of Marcion, there is nothing lacking which an anti-Marcionitic symbol must necessarily contain. The only important Marcionitic tenet which is not directly met in R is the rejection of the Old Testament. It would seem as if a declaration of belief in the Old Testament might have been inserted, either explicitly, or by means of a reference to the fulfilment of prophecy by Christ. But a perusal of Tertullian's work against Marcion shows that it was not the repudiation of the Old Testament in itself that was the serious thing in the eyes of Marcion's opponents, but the separation thus brought about between Christ and the creator and ruler of the universe. And so R, with its emphasis upon the fact that Christ is the son of θεὸς πατήρ παντοκράτωρ, is true to the real interest of Marcion's opponents, even without mentioning the Old Testament. It should be noticed too that in the reference to the birth from a virgin, and especially to the session at the right hand of the Father, there is clearly implied the acceptance of Old Testament prophecy, for both of these events were prominent among the messianic prophecies in current use at that time.

Of course R might have been made much more elaborate, and some of the tenets of Marcion might have been met in more explicit terms. But the creed was intended for use as a baptismal symbol, and therefore was necessarily made

simple, brief, and compact, that it might be easily learned and repeated, and was naturally phrased in positive not negative form. It is difficult to see how Marcion's positions, so far as they were of practical, not merely speculative, interest, could have been more effectively repudiated in such a baptismal symbol than they actually are. Kattenbusch says that R"ist nicht antithetisch gedacht, sondern lediglich thetisch" (II. p. 327). If he means by this only that R is phrased in positive not negative form, of course he is right. But if he means, as he evidently does, that R was constructed without any regard to heresy, it is another matter altogether. He continues "Weder die Einheit Gottes, noch seine Schöpferstellung werden betont, so unzweifelhaft sie in ihm mitgedacht und, wenn man den ersten Artikel unbefangen überlegt, auch ausgedrückt." Why emphasis upon the unity of God, and upon creation, should make R any more truly "antithetisch" than it is now it is difficult to see. A symbol directed against Gnosticism would naturally have borne a more theological character than R has, but Marcionism was a practical not a speculative system, and is fully met by the simple but pregnant statements of R.1

1 Harnack is quite right in saying that R is too simple and untheological to have been framed in opposition to the Gnostics (Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur, vol. I. p. 529), but he seems

In a regula fidei, moreover, designed as a standard and test of orthodoxy, something else, both in form and content, might perhaps have been expected, but I am not maintaining that R was framed as a regula fidei. I hold that it was originally intended as a baptismal symbol pure and simple. The only question is whether the impulse which led to its composition was or was not due to the prevalence of error to the conviction that it was important to impress upon candidates for baptism particularly those facts and truths which were most widely doubted or denied within circles that called themselves Christian. Those who think not must answer the following questions:

First, why are so many things omitted in the original text of R which constituted an essential part of the faith of the church of the first and second centuries, while other things are mentioned which are less important in themselves and bulk far less largely in the Christian literature of the period? Secondly, how does it happen that all the views of Marcion which were most offensive to the church at large are ruled out by R? And thirdly, what was it that made such a baptismal symbol necessary in the second century when the church up to that time had got on without anynot to have considered the possibility of its having been directed against Marcion. As a matter of fact Marcionism was a very different thing from Gnosticism, and R fills all the requirements of an anti-Marcionitic baptismal confession.

thing of the kind? Most scholars that have dealt with the Apostles' creed have evidently quite failed to realize the gravity of this last question. It was no light thing for a church to adopt a baptismal symbol when nothing of the kind had existed before. Why should it suddenly find the formula of baptism which had answered for some generations insufficient? It would seem that the composition of R is just such an event as needs a crisis like that which Marcion precipitated to explain it. That Kattenbusch and others, who put the composition of R as early as the beginning of the second century, or even earlier, should take the position they do is not perhaps surprising, but that Harnack, who recognizes so clearly the significance of the crisis in the middle of the second century, and who puts the composition of R as late as 140 or 150, should still maintain that R was not called forth by false teaching of any kind is very strange.

VI.

THE OLD ROMAN SYMBOL AND THE BAPTISMAL FORMULA.

CHRISTIAN baptism was an outgrowth of the baptism practised by John the Baptist. John's baptism was simply a symbolic ceremony suggested undoubtedly by the various baptisms or rites of purification which were prevalent among the Jews, and was employed with the purpose of impressing vividly upon his hearers the need of that purification of life which he was preaching and of committing them by their own voluntary act to the effort to make the desired amendment. We have no record in the synoptic gospels that Jesus himself ever baptized, or that baptism was performed during his lifetime by his disciples. But it is distinctly stated in John IV. 2 that though Jesus himself did not baptize, his disciples did, and the naturalness of the rite in the light of John's baptism, and its general prevalence in the apostolic church confirm the report and make it practically certain that the rite was not introduced as an innovation after Jesus' departure. But if practised during his lifetime by his disciples it is altogether probable, in view of his uniform