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 statement implies all that the fuller statement gives us, namely: (1) That the remission of sins is the baptismal remission at the moment of regeneration, and not the remission of sins committed after baptism, 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 of the 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, resurrection 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 of the Western Creed, not with a different meaning but as a more Pauline phrase.

(c) The phrase the age to come is a richer expres

sion than eternal. The age to come is the age subsequent 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 of the 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 sufficient statement of the Christian faith; that is, sufficient 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 Christian, and may enter into that union, so far as doctrine 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 Christian Churches. The great Protestant Churches, no less than the Greek and the Roman, must reject all

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 followers, any more than the modal form of Sabellianism, 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 Athanasius, 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 section 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 œcumenical 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 obscure origin both as to date and locality; which won its way to universal acceptance in the West by its

great merits, but which never came into use in the East, except occasionally through some theologians. There are three theories as to its origin:

(1) 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 Augustine's influence upon the author, but exercised, on the contrary, a constraining influence upon Augustine, 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 Arles († 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 Incarnation condemn Apollinarianism, but do not condemn the characteristic features of Nestorianism or Monophysitism.

(2) Morin ascribes the Creed to Cæsarius of Arles († 542). He is followed by Turner2 who says it might be urged that "a document which shows so intimate Use of Creeds, 74-75

Introduction to the Creeds, p. 146.