insisted upon the resurrection of this very flesh, with all its particles intact and unchanged, in order to prepare the believer for the earthly millennial kingdom which Christ was to return and establish. The original significance of this article is somewhat obscured in our English translation of it: "Resurrection of the body." The word body, of course, admits of the Pauline interpretation, the resurrection namely of a spiritual body which amounts to no more than personal immortality. But in its original form the fleshly character of the resurrection was asserted and even emphasized, and so the article had a distinctly, though not of course consciously anti-Pauline meaning."

1

One of the most interesting articles in the creed is the "forgiveness of sins." It was apparently not a part of the original symbol, for neither Irenæus nor Tertullian mentions it; but it seems to have been added soon after 200, and I cannot resist the conclusion that it was inserted with a reference to the controversy which was then going on in Rome over the question whether the forgiveness of postbaptismal sins is possible. So that while the statement itself is general and preserves what has always been regarded as one of the most precious and fundamental truths of the gospel of Christ, it would seem to have been put into the creed with a

1 On this article, see p. 164 seq.

distinctly hierarchical reference, to commit the convert to the Catholic principle of absolution, upon which Bishop Callixtus of Rome took his stand over against the earlier principle that the church is a community of saints and that there is no absolution but only excommunication for those who commit mortal sins after baptism.1

The article on the church may not have been in the original symbol, as Irenæus does not refer to it and Tertullian does not give it in his reproductions of the creed. If it did actually constitute a part of the original text it may possibly have been intended as a protest against the Gnostics' denial of the holiness of the church at large and their assertion that only they themselves, an elect few within the church, are really holy and really saved.

On the other hand, if the article was added, as it perhaps was, early in the third century, it must have been a fruit of the controversy just referred to touching the forgiveness of post-baptismal sins, and connected as it is with the article on the forgiveness of sins it must have been intended, in that case, to assert that though the church receives back into communion excommunicated offenders, and so is composed of sinners as well as saints, yet the church is a holy church.2

This completes the interpretation of the Old 2 See p. 161 seq.

1 See p. 155 seq.

Roman Symbol. But our present Apostles' Creed contains other clauses not found in the older symbol. Before attempting to interpret them let us look at the origin of the enlarged creed.1 An examination of the various western texts given by Hahn and Kattenbusch shows that three general types of creed may be distinguished first the

Italian type, which is nearest to the Old Roman Symbol and reproduces it with only slight variations; secondly the North African type, which reproduces the Old Roman Symbol with certain common and stereotyped additions; and thirdly the west European type, which is farthest from the Old Roman symbol and is characterized by greater freedom and variety than either of the other types, additions being made apparently to meet local needs and without much regard to the forms in use in neighboring churches.2 The general difference in these three types is just what we should expect. In Italy Rome was dominant and it was natural that its creed should be used with few changes. In

1 See Kattenbusch, II., p. 759 seq., for an elaborate discussion of this question.

2 See Kattenbusch, I., p. 194 seq. Harnack distinguishes four types (Italian, North African, Spanish, and Gallic), and assigns our present text to the last (see his article in the third edition of Herzog, p. 746, and cf. Kattenbusch, II., p. 778). That there are some characteristic differences between the known Spanish and Gallic creeds is true, but in the present uncertainty as to the exact home of many western texts we can hardly distinguish between two western types with the same sharpness as between the Italian, North African, and Western.

Africa the church of Carthage had paramount influence, and it was natural that while additions to the Roman symbol should be more freely made than in Italy they should all conform closely to the Carthaginian type. In western Europe, on the other hand, there was no central authority and no dominating church or bishop. The west felt the influence both of Rome and of North Africa, but the several churches developed with considerable freedom and independence, and so we should expect to find variety in the texts of their creeds, the only common element being the Roman original upon which they were all built.

Our present Apostles' Creed belongs evidently to the western type. One of the additions which it contains (descended into Hades) appeared first in Italy; another (eternal life) in North Africa, but both are found also a little later in the texts of western Europe, and there are others which are found first in those texts; as for instance: "creatorem coeli et terrae; ""qui conceptus est;

66

passus et mortuus ;""Dei omnipotentis" (in the article on the session); "catholicam" (with church); and "communionem sanctorum." Indeed only in western texts are all the additions to the Old Roman Symbol found before our Apostles' Creed appears in exactly its present form. There can thus be practically no doubt that the present form originated in western Europe even though

we cannot fix the exact time or place of its formation.1

99.66

But though our present creed is of the western type, it is not the fullest and richest form of that type. It is simply one of a number of forms, some of which are even more elaborate than it. For instance, we find in other western texts "Deum et Dominum" with "Jesum Christum ;"" vivus" with "resurrexit;" "victor" with "ascendit in coelos; "omnium" with "peccatorum ; per baptismum with "remissionem;" "hujus" with "carnis," and so on. Moreover the additions which are found in our present text cannot be pronounced superior to those that occur in other texts, nor does a single principle underlie them, so that they can be said to belong naturally together. There seems in fact to have been no reason in the nature of the case why other additions instead of these might not have been permanently adopted. The present form is not the one legitimate and final result of the development of the Old Roman Symbol.2 It is simply

1 The common and probably the correct opinion is that the present form of the Apostles' Creed originated in Gaul (cf. Harnack's article in Herzog). In the first volume of his work (p. 196 seq.) Kattenbusch says that we have no means of determining the place of its origin, beyond the fact that it belongs to Western Europe, but in the second volume (p. 790 seq.) he gives reasons for thinking that it may have originated in the province of Burgundy. Burn (Introduction to the Creeds, p. 221 seq.) assigns it to Rome, but without sufficient reason (cf. Kattenbusch, II., p. 784 seq.).

2 Cf. Kattenbusch, I., p. 195 seq., and also II., p. 779, where