The Latin translation, unicus, doubtless was designed to have the same meaning as μovoyevs, 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 manifestation of God as Son. It excludes both kinds of Monarchianism. It represents that Jesus, the Messiah, was the Son of God in the highest sense as begotten, 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 McGiffert.

McGiffert bases himself upon its omission in the references to the Rule of Faith in Irenæus and Tertullian. However, Irenæus does give the words in his third form: tov κύριον ἡμῶν δι ̓ οὗ τὰ πάντα (Adv. Har., IV, 33'). It is evident that I Cor. 86 is in the mind of Irenæus here, from his use of dť où tà távta; 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 noteworthy that in the first article ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα is added to ἕνα θεὸν παντοκράτορα. Is not, therefore, δι ̓ οὗ τὰ πάντα added in precisely the same way? A reference to the passage seems to verify it, for in the two clauses we have: els Beds ó txtýp, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα, εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι ̓ οὗ τὰ πάντα. If Irenæus followed the passage, he would use siç xúptos, and

not τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν. 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 reference 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 († 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 induced its insertion into the Creed later than the second century. Furthermore, Lord is in all the earliest 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 110, quoted by Jesus in controversy with the Pharisees (Mt. 2241 seq.)

It might then be held that, in some of the passages of the preaching of the Apostles, Lord was another term of Messianic dignity. It is evident, however, that Lord, in the usage of the Apostles, has a

much higher sense; for in fact the use of Lord as a divine name disappears from the Epistles, and usually 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 Hellenistic Jews always addressed God and spoke of Him as kúpios, and the Palestinian Jews as 8., 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 Apostles 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 salutation was: "Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom. 17, I Cor. 13, II Cor. 12, Gal. 13, Eph. 12, Phil. 12, Phile. 3).

I cannot go so far as Kattenbusch, in the significance he gives to I Cor. 85-6, 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. 511-21, 623, 839, 1530, I Cor. 1623, II Cor. 13, Gal. 618, Eph. 624, +.

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. . . . 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 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 preexistent 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:

(1) As the Christ, the Messiah of the Old Testament 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 received 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 century. 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 statement: 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 Christian Faith; but only use such of these terms as were appropriate to their purpose at the time.

Irenæus, 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. Hær., I, 10 (v. p. 10). He mentions (1) the birth from a Virgin, (2)