the
Twelve, and an especial assistant of St. Peter. The
early Christians were accustomed to assemble at the
house of Mary, the mother of Mark, in Jerusalem,
in the time of the persecution of Herod; and St.
Peter, when he escaped from prison, went immedi
ately there (Acts 1212).
It is not possible that Peter could have been al
together ignorant of the birth and early life of Jesus,
> Briggs, New Light on the Life of Jesus, pp. 91 seq.

68 THE APOSTLES' CREED
for he was a Galilean, familiarly acquainted with
Mary the Virgin, during Jesus' entire ministry and
subsequently to His resurrection, also with His near
relatives James and Jude; and he had several times
with Jesus visited Nazareth. Why then this silence
as to the birth of Jesus ? Why does Mark say noth
ing whatever about His birth and early life? May
there not have been a good reason for it? May this
not have been simply because he could not write of
the birth of Jesus without considering the nature of
His birth, which he could not do without saying
more about this great mystery than it was prudent
to say at the time ? He who, at the beginning of his
Gospel, makes Jesus Christ the Son of God, fulfilling
the prediction of Malachi as to the theophanic angel
of Yahweh and of Isaiah as to the advent of Yah
weh Himself, if he wrote of that advent at all, must
have written of it as a divine advent, and not merely
as the birth of a man in the ordinary way. The ar
gument from silence does not favor his ignorance of
the Virgin Birth; and, while it does not directly favor
his knowledge of the Virgin Birth, it does favor the
opinion that he regarded the birth as a divine ad
vent of such a mysterious character that it was not
prudent at that time to write about it; and, if we
think of so much, is it not the most natural conclu
sion, that it was just the Virgin Birth that made
him reticent as to the birth altogether?
When now we turn to the Epistles of St. Paul, we
have to notice that the most of these were also writ-

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 69
ten in the early days of Christianity, prior to his
Roman imprisonment, the last of these the Epistle to
the Romans. When we compare these Epistles with
the Epistles of the Roman captivity, we see in the
former a reticence even as to the divinity of Christ,
which comes out by implication rather than direct
statement. If that is true of Christ's divinity, it
would be still more true of a virgin birth, if St. Paul
knew of it. He had battles enough on his hands,
without imprudently involving himself in a contest
with slanderers and blasphemers of Christ. St. Paul
is reticent also as to the birth and early life of Christ.
In his preaching in the Book of Acts, reported by
Luke, he is as silent as to the birth of Christ as was
St. Peter.
In his earliest Epistle, that to the Galatians, just
before the Council at Jerusalem, St. Paul proclaims
Jesus as the Messiah, the promised seed of Abra
ham. He says also: "When the fulness of the time
came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born
under the Law, that He might redeem them which
were under the Law, that we might receive the
adoption of sons" (44"5). He does not say, born of
a virgin, but born of a woman; and he does say,
God sent forth His Son to be born of a woman, just
as in the next clause he says, God sent forth the Spirit
of His Son into our hearts. And so the birth of Jesus
was not only of a woman, but a mission from God
the Father. And it is just this divine mission that
unfolds in the teaching of St. Paul.1
1 F. Briggs, Incarnation, pp. 63 seq.

70 THE APOSTLES' CREED
In I Corinthians he represents Jesus the Messiah
as pre-existing as the Spiritual Rock of Israel in the
wilderness (io1"4), as the original image after which
Adam was created (ii3 "»¦)> as the one Lord, through
whom all things were made (86).1
In chapter fifteen he makes an antithesis between
Adam as the first Adam, and Christ as the- second
Adam. "The first man Adam became a living soul; the last Adam
a life-giving spirit. Howbeit that is not first which is spir
itual, but that which is sensuous; then that which is spiritual.
The first man is of the earth earthy; the second man is of
heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy:
and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also
bear the image of the heavenly" (1546"49; v. Briggs, Messiah
of the Apostles, pp. 116 seq!).
There is a considerable difference of opinion among
scholars as to the question when the second Adam
became a life-giving spirit and of heaven. The gen
eral opinion refers it to the resurrection of Christ,
with the view that he was born with a sensuous,
earthy body, but rose from the dead with a spiritual,
heavenly body, with life-giving power. On the other
hand, Baur, Pfleiderer, Beyschlag, Schmiedel, et al.
think of the pre-existent ideal archetypal second
Adam, coming from heaven with a life-giving spirit;
and the late Principal Edwards simply refers it to
the Incarnation. The antithesis between the two
Adams certainly favors an antithesis of original
nature. * V. Briggs, Messiah of the Apostles, pp. 97 seq.

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 71
If this is so, then the second Adam was born into
this world from heaven, and was not simply a de
scendant of the first Adam. He also was possessed
from the beginning with a life-giving spirit, which
the first Adam had not, and which He brought with
Him from heaven. This is in accord with the teach
ing of the previous chapter of this Epistle, and of
St. Paul's teaching in Romans.
In the Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul represents
that Jesus Christ "was born of the seed of David ac
cording to the flesh," was "declared to be the Son of
God, with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by
the resurrection from the dead" (Rom. i 3"4).
Here we have the same antithesis as in I Cor. 1 5,
between the flesh, which He received as born of the
seed of David, and the spirit of holiness, which He
had as the Son of God. That spirit of holiness is the
same as the life-giving spirit of Corinthians.
It was latent during His earthly life, but declared
and made manifest at His resurrection.
This implies a divine activity in connection with
His birth, as well as a human connection with the
seed of David. This is still further evident from
Rom. 512 ses; where the antithesis is again drawn be
tween the first and the second Adam.1
All mankind are classed together as sharing in the
inheritance of sin and death. Jesus Christ stands
apart from the human race in this respect. He does
not share in this inheritance of sin and death. He,
on the other hand, is the second Adam, who by His
1 V. Messiah ofthe Apostles, pp. 151-2.

72 THE APOSTLES' CREED
righteous obedience to God constitutes a redeemed
race of mankind. He had, when He entered the
world, a spirit of holiness in antithesis with sinful
flesh. He had a life-giving spirit in antithesis with
a mortal nature. He had human nature, but a nature
which was entirely apart from the inheritance of sin
and death. This inheritance is not essential to hu
man nature; but is rather a corruption of human
nature, which Christ had as His mission to overcome.
Accordingly, St. Paul says: "What the Law could
not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God,
sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,
and (as an offering) for sin, condemned sin in the
flesh; that the ordinance of the Law might be ful
filled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after
the Spirit" (83"4). Jesus Christ had the flesh of
man, and His flesh was in the likeness of the flesh
of all other men; but He differed from all other men
in the quality of that flesh, which in all others was
sinful, but in Him alone was sinless and holy.
St. Paul does not, in these passages, teach a virgin
birth; but he does imply something different from
ordinary birth, and indeed such a unique birth that
it separates Jesus from the inheritance of sin and
death, which all mankind derive from Adam; and
this important particular distinguishes Him from
them. St. Paul says nothing of Mary and nothing of
Joseph. He is only concerned to show that Jesus
was the son of David, and son of Abraham; and
that, though He was also a son of Adam, He was

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY . 73
separate from Adam and all his race as a second
Adam, endowed with original life-giving power and
holiness, which was born with Him, not derived
from human ancestry, but original to Him when He
became the second Adam.
When now we turn to the Epistles of the Impris
onment we find a more advanced Christology.
According to Phil. 25"11 Christ, being in the form
of God, took the form of a servant; being on an equal
ity with God, He was made in the likeness of men,
and was found in fashion as a man.1 This clearly
implies that the pre-existing Son of God voluntarily
became man, as truly man as He had ever been God.
No attention is paid to the human side of His birth,
but only to the divine side. His birth into the world
was a coming of God into the world. He was a man
in form, in likeness and in fashion, and in reality as
well. And yet that which was prior to His human
ity, and which came with Him when He assumed
humanity, was infinitely more than His human nat
ure, for it was divine nature.
In the two Pastoral Epistles, written as to their
substance in the interval between the first and sec
ond imprisonments of Paul, and in the second Epis
tle to Timothy, written at Rome just before his
death (c. 65-67), St. Paul represents the entrance
of the Son of God into the world as an Epiphany,
in antithesis with His second advent, which is a
second Epiphany. This gives us the last writing of
St. Paul on this subject.
1 Briggs, Incarnation, pp. 107 seq.

74 THE APOSTLES' CREED
He represents that God "saved us, and called us
with a holy calling, not according to our works,
but according to His own purpose and grace, which
was given us in Christ Jesus before times eternal, but
hath now been manifested by the Epiphany of our
Saviour, Christ Jesus, who abolished death, and
brought life and incorruption to light through the
Gospel" (II Tim. i8"10).1
The statement that He abolished death and brought
life and incorruption to light, is here connected with
the Epiphany. We are reminded of the life-giving
spirit of Corinthians. The incorruption can only ap
ply to the flesh in which He was manifested (I Tim.
316). We are also reminded of St. Peter's words
(Acts 231), applying the sixteenth Psalm to the Res
urrection of Jesus : Nor did His flesh see corruption.
The Son of God, when He was manifested in the
flesh, manifested or brought to light an incorruptible
life. His flesh was human flesh. It was in the like
ness of sinful flesh, but it was not sinful flesh, and so
was not under the dominion of sin and death. So
His flesh was in the likeness of corruptible flesh, but
it was incorruptible.2
Thus St. Paul in his various Epistles, whilst he
lays stress upon the real humanity of Christ as Son
of David and of Abraham, yet at the same time makes
a sharp antithesis between Him, as the second Adam,
and the first Adam and all his race, not only in that
he makes Him divine as a pre-existing divine being,
•Briggs, Incarnation, pp. 127 seq.
* Briggs, Incarnation, pp. 141-2.

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 75
but also in that he makes Him as man possessed of
a nature with qualities altogether different from those
inherited by the sons of Adam: namely, sinless flesh,
incorruptible flesh, and a life-giving spirit of holiness.
These could not have been derived from His human
ancestry, either on their positive or on their nega
tive side. He could not fail to inherit sinfulness,
corruption, and death, unless there was something
more in His human origination than human genera
tion. He could not have possessed these antithet
ical qualities — holiness, incorruption, a life-giving
spirit — unless God Himself had imparted them to
His human nature. All this is implied in the teach
ing of St. Paul, though not definitely stated. No
other explanation of such an origin is known, except
that given in Luke's Gospel — conceived by the Holy
Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary. If St. Paul knew
it not, he was certainly very near it; and he implies
in his teaching something so near it and like it that
no one has ever been able to suggest anything in
substitution for it, that would not undermine and
destroy his entire theology.
We are now prepared to study the narrative of
St. Luke, and his statements as to the birth of our
Lord. We must consider, however, prior to this: (i)
that Luke was the "beloved physician" of St. Paul
in Rome, and that, as a disciple of St. Paul, he was
familiar with most, if not all, those Epistles of St.
Paul that we have studied, and certainly with that
most characteristic doctrine of St. Paul, the second

76 THE APOSTLES' CREED
Adam from heaven; and (2) that St. Luke says at
the beginning of his Gospel:
"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a
narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled
among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from
the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, it
seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things
accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most
excellent Theophilus; that thou mightest know the cer
tainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed."
Luke had before him (1) many written narratives.
(2) He had been instructed by St. Paul, and prob
ably also by St. Peter and others of those eye-wit
nesses and ministers of the word to whom he referred.
He had many oral sources for his statements. (3)
He had taken great pains: (a) to trace the course
of all things from the first; (b) to do this accurately;
(c) to write it in an orderly arrangement; (d) his
purpose was to give certainty, and accordingly not
to give doubtful, but only certain facts and truths.
St. Luke shows by his two writings, the Gospel and
Acts, by internal evidence from these writings, that
he succeeded in his purpose. He was a well-trained
man, a physician, and altogether competent for his
task. St. Luke's Gospel depends both on written and on
oral sources. The written sources were certainly:
(1) Mark's Gospel, upon which he chiefly depends
for the Galilean ministry and the story of the bap
tism and the passion; (2) the Logia of Matthew, upon
which he depends for the discourses of Jesus. Two
writings do not justify the term many. We must

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 77
therefore think of others. Some think of a written
source for the Perean ministry; but the events
therein mentioned are so meagre that this is doubt
ful. However, written sources are evident for the
story of the infancy and childhood of Jesus. For
this narrative is Hebraic in style. It consists of a
series of Canticles, connected by a prose narrative.
These Canticles have been used in the Christian
Church from the beginning, in public worship. They
are: (i) the Annunciation to Zacharias, (2) the Ave
Maria, (3) the Song of Elizabeth, (4) the Magnifi
cat, (5) the Benedictus, (6) the Gloria in Excelsis,
and (7) the Nunc Dimittis. These are real poems,
translated into Greek from a Hebrew original. They
are Hebrew poetry, all with measured trimeter lines
except the Benedictus, which seems to be pentameter,
and the longer pieces have strophical organization.
They evidently were not composed by Luke, but were
found by him in use in a Hebrew community, and
were translated, edited, and explained by him in his
Gospel.1 Therefore, as the Hebraic sources of the
Gospel, they must be much older than the Gospel.
The Gospel was written not long after the destruc
tion of Jerusalem, not later than 80 A. D., possibly
within a decade, not more than two decades, after
the martyrdom of St. Paul.
These Canticles, composed in Hebrew for a He
brew community, could hardly have been later than
70; and, if so, almost certainly before the troubles
began — not later than 66, when the war with Rome
1 Briggs, Messiah of the Gospels, pp. 41 seq.

78 THE APOSTLES' CREED
began, and doubtless earlier still: and so they cir
culated in the Palestinian community, while James
(f 60-62), the half-brother of our Lord, was bishop of
Jerusalem, or at least his successor Simeon, the son
of Cleopas, the brother-in-law of Mary the Virgin,
and therefore our Lord's cousin (f 107). These chiefs
of the Jewish-Christian community, of the immedi
ate family of Jesus, must be held responsible for these
Canticles and their use. It is incredible that Luke
could have used them without their knowledge or
consent; for he tells us that he made accurate inquiry,
and aimed not at probability but certainty.
Now it is just in one of these Canticles, the Ave
Maria, or Hail Mary, and its context, that the Vir
gin Birth is stated.
This is the narrative, with the Canticle embedded
in it: "Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from
God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin be
trothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of
David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And he came in
unto her, and said:
"Hail (Mary), thou that art endued with grace!
The Lord is with thee (thou that art blessed).
" But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and cast in
her mind what manner of salutation this might be. And
the angel said unto her:
"Fear not, Mary:
For thou hast found favor with God.
"And behold, thou shalt conceive [in thy womb, and
bring forth] a son;
And thou shalt call His name Jesus.

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 79
He shall be a great One;
And He shall be called the Son of the Most High.
" And the Lord [God] will give unto him
The throne of His father David;
And He will reign over the house of Jacob [forever],
And of His kingdom there shall be no end.
"And Mary said unto the angel: How shall this be, seeing
I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto
her: "The [Holy] Spirit shall come upon thee,
And the Power of the Most High shall overshadow
thee:
Wherefore [also] that holy thing that is to be born,
Shall be called the Son of God.
"And behold, Elizabeth, thy kinswoman,
She [also] hath conceived a son in her old age:
And this is the sixth month with her that was called
barren:
For no word from God shall be void of power.
" And Mary said (unto the angel) :
Behold, the handmaid of the Lord;
Be it unto me according to thy word.
And the angel departed from her."
I have enclosed in brackets words which seem to me to be
explanatory additions of Luke, and in parentheses words
which seem to have been omitted by Luke.
In this narrative there is first a prose introduction,
based on one or more couplets of the poem which
have not been used, followed by a couplet of annun
ciation: then a prose explanation of the fear of Mary,
which separates the following couplet, completing
the tetrastich, from the previous one. Then two
poetical tetrastichs follow. An explanatory prose
seam separates these from the two tetrastichs which

80 THE APOSTLES' CREED
complete the annunciation. The poem concludes
with a single tetrastich of submission on the part
of Mary.
We have seen that we cannot reasonably date the
origin of these Canticles, which Luke used in his
Gospel, later than 65; and that in that case Simeon,
Bishop of Jerusalem and first cousin of the Lord,
being the child of Cleopas and Mary, was responsible
for them. But James the brother of our Lord,
Bishop of Jerusalem, was put to death by the Jews
in 60-62; and the Christians were in great peril from
that time on, until they fled from Jerusalem to Pella,
before Jerusalem was besieged by the Romans. It
is altogether probable that these poems were com
posed in the more peaceful times prior to 60, and
that James the brother of our Lord was thus re
sponsible for them.
Luke was with St. Paul in Rome during his first
imprisonment, as we judge from the closing chapter
of Acts and from Col. 414; also during the second im
prisonment just before his death, according to II Tim.
411- If he was the author of the We source of Acts,
as is the general opinion of scholars, he was in An
tioch, Jerusalem, and Caesarea before the journey to
Rome. In my opinion Titus was the author of the We
source, and Luke first came in contact with St. Paul
in Rome. In any case he must have conversed with
St. Paul and also with St. Peter, and even with St.
Mark, during their stay in Rome: because he was
evidently in Rome when all these were there, and it

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 81
is incredible to suppose that he would not have con
ferred with them respecting such important matters
as the Virgin Birth of our Lord. It seems probable
that Luke journeyed to Palestine immediately after
the death of St. Paul to escape the terrible persecu
tion then begun by Nero. There is no historic trace
of him after II Tim. 411. We do not know where
he wrote his Gospel, or the exact year of it, but only
what he tells us of it himself in the preface, and
what can be learned from internal evidence, and the
use of the Gospel by others. It seems, however, to
have become the Roman Gospel, and not to have
had much use in the East before the end of the sec
ond century.
We must now turn to the Gospel of Matthew, for
it also has a narrative of the Infancy and of the Vir
gin Birth. The Gospel of Matthew was not written
by Matthew, but was attributed to the Apostle Mat
thew, because it was based on Matthew's Logia,
which gave it its most characteristic material. Mat
thew, like Luke, uses Mark for the narrative, es
pecially of the Galilean ministry. Matthew's story
of the infancy of Jesus is different from that of Luke,
apart from the Virgin Birth, which is essentially the
same. These stories of the infancy doubtless came
from sources not written but oral, with the excep
tion of that respecting the birth. That story in
Matthew has also a Hebraic poetic basis.
The story of Matthew is as follows:
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When
his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they

82 THE APOSTLES' CREED
came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not
willing to make her a public example, was minded to put
her away privily. But when he thought on these things,
behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream,
saying: " Joseph, thou son of David,
Fear not to take unto thee Mary [thy wife]:
For that which is begotten in her is of the [Holy]
Spirit.
And she [Mary] will bear a son:
And thou shalt call His name Jesus;
For He will save His people from their sins.
" Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,
' Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth
a son; and they shall call his name Immanuel; which is,
being interpreted, God with us.' And Joseph arose from
his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him,
and took unto him his wife; and knew her not till she had
brought forth a son: and he called his name Jesus."1
This narrative of the Virgin Birth is based on a
poem, containing the same facts as the poem at the
basis of Luke, although there is much less of it. But
the comment of the evangelist on the poem is much
more elaborate than that of Luke. It is from the
point of view of Joseph. It states his anxieties and
how they were relieved by the vision of the angel.
It also, in accordance with the method of this Gos
pel, makes the Virgin Birth a fulfilment of the proph
ecy of Isaiah (714). It then goes on to state that
Joseph did as he was commanded, and had no sex
ual connection with Mary prior to the birth of the
child; so that she remained in her virginity, at least
»Mt. 1 »«-». V. Briggs, Messiah of the Gospels, p. 47, and Messi
anic Prophecy, pp. 195 seq., for an interpretation of the Prophecy.

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 83
until the birth of Jesus. The little poetic extract is
here from the annunciation to Joseph; whereas that
given by Luke is from the annunciation to Mary.
Do these both belong to the same poem, or are they
extracts from different poems? If it were not for
these poetic extracts, it might be supposed that the
annunciation was the same, and that in one tradi
tion it was made to Mary and in the other to Joseph :
but with these poetic extracts at the basis of both
narratives that is impossible; for the poetic extracts
must have given either the one or the other, and
those who used the extracts followed them in this
matter. We can only think, therefore, either that
essentially the same communication was made in
one part of a longer poem to Mary, and then, later
on in the poem, to Joseph; or else that the poems
themselves were different, and that two different
early Christian poets sang of the same theme from
different points of view. But in either case we
have the interesting situation, that Matthew and
Luke are entirely independent in their narratives of
the same event; and that they used either the same
poem, or a different one, in different ways. We have,
therefore, two independent witnesses to the Virgin
Birth, depending on either one, or two, earlier wit
nesses, whom they did not follow without considera
tion and inquiry, as both the narratives show; the
results leading these two evangelists in quite differ
ent directions.
Now the Gospel of Matthew was written for a
Jewish-Christian community. It shows, by its style

84 THE APOSTLES' CREED
and attitude toward the Pharisees and the Saddu-
cean priesthood, that the author was deeply incensed
against them. This is best explained from the fact
that he had, in his own experience, known that same
bitterness and malignity which appears in their atti
tude toward Jesus. In other words he knew of the
martyrdom of James and the persecution of the
Christians of Jerusalem by the Jews during the six
ties, before the destruction of Jerusalem. His use of
the words of Jesus as to the destruction of Jerusalem
and the flight of the Christians favors one familiar
with these terrors. The Gospel was probably writ
ten just before, or immediately after, the destruction
of the city by the Romans, and probably in Pella,
whither the Christians had fled from Jerusalem.
The poetic source of Matthew must therefore have
been in the early sixties, if not before.
If these poems originated in the late fifties, or
early sixties, in a community under the headship
of the nearest living relatives of Jesus, what is their
historic derivation? Joseph died before Jesus began
His ministry, for he is nowhere mentioned as living
in any of the Gospels. He was doubtless a mature
man when he married Mary, and she was in all prob
ability his second wife. Mary appears frequently in
the Gospels. She also was present in the gathering
of the disciples in the upper room in Jerusalem, when
the successor of Judas was chosen (Acts I14). It is
probable that she continued in life during the stirring
times in Jerusalem for some years after Pentecost,
but that she had retired to Galilee either with her

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 85
step-sons, or under the charge of St. John (John 1927),
for she is not mentioned again in the Jerusalem com
munity. When St. James appears at the head of
the Church in Jerusalem (Acts 1217), without Mary,
it is possible that she still lived in Galilee, but it is
probable that she was no longer living and no longer
needed his loving care. Mary was probably not far
from fifty years of age at the death of Jesus. If she
lived till just before the persecution of Herod, when
James first appears in Jerusalem, she would have
been over sixty years old at her death. It is improb
able that any one would have written these poems
in the lifetime of Mary. She would have been ex
posed to slander and persecution by the vindictive
Jews of the time. We may be safe, therefore, in
the opinion that these poems were written not later
than 60, and not earlier than 40, probably some
where in the fifties.
It is altogether probable that Mary would have
confided the facts as to the birth of Jesus to her in
timates, to some of the women mentioned in the
Gospels, and especially to St. John, the intimate of
Jesus, to whom Jesus had especially commended her,
and to St. James. The resurrection of Jesus her son,
the descent of the divine Spirit at Pentecost upon
her as well as upon the Twelve, the conviction of the
apostolic community that her son was the Messiah,
the Son of God, must have recalled to her mind the
annunciation, the supernatural conception and birth,
and all the other extraordinary circumstances, such
as are recorded in the Gospel of Luke, if there was

86 THE APOSTLES' CREED
any reality in them. They would then have been
esoteric facts, known to a few among the leaders of
the Christian community; and they would not have
been made known till after the death of Mary, and
then only esoterically, in reliable Christian circles.
It would still be some time before they would stir
the soul of a Christian poet. It would be, then, in
the middle of the fifties that we should be most likely
to expect such poems. The time between the death
of Jesus and the origin of these poems could hardly
have been more than thirty years, not more than
twenty after the death of Mary, and during the life
time of James and Simeon, and other members of the
family of Jesus, and acquaintances of Mary who had
known her from her earliest years. Thus the story
can be reasonably traced back step by step to its
origin. There can be no reasonable objection to it,
except that it brings us face to face with a supernat
ural birth.
It has been urged that the story of the Virgin
Birth was mythical or legendary in its origin. But
myths and legends all have some kind of a basis, and
are usually a growth. They have certain charac
teristics which enable the critic to determine them.1
When an uncritical sceptic thought that the story
of the infancy was a late addition to the Gospels,
the theory allowed a moderate amount of time for
the myth or legend to unfold. But criticism of the
Gospel has made it certain that Luke wrote this part
> Briggs, Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture, pp. 522 seq.

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 87
of the Gospel as truly as he wrote any other part;
and that these stories were not original to him, but
were in written sources as early as the Gospel of Mark
and the Logia of Matthew themselves. There was
no time for the growth of myth or legend ; the story
is carried back to the family of Jesus and their
responsibility for it cannot be evaded.1 Were the
martyrs James and Simeon, near relatives of Jesus,
men of such a character as to permit such a story as
the Virgin Birth to become current and authorita
tive in the Christian community, unless they were
sure of it? The integrity of James and Simeon is
unimpeachable before the tribunal of history.
Theoretically, one might say that they might have
been deceived; but practically, how was it possible
for them to have been deceived in such a matter?
How could they have countenanced it, if it were at
all doubtful?
It is urged by some that it was the prophecy of
Immanuel that originated the belief in its fulfilment
by Jesus. Such a theory might be suggested by
Matthew's use of the prophecy, but certainly not
by Luke, who nowhere refers to it. And there is
nothing in these poems to suggest any reference to
that prediction of Isaiah. The reference to that
prophecy in Isaiah is only one of a considerable num
ber, characteristic of the author of our present Mat
thew, and peculiar to him, and altogether unknown
to Luke, and to the sources upon which both Mat
thew and Luke depended.2
1 V. Briggs, Messiah of the Gospels, pp. 3 19 seq.
2 V. Briggs, The Virgin Birth of our Lord, pp. 15 seq.

88 THE APOSTLES' CREED
Efforts have been made to find the origin of the
conception of the Virgin Birth in other religions,
Greek and even Babylonian. But there is not the
slightest trace of such an origin in the narratives of
Luke and Matthew, or in the poems embedded in
their narratives. Doubtless there were many sons
begotten by the gods of mythology of virgins; but
in all cases by sexual connection of these gods with
these virgins, and so no virgin conception or virgin
birth; for such virgins lose their virginity by sexual
union with these gods. The Virgin Birth of Jesus
was a conception without any kind of sexual con
nection whatever. The Virgin Birth of our Lord is
thus an altogether different conception from that of
the sons of the heathen gods; and one that was
unique in itself, and altogether without preparation
or analogy to suggest it to the mind of any person
or writer.
All these suggestions of sceptics or agnostics are
merely makeshifts, altogether unsubstantial, that
cannot endure the least breath of criticism, made
for the sole purpose of getting rid of the reality of
the Virgin Birth of Jesus. They are not in the in
terest of historic truth or fact. They were not in
vented in the interest of Biblical Criticism. They
do not, and cannot be made to, harmonize with the
results of Biblical Criticism, which condemns them
root and branch.
There is, in the historic environment of the Jew
ish-Christian community, and in the internal dis
sensions in that community, a sufficient explanation
of the emphasis upon the Virgin Birth in that com-

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 89
munity. As the Acts of the Apostles and the Paul
ine Epistles make plain, the Apostles had to contend
with the Judaizers among the primitive Christians,
who recognized Jesus as the Messiah, but insisted
upon the observance of the Law, and regarded Chris
tianity as only a reformed Judaism. This party sub
sequently separated from the Church as an Ebionite
sect. It was just this doctrinal fact of the Virgin
Birth which made the Ebionite position untenable.
Ebionites could not accept the Virgin Birth without
the recognition that Jesus was more than Messiah.
The Palestinian community, under the leadership of
James and Simeon, overcame them in the very best
way, by bringing before the infant Church the facts
as to the conception by the divine Spirit and the
Virgin Birth. The doctrine was Palestinian in its
origin, and early there, because it was needed there
at an earlier date than elsewhere.
We have now to consider supposed inconsistencies
between the story of the Virgin Birth and other
statements of the Gospels. It is objected that Jesus
is said to have been the son of Joseph, the carpenter
of Nazareth (Mt. 1355, Luke 422, John I45, 642). How
else could the people speak of him ? They certainly
would not have been informed by Joseph and Mary
of the Virgin Birth. It is significant that two of
these statements are in Matthew and Luke, who
certainly found no inconsistency between them and
the Virgin Birth which they declare. The other two
are in John, who clearly sets forth the incarnation of
the Son of God, and possibly the Virgin Birth also

90 THE APOSTLES' CREED
(v. p. 97 seq.); while Mark, who gives no report ofthe
Virgin Birth, yet abstains from calling Jesus the son
of Joseph, but says only son of Mary in the pas
sage parallel to that of Matthew's son of Joseph
(Mark 63).
There are two genealogical tables giving the an
cestry of Jesus, the one to show that he was a son
of David, the other to show that he was a son of
Adam. They differ so much that they must have had a
different origin. The ancient explanation of Julius
Africanus (f 240) is, that the one gives the natural
descent, the other the legal descent. But both were
given by authors who set forth the Virgin Birth; and
they certainly saw no more inconsistency with it
than St. Paul did between the birth of a woman and
the pre-existence of the Son of God, who became
the second Adam from heaven.
The genealogy of Matthew closes with the words:
"Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom
was born Jesus, who is called Christ" (Mt. I16).
Luke begins his genealogy by:
"Jesus Himself, when he began, was about thirty years of
age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the [son]
ofHeli,"etc. (Luke 3M).
There is no other text of Luke than this which
qualifies the term son of Joseph; but even if we could
think that "as was supposed" was a later qualifica
tion, a son of Joseph here would mean no more than
son of Joseph in Luke 422.

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 91
The text of Matthew of modern versions is that
of the oldest Greek Codices. The text of Matthew,
however, varies in a few Greek Codices and Syriac
versions. The Curetonian Syriac has :
"Jacob begat Joseph, him to whom was betrothed Mary
the Virgin, she who begat Jesus the Messiah."
This is sustained by several old Latin Codices. A
few years ago an older Syriac text was discovered at
Mount Sinai, which reads:
"Joseph, to whom was betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat
Jesus, called the Messiah."
The opponents of the Virgin Birth seized upon this
with eagerness, because they thought that it was the
original text, and that it made Joseph the natural
father of Jesus. This text has been carefully consid
ered by the best textual critics : some accept it, and
some do not; but whether it be correct or not, it
does not affect the question of the Virgin Birth, for
as Allen, who accepts the Sinaitic text as original,
shows in his recent Commentary on St. Matthew, the
word begat is used throughout the table in the sense
of legal, not of physical descent. No other opinion
is possible in view of the artificial character of the
genealogy, which is divided into three groups of
fourteen generations each, in which there are several
omissions; and also in view of the fact that some of
the names given are not in the line of physical de
scent but by legal inheritance of the throne of David.
The author follows the narratives of the Old Testa
ment, especially of the Chronicler, and adheres to

92 THE APOSTLES' CREED
the royal line of kings, which makes it evident that
he is concerned with the dynastic inheritance of the
Messianic promise : while Luke in his genealogy does
not follow the line of kings but the line of physical de
scent, leading on, through Nathan the son of David,
until it becomes the royal line because of the failure
of Jeconiah to have a son (Je. 2230) ; so that the line
of Solomon became extinct in him, and the line of
Nathan came into the inheritance in Shealtiel. He
also had no sons; but his nephew, Zerubbabel, became
his adopted son and heir to the throne. In fact,
Jeconiah did not beget Shealtiel, and Shealtiel did
not beget Zerubbabel, physically, but only legally.
The word iyevvrjaev, in at least two instances, means
legal descent: it may therefore properly have the
same meaning with Joseph and Jesus. Further
more, it is impossible to separate the genealogy from
the Gospel. It was evidently composed by the au
thor on the basis of the Old Testament narratives,
and prefixed by him to the story of the Virgin Birth;
so that there could, in his mind, be no inconsistency
between them.
The genealogy of Luke has an entirely different
origin, and was doubtless based upon records pre
served in the family of Jesus, which is therefore an
other evidence that Luke had consulted them in the
preparation of his narrative, and so with regard to
the Virgin Birth itself. How could he consult them
about the ancestry of Jesus and omit to question
them whether the poetic story of the Virgin Birth
was true or not?

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 93
We have been compelled to go into all these de
tails in order to hunt the opponents of the Virgin
Birth out of all the holes and corners in which, like
rats, they take refuge. It is with them anything and
everything, however trifling in importance, which
may be used to put suspicion on the story of the
Virgin Birth.
We are now prepared to examine the Biblical
statements themselves, and to consider their signifi
cance. In the poem of Luke, three things are clear:
(i) The agency of the divine Spirit in theophany:
"The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee,
The power of the Most High shall overshadow thee."
(2) Mary's conception of a son, while still a virgin:
"Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring
forth a son."
(3) That which was conceived and bom was the holy
one, the Son of God:
"He shall be a great One:
And He shall be called the Son of the Most High."
"That holy thing, that is to be born,
Shall be called the Son of God."
The same appears in Matthew: (1) "That which
is begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit"; (2) "He
knew her not till she had brought forth a son";
(3) "Thou shalt call His name Jesus; for He will
save His people from their sins."

94 THE APOSTLES' CREED
Mary was a virgin; she conceived her son Jesus,
not by the ordinary method of human generation,
but by the theophanic presence and power of the
divine Spirit; and the resultant was a holy seed, a
Son of God, a Saviour for Israel, the Son of David,
the Messiah. The origination of the holy seed was
therefore not human but divine. Mary the Virgin
conceives or receives the holy seed from God. She
conceives it, nourishes it, and at the appointed time
gives birth to it, as the holy child Jesus. This is
exactly what enters into the Apostles' Creed : at first,
in the simple statement, born of the Virgin Mary,
which implied, to those who knew the Gospels, all
the rest; and then later, enlarged into born of the
Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary; and still later, to
be more strictly in accord with the Gospels, con
ceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.
The Epistle to the Hebrews was written by some
one intermediate between Paul and John, like Apol-
los or Barnabas. It was known and used by the
Roman Clement, and thus was written considerably
before 95. The author was a contemporary of Tim
othy, of whom he writes as brother (1323). It was
written from Italy, probably not Rome, but from
one of the Greek cities of the sea-coast (1324). There
is probably a reference to the martyrdoms of St.
Peter and St. Paul in 137, and to the persecution of
Nero in io32, in which his readers had shared.
It was probably written in the late sixties, before
the destruction of Jerusalem, which could hardly
have escaped mention in the frequent references to

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 95
the city, and the temple and its institutions. This
Epistle is advanced in its Christology beyond that
of Colossians and the Pastorals. It makes an antith
esis at the beginning between Jesus Christ and all
the prophets, in that He was Son of God, higher than
the angels, the "appointed heir of all things, through
whom also He made the worlds; who being the efful
gence of His glory, and the very image of His sub
stance, and upholding all things by the word of His
power, when He had made a purification of sins, sat
down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" (i
1 **). The entrance of Christ into the world is thus
God, speaking in one who is Son and making a puri
fication of sins. The Epistle gives its statement as
to the Incarnation:
"Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood,
He also Himself in like manner partook of the same; that
through death He might bring to naught him that had the
power of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver all
them who through fear of death were all their lifetime sub
ject to bondage. For verily not of angels doth He take
hold, but He taketh hold of the seed of Abraham. Where
fore it behooved Him in all things to be made like unto His
brethren, that He might become a merciful and faithful
high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitia
tion for the sins of the people" (214"17).
According to this Epistle the pre-existent Son of
God partook of the flesh and blood of the seed of Abra
ham, and was made like His brethren, the sons of Israel.
There is, however, no reference made to the mode of
the incarnation, except that in it the pre-existent
Son of God was both active and passive; active, in
that He Himself took hold of the seed of Abraham,

96 THE APOSTLES' CREED
took share in flesh and blood; and also passive, in
that He was made like His brethren.
This implies more than birth by ordinary genera
tion; namely, birth by divine origination. If it does
not imply birth of a virgin, it does imply concep
tion by divine presence and power.
The First Epistle of John represents that Jesus
was the pre-existing Word of Life, but also that
"the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear
witness, and declare unto you the life, the eternal
[life], which was with the Father, and was manifested
unto us" (i1"2). This manifestation was "in the
flesh" (42), that had been heard, seen, and handled by
the Apostles (i1) — thus audible, visible, and tangible.
It is plain that while the author does not mention the
mode of entrance into the world, he does distinctly
state that Jesus Christ was God and also flesh oj
man; in other words, God manifested in the flesh.
The Prologue of the Gospel of John gives the high
est attainment of New Testament Christology. It
was a Christian hymn to the Logos, composed for
use in the Christian congregations of Asia, toward
the close of the first Christian century.1 This hymn
represents Christ as the pre-existing Word of God,
the Creator, the Life, and the Light, with God and
also God. The incarnation is a coming into the world
of the true Light (v. 9), a coming into His own inheri
tance (v. u), a becoming flesh and tabernacling among
us (v. "), the declaring of the Father (v. 18).
Here nothing is said of any kind of human origina-
1 V. Briggs, Messiah of the Apostles, pp. 495 seq.

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 97
tion. The origination of the human flesh is divine.
He came Himself, by His own personal action, into
the world and to the people of Israel. 77* becomes
flesh; He tabernacles among them, in a tabernacle
of glory, just as truly as did Yahweh in the Mosaic
tabernacle. His flesh is the tabernacle of God here,
as in Hebrews it is the veil of the Holy of Holies.
There is, however, a passage in this Prologue,
which the Ancients interpreted as referring to the
incarnation; but which does not seem so to refer
in the Greek text based on the oldest Codices. V. 13
reads in these Codices: "Who not of blood, nor of
the will of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God
were born." This is plural, and is a further inter
pretation of the previous v. 12: "But as many as re
ceived Him, to them gave He the right to become
children of God, to those who believe on His name."
It is, then, interpreted as referring to regeneration,
which is not by entering a second time into the moth
er's womb; of blood, of the will of the flesh, of the
will of man, by natural generation; but a birth from
above, by the divine Spirit, of God. This is the text
of the earliest existing Greek Codices, the Vatican,
and the Sinaitic of the fourth century, and of most
later ones. But the Christian writers of the second
and third centuries had a different text. Thus Ter
tullian (c. 209), in De came Christi (c. 24), has the
singular, natus est, and refers it to Christ, saying:
"Again, there is an answer to Ebion in the Script
ure, 'born, not of blood, nor of the will of man,
but of God.'" He conceives that the Ebionite view

98 THE APOSTLES' CREED
of the mere humanity of Christ is overcome by this
passage, which represents that Christ was not born
of the will of man, but of God. This is based on an
earlier passage in the same writing (c. 19), where he
asks:
"What, then, is the meaning of this passage, 'born not of
blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but
of God'? I shall make more use of this passage, after I
have confuted those who have tampered with it. They
maintain that it was written thus: 'who were born,' . . .
as if designating those who were before mentioned as 'be
lieving on His name'; in order to point out the existence of
that mysterious seed of the elect and spiritual, which they
appropriate to themselves. . . . The expression is in the singu
lar number, as referring to the Lord. 'He was born of God.'
And very properly, because Christ is the Word of God; and
with the Word the Spirit of God, and by the Spirit the
power of God, and whatsoever else appertains to God. As
flesh, however, He is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh,
nor of man, because it was by the will of God that the Word
was made flesh. . . . We thus understand that what is denied
is, the Lord's birth after sexual intercourse (as is suggested
by the phrase, 'the will of man and of the flesh'), not his
(nativity) from a mother's womb."
So Irenaeus, in his treatise against heresies:
"For 'not by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man,
but by the will of God, was the Word made flesh'; and that
we should not imagine that Jesus was one, and Christ an
other, but should know them to be one and the same" (III.
162). "He who "was not born either by the will of the flesh,
or by the will of man,' is the Son of Man, this is Christ, the
Son of the Living God" (III, 192).
Justin, in his Apology (c. 150):
"He who should appear would have blood, though not
of the seed of man, but of the power of God" (I, 32).

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 99
So also in his Dialogue with Trypho, which, though
written in 155-160, gives a discussion presumed to
have taken place c. 135. Here I, 54 is the same as
the Apology, I, 32; so 63. Also 61 and 76 make
similar allusions.
"Since His blood did not spring from the seed of man,
but from the will of God."
This reading of John i13 is advocated by Blass, the
chief philological critic of the New Testament in our
time;1 and by Resch, who, more than any one else,
uses the early Christian writers for evidence as to
New Testament writings.2 The earliest Greek Cod
ices we have are not earlier than 331; but Tertull
ian uses a Latin text in use before 209, Irenaeus a
Greek text earlier than 180, and Justin a Greek text
earlier than 150. As Justin and Irenaeus both came
from Asia, Justin being in Ephesus about 135, and
Irenaeus about 150, they knew the Asian text of
John, two hundred years earlier than our oldest
Greek manuscripts; they knew manuscripts of John
within fifty years of its completion, and in the very
place where it was written. This gives to their evi
dence very great weight. Besides, rhetorically and
poetically there can be no doubt that this reading is
preferable. It would be easier to make the mistake
of adapting it to its context in the plural, than of
changing it to the singular in accordance with the
more distant subject.
If this passage refers to Christ, then we have a
1 Phil, of Gospels, pp. 234 seq.
* Aussercanonische Paralleltexte, IV, s. 57 seq.

100 THE APOSTLES' CREED
reference to the birth of Jesus, and the statement is
made that He was not born of the will of man, nor
of the will of the flesh; that is, by intentional sexual
intercourse — as Justin says, of the seed of man — but
without sexual intercourse, by the will of God. This
would then imply virgin conception by the power of
God. In any case, however we may interpret the pas
sage, there can be no doubt that the entrance of the
Logos into this world was a divine act of entrance;
and that the becoming flesh was a voluntary divine
act. The author leaves altogether out of view the
mother's part in it.
Thus, though conception by the divine Spirit and
virgin birth are stated distinctly only in two writings
ofthe New Testament, Matthew and Luke; yet these
statements are based on poetic sources, which are of
such an early date, and so close to the family of Jesus,
that they are worthy of all acceptance. The other
writings of the New Testament, while they do not
clearly teach or necessarily imply a virgin birth, yet
do teach in a most unmistakable manner the entrance
of a divine pre-existent being into the world in the
flesh of Jesus Christ; and therefore sustain the state
ment, conceived by the Holy Spirit. It is possible to
think of an ordinary conception by the power of the
divine Spirit; but it is difficult so to do, considering
the product: a holy seed; sinless, incorruptible flesh,
and a life-giving spirit of holiness; a man, it is true,
but different from any other man, in that He was God-
man. Furthermore, an ordinary conception would

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 101
make Jesus' birth no more divine than that of Isaac
or John the Baptist.
We have thus traced this doctrinal fact of the
Virgin Birth from its origin until it takes its place in
the full form in the Apostles' Creed. It had no less
meaning in the Creed than it had in the Gospels.
It had rather a richer and a fuller meaning, as the
result of a century of conflict with Jews, Ebionites,
and Gnostics. As we have already seen, the Chris
tians of the late first century and of the early second
century had to maintain the Virgin Birth against both
Ebionites and Jews. But they had also, throughout
the second century, to maintain it against several
groups of Gnostics.
The Ebionites held that Jesus was a man, pure and
simple, born of ordinary generation by Joseph. The
Jews urged the slander that Jesus was born not of
of Joseph, but of fornication. It was necessary for
Christians to maintain over against them that Jesus
entered this world by a divine act, conceived by the
Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.
The Gnostics recognized the divinity of Christ;
only they refused to regard Him as divine, prior to
His birth or His baptism.
Thus Cerinthus, in the closing years of the first century:
"supposed that Jesus was not generated from a virgin; but
that He was born son of Joseph and Mary, just in a manner
similar with the rest of men . . . and that after the baptism,
Christ, in the form of a dove, came down upon Him, from that
absolute sovereignty, which is above all things " (Hippoly
tus, Ref. Har., Vii, 21). Theodotus of Byzantium held
that Jesus "at His baptism in Jordan received Christ, who
came from above and descended in form of a dove" (ibid.,

102 THE APOSTLES' CREED
VII, 23). Carpocrates and his followers, of the second cen
tury, according to Irenaeus: "hold that Jesus was the son
of Joseph, and was just like other men, with the exception
that He differed from them in this respect: that, inasmuch
as His soul was steadfast and pure, He perfectly remembered
those things which He had witnessed within the sphere of
the unbegotten God. On this account a power descended
upon Him from the Father" (Irenaeus, Adv. Har., I, 2s1).
Marcion rejected the narrative of the Infancy; and held
that Christ descended from above in the fifteenth year of
Tiberius Caesar, and proceeded to give instruction in the
synagogues. He came down unbegotten (Tertullian, Adv.
Marcionem, IV, 7). His disciple Apelles conceded to Christ
real flesh, but held that it was composed of sidereal sub
stance (Hippolytus, Ref. Har., VII, 26).
The Valentinians held that Christ was born, not of the
substance of the Virgin, but that He " passed through Mary,
just as water flows through a tube; and there descended
upon Him, in the form of a dove at the time of His baptism,
that Saviour who belonged to the Pleroma" (Irenaeus, I, f).
These were the heretics who troubled the Church
from the last quarter of the first century, throughout
the second century, and deep into the third.
Against them Justin and Irenaeus, Hippolytus and
Tertullian, and later still, Clement and Origen, waged
warfare; and the essential thing in the combat was
just this Virgin Birth; for only by maintaining it
could the divinity of Christ be maintained over
against Jew and Ebionite, and the real humanity of
Christ be maintained over against the Gnostics. The
Virgin Birth was considered in all its bearings. The
ancient fathers went into details in the study of it,
to an extent not known in later writers. They main
tained over against the Gnostics that Christ was di
vine not merely from His baptism, not merely from
any time after His birth, but in His origination by

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 103
conception in His mother's womb. He was, however,
not altogether divine in His origin. Mary was not a
mere tabernacle, or vessel, to hold the divine being
and transmit Him to the world. Mary, as Tertull
ian argues at great length, in his work De came
Christi, contributed her own flesh and blood to the
formation of the God-man: so that He was just as
truly man as He was truly God; not a divinely in
habited man, but a God-man.
The ancients did not consider, and were not at all
troubled by, scientific or philosophic difficulties.
They were not troubled about miracles or theoph-
anies. These difficulties are all modern. If the
antichristian writers and heretics of the second and
third centuries denied the Virgin Birth, it was not
that they regarded it as unscientific, or unphilosophic,
or impossible; but because they had other theories to
maintain. And, indeed, modern objections are not
really scientific, but just as speculative as those of
the ancient heretics.
It cannot be presumed that God would be con
ceived by a woman by the ordinary processes of
generation. It is a priori probable that if God was
to become man in the womb of a woman He would
become man, not in an ordinary human way, but
in an extraordinary divine way, appropriate to the
nature and character of the divine Being. There is
something more than the processes of conception and
childbirth in this case; there was a divine presence
and a divine activity in the production of the
Christ. As Justin says: "not of the seed of man,

104 THE APOSTLES' CREED
but of the power of God." Inductive science can
say nothing here; because the fact is unique, beyond
its knowledge and testing. It is a question of fact,
depending upon testimony which is, as we have
shown, sufficient and abundant, such as no one can
reasonably refuse.
That which influences the objectors is not any
thing that Science has to offer. The very ablest
scientific men in the world hold to the Virgin Birth,
not as scientists but as Christians. St. Luke, who
is especially responsible for the doctrine, was the be
loved physician of St. Paul in Rome; and doubtless
knew all about the processes of generation and child
birth that was known to Hippocrates and Aristotle
and the best medical and scientific writers of the
time. In fact, just in the time of St. Luke the study
and practice of medicine was very active in Rome
through the energetic propaganda of the so-called
Methodist School of Medicine.
Our moderns know more of Science and Medicine
than he did, but St. Luke knew as much as they do
of the biological processes with which this doctrine
has to do. If he found no difficulty, why should they ?
The only important difference, the only one that at
all affects the question, is that St. Luke accepted the
presence and power of God in nature and human af
fairs, and therefore the supernatural and the mirac
ulous, and these objectors are agnostics or sceptics
in this regard. Let them make their objections hon
estly from the stand-point of agnosticism, and not
hide their agnosticism behind scientific and critical

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 105
pretences. Scientific men, in fact, do not object on
scientific grounds, but because of a priori reluctance
to accept miracles or anything that is supernatural.
But this is a purely theoretic objection, not based on
inductive or deductive philosophy, any more than
upon inductive science.
I shall not attempt to defend the older theories of
miracles or of supernatural divine actions. The ex
planation of miracles, theories about them, are one
thing; the reality of miracles in Biblical history is an
other thing. We are only concerned to maintain the
reality of supernatural action. The reality depends
upon historic testimony, not upon theories of any
kind, as to whether it may be possible or not.
No one can reasonably maintain that God may
not manifest Himself at pleasure, interpose for a
noble purpose, work a miracle, or enable a man to
work a miracle, in the interest of truth and right
eousness. Even Hume could not deny that. He at
tacked miracles as insufficient in evidential value.
It is then simply a question of evidence. Hume and
his followers are unreasonable in demanding more
evidence than is sufficient.
A modern man will not appeal to the supernatural
if he can help it; and if any reasonable explanation
of a miracle can be given which brings it under the
known laws of nature, he will accept it. He has
sufficient reason for thinking that the new discoveries
of principles and laws that are being made will ex
plain many miracles that are now difficult to ex
plain. As I said some years ago, if all miracles could

106 THE APOSTLES' CREED
be explained by some at present unknown laws,
they would not cease to be miracles.1
What Philosophy demands, is a sufficient reason
for any extraordinary action, whether by God or
man. We can assign a sufficient reason for the ex
traordinary action of God in entering the world by
incarnation in a virgin's womb. He came in the
fulness of time, as St. Paul says, born of a woman,
in order to redeem mankind. He became a God-
man by incarnation, to become the Saviour of the
world. That reason is sufficient, as it is the most
important of all reasons, for such a unique concep
tion and birth of a virgin.
We make a mistake by thinking too much of the
passive side rather than of the active side of the In
carnation. It is quite true that the Creed says : born
of the Virgin Mary, and later, conceived by the Holy
Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary. But that meant in
the Creed, what it meant in the New Testament
writers and the early Christian writers, something
more than the exact words conveyed. It meant at
least all that Matthew and Luke give in their narra
tives, and to most writers all that St. Paul and St.
John teach in addition. Thus, in Luke, the central
tetrastich gives:
"The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee,
And the power of the Most High shall overshadow
thee."
This implies the theophanic presence of God, pres
ent as at the dedication of the tabernacle and the
1 Briggs, Authority of Holy Scripture, p. 37.

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 107
temple, and at the baptism and transfiguration of
our Lord: in other words, a divine activity; not
merely by a power or influence sent down from
heaven, but by reality of presence to the Virgin.
In the teaching of St. Paul and St. John, as to the
advent of the Son of God, He Himself is active; He
comes from heaven; He personally and voluntarily
becomes flesh. St. Luke does not make Christ ac
tive here, but passive, as the product, the holy seed;
but this by no means implies that he did not actu
ally regard the Son of God as just as truly active in
the production of the holy seed as was the divine
Spirit. St. Luke could not have been a pupil of
St. Paul, whose chief writings were behind him, when
he wrote ofthe Virgin Birth, without holding as much
as this. He reproduces his poetic source without
changing the passive into the active, which as a dis
ciple of St. Paul he would have been inclined to do.
And so the early Christian writers all think of the
Son of God as active in the production of His flesh
in the Virgin's womb.
Thus Justin says: "It is wrong, therefore, to understand
the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the
Word, who is also the first-born of God . . . and it was this
which, when it came upon the Virgin, and overshadowed
her, caused her to conceive, not by intercourse but by
power" (Apol. 33).
Hippolytus says, in his Commentary on Luke 27:
"The Word was the first-born of God, who came down
from heaven to the blessed Mary, and was made a first
born man in her womb; in order that the first-born of God
might be manifested in union with a first-born man."
Irenaeus says: "He took up man into Himself, the in
visible becoming visible, the incomprehensible being made

108 THE APOSTLES' CREED
comprehensible, the impassible becoming capable of suffer
ing, and the Word being made man," etc. (Adv. Har.,
Ill, 166). In arguing for the reality of the incarnation, he
says: "Why did He come down into her, if He were to take
nothing of her?" (Ill, 222).
Tertullian, in his third form of the Rule of Faith, para
phrasing the very article of the Virgin Birth, says:
"This Word is called His Son, under the name of God,
was seen in divers manners by the patriarchs, heard at all
times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit
and Power of God into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in
her womb, and being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ"
(Pra. Har., 13).
We should think, therefore, first of the virgin con
ception, which was not of the seed of man, but of
the Son of God, the second Person of the Trinity,
entering her womb and becoming flesh therein. We
are to start with the conception of manifestation in
the flesh, epiphany in the flesh, as the culmination
of all the theophanies of the Old Testament. He
who in ancient Israel manifested Himself in the pil
lar of cloud and fire, and in the Shekina of the tab
ernacle and the temple, manifested Himself in flesh
in Jesus Christ. This flesh, however, was not a mere
appearance, or external dwelling-place of the Christ,
as the Gnostics would have it. It was taken up into
the Son of God Himself, and made an inseparable
and eternal part of Himself. The flesh was derived
from Mary the Virgin; and a human father had no
part in it.
Irenaeus says: "The Lord took dust from the earth and
formed man; so did He who is the Word, recapitulating
Adam in Himself, rightly receive a birth, enabling Him to
gather up Adam from Mary, who was yet a virgin. ... If
the former was taken from the dust, and God was his

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 109
maker, it was incumbent that the latter also, making a
recapitulation in Himself, should be formed as man by God,
to have an analogy with the former as respects His origin.
Why, then, did not God again take dust, but wrought so
that the formation should be of Mary? It was that there
might not be another formation called into being, nor any
other which should be saved; but that the very same for
mation should be summed up, the analogy having been
preserved" (Adv. Har., Ill, 2110).
We have studied the Virgin Birth and the con
ception by the divine Spirit from the point of view
of the New Testament and the Christian writers of
the second and third centuries in their life-and-death
struggle with Jews, Ebionites, and Gnostics. The
more profoundly significant relations of this doctrine
must be postponed till we come to study the Nicene
Creed, in its earlier and later forms, in its combat
with Arianism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism.
We have taken much space in explaining the origin
and historical significance of the Virgin Birth, and
the defence of it from all objection; but we must not
forget that it was the first act of the Son of God for
our salvation. The incarnation itself, and indeed
by Virgin Birth, was the initial saving act of the Son
of God. It was not simply His entrance into the
world, in order to become, later on, a Saviour by
His death on the cross and His resurrection. This
opinion is not an ancient one, nor a Biblical one, but
a modern one, which makes the crucifixion the one
great act of salvation. It is the familiarity of this
generation with that doctrine, so wrapped up with
modern views of the atonement, that makes it dif
ficult for some to realize the necessity of a Virgin

110 THE APOSTLES' CREED
Birth in order to our salvation. When, however,
we follow the order of salvation of the Creed, and
the New Testament upon which it is founded, we
see that it is just the Incarnation, which is the in
itial saving act of the Son of God, upon which all
other saving acts depend. And so the necessity of
the Virgin Birth soon becomes evident.
It is just here that we must recall St. Paul's an
tithesis between the first and the second Adam.
As the first Adam summed up in himself all his
descendants, the whole human race, who share with
their first father the consequences of his original sin
and fall; just so Jesus Christ recapitulates in Him
self this same human race in order to redeem it.
Jesus was more than an individual man. If He were
no more than that, His Incarnation would not have
redemptive significance. He was born of the Virgin
as the God-man, God manifest in the flesh. God
did not take to Himself a man Jesus born of Mary,
as the ancient Gnostics held, and their modern rep
resentatives among the Ritschlians now hold. This
would give only a divinely inhabited man, not a
God-man. This would make Jesus nothing more
than John the Baptist, who was just such a divinely
inhabited man: "filled with the Holy Ghost, even
from his mother's womb" (Luke I15). Certainly all
the Gospels agree in making the origin of Jesus some
thing different from this. It was God the Son, the
second Person of the Trinity, the pre-existent Son
of God, who became man by entering the Virgin's
womb, being conceived by her and being born of

BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY 111
her. In other words, God took to Himself human
nature in its entireness, completeness, and integrity:
but He did not become thereby merely such an in
dividual man as John the Baptist; but, to use the
term of the older theologians, a common Man in
whom all men have a share, a Man who sums up in
Himself all that is characteristic of perfect human
ity. Jesus Christ did not share in the inheritance
of sin and guilt, otherwise He would have needed
salvation Himself. He made, as it were, a new be
ginning in humanity, taking to Himself the old hu
manity without its inheritance of evil, and introduc
ing into humanity a spirit of holiness, incorruptible
flesh, and an innocent sinlessness, in original unin
terrupted communion with the Father, which in
volved the perfection of humanity.
It is just because God the Son thus identifies Him
self, not with an individual man but with humanity
as such, that He is able to save the human race.
Accordingly, in all His activities He acts as the sec
ond Adam, the head of redeemed humanity. His
Incarnation united humanity to God and made hu
man salvation realizable, because of the pulsations
of the divine life in the humanity of Jesus Christ,
and through Him in all who are united to Him in a
regenerate life. St. Paul, in his Epistles, repeatedly
represents that in all the saving acts of Christ all
Christians are involved, because they are in mystic
union with Him as the second Adam, the God-man,
so that in His Incarnation there is involved the re
generation of mankind.

112 THE APOSTLES' CREED
The Christian Faith, as expressed in this article
of the Creed, embraces these elements :
(i) Jesus Christ was conceived of the Holy Ghost;
that is, Mary conceived the Son of God, not through
human agency, but by the power of the Holy Spirit
of God.
(2) Mary was before this conception, in the con
ception, and subsequent thereto in the birth of Jesus,
a Virgin. (3) By this conception and birth the Son of God
received from the Virgin a complete human nature.
(4) The pre-existent Son of the Father was con
ceived and was born with the flesh and nature of
man; and so as God became the God-man, uniting
humanity with Deity in eternal union.
(5) The birth of the Virgin was the first act of
salvation of the Son of the Father for the regenera
tion of mankind.

CHAPTER VI
CRUCIFIED AND BURIED
It is noteworthy that the Creed passes over the
entire life of Jesus in this world between His birth
and His crucifixion. Indeed the life of Jesus in this
world has little doctrinal importance. There are few
and only incidental references to it in the Epistles,
the Book of Acts, and Revelation. The Gospels do
not give us a life of Jesus. The incidents are few,
the biographical material slender, His relations to
the great events of His time insignificant, making
not a ripple in the current of history. His thirty
years prior to His ministry were lived in obscurity.
His ministry was short and of uncertain length — at
the most three and a half years, but probably not
more than a year and a half.1
The Gospels give His teachings, especially in the
training of His disciples, to the chief of whom, the
Twelve and the Seventy, He committed the continu
ation of His ministry and the establishment of His
kingdom in the world.
For the doctrine of Christ, therefore, His brief
public ministry is of little importance. The Gospels
set the teaching of Jesus in the framework of certain
activities, and these in none of the Gospels are given
1 V. Briggs, New Light on the Life of Jesus, p. 55.
113

114 THE APOSTLES' CREED
in chronological order.1 The Gospels are what they
profess to be, and what they have always been called,
Gospels, that is, glad tidings of salvation through the
Messiah. They occupy the same fundamental posi
tion in the New Testament that the Law does in the
Old Testament. Lives of Jesus Christ are really
modern conceptions, which in some respects lead to
false ideas of Him. The New Testament leaves all
those things that go to make up a biography in the
background of His teaching and of His miracles of
love; and thus makes Him, what He is and must
be from the very nature of the case, the Messiah
and Saviour, a mystery, a unique man, one apart
from all men in a unique relation to God, His Father,
in a sense peculiar to Him alone.
The only important doctrinal significance in the
life of Jesus is that His life illustrates His character
and His teachings; and makes it evident that He
was sinless, and entirely perfect, in His entire atti
tude of love to the Father and to all mankind.
His piety was perfect; for His union and com
munion with the Father was entire and uninterrupted.
His teachings were the culmination and fulfilment
of the entire Old Testament, and the basis of apos
tolic teaching and of Christian doctrine in all time;
and so the complete and perfect teaching of the
Son, who knew of His own knowledge and experience
the mind of the Father. His conduct was in all re
spects one of conformity to the divine will and Law;
and yet transcended them by a higher revelation of
1 V. Briggs, New Light on the Life of Jesus, chaps. V and VIII.

CRUCIFIED AND BURIED 115
voluntary self-sacrificing love, that summed up all
righteousness in itself.
The innocence of Jesus Christ of any wrong, either
to Roman Law or Jewish Law, His entire conformity
to the will of the Father, gives His crucifixion as a
law-breaker the mediatorial significance that St. Paul
and the other Apostles attached to it, as the second
of His redemptive acts.
The Roman Creed of the fourth century has : cru
cified under Pontius Pilate, and buried. The Creed of
the second century was probably the same. But the
later Creed was enlarged to : suffered under Pontius
Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried. Descended
into hell was added, sometimes to this article,
sometimes as prefixed to the next article, some
times as an independent article. Tertullian gives, in
his first form: crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato; in his
second: hunc passum, hunc mortuum, et sepultum,
secundum scripturas; in his third : fixum cruci. Ire
naeus gives in his first form : the passion (to ird0o<s) ;
in his second : suffered (passus) under Pontius Pilate,
as in Eastern Creeds, which, like the Creed of Euse
bius and the Nicene Creed, use iraOovra.
The Creed of Jerusalem has : crucified and buried;
and so the Constantinopolitan enlarges it into: and
was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered,
and was buried. The evidence is not strong for the
exact words of the Roman Creed of the second cen
tury; but it favors the opinion that the form of
the fourth century was that of the second. This
is confirmed by the formula of exorcism given by

116 THE APOSTLES' CREED
Justin1: in the name of Jesus Christ who was cruci
fied under Pontius Pilate.
(i) Under Pontius Pilate. There was especial
reason for the mention of the Roman governor in
the Roman Creed, as indicating both the date of the
crucifixion, and also its having been done under the
authority of the Roman governor.
(2) Crucified. The specific term crucified, instead
of the more general term suffered, was doubtless
due to the influence of the Epistles of St. Paul
upon the Roman community. The mode of death
by crucifixion is an essential feature in St. Paul's
theology. (a) In the crucifixion of Christ was a power of sal
vation. "We preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a
stumbling-block, and unto Gentiles foolishness; but
unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks,
Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God"
(I Cor. i23"24; cf. 22, Gal. 614).
St. Paul saw in Christ crucified a power which had
transformed him, and his disciples, Jews and Greeks;
and given them an entirely new relation to God and
the world : that is, the very same relation that Christ
Himself attained by His death, owing to the mystic
union of His disciples with Him in His new human
ity as the second Adam.
(b) By the crucifixion Christ became a curse for us,
and so redeemed us from the curse of the Law. "Christ
redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having be
come a curse for us; for it is written, 'Cursed is
1 Apol, II, 6; Dial. Trypho, 30, 85.

CRUCIFIED AND BURIED 117
every one that hangeth on a tree'" (Gal. 313).
Those who are united to Christ by faith are no
longer subject to the penalty of the Law, for their
sins against the Law. Christ has suffered the ex
treme penalty of crucifixion for them; and therefore
the Law has no further claims upon them. Chris
tians are no longer guilty before the Law of God, are no
longer under condemnation; but are justified before
God by their faith in Christ Jesus. This is explained
in Rom. 66 in this way: "Our old man was cruci
fied with (Him), that the body of sin might be done
away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to
sin"; and in Gal. 219-20: "For I through the Law
died unto the Law, that I might live unto God. I
have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer
I that live, but Christ liveth in me: and that (life)
which I now live in the flesh, I live in faith, (the
faith) which is in the Son of God, who loved me,
and gave Himself up for me."
The same essential idea is taught in Col. 214:
"Having blotted out the bond written in ordinances
that was against us, which was contrary to us : and
He hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the
cross." The condemnation by the ordinances of the
Law no longer holds against Christians; for these
ordinances have been nailed to the cross of Christ,
who suffered the condemnation, the innocent for the
guilty, interposing for them as their representative
and substitute.
(c) By the crucifixion Christ reconciled Christians
to God. Eph. 216: "And (that He) might reconcile

118 THE APOSTLES* CREED
them (Jew and Gentile) both in one body unto God
through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby"
(or thereon; that is, the enmity as defined in the pre
vious context, that of "the Law of commandments
(contained) in ordinances," as in Col. 214).
So also Col. 119-20: "For it was the good pleasure
(of the Father) that in Him should all the fulness
dwell; and through Him to reconcile all things unto
Himself, having made peace through the blood of
His cross."
Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father, was
always in a state of union and communion with the
Father. His crucifixion and death did not break that
communion; for He was perfectly innocent and holy:
therefore those who died with Him, as their surro
gate and representative, share in His union and com
munion with the Father, as His death removed all
obstacles to their reconciliation to the Father.
(d) By the crucifixion Jesus Christ completed His
state of humiliation and earned the reward to be given
in His state of exaltation. Phil. 28"11: "And being
found in fashion as a man, He humbled Himself, be
coming obedient unto death, yea, the death of the
cross. Wherefore also God highly exalted Him, and
gave unto Him the name which is above every name;
that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of
(things) in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and that every tongue should confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
There are many other references to the cross in
Paul's Epistles (v. I Cor. i13- 17> ™, 28; II Cor. 134;

CRUCIFIED AND BURIED 119
Gal. 31, 5»> M, 612; Phil. 318); but they add nothing
to what has been mentioned.
It is evident, therefore, that it was just the death
by crucifixion, the death of one condemned as a crim
inal as if guilty of a mortal sin, that was of vast im
portance for the work of salvation, according to the
teaching of St. Paul; because in Christ as the second
Adam the head of a new humanity united to Him,
His disciples were crucified and died to the old world
of Law and its curse, and of the flesh and its lust; and
entered a new world of life and love in Christ.
All these passages of St. Paul's Epistles were un
doubtedly known to the Roman Church; and were
used by the Roman Christians in their interpretation
of the Symbol. We are not justified, however, in at
tributing to them all that these passages imply to
modern exegetes. Still less are we justified in attrib
uting to them a knowledge of any of those theories
of the atonement which have prevailed more or less
in the Mediaeval and Modern Church. The doctrine
of the atonement first came into prominence in the
Church when Anselm asked the question, Cur Deus
homo? and gave as his answer: the atonement by
the cross. The doctrine of the cross became the
most characteristic doctrine of the Middle Ages, and
the sign of the cross the great Christian symbol.
Undoubtedly to mediaeval and modern Christians,
when they say, crucified under Pontius Pilate, the
doctrine of atonement by the cross springs into the
mind, and very properly so; because, to those who
would justly estimate the crucifixion for Christian

120 THE APOSTLES' CREED
doctrine and Christian life, the whole meaning of the
cross should be studied : but if for ourselves we seek
the maximum of meaning, we should not require of
others more than the minimum; and that is, that
Jesus Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate, suf
fering shameful death as a law-breaker, for our salva
tion, to deliver us from condemnation, and to give
us reconciliation with God.
We must bear in mind that which it is easy to
forget, that the One who was crucified was not an
ordinary man. If He had been such, even though
a prophet and a hero, the greatest of all men, His
crucifixion could not have had saving significance.
He might have been an example of self-sacrifice and
heroic devotion; but that could not have had any
real virtue in effecting the salvation of mankind.
The meaning of the crucifixion is entirely dependent
upon the meaning of the incarnation. The incarna
tion incorporated human nature with the Son of God.
This involved the Son of God in all the consequences
flowing from that union. His identification with
humanity involved His suffering the temptations,
trials, and penalties necessary to humanity as such.
His identification with the people of Israel involved
His subjection to the Law, its obligations and its pen
alties, and so to the authorities of the Roman and
Jewish nations. His innocence, His moral perfec
tion, could not relieve Him from these consequences
any more than they could an ordinary man, without
divine interposition, or the exercise of His own di
vine power. He could not invoke the Father's

CRUCIFIED AND BURIED 121
power, or use His own, without abandoning the pur
pose of His mission. It was necessary that He should
suffer the extreme penalties of human nature and of
human history in order to redeem human nature.
He suffered physical death, not to relieve mankind
from physical death, but to open up everlasting life
through the gate of death. He suffered the penalty
of broken law, not to do away with obligation to law,
or relieve mankind of the physical or moral conse
quences of sin, but to show a higher life of commun
ion with God through faith and love, so that all who
became one with Him enter at once upon an eternal
life of love. As St. Paul teaches, all united to
Christ in redeemed humanity were crucified with
Him and died with Him.
The Creed has already expressed the faith that
He who was thus crucified was the Messiah of the Old
Testament, the suffering, interposing servant of Yah
weh, of Isaiah 53, that He was the Son of the Father,
Lord God. It is therefore the crucifixion of a God-
man that the Creed believes in; and it is just this
union of God and man in the incarnation and birth
from a Virgin's womb that gave the crucifixion a
universal significance. It was the world crucifying
the mediatorial Creator, Sovereign, and Saviour, in
carnate in human flesh. This supreme act of love
in suffering crucifixion at the hands of the world,
while on the one hand it made the guilt of the world
supreme, yet it showed the love of God in its su
preme expression, triumphing over the supreme sin
of the world. This is sublimely expressed in John's

122 THE APOSTLES' CREED
Gospel: "God so loved the world that He gave His
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him
should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John
316). Thenceforth the supreme sin is rejecting the
Saviour, as the only salvation is in personal union
with the Saviour.
(3) And buried.
This seems to have been in the original Creed.
It is something more than an appendix to the cruci
fixion. Crucifixion certainly ended in death, but not
usually in burial; for among the Romans the dead
bodies were left upon the cross to birds of prey, or
cast aside as carcasses to be devoured by beasts of
prey. And even if for some special reason the bodies were
given over to friends, these bodies were usually
burned and only the ashes preserved. It was to
comply with Jewish customs, and at the request of
the Jews, that the dead body of Jesus was taken
down from the cross. It was usual to break the
legs of the crucified to make sure that they were
dead; but Jesus being already dead, His legs were
not broken. His body was given to Joseph of Ari-
mathaea, who, after preparing it with ointments and
spices, and wrapping it in linen cloths, according to
Jewish custom, put it in a rock tomb in his gar
den; and the stone door shut it in (Mark 1542-46,
Mt. 2757-60, Luke 2350-56, John 1938-42). Thus Jesus
was entombed, as was the custom among the Jews
and the early Christians of Rome, in the numerous
catacombs. He was not buried in the ground. It

CRUCIFIED AND BURIED 123
was important to state the fact that Jesus' body
was placed in a tomb, and not burned, or devoured
by beasts or birds of prey. This was necessary in
order to the resurrection of His body that followed.
Furthermore, the entombment of the body carried
with it implicitly the descent of His departed spirit
to Hades, the common abode of the dead, in ac
cordance with the opinion of Romans, Greeks, and
Jews alike, in those times.
So St. Paul makes the antithesis between entomb
ment and resurrection: "We who were baptized into
Christ Jesus, were baptized into His death. We
were entombed therefore with Him through the bap
tism into the death: that like as Christ was raised
from the dead through the glory of the Father, so
we also might walk in newness of life" (Rom. 63"4);
"having been entombed with Him in baptism,
wherein ye were also raised with Him through faith
in the working of God, who raised Him from the
dead" (Col. 212). The entombment of Christ was
an act of salvation for us; because, as St. Paul says,
Christians were by organic union with Him in bap
tism entombed with Him, and, we may say, de
scended to Hades with Him; thus going through all
the processes that mankind must pursue prior to,
and in order to, the resurrection. Thus Jesus con
secrated death and the tomb and Hades for Chris
tians, and made them a gateway to the resurrection
and the heavenly life.
The later forms of the fourth article of the Creed
enlarge the crucifixion to comprehend all the suffer-

124 THE APOSTLES' CREED
ings that preceded the crucifixion, and made explicit
what was implicit before: namely, the death, and
the descent into Hades for the salvation of the dead.
(4) Suffered.
As we have already seen, this more general term
was most common in Eastern Creeds, and is used
by Irenaeus. Even Tertullian, in one of his uses,
gives it, probably as the more general term to com
prehend more then the crucifixion; namely all the
sufferings of Jesus connected therewith. Thus Igna
tius says : "was truly persecuted under Pontius Pi
late, was truly crucified, and died" (Tral. 9).
Suffered came into the Apostles' Creed probably
by assimilation to the Nicene Creed; in order to in
clude all the sufferings of Christ besides the crucifix
ion and previous thereto, such as the scourging, the
crowning with thorns, and all those other sufferings
of Christ which the Middle Ages emphasized, and
which are represented in the stations of the Cross
still used, especially in Roman Catholic countries.
The verb Trao-^w is not used of the sufferings of
Christ by St. Paul; but it is characteristic of the
First Epistle of Peter (221'23, 318, 41), the Epistle to the
Hebrews (218, 58, g26, 1312), Luke's Gospel (1725, 2215,
2426' 46), and the Book of Acts (i3, 318, 178).
The noun •n-dOrj/Mz is used of Christ's sufferings in
I Peter i11, 413, 51; also Heb. 29' 10; and by St. Paul,
II Cor. iB, Phil. 310.
This emphasis upon the sufferings of Christ was
doubtless due to the sufferings of Christian martyrs
who followed their Lord in the experience of suffer-

CRUCIFIED AND BURIED 125
ings, often much more severe on the physical side
than those of the Master. His sufferings had not
relieved them from suffering; but they enabled the
martyrs to rejoice in their sufferings in view of their
speedy and eternal reward.
(5) Dead.
This insertion seems unnecessary, as it was im
plied in the crucifixion and burial, although Igna
tius and Origen, and even Tertullian (in his second
form), use it, the last two, however, without cruci
fixion; Ignatius with the crucifixion but without the
burial. It was inserted probably merely for com
pleteness and fulness of statement.
Death, in antithesis with life, is especially charac
teristic of the Gospel of John (io11' 15> 17> 1S, 1233, 1513;
I John 316; cf. Heb. 29' 14), and it is used in a general
sense with reference to Christ throughout the New
Testament. It is quite possible that when the practice of cru
cifixion had passed away, ignorant people did not
understand what it meant, and it became important
to make it plain in the Creed that Christ actually
died, in order to understand the resurrection that
followed. (6) Descended into Hell.
This phrase appears in a Creed first in that of
Aquileia (c. 390). But it is found in three previous
Synodical declarations, those of Sirminium, Nice, and
Constantinople (359-360). Cyril of Jerusalem, in
his commentary on the Creed, makes the Descent
into Hell one of the necessary articles.1
1 Catech., IV; v. Swete, Apostles' Creed, pp. 56 seq.

126 THE APOSTLES' CREED
Some modern scholars have urged that hell or in-
ferna and even Hades were only synonyms of the
grave; but that is impossible in view of Biblical
statements as to Hades, and the views of the early
Fathers. The descent into Hades was really im
plied in the term entombed of the Roman Creed;
for it was the universal opinion in ancient times
that when the body was entombed, the spirit de
parted from it to Hades.1 But it was subsequently
thought best to state it.
The Athanasian Creed has it (early fifth century).
It is in the Creeds of Venantius Fortunatus (c. 570),
and of the fourth Council of Toledo (63 3). 2
The most important passages of Scripture on which
the doctrine of the Creed is founded, are:
(a) Acts 227, where St. Peter quotes the sixteenth
Psalm and applies it to Christ.
"Thou wilt not leave my soul unto Hades
Neither wilt Thou give Thy Holy One to see corruption." (R. V.)
The original is:3
"Thou wilt not leave me to Sheol;
Thou wilt not suffer thy pious one to see the Pit."
St. Peter says: "Being therefore a prophet, and
knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him,
that of the fruit of his loins He would set (one) upon
1 V. Pearson, Exposition of the Creed, Art. V.
!The Old Testament usage of Swb- is given in my article Slew (Rob
inson's Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon, BDB); and the New Testament usage
of iJcSy)?, in Thayer's Greek Lexicon of the New Testament.
8 V. Briggs, Commentary on the Psalms, I, 121. Luke follows the
Septuagint in making nrtB* abstract, rather than the concrete pit of
Sheol.

CRUCIFIED AND BURIED 127
his throne; he, foreseeing (this), spake of the resur
rection of the Christ, that neither was He left unto
Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption" (Acts 230 31).
This implies that Jesus went to Hades; yet He was
not left there by God, but, on the contrary, was
raised up from Hades.
(b) Jesus also refers to Hades in His Parable of
Dives and Lazarus, where He puts in antithesis the
two parts, Hades and Abraham's Bosom (Luke
1622"23); and also when He tells the dying robber: "To
day shalt thou be with me in Paradise" (Luke 2343).
According to the opinion of the times, Hades was the
general term for the place whither all the dead went;
it might be used for the whole, or for either of the
antithetical parts. There was the place of the right
eous, called specifically Paradise, or Abraham's
Bosom; there was the place of punishment called
the Pit, or Destruction.
(c) St. Paul refers to the descent of Jesus to Hades.
"Now this, 'He ascended,' what is it but that He
also descended into the lower parts of the earth?
He that descended is the same also that ascended
far above all the heavens, that He might fill all
things" (Eph. 49'10).1
Usage makes it plain that t<& xorciirrepa (jiprj zr)<; y*)s refers
to Sheol. So Origen (Hom. 35 in Matthew); Athanasius
(Epist. ad Epictetum); Hilarius (in Psalm 67); Jerome (Com.
in loco); Hilary (De Trinitate, X, 65); and the best mod-
1 jn2N = Greek ixdXeta (nna:,iu). Gehenna was never used for the
place after death, but only for the final place of punishment subse-
sequent to the Messianic judgment. V. my articles in Robinson's
Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon, BDB.

128 THE APOSTLES' CREED
erns. Indeed, the usage of the Old Testament (Ezekiel
2620, 3218. M; Psalms 63s, 13915) favors its reference to the
deeper, gloomier regions of Sheol, the place of punish
ment. (V. my Commentary on Psalms, II, 76; also Messiah
of the Apostles, p. 202.)
This descent is in order to an ascent. In the as
cent He does not ascend alone, but with captives:
"He led captivity captive." These captives, ac
cording to the fundamental passages (Psalm 6818,
Judges 512), are not captive enemies, but captives
rescued from the enemy. These, therefore, can be
no other than those whom Christ delivered from the
bondage of death, and brought with Him in His as
cent from Hades;1 those referred to in John 5® and
Mt. 27s2' 53.
This interpretation of Eph. 49' 10 is confirmed by
Rom. io6'7: "Say not in thy heart: Who shall as
cend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down);
or, Who shall descend into the abyss? (that is, to
bring Christ up from the dead)." The abyss, ttjv
afivo-o-ov (as in Rev. 911; Luke 831), is the translation
of the Septuagint in Psalm 7120, of the depths of
Sheol, pxn moinn.2
(d) The most important passage is I Peter 318-20:
"Because Christ also suffered for sins once, just for un
just, that He might bring us to God; being put to death in
flesh, but quickened in spirit; in which also He went and
preached unto the spirits in prison, which aforetime were
disobedient, when the long-suffering of God waited in the
days of Noah," etc.
1 V. Messiah of the Gospels, pp. 275-6; Messiah of the Apostles, pp.
203-4. 8 V. Hebrew Lexicon, sub voce.

CRUCIFIED AND BURIED 129
This passage has been much contested in modern
times; but the ancients were wellnigh unanimous
in referring it to Christ's descent to Hades and His
preaching to the prisoners of Hades, especially the
antediluvians.1 That is the only sound interpreta
tion of the passage; and it is confirmed by 46, where
it is distinctly stated :
"For unto this end was the Gospel preached even to the
dead, that they might be judged according to men in the
flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."2
Among the ancients who refer this passage to Jesus' de
scent to Hades to preach to the dead are Hermas (Sim., IX),
Irenaeus (IV, 272), Clement of Alexandria (Strom., VI, 6),
Origen (c. Cels., II, 43), Tertullian (De anima, c. 55), Hip
polytus (De Antichristo, 26, 45).
0?) Heb. 2Useq-: Jesus died "that through death
He might bring to naught him that had the power
of death, that is, the devil; and might deliver all
them who through fear of death were all their life
time subject to bondage." Thus the death of Jesus
was in order that He might triumph over death and
the devil in Hades.
(/) Rev. i18: The Messiah in theophany to John
declares: "I was dead, and behold, I am alive for-
evermore, and I have the keys of Death and of
Hades." This implies the authority over them, and
the power to open the doors of Hades and to close
them; to confine in Hades or to release therefrom.
Another passage suggesting the triumph of Jesus
in Hades is Col. 215.
There should be no doubt therefore as to the New
1 V. Messiah of the Apostles, pp. 56 seq. 'Ibid., pp. 59 se q.

130 THE APOSTLES' CREED
Testament doctrine of the descent of Christ to Hades
in the main features, though many details are ob
scure.1 Jesus' statement to the dying robber, and St.
Peter's statement on the Day of Pentecost, imply
that Jesus went to the paradise of Hades. St. Paul's
statement implies that He went to the prison of
Hades to rescue some at least of its prisoners. St.
Peter teaches definitely that Jesus went to the prison
of Hades to preach to the prisoners there, especially
the wicked antediluvians, who rejected the preach
ing of Noah. If the Gospel was preached to them
by Jesus, certainly to others less wicked than they,
and also certainly not in vain; for the preaching of
Jesus is a power of God unto salvation, and St. Paul
tells us that He did in fact rescue captives. It is
also plain, according to Heb. 214 and Rev. i18, that
Jesus has authority over Hades, and triumphed over
Satan and death there.
This is the New Testament background of the
mission of Jesus to the lower world. It was, indeed,
just as important that Jesus should preach to the
dead as to the living; especially if St. Peter is right
in his statement that "in none other is there sal
vation: for neither is there any other name under
heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must
be saved" (Acts 412).
We should understand that the universal belief in
Hades as the abode of the dead, in the apostolic
1 V. Briggs, Messiah of the Apostles, pp. 530-4.

CRUCIFIED AND BURIED 131
times and in the early Christian centuries, made it
easy for the early Christians to think of Jesus' de
scent to Hades and preaching there. The modern
Protestant ignoring of the Middle State between
death and the resurrection makes it difficult for
Protestants to understand this doctrine.
There were many differences among the ancients
as to the work of Christ in Hades.
(i) Polycarp only mentions the ascent from
Hades: "Whom God raised, having loosed the pangs
of Hades"; based on Acts 224.
(2) Ignatius says: "How shall we be able to live
apart from Him? Seeing that even the prophets,
being His disciples, were expecting Him as their
teacher through the Spirit. And for this cause He
whom they rightly awaited, when He came, raised
them from the dead" (Magn., 9).
(3) Hermas says that "the Apostles and the teach
ers who preached the name of the Son of God, after
they had fallen asleep in the power and faith of the
Son of God, preached also to them that had fallen
asleep before them, and themselves gave unto them
the seal of the preaching" (Sim., IX, 16).
Thus the Apostles and teachers carried on the
work of Christ in Hades, just as they did here upon
the earth. These three of the Apostolic Fathers give
their testimony; and there is no one against their
doctrine. (4) Eusebius represents that Thaddeus, the Apos
tle to Edessa, preached that Christ "was crucified
and descended into Hades, and burst the bars which

132 THE APOSTLES' CREED
from eternity had not been broken, and raised the
dead; for He descended alone, but rose with many,
and thus ascended to His Father" (Hist. Eccl., I,
1319). (5) Justin says, quoting from the Old Testament
a passage not found in Hebrew in exactly these terms,
but probably using Is. 2619 with this interpreta
tion, possibly from an Aramaic or Greek paraphrase:
"The Lord remembered his dead people of Israel who
lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to
them His own salvation" (Try ph., 72).
(6) According to Irenaeus, "Isaiah says: 'And the
holy Lord remembered His dead Israel, who had
slept in the land of sepulture; and He came down to
preach His salvation to them, that He might save
them'" (Adv. Hcer., Ill, 204). He also quotes from
one of the elders of the second Christian generation:
"It was for this reason, too, that the Lord descended into
the regions beneath the earth, preaching His advent there
also, and (declaring) the remission of sins received by those
who believe in Him. Now all those believed in Him who
had hope toward Him; that is, those who proclaimed His
advent, and submitted to His dispensations, the righteous
men, the prophets, and the patriarchs, to whom He remitted
sins in the same way as He did to us" (IV, 27s; cf. also V,
3i1'2).
(7) Hippolytus represents that Christ preached
the Gospel to the souls of the saints, and also, to
"ransom the souls of the saints from the hand of
death." He also represents that John the Baptist an
nounced Christ's advent in Hades just as he did in
this world. (De Antichristo, 26, 45.)

CRUCIFIED AND BURIED 133
(8) Tertullian says: "With the same law of His
being He (Christ) fully complied, by remaining in
Hades in the form and condition of a dead man;
nor did He ascend into the heights of heaven before
descending into the lower parts of the earth, that
He might make the patriarchs and prophets par
takers of Himself" (De anima, 55).
The most ancient view was therefore the preach
ing of the Gospel to the pious dead of the Old Testa
ment. Clement of Alexandria extended this preaching to
the pious dead of the heathen as well (Strom., VI, 6) ;
so Origen (c. Celsum, II, 43).
The Creed undoubtedly means that Jesus Christ
descended to Hades as an important stage in His
work of salvation; for all the acts mentioned in the
Creed are saving acts. It meant to the early Chris
tians certainly (1) that Christ thereby became the
conqueror of Death and Hades, the Devil and all
evil angels, taking all Christians from under their
authority and control.
(2) It also meant to them that He preached His
Gospel to all the pious dead, who there believed on
Him and shared in Christian salvation; so that He
"opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers."
(3) It was uncertain how far the pious dead were
removed from Hades as companions in the resurrec
tion of Jesus, and how far they were to remain in the
paradise of Hades until the resurrection. The New
Testament teaches that some at least of the pious

134 THE APOSTLES' CREED
dead, the saints and martyrs, accompanied Jesus in
His resurrection; and the Catholic Church holds now
as in ancient times that the saints go to heaven. But
many of the Fathers do not hold to that opinion. It
is the common opinion among Protestants that all
believers at death go to heaven; but it is difficult to
prove this, either from the New Testament or from
the history of doctrine or in any other way, and it
is contrary to the consensus of the ancient Church.
(4) It is disputed by the Fathers and theologians,
whether Christ preached to the wicked dead, and
whether He saved any of them. The tendency in
Scholastic Theology was to draw the line of salva
tion strictly by sacramental lines. High Augustin-
ians and High Calvinists limited salvation to the
elect. There could be no salvation after death ex
cept for those whose salvation was begun in this
world by baptism, either in fact, or through the
baptism of desire.
There was a continuance of the process after death
in the purgatory of the Roman Catholics and the
intermediate state of the ancients. But most Prot
estants denied the intermediate state altogether; and
made heaven or hell dependent upon faith in Christ
and union with the Church in this life. Many mod
erns recognize, on the basis of I Peter, that Christ
preached to the wicked dead, and saved at least
some of them; and agree with that opinion which
prevailed in the early Church.
(5) Hermas, in the early Church, and Clement of
Alexandria (Strom., II, 9) held that the Apostles and

CRUCIFIED AND BURIED 135
Christian teachers continued the work of Christ in
preaching to the dead. Few have followed them in
this opinion, whether ancient or modern. There is
no Biblical evidence on the subject. It is a ques
tion of probability, or improbability, depending on
deductions from other doctrines and facts of the
Christian religion.
In this section of the Creed, as in the others, the
phrase, descended into hell, may mean little or much
in accordance with circumstances and education.
There are, however, several modern opinions,
which have no historic right in the interpretation of
the Creed. These are:
(i) He descended into hell amounts to nothing more than
He descended into the grave.
(2) He descended into hell means He suffered the penalties
of the damned in hell.
(3) He descended into hell to triumph over the devil in his
own dominions.
The Formula of Concord (IX) limits the purpose
of the descent to this: "that He destroyed hell for
all believers, and that we through Him have been
snatched from the power of death and Satan, from
eternal damnation, and even from the jaws of hell."
None of these theories explain the insertion of the
clause into the Creed; and they are altogether in
consistent with the Descent into Hades as a saving
act of Jesus, which certainly was the thought of
those who inserted the clause in the Creed.
Unfortunately the early Protestants, in overlook
ing the Middle State of souls, confounded the Mid-

136 THE APOSTLES' CREED
die State with the Final State after the Resurrection;
and so Hell was used for Hades = Sheol, the Biblical
term for the Middle State, and also for Gehenna —
atruikeia, the Final State after the resurrection; and
they understood 77*// in the sense of Gehenna, the
ultimate place of damnation. Accordingly, the Prot
estant Episcopal Church permits the minister to sub
stitute: "He went into the place of departed spir
its." But this permission is seldom used now; for
the ministry and people have come to a better un
derstanding of the meaning of the Descent into Hell.

CHAPTER VII
RISEN FROM THE DEAD
The fifth article of the Apostles' Creed represents
the resurrection of Christ from among the dead, on
the third day, as His third great act of salvation,
securing thereby the resurrection of mankind and
the justification of all believers.
The fifth article of the Old Roman Creed was:
On the third day risen from the dead. The Creed of
the fourth century was the same, except the sub
stitution of indicative for participle of the same verb.
The Creed has always remained the same in this
article since the second century.
The exact words of the Creed are not found in the
New Testament, nor among the Apostolic Fathers, so
far as I know.
Tertullian has in his first form : tertia die resusci-
tatum a mortuis.
The Creeds of Cyril, Eusebius, and Nicaea have:
avaordvTa tjj TpiTrj rjfiipa.
It seems probable from the usage of these East
ern Creeds that, underlying the Creed of the second
century, there was a still earlier form without e« t&v
veicp&v, and that the original form of the Roman
Creed was that of the Oriental Creeds, so far as this
article is concerned.
The whole phrase of these early Creeds is prima-
137

138 THE APOSTLES' CREED
rily based on the words of Jesus Himself, predicting
His resurrection.
The Lukan Gospel, here as elsewhere, was at the
basis of the Roman Creed, the original phrase being
based on the words of Jesus (Luke 922, 1833), later en
larged by the addition of e* veicp&v from Luke 2446.
(i) On the third day. This phrase was doubtless
used because of its significance in the words of Jesus
Himself, fulfilled as they were by the event, as rep
resented in I Cor. 154. The significance of the third
day was: (a) to make sufficiently evident the real
ity of the death, burial, and descent into Hades.
There was sufficient time for all these, (b) It was
not to extend the time during which the Redeemer
would be subjected to death and Hades; (c) it was
to make the resurrection more distinct and definite,
as an event which happened at a particular time
and after a predicted interval. Doubtless the pre
diction of Jesus and its fulfilment were in the minds
of the authors of the Creed.
(2) Risen, the aorist participle, is connected, as
all the other terms, with Jesus Christ, God's Son, our
Lord. The verb is here active, as implying that the
resurrection was an act of the Lord Himself. It is
usual in the New Testament to represent that God
raised up His Son, God being active, Jesus passive.1
We have exactly the same difference in point of
view here as in the case of the incarnation; only
there is a singular reversal of attitude. Thus St.
1 Acts 2«- », 13", 17"; I Cor. 15*-" (nine times); Rom. 4"; cf. V, 4",
6', 8"- »; Eph. i!».

RISEN FROM THE DEAD 139
Paul represents the Son as active in the incarnation,
but usually as passive in the resurrection, except in
I Thes. 414, and when the resurrection and ascension
are combined in the ascent. According to Matthew,
the Son is passive in the resurrection as well as in
the incarnation. Luke's Gospel follows Mark in re
garding the Son as active in the resurrection, in all
cases, quoting words of Jesus. Matthew agrees with
St. Paul in using iyeipoo, arouse from the sleep of
death = ypn the Old Testament term of Is. 2619,
Dn. 122. But the Gospels of Mark and Luke use
avio-Triiu, intransitive, rise up, stand up; doubtless
because of the Aramaic of Jesus and Hebrew of Mark.1
Luke, in Acts, uses both avCa-Trj/u and iyeipoa. The
Son is active in John's Gospel, so far as the resurrec
tion comes into view. He has life in Himself as the
Father has. Usually the resurrection is combined
with the ascension, in the return to the Father and
ascending where He was before. There is no differ
ence of doctrine here, for both God the Father and
God the Son are active together in the unity of their
Being. Whenever God the Father is mentioned, the
resurrection of Jesus is His work.
St. Paul regards the resurrection of Christ as the
cardinal principle of his theology. "If Christ hath
not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your
faith also is vain" (I Cor. 1514). The resurrection
is the cardinal doctrine also to St. Peter, and in the
early preaching of Christians. The Apostles were
especially witnesses of Christ's resurrection (Acts i22).
1 Delitzsch, Hebrew New Testament, uses Dip here.

140 THE APOSTLES' CREED
That was an essential requisite for the choice of the
one who was to supply the place of Judas in the col
lege of the Twelve.
The Gospels lay great stress on the resurrection.
It is true that the account of the resurrection in
Mark 169"20 is a later addition to the Gospel; al
though still within the limits of apostolicity and can-
onicity. But thrice St. Mark gives predictions of
our Lord Himself as to His resurrection (831, 99'31,
io34), and in 161"8 gives an account of the visit of the
women to the empty tomb and the message of the
angel to the disciples that they should meet Jesus in
Galilee. All this implies not only the resurrection
but also appearances to the Apostles. His narrative
of the resurrection probably was designed by St.
Mark to be in his narrative of the Jerusalem church,
which is preserved in the early chapters of Acts as
the source of that narrative.1 The usual opinion is
that the original story of the resurrection by St.
Mark has been lost from the Gospel, and its place
is taken by the present narrative.
The stories of the resurrection in Matthew, Luke,
John, and I Cor. 15 are quite full. St. Paul's narra
tive is the earliest in time (I Cor. 153"8). He men
tions no less than six appearances: (1) to St. Peter
(cf. Luke 24s4), (2) to the Eleven (cf. Mark 1614; John
2026-29. Acts Ii-5)> (3) to the Five Hundred Breth
ren, (4) to St. James, the Lord's brother, (5) to all the
Apostles, probably at the ascension (cf. Mark 1619;
Luke 2450-61; Acts i6-11), (6) to St. Paul himself.
¦ V. Briggs, New Light on the Life of Jesus, pp. 112 seq.

RISEN FROM THE DEAD 141
The Synoptic Gospels mention four others: (i) to
Mary Magdalene and other women (Mark 169-11; Mt.
289-10; also John 2011-18), (2) to Cleopas and his com
panion (Mark i612"13; Luke 2413-32), (3) to the Ten in
the room ofthe Lord's Supper (Luke 24s6-43; also John
20 19"24), (4) to the Eleven on a mountain in Galilee
(Mt. 2816-17; Mark 1615-18). John gives one more:
(5) to the Seven on the Sea of Galilee (John 211-23).
There are thus, in all, ten appearances of Jesus re
ported, besides that to St. Paul : He appeared once to
an aggregate of five hundred disciples, to the Eleven
at least thrice, to ten of them at least four times, to
seven of them at least five times, and to St. Peter
no less than six times, besides the Christophany re
ported in Acts (io9-16).
St. Paul derived his knowledge of these appear
ances from his personal acquaintance with St. Peter
and St. James, and other members of the Jerusalem
Church, on his several visits to Jerusalem mentioned
in the Book of Acts and in his Epistles. Therefore
his testimony is entirely independent of the state
ments of the Gospels, as indeed it was prior to the
composition of any of them.
As regards the Five Hundred, St. Paul said to the
Corinthians: "The majority survive until now."
Thus several hundred witnesses of the risen Saviour
were still living about twenty-five years after the
ascension. St. Paul himself had met and questioned
some of them; and they might be questioned by any
one who desired to verify his statements.1
lCf. Plummer, Commentary on Corinthians, p. 335 seq.

142 THE APOSTLES' CREED
We thus have two independent lines of evidence,
St. Paul's being entirely apart from those lines which
appear in the Gospels and the Book of Acts.
We have not St. Mark's original story of the res
urrection; and therefore we cannot be sure how far
Luke and Matthew depend upon him. But it seems
likely that their reports, as well as those in the Ap
pendix to Mark, are based upon Mark's original, and
thus upon the testimony of St. Peter. This, then,
gives eleven appearances of the risen Jesus: three
common to Paul and the Synoptists, and three pe
culiar to Paul and four to them; also, one peculiar
to the Appendix to John's Gospel. The three in
common are: (i) to Peter, (2) to the Eleven, (3) to
all the Apostles. The second also appears in John.
Thus three lines of independent evidence agree in
these three. Three are peculiar to St. Paul: (1) to
the Five Hundred, (2) to James, (3) to Paul himself.
Four are peculiar to the Synoptic group: (1) to the
Magdalene, (2) to the two disciples at Emmaus, (3)
to the Ten in the upper chamber, (4) to the Eleven
on a mountain in Galilee; the second and third veri
fied by Luke's careful investigations, and the first
and third also witnessed by John. The Appendix
to John also reports an additional one, to the Seven
on the Sea of Galilee.
Thus the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is
varied, consistent, and cumulative; such as we should
expect from such a number of witnesses: and we
may say that the appearances reported at an early
date by St. Paul are among the most extraordinary

RISEN FROM THE DEAD 143
and important ones; and they were made known in
an Epistle when most of the Apostles were still living
to verify the statements if true; to correct them if
incorrect or erroneous. St. Peter and St. Paul dis
agreed upon another matter of importance, certainly
not on this.
It is difficult to see how any more complete and
reliable testimony could be given for such an event.
All of these appearances except that to St. Paul
occurred during the forty days between the resur
rection and the ascension. In addition, we have in
the Book of Acts the report of a Christophany to
St. Peter (Acts io9"16), and in Revelation (i9~3) an
other to St. John. Certainly these two chief Apos
tles must have been able to distinguish the voice and
appearance of Jesus, when Jesus appeared to Peter
at least six times during the forty days, and at least
once after His ascension; and to John the beloved,
at least five times during the forty days and at least
once afterward. How could they have been mis
taken about this? It is only what we should ex
pect, that they made the resurrection the first prin
ciple of their theology.
(3) The resurrection body of our Lord.
The appearances of Jesus after the resurrection are
all Christophanies, or manifestations of the glory of
the Messiah, to those to whom He wished to manifest
Himself and to no others. The appearance to St.
Paul was some years after the forty days, in order to
convert him when on his way to Damascus. Three
descriptions are given of it: Acts 91-19, 224-16, 269'18;

144 THE APOSTLES' CREED
and it is also referred to in St. Paul's Epistles: Gal.
ji, 15-16. i Q>r# 91; as well as in I Cor. 158; cf. II
Cor. II5, 1211'12. This event was the turning-point
in St. Paul's career. He saw Jesus enveloped in glo
rious light, heard His voice, and knew that it was
the risen Lord. The Christophanies to St. Peter
and St. John were of a similar character (Acts io9"16;
Rev. I9 "*•)• The other manifestations were during
the forty days. We have in all these a considerable
amount of detail, which is instructive. It might be
said that these Christophanies to the Apostles after
the Ascension were appearances of a disembodied
spirit. But the Jesus that appeared spake with an
audible voice, and was visible in a glorified body,
such as St. Paul describes in his report of the event
and on the basis of which, in I Cor. 1542 seq; he repre
sents it as the image of the resurrection body of
believers. When St. Paul classifies five manifestations of the
risen Christ during the forty days with the Christo-
phanic manifestation to himself some years after
ward, he certainly implies that they all had the same
general character as Christophanies. But does it
imply, as some would have it, that they all were
manifestations of a disembodied spirit? This would,
in the first place, be contrary to all of the Gospels,
and also to the context of St. Paul's teaching in this
passage, where he evidently has in mind, and ex
pressly teaches, that Christ "hath been raised from
the dead, the first-fruits of them that are asleep"
(v. 20) ; and that His resurrection body is the norm of

RISEN FROM THE DEAD 145
their resurrection bodies, so that, "as we have borne
the image of the earthy (the first Adam), we shall
also bear the image of the heavenly (the second
Adam, Christ; v. 49)." He also states the character
istics of the resurrection body: (a) Incorruptible, iv
afyQapo-ia, (v. 42). This is in accordance with II Tim.
i10, where it is said that Christ, in His first advent,
"brought life and incorruption (a$6apa(av) to light
through the Gospel." (b) Glorious, iv Sogg (v. 43).
So Phil. 320' 21 : " For our commonwealth is in heaven;
from whence also we wait for a Saviour, the Lord
Jesus Christ, who shall fashion anew the body of our
humiliation, conformed to the body of His glory."
(c) Powerful, iv Svvdfiei (v. **) over against weakness.
(d) Spiritual, irvevfiaTi/eov (v. u), over against sen
suous. The last two remind us of Rom. i4, iv
Swdfiet Ka/ra, trvev/ia ayuoo-vvr)<;, with power, according
to the spirit of holiness.
There can be no doubt therefore that these four
attributes of the risen body of Christ, the first-fruits
of the resurrection, after which all Christians are to
be conformed in their resurrection, were in the mind
of St. Paul when he referred to the appearances of
Christ after the resurrection, to himself and to the
others mentioned, on six different occasions.
These qualities of the risen body are antithetical
to those of the bodies of all mankind before their
resurrection, when, as Paul says, they are bodies of
humiliation, bodies of the earth, earthy, and, when
deposited in the earth after death, are sown in cor
ruption, in dishonor, in weakness, as sensuous bodies.

146 THE APOSTLES' CREED
The change from the one to the other is wrought by
the Spirit of God through Christ.
According to the Gospels and the Book of Acts,
the flesh of Jesus saw no corruption in the grave.
The nails had pierced the hands and feet, the sol
diers' spear had pierced the side, the head had been
crowned with thorns, the back had been bruised and
torn with the scourges, He had bled profusely; but
His flesh did not corrupt; decay did not begin.
When He rose from the dead, He exhibited His
wounds to the doubting Thomas (John 2027). He
called the attention of His disciples to His flesh and
bones, and said: "Handle me, and see; for a spirit
hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having"
(Luke 24s9). He ate fish with them (Luke 2442'43).
And yet His risen body had properties which no other
human body ever had: (1) He appeared and disap
peared at pleasure; (2) He was recognized or not rec
ognized, as it pleased Him; (3) He entered a room
without regard to doors; (4) 77* rose from the earth
into the sky, and disappeared, when He finally left
His disciples. Thus the body of Jesus during the
forty days seems to have been different from any
other human body known to man in these and pos
sibly other respects.
We might think that His body at the resurrection
was in a state of transition between the body pre
vious to the crucifixion and the body subsequent to
the ascension; the same human body persisting
through these changes, which did not affect the form
of the body, however much they may have affected

RISEN FROM THE DEAD 147
the substance of which it was composed, making it
independent of the laws of material substance and
giving it some of the properties of spiritual sub
stance. It was, indeed, just this change in the body
of Jesus, adapting it for different conditions and cir
cumstances, which, as St. Paul shows, makes it pos
sible for Christians to think of their own resurrec
tion in the same bodies which they have at death,
although with different properties like those of the
risen Lord.
The qualities of the risen body of Jesus are some
what different in linguistic statement in the Gos
pels from those mentioned by St. Paul: and yet
they are of the same general character; for they
indicate a body that had not seen corruption, that
was possessed of a power of body unknown before,
that was spiritual rather than material, and that
possessed a glory which, although it did not appear
in striking forms during the forty days, yet was man
ifest to St. Paul in the Christophany on the way to
Damascus. It is evident, therefore, that the body of Christ
after the resurrection, when He manifested Himself
in Christophany to the disciples, had, in part at
least, the three qualities of incorruption, power, and
spirituality, and after the ascension, in His Chris
tophanies to St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. John, glory
likewise. The chief objections made to the resurrection of
the body of Jesus are of the same kind as those made

148 THE APOSTLES' CREED
against the Virgin Birth. They are a priori in their
nature, due to hostility to anything that is super
natural. They insist that the human body of Jesus
was the same kind of a body in all respects as those
of other men; and therefore that it could not go
through the experiences reported by the Gospels and
the Epistles. They beg their major premise and their
conclusion is the reverse of facts. Then, all these wit
nesses of the resurrection, upon whom Christianity
depends, must have been mistaken, and their testi
mony as to the facts must be regarded as incredible.
In other words, we simply have theorists in contra
diction with eye-witnesses. This situation only needs
to be clearly seen, and the theorists will be put to
flight. It is not the bodily resurrection of a mere man,
though he be the greatest of all men. It is the res
urrection of the Son of God, the divine man. It is
not the resurrection of an ordinary body, but of an
extraordinary body, united at the incarnation by
virgin conception once for all and forever to divin
ity. It is not a body with ordinary qualities; but
one with those extraordinary qualities that the ideal
man, the normal man, ought to possess; such indeed
as alone were appropriate to the incarnate God.
The opponents of the bodily resurrection base their
objections partly on supposed scientific grounds,
partly on the supernatural character of these Chris
tophanies, and partly upon the extraordinary char
acter of the stories.
(i) It is impossible to make any valid objections

RISEN FROM THE DEAD 149
on the ground of the Criticism of the Narratives,
whether Textual or Literary. There are no texts of
the First Epistle to the Corinthians, the Book of Acts,
the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, where these nar
ratives of the resurrection do not appear. The extra
one given in John is in a later addition to the Gospel,
but one made before the Gospel became canonical;
and so it has never been questioned by the Church.
There is no actual report of the resurrection in the
original Mark; but there are three predictions of it,
and another final one, at the close of the Gospel, to
the women at the empty tomb. These imply re
ports of the event itself at the close of the Gospel,
or in an additional writing by the author, which is
an indirect implicit witness of the best kind. But
even without the story of Mark, we have all that it
gives in the other witnesses; and, if we leave out
of consideration the one from the addition to John,
it simply reduces the number from n to io.
The question of literary sources is an interesting
one. What was in the lost conclusion of Mark?
Was the narrative of the Appendix to Mark taken
from the Jerusalem source of Acts? But the an
swer to these questions does not make any impor
tant difference in the situation.
(2) Historical Criticism does not impeach the wit
nesses because, as we have seen, they were either
eye-witnesses, or writers who record the testimony of
eye-witnesses, while the most of these were still alive
to verify or deny the reports. These were made not
very long after the event, at various dates during

150 THE APOSTLES' CREED
the apostolic age. They are in writings, some inde
pendent, others dependent, with opportunities of
verification. They are varied in form and statement,
but yet harmonious, and so presenting cumulative
evidence. A priori objections against such evidence
are, to say the least, unscholarly and unreasonable.
(3) Science knows of no resurrection of any one
really dead. But Science cannot say that God can
not raise the dead to life; or that Jesus Christ, if
divine, could not rise from the dead of His own in
herent power. We have to consider that the soul
does not die in any case. It is simply the question
whether the soul may not return from the spirit
world to the body in the tomb and quicken it into
new life.
Science cannot deny that the God-man Jesus Christ
might do this. Philosophy can only demand a suf
ficient reason. That reason is given in the fact that
it was a redemptive act for humanity as a whole.
The unique event was a return of the God-man
from the abode of the dead to a brief life of mani
festation in this world.
The narratives of the Gospels and the statements
of the Epistles present to us a human body differ
ent from any other known to Science; but these dif
ferences are not such as imply anything that is in
consistent with a human body, or with its identity
or continuity of existence. Science does not know,
and cannot tell us, what is the power of life in the
body, what is its structural principle, and how it is
related to the soul. Psychology can tell us but

RISEN FROM THE DEAD 151
little about the nature of the soul, and the relations
of soul to body. The questions of primary and sec
ondary substance, of matter and form, of attributes
and accidents, are very little advanced beyond where
Aristotle left them. Modern works of Science and
Philosophy shed little light on those questions.
There are speculative theories enough, but little that
one can rely on as true and real.
The body and soul are in constant process of
change. New elements for growth are constantly
needed; old elements, that have decayed, must
constantly be discharged; and so it goes on, until the
latter gain the mastery, and death with its corrup
tion ensues. We are told that the body of Jesus
saw no corruption in the tomb, though dead. This
is contrary to the usual consequences of death. This
preservation from corruption may have been an act
of the Father, or of the Son Himself; or it may have
been a property of the Redeemer's body itself. Sci
ence cannot deny that which is thus beyond its own
scope and knowledge. The properties of the risen
body of our Lord are certainly most remarkable,
such as are usually attributed to ghosts, or disem
bodied spirits; and yet at the same time the body
was not ghostly, for it had flesh, and bones, and
wounds. It was, therefore, a body which shared in
part in ghostly qualities, and in part in qualities of
the ordinary body. Was it, then, in a state of tran
sition from one to the other? Certainly not, because
the same body that died rose and ascended, and
remains in heaven, and is given to the Church in the

152 THE APOSTLES' CREED
Eucharist. That is the teaching of Scripture and
the Church; and on it is based the doctrine of the
resurrection of believers in I Cor. 15. All Churches
agree in this, whatever variant opinions they may
have as to the nature of the Redeemer's presence,
since His enthronement.
We must therefore think of the Redeemer's body as
having, after the resurrection, qualities which other
human bodies have not, and as being composed of
substance somewhat different in character from or
dinary human flesh. All this is certainly most ex
traordinary. But a priori objections amount to
nothing against the abundant evidence presented in
the New Testament; the basal character of the res
urrection for Christianity, and its structural signif
icance for the entire system of Christian doctrine,
which would all disappear together if the resurrec
tion of Jesus Christ could be disproved.
(4) From the dead=iic veiep&v. This term was
probably derived from Luke 2446. It was probably
not in the oldest Roman Creed, as it is not in the
oldest Eastern Creeds. It is, however, usually at
tached to the resurrection in the New Testament,
not only in connection with Jesus, but also in con
nection with mankind.
Ne/epot is m.pl., dead persons, those who have
died and whose spirits are in Hades. It is not the
equivalent of death, or the tomb. More properly
veKp&v should have the article; but it had become
sufficiently definite by usage, e* is out of, from
among. The statement, therefore, is that Jesus

RISEN FROM THE DEAD 153
rose again from among the dead, from the realm of
the dead; that is, from Hades as well as from the
tomb, the spirit from Hades and the body from
the tomb. The spirit of Jesus rejoined His body
in the tomb; and so He came forth in bodily form
from the tomb, and He manifested Himself to His
Apostles. The resurrection of Jesus, as the third great act
of salvation, is attached by St. Paul to justification.
He was delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised
for our justification (Rom. 4ffi) . Christians are iden
tified with Christ in His crucifixion, His death, His
entombment; so also in His resurrection. In that
He rose from the dead, He rose conqueror of Death
and of Hades. He rose no longer under the curse,
no longer under the condemnation, which He had to
share with mankind when He assumed humanity
and became responsible for mankind as the second
Adam, their surrogate, intercessor, and Saviour.
Now for the first time justified, as the ideal, the per
fect head of humanity, all His people are justified in
Him. As St. Paul says: "Who shall lay anything
to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justi-
fieth; who is he that shall condemn? It is Christ
Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the
dead, who is at the right hand of God, who also
maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us
from the love of Christ?" (Rom. 833"36).
All the regenerate, all who truly belong to Christ,
are regarded no longer as sharing in the inheritance
of the first Adam and all the entail of sin and death

154 THE APOSTLES' CREED
in all previous generations, and in their own past life;
but as sharing in the inheritance of the second Adam,
who interposes for them — their cause being His cause,
and guarantees their present justification, and their
eventual sanctification and glorification.

CHAPTER VIII
ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN
The sixth article of the Creed is: ascended into
heaven. This has remained essentially the same,
only the Latin and modern translations substitute
the indicative for the participle. Irenaeus in his first
form has: "and the assumption (avdXrj-^nv) in the
flesh (eva-apKov) into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus
our Lord"; in his second form: "and was received in
glory." Tertullian varies his verb: in the first form, re-
ceptum; in the second, resumptum; in the third,
ereptum; in all, into heaven. The Nicene and other
Eastern Creeds use ave\ff6vra.
The ascension intervenes between the resurrection
and the session at the right hand of the Father, and
iii itself is involved in these two redemptive acts of
Christ. It is implied, sometimes in the resurrection,
sometimes in the session; the former usually, in St.
Paul's Epistles. Indeed, the resurrection implies the
ascent from Hades and the ascent to heaven; the
whole process may be considered a resurrection, and
often is, by St. Paul. Thus Eph. i20: "when He
raised Him from the dead, and made Him to sit at
His right hand in the heavenly (places). " If the as
cension is seldom mentioned in the New Testament,
it is implied both in the resurrection and in the ses-
155

156 THE APOSTLES' CREED
sion. Indeed, there could be no session at the right
hand of God without the enthronement, which is it
self the goal of the ascension.
The ascension is specifically mentioned in Mark
1619; Luke 2451; Acts i2> 9"n; and foretold, John 662,
2017. All the passages which report Christ as coming
from heaven in a second Advent, imply the ascen
sion to heaven. The ascent is frequently implied
in the Pauline Epistles, though seldom stated; cf.
Eph. 48-10, possibly I Tim. 316.1
The ascension is in order to the enthronement
which it implies. As Jesus said in His parable, Luke
^12-27. «a certain nobleman went into a far coun
try, to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return,"
etc. Rev. 5 gives the scene: the ascending Lord ap
pearing in heaven before the throne, and welcomed
with the worship of all heaven and the new song:
"Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the seals
thereof: for Thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto God
with Thy blood of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and
nation, and madest them unto our God a kingdom of priests,
and they shall reign upon the earth."
St. Peter says: "Him did God exalt at His right
hand (to be) a Prince and a Saviour, for to give re
pentance to Israel and remission of sins" (Acts 531).
The passages quoted from the New Testament
vary. The most of them make God the Father the
agent of the ascension, and the Son passive. But
the Creeds make the Son active. This is the usage
* V. Briggs, Messiah of the Apostles, p. 229.

ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN 157
of the Gospel of John, and occasionally elsewhere.
The exact phrase of the Creed, however, is not found
in the New Testament.
The ascension of Christ begins the reign of Christ
over His Messianic kingdom; upon it depends the
advent of the divine Spirit at Pentecost, which may
be regarded as His coronation gift to His kingdom.
It is just because He is the second Adam, incor
porating a new humanity in Himself, that His as
cension is their ascension. So Eph. 24 seq- : " But God,
being rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith
He loved us, even when we were dead through our
trespasses, quickened us together with Christ — and
raised us up with Him, and made us to sit with Him
in the heavenly (places) in Christ Jesus"; cf. Eph.
i3; Col. 31-3; I Peter i3"5.
The inheritance of the first Adam, with its entail
of sin, guilt, death, and corruption, is put away by
the Christian, who through the ascension of Christ
has secured in heaven an inheritance of everlasting
grace and glory in the second Adam.

CHAPTER IX
ENTHRONED AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE
FATHER
The seventh article of the Creed is : and seated on
the right hand of the Father.
Irenaeus does not give this clause, but combines it
with the previous one. Tertullian, in his three forms,
has the clause, only varying in the forms of the same
verb. The original Nicene Creed, as the Creed of Euse
bius, has it not, but the Constantinopolitan has it.
The received form of the Apostles' Creed has been
enlarged, so as to be: "sitteth at the right hand of
God the Father Almighty." It is evident that God
the Father Almighty has simply been taken over from
Article I, and has exactly the same force and mean
ing here as there.
The Biblical passages at the back of this article of
the Creed are numerous. St. Paul is especially rich
in them: "For He must reign, till He hath put all
His enemies under His feet" (I Cor. 1525). "Where
fore also God highly exalted Him, and gave unto
Him the name which is above every name; that in
the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of (things)
in heaven, and (things) on earth, and (things) under
the earth; and that every tongue should confess that
158

AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER 159
Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"
(Phil. 29"11).
"Made Him to sit at His right hand (icadta-as) in
the heavenly (places), far above all rule, and au
thority, and power, and dominion, and every name
that is named, not only in this age, but also in that
which is to come: and He put all things in subjec
tion under His feet, and gave Him to be head over
all things to the Church, which is His body, the ful
ness of Him that filleth all in all" (Eph. i20"23; cf.
also Col. 31, and Heb. i3"4, 7M, 81, 1222-24).
Jesus said to the high priest before the Sanhedrim :
"Ye will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand
of power" (Mt. 26M; Mark 1462; Luke 2269). Jesus
tells his disciples (Mt. 2818): "All authority hath
been given unto me in heaven and on earth."
Mark 1619 has: "was received up into heaven, and
sat down at the right hand of God."
St. Peter at Pentecost tells the people: "Let all
the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that
God hath made Him both Lord and Christ, this
Jesus whom ye crucified" (Acts 236).
The Gospels, Ignatius, and the principal Eastern
Creeds have etc Segimv after the Greek of Psalm no1;
the Epistles and Western Creeds, and some Eastern
Creeds, iv Segia; the same variety of usage as in
Hebrew, pea and po^, without difference in mean
ing. The terms of the Creed are nearest to Col. 31.
It is quite probable that the earliest form of the
Old Roman Creed was at the right hand of God, as in
the New Testament. The phrase right hand of the

160 THE APOSTLES' CREED
Father, while in all known Creeds, Eastern and
Western, and also in Tertullian and Justin, and so
in the Roman Creed of the second century, was
probably a change made to assimilate it with the
first and second articles of the Creed.
(i) The right hand of God, or of the Father is the
place of highest honor and rank that the Father
can give; the place of the Son and Crown Prince, to
whom all authority has been given.
(2) The sitting is in the pregnant sense of sitting
enthroned, in accordance with the usage of the Mes
sianic Psalms 2 and no, and also of the New Testa
ment. The doctrine therefore is, that Christ is enthroned
with the supreme dominion over heaven, and earth,
and Hades, from the time of His enthronement on
ward until His second advent.
The session of Christ at the right hand is a session
as Prophet, Priest, and King. As Prophet, He sends
the divine Spirit to be the teacher, counsellor, and
guide of the leaders of the Church and of the Church
itself. As King, He rules over the universe, subduing all
enemies of the kingdom, Satan, wicked spirits, evil
men, the last enemy Death. As King, He is the
head of the Church as the kingdom of redemption,
directing all the forces of His kingdom for the re
demption of His subjects.
As Priest, He offers up perpetual sacrifice in
heaven, sums up the universal worship in Himself,
intercedes and interposes for His people.

AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER 161
The capital city of the kingdom of God is removed
in Christ from earth to heaven, and the new Jeru
salem takes the place of the old, with its temple,
altar, purifications, and sacrifices; and all sacred in
stitutions centre in Christ alone.
St. Paul delights in this theme, the heavenly em
pire, the reign of Christ over His kingdom — a com
fort and joy to Christians suffering under the earthly
reign of wicked kings and emperors.
Thus: "He that descended is the same also that
ascended far above all the heavens, that He might
fill all things. And He gave some (to be) apostles;
and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and
some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the
saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the build
ing up of the body of Christ: till we all attain unto
the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the
Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto the measure
of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (Eph. 410-13).
"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also
loved the Church, and gave Himself up for it; that
He might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the wash
ing of water with the word, that He might present
the Church to Himself a glorious (Church), not hav
ing spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it
should be holy and without blemish" (Eph. S25"27).
In the Epistle to the Colossians St. Paul tells us
that in Christ "are all the treasures of wisdom and
knowledge hidden" (23). To know Christ is to know
knowledge from the centre of it, the primary source
of it, in the Logos. He is the supreme prophet and

162 THE APOSTLES' CREED
teacher. So: "Our commonwealth is in heaven"
(Phil. 320). There is our citizenship, there we really
belong; not here on the earth, which is only a place
of temporary sojourn. There our King is; there is
our refuge and eternal home. According to the
Epistle to the Hebrews, Christ is at once the great
High Priest, and the one great eternal sacrifice, once
offered, but of eternal validity with the Father and
to His people on earth, through their fellowship with
Him in His priesthood and sacrifice {cf. I Tim. 25"6).
The reign of Christ is the reign also of His Church,
His body, which is regnant in the world (cf. Rev.
59-10). So during the Millennium the martyrs reign
with Christ (Rev. 204).
It is just because of the unity of Christ with His
people that the Church is His body, and so shares
with Him in His conquest of the world and the sub
jugation of all enemies. This has always been the
great incentive to Christian missions, though too
often it has led to an undue exaltation of the ma
terial and political interests of the Church, especially
in the history of the Papacy.
Nothing is more needed in the Church than a re
vival of the conception of the reign of Christ. We
worship a Christ, a Lord and King, who once died
on Calvary, but now lives and reigns over the Church
and the universe; and so not merely a historic Christ,
but a present Christ, who, though absent on His
heavenly throne so far as our senses are concerned,
is yet present by His spirit and power in all human
affairs, especially in His Church; and who grants His

AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER 163
special presence in the Eucharist. And it is the
privilege of the Christian, by the use of the religious
imagination in faith and love, to realize that pres
ence and live under the influence of it. That re
moves all doubt, all anxiety, all fears for the future,
and gives confidence and certainty that we are
working with Christ for results which are certain
and of everlasting importance.

CHAPTER X
THE SECOND ADVENT
The eighth article of the Creed represents the
Second Advent of Christ as His sixth and final re
demptive act. It is a judgment of final salvation
to His people, and of final condemnation to all
others. The Creed has : From thence He will come to judge
the living and the dead. This article has remained
unchanged from the beginning. Irenaeus enlarges
upon this theme. His first form has: "And His
parousia from heaven in the glory of the Father to
comprehend all things under one head." His sec
ond form has: "Shall come in glory, the Saviour of
those who are saved, and the Judge of those who
are judged; and sending into eternal fire the per-
verters of the truth and the despisers of His Father
and His Advent."
Tertullian has, in his first and second forms, the
words of the Creed; in his third form: "He will
come again with glory to take the saints into the
enjoyment of eternal life and the celestial promises,
and to judge the wicked with eternal fire, after the
resuscitation of both with the restitution of the
flesh." The Creed of Eusebius has: "will come
again in glory to judge the living and the dead."
The Nicene Creed has: "coming to judge the living
164

THE SECOND ADVENT 165
and the dead." The Constantinopolitan adds from
the revised Creed of Jerusalem, "with glory," and
"whose kingdom shall have no end."
There are two items in this article: (i) the coming;
(2) the purpose of it, judgment; both common New
Testament ideas.
(1) The coming. There are several New Testa
ment terms for this : (a) The Gospel term is Trapovo~{a,
presence, advent (Mt. 24s' 27' 37> 39; I Thes. 219, 313,
415, 5s3; II Thes. 21* 8; I Cor. 1523; James 57> 8;
II Peter I16, 34; I John 228); the second presence of
Christ being in antithesis with His first presence.
(b) The Epistles use also cnroicdXinlns, revelation
(II Thes. I7; I Cor. i7; I Peter 17' 13, 413). (c) The
Pastorals use hn<f>dveia, epiphany, appearance (I Tim.
614; II Tim. i10, 41' 8; Titus 213).
None of these technical terms of the New Testa
ment are used in the Creed, but only the simple one,
coming, ipxdfievov. This is to be explained from the
watchword of the early Christians Our Lord cometh.
The Aramaic, nnN *01D = /mpav add, is preserved in
I Cor. 1622. Varied forms of epxo/uu are used by
Jesus Himself and His Apostles for the second ad
vent. Thus Jesus Himself predicts His own advent:
"When He cometh in the glory of Himself and of
the Father and of the Holy angels" (Luke 926); and
again, "And then shall they see the Son of Man
coming on a cloud with power and great glory"
(Luke 2127).1
1 Cf. also Mt. ioa, 16", 25"; Mark 8"; Luke 23"; Acts I"; I Cor.
4', 11"; I Thes. 5*; II Thes. 1".

166 THE APOSTLES' CREED
Undoubtedly the early Christians expected the
speedy advent of the Lord, and in times of perse
cution ardently longed for it. So Christians in all
ages, at some times more than others, have looked
and prayed for the return of Christ, in the spirit
of Rev. 2220: "He which testifieth these things saith:
Yea, I come quickly. Amen: come, Lord Jesus."
(2) The judgment of the living and the dead, Kplveiv
fftWa? Kal veicpovi, is common to all the Creeds, and
is doubtless original to the Apostles' Creed, as it is
a phrase of the New Testament (Acts io42; II Tim.
41; I Peter 45); so also of the Apostolic Fathers,
based thereon.
The purpose of the advent is judgment. This is
evident in many of the parables of the kingdom,
given by Jesus, and in numerous passages of the
Epistles and the Apocalypse. But judgment is used
here in the comprehensive meaning, as in the Parable
of the Sheep and the Goats (Mt. 2531-46). It is a
judgment which justifies and rewards the righteous,
and which condemns and punishes the wicked.
It is significant that both the living and the dead
are comprehended: that means, of course, those
still living in this world at the time of the advent,
and those who have died. It is a universal judg
ment of all the living and all the dead. This is in
accord with what we have learned as to the descent
into Hades to preach the Gospel to the dead. All
will be judged by the Gospel, which they have
either believed unto salvation, or rejected unto
damnation.

THE SECOND ADVENT 167
The doctrine of the Millennium in Rev. 20 has dis
turbed the doctrine of the second advent from the
earliest times.1 It has been associated with three
different conceptions: (1) the state of blessedness
and glory of Old Testament prophecy; (2) the con
version of Jews and Gentiles, and the triumphs of the
Gospel of New Testament prophecy; (3) the apoca
lyptic measurement of time of the Jewish apocalypses
of the four centuries in the midst of which Jesus
lived. All of these have influenced, more or less,
Christians from the earliest times to the present.
The Apostles' Creed does not either implicitly
or explicitly in any of its forms give a doctrine of the
Millennium; but simply teaches the second advent for
judgment. The association of the Millennium with
the state of blessedness and glory of the Old Testa
ment, involved the premillennial advent of Christ.
This was held by Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian;
and they certainly did not regard this clause of the
Apostles' Creed as against them, though their view
really involved two advents, one for the salvation
of the Church, the other for the condemnation and
destruction of the wicked. This was regarded as a
private opinion in the Ante-Nicene Church. But its
association with Jewish Ebionitism was fatal to its
general adoption in the first century; its association
with Montanism destroyed it in the second century;
and it was condemned by a provincial synod in
Asia Minor, by Pope Victor (192) and Caius, a
Roman Presbyter (220), and by Origen and Diony-
1 V. Messiah of the Apostles, pp. 341 seq.

168 THE APOSTLES' CREED
sius the Great of Egypt. Jerome, Epiphanius, and
Augustine sharply opposed it; and from their time
on, the Church as the kingdom of God was supposed
to be itself existing as the Millennium kingdom. The
Premillenarian view was revived at the Reformation
by some Anabaptists, but opposed by all the Re
formers. It was revived again in the seventeenth
century, but opposed by all the great Protestant
bodies. The identification of the Millennium with the con
version of Israel and the Christianization of the
world does not involve the premillennial advent, and
it has been a common opinion among Protestants
since the seventeenth century. The Augustinian
opinion that the millennial kingdom is the Church
itself between the advents, preceded by a brief
period of persecution and followed by another brief
period of conflict preceding the second advent, is
still the prevailing opinion and most in accord with
the Scriptures, the Creeds, and Confessions of the
Churches; although the other opinions are held by
esteemed theologians, and tolerated all over the
Protestant world.
The Creed looks forward to the second advent of
the Lord as imminent; not in any temporal sense,
but in the sense that the Church awaits it as the goal
of her hopes, and knows that the delay is because of
the forbearance of God and the lovingkindness of
Christ; with whom the salvation of mankind is the
chief purpose of the delay, and with whom a thou
sand years are but as a day to men, who are obliged

THE SECOND ADVENT 169
to conceive of events in temporal relations, limited
by the brevity of human life.
With the second advent of our Lord the salvation
of Christians first reaches its end, sanctification is
completed, and glorification takes place. The en
tire interval between regeneration and the second
advent is taken up with the sanctification of the
Church. "As Christ also loved the Church, and gave Him
self up for it; that He might sanctify it, having
cleansed it by the washing of water with the word,
that He might present the Church to Himself a glo
rious one, not having spot or wrinkle or any such
thing; but that it should be holy and without
blemish" (Eph. S26-27).
The Church has not yet been so sanctified; though
nearly nineteen centuries have passed since Christ
began to sanctify it. But that is the ideal, that is
the goal to which the Church is steadily and con
stantly advancing. The whole Church has to be
sanctified, and all nations are to participate in it.
It is difficult for any individual to become much
more sanctified than the Church, especially as his
sanctification is through his attachment to the
Church as well as to Christ through the Church.
Even for the individual, St. John sees perfection
only with the advent of our Lord: "Beloved, now
are we children of God, and it is not yet made mani
fest what we shall be. We know that, if He shall be
manifested, we shall be like Him; for we shall see
Him even as He is. And every one that hath this

170' THE APOSTLES* CREED
hope (set) on Him, purifieth himself, even as He is
pure" (I John 32"3).
The Christian cannot be separated from the body
of Christ, the Church; and his complete sanctifica
tion depends upon the sanctification of the whole of
Christ's body. This makes it necessary for us to
look upon the Middle State after death as a great
state of sanctification for the Christians who have
gone there justified and regenerated, but only par
tially sanctified.
It is true that the common opinion among Ameri
can Christians is that at death, that is, in the mo
ment of death, Christians are completely sanctified.
But that is an error against the teaching of Script
ure and of the Church universal.

It is true the Westminster Shorter Catechism says: "The
souls of believers are, at their death, made perfect in holiness,
and do immediately pass into glory."
But it is probable that the authors meant by "at their
death" in the state of death, and not sanctification by an
immediate act of God; for that would be contrary to their
definition of sanctification as a process, or growth. But in
any case such an idea is contrary to the teaching of John
Calvin, and many of the greatest and best Protestant theo
logians. It raises at once the question, if believers can be
sanctified by a divine fiat at death, why not at once in this
life at regeneration? But in fact, as we have seen, it is the
Church as Christ's body, which is in a process of sanctifica
tion completed only at the second advent; and it would
make a schism in the body, if the dead saints were com
pletely sanctified by successive acts when they die, the liv
ing only by the long, hard struggles with sin and evil com
pleted only after two thousand years or more.
We may also say, on the other hand, that unbelievers are
not ripe for judgment. Modern Christians rightly rebel at
the idea of the great masses of mankind going into ever-

THE SECOND ADVENT 171
lasting punishment in their ignorance and folly, without
having any fair chance of salvation.
This originated from the false idea that there is a judg
ment at death, which consigns men at that time to their
final place, and an overlooking of the distinction between
the intermediate and the final state.
The Church universal before the Reformation held
to the continuance of the processes of redemption
in the Middle State, as have many of the best
Protestant theologians also. But it has been usual
to limit salvation to those who have been baptized,
or have had what Roman Catholic theologians call
the baptism of desire, that is, those who have sought
God sincerely in accordance with their light and
knowledge. But modern theologians, building on a more care
ful study of the Scriptures, and reasoning from the
character of God and the work of Christ, in His
descent into Hades, and His reign over Hades, as
well as over the earth, are inclined to extend the
work of salvation beyond the limits of the earth,
and to think of an evangelization of those who have
died impenitent; so that no one is really, finally lost
who does not deliberately and finally, either in this
life or in the next, reject Christ and His salvation:
for it is felt that only such a one can justly be con
demned by the judgment of the last great Day. Not
till that Day can Christians be worthy of their final sal
vation, or unbelievers worthy of final condemnation.
It is a great merit of the Apostles' Creed that it
attaches salvation to Jesus Christ our Saviour, and

172 THE APOSTLES' CREED
considers each stage of it from the point of view of
one of the six saving acts of our Lord. This urges
the Christian to consider salvation as a whole.
Modern British and American theology has exag
gerated the doctrine of the atonement and salva
tion by the cross, and overlooked the other five
saving acts of Christ, and our salvation as dependent
thereon. Some modern theologians, like Henry B.
Smith, and especially some Anglicans, have reaffirmed
the Incarnation as a great act of salvation; and the
Premillenarians have emphasized, and indeed ex
aggerated, the Second Advent. But few have given
the Resurrection of Christ, His Enthronement, and
His Reign their importance in the work of salvation.
It is just in those saving acts of our Lord that we
have our hopes for the future; for it is in our study
of them that the doctrine and practice of sanctifica
tion are to be advanced. The usual Protestant ex
aggeration of faith in the work of salvation should
pass over into a fuller recognition of the importance
of hope and love; and all three must be combined, if
we would comprehend the salvation of Christ in its
fulness. And in this more comprehensive concep
tion and working out of our salvation, Roman Cath
olics and Protestants are more likely to agree, and
so Church Unity will be greatly advanced.

CHAPTER XI
THE HOLY SPIRIT
The ninth article of the Creed, the first of the
third trinitarian section, expresses faith in the Holy
Spirit as the third Person of the Holy Trinity.
The received form of this article is: Credo in spiri-
tum sanctum, I believe in the Holy Spirit.
The Creed of the fourth century is without the
Credo, thus connecting this article as all the previous
ones with the Credo of the first article, by the con
junction and; so Irenaeus, Rufinus, Marcellus, and
others in the West, and the Nicene and Constantino
politan Creeds in the East, and those of Eusebius and
Jerusalem upon which they depend. Tertullian at
taches this article to the Christological articles, and
makes the Holy Spirit a mission from Christ.
The original form of the Creed, therefore, cannot
be doubtful, except as to the order of the adjective,
and as to the use of the article. The received form
has been assimilated to the Constantinopolitan.
The article is most probable also, as in all forms of
the Greek Creeds, Eastern and Western, of early
date, except where the numeral, ev, takes its place,
which is still more emphatically definite than the
article. The only early evidence for the failure of
the article is in the first form of Irenaeus, who has:
eli TTvev/ia ayiov; but that is immediately followed
173

174 THE APOSTLES' CREED
by the article to, with other attributes; so that it is
not really an exception.
It is true that some later forms of the Creed, as in
the Psalter of iEthelstan, have ew irvevim ayiov; but
this is very slight evidence. Moreover the order
of the baptismal formula of Matthew and the Di-
dache (7) is to ayiov irvev/jia. As we have seen, the
Creed is based on the baptismal formula; and it
would naturally follow that formula in the use of
the article, and in the place of the adjective.
Dr. McGifFert is wrong here as elsewhere in dealing with
the Creed, showing the perils of an a priori theory. He
adopts as the original reading, siq xveuij.cz 3-pov; and then
on the basis of that supposition argues that this section of
the Creed was not based on the baptismal formula of Mat
thew.
The Holy Spirit is given in the third original article
of the Creed as the Third Person of the Trinity, the
first article being : 7 believe in the One God, the Father
Almighty; the second: in Jesus Christ, God's Soo
the third : in the Holy Spirit; the three being equally
objects of personal faith.
The doctrine of the divine Spirit pervades the
Bible. In the Old Testament the divine Spirit is
the energy, the active power of God: (1) as a spirit
stimulating the prophets and directing them in their
teaching (Ho. 97; Zc. 712: Is. 4816); (2) as a power
taking effective part in the creation of the world (Gn.
i2), and in theophanies (Ez. i12, io17), and in trans
formations of nature (Is. 3215); (3) as an ethical power
in the moral development of the nation of Israel (Is.

THE HOLY SPIRIT 175
301, 63 9"14), and in the cultivation of individuals (Psalms
5113, 14310; Pr. I23).1
These same characteristics of the divine Spirit ap
pear in the New Testament with added emphasis
and more extensive working.
(1) The divine Spirit is the agent in the Virgin
Birth of our Lord, as we have seen (v. p. 93).
(2) The divine Spirit, in the theophanic form of a
dove, descends upon Jesus at His baptism and en
dows Him with Messianic charismata, in accordance
with the prediction of Is. 11.
"And straightway coming up out of the water,
(John) saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit
as a dove descending upon Him: and a voice came
out of the heavens, Thou art my beloved Son, in
Thee I am well pleased" (Mark i10"11).
(3) The divine Spirit descends in theophany on
the day of Pentecost to take possession of the Apos
tles and endow them with the charism of the aposto--
late to organize the Church.
"And when the day of Pentecost was now come,
they were all together in one place. And suddenly
there came from heaven a sound as of the rushing of
a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they
were sitting. And there appeared unto them tongues
parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each
one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy
Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as
the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 21"4).
1 F. Briggs, Use of nn in the Old Testament, in Journal of Biblical Lit
erature, vol. XIX.

176 THE APOSTLES' CREED
The Holy Spirit also takes possession of the Sa
maritan and Gentile converts in connection with
their confirmation by the Apostles (Acts 815"20, io44-47,
n15-17, is8"9, 192-6).
(4) The divine Spirit inhabits the Christian and
every member of the Church in accordance with the
teaching of St. Paul:
" Know ye not that ye are a temple of God, and (that)
the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" (I Cor. 316).
"Know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy
Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God?" (I Cor.
619). "The Spirit Himself beareth witness with our spirit, that
we are children of God" (Rom. 816).
"For through (Christ) we both have our access in one
Spirit unto the Father. So then ye are no more strangers
and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens with the saints,
and of the household of God, being built upon the founda
tion of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being
the chief corner-stone; in whom each several building, fitly
framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord;
in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of
God in the Spirit" (Eph. 218-22).
"That good thing which was committed unto (thee) guard
through the Holy Spirit which dwelleth in us" (II Tim. i14).
(5) The Holy Spirit is the active agent of regen
eration in connection with the baptism of converts
and their incorporation into the Christian Church.
"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of
water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that
which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
" Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born from
above. The wind bloweth where it will, and thou hearest
the voice thereof, but knowest not whence it cometh, and
whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit"
(John 36S).

THE HOLY SPIRIT 177
(6) The Holy Spirit distributes the charisms of
Christian service.
"Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
And there are diversities of ministrations, and the same
Lord. And there are diversities of workings, but the same
God, who worketh all things in all. But to each one is
given the manifestation of the Spirit to profit withal. For
to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom; and
to another the word of knowledge, according to the same
Spirit: to another faith, in the same Spirit; and to another
gifts of healings, in the one Spirit; and to another, workings
of miracles; and to another prophecy; and to another dis-
cernings of spirits; to another (divers) kinds of tongues;
and to another the interpretation of tongues : but all these
worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one
severally even as He will. For as the body is one, and hath
many members, and all the members of the body, being
many, are one body; so also is Christ. For in one Spirit
were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks,
whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one
Spirit" (I Cor. 12413).
(7) The Holy Spirit is the intellectual and moral
guide of all Christians, as well as of the body of
Christ; the surrogate of Christ; the Paraclete, or
Counsellor of the Church and the Christian.
"And when they lead you (to judgment), and deliver you
up, be not anxious beforehand what ye shall speak: but
whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye ;
for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Spirit" (Mark 1311).
"But the Paraclete, (even) the Holy Spirit, whom the
Father will send in My name, He shall teach you all things,
and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you"
(John 1426; cf. 7s7-39; Acts 14-8).
"Walk by the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the
flesh. For the flesh Iusteth against the Spirit, and the
Spirit against the flesh. . . . But if ye are led by the Spirit,
ye are not under the Law. ... If we live by the Spirit, by
the Spirit let us also walk" (Gal. s16"18' 265 cf. I Thes. 47"8;
Rom. 82).

178 THE APOSTLES' CREED
(8) The Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the
Holy Trinity.
(a) In the Old Testament the divine Spirit is dis
tinguished from God Himself, as the power or influ
ence going forth from God. The divine Wisdom is
distinguished from God Himself, as the architect
in the creation, and the teacher of man. And the
theophanies are distinguished from God Himself,
as modes of divine manifestation. But the divine
Spirit, the divine Wisdom, and the various the
ophanies are not clearly discriminated from one an
other; and no two of them are associated with God
in a Trinity. The Old Testament asserts the unity
and not the triunity of God.
(b) There is no doctrine of the divine Trinity in
the Jewish Alexandrian theology, or the Jewish Pal
estinian theology. The theological distinction be
tween the transcendent God and God manifesting
Himself in nature as Logos, Shekina, Memra, and
Spirit, does not amount to a two in one, still less is
there any conception of three in one.
(c) Jesus, in the Synoptic Gospels, distinguished
Himself from God the Father as the Son of the Fa
ther; but gives essentially the same doctrine of the
divine Spirit as appears in the Old Testament.
(d) In the farewell discourses of the Gospel of
John, Jesus declares: (a) that He is in the Father and
the Father in Him.
"Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the
Father in me? the words that I say unto you I speak not
from myself: but the Father abiding in me doeth His works.
Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me"
(John 1410-11).

THE HOLY SPIRIT 179
(j3) That the- Father and the Son will come in the
Spirit and abide in the faithful.
"And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you an
other Paraclete, that He may be with you forever, (even)
the Spirit of Truth: whom the world cannot receive; for
it beholdeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: ye know Him;
for He abideth with you, and shall be in you. I will not
leave you desolate: I come unto you. Yet a little while,
and the world beholdeth Me no more; but ye behold Me:
because I live, ye shall live also. In that day ye shall know
that I am in My Father, and ye in Me, and I in you. He
that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is
that loveth Me: and he that loveth Me shall be loved of
My Father, and I will love him, and will manifest Myself
unto him. ... If a man love Me, he will keep My word : and
My Father will love him, and We will come unto him, and
make Our abode with him" (John I41W3).
(7) That the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father,
and is sent by the Son. "But when the Paraclete is
come, whom I will send unto you from the Father,
(even) the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from
the Father, He shall bear witness of Me" (John 1526).
Thus Jesus in this Gospel represents the Son to
be divine, and the Spirit to be personal, as another
Paraclete taking His place as the counsellor of His
disciples. (e) The Gospels agree in representing that, at the
baptism of Jesus, the Father recognized Jesus as His
Son, and the Holy Spirit descended from heaven upon
Jesus in the form of a dove. The Spirit is distin
guished from the Father by manifesting Himself in
a different form.
(/) The great Commission has the Trinitarian for
mula: "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the

180 THE APOSTLES* CREED
nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt. 2819).
This comes not from Jesus, nor from St. Matthew,
but from the final author of the Gospel (v. p. 15).
It, however, expresses the faith of the apostolic
Church when the Gospel of Matthew was written.
(g) The salutation of the First Epistle of Peter
(i2) associates the Three in redemption, in speaking
of the foreknowledge of God the Father, the sanc
tification by the Spirit, and the sprinkling of the
blood of Jesus Christ.
(h) In the First Epistle to the Corinthians the
diversities of charisms are contrasted in successive
clauses with the same Spirit, the same Lord, and the
same God: the Three are associated with the same
charisms and the unity is in the association (I Cor.
124-13, v. p. 177).
The Second Epistle to the Corinthians associates
the Three in a benediction (II Cor. 1314) : "The grace
of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and
the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all."
While these passages do not explicitly teach the
personality of the Spirit, the parallelism of the Spirit
with Christ and God seems to imply it.
(i) The personality of the Spirit is apparently
taught in Rom. 826-27.
"And in like manner the Spirit also helpeth our infirm
ity: for we know not how to pray as we ought; but the
Spirit Himself maketh intercession for (us) with groanings
which cannot be uttered; and He that searcheth the hearts
knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because He maketh
intercession for the saints according to (the will of) God."

THE HOLY SPIRIT 181
(J) According to the Epistle to the Ephesians the
three are so associated as to imply at the same time
unity and personal distinctions.
Eph. 218 teaches access to the Father through Christ, and
in the Spirit:
"For through Him we both have our access in one Spirit
unto the Father."
The Christian body, as the temple of God, has Christ as
the corner-stone and God as its inhabitant in the Spirit,
according to Eph. 22°-22: "Being built upon the foundation
of the Apostles and Prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the
chief corner-stone; in whom each several building, fitly
framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord;
and in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation
of God in the Spirit."
The unity of the Church is in one Spirit, one Lord, and
one God, according to Eph. 436: "Giving diligence to keep
the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
" (There is) one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were
called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one
baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and
through all, and in all."
The personality of the Spirit seems to be implied in Eph.
430. "And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, in whom ye
were sealed unto the day of redemption."
The doctrine of the Trinity as a sum of all the
New Testament statements, involves the personal
ity of the Spirit and the deity of the Son. There is
overwhelming evidence as to the divinity of the
Spirit and the personality of the Son. The divinity
of the Son, which appears at least in the four
Gospels, in Philippians, Colossians, Hebrews, and the
Johannine writings; and the personality of the Spirit,
which appears in Romans, Ephesians, and the Jo
hannine writings, make it necessary to construct a
doctrine of the Trinity in which the divine nature

182 THE APOSTLES' CREED
of the three may be conserved, the personality of the
three may be stated, and the unity of God maintained.
The New Testament does not construct such a doc
trine. That was left for the mind of the Church
under the guidance of the divine Spirit.
Faith in the Holy Spirit is faith in the Holy Spirit
as made known in Holy Scripture, and as known in
Christian experience, in baptismal regeneration, and
in the religious and moral growth of the Christian
and of the Church.
The early Fathers do not give the whole doctrine
of the Holy Spirit, but only portions of it here and
there. Thus Irenaeus in his first form adds : "Who through
the prophets preached the dispensations and the ad
vents" (Adv. Har., I, io1); in his third form: "Who
furnishes us with a knowledge of the truth, and has
set forth the dispensation of the Father and the
Son, in virtue of which He dwells in every genera
tion of men, according to the will of the Father"
(Adv. Hcer., IV, 337).
Tertullian in his second form has : " He thence did
send, according to His promise, from the Father, the
Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the Sanctifier of the faith
of those who believe in the Father and the Son and
the Holy Spirit" (Adv. Prax., 2); in his third form:
"Sent in His place the power of the Holy Spirit to
guide believers."
In these several passages, which might be greatly
multiplied, we have these definite thoughts: (1)

THE HOLY SPIRIT 183
The divinity of the Spirit; (2) The personality of
the Spirit. (3) The Holy Spirit is the one who
spake in the prophets; in the prophetic inspiration
not only of those of the Old Testament but of the
New Testament prophets likewise. (4) The Holy
Spirit is the Paraclete, counsellor, and guide of the
Church and the individual; (5) The intellectual
guide into all truth; (6) The moral guide; (7) Im
plicitly also, as connected with baptism, the agent
of regeneration, and of union with Christ and the
Church; (8) As dwelling in the Church and the
Christian.

CHAPTER XII
HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH
The tenth article of the Creed, as the first of the
articles on the work of the Holy Spirit, expresses
faith in the Church as holy, having the same attri
bute as the Holy Spirit, who originates it and in
habits it.
The received form of this article is : the Holy Cath
olic Church, the communion of saints.
The Creed of the fourth century had : Holy Church,
and this was without doubt the original in the Old
Roman Creed. The Constantinopolitan inserts one
and apostolic. The Creed of Jerusalem has : in one
Holy Catholic Church.
(i) The term Church, iicickr)o-la, ecclesia, is Greek
in origin, and based on the New Testament.
Church is used in the New Testament for the local
congregation, and also for the whole body of Christians
under Christ as the head of the Church. It is only
this latter sense which belongs to the Creed. The
Church of Christ was one organization under the
government of the apostolic ministry instituted by
Christ, just as Israel was one theocracy under Yah
weh and the anointed of Yahweh. According to
I Peter 25, the Christian body is "a spiritual house,
... a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacri
fices, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." So
184

HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH 185
Justin represents the unity of Christians as the true
Israel of God (Trypho, n) in accordance with St.
Paul (Gal. 616), and in fulfilment of Old Testament
prophecy. The Church is, therefore, conceived as embracing
all true Christians — all who have been baptized into
the faith of Christ, and into union and communion
with Christ. This Church is, and can only be, one.
That was implied in faith in holy Church. This is
the original form, when the Church was externally
as well as internally one, and when Ebionites and
Gnostics were not considered as belonging to the
Church. Later, when organizations were established along
side of and as rivals of the Church, the term one
was added, as in the Creed of Jerusalem and the
Constantinopolitan, to emphasize the unity of the
Church. This unity of the Church is in accordance with
Eph. 43-6: "Giving diligence to keep the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace — one body, and one Spirit,
even as also ye were called in one hope of your call
ing; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God, and
Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and
in all."
The union with Christ is effected by faith and
baptism; and so all who are united to Christ by a
living faith are in the communion of the Church,
and all who are baptized by valid baptism are in
union with the organized Church.
The division of the Church into separate and in-

186 THE APOSTLES' CREED
dependent, and even conflicting, jurisdictions can
not destroy the vital union of faith, or the organic
union effected by baptism. Heresy and schism im
pair the unity, but cannot destroy it. Really the
term Church, interpreted in accordance with the
usage of the New Testament, implies all that was
subsequently added to it in the successive revisions
and enlargements of the Creed.
(2) 77o/y, ayios, as applied to the Church, as
the pl., ayioi, to Christians, does not imply Christian
perfection, but simply consecration — that the persons
or things have been hallowed, made sacred. This
hallowing of the Church was accomplished on the
day of Pentecost by the descent of the Holy Spirit
to organize the Church and to dwell in it as a sa
cred temple. The Holy Spirit imparts His own spe
cial attribute to the Church, which is His work and
charge. This hallowing is effected for every individual
Christian, who is born of water and the Spirit, in
baptism. Thus this article naturally and with pro
priety immediately follows, and is dependent upon
faith in the Holy Spirit.
This term 77o7y Church was especially character
istic of the usage of the Roman Church; as we see
in Hermas, Vis., I, 11-3, 41. This was the only ad
jective that was used in connection with Church in
the Old Roman Creed until the fourth or fifth cen
turies. In the later forms of the Creed the attributes
"catholic" and "apostolic" were added to make

HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH 187
explicit what was before implicit, that the Church
was one, universal, and apostolic in foundation and
character. In the fourth and fifth centuries other Creeds than
the Roman began to introduce other terms into the
Creed. (3) The term catholic is not a New Testament
term, like Church; but it seems to have originated
in Antioch. We first meet it in Ignatius: "Where
Jesus may be, there is the catholic Church" (Ep.
Smyrn., 8). "That He might set up an ensign unto
all ages through His resurrection for His saints and
faithful people, among Jews or among Gentiles, in
one body of His Church" (Ep. Smyrn., 1).
Again, the letter of the Church of Smyrna on the
martyrdom of Polycarp is addressed "to all the so
journing Churches of the Holy and Catholic Church
throughout every place"; (1) the martyr offers
prayer "for the whole catholic Church throughout the
habitable world"; (8) and Jesus Christ is represented
as "the shepherd of the catholic Church throughout
the habitable world" (19).
The Muratorian Fragment of the last half of the
second century uses the term catholic Church twice
as synonymous with "one Church spread through
the whole world."
Irenaeus says: "The catholic Church possesses one
and the same faith throughout the whole world"
(Adv. Har., I, io3). We may safely say that by the
close of the second century the term catholic had be
come a common name for the Church throughout the

188 THE APOSTLES' CREED
world. And this meaning it has, in fact, always
maintained.1 Therefore Prof. McGifFert is wrong, when he says (Apos
tles' Creed, p. 32): "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 Church uni
versal, but in the particular institution which was known
as the Catholic Church and was distinguished from all schis
matic and heretical bodies, the orthodox catholic church
which was in communion with the church of Rome."
He is altogether mistaken when he says that "the com
mon Protestant interpretation of the article in the Creed,
which makes it refer to the holy church universal, is there
fore historically incorrect." In fact, the term catholic is of
Eastern, not Roman origin.2
The term catholic did not get into the Roman
Creed until after the fourth century; but made its
way from the Creed of Jerusalem, through Nicetas,
into the West, supported by the influence of the
Constantinopolitan. Its meaning was already in
volved in the term Church itself, according to New
Testament conceptions.
The term catholic does not admit the existence of
more than one Church; but no more does the term
Church, in New Testament usage; no more can any
such thing as a plurality of Churches be admitted
as an article of faith. Faith is now, as it always
has been, among Protestants as well as among Greeks,
Copts, Armenians, Roman Catholics, and all organ
ized Christian Churches, in one holy catholic Church.
1 F. Briggs, Catholic, the Name and the Thing, American Journal of
Theology, VII.
2 F. Briggs, Church Unity, chap. III.

HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH 189
There have been, and are, heresies and schisms, and
many different separated ecclesiastical jurisdictions,
many of them claiming that they alone are the one
holy catholic Church, but that is only so far as juris
diction and external organization are concerned.
These all recognize the baptism of heretics and schis
matics as valid, when used with the words of insti
tution, in the name of the Holy Trinity, and with
water, the element instituted by Christ. They all
recognize that the members of these separated, schis
matic, and heretical churches are indeed members of
the one holy catholic Church, and are ready to receive
them to full communion when they repent of their
sins of heresy and schism.
These may err in regarding their jurisdiction as
the only valid jurisdiction, and in holding that there
may be many valid jurisdictions without organic
unity; but none of them err in their faith that there
is now, as there has always been, from the founda
tion of Christianity, one and only one holy catholic
Church, which embraces all baptized Christians
throughout the world, united to the one Church by
baptism and to the one Christ by a living faith.
(4) Apostolic. This term is also implied in the
term Church; because what else can the Church be
than the Church which was organized by the Apos
tles of Jesus Christ, and which has existed in un
broken continuity of apostolic succession since the
Apostles' times?
This is the term which came into the Constan
tinopolitan Creed as a restrictive term. This is the

190 THE APOSTLES' CREED
term which excluded from the Church everything
that departed from the apostolic foundations of the
Church. Apostolic Christianity, as the genuine, real Chris
tianity, had to be distinguished from the false Chris
tianity of heretics and schismatics. Apostolic was
primarily used with reference to doctrine, only sec
ondarily as to institution. Thus Irenaeus says:
"When we refer (the heretics) to that tradition
which originates from the Apostles, which is pre
served by means of the succession of presbyters in
the churches, they object to tradition, saying that
'they themselves are wiser, not merely than the
presbyters, but even than the Apostles, because they
have discovered the unadulterated truth'" (Adv.
Hcer., Ill, 22).
The name catholic stood for three essential
things: (i) the vital unity of the Church in Christ;
(2) the geographical unity of the Church extending
throughout the world; (3) the historical unity of the
Church in apostolic tradition.1
The Roman Catholic Church possesses more of
these qualities than any other organization. All
others have lost in great part the geographical unity.
But Protestants, just as truly as the Roman Catho
lics, have the vital unity and the apostolicity; and
indeed, in some respects, lay more stress upon these
than do the Roman Catholics. Protestants, indeed,
emphasize the authority of the apostolic writings
more than do the Roman Catholics, who add to them
1 Briggs, Church Unity, pp. 59 se q.

HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH 191
an interpreting unwritten apostolic tradition with an
official interpreting of the whole by an infallible
Church. The Church of England, and in less meas
ure the Lutherans, recognize a secondary authority
in the Creeds. Only the Puritans limit authority to
Holy Scripture.
So far as historical continuity of institution is con
cerned, the Protestant bodies recognize it as well as
the Roman Catholic: the only difference between
them is as to the organs of transmission. The
Roman Catholics, while they recognize the episco
pate and other orders of the ministry, so emphasize
the succession of the popes from St. Peter that all
succession seems to be merged in this. The Angli
cans in the same way exaggerate the apostolic suc
cession through the episcopate. The Presbyterians
and Lutherans emphasize the succession through the
presbyterate. The Congregationalists find the true
succession in the Christian people. Really it is
in all of these organs in due proportion and har
monious co-operation. All of these bodies are cor
rect in a measure, but no one of them grasps the
whole truth of the institution of Christ and His
Apostles. (5) Communion of saints. There are several in
terpretations of this clause. The word icowmvia is
a New Testament term, meaning: (a) share in; used
with the genitive of the object, the thing in which
one shares (Phil. 21, 310; I Cor. io16); (b) inter
course, fellowship, intimacy (Acts 242; I John i3' 6> 7).
The usage of the New Testament favors the idea

192 THE APOSTLES' CREED
that the communion is a share in, a participation in,
that which is defined by the ayioav. The dyimv may
be the genitive plural of ayia, or of ayiov. thus
either masculine or neuter; so the Latin sanctorum.
Hence we may think either of sacred things, or sa
cred persons, or of both, (i) Some of the ancients
and some moderns think of sacred things, on the basis
of its use in that sense in the Council of Nimes (394);
that is, of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper es
pecially. This is favored by I Cor. io16, communion,
or share in the body and blood of Christ. But this,
while grammatically and theologically correct, is op
posed by two considerations: that it has little sup
port in theological usage, early or late; and that
then the order of the phrase should be after for
giveness of sins, which is usually connected with
baptism, and not before it.
It is true that some mediaeval Creeds have that
order; but these are few, and it is uncertain whether
the order was designed or accidental. Furthermore,
participation in the Holy Communion is involved in
the more comprehensive sense of communion in the
saints. . (2) Some writers, such as Faustus, interpreted the
saints in the restricted sense of the departed saints,
who were to be venerated by the faithful. So Har
nack1 thinks the phrase was inserted in the Creed
in opposition to Vigilantius, who opposed the worship
of saints. But, as Kattenbusch2 says, Vigilantius
lDas apostolische Glaubensbekenntniss, p. 32.
' H, p. 943.

HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH 193
held to the communion in the saints, and only op
posed the worship of their relics.
(3) Swete1 follows older writers in the opinion that
the introduction of the phrase into the Creed was
due to the controversy with the Donatists, and es
pecially to Augustine. The Donatists would have a
Church composed of those only who were real saints.
Augustine represents the Catholic position, that
the Church is a body in which the good and the
evil, the tares and the wheat, are mixed until the
judgment day; but that there is, notwithstanding, a
real communion of the real saints, from which the
wicked are excluded, virtually distinguishing be
tween the visible and invisible Church.
But, as Zahn2 says, Augustine's usage does not de
termine the meaning of the phrase; for it did not
come into the Creed in North Africa, or under the
influence of Augustine; but under other influences.
Besides, it might be said that the old view of dyioi
recognizes all who are baptized as dyioi, and in the
communion of the Church.
(4) The earliest Creed that contains the phrase
is that of Niceta of the early fifth century. From
him it passed over into Gallican Creeds, and event
ually into the Roman Creed. Niceta himself inter
prets it:
"What is the Church, but the congregation of all
saints? Patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, all
the just who have been, are, or shall be, are one
Church, because, sanctified by one faith and life,
'Apostles' Creed, p. 83. ! Das aposiolische Symbolum, p. 91.

194 THE APOSTLES' CREED
marked by one Spirit, they constitute one body.
Believe, then, that in this one Church you will at
tain the communion of saints" (Caspari, Anecdota,
I> P- 355 seq.).
This interpretation is the one which has come
down as an overwhelming tradition, compared with
which the other interpretations have little weight.
This interpretation is also favored by the addition
of this phrase to the article holy catholic Church; it
is an additional predicate of the Church as a Church
in which there is a communion of saints.
Prof. McGiffert is quite right in saying that the
two modern meanings attached to the term are in
correct. It is not so much a "communion or fellow
ship of believers with each other"; that would be
expressed by the use of the preposition pxra, as in
the New Testament. It is rather a participation or
share in the saints, which those have who belong to
the Church.
It is not, as Luther gives it, "congregation of
saints," "Gemeinde der Heiligen"; but the Church
is a congregation, in which this participation or share
in the saints exists.
dyioi is used, in the New Testament sense, of all
Christians consecrated by the water of baptism and
hallowed by the regenerative work of the divine
Spirit,. The Church itself is ayla; all things that
belong to the Church are ayia; all Christians are
dyioi. This embraces the Old Testament believers
and the New, the living and the dead, as Niceta
says. Every Christian has a share in every other

HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH 195
Christian. This results from the unity of the Church
and its catholicity. It comprehends all, and all are
united in one, each one having a share in every other
and in the whole. This is the conception of St. Paul.
"For the body is not one member, but many. . . . God
tempered the body together . . . that there should be no
schism in the body; but the members should have the same
care one for another. And where one member suffereth, all
the members suffer with it; or a member is honored, all
the members rejoice with it. Now ye are the body of
Christ, and severally members thereof" (I Cor. 1214 seQ).
Compare also Heb. I222"24:
"But ye are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city
of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumer
able hosts of angels, to the general assembly and church of
the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the
Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
and to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant."
This clause is an enlargement of the idea of the
unity of the Holy Catholic Church, rather than of
the diversity of the privileges contained in it. It
may therefore be said to take the place of the one of
the Constantinopolitan Creed.

CHAPTER XIII
REMISSION OF SINS
The eleventh article of the Creed teaches the doc
trine of remission of sins in connection with baptism,
which unites the individual with the Church and
gives him a share in all its benefits.
This article of the Creed is simply forgiveness of
sins. It has remained unchanged from the beginning.
Dr. McGifFert urges that this phrase was not in the Old Ro
man Creed. But he does so on the basis of his theory that the
remission of sins here refers to that remission imparted by
the Church to members of the Church, about which there
was considerable difference of opinion and controversy in the
second, third, and fourth centuries. But in fact, he is mis
taken. The remission of sins of the Creed is the remission
of sins connected with baptism and the entrance into the
Christian Church; as is evident from the specification of
the remission of sins given in several Creeds and contem
porary writers.
It is true that this phrase is absent from the forms of Ire
naeus and Tertullian; but, as we have seen, they do not pro
pose to give us complete Creeds; their formulas are essen
tially Christological, and even the Holy Spirit and the
resurrection are connected with the work of Christ, and not
given as separate articles, as in the Creed. But the remis
sion of sins appears in Cyprian, A. D. 250, and in the East
ern Creeds. The longer Creed of Jerusalem has: in one
baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And so the
Constantinopolitan has: we confess one baptism for the re
mission of sins.
This connection of the forgiveness of sins with
repentance and baptism is based on the New Testa-
196

REMISSION OF SINS 197
ment, especially the Gospels and the preaching of
the Apostles in the Book of Acts. The phrase first
appears in the New Testament in connection with
the baptism of John: "John came, who baptized in
the wilderness and preached the baptism of repen
tance unto remission of sins" (Mark i4; Luke 33; cf.
i77). Jesus, at the institution of the Lord's Supper, said :
"This is my blood of the covenant, which is shed
for many unto remission of sins" (Mt. 2628).
Jesus tells the Apostles before His ascension that:
"Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer,
and rise again from the dead the third day; and that
repentance and remission of sins should be preached
in His name unto all the nations" (Luke 2446"47).
So in the preaching of the Apostles. At Pente
cost Peter said: "Repent ye, and be baptized every
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the re
mission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift
of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 238). Again, before the
Sanhedrim, he declared of Jesus: "Him did God exalt
at His right hand (to be) a Prince and a Saviour,
for to give repentance to Israel, and remission of
sins" (Acts 531). To the Gentiles in Caesarea he
said: "To Him bear all the prophets witness that
through His name every one that believeth on Him
shall receive remission of sins" (Acts io43).
It is true that the term remission of sins is in
frequent in Paul, being only used twice in his later
epistles. But it is used twice: "In whom we have

198 THE APOSTLES' CREED
our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins" (Col.
i14). "In whom we have our redemption through
His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, accord
ing to the riches of His grace" (Eph. i7). And there
fore there is no reason to doubt that it was essen
tial in his theology.
Usually, in the Epistles of Paul, the more positive
side of salvation through Christ is dwelt upon,
namely, justification. The two are, however, com
bined in the preaching of St. Paul, according to
Acts 1338-39:
"Be it known unto you therefore, brethren, that
through this man is proclaimed unto you remission
of sins: and by Him every one that believeth is jus
tified from all things, from which ye could not be
justified by the law of Moses."
The forgiveness of sins of the Creed is, therefore,
based on the New Testament doctrine, and connected
with the ceremony of baptism. It is that forgive
ness which is conditioned upon repentance and bap
tism. It is therefore appropriate as a subordinate
article to that of the 77o/y Spirit: for the baptism is of
the water and the Spirit; the Holy Spirit with regen
erative power is given in connection with baptism.
(1) Remission of sins. This is a doctrine of the
Old Testament, which is taken up into the New
Testament. The Old Testament term is KtW, with
the synonymous H^D, TOpM: literally, to take away,
remove. The New Testament equivalent is aabirj/u,
to send away, remit. The fundamental conception
is the removal of the sins away from the divine

REMISSION OF SINS 199
presence, so that they can no longer be an ob
struction to union and communion with God. In
English we say forgive = German vergeben, give away;
and pardon = French pardonner, the same.
This is the earliest, simplest, and most pervading
conception of getting rid of sins; and therefore with
propriety it appears in the simple baptismal Creed.
In the Old Testament and in the New it is ever God
who remits sins.
In connection with the sacrificial system other
conceptions for getting rid of sin arose; the chief of
these was 1SD, cover over. Sin was conceived as de
filing the sacred places, especially the altar, the place
of union and communion with God. It had to be
covered over, obliterated, expiated; so that the place of
communion might be pure and clean. That was ac
complished in the Old Testament ritual by the appli
cation of the blood of a sacrificial victim to the altar.
Sometimes both in the Old Testament and in the
New Testament the remission of sins is connected
with the redemptive force of the blood, cf. Eph. i7:
"In whom we have our redemption through His
blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according
to the riches of His grace."
Another conception arose later in the Old Testa
ment from the point of view of sin as the failure
to fulfil a duty, an obligation to the divine law, and
thus as a debt; and so sin is gotten rid of by not im
puting or charging it, by not remembering it, by over
looking it. This is the view which is especially
prominent in the teaching of St. Paul, and is con-

200 THE APOSTLES' CREED
nected with remission in the passage already re
ferred to in Acts 1338-39. The simple and more com
mon and original term, forgiveness of sins, does not
exclude the other conceptions; but suggests them to
all who have sufficiently studied their Bibles; and
was so designed by the authors of the Creed : so that
under this article we may not only think oi forgive
ness of sins, but also of atonement for sin, and of
justification from sin.
The early Church thought most oi forgiveness, the
mediaeval Church of atonement; the modern church
thinks most oi justification.
(2) Repentance was involved with the remission
of sins as its indispensable condition, as is clear from
the teaching of the Gospels and the preaching of the
Apostles. MeTavoia is a change of mind. It corre
sponds with the Hebrew, 2V& turn about, return. It
involves a change from one direction to another,
from sin unto God. It has its positive and negative
sides: the turning away from sin is the negative
side, the turning unto God the positive side. The
ceremony of baptism represents this change. It
is a washing with water, a bath of regeneration, a
death to the old life of sin, a rebirth, or resurrec
tion, into the new life of the Spirit.
(3) The divine Spirit is the agent of this regenera
tion, who alone makes this repentance effective.
The repenting sinner by the divine Spirit is born,
or raised from the death of sin into a new life which
he lives under the guidance of the divine Spirit, who
dwells within him, leads him into all the truth, and

REMISSION OF SINS 201
gradually transforms his actions, his habits, his en
tire character and nature.
The forgiveness of sins, which comes through re
pentance and baptism, from the very nature of the
case is conceived as a permanent change. It unites
the believer to Christ, and makes him share in Christ
and in Christ's body the Church. The Holy Spirit,
who regenerates him, abides in him and with him
to carry on the work of salvation to its completion.
He is ideally at regeneration what Christ guarantees
he will be, and what the Holy Spirit undertakes to
make him at the end of the entire process of salva
tion. Forgiveness continues to spread its mantle over
him. His justification was made once for all when
Christ was justified at His resurrection; and it con
tinues to embrace him in all its benefits, until his
sanctification is completed. Theoretically his salva
tion is complete, when it has in reality only begun.
The difficulty arises in Christian experience, which,
soon after entrance of the new life, involves con
sciousness of indwelling sin, and of a moral weakness
or inability to perfectly conform to the high calling
of God in Christ Jesus. The new-born Christian,
after baptism, commits sins; usually what are known
as venial sins, sins of ignorance, or inadvertence, of
carelessness, or of minor importance. But sometimes
even mortal sins are committed, even in some cases
wilful sins, and of a gross character. The question
therefore arose at once: how about these sins? is
there to be a forgiveness of sins after baptism? or does
one who sins a mortal sin after baptism merit eter-

202 THE APOSTLES' CREED
nal death by committing the sin unto death ? Num
berless questions arose here, which greatly troubled
the early Church, and have greatly troubled the
Church ever since: questions as to grades of sin;
questions as to public and private confession; ques
tions as to absolution and disciplinary penalties, and
how far they may be commuted by fines; questions
as to how often forgiveness should be granted and
how far it should extend. These questions are not
determined by the Creed. It is simply taken for
granted that the repentance, baptism, and remis
sion are once for all and final.
We have to bear in mind that the Lord's Prayer
was in universal use among primitive Christians,
earlier indeed than the Creed, and doubtless more
universal than any particular form of Creed. The
Lord's Prayer contains the petition : " Forgive us our
trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against
us" (Mt. 612; Luke n4). This is enforced in Mat
thew by the qualification: "For if ye forgive men
their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also for
give you. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses,
neither will your Father forgive your trespasses"
(vv. 14> 15). Luke (ii4) has: "Forgive us our sins;
for we ourselves also forgive every one that is
indebted to us."
This, with other passages of the Gospels, makes
it plain that the early Christians, on the basis of the
New Testament, thought of a continuous forgiveness
of sins on the part of the heavenly Father, for which
they must offer oft-repeated prayer.

REMISSION OF SINS 203
There was no doubt that this included all venial
sins; but did it include mortal sins ? It certainly did
not include the sin against the Holy Spirit, for which
there is, according to Jesus, no forgiveness either in
this age or in the age to come (Mark 328-29; Mt.
I2si-32. Luke 1210). Nor could it include the "sin
unto death" of I John 516"17; for whose forgiveness
Christians are not to pray. The same is doubtless
true of the passage (Heb. io29) : "who hath trodden
under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the
blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified
an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the
Spirit of grace." There is evidently a sin of apos
tasy which is final, irremediable, and which cannot
be forgiven. There is no controversy over this.
But there was, in the early Church, controversy
as to mortal sins, both as to what they were, and also
as to whether or not they could be forgiven to Chris
tians, and how many times they might be forgiven.
The early Church soon settled upon a penitential
system, which prescribes confession and, under cer
tain rules, gives absolution to all sins except the un
forgivable group.
Protestants, who reject the penitential system of
the Roman Catholic Church, yet recognize all sins
as forgivable by the grace of God except the sin unto
death. All these questions were beyond the scope of the
Creed, which was a baptismal Creed for those who,
by baptism, entered into union with the Church. It
is altogether wrong to think of ecclesiastical forgive-

204 THE APOSTLES* CREED
ness for mortal sins in this connection, as Harnack
does; or to suppose that the controversy on this sub
ject was the occasion of the coming of this article
into the Creed. If his view were correct, the article
would have been different in form and character.
It would have had a distinct reference to confession
and absolution rather than to remission of sins.

CHAPTER XIV
THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY
The last article of the Creed teaches the resur
rection of the body of the Christian at the second
advent of the Lord, by the power of the Holy Spirit:
and implies an eternal life in the body as well as in
the spirit with Christ and His Church. Subsequently
this was made explicit by the addition of the phrase :
life eternal.
The received form of the Creed is: resurrection of
the flesh, life eternal.
The Creed of the fourth century had only: resur
rection of the flesh.
It is not disputed that the early Roman Creed had
this article in this form. The phrase is not a New
Testament phrase. We have rather: resurrection of
the dead (Mt. 2231; Acts 1732, 23", 2421, 26s3; I Cor.
isi2, 13, 21, 42. Heb. 62; cf. Acts 2415). So the Con
stantinopolitan has the word dead without the article.
But it is quite evident that o~apicos = carnis had
come into usage in the Creed, for that phrase is famil
iar to Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others. Thus
Irenaeus (Adv. Hcer., I, io1): "to raise up all flesh
of all mankind"; Tertullian (De Virg., vel. 1): per
carnis etiam resurrectionem; (De Press. Hcer., 13) : cum
carnis restitutione. Cyril in his long form, has: e«
o-apmi avda-Taaiv. 205

206 THE APOSTLES' CREED
The motive for a change is not difficult to find;
for resurrection of the dead might mean a resurrection
of the disembodied spirit; and it was necessary, in
order to rule out that doctrine, to add flesh, to show
that it was the whole man, body and soul, that took
part in the resurrection.
Harnack, followed by McGifFert, claims that the change
was due to grosser views of the resurrection, which became
current in the early Church in opposition to the more spir
itual views of St. Paul; and that "the Greek oapxbs
ccvicjTaaiv, and the Latin carnis resurrectionem are distinctly,
though not, of course, intentionally, anti-Pauline" (Mc
GifFert, p. 169). This view of Harnack is utterly without
justification; it is due to a neglect of the study of the use
of m4p? in the New Testament, and of its basis -\t/i in the
Old Testament.
There can be no doubt as to what was the Jew
ish doctrine of the resurrection in the time of Jesus
and His Apostles; and there is no evidence of any
different opinion among the writers of the New
Testament. The doctrine of the Pharisees was well defined over
against the Sadducees. Jesus and His Apostles in
this matter agreed with the Pharisees, as is evident
from many passages of the New Testament.
It is altogether probable that o-dp% came into the
Creed from Psalm 169; where *)B'3 is used for the body
in antithesis with $b, making up the entire man,
body and soul, and which is so quoted by St. Peter
and applied to Jesus (Acts 226_27> 31). 1ED has some
times the specific meaning of flesh of the body; but in
this passage, where it is used in connection with the

THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY 207
resurrection, it is the body of man, and is not the flesh
of the body. The same is true of 1BO in Job 1926,
which is often used by the early writers in connec
tion with the resurrection; and this is a common
usage of the Old Testament in other relations also,
as I have shown elsewhere.1 So also in the New
Testament, in many passages and in many relations,
o-dpl; is used of the body more frequently than of the
flesh of the body. There can be no reasonable doubt
that the term o-dpi; in the Creed had this general
sense of body of man, and not the specific grosser
sense that Harnack would foist upon it
St. Paul, in I Cor. 15, uses am/ia, body, in connec
tion with the resurrection, and accordingly gives
o-dp!- the more specific sense of the fleshly substance
of the body. He affirms that the body of Christians
at the resurrection will not have the flesh and blood
characteristic of the earthly body, corruptible and
mortal; but that their bodies will be heavenly bodies,
and so incorruptible, immortal, and glorious, like the
body of Christ, composed of a heavenly substance
into which it has been transubstantiated.
It is quite true that Tertullian, and other early
and mediaeval authors, were quite gross in their con
ceptions of the body of the resurrection. Their gross
views were tolerable but not valid interpretations of
the Creed, which followed the Biblical teaching,, and
is to be interpreted by St. Paul, and not in conflict
with him; because St. Paul goes deeper into the
question of the resurrection than any other New
1 F. Briggs, Commentary on Psalms, I, p. 126.

208 THE APOSTLES' CREED
Testament writer. Gross views of the resurrection
of the body are tolerable, because they include the
less gross view; but the antithetic opinion, which
discards the resurrection of the body altogether, is
intolerable, because it was to avoid just such an
opinion that the Creed has resurrection of the flesh
instead of resurrection of the dead.
Opinions as to the nature of the resurrection body
have varied in the Church, as they vary now; and
these variations are permissible so long as the reality
of the resurrection of the body is held.
Following the teaching of St. Paul in I Cor. 15,
which has always been normal on this question, the
resurrection body is the same body as that which is
entombed, or buried; that is, in form, structure, ap
pearance, identity: but its substance is different, in
that it is no longer earthly, corruptible, mortal flesh,
but heavenly, incorruptible, immortal. And this is
most reasonable.
The body that inhabits this earth must be com
posed of flesh and blood, derived from the substance
of this earth. If Jupiter or Mars is inhabited, the
bodies of their inhabitants must be composed of the
substance of these planets and constructed in ac
cordance with the forces and motions of these planets.
Wherever the spirit of man goes to abide, it will take
to itself the substance of the place where it is to
abide. The view that best commends itself to me, is, that
there is a spiritual body, which underlies and gives
shape and organization to the physical body. This

THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY 209
body is inseparable from the soul, goes forth with
the soul at death, and in the intermediate state as
sumes the substance of the intermediate place of
souls. When the final change comes, for the ultimate
state of existence at the resurrection, the same body
takes to itself the substance of the final place of its
abode: the body, the same in form and structure,
but different in its substance.
Eternal life was added to the Creed, as other
phrases of other articles, probably through the influ
ence of Niceta's Creed, which has it.
The eternal life is the eternal life that follows the
resurrection of the body and the final judgment;
and not the eternal life which begins, according to
the Gospel of John, with the new birth in this world,
or that which begins immediately after death.
This article of the Creed has to do only with Chris
tians, not with unbelievers; for it is subordinate to
the article of the Holy Spirit, and the last in the
order of clauses as to the work of the Spirit : church
— remission of sins — resurrection. This is not to
deny the universal resurrection, which, indeed, is im
plied in the article of the judgment of Christ, but
simply leaving it out of view here, where the work
of the Spirit is under consideration and the blessed
ness of the righteous kept in view.
The Apostles' Creed is based on the New Testa
ment, and especially upon the teaching of Jesus and
His Apostles as recorded in the Gospels and the Book
of Acts; and to a great extent is Lukan, as would

210 THE APOSTLES' CREED
naturally be the case in a primitive Roman Creed.
There can be no doubt that the interpretation of
the several articles of the Creed has varied from time
to time in details, and logical deductions, and through
changes in the meaning of the technical terms, and
variety in the meaning of the original words; but
these changes have never affected the substance and
the essential meaning of the Creed, as based on the
New Testament. The ancient interpretation of some
of the clauses was made more gross than the mod
ern spirit can justify; but a gross interpretation does
not impair the essential meaning of a Creed: it is
an exaggeration of it, which retains all the original
historical meaning and more. That does not justify
a minimizing of the meaning by going to the other ex
treme; for such a minimizing of the Creed destroys
its essential Biblical and historical meaning. To
all intents and purposes, we may justly say, that the
historical meaning of the Creed has always been
maintained, is the same to-day, and will doubtless
always abide.

PART II
THE NICENE CREED
CHAPTER I
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION
The Nicene Creed is an oecumenical Creed ; because
it was adopted in its original form by the Council of
Nicaea, composed of three hundred and eighteen bish
ops, in the year 325, and so called, by the Council
of Chalcedon (A. D. 451), the Symbol of the three
hundred and eighteen. The Constantinopolitan form
was in some sense approved by a council of 150
bishops held at Constantinople in 381, and was
finally adopted at Chalcedon as : the Symbol of the
one hundred and fifty.
The Western form has only the authority of the
Western Church for its additions, which have never
been approved by the Eastern Churches.
The Apostles' Creed was from the beginning, and
always has been, a baptismal Creed; based on the
Baptismal Formula and setting forth the saving
acts of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, authorita
tive as the summary of the traditional apostolic
Faith. The Nicene Creed is, on the other hand, a con-
ciliar Creed, an official Creed stating the same great
doctrinal facts in a fuller and more dogmatic way, in
211

212 THE NICENE CREED
order to exclude Trinitarian and Christological her
esies. Although in the East it incorporated the ear
lier baptismal Creed, and so became itself a bap
tismal Creed, it is more properly a Creed for the
matured Christian, and has been used in the West
as well as in the East as the appropriate Creed for
the Eucharist. The Apostles' Creed was a Creed the
acceptance of which was necessary for baptism and
incorporation into the Christian Church. The Ni
cene Creed was a test of orthodoxy, and necessary
for full communion in the Church.
We have seen, in our study of the Apostles' Creed,
that certain changes or additions to the Apostles'
Creed were due to early heresies, which had to be
rejected; such as the Gnostic and Docetic syncre
tisms, and the various forms of Monarchianism.
The Monarchian theories insisted upon the unity of
God; that the one God must be the sovereign, and
that therefore Christ and the divine Spirit must be
subordinate to the Father: and so we have either
the modal Trinity, whose chief representative was
Sabellius, condemned c. 220 by Pope Callistus; or
the dynamic, whose chief representative was Paul of
Samosata, metropolitan of Antioch, condemned by
three provincial councils at Antioch, and at the
third, c. 269, deposed. Gieseler1 thus defines the es
sential difference: "The one looked upon the divine
in Christ as continually teaching and acting through
Him; the other looked upon it as acting only on the
human person; so that, according to the former, the
1 Ecclesiastical History, I, p. 198.

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION 213
entire agency of Christ was divine, derived from God;
according to the latter, a human agency directed by
God." The Modalists preserved the divinity of Christ at
the expense of His humanity; the Dynamists pre
served His humanity at the expense of His divinity.
The Church insisted upon both the divinity and the
humanity of Christ. The Monarchians of all types
had been expelled from the Church in both the East
and the West, but the Church had thus far been un
able to solve the difficulties that confronted both the
Jewish and the Greek thinkers in reconciling the di
vinity with the humanity of Christ, and a Trinity of
Father, Son, and Spirit with the Unity of God.
Arms started from the fundamental principle of
the Unity of God, to which Christianity was com
mitted by the New Testament and the Creed, as
truly as the Jews by the Old Testament, and Greek
philosophers by their philosophy. Arius rejected
Sabellianism with its modal Trinity. He also re
jected Paul of Samosata with his conception of the
deified man. He recognized the divinity of Christ;
but only in a secondary sense, as a subordinate, min
isterial god, prior to all creatures and supreme in
rank to all, but still a creature; god, but not the only
one supreme God.
It was quite possible to hold this opinion on the
basis of the HD3PI of Proverbs, the aofyia of the Book
of Wisdom, and the Xdyoi oi Philo; and a number
of plausible texts might be cited in its favor. If one
distinguishes between God as transcendent and God

214 THE NICENE CREED
as immanent, it is easy to conceive of the immanent
God as mediatorial, ministerial, and a subordinate,
a second god. This, however, was a reaction from
genuine Christianity in the direction of Polytheism,
quite possible in the fourth century, when Polythe
ism still prevailed through the Roman Empire.
Arius was excommunicated by a synod summoned
by Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria, in 321; and
his views were condemned as heretical. Arius, how
ever, seems to have simply given voice to the opin
ion of a considerable number of bishops and priests,
not only in Egypt, but also in Palestine, Syria, and
throughout the East; and a most serious situation
emerged, which had to be dealt with. Accordingly,
Constantine, the first Christian emperor, summoned
a council at Nice, in Bithynia, June 19, 325. Three
hundred and eighteen bishops assembled ; all but one,
Hosius of Cordova, Spain, Eastern bishops.
When the Council assembled, it was found that
those who sympathized with Arius were few in num
ber, the chief of whom was Eusebius of Nicomedia.
There was, however, a considerable intermediate
party, which subsequently became known as Semi-
Arians, under the leadership of Eusebius of Caesarea;
but the majority were zealous against the Arians,
and prepared for extreme measures.
Eusebius of Caesarea presented to the Council a
Creed of which he said that he had learned it as a
catechumen, professed it at his baptism, taught it
in turn as presbyter and bishop, and that it was
derived from our Lord's baptismal formula.

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION 215
It is not altogether certain that the formula in all
respects corresponds with what he was taught at his
baptism. Some think that the formula was pre
pared for the occasion on the basis of the Creed of
the church of Caesarea; but this seems improbable.
There is no valid reason to doubt that he presented
the Creed of his church, and that that Creed was
in fact a development, like the Roman Creed, of an
earlier baptismal Creed, as he says.
The Creed of the church of Caesarea, which, as
thus presented, goes back into the third century, was
taken as the basis for the formula of Nicaea; to it,
however, were added several important phrases,
which were aimed especially against the Arians.
These were not altogether approved by Eusebius
and the intermediate party, who wished to conserve
the Faith of the Church and not add to it; and who
were especially in dread of Sabellianism: but they
were obliged to accept the definitions of the majority
and to explain them in their own way.
We shall compare these Creeds when we come to
study the clauses of the Nicene Creed in detail.
The Council of Constantinople, convoked by the
Emperor Theodosius in May, 381, was composed of
one hundred and fifty bishops, all Eastern. Their
first canon readopted the Nicene Creed, and con
demned seven different heresies, on the right and on
the left, which existed at the time.
"The Bishops out of difFerent provinces, assembled by
the grace of God in Constantinople, on the summons of the
most religious Emperor Theodosius, have decreed as follows :
The Faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers as-

216 THE NICENE CREED
sembled at Nicaea in Bithynia shall not be set aside, but
shall remain firm. And every heresy shall be anathem
atized, particularly that of the Eunomiahs, or Eudoxians,
and that of the Semi-Arians, or Pneumatomachi, and that of
the Sabellians, and that of the Marcellians, and that of
the Photinians, and that of the Apollinarians."
(i) The Eunomians, or Anomoeans, held to the
anomoion of Christ; that is, that He was "not like
the Father in essence," but simply a creature. These
may be regarded as extreme Arians.
(2) Arians proper, or Eudoxians, asserted that the
Son was "like the Father," with the implication that
it was only a moral likeness.
(3) The Semi-Arians, or Macedonians, also called
Pneumatomachians, denied the divinity of the Holy
Spirit. (4) The Sabellians have already been sufficiently
described (v. p. 48).
(5) The Marcellians regarded the kingdom of
Christ as only temporary and not eternal, and the
Incarnation of Christ as only provisional.
(6) The Photinians asserted, like Paul of Samo-
sata, that Christ was a man possessed of the Logos
in exceptional fulness.
These six heresies were chiefly new forms of Mo-
dalism on the one hand or Arianism on the other,
already condemned by the Church implicitly, now
needing explicit rejection.
(7) The Apollinarians raised new questions relat
ing to the Incarnation.
The question of the relation of the divine and the
human in Christ now became serious. Apollinaris
of Laodicaea was a strict adherent of the Nicene

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION 217
theology, a friend of Athanasius and a scholar of the
first rank, all of which entitled his views to great
authority in the Church. He represented that
Christ's human nature was impersonal, and there
fore could not have had a reasonable soul, voxk,
but only the capi-, the body, and yjrvxV} the animal
soul. Apollinaris was doubtless led to this position
by the desire, not only to maintain the unity of
Christ's person, but also to avoid the mutability and
sinful tendencies that were involved in the human
soul. He said: "Where there is perfect manhood, there
is sin." "Our rational soul is under condemna
tion." "If Christ assumed the totality of human
attributes, He undoubtedly had reasoning powers;
and it is impossible for these to be free from inhe
rent sin." This same difficulty has been felt in
modern times by those who, like Edward Irving,
have urged that Christ assumed the nature of fallen
man and so with original sin. Apollinaris also urged
an essential likeness between the divine and the
human natures. He maintained, on the basis of the
First Epistle to the Corinthians, that the Logos is
the archetype of mankind, and pre-existed as the
heavenly man prior to the incarnation. These
views, which have a pantheistic tendency, have been
revived in recent times, and are favorites among
some German theologians and also among some re
cent American writers, who think they are giving
a new theology when they are reviving ancient
heresies.

218 THE NICENE CREED
It is undoubtedly true that the Pauline conception
of the man from heaven and the pre-existent arche
typal relation of the Son of God to man, has not been
sufficiently considered by theologians; but, on the
other hand, these passages do not bear the meaning
that Apollinaris and his modern followers would put
upon them: that human nature is in a sense coeternal,
consubstantial with the Logos; which is pantheistic
and not theistic. It was necessary, therefore, for the
Church to reject Apollinarianism as a serious de
parture from the Biblical doctrine of the Incarna
tion. It was, however, thought best by the Council
not to make additional dogmatic statements, but
simply to reaffirm the Nicene Creed and reject the
seven heresies as inconsistent with it.
The Constantinopolitan form of the Nicene Creed
is in the present text of the Acts of that Council; but
it is not known how it came there. The Council of
Chalcedon definitely asserts that the Constantino
politan Creed was the Symbol of the one hundred and
fifty. It is altogether probable, therefore, that in
some sense it was derived from that Council. It is
almost certain that the Council approved of it, and
so it came to have the sanction of their authority.
The situation at Nicaea seems to have been re
peated at Constantinople. Cyril of Jerusalem be
longed to the conservative, or intermediate, party.
He had gradually become reconciled to the Nicene
terminology, and had "undergone many contests
with the Arians."
He, with Nectarius of Constantinople and Flavi-

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION 219
anus of Antioch, was challenged before the Council.
Cyril had revised the Creed of Jerusalem (c. 362-4)
by taking up into it the most essential terms of the
Nicene Creed.
This Creed Cyril seems to have presented to the
Council as his justification; and it was approved by
the Council, and Cyril himself was recognized as an
orthodox man and highly honored.1 This revised
Creed of Jerusalem was already known to Epiphanius
prior to 374-2
He had brought it with him from Jerusalem, hav
ing lived in that vicinity until 367, when he became
bishop in Cyprus.
There are several things to be noticed: (1) The
Nicene Creed in its original form is the substance of
the Constantinopolitan, with the exception of two
phrases that were not essential and seemed tautolog
ical, and to which the conservatives had objected
for various reasons. (2) The chief additions to the
Creed are from the primitive baptismal Creeds of
the churches, giving in detail the six saving acts of
Christ and the work of the divine Spirit, so as to
make the statement of the Faith of the Church com
plete. No one could have regarded these additions
as in any way making it improper to consider the
whole as the Nicene Creed. (3) There are also sev
eral additions which, as we shall see in our exposi
tion of the several clauses of the Creed, were designed
to exclude several of the more recent heresies, ex-
1 Hort, Two Dissertations, pp. 94 seq.
' He gives it in his 6 'AYxuputiq, The Anchored One.

220 THE NICENE CREED
pressly condemned in the first Canon of the Council.
For these reasons it is altogether probable that the
Council approved this form as essentially the Nicene
Creed. On the other hand, there is no clear reference to
the Apollinarian heresy in the Constantinopolitan;
and it seems improbable that the Council would have
made additions to the Creed without statements ex
cluding it, such as we find in the Athanasian Creed.
It may be, however, that the Council did not con
sider the Apollinarian heresy, which opened up the
great Christological problem, as so serious at this
time as it became later in the Church.
However the mystery may be explained, it is evi
dent that the Constantinopolitan Creed, so called,
is based on the revised Creed of Jerusalem as given
by Epiphanius; and that that Creed is a combina
tion of the Nicene Creed and an older baptismal
Creed, resembling the Old Roman Creed.
This Creed was recognized by the Council of Chal
cedon as the Symbol of the one hundred and fifty of
Constantinople, and was given by the Council of
Chalcedon oecumenical authority; and so, being an
expansion of the Nicene Creed and containing many
more primitive statements not in the Nicene Creed,
it has taken its place as the oecumenical form of the
Nicene Creed.
The received form of the Western Church differs
from the Constantinopolitan chiefly in the clause,
"and the Son," added to the doctrine of the Pro
cession of the Spirit from the Father; and in the res-

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION 221
toration of the clause, "God of God." Both of these
appear in the Creed for the first time as recited by
the Council of Toledo in 589; though both are found
in earlier documents. The latter came in from the
original Nicene Creed, the former probably from the
so-called Athanasian Creed.
The original Nicene Creed and the later form of
the Constantinopolitan are given below, the differ
ences of the latter being indicated by italics. Later
additions are in small capitals; omissions from the
original Creed are in parentheses.

THE NICENE CREED
We believe
I. I. In one God, the Father Almighty, maker of
heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible;
II. 2. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of
God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, the only
begotten (that is, of the substance of the Father,
God of God) Light of Light, very God of very God,
begotten not made, being of one substance with the
Father, by whom all things were made (both in
heaven and on earth).
3. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came
down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy
Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man,
4. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate
and suffered and was buried
5. And the third day (risen) He rose again ac
cording to the Scriptures
6. And ascended into heaven,
7. And sitteth on the right hand of the Father,
8. From thence He shall come (and coming
again) with glory, to judge the quick and the dead;
whose kingdom shall have no end;
222

THE NICENE CREED 223
III. 9. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Giver
of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped
and glorified, who spake by the prophets;
10. And in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
11. We acknowledge
one baptism for the remission of sins.
12. We look for
the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to
come.

CHAPTER II
MAKER OF ALL THINGS, VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE
The Nicene Creed is like the Apostles' Creed in its
Trinitarian basis, the first part giving the doctrine of
God the Father, the second of the Son, the third of
the divine Spirit.
I. The original Nicene form was: We believe in
one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible
and invisible. This was derived from the Creed of
Caesarea with slight changes. The Constantinopol
itan inserts in the second clause after Maker, of
heaven and earth. This is in accordance with the
Creed of Jerusalem. The final Western form is the
same: Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things
visible and invisible.
The first part of this article has already been suf
ficiently considered in connection with the Apostles'
Creed. The second part, giving the doctrine of
creation, has also been considered with the phrase
introduced into the Apostles' Creed : Maker of heaven
and earth. But the earlier Nicene form, of all things
visible and invisible, has still to be considered.
This is Eastern in character. The emphasis is on
invisible things, such as angels, and the invisible
world where the angels dwell, good and bad, and
whither the dead depart; as well as on the visible
things of heaven and earth. It is based on Col. I16:
224

MAKER OF ALL THINGS 225
" For in Him were all things created, in the heavens
and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or principalities or
powers; all things have been created through Him,
and unto Him."

CHAPTER III
CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH THE FATHER
Article II is the one that is expanded, because
about this the Arian controversy raged.
The doctrine of the person of Christ is unfolded so
as to exclude Arianism. The Son is declared to be
the only begotten of the Father, begotten before all
the ages, consubstantial with the Father, veritable
God, the mediator of creation.
i . And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
All of these terms have been considered in con
nection with the Apostles' Creed. The only change
from the Creed of Eusebius was in the substitution
of Son of God for Word of God, made necessary by
the additions to that Creed which follow. The doc
trine of the Logos, or Word, about which Christolog
ical controversy had raged in the East, was used by
the Arians in their support, and so it was necessary
to use the less philosophical and more definite term
Son. The term Lord was first in the Creed of Caesa
rea, instead of last as in the Roman Creed, and more
appropriately so with the retention of the one, which,
though original in the Roman Creed, had disappeared
from it by this time. The one Lord is doubtless based
on I Cor. 86, and in this article as there in the sense
of divinity (v. p. 51 seq.).
(2) Begotten of the Father, only begotten.
226

CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH THE FATHER 227
The Creed of Eusebius had only begotten Son and
begotten of God the Father. The order of these terms
was changed and the terms consolidated, Son and
God being omitted to avoid tautology. The Con
stantinopolitan transposes the clauses, the only be
gotten, begotten of the Father, after the Creed of Jeru
salem. This order remained unchanged in the West
ern form of the Creed.
The term only begotten we have already considered
in connection with the Apostles' Creed (v. p. 49 seq.).
The phrase begotten of the Father was derived from the
Creed of Caesarea. Begotten is emphasized by of the
Father, as being a real birth out of the Father, as
truly from His substance as a man is begotten from
the substance of his father, and so over against any
merely figurative senses of sonship, such as the Old
Testament recognizes in the creation of the world,
of Israel as a nation, and of the Messianic dynasty
of Israel; or any kind of Adoptionism, whether of
Paul of Samosata or any other.
The Constantinopolitan adds before all the ages.
This was in the Creed of Eusebius, but was omitted
as unimportant because of the definition that fol
lows: that is, of the substance of the Father. The
Creed of Jerusalem omits this latter and reverts to
the older phrase; and the Constantinopolitan follows
in both the omission and the addition; so also the
Western form of the Creed.
The phrase before all the worlds, or ages, is not
strictly a Biblical phrase as applied to Christ, but it
is a paraphrase and a more dogmatic form of the

228 THE NICENE CREED
Biblical terms before the world was (John 175), and
before the foundation of the world (John 1724). The
world is here rather the cosmos, the whole order of
created things. The ceons are the successive ages of
the world, or the worlds themselves in these succes
sive ages : as et? tow ala>va<s is unto the ages, forever
(Rom. I26, cf), in benedictions; so irpb t&v al&vmv
means before the ages, before there were any ages
(cf. I Cor. 27, of divine foreordination).
The Biblical usage justifies the conception that
the Son of God was not only truly begotten of God,
but that He was thus begotten before any creatures,
or, as John I1 has it, in the beginning was the Word.
(3) That is, of the substance of the Father.
This was added to the Creed of Caesarea to rule
out Arianism. It was not in the Creed of Jerusalem
as given by Cyril, though it is in that of Epiphanius;
but it does not appear in the Constantinopolitan,
probably for rhetorical reasons, and because its mean
ing was better expressed in the 6poovo~io<s below.
The significance of this phrase we shall reserve for
the present, in order to consider it with other similar
phrases about which the controversy especially raged.
(4) God of God. This was in the Creed of Caesa
rea, but was preceded there by the Word of God, which
was thrown out because the battle was over the re
lation of sonship and not over the relation of the
Logos. The Arians misused the term Logos as
meaning the immanent mediatorial god and pressed
it to the extreme of a subordinate god. It was
deemed best, therefore, to avoid the use of Logos in

CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH THE FATHER 229
the Creed and to emphasize the relation of sonship.
In some respects that was a mistake; because the
Biblical relation of the Logos to God is a different
relation from that of sonship, and adds important
material to enrich the relation of Christ to God. It
would have been wiser to combine the two terms in
a more comprehensive statement rather than to limit
the dogma to the relation of sonship. The passages
of Scripture dealing with Wisdom and Logos were
brought into the discussion; but they were trans
lated into terms of sonship by the Nicene theologians
and so a part of their significance was lost.
This phrase God of God was not used in the re
vised Jerusalem Creed of Epiphanius, and so did not
appear in the Constantinopolitan, as indeed it was
not needed because its meaning was in fact more
fully expressed in the term Very God of Very God.
It was natural, in the heat of the controversy, that
there should be a certain amount of tautology in the
chief terms of the controversy. The phrase God of
God reappeared, however, in Western forms after
the Council of Toledo (589). We reserve the con
sideration of it for the present.
(5) Light of Light. This was derived from the
Creed of Caesarea. It was taken up into the Creed
of Jerusalem, of Epiphanius, and so passed into
the Constantinopolitan in Eastern and Western
forms. The Creed of Eusebius also had Life of Life, which
was not used in the Nicene Creed in any of its forms,
although it has a better Biblical basis and a more

230 THE NICENE CREED
important meaning. Both terms are terms of John :
"In Him was Life; and the Life was the light of men"
(John I4). "The true Light, which lighteth every
man coming into the world" (John i9). "And the
Life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear
witness, and declare unto you the Life, the eternal,
which was with the Father, and was manifested unto
us" (I John i2).
It is probable that the phrase Light of Light was a
paraphrase of Heb. I3: "Being the effulgence of His
glory, and the very image of His substance."
The Book of Wisdom was probably also in mind,
which represents Wisdom as "the effulgence of the
everlasting Light" (725"27); cf. I John I5: "God is
Light, and in Him is no darkness at all." So Jesus
is "the Light of the World" (John 812).
The conception is, that the Son of God as the Light
of men came forth from the Father as the original
source of light. He had, therefore, the same light
nature: the glory of God the Father has its effulgence
of glory in the Son, who made the Father manifest
to the world.
(6) True God of true God, debv aXndivbv eVe 6eov
akrjffivov. This was not in the Creed of Eusebius. It is a
stronger expression than the God of God of his Creed.
The phrase Oebv aXndivbv was attached to the Son
of God in the Creed of Jerusalem, of Cyril. To this
the Nicene, e/c 0eov aXvdivov, was added in the re
vised Creed of Jerusalem, of Epiphanius; and so ap
pears in the Constantinopolitan in Eastern and West-

CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH THE FATHER 231
ern forms. It is not only a recognition that the Son
of God was god, which the Arians held ; for they rec
ognized him as a secondary, subordinate god. It
not only represented the older view that the Son of
God as god came forth from God, emanating from
Him as Logos and Son. But by using the phrase,
aXrjdivbv debv, of John 173 (cf. I Thes. I9), both for
the Father and for the Son, it states in fact that as
the Father is the one real veritable God, so the Son
is likewise the real veritable God, begotten by Him,
emanating from Him, and yet not differing from Him
in real veritable deity. This phrase of the Creed is
emphasized by Athanasius in his Exposition of the
Faith (1), citing I John 520; cf. Orat. c. Arian, 39.
(7) Begotten, not made, yevvrjdevra, oil iroirjOevra.
This is another addition to the Creed of Eusebius,
designed to rule out the Arians. It was taken up
into the revised Creed of Jerusalem of Epiphanius,
and so passed over into the Constantinopolitan and
the official Creeds, Eastern and Western. It rejects
the idea that the Son was made among the other
things that God made, and thus distinguishes Him
from all creation, and from created beings. On the
other hand, it reaffirms His sonship as not to be con
ceived in a figurative sense, of creation; but in the
real sense of being begotten as a son of a father, to
use the phrase of John I18: only begotten God (v. p.
49)- The Arians held that the Son was created, iroin-
Qhna, though supreme as god over all creatures,
and prior to all as mediator of the creation. The

232 THE NICENE CREED
Nicene Faith refuses to class Him with creatures,
and exalts Him as God over all creatures, the Son of
God and yet the true, veritable, only God.
The Creed of Eusebius had tt/swto'tokoi/ irda-rfi
KTiaew, first-born of all creation, the phrase of Col.
I15, which not only makes the Son of God prior to
every creature, but also ascribes to Him birth as the
first-born, distinguishing Him from them as formed,
shaped, created. But this phrase might be evaded,
as it always has been by Arians; and it was, there
fore, deemed insufficient, and the phrase of the Ni
cene Creed was substituted for it.
(8) Consubstantial with the Father, opMovaiov ™
irarpl. This was not in the Creed of Eusebius. It
was a new phrase, made in order to express the most
essential thing in the doctrine of Christ over against
Arianism. It was the phrase about which the battle
centred. This must be reserved for further consid
eration. It was not in the Creed of Cyril, but was
taken up into the revised Creed of Jerusalem, of
Epiphanius, and so into the Constantinopolitan in
both the Eastern and the Western forms.
(9) Through whom all things were made, both in
heaven and on earth. This was taken in its first
part from the Creed of Eusebius, but enlarged by
the addition of the second part from the Creed of
Epiphanius. The first part was also in the Creed of
Jerusalem, of Cyril, and that was deemed sufficient
in the revised form of Epiphanius, and so that only
came into the Constantinopolitan in its Eastern and
Western forms. The doctrine is that of I Cor. 86,

CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH THE FATHER 233
Col. i16, John i3. The Son is the Mediator of the
creation.

We have reserved for fuller consideration these two
phrases of the Nicene Creed :
tout ioriv ix t»}s ovaiaf tov iraTpfc, and 6fioovo-iov
tm iraTpi; the former omitted from the Constantino
politan and later forms of the Creed, Eastern and
Western, the latter retained in all forms of the
Nicene Creed. These terms were the battle terms
in the entire discussion subsequent to Nicaea. They
were inserted in the Creed against the remon
strances of Eusebius of Caesarea and the great body
of the bishops of Syria and Palestine; and only ac
cepted with their own explanations, which did not
satisfy the Alexandrians and the Westerns. There
seems to be little doubt that Hosius of Cordova, the
representative of the emperor at the Council, was
chiefly responsible for the insertion of these phrases;
and he was a Western, especially influenced by the
writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian; whereas the East
erns were influenced rather by Origen or Lucian.
These terms, ovo-Ca, 6/ioovo-io<;, are not Biblical
terms, but philosophical, with meanings which had
not yet been strictly defined by theological authority
and usage; and therefore many conservative divines
objected to them, all the more that they were under
stood during the controversy in different senses.
Oio-ia strictly means being, actual being, real exist
ence. It comprehends all that is essential to the
existence of the being. It received in the philosophy

234 THE NICENE CREED
of Aristotle the place of the first of the categories;
that essential being to which all qualities are at
tached, and in which all attributes inhere. The
Latin equivalent in usage was substantia, although
the word had a different origin from ovo-Ca. 'Ova-la
more properly corresponded with essentia, and sub
stantia with vtroo-Taae;; but usage is more potent in
determining the meaning of terms than are etymolo
gies. There can be little doubt that the Latin sub
stantia was in the mind of Hosius; and that he used
over (a in the sense of Aristotle, as its equivalent in
meaning. Accordingly, 6fwovo~io<; has as its equivalent con-
sub stantialis, "of one and the same substance." We
may go to Tertullian for the usage of the term sub
stantia. The most important passages of Tertullian
are: "The mystery of the providential order, which arranges
the Unity in a Trinity, setting in their order three, Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit; three, however, not in condition, but
in relation; and not in substance, but in form; and not in
power, but in aspect; nay rather, of one substance, and of
one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as it is one God,
from whom these relations and forms and aspects are reck
oned in the name of Father and of Son and of Holy Spirit"
(Adv. Prax., 2). "Thus the connection of the Father in the
Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three adhe
rent Persons, One (distinct) from Another. These three are
unum, not unus; as it is said: 'I and my Father are one,'
in respect of unity of substance, not singularity of number"
(Adv. Prax., 25). "But as for me, who derive the Son from
no other source but from the substance of the Father," etc.
(Adv. Prax., 4).
"The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as
He says: 'I am in the Father'; and is always with God, ac
cording to what is written: 'And the Word was with God';

CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH THE FATHER 235
and never separate from the Father, or other than the
Father, since 'I and the Father are one.' This will be the
TtpogoXin taught by the truth, the guardian of the Unity,
wherein we declare that the Son is a prolation from the
Father, without being separated from Him" (Adv. Prax., 8).
There was a correspondence between Dionysius of
Rome, and Dionysius of Alexandria. Dionysius of
Alexandria in his attacks upon the Modalists had
been incautious in his language, and had used the
term Tpefc vrroorao-ets for the three persons of the
Trinity. This term, as then used, was a synonym of ovala,
and the exact equivalent in etymological meaning of
the Latin substantia. Dionysius of Rome, in a letter
to Dionysius of Alexandria, protests against this lan
guage, and insists upon ofioovo-ios. The correspond
ence was a friendly one; and it showed that the dif
ference of opinion was more in terminology than in
reality. As Dorner1 intimates, it was a great mis
fortune that the question in dispute was not then
more thoroughly elaborated, and decided by friendly
correspondence. Dionysius of Alexandria yielded
too readily to his namesake at Rome. But this in
cident makes it clear, that even when the East and
West were agreed as to doctrine, they had not
reached a consensus as to terminology. It is inter
esting that the terminology of Dionysius of Alexan
dria, which was then looked upon with suspicion,
afterward became the orthodox usage of the Church.
The term ofwovo-ios had been rejected in the East,
in connection with the controversy with Paul of
1 Lehre von der Person Christi, I, s. 752.

236 THE NICENE CREED
Samosata, at Antioch in 268-9. The reason for its
rejection is not altogether certain. Athanasius states
that it was there rejected because Paul used so
phistical reasoning:
"For they who deposed the Samosatene took co-.
essential in a bodily sense, because Paul had at
tempted sophistry and said: 'Unless Christ has of
man become God, it follows that He is coessential
with the Father, and if so, of necessity there are
three essences, one of the previous essence, and the
other two from it*; and therefore, guarding against
this, they said with good reason, that Christ was not
coessential. For the Son is not related to the Fa
ther as he imagined. But the bishops who anathe
matized the Arian heresy, understanding Paul's craft,
and reflecting that the word coessential has not this
meaning when used of things immaterial — on these
grounds reasonably asserted on their part that the
Son was coessential" (De synodis, 45).
Basil agrees with this, for he says (Ep. 52) :
, " Moreover, as a matter of fact, the members of the
Synods, which met to discuss the case of Paul of
Samosata, did find fault with the term as an unfort
unate one. For they maintained that the homoou-
sion set forth the idea both of essence, and of what
is derived from it; so that the essence, when divided,
confers the title of coessential on the parts into which
it is divided. This explanation has some reason in
the case of bronze, and coins made therefrom; but
in the case of God the Father and God the Son, there
is no question of substance anterior or even under-

CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH THE FATHER 237
lying both; the mere thought and utterance of such
a thing is the last extravagance of impiety."
The terms substantia and consubstantialis had be
come fixed in the West in the conflict with Sabellian-
ism; and therefore, could not in those regions be in
terpreted in a Sabellian way. But in the East the
corresponding term, o>oovo-tos, had been discredited
in the conflict with Paul of Samosata, and there
fore had a different meaning, and suggested Mo-
narchianism. This difference of usage made great
trouble for a long time, and stood in the way of the
full acceptance of the Nicene Creed; not merely
by the Arians, who were sufficiently condemned in
other clauses of the Creed, but also by those who
wished to be faithful to their local Creeds and their
traditional opinions, and were afraid of the Mo
narchian tendencies of the new phraseology. Indeed,
it became evident in the course of the conflict that
o>oouotos was in fact capable, not only of the inter
pretation given by Paul of Samosata, but also of
the Sabellian interpretation, as implying not only
that the Son was consubstantial, of one and the
same substance with the Father; but that He was
identically the same with the Father, the only dif
ference being nominal or modal.
This became evident in the case of Marcellus of
Ancyra, who in his controversy with the Arians re
acted toward Sabellianism. He rejected the pre-
existence of the special properties of the Son before
the incarnation, and limited the terms Son, Image,

238 THE NICENE CREED
First-born, to the incarnate Christ. The incarnation
was only a temporary, incidental state; "The Logos,
having completed His redemptive work, laid aside
the manhood which He had assumed, surrendered
the kingdom to the Father, and was again merged in
the Deity, becoming what He was before the in
carnation."1 Photinus, Bishop of Sirmium, reacted toward Paul
of Samosata. Christ was, according to him, "a mere
man supernaturally born of a virgin, and exalted to
divine dignity. The Logos indwelling Christ was an
impersonal attribute of God, whom Photinus de
scribed as AoyoTraTrnp, i. e., both Father and Logos."1
The Semi-Arians were exceedingly bitter against
these men as Monarchians, giving the logical con
sequence of the opoova-ios. These Eastern misin
terpretations had to be overcome before the Nicene
Creed could be cordially accepted by them. Unfort
unately the Creed was forced upon them by impe
rial authority, and the Eastern conscience rebelled.
The conservatives, who took an intermediate posi
tion, were soon known as Semi-Arians. They pro
posed the term ofunova-uK, of like substance with the
Father. But it soon became evident that this term
left open, by its indefiniteness, a wide field of varia
tion of opinions, some of which would not differ ap
preciably from the Nicene Creed, others of which
would be practically Arian, and many of which would
be intermediate, of various grades of difference; for
1 Ottley, Doctrine of the Incarnation, p. 328, who quotes Basil, Ep.
69, 2.
* F. Ottley, p. 329.

CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH THE FATHER 239
it must be asked : in what respect, to what extent is the
likeness of substance between Father and Son ? Va
rious ways of overcoming the difficulty were sug
gested, as: according to the Scriptures, in all things,
as to being, without any variation as to being.
But no term could altogether take the place of
ofioovcrioi. While that was subject to misinterpre
tation, all the others were subject to still greater mis
understanding; and accordingly, so soon as there was
a general agreement to rule out these misinterpreta
tions, the term ofioovauK gradually assumed a tech
nical meaning, which was acceptable to all but the
Arians. This, however, did not altogether succeed until a
term was adopted to set forth clearly and distinctly
the difference of Father, Son, and Spirit.
The Westerns had an appropriate term, persona;
but the Easterns had not. Persona had long been in
use in the West, in the Roman sense, mask; and so
character, function; preserved in our use of personate.
Thus Tertullian1: "I find both in the Gospels and
in the Apostles a visible and an invisible God, under
a manifest and personal distinction in the condition
of both."
Here personal is functional, distinct mode of exist
ence, and not personal in the sense of modern popu
lar usage, of distinct and separate individuality.
The Greek term that in course of time was selected
to stereotype the meaning of the Trinitarian distinc
tion was viroctTao-K, hypostasis. This, in etymology,
is the exact equivalent of substantia, substance. It
1 Adv. Prax., 15.

240 THE NICENE CREED
is so used in Heb. i3, where the Son is the very image
of the substance of God. So also in the Nicene Creed
itself, in the anathema, ef hepas t/TrocrTaerew? fj ovo-ia<s,
which is rendered in the Latin version of Hilarius
(c. 356-361)1 ex alia substantia aut essentia, of another
substance or being.
In some passages Origen seems to distinguish be
tween ovo-la and wro'crTacrt?; and doubtless Dionysius
of Alexandria was influenced by him in his use of
the three hypostases; but he evidently was not clear
in his own mind, and the term was abandoned, owing
to the objection of Dionysius of Rome.
It is not altogether clear how the change of usage
came about. But at the Synod of Alexandria in 362,
Athanasius recognized that those who said Tpeli
inroarcureK, and those who said fiia vTroa-Tao-R, dif
fered only in terms and not in reality; and so both
uses became tolerable, though better avoided. It
was, however, the great Cappadocians, Basil ("j" 379),
Gregory of Nyssa (f 394), and Gregory of Nazian-
zum (f 390), who succeeded in giving the term a
definite meaning, which made it appropriate for
use in the distinction of the three persons of the
Trinity. Basil says: "Essence has the same relation to hypostasis
as the common has to the particular. Every one of us
both shares in existence by the common term of essence,
and by his own properties as such an one and such an one.
In the same manner, in the matter in question, the term
essence is common, like goodness, or Godhead, or any simi
lar attribute; while hypostasis is contemplated in the special
property of Fatherhood, Sonship, or in the power to sanc
tify" (Ep. 214). 1 De Synodis, § 84.

CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH THE FATHER 241
This use of vn-o'orao-t? did not get into the Nicene
Creed, or the Constantinopolitan; but it became the
recognized traditional interpretation of the Creed,
corresponding to persona in the West. The Greek
irpoaamov was avoided, because of the Sabellian mis
use of it. The technical term is p.la ova-la iv Tpialv
inroo-rdo-eo-iv, one substance in three hypostases. The hy
postasis is mode or manner of subsistence; each of the
three subsists in His own special hypostasis. These
distinctions, which Augustine used and enlarged
upon, are fully expressed and carefully stated in the
Athanasian Creed (3-28), on the basis of Augustine's
doctrine. It is evident that the terminology of the Creed is
inadequate; the terms themselves are open to mis
conception and misinterpretation. It was necessary
to maintain the unity of God over against Polythe
ism. No manner of Tritheism could be admissible
in the Christian Church. The Son was as truly
divine as the Father, and the Spirit as truly divine
as the Son. It is difficult to see how a better term
could have been used than the official consubstantial.
Every other that could be thought of was tried,
fought over for generations, and rejected; until the
Church, East and West, settled down upon ofwovarios,
consubstantial, as orthodox, and has so maintained
for centuries, but with its fixed, traditional, historical
meaning. It was no less necessary to maintain the difference
between Father, Son, and Spirit. Those differences
are recognized in the Nicene Creed as in the Apostles'

242 THE NICENE CREED
Creed, and so in the Constantinopolitan; but in none
of these Creeds is there any term given to indicate
these differences. The terms persona, in the West, and
hypostasis, in the East, are theological terms rather
than credal terms. They are more difficult to under
stand and less appropriate than consubstantial. They
are more convenient than instructive; they are sim
ply terms of technical, historical usage to express the
distinction in the Godhead of Father, Son, and Spirit.
It is necessary to consider here the anathema at
the close of the Nicene Creed, because it brings out
more sharply some of the distinctions in the Creed
itself. This anathema was not taken up into the
Constantinopolitan, and has not been used in the
recitation of the Creed, either in East or West.
They are anathematized who say that: (i) There
was a time when He was not; (2) 77* was not before
He was begotten; (3) 77* was made out of nothing;
(4) 77* is of another hypostasis or substance; (5) The
Son of God is created, or changeable or alterable.
This anathema rejects: (1) Origin of the Son of
God in time, and therefore makes Him everlasting;
(2) His birth in time, and makes His generation ever
lasting; (3) His origin out of nothing, and makes Him
originate from the divine substance; (4) His being
of any other substance than that of the Father; (5)
His being changeable, alterable as a creature, and
asserts His immutability, as divine.
The Son was begotten of the Father, not made or
created. He was begotten prior to all creatures, be-

CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH THE FATHER 243
fore all ages, or worlds, as the Constantinopolitan has
it; that is, before all time, everlastingly. The rela
tion of Father and Son is an eternal relation.
This begetting of the Father did not beget another
god, separate in being from the Father, so that two
gods existed. That would deny the unity of God.
It was a begetting within the divine substance, and
not without and separate from the divine substance.
In one and the same divine substance there existed
from all eternity two distinct forms of existence, that
of Father and that of Son. This is not to be under
stood in a Sabellian sense, that the divine Being some
times manifests Himself as Father, sometimes as Son ;
for the Father and the Son always co-exist, never
apart, always co-operating in everything and in every
respect. It was objected that these technical terms, ovaia,
ofwovma, were not found in Holy Scripture; and that
the term xnroaraurK has a different meaning in doc
trinal usage from what it has in the New Testament.
That raised the question whether Creeds and doc
trines of the Church should always be limited to the
language of Holy Scripture.
There are many in our day who agree with the
earlier objectors to the Nicene Creed in this respect.
But it has been found in the experience of all ages,
and of all organized Churches which have Creeds
and doctrines, that such a position is impracticable.
The Bible does not give us a Creed, but only the
materials for a Creed. All is in the concrete, and
not in formulas of doctrine. All Christians hold to

244 THE NICENE CREED
the Bible as the ultimate authority in religion; but
they differ in their interpretation of the Bible. It
is just this interpretation of the Bible that must be
defined, in order to rule out mistaken and erroneous
interpretations. The Arians appealed to the Scriptures no less truly
than did those who maintained the Nicene faith, and
those called Semi-Arians, or the intermediate party.
So from that day to this schismatics and heretics
of every sort have appealed to the Holy Scriptures;
and the only way to overcome them has always been
to show that their interpretations of Scripture are
erroneous. When an attempt is made to define
Scripture statements, it is necessary to do so in terms
that rule out the false interpretation; and hence it
is necessary to use other than Scripture terms.
Furthermore, the Scriptures express the same doc
trine in many different ways, in different authors
and writings.
A complete statement of the doctrine can only be
gained by a comprehensive study of all of these pas
sages. When the synthesis is made, it is necessary
to state that synthesis in general terms, which usu
ally are not given in Scripture. It was on this prin
ciple that the Nicene Creed uses ovaCa, opoovo-im.
The words are indeed not Biblical; but the Bib
lical doctrine is best summed up in the use of these
terms. We must now inquire what is the Biblical support
for the Nicene doctrine of the relation of the Son of
God to God the Father. Several passages of the Old

CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH THE FATHER 245
Testament, of the Apocrypha, and of the New Tes
tament come into view.
(i) We have first to consider that there are in the
Old Testament, in the ancient histories, and also at
times in other writings, a large number of theopha-
nies, that is, manifestations of God, or of Yahweh —
the personal name of the God of Israel — to His peo
ple in visible, audible, or tangible forms, of man, or
angel, or voice, or light, or convulsions of nature.
These are all manifestations of the one God, and
not of subordinate gods, messengers of the one God.
Now, St. Paul (I Cor. io1"4) identifies Christ with the
theophanic God of the Old Testament; and that has
always been the teaching of the Church. There
fore, if Christ is God in theophany, He is the one
God in theophany, and not a different, subordinate,
mediatorial god.
(2) The Old Testament predicts in a large number
of passages the advent of God in theophany for the
salvation of His people and the overthrow of their
enemies. Two of these passages (Is. 403 seq- and Mai.
31) are referred by St. Mark (11-3) to Jesus Christ as
heralded by John the Baptist. If Jesus Christ is the
theophanic Yahweh predicted by the Old Testament
prophets, He is Yahweh Himself in theophany, and
not a different subordinate god.
(3) In Prov. 822 m- the divine Wisdom is repre
sented as originating before all creatures, and as tak
ing part in their creation. The word used in He
brew is rup, which means to get. It may mean get
in the sense of creation. So it is translated in the

246 THE NICENE CREED
Greek Version; and Wisdom is represented as saying:
"Yahweh created me in (or as) the beginning of His
ways." Upon this passage especially the Arians
built their doctrine of the creation of Wisdom, and
that the Son of God as Wisdom was, therefore, a
creature. But really ilJp here is parallel with Vin,
Prov. 824' 25:
"When there were no depths, I was brought forth;
Before the hills was I brought forth."
This implies for nip rather the parental relation
of begetting.
The Revised Version has weakened it into the
subordinate meaning of possess. The whole context
indicates further that it is the divine Wisdom, rtODPI,
that is in question; not a Wisdom separable from the
Godhead except in idea, in mediatorial manifestation,
and in working. This conception of divine Wisdom
passes over into the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus,
or Wisdom of Ben Sir a (c. 24), where the nD2n ap
pears in the Greek o-odu'a. Here again, unfortu
nately, the Greek Version has eicnae (v. 9); but the
original Hebrew was doubtless essentially the same
as Prov. 8, and the entire representation is similar.
For the o~o<pia came forth from the mouth of God,
as a man's wisdom from his lips. She was en
throned on the pillar of cloud, and so identified
with the theophanic Yahweh of the Pentateuchal
history. She is also identified with the Shekina of
the tabernacle and the temple, the abiding theo-

CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH THE FATHER 247
phanic presence of God in the Holy of Holies. So
it is evident that awpia is the revealed, or manifested
God.
Again, in the Wisdom of Solomon (y2i seq) :
"She is the breath of the power of God;
And a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Al
mighty: . . .
For she is the effulgence of the everlasting light,
The unspotted mirror of the power of God,
And the image of His goodness;
And being one, she can do all things;
And abiding in herself, she maketh all things new:
And in all ages, entering into holy souls,
She maketh them friends of God, and prophets.

For she is more beautiful than the sun,
And above every order of the stars,
Compared with light she is found before it."

It is evident that Wisdom is here the divine Wis
dom, making itself known to man, not separable from
God as a distinct being.
Indeed, the strict and rigid doctrine of the unity
of God among the Jews, both Alexandrian and Pales
tinian, made it impossible for them to regard a the
ophany, or the divine Wisdom, as a different god from
the one only veritable God, Yahweh.
There can be no doubt that these conceptions of
the divine Wisdom, and especially those of the Book
of Wisdom, were in the mind of the Apostle, when
he wrote the Epistle to the Colossians (i12-22); for the
phrases are very much the same as those he uses of
Christ, when he represents Him as:

248 THE NICENE CREED
"The image of the invisible God;
The first-born of all creation;
.
All things have been created through Him, and unto Him;
And He is before all things
And in Him all things consist."
Christ is here prior to all creatures as the first-born
Son of God. The first-born is a technical term for the
son and heir. It does not imply other sons. But
the most significant term is "the image of the invis
ible God," the visible image of the invisible God,
the image in which the invisible God makes Himself
visible; in other words, God as visible, as distin
guished from God as invisible; not two gods, but
the one God in two distinct modes of existence, the
one visible, the other invisible.
The Epistle to the Hebrews (i1 "*•) also unfolds
these same conceptions of Wisdom, and applies them
to Christ. Here the one who is Son is He
"Whom He appointed heir of all things,
Through whom also He made the ages;
Who, being the effulgence of His glory,
And the very image of His substance,
And upholding all things by the word of His power,
When He had made purification of sins,
Sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Having become so much better than the angels,
As He hath inherited a more excellent name than they."
And then the writer goes on to quote several pas
sages of the Old Testament referring to Yahweh ; and
he does not hesitate to apply them to Jesus Christ
as Son of God.

CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH THE FATHER 249
The most important terms here are "the efful
gence of His glory," and "the very image of His
substance." The effulgence, or radiation, of the divine glory is
distinguished from the glory itself not in substance
or being, but only in manifestation. The very image
of the substance, or essential being of God, is not a
separate substance or being, but merely its expres
sion. The most important passage is the Prologue of the
Gospel of John, where the Logos takes the place of
aofyla. This change of terminology was due, partly
to the Alexandrian theology, especially the use of the
XePyos in the philosophy of Philo; and partly to the
Palestinian theology in its use of Memra. Both of
these terms, alike meaning Word, were employed to
distinguish the immanent God of revelation from the
transcendent God. All the approaches of God to
the creature are classed as theophanic in character,
whether made to the human senses, as the Biblical
theophanies, or only to the inner nature of man, as
in the inspiration of prophets, or in the creation and
government of the universe. The Alexandrian and
the Palestinian Jewish theologies distinguish between
the transcendent God and the immanent, theophanic
God, the Word; not as different gods, but as different
modes of existence of the same God.
The Prologue of John's Gospel uses this termi
nology for Jesus Christ, the Son of God; and, by so
using it, identifies Him at once as to being with the
one only veritable God; but at the same time dis-

250 THE NICENE CREED
tinguishes Him in mode of existence and working in
the world. "In the beginning was the Word,
And the Word was with God,
And the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by Him;
And without Him was not any thing made.
That which hath been made was Life in Him;
And the Life was the Light of men.
And the Light shineth in the darkness;
And the darkness apprehended it not."
The Logos is definitely said to be God; that to a
monotheistic Jewish Christian could be no other
than to identify the substance of the Son with the
Father, as the being of one and the same God. And
yet the Word is distinguished from God as existing
(77730?) with Him, "implying," as Vincent says, "liv
ing union and communion, . . . the active notion of
intercourse." 1
Plummer thinks that we might paraphrase "face to
face with God," or "at home with God."2 This
conception is essentially the same as that of the
Wisdom of the Old Testament.
The Son of God as Logos is Life and Light, going
forth from God to mediate between God and men,
to impart life, and light, and guidance. The Life,
and Light, and Word are not different from God in
substance, or being, but different only as the original
source is different from that which emanates from
1 Word Studies, II, p. 34.
iComm. on John, Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools, p. 64.

CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH THE FATHER 251
it; a difference between the deity in itself and the
deity in its manifestation. As we have seen, the
Nicene Creed endeavors to set this forth, chiefly by
the use of Biblical terms: "God of God, Light of
Light." But it was felt that these might be evaded by the
Arians; and so the stronger expressions were used:
"Very God of very God; of the substance of the
Father; consubstantial with the Father; Begotten,
not made"; and an anathema was proclaimed upon
those who said that He was made out of nothing as
a creature; or that He was of a different substance
from the Father, or that He was a being capable of
variation or change.
The Nicene divines were fully aware that they had
not solved the mystery of the relation of the Son of
God to the Father. They were content for the pres
ent to rule out Arianism, and to maintain the unity
of God the Father and the Son over against a reac
tion toward Polytheism. The peril of a reaction to
ward Sabellianism was overcome by the distinction
between Father, Son, and Spirit in the three great
sections of the Creed; and when this was found in
sufficient, by an interpretation of the Creed by the
use of inroo-Tao-K, hypostasis, in Greek and persona
in Latin, as technical terms to express these dis
tinctions; inadequate, it is true, yet having definite
historic meanings, which have fixed the meaning of
the Creed throughout Christian history. They had
to be translated into modern languages, and the
word person, derived from the Latin, has been used,

252 THE NICENE CREED
but in the same definite historic sense as the original,
and not in the common and best-known meaning of
the word. The terms must ever be explained anew
to each generation of ministers, and by them to their
people, as the only way of avoiding the antithetical
errors of Arianism and Sabellianism, to which differ
ent minds ever tend in accordance with circumstances
and training.

CHAPTER IV
THE INCARNATION
The third article of the Creed defines the incarna
tion as a coming down from heaven, a being made
flesh and man for the salvation of men, and, indeed,
as a conception of the Holy Spirit and birth of the
Virgin Mary.
The Nicene Creed, in the third article, reads:
"Who for us men and for our salvation came down and
was incarnate and was made man."
The Creed of Caesarea had: "Who for our salva
tion was incarnate and made his home among men."
It is evident that the Creed of Caesarea was based
upon the Gospel of John, as that of Rome had been
upon the Gospel of Luke.
(i) The phrase, Who for our salvation, corresponds
with the Saviour, which was originally in the Apos
tles' Creed, as in the Symbol of the Fish (v. p. 19).
It is implied in the Roman Creed and is here ex
pressed. This phrase, however, covers all the acts
of Christ as expressed in the subsequent clauses, and
not merely the Incarnation, for all Christ's acts from
the Incarnation to the Second Advent are for our
salvation. As Jesus said (John 1247): "I came not
to judge the world, but to save the world."
(2) The Nicene Creed prefixes to this phrase, "for
us men." The reason for this addition is not clear.
253

254 THE NICENE CREED
The emphasis upon "us men" indicates that the
Incarnation was not for Himself, but specifically for
men; He not only became man, but also all those
other things which He did, including His second
advent to judgment, all for the sake of mankind.
Both of these phrases passed over into the Constan
tinopolitan and the ultimate Nicene Creeds, in East
and West.
(3) Was incarnate, made flesh, a-apKcodevra, of the
Creed of Caesarea, which was taken up into the Ni
cene Creed, and so into the Constantinopolitan, is
based on John I14, The Word became flesh. Irenaeus
(I, 10) has, made flesh for our salvation, as we have
seen (p. 60), using an Asian form of the Apostles'
Creed. Flesh, in noun and verb, means here, as in
the case of the Resurrection, not the flesh of the
body, but man as flesh in antithesis with God.
The Constantinopolitan adds here, from the Creed
of Jerusalem, of the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin,
as in the Roman Creed, thus bringing into the Ni
cene Creed, as in use both in East and West, the con
ception of the divine Spirit and the Virgin Birth.
This we have already sufficiently considered. It is
thought by some that this addition was to rule out
the doctrine of Apollinaris of the heavenly origin of
the body of Christ. But, while this is possible, it
is not probable. The phrase does not seem to be
definite enough for that purpose, and nowhere in the
Creed is there anything that hints of this special
heresy, the denial of the rational human soul to
Christ.

THE INCARNATION 255
(4) The Nicene Creed, however, prefixes came down
in order to emphasize the primary fact that the Son
of God became flesh by an act of His own, by a de
scent from heaven, in antithesis with the ascent of a
subsequent clause. This also is in accordance with
many passages of the Gospel of John. The Constan
tinopolitan made this more distinct by the addition
of the words, from heaven.
(5) The Creed of Caesarea had, made His home
among men. This was too indefinite, and so it was
replaced by the strong term, was made man.
It is evident that this Creed, as distinguished from
the Roman, emphasized the Incarnation as an act
of the Son of God Himself. So also the reality of
the human nature is emphasized by was incarnate,
and was made man (a-ap/cwdevTa, ivavBpoyrcr\a-ama).
As to the Virgin Birth, it was not thought neces
sary to state it in the original Nicene Creed, as it was
not in dispute at the time. It came into the Con
stantinopolitan, because it was in the revised Creed
of Jerusalem, upon which that Creed was based.
The remaining Christological articles of the Con
stantinopolitan differ from the Apostles' Creed only
in certain phrases but in no essential particular.
Article IV of the Nicene Creed had simply suffered,
based on the Creed of Eusebius, which had also only
that. The Constantinopolitan took from the Creed
of Jerusalem the fuller statement: and was crucified
for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was
buried. Article V of the Nicene Creed had, and risen on

256 THE NICENE CREED
the third day, from the Creed of Caesarea. The Con
stantinopolitan simply adds, according to the Script
ures, from I Cor. 154, in fulfilment of the prophecy of
Christ (Luke 2446, John 219-22, Mark 1033-34). The
final Western form is: And the third day He rose
again, according to the Scriptures (v. p. 137 seq).
Article VI of the Nicene Creed had, ascended into
the heavens, instead of unto the Father, of the Creed of
Eusebius. The Constantinopolitan is the same as
the Nicene here. The Western Revision has, as
cended into heaven (v. p. 153 seq.).
Article VII of the Nicene Creed has no clause for
the Session. In this omission it follows the Creed
of Caesarea, doubtless in both because the Session
is implied between the Ascension and the Second
Advent. But the omission is supplied in the Con
stantinopolitan, which, as the Creed of Jerusalem,
has, and seated on the right hand of the Father (v.
p. 155 seq.).
Article VIII of the Nicene Creed has, and coming
to judge the living and the dead. This is an abbrevia
tion of the Creed of Caesarea, which has, and coming
again in glory to judge the living and the dead {v. p.
164 seq.). The Constantinopolitan has: "and coming
again with glory to judge the living and the dead;
whose kingdom shall have no end." The final revision
is the same, except for the indicative in place of
participle. It is probable that the last clause was
to rule out Marcellus, who had thought that the
reign of Christ would end when He delivered over
the completed kingdom to the Father (I Cor. 1524).

CHAPTER V
PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
The Article on the Holy Spirit is enlarged in the
Constantinopolitan so as to state that He is Lord, the
Giver of Life, who inspired the prophets, who pro
ceedeth from the Father and is to be glorified jointly
with Father and Son.
The Creed of Caesarea had, also in one Holy Spirit.
The Creed of Nicaea had, and in the Holy Spirit. The
omission of one is difficult to understand because one
is used both of the Father and the Son: and it would
be most natural to use it here also. I know of no
good reason, except that it might have been deemed
unnecessary, as in the case of the Roman Creed in
the West (v. p. 173 seq.).
The Constantinopolitan, on the basis of the Creed
of Epiphanius, greatly enlarges this article by the
following additions:
(1) The Lord, (2) the Giver of Life, (3) who pro
ceedeth from the Father, (4) who with the Father and
the Son together is worshipped and glorified, (5) who
spake by the prophets.
These additions, made in the Revised Creed of
Jerusalem of Epiphanius, were due to the con
troversy with the so-called Macedonians, or Pneu-
matomachians, who denied the divinity of the Holy
Spirit. 257

258 THE NICENE CREED
(i) The Lord. This ascribes the same lordship to
the Holy Spirit as to the Son of God, and, indeed,
in the same sense, and so asserts the divinity of the
Spirit. As the Athanasian Creed has it: "So the
Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit
Lord: and yet not three Lords, but one Lord."
(2) The Giver of Life: cf. Rom. 82, "the Spirit of
Life." The divine Spirit is life-giving in the original
creation of the world (Gen. I2). He is the Spirit of
life in the theophany of the cherubic chariot of
Ezekiel 1. He is life-giving, especially in regenera
tion, in connection with Christian baptism (v. p.
174 seq.).
(3) Who proceedeth from the Father.
This is the most important item in connection
with the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The divine
Spirit equally with the Son is from the Father; the
difference is that the Son is begotten, the Spirit pro
ceedeth. This doctrine is based on John 1526, the
Spirit of truth that proceedeth from the Father.
The divinity of the Spirit and the work of the
Spirit have been considered in connection with the
Apostles' Creed (v. p. 173 seq.) ; we have here only to
consider the relation indicated by the procession.
This procession is a technical term to comprehend
the entire relation of the divine Spirit to the Father,
and to distinguish the relation of the Spirit from the
relation of the Son. The same general questions
arise with reference to the relation of the Spirit to
the Father as to the relation of the Son.
The Spirit is also of the substance of the Father:

PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 259
God of God, true God of true God, not made, consub
stantial with the Father.
These phrases were not given here, because, having
been given in connection with the Son, they were
sufficiently implied in connection with the divine
Spirit by the terms that were given. The Spirit
could no more be a third god than the Son could
be a second god. The Spirit could no more be a
creature than could the Son. The procession of the
Spirit from the Father was as truly eternal as the
generation of the Son. It could no more be said of
the Spirit than of the Son: There was a time when
He was not; He was made of nothing.
And so the Athanasian Creed has it: "The Holy
Spirit is of the Father and the Son: not made, nor
created, nor begotten, but proceeding" (v. p. 275).
This leads us to the addition in the Western form
of the Constantinopolitan Creed, which was never
in the Eastern forms, and which is still bitterly op
posed by the Greeks and Orientals as an unauthor
ized addition, namely, the filioque = and the Son; so
as to teach the procession of the Spirit from the
Father and the Son. This doctrine seems to have
been the common doctrine of the Western Church
from very early times; and to have become especially
prominent in Augustine and the school of Lerins,
and so in Gaul and Spain.
It first appears in an official statement at the
Council of Toledo in 589 in the recitation of the Ni
cene Creed. Its introduction into the Creed was
probably due to the Athanasian Creed, in the sec-

260 THE NICENE CREED
tion cited above. It was not officially sanctioned in
Rome until quite late. Pearson1 and Neale2 attrib
ute its introduction into the Roman text to Nico
las I (858-867); but it was not used in the Liturgy
till 1014 by Benedict VIII.
The Orientals object that there is no scriptural
authority for the addition, that the addition to the
Creed was unauthorized, and that the statement is
incorrect. (a) There is no express scriptural authority for
the statement. John 1526, i614"15, 2022, all refer to the
temporal mission of the Holy Spirit as the surrogate,
or vicar, of Christ; not to an eternal mission, still
less to procession.
(b) There can be no doubt that the filioque clause
came into the Creed through local provincial usage,
and spread without general authority; and that it
was not recognized by Rome as in the Creed for cen
turies, although the doctrine was never questioned,
so far as we know, in the West.
(c) We have now to inquire whether or not it is
sound doctrine, as a necessary consequence of the
doctrine of the Spirit already established. This the
West asserts, the East denies.
We have first to ascertain what is the Western
doctrine. It is admitted that the procession of the
Spirit from the Son is not to be understood in pre
cisely the same sense as the procession from the
Father. The Father is the one sole fountain of the
Deity. As the Son is begotten of the Father eter-
' Art. VIII, p. 576. » op. cit., p. 1167.

PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 261
nally, so the Spirit proceedeth from the Father eter
nally. The Westerns think it necessary to define the re
lation of the Spirit to the Son as not merely tem
poral but eternal. The phrase, and the Son, was
designed to teach that the Son and the Father act
together, conjointly from all eternity in one spira-
tion, and not in two separable and distinct spirations.
This was determined finally by the Council of
Lyons in 1274: "quod Spiritus Sanctus aeternaliter ex
Patre et Filio, non tanquam ex duobus principiis, sed
tanquam ex uno principio, non duabus spirationibus,
sed unica spiratione procedit."
The doctrine of the unity of the Godhead indeed
implies that the Son should act eternally with the
Father in the spiration of the Spirit, and not sepa
rately and apart from Him, in a second and different
act. This does not, however, in any way depart from
the doctrine that the Father is primary in the God
head, and the Son secondary; it denies, however,
that the Father and Son act separately and apart in
two distinct acts.
The doctrine of the procession of the Spirit is thus
stated by Tertullian:1 "I believe the Spirit [to pro
ceed] from no other source than from the Father
through the Son."
The Easterns really hold the doctrine as so stated,
and would doubtless agree to it, if there could be a
free Council, in which they might have their right
ful place and influence. This addition was made to
1 Adv. Prax., 4.

262 THE NICENE CREED
the Creed without their knowledge or consent; and
they have never been able to understand it, or ac
cept it.
The doctrine of the procession of the Spirit belongs
to the sphere of the eternal mission of the Spirit, and
not to the specific temporal mission in the Christian
dispensation. This addition of the filioque to the doctrine of the
procession of the Holy Spirit gives the relation of the
divine Spirit to the Son as well as to the Father; and
thus is not altogether harmonious with the second
section of the Creed, which gives only the relation
of the Son to the Father and not to the divine Spirit.
The question emerges whether the divine Spirit has
an active relation to the Son; and whether the rela
tion of the Spirit to the Godhead is alike passive to
Father and Son. There have been writers who have
tended to the opinion that the divine Spirit was the
maternal principle of the Godhead, and as such
shared in the generation of the Son; but sober theo
logians have avoided such tendencies, because the
divine Spirit is always third in the Godhead, not in
any temporal sense, or relation of inferiority of being,
but of order.
A still more profound question arises as to the
relation of Son and Spirit to the Father: as to whether
there are not active relations as well as the passive
ones of generation and procession. There are cer
tainly active relations taught in Holy Scripture.
The Logos was with God, in loving communion. The
Spirit is represented as interposing with God on be
half of Christians. So Christ is active in His medi-

PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 263
ation with the Father in His mediatorial priesthood.
He not only represents God to men, but also men to
God. These relations of the Spirit and the Son are,
however, usually referred to the work of the Son and
the Spirit on behalf of mankind. The question of
the premundane work of the Son and the Spirit, and
of their eternal active relation, has not been opened
up in Theology.
Modern theologians have, however, used the prin
ciple of love as best explanatory of the active rela
tion of the intertrinitarian Persons. The three, Fa
ther, Son, and Spirit, are in an eternal relation of
mutual, ever-active, intercommunicating love. Love
in its perfect form is ever triune, cannot be single,
and is even incomplete when double. Trinity is nec
essary to its completion and perfection: for two must
join in love to a third; otherwise, mutual love has no
expression. (4) Who with the Father and the Son together is
worshipped and glorified.
This passage ascribes the same identical worship
and ascription of glory to the Holy Spirit as to the
Father and the Son; and also emphasizes that wor
ship and glorification as not separate and apart, as
if They were different beings or individuals, but in
the same act, at the same time, as the worship of
One Being, One Individual, with the recognition of
the three Hypostases or Persons of the Trinity, in
their distinct functional activities and relations.
(5) Who spake by the Prophets.
This is a recognition that the Holy Spirit of the

264 THE NICENE CREED
Church is the same Holy Spirit that inspired the
Prophets of the Old and New Testaments. This was
more fully stated in the revised Creed of the Arme
nian Church, which has: "in the Law and in the
Prophets and in the Gospels."
The original Nicene Creed closes with the faith in
the Holy Spirit and the anathema; but the Constan
tinopolitan, on the basis of the revised Creed of Je
rusalem, gives the remaining articles of the primi
tive Christian Faith. These do not differ from the
corresponding ones of the Apostles' Creed in any es
sential particular, but only in variety of phrases.
Article X in the Constantinopolitan has, in one
holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. This is the most
complete credal statement of the nature of the
Church. As we have seen, the original Roman
Creed had only holy Church, enlarged subsequently
to holy Catholic Church (v. p. 184 seq.).
The Creed of Jerusalem had, in one holy Catholic
Church. The constituents of the Church are Unity,
Sanctity, Catholicity, and ApostoHcity. These were
always implied, whether stated or not. The merit
of the Constantinopolitan is that it states these four
constituents. This statement is especially important in modern
times, when the elements of Unity and ApostoHcity
are dim in the minds of most Protestant Christians
(v. p. 190).
Article XI of the Constantinopolitan has, We ac
knowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. This
is a revision of the older Jerusalem Creed, and in

PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 265
one baptism for the remission of sins; and a fuller
statement of the simpler form of the Apostles'
Creed, the remission of sins. This simple state
ment implies all that the fuller statement gives
us, namely: (i) That the remission of sins is the
baptismal remission at the moment of regeneration,
and not the remission of sins committed after bap
tism, whether we think of venial or mortal sins; (2)
that repentance is a condition of remission; (3) that
baptism is the sacrament of this remission of sins;
(4) that there is one only baptism for this purpose.
The Constantinopolitan prefixes a verb here.
This was doubtless for rhetorical purposes, for the
more solemn recitation of the Creed: we confess, or
acknowledge. This, in the Roman or Western form,
becomes singular, Confiteor,*=I acknowledge. This
change to the singular is to correspond with a
change from plural to singular throughout.
Article XII ofthe Constantinopolitan has: We look
for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age
to come.
This is a fuller statement of the older Jerusalem
Creed, and in the resurrection of the flesh and in
eternal life; and of the Old Roman Creed, resurrec
tion of the flesh.
(a) The verb changes the faith into Christian hope :
we look for; cf. II Peter 312-
(b) The more general term dead is used instead of
the more specific flesh ofthe Western Creed, not with
a different meaning but as a more Pauline phrase.
(c) The phrase the age to come is a richer expres-

266 THE NICENE CREED
sion than eternal. The age to come is the age sub
sequent to the second advent and resurrection of
the dead, as distinguished from the present age, the
age that now is, which precedes the resurrection and
the second advent that introduces it.
Thus the Nicene Creed, in the Constantinopolitan
form, embraces, like the Apostles' Creed, the twelve
essential articles ofthe Christian Faith. The articles
on the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit are
fuller and richer, because they were necessary to
overcome the Arian and Sabellian heresies, which
threatened to destroy Christianity no less than did
Gnosticism and Ebionitism, which preceded them.
The Chicago Lambeth platform of the Anglican
Church makes this form of the Nicene Creed a suf
ficient statement ofthe Christian faith; that is, suffi
cient as a basis of unity for the Christian Church;
not sufficient for a full knowledge of Holy Scripture,
or Christian theology. Any Christian Church that
holds to the Nicene Creed may be regarded as Chris
tian, and may enter into that union, so far as doc
trine is concerned. A Church that does not adhere to
the Nicene Creed cannot be recognized as a Christian
Church. Most Christian bodies require much more, not only
of candidates for the ministry, but also for admission
to communion. But they must require as much as
this, if they are to continue to be recognized as Chris
tian Churches. The great Protestant Churches, no
less than the Greek and the Roman, must reject all

PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT 267
those heresies which were condemned once for all in
the third and fourth Christian centuries; and they
cannot recognize the dynamic Monarchianism of
Paul of Samosata, revived by Harnack and his fol
lowers, any more than the modal form of Sabellian-
ism, or the Arian or Semi-Arian heresies of the
Unitarians, as having any valid place in historical
Christianity.

CHAPTER VI
THE ATHANASIAN CREED
The name Athanasian is by tradition attached to
this Creed, whether as ascribing authorship to Atha-
nasius, or as asserting that it was his faith. There
can be no doubt that for many centuries Athanasius
was regarded as its author, just as the Apostles were
regarded as the authors of the Old Roman Creed;
but it is quite probable that originally the tradition
meant nothing more than that the doctrine of the
Creed was the doctrine of Athanasius, just as the
doctrine of the Roman Creed was the doctrine of the
Apostles. This, however, could be true only of the first sec
tion of the Creed; and even here the doctrine of the
Trinity is further developed than in the writings of
Athanasius; and the form of statement, phraseology,
and mode of thought are Augustinian rather than
Athanasian. There can be no doubt that the Creed
was not earlier than the fifth century, the age of
Augustine. Athanasius died in 373.
This Creed did not originate in an oecumenical
council like the Nicene Creed, or in a local church as
a catechetical creed like the Old Roman Creed.
It is in its very nature a dogmatic creed, of ob
scure origin both as to date and locality; which won
its way to universal acceptance in the West by its
268

THE ATHANASIAN CREED 269
great merits, but which never came into use in the
East, except occasionally through some theologians.
There are three theories as to its origin:
(i) The older view, maintained by Waterland, and
now urged by Burn and Kattenbusch, is that this
Creed belongs to the first half of the fifth century.
Burn differs from Kattenbusch in his opinion of its
relation to Augustine. Kattenbusch thinks that
Augustine used it in his Enchiridion (c. 420), making
the Athanasian Creed earlier. Burn thinks that the
Creed uses Augustine, and so makes it subsequent
to 420. Burn well says: "If the main portion of
Part I, clauses 7-19, ... is not the fruit of Augus
tine's influence upon the author, but exercised, on
the contrary, a constraining influence upon Augus
tine, the Church owes an unacknowledged debt of
gratitude to a mind superior to that of the great
African thinker. " 1
Several theories have been put forth as to authors.
Waterland urged Hilary of Aries (f 450); Harvey
(Creeds, II, 577) suggested Victricius; Antelmius
(1693) and Ommanney (1897), Vincentius of Lerins;
Burn, Honoratus, founder of the monastery of Lerins
^429). The clauses of the Creed on the Incarna
tion condemn Apollinarianism, but do not condemn
the characteristic features of Nestorianism or Mo-
nophysitism. (2) Morin ascribes the Creed to Caesarius of Aries
(f 542). He is followed by Turner2 who says it might
be urged that "a document which shows so intimate
' Introduction to the Creeds, p. 146. * Use of Creeds, 74-75.

270 THE NICENE CREED
a dependence on St. Augustine is less likely to have
been composed in Southern Gaul at a time when the
whole school of Lerins was in open revolt against
St. Augustine's teaching on Grace and Free Will,
than at a somewhat later date when the controversy
was free from any element of personal bitterness."
To this it might be replied that the author would be
all the more inclined to emphasize his concord with
the common Faith in the Incarnation represented
by Augustine when they were challenging his doc
trines of Grace, which had not been finally adopted
by the Church.
(3) The third theory of the origin of this Creed
was proposed by Swainson, and Lumby, and fol
lowed in the main by Schaff and Harnack. This
finds two sections of the Creed originating at differ
ent times: the earlier the Trinitarian section, which
was composed by itself; the later the Christological
treatise. These were combined early in the ninth
century in the present form. This theory has been
disproved so far as the date is concerned by Loofs
and Burn. The external argument from silence and
reference has been shown to depend on insufficient
study of documents of the eighth century.
It is quite true that these two parts are so dis
tinct that they may have been composed at different
times and subsequently joined together. But the
literary style and mode of statement of the doctrine
of the second part is essentially the same as that of
the first part; and it is improbable that the style of
the second part was merely an assimilation to that

THE ATHANASIAN CREED 271
of the first part. They could not, therefore, have
been composed apart at any great interval of time,
and they must have had the same author.
(4) Loofs proposed the theory that the Athanasian
Creed was a growth on the basis of a sermon on the
Apostles' Creed, expanding it in the clauses on the
Trinity and the Incarnation after the method of
the Nicene Creed. Loofs thinks that the Creed origi
nated between 450 and 600. The theory of Loofs
has been criticised by Burn successfully, so far as its
basis on a sermon on the Apostles' Creed is con
cerned, but not otherwise. Internal evidence shows
that the Creed has been a growth, and was not in its
present form a unit.
The sections 38-43 seem to have been added to
the Christological section, just as truly as that simi
lar additions to the Nicene Creed were made in the
East, and especially in the Constantinopolitan, in
order to completeness of Christological statement of
the Faith of the Church. The Creed has as its basis
(1) the Catholic Faith in the Trinity, and (2) the Right
Faith in the Incarnation. These two sections are
essentially in the same style, form, and mode of
thought; and must have come from the same hand.
But there are sections here and there which seem
not homogeneous. Thus §12 seems to be tacked
on: if original, it would have been in two clauses
after §§8 and 9. So §§19, 20 seem to be repetitions,
and not in accord with the terse style of the Creed.
I also doubt the damnatory clauses, especially §§ 28,
29, 44. Such clauses belong to conciliar Creeds, and

272 THE NICENE CREED
not to sermons on the Creed, or to statements of
the Faith by individual theologians.
As to the main body of the Creed, both in its
Trinitarian and its Christological sections, it seems
to depend on Augustine, and to have come from the
school of Lerins. The most important question is,
whether it antedates the Nestorian controversy, or
whether it depends on the Chalcedonian formula.
It may well be that the terminology of the Christo
logical section is Western and older than Chalcedon,
and that the formula does not go beyond the West
ern terminology; but that proves nothing.
Indeed, the Chalcedonian formula is largely based
on the Epistola dogmatica of Pope Leo I to Bishop
Flavian, which was, indeed, adopted by the Council.
The question is whether the Athanasian Creed con
demns the essential errors of Nestorianism and
Eutychianism. It is evident that it does not. It is
significant that the Creed agrees so closely with the
sections of the formula of John of Antioch against
Apollinaris to the exclusion of those clauses which
are distinctly against Nestorius; these imply a com
mon basis or a common antithesis. The Synod of
Rome in 377 rejected Apollinarianism as did the
second oecumenical Council at Constantinople, 381.
These are back of the Athanasian Creed, but not the
Tome of Leo, or the Roman Council of 430 which
condemned Nestorius, or Cassian's attack on Nes
torius. It seems to me very improbable that any
definition of the Incarnation in Gaul subsequent to
430 could have altogether ignored Nestorianism after

THE ATHANASIAN CREED 273
such a decided rejection of it in Rome and in Gaul.
The first part of the Athanasian Creed sets forth
the Nicene Faith in the Augustinian form as follows :
(3) The Catholic Faith is this: that we worship one God
in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
(4) Neither confounding the Persons: nor dividing the
Substance. (5) For there is one Person of the Father: another of the
Son: and another of the Holy Ghost.
(6) But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost, is all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-
eternal. (7) Such as the Father is: such is the Son: and such is
the Holy Ghost.
(8) The Father uncreate: the Son uncreate: and the Holy
Ghost uncreate.
(9) The Father incomprehensible (immensus) : the Son in
comprehensible: and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible.
(10) The Father eternal: the Son eternal: and the Holy
Ghost eternal.
(11) And yet they are not three eternals: but one eternal.
[(12) As also there are not three uncreated: nor three in
comprehensible (immensi), but one uncreated: and one in
comprehensible (immensus).]
(13) So likewise the Father is Almighty: the Son, Al
mighty: and the Holy Ghost, Almighty.
(14) And yet they are not three Almighties: but one Al
mighty. (15) So the Father is God: the Son is God: and the Holy
Ghost is God.
(16) And yet they are not three Gods: but one God.
(17) So likewise the Father is Lord: the Son, Lord: and
the Holy Ghost, Lord.
(18) And yet not three Lords: but one Lord.
[(19) For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity
to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and
Lord, (20) So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion: to say,
There be three Gods, or three Lords.]
(21) The Father is made of none: neither created, nor
begotten.

274 THE NICENE CREED
(22) The Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor
created: but begotten.
(23) The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son:
neither made, nor created, nor begotten: but proceeding.
(24) So there is one Father, not three Fathers: one Son,
not three Sons: one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
(25) And in this Trinity none is afore, or after another:
none is greater, or less than another.
(26) But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and co
equal. (27) So that in all things, as aforesaid: the Unity in Trin
ity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped.
[(28) He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think
of the Trinity.]
The distinctive features are the following:
(1) The doctrine of the divine Spirit is not given
in a third part of the Creed as in the earlier Creeds,
but with the doctrine of the Father and the Son, in
one part together. The divine Spirit accordingly
has the same predicates as the Son and the Father,
except that the special properties of each are dis
tinguished. This doctrine of the divine Spirit pre
supposes the heresy of the Macedonians, condemned
by the first Council of Constantinople.
(2) The term person is used for the definition of
the three Trinitarian distinctions, as in Augustine,
and in accord with the hypostasis of the Cappado-
cians, implying the controversies as to the Nicene
Creed with the Semi-Arians, resulting in the recon
ciliation of practically all of them but the Mace
donians, in accordance with the explanations of the
Cappadocians. The brief statement of the Constantinopolitan as
to the Holy Spirit is thus greatly enlarged. The

THE ATHANASIAN CREED 275
Constantinopolitan had "and in the Holy Spirit,
(a) the Lord and Giver of Life, (b) who proceedeth
from the Father, (c) who with the Father and the
Son together is worshipped and glorified, (d) who
spake by the Prophets." The Athanasian begins
and ends with the assertion of the worship of the
Spirit together with the Father and the Son (3-27).
So also it ascribes to the Spirit equality in glory
with the Father and Son (6).
The Constantinopolitan procession of the Spirit
from the Father is enlarged into: "The Holy Spirit
is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor
created, nor begotten: but proceeding" (23). "The
Lord and Giver of Life" of the Constantinopolitan
is enlarged into sections 13-18, and later into 19-20.
The Athanasian goes beyond the Constantinopoli
tan in explicitly attributing to the divine Spirit the
divine characteristics of the Son, which were only
implicit in the Nicene Creed. Thus not made, un
created (8, 23) eternal (6, 26). To these it adds, in
comprehensible (immensus) (9, 12). The consubstan-
tiality of the Son with the Father is extended to the
Holy Spirit in the terms " Trinity in Unity; neither
confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance"
(3, 4) ; "Such as the Father is: such is the Son: and such
is the Holy Ghost" (7); and in the repeated assertions
of unity: "And yet they are not three eternals: but one
eternal" (11). "As also there are not three uncreated:
nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated: and one
incomprehensible" (12). "And yet they are not three
Almighties: but one Almighty" (14). "And yet they

276 THE NICENE CREED
are not three Gods: but one God" (16). " And yet not
three Lords: but one Lord" (18).
The personal distinctions are also clearly stated in
the Athanasian, and that which is implied in the
Constantinopolitan becomes explicit. Thus, after the
assertion of the worship of the " Trinity in Unity,"
the first thing that is said is: "neither confounding
the Persons" (4). "For there is one Person of the
Father: another of the Son: and another of the Holy
Ghost" (5).
The personal distinctions are finally stated as fol
lows: "The Father is made of none: neither created,
nor begotten" (21). "The Son is ofthe Father alone:
not made, nor created: but begotten" (22). "The
Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither
made, nor created, nor begotten: but proceeding"
(23). "So there is one Father, not three Fathers:
one Son, not three Sons: one Holy Ghost, not three
Holy Ghosts" (24). "And in this Trinity none is
afore, or after another: none is greater, or less than
another" (25). "But the whole three Persons are
coeternal, and coequal" (26).
It is thus evident that the Athanasian is an im
portant advance on the Constantinopolitan, in mak
ing explicit what was implied, and so ruling out the
errors as to the divine Spirit, and explaining the
Trinity in such a way as to remove any possibility
of interpreting the Nicene Faith in a Sabellian di
rection, as was at first the fear of the Semi-Arians.
The second part of the Creed defines the right
Faith in the Incarnation, as follows:

THE ATHANASIAN CREED 277
[(29) Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation:
that he also believe faithfully (fideliter) the Incarnation of
our Lord Jesus Christ.]
(30) [For] the right Faith is, that we believe and confess:
that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and
Man; (31) God, of the Substance of the Father; begotten be
fore the worlds (secula) : and Man, of the substance of His
Mother, born in the world.
(32) Perfect God: and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul
and human flesh subsisting.
(33) Equal to the Father, as touching His Godhead: and
inferior to the Father as touching His Manhood.
(34) Who although He be God and Man; yet He is not
two, but one Christ.
(35) One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh:
but by assumption of the Manhood into God.
(36) One altogether; not by confusion of Substance: but
by unity of Person.
(37) For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man: so
God and Man is one Christ.
This defines the "right Faith" and it is summed
up in the term Incarnation (29), as distinguished
from the first part of the Creed which was defined
as the Catholic Faith in the Holy Trinity. This right
Faith presupposes a wrong Faith, and the conflict
between the two which began with Apollinaris. The
statements of the Creed are so framed as to exclude
the Apollinarian heresies, but there is nothing in
them that implies a knowledge of Nestorianism or
Monophysitism. The two natures of Christ, the
divine and the human, are carefully distinguished,
but the interest of the Creed is to define the human
nature, and to avoid any confusion of it with the
divine, in the Apollinarian fashion. As to the divine
nature, the Athanasian Creed simply adheres to the
statement of the Constantinopolitan.

278 THE NICENE CREED
The statement begins with the general definition
of the right Faith in the Incarnation.
"The right Faith is, that we believe and confess:
that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God
and Man" (30). Christ is both divine and human
in accordance with the Nicene Faith. The divine
nature is now defined as "of the Substance of the
Father, begotten before the worlds" (31), both
Nicene terms; "perfect God" (32), "equal to the
Father" (33), which may be regarded as the equiva
lents of the Nicene: "God of God," "Very God of
Very God."
The definition of the human nature of Christ is,
however, an advance upon the Constantinopolitan
statements, as the human nature is brought into
sharp antithesis with the divine in the several
clauses: "Man, of the Substance of his Mother,
born in the world "(31); " Perfect Man, of a reason
able soul and human flesh subsisting" (32).
These terms are not in the Constantinopolitan,
and their doctrine only by implication in the terms:
"Was incarnate by the Holy Ghost, of the Virgin
Mary, and was made man." It was necessary to
affirm over against Apollinaris that the substance of
the human nature did not descend with the Logos
from pre-existence in heaven, but was derived from
the human mother; and that the human nature was
perfect, having a "reasonable soul" as well as "hu
man flesh," and not imperfect as Apollinaris would
have it, without a "reasonable soul," whose place in
human nature was taken by the pre-existing Logos.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED 279
It is significant just here that the technical term of
the Nestorian controversy Mother of God is missing.
It could hardly have been left out after the Nestorian
controversy had been determined by the Council of
Chalcedon, whose decision had undisputed oecumen
ical authority in the West, and was opposed only in
the East.
The Creed now proceeds to assert the unity of the
divine natures without confusion. In this section it
approaches nearer to the Chalcedonian rejection of
Eutychianism, but does not go beyond the Tome of
Leo, and the doctrine of Augustine, which repre
sented the Faith of the Church before the Nestorian
and Eutychian controversies. The terms that are
used are such as to reject these heresies implicitly,
but not so explicitly as the formula of Chalcedon.
The unity of natures is thus expressed :
"Who although He be God and Man; yet He is not
two, but one Christ" (34). "One; not by conver
sion of the Godhead into flesh: but by assumption
ofthe Manhood into God" (35). "One altogether;
not by confusion of Substance: but by unity of Per
son" (36). "For as the reasonable soul and flesh is
one man: so God and Man is one Christ" (37).
This is a simple assertion of the two natures in the
one Christ, and that there is no confusion of the two
substances by the union. The only term that ap
pears here that is involved in the Nestorian and Eu
tychian controversy is "non confusione," which ap
pears in the Chalcedonian formula as inconfuse
((Wyjp/ras). The other technical terms, immuta-

280 THE NICENE CREED
biliter, indivise, inseparabiliter (aTpeirrcK, aSiaiperaK,
axcopurray;), do not appear, as would undoubtedly
have been the case if the Creed had been composed
after the Council of Chalcedon, because these three
terms, much more than the one used, were the es
sential ones in the Nestorian and Eutychian con
troversies. The Monophysites, indeed, could have
subscribed without hesitation to the Athanasian
"not by confusion of substance." The confusion
here thought of is that of Apollinaris, as the inter
mediate statement shows: "One not by conversion of
the Godhead into flesh," because of the coming of
the pre-existing heavenly man into human flesh,
"but by assumption of the manhood into God." It
is true that the latter statement is inconsistent with
Nestorianism, as still more the use of the term person
in this connection, "by unity of person." On the
other hand, the phrase "assumption of the man
hood into God" (35) might be interpreted in favor of
Monophysitism. We must, therefore, conclude that
these statements of the Athanasian Creed were made
without regard to the Nestorian and Monophysite
controversies, but only to exclude the earlier errors
as to the human nature of Christ. It is also note
worthy that the confusion here rejected is a con
fusion of substance, whereas the Monophysite con
troversy was, as in the Chalcedonian formula,
confusion of natures.
The final clause of this section, in its comparison
of the union of God and man in Christ to the union
of rational soul and flesh in man, is open to a misin-

THE ATHANASIAN CREED 281
terpretation in a Nestorian direction. It would later
have been regarded as incautious. The very lan
guage shows that it was directed against Apollinaris.
A critical examination of 30-37 makes it plain that
these clauses were not influenced by the Chalcedo
nian Council, or by the Nestorian or Eutychian
heresies; and these must thus have been composed in
the fifth century, before 430.
The sections 38-40 were probably later additions
to an original dogmatic treatise, to give it the char
acter of a creed by making the Christoiogy complete.
These six clauses are based on the Apostles' Creed
rather than the Nicene; only the Apostles' Creed in
a form later than that of the fourth century, but
earlier than that of the seventh century; and there
fore intermediate between the two.
(38) (Who sufFered for our salvation): descended into
hell: rose again the third day from the dead.
(39) He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right
hand of the Father.
(40) From thence He shall come to judge the quick
and the dead.
The first clause of (38) is different from any of the
corresponding forms ofthe Nicene or Apostles' Creed.
It is possible that it belonged to the original treatise
as a qualification of the one Christ, but it is probable
that it was a dogmatic seam. The second clause de
scended into hell was not in the Apostles' Creed of
the fourth century, but it appeared already in Com
mentaries on the Creed of the fifth century (v. p. 125

282 THE NICENE CREED
seq.). The remaining clauses are essentially the
same as those of the Apostles' Creed of the fourth
century. The clauses of the Apostles' Creed relating to the
Holy Spirit and His work in the Holy Church, and
the remission of sin, are not in the Athanasian
Creed. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit is in the
Trinitarian part of the Creed, and it was, therefore,
difficult to mention His work here. The resurrec
tion, and eternal life, of the Creeds are enlarged and
attached to the work of Christ at His second advent.
(41) At whose coming all men have to rise with their
bodies; (42) And shall give account for their own works;
(43) And they that have done good, shall go into ever
lasting life; and they that have done evil, into everlasting
fire.
(41) is simply the assertion of the universal resur
rection with the use of body for the older flesh; but it
is evident that this clause is only in order to the re
wards and punishments of (42) and (43), based on a
combination of the teaching of Jesus and of St. Paul.
The spirit of these clauses is the same as that of the
damnatory clauses; and as they immediately precede
the final one, they probably belong together and were
added at the same time. These damnatory clauses
are at the beginning and the end, and at the divi
sion of the Creed into its two parts.
(1) Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is nec
essary that he hold the Catholic Faith:
(2) Which Faith, except every one do keep whole and
undented, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED 283
(28) He therefore that will be saved, thus let him think
of the Trinity.
(29) Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation,
that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord
Jesus Christ.
There can be but little doubt that (28) came from
the same hand as (1) and (2); but (29) has some
striking differences of phraseology, which make the
same hand dubious.
It is possible that the original seam was simply:
"Furthermore, it is necessary that he also believe
faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ."
This would be an appropriate seam, provided (1),
(2), and (28) are regarded as later additions. The
concluding clause is (44): "This is the Catholic
Faith, which, except a man believe faithfully and
firmly, he cannot be saved."
It is evident that this clause came from the same
hand as (1) and (2). It is, however, striking that
fides catholica, the Catholic Faith, the introductory
term of the first part, should take the place of the
fides recta, Right Faith, the introductory term of the
second part; and to my mind this is an evidence of
a later hand.
In general, we may say with reference to the
damnatory clauses, that they do not go with theo
logical treatises or baptismal creeds, but only with
oecumenical definitions of the Faith over against
dangerous heresies. This Athanasian Creed has
neither of these characteristics. It seems probable
that the damnatory clauses were added at a later
time, when the Creed had come into general use as a

284 THE NICENE CREED
more complete dogmatic Creed than the Constanti
nopolitan. The damnatory clauses are obnoxious to the mod
ern mind largely because the doctrine of salvation is
often conceived on too narrow lines, as connected with
the beginning of the Christian life at baptism, by
regeneration or justification, or else as salvation from
hell. The salvation, conceived of in the Creed, is the
complete salvation of one who is fully in accord with
the Faith of the Church. It is quite true that no
man can be completely and fully saved, who is con
demned by his lack of conformity to the will of God,
whether in his faith or in his conduct. He may be
an immature Christian, needing forgiveness for er
rors and transgressions, and a rightful member of
the Christian communion under discipline; but his
salvation is only partial and incomplete until he is
in entire accord with the will of God both in faith
and conduct. As every one must give an account
of his deeds before the judgment-seat of Christ, so
every one must give an account of his faith; and he
will be condemned for errors of faith no less than
faults of conduct. But that judgment is at the close
of the dispensation; and there is room for growth in
knowledge and in grace, in faith and in conduct,
prior to that event, in the intermediate State after
death as well as in this world.
The average Christian, whether minister or layman,
does not make these discriminations; and therefore
the damnatory clauses are offensive, and should be
removed from the Creed. If the Creed were reduced

THE ATHANASIAN CREED 285
to what seems to have been its original form, it would
still be useful in the worship of the Church; for there
is a remarkable grandeur and sublimity in it, when
properly used. There is less reason to use in public
worship the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian
Creed than the anathemas of the Nicene; for the
Nicene Creed is an oecumenical conciliar Creed, the
Athanasian a dogmatic Creed used in the West only
on occasions.

CHAPTER VII
THE FAITH OF CHALCEDON
We have considered the work of the Councils of
Nice and Constantinople in connection with the Ni
cene Constantinopolitan Creed. The Nicene Creed
did not for some time win its way to universal accept
ance in the Church. It was capable of misunder
standings and misinterpretations, especially in times
of heated controversy and prejudiced opinion.1
Many questions, not decided in the Creed, partly
based on the Creed, and partly leading away from
the Creed or against it, were agitating the minds of
the theologians. The Nicene Faith eventually gained
the victory, by overcoming not only the chief heresy
of the Arians, but also all those minor ones to which
the successors of the Arians betook themselves, as
well as the survivals or revivals of Modalism in its
various forms. This was accomplished, however,
chiefly by a more careful and accurate definition of
the technical terms of the Nicene Faith, and espe
cially by the distinction in the Godhead of the three
hypostases, or persons.2
The Council of Constantinople brought this phase
of the conflict to an end, and the Athanasian Creed
sums up in Western forms its chief results. Arianism
• V. p. 239. « F. p. 240 seq.
286

THE FAITH OF CHALCEDON 287
was banished from the Roman Empire, took refuge
among the barbarians, and gradually died out.
We have now to consider the Christological defini
tions of the four oecumenical Councils, beginning with
Chalcedon. The three Councils, the second and third
of Constantinople and the second of Nice, simply sup
plemented the Faith of Chalcedon, as the first Coun
cil of Constantinople did that of Nice. The Chalce
donian formula is to all intents and purposes the final
Faith of the ancient Church. The Council of Chal
cedon reaffirmed the Nicene Faith, both in tne origi
nal form of the Nicene Creed, and in the later form
of the Constantinopolitan, as the sufficient statement
of the Faith of the Church. But it also had to de
termine other controversies and to make its own
deliverance on the questions raised by them. The
Council did not think that they were adding any
thing to the Nicene Faith. The questions that they
determined had already been sufficiently decided im
plicitly in the Nicene Creed. It was only necessary
to make these implications explicit, in order to rule
out the heresies of the time, some of which claimed
not to be inconsistent with the Nicene Creed.
We shall briefly review the controversies leading
up to Chalcedon.
In April, 428, Nestorius was consecrated bishop
of Constantinople. Soon after his accession he
preached a series of sermons in which he objected
to the term Mother of God (Theotokos), as applied
to the Virgin Mary, and endeavored to distinguish
between the man, Jesus, born of Mary, and the Son

288 THE NICENE CREED
of God united to him. It is not altogether clear what
Nestorius really did hold and teach. Scholars are di
vided on the subject. It is probable that he was
misunderstood, misrepresented, and unjustly treated,
as is usually the case with founders of heresies. At
the same time, he was in the pathway of error, and
his statements logically imply the heresy that goes
by his name, which undoubtedly was so serious that
it was necessary for the Church to reject it. It
seems that Nestorius did not deny the personality
ofthe Word, or Son of God; but he distinguished too
sharply between the two natures; and to say the
least did not clearly recognize their unity in one per
son. This greatly excited the Church in all parts,
especially in Alexandria and Rome; and the Pope,
Caelestine, and Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, united
in opposition. Undoubtedly ecclesiastical questions
were involved in these controversies, as is usually the
case; but these were due, not merely to the jealousies
of the different patriarchates, but also to the main
tenance of the ecclesiastical rights of jurisdiction of
the apostolic sees over against the constant encroach
ment of the new patriarchate of Constantinople,
whose only claim to this position was that Constan
tinople had become an imperial city. The institu
tional development of the Church goes on side by
side and is intertwined with the doctrinal, and ques
tions of Church order are just as truly matters of
right and conscience as questions of doctrine.
Cyril wrote a letter to Nestorius in 429, remonstrat
ing and urging him to restore peace by using the

THE FAITH OF CHALCEDON 289
term theotokos; to which Nestorius replied in an un
satisfactory manner. Cyril wrote a second letter in
February, 430, in which he explained the right doc
trine ofthe Incarnation, and asked Nestorius whether
he held it and taught it. The sum of this letter is
as follows :
"The holy and great Synod therefore says, that the only
begotten Son, born according to nature of God the Father,
very God of very God, Light of Light, by whom the Father
made all things, came down, and was incarnate, and was
made man, sufFered, and rose again the third day, and as
cended into heaven. These words and these decrees we
ought to follow, considering what is meant by the Word of
God being incarnate and made man. For we do not say
that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh,
or that it was converted into a whole man consisting of soul
and body; but rather that the Word, having personally
united to Himself flesh animated by a rational soul, did in
an ineffable and inconceivable manner become man, and was
called the Son of Man, not merely as willing or being pleased
to be so called, neither on account of taking to Himself a
person, but because, the two natures being brought together
in a true union, there is of both one Christ and one Son; for
the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union,
but rather the divinity and the humanity make perfect for
us the one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable and inexpres
sible union. . . . We, therefore, confess one Christ and Lord,
not as worshipping a man with the Word (lest this expres
sion 'with the Word' should suggest to the mind the idea
of division), but worshipping Him as one and the same, for
asmuch as the body of the Word, with which He sits with
the Father, is not separated from the Word Himself, not as
if two Sons were sitting with Him, but one by the union
with the flesh. If, however, we reject the personal union
as impossible or unbecoming, we fall into the error of speak
ing of two Sons, for it will be necessary to distinguish, and to
say, that He who was properly man was honored with the
appellation of Son, and that He who is properly the Word of
God has by nature both the name and the reality of Son-
ship. We must not, therefore, divide the one Lord Jesus

290 THE NICENE CREED
Christ into two Sons. Neither will it at all avail to a sound
faith to hold, as some do, a union of persons; for the Script
ure has not said that the Word united to Himself the person
of man, but that He was made flesh.
" This expression, however, ' the Word was made flesh,' can
mean nothing else but that He partook of flesh and blood
like to us; He made our body His own, and came forth man
from a woman, not casting off His existence as God, or His
generation of God the Father, but even in taking to Himself
flesh remaining what He was.
" This the declaration of the correct faith proclaims every
where. This was the sentiment ofthe holy fathers; therefore
they ventured to call the holy Virgin the Mother of God,
not as if the nature of the Word or His divinity had its be
ginning from the holy Virgin, but because of her was born
that holy body with a rational soul, to which the Word being
personally united is said to be born according to the flesh." *
Nestorius' reply to this letter was still more un
satisfactory. Cyril then informed Pope Caelestine of
the doctrine of Nestorius. This action of Cyril was
strictly in accord with the fundamental principles of
church discipline as laid down in the New Testa
ment.2 A provincial council was then held in Rome, in
August, which condemned Nestorius, giving him ten
days in which to recant. This council committed
the discipline of Nestorius to Cyril, who held a pro
vincial council in Alexandria, which agreed to a third
letter to Nestorius with twelve anathemas, which
Nestorius was required to subscribe. It was sent to
Constantinople, together with the letter of the Pope,
in charge of four bishops, who thus took with them
'For translations v. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series II, vol.
XIV. 'Matt. i816"".

THE FAITH OF CHALCEDON 291
the authority of these two great apostolical sees.
The essential parts of the epistle are the following:
"Following in all points the confessions of the holy fa
thers which they made (the Holy Spirit speaking in them),
and following the scope of their opinions, and going, as it
were, in the royal way, we confess that the Only begotten
Word of God, begotten of the same substance of the Father,
True God from True God, Light from Light, through whom
all things were made, the things in heaven and the things
in the earth, coming down for our salvation, making Him
self of no reputation, was incarnate and made man; that is,
taking flesh of the holy Virgin, and having made it His own
from the womb, He subjected Himself to birth for us, and
came forth man from a woman, without casting off that
which He was; but although He assumed flesh and blood,
He remained what He was, God in essence and in truth.
Neither do we say that His flesh was changed into the nat
ure of divinity, nor that the ineffable nature of the Word of
God was laid aside for the nature of flesh; for He is un
changed and absolutely unchangeable, being the same al
ways, according to the Scriptures. For although visible and
a child in swaddling-clothes, and even in the bosom of His
Virgin Mother, He filled all creation as God, and was a
fellow-ruler with Him who begat Him, for the Godhead is
without quantity and dimension, and cannot have limits.
Confessing the Word to be made one with the flesh accord
ing to substance, we adore one Son and Lord Jesus Christ:
we do not divide the God from the Man, nor separate Him
into parts, as though the two natures were mutually united
in Him only through a sharing of dignity and authority (for
that is a novelty and nothing else), neither do we give sepa
rately to the Word of God the name Christ and the same
name separately to a different one born of a woman; but
we know only one Christ, the Word from God the Father
with His own flesh. For as man He was anointed with us,
although it is He Himself who gives the Spirit to those who
are worthy, and not in measure, according to the saying of
the blessed Evangelist John.
" But we do not say that the Word of God dwelt in Him
as in a common man born of the holy Virgin, lest Christ
be thought of as a God-bearing man; for although the Word

292 THE NICENE CREED
tabernacled among us, it is also said that in Christ 'dwelt
all the fulness of the Godhead bodily'; but we understand
that He became flesh, not just as He is said to dwell in the
saints, but we define that that tabernacling in Him was ac
cording to equality. But being made one xomi yhiv, and
not converted into flesh, He made His indwelling in such a
way as we may say that the soul of man does in his own
body. . . . Besides, what the Gospels say our Saviour said of
Himself, we do not divide between two hypostases, or per
sons. For neither is He, the one and only Christ, to be
thought of as double, although of two and they diverse,
yet He has joined them in an indivisible union, just as every
one knows a man is not double, although made up of soul
and body, but is one of both. . . .
" And since the holy Virgin brought forth corporally God
made one with flesh according to nature, for this reason we
also call her Mother of God, not as if the nature of the Word
had the beginning of its existence from the flesh. For 'In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and
the Word was with God,' and He is the Maker of the ages,
coeternal with the Father, and Creator of all; but, as we
have already said, since He united to Himself hypostatically
human nature from her womb, also He subjected Himself
to birth as man, not as needing necessarily in His own nat
ure birth in time and in these last times of the world, but
in order that He might bless the beginning of our existence,
and that that which sent the earthly bodies of our whole
race to death, might lose its power for the future by His
being born of a woman in the flesh."
Nestorius would not yield; but instead issued
twelve anathemas in response, to which he secured
the support of John of Antioch, Andrew of Samosata,
and others. These divines did not really agree with
Nestorius, as subsequent events showed. But they
looked upon the anathemas of Cyril with suspicion,
as unguarded, and some of them as implying what
was subsequently known as Monophysitism. They
were undoubtedly influenced by ecclesiastical reasons
also to resist the intrusion of Alexandria in a dicta-

THE FAITH OF CHALCEDON 293
torial way into the affairs of Constantinople, which
had always been in close connection with the older
apostolic see of Antioch, the mother see of Constan
tinople. An oecumenical Council was assembled at Ephe
sus in June, 43 1, which approved Cyril's second let
ter, and condemned and deposed Nestorius. The ac
tion of this Council was precipitate. It refused to
wait for the arrival of the Syrian bishops and the rep
resentatives of Rome, although they were expected
in a few days. It is true these bishops were consid
erably behind the time appointed for the meeting of
the Council, and it was well known what the attitude
of Rome and of Antioch would be. At the same time,
the action ofthe Council, though formally justifiable,
was really hasty and inconsiderate of the rights of
the minority, and so productive of mischief. When
John of Antioch and other Eastern prelates arrived,
they organized a separate council, and deposed Cyril
and Memnon of Ephesus, not for heresy but for vio
lation of conciliar rights. This brought on a bitter
contest, which continued till 433, when John of An
tioch and Cyril of Alexandria were reconciled, and
Nestorius was rejected by all. The letter of Cyril
to John of Antioch, which cemented the union, has
semi-symbolical value.
The essential part is as follows:
"We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only
Begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect Man, of
a reasonable soul and flesh consisting; begotten before the
ages, of the Father according to His divinity, and in the last
days, for us and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin ac-

294 THE NICENE CREED
cording to His humanity, of the same substance with His
Father according to His divinity, and of the same substance
with us according to His humanity; for there became a
union of two natures. Wherefore we confess one Christ,
one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of this
unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of
God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man,
and from this conception He united the temple taken from
her with Himself."
It is noteworthy that several phrases of this letter
remind us of the Athanasian Creed; thus: "perfect
man, of a reasonable soul and flesh," "of Mary the
Virgin according to His humanity," "of the same
substance with us according to His humanity," "un
mixed union."
It is difficult to say whether there was any depend
ence upon the Athanasian Creed. The relation be
tween Lerins and Antioch was not close. These
clauses are directed against Apollinarianism, and the
same situation would naturally produce similar terms.
The rejection of Nestorianism is in the latter part of
the statement with reference to the theotokos. The
Athanasian Creed cannot depend upon this formula,
for the anti-Nestorian part of it is not used.
The Nestorian heresy, which exaggerated the dif
ference of the two natures of Christ, naturally
brought about the antithetical heresy of underrat
ing the difference. Eutyches, an archimandrite of
Constantinople, was charged by Eusebius of Dory-
laeum, before a synod of Constantinople under the
presidency of Bishop Flavian, in 448, with denying
the reality of the human nature of Christ after the

THE FAITH OF CHALCEDON 295
incarnation. He admitted that there was a union
of two natures, the divine and the human, in the
incarnation; but he denied that these remained two
after the incarnation, asserting that the two natures
were united into one nature.
Eutyches was condemned by the Synod. He then
appealed to Rome, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. The
Bishop of Alexandria, Dioscurus, espoused his cause,
and a council was held at Ephesus under the presi
dency of Dioscurus, in 449, which acted in such an
unjust, tyrannical, and rude manner that it has ever
since been known as the robber synod. Its author
ity was not recognized by the leading sees. It re
stored Eutyches and excommunicated Flavian of
Constantinople and other representatives of ortho
doxy. Leo had sent his opinion by representatives in a
document known as the Tome. This the council
would not hear, and treated his representatives with
disrespect and violence. This Tome has semi-sym
bolical authority. Its essential parts are the fol
lowing: "Accordingly, the Son of God, descending from His seat
in heaven, and not departing from the glory of the Father,
enters this lower world, born after a new order, by a new
mode of birth. After a new order; because He who in His
own sphere is invisible, became visible in ours; He who could
not be enclosed in space, willed to be enclosed; continuing
to be before times, He began to exist in time; the Lord of
the universe allowed His infinite majesty to be overshad
owed, and took upon Him the form of a servant; the im
passible God did not disdain to be passible Man, and the
immortal One to be subjected to the laws of death. And
born by a new mode of birth; because inviolate virgin-

296 THE NICENE CREED
ity, while ignorant of concupiscence, supplied the matter
of His flesh. What was assumed from the Lord's Mother
was nature, not fault; nor does the wondrousness of the
nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, as born of a Virgin's
womb, imply that His nature is unlike ours. For the self
same who is very God, is also very man; and there is no
illusion in this union, while the lowliness of man and the
loftiness of Godhead meet together. For as 'God' is not
changed by the compassion [exhibited], so 'Man' is not
consumed by the dignity [bestowed]. For each 'form' does
the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other;
the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word,
and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh; the
one of these shines out in miracles, the other succumbs to
injuries. And as the Word does not withdraw from equal
ity with the Father in glory, so the flesh does not abandon
the nature of our kind. For, as we must often be saying,
He is one and the same, truly Son of God, and truly Son of
Man. God, inasmuch as 'in the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.'
Man, inasmuch as 'the Word was made flesh, and dwelt
among us.' God, inasmuch as 'all things were made by
Him, and without Him nothing was made.' Man, inas
much as He was ' made of a woman, made under the law.'
The nativity ofthe flesh is a manifestation of human nature;
the Virgin's child-bearing is an indication of divine power.
The infancy of the Babe is exhibited by the humiliation of
swaddling-clothes: the greatness of the Highest is declared
by the voices of angels. He whom Herod impiously de
signs to slay is like humanity in its beginnings; but He whom
the Magi rejoice to adore on their knees is Lord of all. . . .
" But after the resurrection of the Lord, . . . what else
was accomplished during that interval of forty days than
to make our faith entire and clear of all darkness? For,
while He conversed with His disciples, and dwelt with them,
and ate with them, and allowed Himself to be handled with
careful and inquisitive touch by those who were under the
influence of doubt, for this end He came in to the disciples
when the doors were shut, and by His breath gave them the
Holy Spirit, and opened the secrets of Holy Scripture after
bestowing on them the light of intelligence, and again in
His selfsame person showed to them the wound in the side,
the prints of the nails, and all the fresh tokens of the Pas
sion, saying: 'Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I

THE FAITH OF CHALCEDON 297
Myself; handle Me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and
bones, as ye see Me have': that the properties ofthe divine
and the human natures might be acknowledged to remain in
Him without causing a division, and that we might in such
sort know that the Word is not what the flesh is, as to con
fess that the one Son of God is both Word and flesh. On
which mystery of the faith this Eutyches must be regarded
as unhappily having no hold, who does not recognize our
nature to exist in the Only-begotten Son of God, either by
way of the lowliness of mortality or of the glory of resur
rection. . . . But when Eutyches, on being questioned in
your examination of him, answered, ' I confess that our Lord
was of two natures before the union, but after the union I
confess one nature'; I am astonished that so absurd and
perverse a profession as this of his was not rebuked by a
censure on the part of any of his judges, and that an utter
ance extremely foolish and extremely blasphemous was
passed over, just as if nothing had been heard which could
give offence: seeing that it is as impious to say that the
Only-begotten Son of God was of two natures before the
incarnation as it is shocking to affirm that, since the Word
became flesh, there has been in Him one nature only."
The death of the Emperor Theodosius in 450
brought a change of policy. Another council was
called, which met at Chalcedon in 451. This Council
condemned Eutyches and Dioscurus, subscribed the
Tome of Leo, the second letter of Cyril to Nesto
rius, and his letter to John of Antioch. It then
issued its own Definition of Faith, as follows:
[The Synod] "opposes those who would rend the mystery
of the dispensation into a duad of Sons; it repels from the
sacred assembly those who dare to say that the Godhead
of the Only Begotten is capable of suffering; it resists those
who imagine a mixture or confusion of the two natures of
Christ; it drives away those who fancy His form of a ser
vant is of an heavenly or some substance other than that
which was taken of us; and it anathematizes those who fool
ishly talk of two natures of our Lord before the union, con
ceiving that after the union there was only one. Following

298 THE NICENE CREED
the holy fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of
God] and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one
and the same [Person], that He is perfect in Godhead and
perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a reasonable
soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the
Father as touching His Godhead, and consubstantial with
us as touching His manhood; made in all things like unto
us, sin only excepted; begotten of His Father before the
worlds according to His Godhead; but in these last days
for us men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the
Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to His manhood.
This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son
[of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, uncon-
fusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and
that without the distinction of natures being taken away
by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nat
ure being preserved and being united in One Person and
hypostasis, not separated or divided into two persons, but
one and the same Son and Only-Begotten, God the Word,
our Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets of old time have
spoken concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath
taught us, and as the Creed of the fathers hath delivered
to us."
Nestorianism and Eutychianism are explicitly re
futed. Nestorianism so emphasized the difference of the
two natures as to make the unity an ethical one of
two different persons. Eutychianism so emphasized
the unity of nature as to do away with the two nat
ures after the Incarnation. It makes them only one
nature, containing human and divine attributes and
characteristics. Hence the Chalcedonian formula
insists, over against the one, that the one Hypostasis,
the divine Christ, was born of the Virgin, and not
merely that the human nature of Christ was thus
born; and that the two natures were indivisibly and
inseparably united in the one Christ. It insists over

THE FAITH OF CHALCEDON 299
against Eutychianism that the human nature re
mained after the union distinct from the divine nat
ure, inconfused and unchangeable; "the distinction
of natures being by no means taken away by the
union, but rather the properties of each nature being
preserved, and concurring in one person and one
hypostasis." Many questions remained still undetermined at
Chalcedon. There were few who held to Nestorianism as con
demned by the Council; but the great mass of Chris
tians of Eastern Syria and Persia held that Nestorius
and their great teachers were unjustly treated. All
these were alike driven from the Roman Empire.
They sought refuge in Persia, where they rallied
around their school at Nisibis and continued as a
separate Christian Church until the present time.
The Monophysites continued to disturb the Church
for a long time; and subsequently divided into
many warring parties. These Monophysites did not
agree with the extravagances of Eutyches which
were rejected by the definition of Chalcedon. They
were rather like the Semi-Arians in their attitude to
ward the Nicene Faith. Many of them were willing
to accept the Chalcedonian formula, if they could in
terpret it in their own way; but they were not will
ing to accept the interpretation of their opponents,
whom they regarded as reacting toward Nestorianism.
Their difficulties were not removed for a long time.
No great theologian arose in the East, who could
appreciate their difficulties and remove them, until

300 THE NICENE CREED
Leontius of Byzantium. Rather the intrusion of
civil and ecclesiastical politics enhanced the differ
ences, and made them irreconcilable.
The fundamental question in dispute was as to the
real meaning of the Chalcedonian formula. There is
a variation of reading, whether of two natures or in
two natures.
The present Greek text reads the former; all Latin
translations, in duabus naturis, but with editorial
recognition of variation. There is a difference among
scholars as to which is the original. Baur and Dor-
ner are the chief among those who think the former
original, and it seems to me they are correct. It
agrees better with the context, especially with the
verb yvcopl^eiv. It is also favored by the well-
known principle of Criticism, that it is the more
difficult reading — sufficiently clear in the context as
rejecting Monophysitism, but which apart from the
context might be interpreted in its favor. There
was no sufficient reason to change iv into ae; but
there was a strong reason for changing he into iv,
in order to deprive the Monophysites of a seeming
support to their, views. Gieseler, Neander, Hefele,
and Schaff are the chiefs of a majority of schol
ars who favor an original iv, on the ground that
the change to e« was made in the interest of the Mo
nophysites. But this seems improbable in view of
the constant conflict with them from the Council
of Chalcedon until their final separation from the
Church. This might account for the insertion of
e« in some forms of the formula, but not in the

THE FAITH OF CHALCEDON 301
official texts recognized by the Greek Church as
valid. The several parties would have watched over
this terminology with the greatest care. The differ
ence is really only one between the Greek original
and the Latin translation.
The symbol does not say one nature from two nat
ures, but one and the same Christ from two natures,
and this is essentially the same as in two natures.
The unity of Christ and the two distinct natures are
taught equally in both cases.
The difficulty to the Monophysites was that the
Unity did not seem to be sufficiently recognized by
their opponents. The Monophysites did not, in
fact, take any position contrary to the distinction
of natures, "inconfusedly" and "unchangeably."
They rather emphasized "indivisibly" and "in
separably." They recognized the distinction, and
yet emphasized the unity. They could agree to the
union of two natures in "one and the same Christ";
and it might have been wiser if the council had not
in its subsequent clause asserted that the unity was
in the one hypostasis. They did not object to the
one person, they maintained it vigorously against
the Nestorians, but they thought the unity was
something more than hypostatic; and so indeed it
was (v. p. 288 seq.).
If the contests of the theologians had continued
within the Church, distinctions made later by Leon
tius of Byzantium and John of Damascus might have
reconciled the Monophysites to the Chalcedonian
formula: for both the Greeks and the Latins were

302 THE NICENE CREED
compelled to reckon with certain differences between
the human nature of Christ and the human nature
of other men, due to the union of the human nature
with the divine in the one and the same Christ. In
fact, after the distinctions made by Leontius, Mo
nophysitism was overcome in the Greek Church
and has never troubled the Greeks since. It found
refuge outside the Greek empire, just as at an
early date Arianism found refuge outside the Roman
Empire. If these countries of the Monophysites had
not remained under the Moslem rule, but had again
become Christian governments, it is altogether
probable that Monophysitism would have died out
as Arianism before it. At all events, it practically
disappeared; for there has not been, since the Coun
cil of Florence, any Christological reason for the
separation from the Greek and Roman Churches of
these Churches which in the early centuries sepa
rated because of Monophysitism.
It was agreed by orthodox theologians that the
human nature of Christ must have some special
qualities because of the union.
(i) The human nature was not that of an indi
vidual man united to the Logos, which would be
Nestorianism. It was that of a man who gained
his individuality first by union with the Logos, who
assumed human nature, not the nature of an indi
vidual (v. p. 289 seq.).
(2) It was agreed by all that Christ was without
sin whether original or actual, and that He was from
birth innocent and His life perfect in holiness. He

THE FAITH OF CHALCEDON 303
was in the likeness of sinful flesh, but His flesh was
not sinful (v. p. 72).
(3) So Cyril in his letters to Nestorius represents
other distinguishing features of the human nature of
Christ. Thus he says:
" For He is the Life according to His nature as God,
and when He became united to His flesh, He made
it also to be Life-giving, as also He said to us: 'Verily,
verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the
Son of Man and drink His blood.' For we must not
think that it is flesh of a man like us (for how can
the flesh of man be life-giving by its own nature?)
but as having become truly the very own of Him who
for us both became and was called Son of Man."
Thus originally, at the incarnation, His flesh was
life-giving, and so different from all other human
flesh. The flesh of Christ had life in itself derived
from its union with the Logos. Accordingly Christ
had authority over His own life. He was not sub
ject to death; His death was entirely voluntary
(v. p. 70 seq.).
(4) So in the Tome of Leo it is said:
"What was assumed from the Lord's Mother was
nature, not fault; nor does the wondrousness of the
nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, as born of a Vir
gin's womb, imply that His nature is unlike ours."
The Church did not hold, nor does the New Testa
ment teach, that the human nature was like that of
the ordinary man in all respects. It was the integ
rity and completeness of Christ's human nature that
the Church stood for, not that His nature had not

304 THE NICENE CREED
its own special characteristics as suitable for union
with the divine nature. His nature was normal and
not abnormal, having completeness as the ideal of
humanity, not according to the reality of fallen hu
manity. (5) There were controversies among the Monoph
ysites as to whether the human nature of Christ
had other special qualities, such as whether Christ's
human mind was limited in knowledge, or was a
sharer in the complete and perfect knowledge of the
divine mind. The debate raged especially about the
words of Christ. "But of that day or that hour
knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven,
neither the Son, but the Father" (Mark 1332).
Was this saying exactly true, or only economi
cally true ? that is, true relatively to its communica
tion to others, not true in itself. This question is in
debate in modern theology, and is involved in Ke-
notic theories and discussions.
(6) Were the miracles of Christ wrought by His
omnipotence as God, or by virtue of His prophetic
possession of the divine Spirit as Man?
As to these last two questions, it is noteworthy
that the prevalent tradition of the Church is, that
the knowledge and miracle-working of Christ are to
be attached to the unity of Christ's person, and not
to the human nature, or to be distributed between
the natures. Thus Cyril says: "All the words which
are read in the Gospels are to be applied to One
Person, to One Hypostasis of the Word Incarnate."
And Leo says: "To hunger, to thirst, to be weary,

THE FAITH OF CHALCEDON 305
and to sleep, is evidently human. But to satisfy
five thousand men with five loaves, and give to the
Samaritan woman that living water, to draw which
can secure him that drinks of it from ever thirsting
again; to walk on the surface of the sea with feet
that sink not, and by rebuking the storm to bring
down the 'uplifted waves,' is unquestionably divine."
(7) As to His body, was it incorruptible or cor
ruptible? The Monophysites raised this question,
and divided upon it into Severians and Julianists,
the latter insisting upon the incorruptibility ofthe
flesh of Christ as well as its life-giving property, in
accordance with II Tim. I10. This, indeed, seems
to be logically involved in the life-giving property
taught by Cyril in his letter to Nestorius, which has
semi-symbolical character, although the weight of
theological opinion is against it.1
(8) There are other difficulties to the modern mind,
that were not felt by the ancients. It would seem
that the ancient controversies dealt too little with
the ethical and too much with the physical.2
They left little room for intellectual and moral
growth in the human nature of Christ, but only for
physical growth.3 The chief difficulty with the Chal
cedonian decision, one that was deeply felt in ancient
times and is at present regarded as most serious, is
the seeming limitation of the unity to the hypostasis,
or person, of the Logos. There is certainly an am-
1 F. p. 303. * F. Bruce, Humiliation of Christ, p. 364.
"This is best explained by the theory of a gradual incarnation, advo
cated especially by Dorner, Glaubenslehre, II, s. 286; v. Briggs, Incar
nation of the Lord, pp. 122 seq.

306 THE NICENE CREED
biguity in the use of the term person, which is dis
turbing; for person as used in connection with the
distinctions of the Holy Trinity has a different mean
ing from person as used in the Chalcedonian formula
as the point of unity ofthe human and divine natures
of Christ. The latter is certainly something more
than the hypostasis of the Second Person of the
Trinity, which did not include individuality. In
dividuality can be predicated of the one God only,
not of the three Trinitarian Hypostases. How
much more the personality that united the natures
was than the hypostasis of the Logos, has not, how
ever, been defined by the Church. As Dorner shows,
the Chalcedonian formula does not deny human per
sonality to the Man Jesus. It simply denies that
there is a human personality separate and distinct
from the hypostasis of the Second Person of the
Trinity, and asserts the unity as in the one person
of Christ.

CHAPTER VIII
THE FINAL CHRISTOLOGICAL DEFINITIONS
The decree of Chalcedon did not solve all of the
difficulties of the two natures of Christ, and there
fore did not satisfy all sections of the Christian
Church. It left the union of the two natures de
pending on the slender thread of the one hypostasis,
or person, of the Son of God. The Monophysites
recognized that the Son of God was composed of
two originally separate natures; but when these
were united at the incarnation, their product was a
divino-human nature, in which all the properties of
both were combined in union but without mixture.
This raised many difficulties. If the substance of
the Son became one with the nature of the man, it
involved a union not only with the hypostasis of
the Second Person of the Trinity, but also with the
substance of the Godhead . The doctrine of the unity
of God as separate and apart from the creature was
thus threatened. Patripassianism was revived, as in
Theopaschitism, which insisted on the formula " God
crucified." This, if interpreted of the person of
Christ as God, is correct, but if interpreted of the
divine nature of Christ, is heretical. On the other
hand, the redemption of mankind seemed to depend
on the union of humanity in some way with divine
nature. If the union of the human with the divine
307

308 THE NICENE CREED
is only in the hypostasis of the Second Person of the
Trinity, there seems to be nothing but an external
juxtaposition and no real union of natures at all,
and so the doctrine of salvation is imperilled.
The Eucharist enshrines the doctrine that the
body of Christ there enjoyed is not only the human
Christ but also the divine. There seemed to be a
conflict between the Creed of the Church and her
Liturgy, between her Faith and her Worship.
The most serious of the objections of the Monophy
sites were removed by the explanation of Leon
tius of Byzantium (485-543), who makes the impor
tant statement that the human nature of Christ was
not without an hypostasis, or personality, but that it
was enhypostatized in the Logos, received its hypos
tasis, or personality, in the Logos, by union with the
Second Person of the Trinity. The human nature
had no personality in itself as derived from Mary;
but it received its personality when it was united to
the divine nature by the hypostasis of the Second
Person of the Trinity. Later this became still clearer
in the doctrine of John of Damascus, that the union
of natures was in a composite personality. Thus the
hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity, which
has no individuality, imparts personality to the hu
man nature which He assumed, and so becomes a
composite person, a divine hypostasis and an indi
vidual God-man.1
The difficulty involved in such an entire separation
of natures as seemed to the Monophysites to be im-
1 F. Briggs, Incarnation, p. 201.

FINAL CHRISTOLOGICAL DEFINITIONS 309
plied in the Chalcedonian formula, was overcome by
the doctrine of exchange, or communication of prop
erties, of the one nature to the other.
From the very nature of the case this communi
cation is on the divine side, and not on the human.
This communication of properties of the divine nat
ure to the human nature of Christ, while it refers
chiefly to His state of exaltation, and especially to
the eucharistic presence, also refers in part to the
state of humiliation and explains those special char
acteristics of the human nature of Christ upon which
the Monophysites insisted, and which seem to be
based on the New Testament.
Another term was also useful, especially in John
of Damascus, namely, irepvxmpno-R, which, as inter
preted, represents that the divine nature of Christ
interpenetrated and pervaded the human nature.
They were not merely in external juxtaposition.
On the other hand, this exchange of attributes and
interpenetration of natures threaten confusion ofthe
two natures of Christ, and tend in the direction of
Monophysitism, especially if referred to the act of
incarnation. This certainly was not designed by
Leontius, or John of Damascus, who maintained the
Chalcedonian formula, and who sufficiently guarded
themselves from the peril of Monophysitism. They
were explaining the Chalcedonian doctrine, and
not changing or nullifying it. The Chalcedonian
formula is not responsible for their doctrinal expla
nations, but it is not inconsistent with them; and the
doctors of the Church, East and West, have regarded

310 THE NICENE CREED
their explanations as normal and correct. It is al
together probable that if the Monophysites had re
mained in the Roman Empire they would have been
reconciled by these explanations, which gained a
semi-official character.
The communication of divine attributes to the
human nature of Christ is not confined to the soul.
The human body of our Lord, like the human soul,
shares in the communication of divine attributes.
The Christian Church is not responsible for this doc
trine in her symbolical statements; but the theolo
gians of the Greek and Latin Churches have always
maintained it as the proper explanation of the Chal
cedonian formula and the Nicene Faith of the
Church. The Lutheran scholastic theologians pressed
this doctrine to an extreme which urged the Re
formed theologians to avoid it, or regard it as more
nominal than real. However, we may regard it as
a theological, if not a symbolical, consensus of the
Church. The divine nature of the Son of God, through its
union with the human nature in one personality,
communicated to the human nature such quali
ties and attributes as it was capable of receiving.
The human nature of Jesus, as a perfect human nat
ure, had not those defects and obstructions to the
divine influence that exist in ordinary human nature.
Its capacity was the greatest possible, and there were
no hindrances whatever except the limitations ex
isting in human nature itself.
There were, however, extreme positions taken by

FINAL CHRISTOLOGICAL DEFINITIONS 311
some of the Monophysites, that could not be recon
ciled with the formula of Chalcedon. And there are
still difficult questions, where the explanations of Le
ontius and John of Damascus increase rather than
decrease the difficulties. If the human mind is con
ceived as sharing in omniscience from birth, as many
scholastic divines maintain, it does not differ except
in name from the divine mind. If the human will
is entirely subjected to the divine will, as they teach,
it is absorbed and confused in it, to all intents and
purposes. If omnipotence is attributed to the In
fant Jesus, He is practically divine. Mediaeval scho
lasticism, notwithstanding its hair-splitting distinc
tions, in which it insists upon the Chalcedonian
orthodoxy of a distinct and separate human nature in
Christ, unconfused and unmixed with the divine, yet
does seem, at times, in fact to confuse their activities.
Thus, many problems have not yet been solved;
many have been given unsatisfactory solutions by
the doctors of the Church. Still others have received
scant attention. Too much attention relatively has
been given to the act of incarnation and too little to
the incarnate relations in the human life of our Lord
as a continuous and personal experience, best ex
plained, as I think, by the doctrine of a gradual in
carnation. The ancient discussions were too much in the elab
oration of the ideas of Sonship and generation with
the eternal generation and the Virgin Birth. The
Logos relation, which played such an important part
in the Ante-Nicene Church, was not sufficiently con
sidered in the Church after Chalcedon. The various

312 THE NICENE CREED
other conceptions of the Incarnation in the teaching
of St. Paul were little used. Moderns are using, and
indeed exaggerating, that ofthe Kenosis. The whole
doctrine requires a comprehensive study of all these
relations. The terms used at Chalcedon were the
best for the time, but were still susceptible to misin
terpretation. The term ovaia was determined by
the Nicene Creed as appropriate for the One Being
of God; and inroarao-K later for the distinctions in
the Godhead. The term dwow was used for human
nature, but was not suitable for the product of the
union of the divine ovala with the human dwow.
Furthermore, the term wroo-Tao-K was not suitable for
the union of the two, the composite personality.
The Council of Chalcedon went as far as it was
deemed wise and safe to go in the rejecting the heresy
of Nestorianism on the one hand, and Eutychianism
on the other. All else is open to question and debate;
and the Church as a whole is not responsible for any
of the doctrinal explanations of the theologians, how
ever profound and satisfying they may be.
The consensus of opinion in the Greek and Latin
Churches is in accord with the explanation of Leon
tius and John of Damascus ; but variations of opinion
have persisted. The theologians of the Lutheran
Church agree essentially with the Roman and Greek
in this respect. But those of the Reformed Churches
prefer the simpler statements of the Chalcedonian
formula. The controversy with the Monophysites pursued
its weary way for several centuries, from the Council

FINAL CHRISTOLOGICAL DEFINITIONS 313
of Chalcedon on till the sixth oecumenical Council at
Constantinople in 680, when it was finally overcome
in the Greek Church.
In 482, the Emperor Zeno, under the advice of
Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, issued his Heno-
ticon, which reduced the questions at issue to a mini
mum, and sought for a general formula to reconcile
the Monophysites. It reaffirmed the rejection of
Nestorius and Eutyches, condemned those who di
vide or confuse the two natures, and affirmed the
entire oneness of Christ without using either hypos
tasis or nature. But it then goes on to anathema
tize all who think otherwise, "whether at Chalcedon '
or any other Synod whatever." Thus it reaffirms
the doctrine of Chalcedon, but discredits the Council.
This was evidently unfair and a dishonorable yield
ing to partisan prejudices. The Henoticon was ac
cepted by the patriarch of Alexandria; but he did
not succeed in the reconciliation of the Egyptian
Monophysites. It was accepted by the Armenians,
and gained symbolical authority in that section
which separated from the Greek Empire under the
Persian rule. The Church in Armenia remains in
dependent under its own patriarch until the present
time. The Henoticon gained partial acceptance in other
parts of the East, only apparently in Constantinople
itself. Even Rome could not accept it; for it dis
credited the Council of Chalcedon and that was to
discredit Rome herself, who especially prided her
self upon her pre-eminence there both in doctrine

314 THE NICENE CREED
and in authority. And so the Henoticon did not
relieve the situation, but made it still more diffi
cult. The Emperor Justinian (527-565) also endeavored
to reconcile the Monophysites. At first he adopted
severe measures against them, but afterward tried
milder ones. He arranged a conference between the
Chalcedonian and Monophysite bishops, but could
not accomplish anything. He then gave his approval
to the Monophysite watchword, "God was crucified,"
which might be orthodox or not, according as it
was explained.1 He also favored the Aphthardocetce,2
who also could not be regarded as inconsistent with
Chalcedon. Chalcedonian divines had opposed both
of these; but they had no call to do so, as far as the
formula of Chalcedon itself was concerned. The
chief measure of Justinian was, however, the con
demnation by edict of the "Three Chapters," that
is, the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, of Theod
oret against Cyril, and of Ibas to Maris. This ac
tion was urged by Theodorus of Caesarea as the best
way of reconciling the Monophysites. The three
divines thus condemned were regarded by the Mo
nophysites as really Nestorians. Theodore's writ
ings were not approved by the Chalcedonian Coun
cil; and those of Theodoret and Ibas were not disap
proved, though both these divines, with John of An
tioch, had been hostile to Cyril for a while. But they
were reconciled before Chalcedon, and had agreed
to the Chalcedonian formula. The rejection of these
' V. p. 307. . y. p. 30j.

FINAL CHRISTOLOGICAL DEFINITIONS 315
eminent divines, long since dead, like a similar rejec
tion of Origen, was the culmination of bigotry and
folly, and could only result in increasing the hos
tility of the so-called Nestorians to the Greek
Church without improving relations with the
Monophysites. Rome hesitated, not that she approved of these
divines, but for fear that their condemnation was
another attempt to discredit the Council of Chalce
don. But finally, when the fifth oecumenical Coun
cil of Constantinople condemned them, Rome as
sented. But this action did not succeed with the
Monophysites any more than the others.
The most of the Egyptians, separated from the
Greek patriarch of Alexandria, chose their own patri
arch, and, under the name of Copts, remain separate
till the present day. They associated themselves
with the Ethiopian Church, which had always been
loosely attached to the Church of the Roman Em
pire. Another attempt to reconcile the Monophysites
was made by the Emperor Heraclius, under the ad
vice of Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople. This
was to be accomplished by the assertion that the
two natures were united in one will, or energy.
Sergius received the support of Honorius of Rome,
who did not regard the question as important. He
was not opposed either to one energy or two. He re
garded the question as trifling, and fit only for gram
marians. He was, however, willing to say: "We con
fess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ." But there

316 THE NICENE CREED
was great opposition to this doctrine all over the
East and West. Finally Heraclius, in the interest of
peace, issued an edict in 638, composed by Sergius,
called the Ecthesis, or Exposition of the Faith, prohib
iting the use of the expressions one or two operations.
He thought he had the support of Rome. But
another Pope had taken the place of Honorius, who
repudiated the Ecthesis; and he was followed gener
ally throughout the Church, partly because the doc
trine of a single will seemed another attempt to under
mine the Faith of Chalcedon, and partly because of
resentment of imperial authority in matters of Faith.
The Emperor Constans II tried to enforce the de
cree of his predecessor by a decree called the Typos,
in 648, enjoining silence as to the matter in dispute.
But the Pope the more determinedly opposed it.
Pope Martin I, in a synod at the Lateran (649),
anathematized the doctrine of one will as inconsis
tent with Chalcedon, and condemned both the Ecthe
sis and the Typos. The controversy continued until
the reign of Constantine Pogonatus, who invited Pope
Agatho to give his judgment on the doctrine, which
he did in an official letter, communicated to the sixth
oecumenical Council of Constantinople (680), which
decided for two wills. It also condemned Honorius
as a heretic. This is the decision: "For as His flesh
is called, and is, the flesh of God the Word; so also
the natural will of His flesh is called, and is, the
proper will of God the Word. , . . For as His
most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not
destroyed because it was deified, but continued in

FINAL CHRISTOLOGICAL DEFINITIONS 317
its own state and nature; so also His human will,
although deified, was not suppressed."
There has been a hot discussion between Roman
Catholic, Protestant, and Old Catholic scholars with
reference to the heresy of Honorius, especially in view
of the dogma of papal infallibility defined by the
Vatican Council in 1870. There can be no doubt
that Pope Honorius was condemned by the oecumen
ical Council for heresy. There can be no doubt that
his heresy was contained in an official letter in re
sponse to an appeal that he would decide the con
troversy. There can be no doubt that he gave an
heretical judgment. However, he wrote with an
irenic purpose, and decided a question not yet de
fined by the Church. He gave an official opinion
on the controversy; he did not define a doctrine, and
his definition was not ex cathedra and therefore does
not conflict with the Vatican definition of papal in
fallibility. It is to be classed with similar doctrinal
opinions in various bulls, and syllabi of errors, issued
by the Popes at various times in rejection of errors,
but not in definition of doctrine.
The question whether Christ has two wills or one
depends upon the question whether the will is to be
attached to the person or to the nature; if to the
former, there can be but one will, if to the latter
two. The definition of the Council is based on the
psychological opinion that the wills go with the nat
ures, and are, therefore, two.
These questions of detail as to the two natures of
Christ in the unity of His person are difficult. It

318 THE NICENE CREED
cannot be said that they all have been solved. They
depend upon various psychological opinions, about
which modern philosophy has much to say.
It was recognized even by Apollinaris that Christ
had an animal soul, the seat of the affections and
passions. The question in debate with him was
as to the vow, the intelligence. The question of a
single or double consciousness has recently come into
debate, especially in view of a modern psychological
distinction of the subconscious state from the con
scious state. The modern discussion as to what per
sonality really is has much to do with the question
under consideration. But all these and a multitude
of others are open questions, as indeed many of those
discussed in the Monophysite controversies, so far
as they do not involve a departure from the funda
mental Creeds of the Church. The statements of
these Creeds are simple, excluding only the most dan
gerous errors, and in their positive language de
parting but slightly from the explicit statements of
Scripture, and then only in defining their implicit
teaching. Furthermore, they are in terms of ancient
philosophy and psychology. They do not at all
stand in the way of a reinvestigation of all of these
problems by modern thought, or of restatements in
terms of modern psychology and philosophy.
Since the Reformation, and especially in recent
times, the discussions have been rather as to the
mode of the incarnation, especially by Kenosis, and
its results. This point of view is rather different
from that which insists on the integrity of the two

FINAL CHRISTOLOGICAL DEFINITIONS 319
natures after the incarnation; and is favored by the
fact that it is that of St. Paul the Apostle, and has
much Biblical evidence which may be used with
advantage. There are many open questions in Christology,
where there is room for much difference of opinion;
but all the decisions of the ancient Church, adopted
by the Greek, Roman Catholic, and Protestant
Churches, are closed questions so far as those
Churches are concerned. They are only open among
Unitarians, Hicksite Quakers, and other similar relig
ious bodies. Denials of the formula of Chalcedon
are tolerated in some of the State Churches of Prot
estant Europe, but only in those where the Church
is not in possession of its full governmental and dis
ciplinary powers.
The Nicene Creed is now, as it ever has been, a
sufficient statement of the Christian Faith. But if
one questions it, or interprets it in the direction
of the ancient heresies, excluded by the defini
tions of the oecumenical Councils, he cannot be said
to hold to the Nicene Creed in the sense in which
the Church interprets it, that which has always been
regarded by the Church as the only legitimate
meaning.

INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS

Acacius, 313.
Adoptionism, 45 seq.
Advent, SS seq., 68, 164 seq.,
282.
Agatho, 316.
Alexander of Alexandria, 214.
Allen, 91.
Almighty, 15 seq., 22, 24 seq.,
174, 222, 224, 273 seq.
Alogi, 47.
Ambrose, 16, 21.
Anabaptists, 168.
Anathema, 6, 242 seq., 282
290 seq., 313.
Andrew of Samosata, 292.
Anomceans, 216.
Anselm, 119.
Antelmius, 269.
Apelles, 102.
Aphthardoceta, 314.
Apollinarianism, 216 seq., ifo)
277 seq., 294.
Apollinaris, 216 seq., 254, 272,
seq., 318.
Apostolic Constitutions, 22.
Arianism, 34, 109, 215 seq., 226
266 seq., 286, 302.
Aristotle, 104, 151, 234.
Arius, 32, 34, 213 seq.
Artemon, 47.
Ascension of Christ, 22, 54
144 seq., 155 seq., 222,
281.
Athanasius, 127, 217, 231, 236,
268.
Atonement, 109, 118 seq., 172,
Augustine, s, 9, H, 21, 34, S1,
193, 241, 259, 268 seq.
Baptism: I, 6, 11, 14 seq., 55
"3. 134, 171, 176, 180

222, 158, /
seq.,

185 seq., 198 seq., 212, 223,
258, 264 seq., 284.
Of Christ, 41, 45 seq., 65 seq.,
101 seq., 175, 179-
Of Desire, 134, 171.
Of Repentance, 17 seq., 196 seq.
Formula, 3, 15 seq., 31 seq., 45,
57. 174, 211, 214.
Basil, 236, 240.
Baur, 300.
Begotten of God, 231, 251, 274 seq.
Benedict VIII, 260.
Blass, 99.
Body: 23, 144 seq., 205 seq., 282.
Of Christ, 70, 143 seq., 207, 305,
308 seq.
Burial of Christ, 22, 113 seq., 122
seq., 222.
Burn, 21, 22, 34, 36, 49, 269 seq.

seq.,

Caelestine, Pope, 288 seq.
Caesarius of Aries, 269.

277

Caius, 167.
Callistus, Pope, 48, 212.
Calvin, 170.

seq.,

Carpocrates, 102.
Cassian, 272.
Cerinthus, 47, 101.

Chalcedonian formula, 272,
279
seq., 287 seq., 309 seq.,
3H.
seq.,
3T9-
2S6,
Charisms, 1, 17, 175, 177.
Chicago Lambeth platform, 266.
240,
Christ: 1 seq., 15 seq., 38 seq.
Messiah, Son of God.)
(F.
200.
As Prophet, 40, 160 seq.
168,
As Priest, 40, 160 seq., 263.
As King, 1 1, 40, 160 seq.
Church: 1 seq., 10 seq., 48,
T34,
seq.,
160 seq., 167 seq., 175 seq.
-184
seq.,
seq., 212 seq.
321
322

INDEX

ApostoHcity of, 15, 184, 186 seq.,
223, 264.
Catholicity of, 20, 23, 134, 184
seq., 223, 264.
Sanctity of, 23, 161, 184 seq.,
223, 264.
Unity of, 184 seq., 264 seq.
Clement : of Rome, 45, 94.
Of Alexandria, 102, 129, 133 seq.
Cleomenes, 48.
Communication of properties, 309
seq.
Communion of saints, 184, 191 seq.
Competentes, 14.
Conception by the Holy Ghost,
59 seq., 253.
Confirmation, 18, 176.
Consubstantial, 222, 226 seq., 259,
275, 291, 298.
Consubsiantialis, 234, 237.
Council: of Ephesus, 295 seq.; of
Florence, 302; of Lyons, 261;
of Toledo, 221, 229, 259;
Councils, oecumenical: 4 seq., 287,
293, 317; of Nicaea, 3 seq., 125,
211 seq., 286; of Constanti
nople I, 125, 211, 21s seq.,
271, 274, 286 seq.; of Chalce
don, 211, 218, 220, 272, 279
seq., 286 seq., 3 12 seq.; of
Constantinople II, 287, 315;
of Constantinople III, 287,
313, 316; of Nicaea II, 287.
Creator: God the Father, 13, 16,
30 seq., 35 seq., 224 seq.
God the Son, 13, 43, 47, S3. ¥>,
121, 222, 225 seq., 232 seq.,
291 seq.
Creed: Apostles', 3 seq., 9 seq., 22
seq., 211 seq., 224 seq., 253 seq.,
266, 271, 281 seq.
Of Aquile'ia, 21, 34, 125.
Athanasian, 4 seq., 126, 220 seq.,
241, 258 seq., 268 seq., 286,
294.
Constantinopolitan, 36 seq., 115,
158, 165, 173, 185 seq., 196,

205, 211 seq., 218 seq., 271
seq., 286.
Of Cyril of Jerusalem, 20, 36, 1 15,
137. 165, 173, 184 seq., 196,
219, 224, 227 seq.
Of Epiphanius, 220, 228 seq., 254
seq., 257, 264.
Of Eusebius of Caesarea, 115,
137, 158, 164. 173. 214 seq.,
224, 226 seq., 253 seq., 257.
Gallican, 193.
Nicene, 3 seq., 36, 109, 115,
124, 137, 155, 158, 164, 173,
211 seq., 222 seq., 287, 312,
3T9-
Of Niceta, 209.
Oriental, 36, 50 .r*?., 61, 115, 124,
137, 152, 155, 159 seq., 173,
196.
Roman, 3, 18 seq., 34 seq., 48
seq., 55,64, us seq., 137 seq.,
152, 159 seq., 184 seq., 193,
196, 205 seq., 215 seq., 226,
253 seq., 257, 264, 268.
Of Venantius Fortunatus, 126.
Cross, 109, 117, 119, 124, 172.
Crucifixion, 13, 22, 48, 58, 113 seq.,
153, 222.
Cyprian, 20, 32, 34, 196.
Cyril: of Alexandria, 288 seq., 297,
303 seq., 314.
Of Jerusalem, 14, 18, 32 seq., 125,
20S, 218 seq., 228 seq.
Death of Christ, 22, 57 seq., 109,
US seq., 125 seq., 153.
Didache, 15, 16, 22, 32, 174.
Didascalia, 22.
Dionysius: of Alexandria, 235, 240.
The Great, of Egypt, 167 seq.
Of Rome, 235, 240.
Dioscurus of Alexandria, 295, 297.
Divinity: of Christ, 3, 46 seq., 69,
IOI seq., 179 seq., 213 seq., 266,
277 seq., 289 seq., 308.
Of the Holy Spirit, 257 seq.
Docetism, 212.
Donatists, 193.

INDEX

323

Dorner, 47, 23s, 300, 3°5 seq.
Duchesne, 15.
Dynamists, 213. 1
Ebionites, 64, 89, 97, 101 seq., 167,
185, 266.
Ecthesis, 3 16.
Enthronement of Christ, 156, 158
seq., 172.
Epigonus, 48.
Epiphanius, 32, 34, 168, 219 seq.
Epiphany, 73 seq., 108, 165.
Eucharist, 6, 28, 163, 192, 197,
308 seq.
Eudoxians, 216.
Eunomians, 216.
Eusebius: of Caesarea, 32, 34, 131,
214 seq.
Of Dorylaeum, 294..
Of Nicomedia, 214.
Eutyches, 294 seq., 313.
Eutychianism, 272, 279 seq., 298
seq., 312.
Exaltation of Christ, 53, 118, 309.
Faith: Catholic, 273 seq., 282 seq.
Of Chalcedon, 286 seq., 3 16.
Nicene, 273 seq., 286 seq., 299,
310.
Rule of, 3, 13, 49 seq., 60, 108.
Faustiis, 49, 192.
Filioque, 220, 222, 259 seq.
Flavian of Constantinople, 272,
294 seq.
Flavianus of Antioch, 218 seq.
Flesh, 23, 205 seq., 282.
Of Christ, 97 seq., 155, 289 seq.,
296 seq., 3 16.
Formula of Concord, 7, 135.
Gallican Confession, 7.
Gehenna, 127, 136.
Genealogies of Jesus, 90 seq.
Gieseler, 212, 300.
Glory of Christ, 55, 164 seq., 222,
273, 295 seq.
Gnosticism, 19, 34, 49, 64, 101 seq.,
185, 212, 266.

God: the Father, 15 seq., 22, 24
seq., 42 seq., 138 seq., 158 seq.,
174, 178 seq., 222, 224 seq.,
226 seq., 273 seq.
Jesus Christ, no seq., 221 seq.,
228 seq., 273 seq., 289 seq.,
296, 298; God-man, 100 seq.,
121, 277 seq., 308. (V. Son
of God, Spirit of God, Trin
ity.)
Gregory: Nazianzum, 240.
Of Nyssa, 240.
Thaumaturgus, 34.
Hades: 125 seq., 152 seq., 160, 171.
Ascent from, 128, 131, 155.
Descent into, 22, 115, 123 seq.,
125 seq., 166, 171, 281.
Hallels, 27 seq.
Harnack, 19, 34, 45 seq., 192, 204,
206 seq., 267, 270.
Harvey, 269.
Hefele, 300.
Henoticon, 313 seq.
Heraclius, 315 seq.
Hermas, 15, 20, 45, 47. 129, 131,
134, 186.
Heurtley, 21.
Hilarius, 127, 240.
Hilary, 127, 269.
Hippocrates, 104.
Hippolytus, 48, 63, 101 seq., 107,
129, 132.
Homoousion, 228 seq.
Honoratus, 269.
Honorius, 315 seq.
Hort, 49.
Hosius of Cordova, 214, 233 seq.
Humanity of Christ, 98, in seq.,
120, 153, 213 seq., 277 seq.,
289 seq., 308 seq.
Humiliation of Christ, 53, 118, 309.
Hypostasis, 234 seq., 263, 274, 286,
292, 298, 312.
Ibas, 314.
Ignatius, 20, 45, 56, 63 seq., 124
seq., 131, 159, 187.

324

INDEX

Immanence of God, 28, 214, 249.
Incarnation, 57, 59 seq., 120 seq.,
138 seq., 148, 172, 216 seq.,
222, 269 seq., 276 seq., 289 seq.,
311 seq., llSseq.
Irenaeus, 9 seq., 20 j* j., 30 seq., 44
ji?j., 54 seq., 60 jrj., 115 J'?-»
155, 158, 164 seq., 173 seq.,
187 j^., 196, 205, 233, 254.
Irving, Edward, 217.-
Jerome, 127, 168.
John: of Antioch, 272, 292 seq., 314.
Of Damascus, 301, 308 seq.
Joseph, 61 seq.
Josephus, 24.
Judgment of Christ, 1 1 seq., 22, 58,
164 seq., 222, 256, 281 seq.
Julianists, 305.
Julius Africanus, 90.
Justification, 117, 153 seq., 198 seq.,
284.
Justin Martyr, 33, 55 seq., 61 seq.,
116, 132, 160, 167, 185, 205.
Justinian, 314.
Kattenbusch, 34, 36, 46, 49, 52,
192, 269.
Kenosis, 53, 304, 312,318.
Leo I, Pope, 272, 295.
Leontius of Byzantium, 300 seq.,
308 seq.
Lerins, 4, 259, 269 seq., 294.
Life of Life, 96, 229, 250.
Life: Giver of, 222, 257 seq., 275.
Eternal, 23, 74, 121 seq., 164,
205, 223, 265, 282.
Light of Light, 96, 222, 229 seq.,
250 seq., 289 seq.
Logos, 47, 50, 100, 161, 178, 213,
217 seq., 226 seq., 262, 278,
303 seq., 311.
Loofs, 44 seq., 270 seq.
Lord: of Yahweh, 25 seq.
Of Christ, 22, 30, 38 seq., 50 seq.,
70, 121, 138, 159 seq., 222,
226, 294.

Of the Spirit, 222, 257 seq.
Of the Triune God, 273 seq.
Love of God, 24 seq., 43, 114 seq.,
T53. T57, 161. 168, 172, 180,
263.
Lucian, 32, 34, 233.
Lumby, 270.
Luther, 194.
Lutherans, 191, 310, 312.
Macedonians, 216, 257, 274.
Majesty of God, 43, 273.
Maker of heaven and earth, 10,
12, 22, 33 seq., 222, 224 seq.
Maranatha, 165.
Marcellians, 216.
Marcellus, 21, 34 seq., 49, 173, 237,
256.
Marcion, 19, 33 seq., 63, 102.
Martin I, Pope, 316.
Mary the Virgin, 13, 58, 59 seq.,
222, 253 seq., 277 seq., 293 seq.
McGiffert, 16 seq., 30 seq., 49 seq.,
.63, 174, 188, 194, 196, 206.
Melchizedekians, 47.
Memnon of Ephesus, 293.
Memra, 178, 249.
Messiah, 16 seq., 38 seq., 57 seq.,
66 seq., 85 seq., 114, 121.
Middle State, 131 seq., 170 seq.,
209, 284.
Millennium, 162, 167 seq.
Mission of Christ, 69 seq., 121, 130.
Modalism, 46 seq., 212 seq., 235,
284 seq.
Monarchianism, 34, 46 seq., 212
seq., 237 seq., 267.
Monophysitism, 109, 269, 277 seq.,
292, 299 seq., 307 seq., 318.
Monothelitism, 315 seq.
Montanism, 46, 167.
Morin, 269.
Mother of God, 279, 287 seq.
Muratorian Fragment, 187.
Neale, 260.
Neander, 300.
Nectarius, 218.

INDEX

325

Nestorianism, 109, 269 seq., 277
seq., 294 seq., 312 seq.
Nestorius, 272, 287 seq., 297, 303
seq., 313.
Niceta of Remesiana, 36, 49, 188,
193 seq.
Nicetas of Aquileia, 36.
Nicolas I, 260.
Nisibis, 299.
Noetus, 48.
Novatian, 32, 34, 49.
Ommanney, 269.
Only Begotten (Son), 49 seq., 118
seq., 222, 226 seq., 289, 297
seq.
Origen, 34, 63, 102, 12s seq., 167,
233, 240, 315.
Pandera, 63.
Pantheism, 25, 217 seq.
Papias, 64.
Paraclete, 13, 48, 177 seq., 234.
Parousia, 10, 55, 164 seq.
Passion of Christ, 10 seq., 22, 35,
SS. 76, IIS, 124 "q., 222, 281,
289.
Passover, 27 seq.
Patripassianism, 35, 48, 307.
Paul of Samosata, 47, 212 seq.,
227, 235 seq., 267.
Pearson, 260.
Pentecost, 1, 17 seq., 84 seq., 130,
157, IS9, I7S, 186, 197.
Persona, 239 seq., 251.
Photinians, 216.
Photinus, 238.
Pirminius, 22.
Plummer, 49, 250.
Pneumatomachians, 216, 257.
Polycarp, 11, 45, 64, 131.
Polythekm, 25, 27, 34, 214, 241,
251.
Pontius Pilate, 58, 116, 222.
Praxeas, 47 seq., 60.
Pre-existence of Christ, 42 seq.,
61 seq., 218, 278.
Premillenarianism, 167 seq., 172.

Prologue of John's Gospel, 53, 96
seq., 249.
Providence of God, 30 seq.
Psalter of ,32thelstan, 21, 174.
Redemption, no, 121, 160, 171,
180.
Regeneration, 55, 97, in seq., 169
seq., 176, 182 seq., 201, 258,
265, 284.
Reign of Christ, 11, 157 seq., 171
seq., 216, 222.
Repentance, 198, 200 seq., 265.
Resch, 99.
Resurrection: 19 seq., 137 seq., 205
seq., 223, 265 seq., 282.
Of Christ, I, 10 seq., 46, 55 seq.,
70 seq., 123 seq., 133 seq.,
137 seq., 172, 222, 255 seq.,
281, 289, 296 seq.
Rufinus, 21, 34 seq., 49, 173.
Rule of Truth, n.
Sabaoth, 19, 30, 33.
Sabellianism, 48, 213 seq., 237 seq.,
266 seq., 276.
Sabellius, 48, 212.
Sanctification, 154, 169 seq., 186
seq., 201.
Saving acts of Christ, 19 seq., 54
seq., 66, 109 seq., 123, 133 seq.,
137, 153, IS5. 164, 172, 211,
219, 253.
Saviour, I seq., 11 seq., 38 seq., 54
seq., 114, 121 seq., 153, 171,
222, 253.
Schaff, 21 seq., 270, 300.
Second Adam, 70 seq., 108 seq., 1 16,
119, 145, 153 seq., 157-
Semi-Arianism, 214 seq., 238, 244,
267, 274 seq., 299.
Sergius of Constantinople, 315 seq.
Session of Christ, 13 seq., 22, 5$
seq., 153, IS5 seq., 158 seq.,
222, 256, 28l.
Severians, 305.
Shekina, 108, 178, 246.
Shema, 16, 24 seq., 29, 33.

326

INDEX

Sheol, 126 seq., 136.
Sins: Forgiveness of, 20, 23, 192,
196, 200 seq.
Purification of, 43, 95.
Remission of, 18 seq., SS, 132,
156, 196 seq., 209, 223, 264
seq., 282.
Smith, H. B., 172.
Socinians, 7.
Son: of God., I seq., IO seq., 22, 38
seq., 54 seq., 93 seq., 114, 174,
222, 226 seq., 262, 273 seq., 289
seq., 296 seq.
Of the Father, 41, 112, 121, 178.
Of Man, 13, 98, 159, 165, 289,
296, 303.
Sovereignty of God, joseq., 51, 212.
Spirit: of God, I seq., 10 seq., 23, 45
seq., 59 seq., 157, 173 seq., 184
seq., 196 seq., 205 seq., 222, 253
jr?., 282.
Personality of, 178 seq., 273 seq.
Procession of, 179, 220, 222, 257
seq., 274 seq.
Substance, 50, 234 seq., 243 seq.,
273 seq., 277 seq., 312.
Substantia, 234 j*j.
Swainson, 270.
Swete, 49, 193.
Symbol of the Fish, 3, 19, 38 seq., 54,
2S3-
Symbol ofthe 318, 211 jvry.
Symbol ofthe 150, 211 j?y.
Tertullian, 9 seq., 22, 30, 34 seq.,
44 «?., 59 seq., 97 j*y., 115,
124 seq., 137, 155, 158 *?.,
164 seq., 173, 182, 196, 205 seq.,
233 J??., 261.
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 3 14.
Theodoret, 314.
Theodoras of Caesarea, 314.
Theodosius, 297.
Theodotus of Byzantium, 47 seq.,
101.
Theodotus the money changer, 47.
Theopaschitism, 307.
Theophilus, 30.

Theotokos, 287 seq., 294.
Thomas Aquinas, 16.
Three Chapters, 314.
Tome of Leo, 272, 279, 295 seq.,
303 seq.
Transcendence of God, 28, 178,
213, 249.
Trinity, 3, 15 seq., 35, 47 seq., 108
seq., 173 seq., 189, 213, 224,
234 seq., 263, 268 seq., 273 seq.,
306 seq.
Trypho, 55 seq., 62 seq.
Turner, 269.
Typos, 316.
Unitarian, 7, 46, 267, 319.
Unity of God, 12 seq., 16 seq., 22,
24 seq., 47 seq., 174, 178 seq.,
212 j??., 222, 224, 234, 241 seq.,
261, 273 seq., 306, 307.
Valentinians, 49, 102.
Venantius Fortunatus, 34.
Victor, Pope, 47 seq., 167.
Victricius, 269.
Vigilantius, 192.
Vincent, Marvin R., 250.
Vincentius of Lerins, 269.
Virgin Birth, 10 seq., 22, 54 seq.,
59 seq., 121,148, 175, 253 seq.,
291, 296, 303, 311.
Waterland, 269.
Wisdom of God, 178, 213, 229 seq.,
245 seq.
Word of God, 13, 28, 61 seq., 96
seq., 107 seq., 226 seq., 234,
249 seq., 289 seq., 296 seq.
Worship: of Christ, 53, 156, 160
seq., 289, 291.
Of the Trinity, 222, 257, 273 seq.
Yahweh, 16 seq., 24 seq., 43 seq., 68,
97, 121, 245 seq.
Zahn, 34, 49.
Zeno, 313.
Zephyrinus, Pope, 47 seq.

INDEX OF TEXTS

Genesis: V  174, 258
Exodus: 3"  28
4"'"  41
131-u. n-«  24.
Numbers: 15"-"  24
Deuteronomy: 6'  16
6t-i-t->  24
n»-n  24
32,»'»-  41
Judges: 5"  128
// Samuel: 711U  41
/ Kings: 18" ¦"¦"  26
Job: 19"  207
Psalms: 2  160
16  74, 126
l6»  ,  206
Si"  I7S
63"  128
68"...  128
71"  128
no   51, 160
no1  „~  159
US  26
116  28
139"  128
H310  17S
Proverbs: ia  175
8  246
8a"«-  245
8«.M  246 327

Isaiah: 7  62,65
7"  61,82
11  175
26"  132, 139
3°'  175
32"  174
40"e<>-  ,  245
44"»  26
48"  174
53  121
63'-"  175
Jeremiah: l0>-»  26
22M  92
Ezekiel: 1  258
I12  174
10"  --I74
26*  128
321". »  128
Daniel: 122  139
Hosea: 97-  174
Zechariah: 7"  T74
Malachi: 31  -245
Matthew: I"  90, 91
I»-«  81, 82
J», SI, 25^ ^ _ ^ _ M
i"  -  39
612, U.K,,,.,  202
I0M  165
IIs7  42
12"-"  203
13"  89
l6»"  40
l6"  M65

328 INDEX
Matthew: Luke:
22"  205 4a  89, 90
22*1 ¦»«¦..,  . .51 8"  128
243, », 87, s»  .165 9«  I38
25"  165 9"  165
25"-«,  166 ioM  42
26M  197 II4  k  202
26»»  27 I2U  203
26«8-"  41 i628-a  127
26"  159 17*  124
27"-"  128 1888  138
275'-™  ,  122 I9«-»  156
ajjs-io, n-17  14.1 21"  165
28»  159 22«  124
28"  15, 180 22«»  159
Mark: 23"  165
l>-s  245 23"  127
Ilsei.  44 23m-5*,  122
I«  197 24"-'s- "-*  141
i'»-»  ,  175 24"  124
I"  41 24s*  140
3««-»  203 24". *8-48  146
6»  90 24"  124, 138, 152, 256
8»»  38 24"-"  197
8"  140 24M-Si  140
8»8  165 24"  156
9». «  140 John:
ioJ!-M  256 i1  228
io"  140 i1-*  .250
I22S-S0  25 i8  233
13"  177 i4  230
I3«!  304 i'  96, 230
14"  IS9 i»  96
l5«-«  122 i1!  97
l6i-«, s-a). si  140 i18  97, 99
i6»-n. «-". is-«  .141 i«  49, 96, 254
16"  156, 159 i«  49, 96, 231
Luke: i«  89
Il-«  76 2"-M  256
I"  110 34 .en.  17
I2888  78, 79 38-8  176
1"  39, 93 3"T"  49
l»  93 5"  128
1"  93, 106 6!»  42
1"  197 6«  89
2'  107 682  156
2"  39 7*7-39  \yy
38  197 818  230
3»  90 8»' "  42

INDEX 329
John: Acts:
1°"' "• "' "  125 5"  39. 156, 197
I2»  125 8"-80  176
12"  253 8>8  15
1410-"  178 8"  39
I4MJS  179 91-"  143
I4M  177 9M  39
15"  125 io8-"  141, 143, 144
15*  179. 258, 260 io«  166
i6»-i8  260 io48  197
1628  42 io"-«  176
178  231 io4'  15
17s- »  228 n"-»  176
19"  85 ii28  40
i98»-«  122 I212  67
2011-w. »-«  141 12"  85
20"  156 I384   138
2082  260 1331-81)  1^ 200
2o»-»  140 is8-8  176
20»  146 16"  39
20»  52 I78  124
2I1"88  . T4I 17"  I38
Acts: 17"  205
ii-6. "-»  140 191-'  17
i>.«-»  156 1988  176
i8  124 19s  15
14-8  177 224-18  143
1"  165 23'  205
i14  84 24". »  205
i»i-«  56 26»-»  143
1s2  139 26"  205
21-4.  175 Romans:
2s2 "a-  56 1s-4  71
2"  131, 138 14  138, 145
2a  206 I4MH.  46
2"  126, 206 I7  52
28»  127 I"  t  228
2"  74, 127, 206 4"  138
282  138 421  138, 153
2»  159 511-"  ,. .52
288-88  39 5" »e(l.  71
288  15, 197 6"  IS
248  191 6s-4  123
3ua«<i-  56 6>  138
3"  124 64»e«-  S7
4u-«  56 68  117
412  130 6»  52
4M  37 8«  177, 258
5«"». »-"  56 88-4  7a

330

INDEX

Romans: 8"  138
8>»  176
828-21  180
888-"  153
8"  138
818  S2
98  228
io4-'  128
io8-10  39
15s"  52
/ Corinthians: V  52
17  165
i"."."  118
i28-"  116
22  116
27  228
28  Il8
3»  176
4B  165
57-8  28
6"  176
88-«  S2
88  S°. 7°, 226, 232
91  H4
id-4  70,24s
io18  191, 192
io"-81  27
II8 "Q-  70
II88  I65
128  39
124-18  177
I2l4,Kl-  195
IS  152, 207, 208
IS188"-  56
I5"-4  57
IS3"8  140
154  256
154-28  138
15"  144
I512'u  ,  205
IS"  139
I5M  H4
IS21  205
I528  165
1524  256
IS"  158
I54'-  '45. 205

/ Corinthians: i54,8B|i-  144
IS"-"-"  145
1548-48  70
i6»,  165
16s8  52
// Corinthians:
. I2  52
I6  124
ii5...,  144
i2»-i8  144
134  118
13"  52, 180
Galatians: il  T44
i8  52
i"-"  144
218-28  117
31  "9
3"  116, 117
3"  15
44-8  69
5"  "9
518-"  177
Su  "9
5"  177
6«  119
614  116
618  185
6"  52
Ephesians: I2  52
i'  157
1'  198, 199
iM  i. ...138, 155
i28-28  159
24s«1-  157
218  II7, Il8
218"22  176
2". 28"22  l8l
48-8  181, 185
48-'»  156
4'-10  127, 128
4"-"  161
'4™  181
5*-"  161, 169
624.  ,  52
Philippians: 1'  :  52

2 td ** 4». -V 4*-.

-- Osua td 3 td »-. a^m 4- 4- w u
E fi °* S ^ ."* N ** S E 5 S

3

M r* 4* Ui ui td Id tdtd

•85

SOS
Ostn 4-

5 t»i t** vj tn k> td td td td ?S"
K* 9 B » « i • i.

ONtn ON
tn ON td

HMMMMMI-ltdtdl.
OOtn tn td w td On h 'jj w so -t^ +¦
O S NO VO OOUi m oo u» Id OOUd 00

«»»i/i 4k. 4^ 4^. ^k. tid

Ui td K> IH M M

1 ^ ui u* u» td O

HI NO OONJ ONUl td |d |d td td td
^ S ," S ^ ," 8 ! E £ 5 /

2awxi

td M M
On On On
tn Ui tn

85S

„. ¦ .,   ... - td
NO td NO NO NO O td tn tn O Id tdvO tdUi m "j tn 4- 4*- 4^
4k4k4<ktn4kt«d4k\0\0tn4k4kUi\O O -*> '-n >0 O u* 00

DO
CO

332 INDEX
1 John: Revelation:
22»  I65 Is 8«-  I44
3!_'  169, 170 i»-3  143
318  125 i»  129, 130
4s  •  -•¦•96 5  156
49  .'  49 5»-">.  162
418  :  39 9"  128
51-8  39 20  ,  167
518-17  203 204  162
520  231 22™  166

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 02118 6557