Full text of "The Nicene and Apostles' creeds : their literary history : together with an account of the growth and reception of the sermon on the faith, commonly called "The Creed of St. Athanasius""

See other formats

or -

ALLOWAY 2 Pp

υ]

—- ee |

Ail VC- Ὁ τ. ἐ

THE
NICENE AND APOSTLES’ CREEDS.

THEIR LITERARY HISTORY;
TOGETHER oe ω G D

AN ACCOUNT OF THE GROWTH AND RECEPTION
OF THE SERMON ON THE FAITH,

COMMONLY CALLED

‘THE CREED OF ST ATHANASIUS.”

Br ©. 32. SWAINSON,.. DD

CANON OF CHICHESTER, NORRISIAN PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY AT CAMBRIDGE,
AND EXAMINING CHAPLAIN TO THE BISHOP OF CHICHESTER ;
FORMERLY FELLOW AND TUTOR OF CHRIST’S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

Ss “8
Ned «ὦ, (

is Ὁ

London : a
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.

1875

[All Rights reserved.]
*

PREFACE.

THE following book originated in a proposal that was
made to me some time ago by Professor Lightfoot,
that I should prepare an Article on the History of
the Creeds—apart from the History of Doctrine—for
the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, which is now
being published by Mr Murray, under the Editorship
of Dr W. Smith.

Upon entering on the work I was surprised to dis-
cover that the subject had hitherto attracted little at-
tention, and that, with the exception of the books
which I mention in my introductory Chapter, I could
find little assistance in a collected form. The work
has thus grown under my hand; whilst the attention
that has been recently called to the subject of the
Athanasian Creed has given additional interest to my
researches. My readers have the result before them.

I have of course received great assistance from
several friends. I have expressed in the body of the
Book my obligations to many of them, but I would
here particularly mention in addition Professor Wright,
from whom I received introductions which were of the
utmost value to me in journeys which I undertook
to some of the Continental Libraries in 1872. Through
the Dean of Westminster I obtained collations from
‘Paris; and through the Rev. Ὁ. M. Clerk, photo-
graphs from Vienna and Milan. Mr Muller of Amster-

dam was of the utmost service to me in a curious

1V PREFACE.

difficulty in which I found myself when I was _pro-
hibited from seeing the Utrecht Manuscript; and to
him as well as to Dr Vermeulen I would here express
my obligations. To Sir T. Duffus Hardy I am in-
debted not only for photographs of the Venice copies of
the Athanasian Creed and of the two pages of the
Colbertine Manuscript at Paris, but also for an intro-
duction to Mr Rawdon Browne, who was of the utmost
service to me in St Mark’s Library. Of Signor Veludo’s
kindness I have spoken in my book.

To Professor Jones of St Beuno’s College, St
Asaph, the literary world is indebted for the first
facsimile of the Utrecht Manuscript, a seed from
which has grown the reproduction of the whole book
by the autotype process. He has kindly obtained for
me collations from Paris and from Rome. I am deeply
indebted to Mr Bond and Mr Thompson of the British
Museum, to Mr Coxe of the Bodleian, to Mr Bradshaw
and Mr Bensly of the Cambridge Library. Archdeacon
.Groome supplied me with the interesting Volume of
the early Beliefs of the German Church by Massmann,
to which I have frequently referred. To these I must
add Mr Lumby, Mr Skeat and Dr Bosworth, and
Professors Max Miiller and Westwood, to whom I feel
under special obligations, The Master and Fellows of
Magdalene College have allowed to me the almost un-
interrupted use for some time, of Waterland’s own
copy of Tentzel’s curious volume, and to them I must
add my grateful acknowledgments. And I owe to Mr
Ferrers the opportunity of examining and collating the
interesting Greek translation of the Latin “Hours of
the Virgin,” printed in 1538 by Wechel.

CONTENTS.

PAGE
INTRODUCTORY.
1. Interest of the subject. 2. Recent neglect. 8, Obligations to Dr
Heurtley. 4. Dr Caspariand M. Nicolas. : : : : : : 1
CHAPTER I,

DISTINCTION BETWEEN A CREED AND A RULE OF FAITH.

1, Rules of Faith and Creeds.. 2. Nomenclature of Scientific Theology.
3. Various names applied to compendia of the Faith. 4. Distinction be-
tween a Creed and a Rule of Faith established from St Isidore. . : : 7

CHAPTER 11.
EARLIEST CREEDS.

1, Difference between a Creed of the Church and a Baptismal Profession.
9: The teaching of the Church essentially dogmatic. (Leibnitz.) 8. The
Faith once delivered to the Saints. 4. Need of brief summaries: some of the
earliest of such summaries. 5. The sufficiency of Scripture. : : oan et

CHAPTER. Itt.
BAPTISMAL PROFESSIONS.

1, St Cyril of Jerusalem on the Creed of the Church and the Teaching of
the Church. The latter resembles our Thirty-nine Articles. 2. The Per-
sonal Profession much shorter than either. 3. Thus there were three forms
embodying the Faith. 4. Other short personal Professions. 5. The Bap-
tismal Professions of Ireneus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, &ce. 6. Old
German Professions. 7. That of the Gelasian Sacramentary. 8. Before
| the Reformation the Apostles’ Creed not used at full length at Baptism.

9. Peculiar German usage of questions regarding the Trinity. ; : ὙΠ ἈΠῸ

V1 CONTENTS.

CHAPTER IV.
RULES OF FAITH OF THE FIRST TWO AND A-HALF CENTURIES.

1. Bingham’s mistake. 2. The original doctrina tradita. 3. The
letters to the Trallians and Smyrneans. 4. Ireneus, passages quoted. 5.
Inferences from these. 6. Letter to Florinus. 7. Hippolytus. 8. Ter-
tullian (difference between fixity of the faith and growth of ritual). 9. De-
ductions from the above. 10. Origen. 11. Thoughts suggested. 12.
Cyprian. 13. Council of Carthage. 14. Novatian. 15. Summary of
the contents of all these Rules of Faith. 16. Thoughts on the above. 17.
An anonymous writer against Artemon. 18. Indications of an approaching
change

CHAPTER V.
RULES OF FAITH AFTER THE YEAR 250

1. Letter of synod of Antioch to Paul of Samosata, a.p. 269. 2. The
exposition of Gregory of Neo-Cwsarea. 8. Creed of Eusebius. 4. Com-
parison of this with the Creeds of the Apostolic Constitutions and of Lucian
the Martyr. 5. Lucian’s appeal to Scripture. 6. Position now gained by
the Church. . : : : : : : ;

CHAPTER VI.
THE FAITH OF THE NICENE COUNCIL.

1. Letters of Alexander of Alexandria. 2. Arius’ accouut of his own
belief. 8. Alexander’s notice of it. 4. Eusebius’ account of the Council of
Nica. 5. Comparison of the Creeds of Casarea and Nicwa. 6. What
was the object of the framers of the Nicene Creed? 7. Athanasius gives the
answer. 8. Thus the Nicene Creed was intended to be not a Symbol but a
Rule of Faith. 9, Explanation of some wordsin it. 10. Athanasius satis-
fied with the document. 11. The Baptismal Creed still short.

CHAPTER VII.
OTHER CREEDS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.

1. Frequency and nature of these, 2. The exposition of his faith attri-
buted to Athanasius. Routh Opus. Vol. u. 3. Intense interest of this,
4. Examination of it. 5. Fresh examination of the Nicene Faith. 6. Defects
subsequently remedied. 7. Comparison with Creed of St Cyl: 8: ΤῸ
Kethesis Macrostichus. 9. Synod of Sardica. .

PAGE

On
bo

~]
bo

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE APOLLINARIAN CONTROVERSY AND COUNCILS OF CONSTAN-
TINOPLE

1. The two Apollinarii. 2. Gregory Nazianzene’s account of the opinions
of the younger Apollinarius. 3. Principle involved in it. 4. Epiphanius
of Constantia. His Ancoratus. His Creed. 5. Difficulty of this. 6. Com-
parison with the Nicene Faith. 7. The second exposition of Epiphanius.
8. Examination of this. 9. This latter exposition almost identical with one
ascribed to Athanasius, 10. This not noticed by Montfaucon. 11. So far
probably spurious. 12. Synod of Constantinople, a.p. 381. 13. Letter of
the Bishops to Theodosius, and their canons. 14. Council of Constantinople,
A.D. 882, 15. What is the Tome to which it referred? 16. Letter of Da-
masus to Paulinus. 17. The so-called Creed of Constantinople. 18.
Question of its authenticity. 19. Comparison with the Creed of Epiphanius.
20. Why were the alterations made?

CHAPTER IX,
THE NESTORIAN CONTROVERSY.

1. Theodosius Emperor: his laws and fines, 2. Nestorius Archbishop of
Constantinople. 3. Sermon of Anastasius. 4. Judgment of Socrates on
Nestorius. 5. Argument of Cyril of Alexandria. 6. A new mode of treat-
ment necessary. Theology became Inductive. 7. Cyril’s argument not
received at Ephesus. 8. Appeal to the Nicene Creed. 9. Creed of Cha-
risius. 10. Ecthesis of Theodore of Mopsuestia. 11. Meaning (i) of the
word Anathema, and (ii) of ‘‘ Another faith.” 12. Cyril’s exposition of the
Nicene Creed. 13. General acceptance of Cyril’s results. 14. Exposition
of John of Antioch. 15. Cyril satisfied with this.

CHAPTER X.,
THE EUTYCHIAN CONTROVERSY.

1. Karly History of Eutyches. 2. Synod of Constantinople, 448. 3.
Kutyches’ expression of his own opinions. 4. Condemnation of Eutyches.
5. Eutyches appealed to a larger council. 6. Leo’s first letter to Flavian,
and Flavian’s Exposition of his faith. 7. SynodofEphesus, 449. Eutyches
upheld: Flavian killed. 8. Struggle between the Churches of Alexandria
and Constantinople. 9, Preparation for the council of Chalcedon. 10.
Aetius. 11. Council meets. First time we hear of the exposition of Con-

stantinople, 12. Second session. The exposition produced. 13. Resist-
ance of the Egyptian bishops. 14. A new definition produced and with-
drawn. 15. The history of the received definition of Chalcedon. 16.

PAGE

vill CONTENTS.

Thoughts upon the council. 17. Early forgeries. 18. The Letter of Leo
to Flavian. 19. Thoughts suggested by it. 20. Protestant character of Leo’s
reasoning. 21. No reference to the Athanasian Creed. 22. The definition
of Chalcedon .

CHAPTER XI.
LITURGICAL USE OF THE NICENE CREED.

1. The Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creeds as given in the Definition
of Chalcedon. 2. The latter introduced generally into the Liturgy about a.p.
568. 8. Reverence paid to the four great Councils, Council under Menna,
536. 4. Edict of Justinian. 5. Received at Toledo in 589. 6. When
introduced into the Roman Church? 7. Use of Nicene Creed at Baptism in
Greek. 8. It was recited in Greek also at the Eucharist in Germany,
9. Used at Visitation of the Sick and Extreme Unction. 10. True Nicene
Creed used at Synods. 11. Creed of Constantinople in the Eastern Churches.
12. Used as an Episcopal profession. 18, Creed of the Armenian Liturgy
continues the anathematism . ‘ : :

CHAPTER XII.
THE HISTORY OF THE INTERPOLATIONS.

1. Two additions in the Western version of the Creed of Constantinople.
2, Deum de Deo and Filioque. 3. The Council of Toledo, 589. Did it alter
the Creed intentionally? 4. The additions could not be recalled. 5. Later
Councils of Toledo. 6. Spread to England. Charlemagne’s action. Tara-
sius. 7. Synod of Frankfort, 794. Of Friuli, 796. Paulinus knew that the
addition had been made since 381. 8. Monks of Mount Olivet. 9. Leo’s
conduct. Council of Aix, 809. 10. Charles and Leo equally determined.
Addition accepted, 1014. 11. Council of Ferrara (Florence), 1438. 12.
Council of Trent . : : : . : :

CHAPTER XIII.
EARLY HISTORY OF THE LATIN CREED.

1. Difference between the histories of the Greek and Latin Creeds. The
latter not known at all in the East. The Greek translations modern. 2.
Name ‘Apostles’ Creed.” 3. Tertullian, Cyprian, Novatian. 4. Marcellus
- of Ancyra. 5. Thoughts on his Creed. 6. Probable origin. . .

CHAPTER XIV.
LATER HISTORY OF THE LATIN CREED.

1. Commentary of ‘‘Ruffinus.” 2, Standard Creed of the Roman Church
at the time of ‘‘Ruffinus.” 8. Comparison of various Creeds. i. Augustine’s

PAGE

111

144

CONTENTS. 1X

PAGE
African, ii. Rome, Ravenna, Turin. iii. English. iv. Aquileian. v.
Pseudo-Augustine. vi. Facundus of Hermiane, and Vigilius of Tapsus. vii.
Poictiers, viii. Verona. ix. Faustus of Riez in the province of Arles,
x. Spanish Creed. xi. Mozarabic Liturgy. xii. Gallican Sacramentary
(Symbolum Traditum and commentary). xiii. Book of Deer. xiv. Creed
of Pirminius. xv. Amalarius and Alcuin. xvi. Antiphonary of Bangor.
4, Origin of the various clauses. 5. General result, that the completed
Creed is Gallican . ‘ : ‘ : : : : : : : ome: 1!

τ μους CHAPTER XV.
USE OF THE APOSTLES’ CREED.

1. The title symbolum, ‘‘signum” or ‘‘collatio.” Account by ‘‘ Ruffinus,”
2. The introduction of the conception of a ‘‘mystery.” 3. Cyprian, Ambrose,
Augustine, &e. 4. The traditio symboli. 5. The use in the Hour services
in the time of Amalarius and Rabanus Maurus. 6. Augustine’s and Aquinas’
account of its origin from Scripture. 7. Importance attached to the Creed.
i. Chrodegang. ii. Ordo Romanus, &c. iii. The Capitulars of Pepin;
Charlemagne, Louis. iv. Canons of Aix, 789. v. Synod of Frankfort, 794.
vi. Theodulf. vii. Synod of Aix, 801. viii. ‘‘Visitation Articles” of
Charlemagne and the replies. 8. Death of Charlemagne. 9. Further
growing importance of the Creed. Hatto. Hincmar. 10. Influence on the
Psalter. 11. Later use at the Hour services. 12. Old English versions, 172

AppENDIx.—Additional illustrations of the value set in England and
Germany on the Creed as containing the Catholic Faith. : ΟΣ

CHAPTER XVI.
THK ATHANASIAN CREED. INTRODUCTORY.

1, Introductory. 2. General belief from a.p. 1200 to 1500 as to the
origin of the Creed. Jewel. 8. Voss. 4. Usher. 5. Utrecht Psalter.
6. Athelstan’s Psalter. 7. Vienna Psalter. 8. General result. 9. Com-
parison with Athanasius’ writings. i. In regard to the damnatory clauses.
ii. In regard to the Holy Spirit. iii. In regard to the Incarnation. 10.
Result. : Σ : ; : ; : ; : : : : Pepe i)

RECEIVED TEXT oF THE CREED : : : : . : ἃ . 204

CHAPTER XVII.

INFLUENCE OF AUGUSTINE’S WRITINGS ON THE SUBJECT OF
THE TRINITY.

1. Review. We must look to the West for further developments. 2. The
Quicunque does not use the language of the Definition of Chalcedon. 8.
We go back to the times and writings of St Augustine. 4, Still earlier to

x CONTENTS.

Philastrius. 5. Augustine’s commendation of the truth. 6. Influence of
Epiphanius on Augustine. 7. St Augustine de Trinitate. 8. The work
used by Alcuin. 9. Augustine’s conference with Maximinus. 10. His
Sermons. 11. Results. 12. Augustine’s Prayer.

CHAPTER XVIII.

VINCENTIUS OF LERINS.

1, The opinion of Antelmi that Vincentius was the author. 2. Design
of the Commonitorium. 3. Résumé of the work, with notices of parallel
passages. 4. Summary of results. 5. What do we learn from this?
6. Clause 33 not in Vincentius. 7. Still it seems that Augustine and Vin-
centius furnished most of the language. 8. Exhibition of the result.

CHAPTER XIX.

RULES OF FAITH FOUND IN COUNCILS AND SYNODS BETWEEN
451 AND 700.

1. Language of St Augustine unnoticed except by Sophronius. 2. Pro-
fession submitted to Hunneric, a.p. 484. 8, Conference of Constantinople,
a.p. 533. 4. The Fifth General Council of Constantinople, a.p. 553. Justi-
nian’s Ecthesis. 5. Third Synod of Toledo, a.p. 589. 6. Fourth Synod
of Toledo, a.p. 633. 7. Synod of Seville, ἂν. 619. 8. Isidore’s Rule of
Faith. 9. Council of Toledo, a.p. 638. 10. Lateran Council, a.p. 649.
11. Chalons, a.p. 650. 12. Toledo, a.p. 653. 13. Merida, a.p. 666.
14. Autun, a.p. 670 (?). 15. Toledo, a.p. 675. 16. Other Spanish
Councils. 17. Summary of Spanish testimony. 18. Council of Constan-
tinople, a.p. 680. 19. Summary of evidence up to this time.

CHAPTER XxX.

CREEDS AND RULES OF FAITH FOUND IN SYSTEMATIC COLLEC-
TIONS OF CANONS AND CONSTITUTIONS.

1. Quesnel’s Collection and argument. 2. The Exposition against the
Arians. 38. The Faith of Faustinus. 4. ‘‘Fides Romanorum,” attributed
to Athanasius and to Augustine. 5. ‘ Augustini Libellus de Fide Catholica.”’
6. The Creed of Jerome. 7. Other attributed to Augustine. ‘‘Rogo et
ammoneo. Quicunque vult, &c.” 8. St Blaise Collection. Account of
the St Blaise manuscript. 9. The other manuscripts. 10. Paris, 3836.
11. Consideration on the fragment. 12. Comparison with our present text.
13. Probable origin of the legend that Athanasius wrote the Quicunque.
14, Bearing on the Canon of Autun, 15. and on the Commonitory of
Vincentius. 16. Other collections containing the Quicunque. Vat.
Pal. 574. 17. Paris, 1451. 18. Paris, 3848 ΕΞ: 19. Reflections. 20. The

PAGE

206

219

CONTENTS.

‘‘Hadriana.” 21. Vatican Collection. 22. The Herovallian Collection and
Canon of Autun. Appendix. Creeds of Faustinus, Pelagius, &. .

Appenpix I. Expositio fidei catholice atque apostolicw contra
heresim Arianam

Appenprix II. Faustini presbyteri fides missa Theodosio impe-
ratori.

Apprenpix III. Alter libellus fidei.

Appenpix IV. Libellus Augustini de fide catholica contra omnes
heereses

AppENDIx V. Hieronymi Fides

CHAPTER XXII.

PROFESSIONS OFFERED AT CONSECRATION: AND NOTES FROM
LATER SYNODS.

1, Council of Carthage, a.p. 398. 2. Profession of the Roman Pontiff
from the Liber Diurnus. 3. Ordo Romanus. 4. English Professions, 796
to 857. 5. Province of Aquileia, 801. 6. Council of Aix, 802 (according to
Pertz). 7. CreedofLeoIII. 8. Theodulf. 9. Unknown writer. 10.
Council of Arles, 813. 11. Hatto of Basil, about 820. 12. Agobard of
Lyons, 820. 13. Amalarius of Metz. 14. The Bishop Amalarius, 15.
Collections of Ansegius and Benedictus Levita. 16. Council of Worms, 829.
17. Council of Paris, 829. 18. Mayence, 847. 19. Carisiacum, 849. 20.
Walfrid Strabo, 840. 21. Rabanus Maurus, 855. 22. Synod under Louis,
856. 23. Synod of Tours, 858, 24, Council of Rome, 862. 25. Anschar,
Archbishop of Bremen, 865. 26. Walter, Bishop of Orleans, 866. 27,
Council of Worms, 868. 28, Fourth Council of Constantinople, 869. 29,
Aineas of Paris, 868. 30. Ratram of Corbey, 868. 31. Pseudo-Alcuin.
82. Adalbert of Morinum, 871. 33. Willibert of Catalaunum, 871 (9). 84.
Other three. 35. Hincmar’s Capitular. 36. Pope John VIII. (873—882).
Letter to Photius. 37. To Willibert of Cologne. 88, To the Archbishop
of Ravenna. 39. Pope Marinus and Archbishop Fulco of Rheims. 40. Ri-
culfus of Soissons, 889. 41. Regino of Prum, 900. 42. Ratherius of
Verona, 960 or 1009. 48. Pilgrim of Lorsch, 975. 44. Gerbert, 991.
45. Abbo of Fleury, 1001. 46. Gualdo of Corbey. 47. Honorius of Autun.
48. Quicunque in 1147 assigned to Athanasius while at Treves. 49. First
spoken of as Symbolum Fidei about 1171. Not recognized as such by Inno-
cent III. 50. Robertus Paululus, 1178. 51. Usage from 922 onwards.

CHAPTER XXII.

CREEDS CONTAINED IN COLLECTIONS OF SERMONS AND BOOKS
OF DEVOTION, &c.

1. Muratori’s Milan Manuscript. 2. Anglo-Saxon Ritual. 8. Book of
Deer. 4, Royal 2 A. xx. 5. Vienna Manuscript, 1032. 6. Vienna

ΧΙ

PAGE

253

273

273
273

274
275

278

ΧΙ] CONTENTS.

Manuscript, 1261. 7. Vienna Manuscript, 2223. 8. Bobio Manuscript,
Milan, I. 101. sup. 9. Bangor Antiphonary, Milan, C. 5. inf. 10, St
Germain des Prés. 11. Paris, National Library, 4908. 12. Book of Cerne,
Cambridge, Ll.1.10. 18, Usher’s Hymn Book. 14. Hymn Book of Fran-
ciscan Convent, Dublin . : : : :

ἈΡΡΕΝΡΙΧ. Extracts from the Vienna MS. 1261.

CHAPTER XXITI.

GREEK AND LATIN PSALTERS WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN THE
QUICUNQUE.

1. Use of the Psalter. 2. Greek Psalter and Canticles, 3. Greek
Psalters in Latin Letters. i. Paris, 10592. ii. Veronese Psalter. iii. St
Gall, 17. iv. Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 468. v. Ibid. 480. τ].
Paris, Greek 139. vii. Milan, C. 13. inf. viii. Cambridge, Ee. ἵν. 29.
ix. Ibid. Gg. v. 35. x. British Museum, 2 A. 111., and others. xi. Bam-
berg Psalter. xii. Florence, Plut. xvi. Cod. xiii, 4. Latin Psalters. The
various versions, Itala, Roman, Gallican, Hebraic. 5. ° The Canticles of the
Western Church. 6. Latin Psalters which do not contain the Quicunque.
i, Queen Christina’s. ii. Rouen. iii, St Germain des Prés, 100. Paris,
11550. iv. Ibid. 661 or 762. Paris, 11947. v. Stuttgart Biblia, fol. 12.
vi. Ibid. 23. vii. St Gall, 19. viii. St Gall, 22. ix. St John’s College,
Cambridge, C. 9. x. Boulogne, 21. xi. Vespasian A. 1 (Augustine’s
Psalter). xii. Lambeth, 1158. ΧΗ Salzburg, A. v. 24, andiv. ἡ xiv.
Elmham’s Canterbury Psalters, xv., xvi., xvii. Others.

CHAPTER XXIV.

LATIN PSALTERS OF THE NINTH OR TENTH OR ELEVENTH
CENTURY CONTAINING THE QUICUNQUE.

1. Conclusions from previous Chapter. 2. The order of words in clause
27 furnishes a means of classifying the manuscripts. 8. Probable origin of
the difference. 4. Class 1. in which the reading is ‘‘Trinitas in Unitate et
Unitas in Trinitate,’ and a. Psalters in which the 151st Psalm follows close
on Psalm 150. i. Paris, 13159. ii. St Gall, 15. ii. St Gall, 23. iv.
St Gall, 27. v. Douce, 59. vi. Boulogne, 20. vii. C. C. ὁ: ὦ O. 5.
vill. C. C. C.C. N. 10. ix. Arundel, 60. 5. Comparison of the readings
of these manuscripts. 6. I. 8. Psalter of this class which does not contain
the Pusillus eram. St Gall, 20. 7. I. y. Psalter in which the Pusillus
eram is placed at the end of the volume. Claudius C. vu. (the Utrecht
Psalter). 8. Psalter with the order dubious, ‘‘Charles le Chauve,” Paris,
1152. 9. Class II. in which the reading is ‘‘ Unitas in Trinitate et Trinitas
in Unitate.” a. In which the 151st Psalm follows on Psalm 150. 1. Galba
A. xvi. ii, Bamberg. iii. Salisbury. iv. Vitellius KE. xvm1. v. Har-
leian, 2904, vi. Οἱ C. C. C. 391 K. 10. vii. Latin Bibles, British Museum,

PAGE

313
334

337

CONTENTS.

Royal Library, 1 ΕἸ. vit. viii. Venice Bible. 10. II. 8. Psalters without
the Psalm 151. 1. ‘‘Charlemagne,” Venice, 1861. ii. British Museum,
Royal 2 B. v. τι, Cambridge, Ff. 1. 23. 11. Vespasian A. 1, later addi-
tion. 12. Miscellaneous Psalters. 13. Arundel, 155. 14. Eadwine Psalter.
15. Other Psalters. 16. Reflections and surmises. Ἷ : : :

CHAPTER XXYV.
CHARLEMAGNE AND PAULINUS.

1. Condition of the problem about 780. 2. Hadrian’s canons. 3. Coun-
cil of Gentilly, 777. 4. Ignorance of the clergy abroad in this century. 5.
Donation of Constantine. 6. Charlemagne’s labours. 7. Pseudo-Augustine,
8. Second Council of Nicwa, 787. 9. Council of Friuli, 791. i. Paulinus’
letter to Elipandus. ii. His speech in the Council. iii. Other writings.
10. Council of Frankfort, 794. 1. His subsequent letter. ii. Letter of the
Council. 111, Charlemagne’s letter to Elipandus, and his Creed. 11. Sup-
posed canon of 802, and the Missi Dominici, 12. Council of Aix, 809 .

CHAPTER XXVI.
WAS THE QUICUNQUE WRITTEN IN SPAIN?

1. Gieseler’s opinion that the Creed came from Spain. 2. Weakness of
his argument. 3. Etherius and Beatus

CHAPTER XXVII.
WORKS OF ALCUIN.

1. Conditions of the problem. 2. Mr Ffoulkes’ theory. 8. Alcuin’s
letter to Paulinus. 4. Objections to Mr Ffoulkes’ theory. 5. Alcuin proba-
bly referred to the address at Friuli. 6. Alcuin’s influence on Charlemagne.
7. He differs from the Quicunque in one detail, agrees in others. 8. Other
commendations of Paulinus. 9. Letter to the monks of Gotha. 10. Re-
flections. 11. Commentary on St John. 12. Work on the Trinity from
St Augustine. 13. Confession of Alcuin’s Faith. 14. Other works: quo-
tations from St Athanasius. 15. Alcuin’s character cleared. : : :

CHAPTER XXVIII.
HINCMAR.

1. Questions still remaining to be answered. 2. The Freedom of the
Will. 3. Godeschalk. 4. Waterland’s references to Hincmar. 5. Hince-
mar ‘‘De Preedestinatione,” and the ‘“‘Symbolum Athanasii.” 6. Godeschalk
on the Trine Deity. 7. Hincmar’s reply. 8. Clauses of the Quicunque
quoted by Hincmar. 9. The ‘‘Fereulum Salomonis” . : Η °

PAGE

349

382

399

402

414

X1V CONTENTS.

CHAPTER XXIX.

THE EXPOSITION IN “JUNIUS 25.”

1. Muratori and the Ambrosian codex M. 79 sup. Description of the
manuscript and its contents. 2. Description of the Bodleian manuscript
Junius 25, and its contents. 3. Zaccaria’s copy at Florence. 4. Manuscript
at Vienna. 5. The Milan title cannot mean that the Quicunque was written
by Fortunatus. 6. The Exposition apparently a running commentary.
7. The clauses explained. 8, Difficulty of regarding the Exposition as a
collection of notes. 9. Who was the author? 10. Venantius cannot be the
author of the one copy assigned to him. 11. Examination of the Exposition.
12. Results as tothe Ambrosian copy. 13. Results as to the other version.
14. Excursus on the sixth millennium A ὶ :

Appendix. Tur Exposition.

CHAPTER XXX.

REVIEW OF EVIDENCE.

1. Literary frauds of the ninth century. 2. Earliest appearances of
clauses now in the Quicunque. 3. ‘‘The Discourse of Athanasius on the
Faith which commences Quicunque vult.”” 4. Whence did the quotations of
Ratram and Aineas come? 5. Guesses at Truth. 6. Hypothesis of the
Author : : : : : ; : : :

EXcURSUS ON THE DATE OF THE UTRECHT PSALTER AND THE TE DEUM

CHAPTER XXXI.
EXPOSITIONS OF THE QUICUNQUE.

Introduction. 1,2. Vienna 701. 3. Regius2B.v. 4. St Bernard of
Clairvaux. 5. Three in ‘‘Milan M. 79.” 6. Munich17181. 7. Bruno.
8. Munich 12715. 9. Notes from St Gall 27. 10. Treves manuscripts.
11. Bodleian 1205. 12. Cambridge Kk.1v.4. 13. Turin. 14. Rom. Vat.
Alex. 231. 15. Abelard. 16. Hildegarde. 17. Simon of Tournay. 18.
Alexander Neckham. 19. Alexander Hales. 20. Hampole. 21. Wick-
liff, 22. Comparison with Expositions of the Apostles’ Creed

CHAPTER XXXII.
GREEK VERSIONS OF THE QUICUNQUE.

1. Greek Creed. 2. Was there any Greek copy in 850? 3. Nicolas of
Otranto, 1200. 4. Gregory IX. 1232. 5. Questions at the time of the Refor-
mation. Lazarus Baiff. 6. Other copies. Felckmann’s Text. 7. Codex Regius,
2502. 8. Venice,575. 9. Usher’s copy. 10. Copy in the Venetian Horology.
11. Florence copy. 12. Copies like this, Cephaleus, Baiff, ae Stephens,
Wechel. 13. Collation of texts. δ Ξ : : . :

Excursus oN KimMeu’s CoLLEcTION OF DocCUMENTS, AND ON THE
GREEK HoroLocgium Magnum : . ;

PAGE

423
436

443
449

CONTENTS. XV

CHAPTER XXXIII.

PAGE
GERMAN, FRENCH, AND ENGLISH VERSIONS.

1. Other Versions. 2. German. 3. French. 4. Anglo-Saxon. 5. Wic-
liffe’s. 6. Creed inthe Primers, 7. Translation of 1549. 8, Clearly from
the Greek. 9. Subsequent changes. 10. Welsh Version. 11. Italian.
12. Dutch. 13. Bohemian . : : : : : : : 2 . 481

CHAPTER XXXIV.

NOTES FROM THE YEAR 1200 TO THE REFORMATION.

1, Walter of Cantilupe. 2. Thomas Aquinas. 3. Walter of Durham.
4, Friar John Peckham. 5. Synod of Exeter. 6. Other of Waterland’s
authorities. 7. Visitation of the Sick in the Sarum Manual. 8. Lyndwood’s
Provinciale : ; : : : : : : : ν ; ; . 499

CHAPTER XXX Vv.
ERA OF THE REFORMATION.

1. Greek writers repudiate the Creed. 2. Has the Roman Church ever
formally accepted it? Canon of Lobowitz. 8, Reformed Churches. i. Zuin-
glius. ii, Augsburg. iii, Saxon. iv. French. vy. Belgic. vi. Heidelberg.

vii. Bohemian. viii. Helvetic, 1566. 4. Luther and Calvin. 5. Church of
England: i. in 1536. ii. in 1552. iii. Reformatio Legum . ᾿ : , 607

CHAPTER XXXVI.
RECENT NOTICES OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED.

1. Cosin. 2. Synod of 1640 and Wren. 3. Chillingworth. 4. Jeremy
Taylor. 5. Savoy Conference and Baxter. 6. Commission of 1689.
7. Wheatly. 8. The last few years. 9. Final Reflections. : ° . 514

AppENDIX: Text of the Quicunque, CoLuations or Manuscripts : . 530

Facsimile. MS. Ambrosian Library, Milan. O. 212. sup. Folio. 14
(Muratori’s copy of the Quicunque). . : : : To face 534

INDEX , : : : ; ᾿ : : : : : A : Feta ts 3)

i
ok

4
2 Υ:
4

THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH.

INTRODUCTORY.

$1. Interest of the subject. § 2. Recent neglect. § 3. Obligations to Dr
Heurtley. §4. Dr Caspari and M. Nicolas,

§ 1. THERE are few subjects which deserve the careful and
thoughtful consideration of the Christian student more than the
origin and growth of the Creeds of the Christian Church; the
history of their formation; the principles which shaped their
development. These subjects are of course intimately connected
with the history of those other confessions with which different
parts of the Church have marked out some guiding lines for the
teachers of their own communions; but (speaking generally) these
latter confessions belong to recent periods of the Church’s history,
whilst, what we call the CREEDS OF THE CHURCH, belong to the
earlier developments of the Church’s teaching. Again: these
Creeds of the Church may be regarded as having gained the
adherence of Christians of almost all nations and all denominations
—they are almost Catholic or universal in their character—whilst
the other confessions to which I have referred, can be regarded only

as national in their origin; indeed, in some instances, as limited

in their reception. Thus the national or local Churches of England,
of Scotland, and of Ireland, of Geneva and of Zurich, of the Pala-
tinate and of Poland, of Augsburg and of Holland, have put forth
at different but recent times each its Articles, its Confession, or
its Catechism. So of the Church of Rome at the Council of Trent,
and since; whilst no national Church has repudiated what we call
the CREED OF THE APOSTLES; the NICENE or CONSTANTINOPOLI-
TAN CREED is accepted, with two variations, over almost the whole
of Christendom: and the teaching on the Trinity and the Incarna-
5, C. 1

2 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH.

tion contained and enforced in what is called the ATHANASIAN
CREED is, with even less variation, maintained by the great body
of Christians throughout the world.

§ 2. But the origin and growth of these documents, their
relations to each other and to other formulz,—which were origi-
nally of a similar character, but have given way to the predomi-
nating influence of these three,—have not met with the special
attention of historians and students until comparatively recent
times. If any one will take the trouble to look at the discourse of
the learned Bishop Beveridge on the “Thirty-nine Articles of the
Church of England,” he will find that, although the great Bishop
gives a short history of the growth of the so-called Nicene Creed,
he gives no hint to his reader that the Creeds of the Apostles and
of St Athanasius ever existed except in the forms which, to us,
are so familiar. Dr Hey again is content with stating in regard
to the Apostles’ Creed hab it is sometimes “called the Roman
Creed beeause used in the Roman Church; yet several clauses
have been added at unknown times, and by unknown persons. On
these Bishop Pearson and Lord King may be consulted; and
different forms may be seen in Bingham, and Usher, and Wall on
Baptism.” He adds that it is not credible that each Apostle
contributed his clause, “seeing that the two passages ‘the holy
Catholie Church’ and ‘the Communion of Saints’ were not in the
Creed till some eenturies after the age of the Apostles’, = ΑΗ
here he leaves this subject. On the Nicene Creed he is content
' with repeating the usual account of its being “made” at Nicza,
whilst the latter clauses were added at Constantinople. He
mentions however* Archbishop Usher's opinion (as he understood)
“that the whole of our Nicene Creed was known at Nice in 325, al-
though no more was published than what relates to Arius.’ —Coming
down to later works, the Exposition of the 39 Articles by the
present Bishop of Winchester (published originally about 1852)
shews how little interest had been raised on the subject even at
that time. Dr Harold Browne remarked that “many confessions
of faith are to be found, nearly corresponding with the Creeds
which we now possess, in the writings of the earliest Fathers,”
and referred in his notes to Wall and Bingham®. On alater page‘

1 Dr Hey, Lectures, Book tv. ch. viii. 3 2nd edition, 1854, p. 212.
§ 3. Ἢ: 20
ΣΟΥ. δ 5

INTRODUCTORY. 3

the Bishop gave a translation of the Apostles’ Creed in Greek, of
the 15th century, as being the Creed in its “original language.”
Again, he thought* with Usher that possibly “shortly after the
Council of Nice, the Nicene Fathers, or some of them, or others
who had high authority, enlarged and amplified the Nicene
symbol, and that this enlarged form obtained extensively in the
Church”—a suggestion which, although not quite accurate (as we
shall see), is well deserving of respectful consideration. Bishop
Forbes, of Brechin, in his Explanation of the Thirty-nine
Articles, published in 1867, remarks’: “As to the Eastern or
Nicene Creed, we see how the faith against the perversions of
heretics, flexibly adapting itself to meet the exigencies of the
Church in maintenance of it, was expanded into that of Constan-
tinople: the anathematisms having been dropped, and certain
additions made, which by some were said to be due to St Gregory
Nazianzen, by others to St Gregory of Nyssa, but which embodied
in great measure expressions of ancient Creeds.’’ On the growth
of the Apostles’ Creed Bishop Forbes is silent. Indeed so far as
our modern theology goes, I believe that an obscure note appended
to what is called the “Oxford Translation” of Tertullian furnished
for many years the only results of English investigations on the
subject. This note, published in 1842, was intended to shew® that
“we know not in which form and precise words the Creed was
verbally delivered by the Apostles; but the very variations, amid
the general agreement, the more establish that the substance and
general form and outline is Apostolic:” the writer assuming that
the Apostles delivered “a large traditionary Creed which the Church
had everywhere, but did not at once embody*:” “the Nicene Creed
(he adds) itself closes with the words, ‘I believe in the Holy Ghost,’
not certainly as not having the other articles, but the fathers of
the Nicene Council, having for their object to oppose heresy as to
the Son only, stop short with the words which complete the con-
fession of the Trinity®.” Ona later page® the direct assertion of
St Jerome that “after the confession of the Trinity and the Unity of
the Church, the whole mystery of Christian doctrine is concluded
in the Resurrection of the Flesh”—an assertion which is most
true of the Creed of Africa as repeatedly expounded by St Augus-

1 p, 218. 4 Ibid. p. 481, ΄
2 Vol. 1. p. 126. 5 Ibid.

3 Tertullian, Oxfordtranslation,p.480. 6 Ibid. p. 485.

4 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH.

tine,—and the direct statement of Ruffinus’ that the article He
descended into hell was “wanting in the Roman and Oriental
Creeds,” are supplemented by the remark that “the substance and
order being, according to the statement of Ruffinus, arranged by
the Apostles before their separation, the words would yet naturally
be varied as they passed into different languages*.’—This whole
account is extremely unsatisfactory.

§ 3. Thus the first English divine, who of late years has
grappled with the subject, is the Reverend Dr Heurtley, Margaret
Professor of Divinity at Oxford and Canon of Christ Church. In
the year 1858 he published, under the title of HARMoNIA Sym-
BOLICA, a collection of the more important Creeds which have
come down to us as belonging to branches of the ancient Western
Church. The plan of Dr Heurtley’s work was to exhibit these
Creeds in chronological order, in such a manner as would shew
most readily their variations from the now received form; and,
simultaneously, to note the particular date at which any of the
phrases, now well-known to us, appeared for the first time in any of
these ancient documents. The work concluded with an historical
review of the several articles of the Creed. As containing an
accurate collection of evidence, such as may lead others to true
conceptions of the subject, the work is of great value, and thus
contrasts favourably with the obscure and elaborate attempt to
defend an untenable position, which is the great characteristic of
the note on Tertullian. The theory of the writer of that note was
that the early or Apostolic Church received explicitly from the
Apostles the full Rule of Faith as we find it current in later
centuries, and that the object of the successive Councils was merely
to renew and revive what was believed explicitly at the first
but had from one cause or another been since overlooked: thus the
writer taught that “The very silence about the Creed from which
its non-existence has been inferred (Voss. Déssert. 1. § 28), the
rather proves that what did exist so early, always existed, and so

1 Ibid. Ὁ. 487.

faith: probably on the principle enun-
2 Dr Pusey in the notes to his sermon

ciated in p. 487 of this same note on

preached at Oxford on Advent Sunday,
1872, stated that Eusebius suppressed
for a time the word ὁμοούσιον from the
Creed. This is a heavy charge; but, as
we shall see, it is entirely without foun-
dation. It is brought, I believe, in good

Tertullian. ‘‘The doctrine, of course,
was known to the Ancient Church, else it
could not have been admitted at all into
the Creed.” But the admission is one
thing : the suppression is another,

INTRODUCTORY.. τ Ὁ

there was no occasion to notice what was known to all, as that
confession, upon which themselves had been made members of
Christ’.” And this is supposed to be argument. With regard
however to Dr Heurtley’s work, it is satisfactory to notice that its
value as furnishing authoritative documents has been recognised
abroad as well as in England.

§ 4. The divine who, of late years, has paid most attention
to the subject of Creeds on the Continent, is undoubtedly Dr C. P.
Caspari, Professor of Theology in the University of Norway; in
his “University Programmes” on the Baptismal Creed and the
Rule of Faith’, he frequently refers to the work of Dr Heurtley.
M. Nicolas also, in his historical essay on the Apostles’ Creed,
published at Paris in 1867, has availed himself freely of Dr Heurt-
ley’s collections. No doubt the volume may be supplemented, ere
long, by other series; for Dr Caspari has devoted many succes-
sive summers to research in the great libraries in England and
throughout the Continent. In the mean time I gladly express my
acknowledgments to Dr Heurtley’s work, which supplied a great
want and has awakened the desire for further research. It
will be seen below that I have discovered a few additional memo-
randa on this subject. One object of the present volume is to
attempt to perform for the Athanasian Creed a work similar to
that which Dr Heurtley has accomplished for the Apostles’ Creed.
But it will be necessary for the fulfilment of my purpose to trace
the history of earlier documents bearing on the subject before me;
and, throughout, to give my readers the opportunity of testing any
theories I may suggest, by the evidence which I shall adduce. I
shall endeavour to be on my guard against representing in any
degree unfairly or untruthfully the testimony which has come in
my way:—attempts of this kind always recoil on the person or
party that makes them:—and surely those can have learnt
little from the history of the past who have not observed that
“Lying even for God” meets with His strongest reprobation. The

1 Tertullian, as above, p. 481.

2 Ungedruckte, unbeachtete und wenig
beachtete Quellen zur Geschichte des
Taufsymbols und der Glaubens-Regel,
herausgegeben und in Abhandlungen er-
lautert von Dr C. P. Caspari, &¢., &c.
Universitats-Programm. Christiania, 1.

1866, 11. 1869.

3 Le Symbole des Apétres, Essai his-
torique par Michel Nicolas. Paris,
Michel Lévy, Fréres, 1867. This was
reviewed elaborately in the Revue de
Théologie, Strasburg, vol. v1. June, 1868.

6 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH.

suppression of evidence, or still more, the falsification of evidence,
on the part of upholders of any particular opinion or dogma, is one
of the plainest proofs that the parties guilty of it have little faith
in the truth of their opinion, little faith in the moral government
of God. And such conduct always gives courage to the opposite
side. I regret that I shall be compelled, in the course of this inves-
tigation, to draw attention to a few lamentable instances of, such
suppression and falsification in recent discussions or publications,

CEAPIER

DISTINCTION BETWEEN A CREED AND A RULE
OF FAITH.

§ 1. Rules of Faith and Creeds. § 2. Nomenclature of Scientific Theology. § 3.
Various names applied to compendia of the Faith. §4. Distinction between
a Creed and a Rule of Faith established from St Isidore.

§ 1. THE words which I quoted in my introductory chapter
from the title page of Dr Caspari’s “ University Programmes”
point to a distinction between Rules of Faith and Baptismal
Creeds, which has not received among us the attention which it
deserves. In the earliest study of any new Science the nomen-
clature is of necessity unfixed: the names employed are not at
once appropriated for the purposes to which they are ultimately
limited. Moreover, at early periods of investigation objects are
frequently classified with an imperfect knowledge; so that further
enquiry demonstrates that this suggested classification is erroneous.
So has it been in the history of the Christian Church, and in the
Science of Religion’. Words are imported into religious use
without a distinct apprehension of the mode in which the use of
these words ought to be limited: expressions, etymologically
almost identical in meaning, are in process of time appropriated

1 The fact that Religion is a Science
is very often overlooked; and one conse-
quence is that we hear far too frequently
of the opposition between Science and
Theology. But Theology is a Science:
in the common consent of all intelligent
believers, it has been made into one,
Like Geology and Astronomy and His-
tory and Moral Philosophy (Mental Sci-
ence) it has its peculiar region of facts
and phenomena, its peculiar data, its
own principles: but it is a serious mis-
take on the part of its advocates to con-
ceive and represent that the laws which
are to govern our investigations regarding
it, are of a character totally different

from those which govern our investiga-
tions into other sciences. It must be
recognised that this is a mistake before
we can hope to draw generally the in-
telligence of mankind or even devote
ourselves in the spirit of St Paul to the
study of Christianity. Of course I know
that there is much of ψευδώνυμος γνῶσις
in many of the so-called scientific men
of the day—as there is in many of the
so-called theologians: and I am not sur-
prised that the’ chief attacks on the
false knowledge of the one party pro-
ceed from those who pride themselves
most on what is really a false knowledge
in regard to the other series of subjects.

8 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

to distinct objects; and, if in future years these words and ex-
pressions are used or quoted without the history of their appli-
cation being remembered, a great amount of confusion and mis-
apprehension will be the necessary consequence.

§ 2. Instances of these alterations in the application of scien-
tific terms will readily occur to every student. In the history of
Christianity we have the well-known fact, that whereas in the
New Testament the words episcopi and presbytert are applied
(the one primarily in Greek communions, the other, amongst
converts from Judaism) to the second order of the Christian
Ministry, before many years were over, it was found convenient
to alter the usage, and appropriate the former to the members
of the higher office, to those who fulfilled duties such as were
assigned to Titus and Timotheus, and the latter to those over
whom officers like Titus and Timotheus were directed to take
charge. Thus, again, the classical word Liturgia was seized
by the Alexandrian Jews; and, after being applied by Christian
writers (as it had been in the Septuagint) to all portions of the
Christian service, including herein even personal attendance on
the Apostles (Philip. 11. 30), and the peculiar work of the Bishop
(Eusebius, History, Iv. 1)—its use was ultimately limited to the
special service accompanying the celebration of the Eucharist. So
the word Deacons, originally equivalent to Servants, became (almost
like the Latin Ministers) appropriated to an order in the Church.
And thus the various titles by which documents such as our
CREEDS have been designated, have had their wider and their
narrower applications ; and it will be impossible to have a clear
conception of the various modes in which these titles have been
used, without devoting some little time to their history.

§ 3. If we look to the various names by which our Creeds
have been designated’, we shall find adduced from Greek writers
the following expressions: the rule of the old faith, the rule of the
truth, the apostolic preaching, the evangelic and apostolic tradition,
the faith, the holy and apostolic faith which has been delivered
to us, the symbol, the instruction, and so on. Many of these ex-
pressions occur also in their Latin equivalents. But the question
eccurs, Were all the documents to which the above titles were

1 See Index to Hahn: or Mr Lumby, p. 2.

i THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. : 9

applied, of the same character? And if not, are we able to draw
any distinction between these documents, so as to fix the meaning
of the titles by which they were designated? Are we able to
define them closer ?

§ 4. On a subject of this kind, it is desirable to refer, where
possible, to early sources of information, and, in the present
instance, I shall appeal to a very interesting treatise written by
Isidore, archbishop of Seville in the 7th century’, Among the
genuine writings of this prelate are two books on the Divine
Offices, which are usually printed in collections of treatises on the
Liturgies ; and in the 22nd and 23rd chapters of his second book
we find the writer treating of the Symbol and of the Rule of
Faith. On the Symbol Isidore gives the tradition current in his
time, namely, that the Apostles, before they parted, threw together
into one, each his own contribution; and this, their joint pro-
duction, became in process of time a symbolum or watchword?
by the use of which the faithful might be distinguished from the
world at large: because this watchword was never made known
in its entirety beyond the circle of the Church; “it was to be
retained in the memory, and not to be committed to writing.”
It was short, “because the prophet had of old predicted, α short-
ened word will the Lord make upon the earth. But (St Isidore
proceeds) this, after the symbol of the Apostles, is the most certain
faith, which our teachers have handed down; that we profess that
the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are of one essence... and
that we hold such and such truths relating to the Incarnate Son
of God, and that God is supremely and immutably good, whilst the
creature is in an inferior degree and mutably good; that legitimate
marriages are permissible in the Church, and baptism is not to be
reiterated, and that we look to a future resurrection, and that
Satan and his angels and followers shall suffer eternal condem-
nation, and shall not be restored (as some sacrilegiously have held)
to their pristine, that is, the angelic condition. This (concludes
the chapter of which I have given a very short account) is the
true entirety of the Catholic religion and faith, of which, if one
tittle is rejected, the whole belief of the faith is lost.”

I shall have occasion to refer to this chapter again, but I have

1 He died a.p. 636. 2 He recognises this meaning.

10 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [π᾿ Ἢ

adduced it now to shew that early in the seventh century, a
distinction was made between the Symbol and a Lule of Haith.
If this distinction had been observed by the author of the note on
Tertullian to which I have referred above, it would perhaps have
helped him to attain clearer views of the Creeds of the early
Church. With the assistance of the light which it pours forth,
I will now pass on to the consideration of my subject.

CHAPTER IL.

EARLIEST CREEDS.

§ 1. Difference between a Creed of the Church and a Baptismal Profession. ὃ 2.
The teaching of the Church essentially dogmatic. (Leibnitz.) ὃ 3. The
Faith once delivered to the Saints. ὃ 4. Need of brief summaries: some of
the earliest of such summaries. §5. The sufficiency of Scripture.

§ 1. Ir I may make a further appeal to the customs of the
Church of the West in the seventh and eighth centuries, I must
add to the remarks of my previous chapter that these customs
lead us to draw a further distinction between the faith as de-
livered to the candidate for baptism, 7.e. the Creed of the Church,
and the profession of faith made by the candidate before he
was baptized. We have, at all events in Germany and France,
during the earlier years of Charlemagne, distinct intimations that
the candidate, in reply to the enquiry of the minister, did not
recite the whole Creed, nor answer, as we do now in England, to a
question comprehending the Creed in its entirety. Bearing this
in mind, we may enter on the subject of Baptismal Confessions.

§ 2. Leibnitz, in the preface to his Essais de Théodicée,
remarks with truth, that the nations which filled the earth
before the establishment of Christianity had ceremonies of de-
votion, sacrifices, libations, and priesthood, but they had no arti-
cles of faith, no dogmatic theology. They were never taught
whether the objects of their adoration were true personal beings,
or merely personifications of the wondrous powers of nature:
even their mysteries consisted only in the performance of certain
rites and practices, and were not accompanied by the delivery and
acceptance of any dogma. With the people of Israel it was
different. They had a distinct creed, the fundamental articles
of which were these: that JEHOVAH their GoD is one JEHOVAH;

12 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

that He it is who made heaven and earth and all things therein
contained ; that the laws which governed their nation came from
Him; that He would protect the nation if it obeyed these laws,
and would punish it if it neglected them. “From this clear and
definite teaching as to the Being and Nature of God, the duty of
serving Him and Him only with all their heart and mind, and in
the way which He appointed, necessarily followed.” “Christianity
has inherited this peculiarity of the Jewish nation.”’ It has a clear
and definite teaching. More clearly than any of the Jewish
Rabbis had done, more clearly than even Moses or David or
any of the prophets, did Jesus our Saviour and our Teacher hold
up to His followers our Father in heaven as our Example, our
Guide and our Strength. In truth it may be said that He
revealed God as our Father, so little had this truth been appre-
ciated before. In addition to this fundamental doctrine, Jesus
declared that He had Himself come down from heaven to fulfil
His Father's will, to give His soul a ransom for many: and to
those who believed on Him He repeatedly gave the premise that
He would raise them up on the last day. He promised more-
over that after He had left them He would send them another
Comforter who should abide with them for ever; and, after He
had gone, we read that this Comforter came, and that under His
guidance and by His strength, the early disciples journeyed here
and there, teaching men to turn from the vanities which they
worshipped to serve the Living and True God: they spoke not
only of the duties of temperance and righteousness and love to
others and restraint of self, but they spoke also of a coming
judgment: they insisted on the necessity of repentance towards
God, and of faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ: they proclaimed
that, in some mysterious way, Christ Jesus our Lord had died for
our sins according to the Scriptures of old: they insisted in teach-
ing that He had been raised again from the dead: they said that
men must believe this and must confess it, if they would be
saved, “for with the heart men believe unto righteousness, and
with the tongue they confess unto salvation:” and what the
Apostles taught they charged their followers to commit to faith-
ful men, that they might be able to teach others also.

§ 8. Thus, undoubtedly, there was A FAITH ONCE DELIVERED
TO THE SAINTS: and the substance of this faith, either as delivered

1. | EARLIEST CREEDS. 13

to him or as passed on by him, St Paul calls a deposit’, a “thing
committed to him.” Thus again he regarded his office as a
Stewardship, describing himself as “a steward of God’s myste-
ries’.” So St Peter described the essence of his teaching as “the
truth, the present truth,’ partly, no doubt, in contrast with the
“cunningly devised myths*,” by which it was surrounded. It is
needless to accumulate passages wherein similar intimations are

conveyed to us.

§ 4. But the teaching of the Apostles was so extensive and
covered so large a space, containing not only what they them-
selves called ‘milk for the newly born babes in Christ,” but also
“meat”’ for those who had taken advantage of their early privi-
leges and had grown on towards the Christian manhood, that at
a very early period it was found necessary to collect together
statements regarding some of the chief facts which were either
revealed or substantiated by Christ, and to represent them as
essential parts of the teaching of the Church, the fundamental
doctrines of Christianity, “the things which are most surely
believed among us.” In our Saviour’s life-time the Confession
of Nathanael, “Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of
Israel,’ had drawn forth a commendation of his belief. When
the Apostle Peter avowed, “ Thou art the Christ, the Son of the
living God,” he was told that this inference, which he had drawn
from all he had seen and heard, was in the highest degree a
revelation, a drawing away of the veil, by the Father in heaven.
A similar expression of belief was drawn out at another time,
“Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast words of eternal life:
and we have believed and known that Thou art the Holy One
of God‘.” After the ascension, the chief doctrine taught to the
Jews was, that “Jesus 15 the Christ:” and, although the account
in Acts vill. 37, that the eunuch of Candace expressed, in answer
to Philip’s question, his belief that “Jesus Christ is the Son of
God,” is now considered to be an interpolation—though an inter-
polation of a very early date—there is nothing improbable in the
conception that some such confession was made. When the gaoler

1 παραθήκη or παρακαταθήκη. The iv. 1; Titusi. 7.

MSS. vary. 1 Tim. vi. 20; 2 Tim, i. 8.2 Pet. 1. 12,

12, 14. 4 Such seems to be the true reading
5.1 Cot, ix, αν Eph: iii...25 1..Cor.- © m-john vi. 69.

ἘΣ THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

at Philippi rushed in to St Paul with the cry, “What must I do
that I may be saved?” the Apostle, carrying the man’s desire for
temporal safety upward into another and different sphere of life,
replied, “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou
and thy house.” These instances furnish short baptismal Creeds—
for doubtless the belief was expressed before the baptism was
administered.—I would refer again to Rom. x.9: “If thou con-
fess with thy mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in thine
heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”—
And other summaries of Apostolic teaching have been observed
elsewhere. Let us look to 1 Cor. xv., “I delivered unto you
among the first things, that Christ died for our sins,” &c.; to
1 Tim. 111. 16, “Great is the mystery of religion: who was mani-
fested in the flesh,” &c.; to 1 John iv. 2, “Every spirit that con-
fesseth that Jesus has come in the flesh is of God.” Whilst the
distinction between the elements of Christian faith and the fulness
of Christian knowledge is the foundation of the remark of the
writer to the Hebrews, vi. 2°. Indeed it has been suggested with
great probability’ that the true meaning of the direction of St
Paul to Timothy (2nd Ep. 1. 13), is this, “ Have a sketch or outline
of the healing words which thou hast heard from me, in faith
and love in Christ Jesus.’ Nor should we pass over, without a
thought, the words addressed to the angel of the Church of
Pergamos (Rev. ii. 13), “Thou didst not deny my faith;” words
which clearly intimate that there was a Faith which might have
been orally denied, to the dishonour of the Saviour and to the
peril of men’s souls.

§ 5. I shall not attempt to collect at present any of the con-
tents of these more general teachings or outlines, as they are
gradually disclosed to us in the remains of early Church writers.
But I will anticipate what I may have to say hereafter by transfer-
ring bodily to my pages some important words uttered by one who,
of all our English divines of the last half century, combined perhaps
in the highest degree a knowledge of the past with a thoughtful-
ness for the present. In the first of his invaluable sermons on
the “Temptation of Christ our Lord in the Wilderness,” preached
before the University of Cambridge in Lent 1844, the late

1 “*Teaving the word of the beginning 2 See Mr Wratislaw’s valuable disser-
of Christ let us pass on,”’ &e. tation. Bell and Daldy, 1863.

A EARLIEST CREEDS. 15

Dr Mill declared as the result of his own convictions “that while
it is certainly true that it was not by Scripture that these Chris-
tian truths ”—relating to the mystery of the Incarnation, and the
Holy Trinity—* were delivered to the Churches by the Apostles ;
nor are they ordinarily thus learnt, in the first instance, by any;
yet in that sole inspired record, of which the Church was the
early recipient and constant guardian, it is her belief and affir-
mation that the whole body of life-giving doctrines is essentially
contained; that the Spirit of God has provided that no saving
truth should be there wanting. And, however some important
accessory facts may have been left to be proved altogether from
minor ecclesiastical sources (such as the determination of the
Canon of Scripture itself, the Apostolic observance of Sunday as
the Lord’s day, that of the Christian Pasch and Pentecost, &c.),
yet with matters of doctrine properly so-called, this has never
been the case: whatever, claiming to be such, an integral part
of the faith once delivered to the saints, cannot be proved by
sure warranty of the Christian Scriptures, is by that circumstance -
alone convicted of novelty and error’.’ We shall have the means
of testing this dictum of Dr Mill’s with reference to the contents
of early rules of faith, as we proceed.

At present our concern is with the earliest forms of the
baptismal confession, by which it will be seen that I mean dis-
tinctly the confession made by the candidate before his baptism.

1 Page 17 of the edition of 1844: p. 16 of the recent reprint.

CHAPTER III.

BAPTISMAL PROFESSIONS.

§ 1. St Cyril of Jerusalem on the Creed of the Church and the Teaching of the
Church. The latter resembles our Thirty-nine Articles. § 2. The Personal
Profession much shorter than either. § 3. Thus there were three forms
embodying the Faith. §4. Other short personal Professions. §5. The
Baptismal Professions of Ireneus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, &c. ἃ 6.
Old German Professions. §7. That of the Gelasian Sacramentary. ἃ 8.
Before the Reformation the Apostles’ Creed not used at full length at Baptism.
89. Peculiar German usage of questions regarding the Trinity.

§ 1. Tue fullest account which we have of the preparations
made for Baptism in any Church during the first four centuries,
is to be found in the Catechetical Lectures* of St Cyril of Jerusalem.
These lectures are believed to have been delivered before Cyril
was Bishop, and are assigned to the year 347 or 348. The
Lectures, VI. to XVIII, contain an Exposition of the Faith,
addressed to those who hoped to be baptized on the ensuing
Easter Eve, the Faith thus expounded and explained having been
recited in the course of Lecture v., with a strict injunction, how-
ever, that no one was to write it on paper; all ought to have
it engraved by memory upon their hearts. Thus the Creed of
the Church of Jerusalem is not given at length in the manu-
scripts, and it is only by a careful collection of the passages
explained that we are able to put it together. The result will
be found below. Of this faith the very phrases were to be learnt
by heart—it was to be to the Christian layman an ἐφόδιον, a
viaticum to accompany him on his journey through life; it was
to serve him as a mean to test the teaching even of Cyril
himself in future times, or of any other bishop that might follow

1 A critical edition of these Lectures for the Oxford Library of the Fathers
has been published at Munich. The by Mr Church, the present Dean of St
first volume appeared in 1848 edited by Paul’s, and published in 1839 with a
Dr William Charles Reischl: the second characteristic preface from the pen of
in 1870 edited by Joseph Rupp. Atrans- Mr Newman.
lation from an older edition was made

BAPTISMAL PROFESSIONS. 7

CH. IT. |

him; for (as Cyril taught) it “enfolded in its bosom, in few
words, all the knowledge of religion which was contained
in the Old and New Testament :’’—“the most seasonable things
being collected together out of every Scripture complete in one
the teaching of the Faith’’ But over and above this Faith or
Creed, Cyril gave his hearers in another and far more expanded
form, a summary of necessary dogmas: delivering, under sixteen
heads, first, truths relating to God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit,
the Soul and the Body of Man; and then, adding instruction as to
chastity and marriage, as to meats and apparel, as to the Holy
Laver and the Divine Scriptures, as to sorcery and Judaism.
These instructions however were not to be committed to memory ;
but of course they who had heard them before, would be bene-

fitted by hearing them again’.

§ 2. But when we come to the profession of his own personal
faith which was made at Jerusalem by the candidate for Baptism,

1 T pick out these phrases from Lec-
ture v. ὃ xii.: it is not necessary to fill
up the outline. πίστιν δὲ ἐν μαθήσει καὶ
ἀπαγγελίᾳ κτῆσαι καὶ τήρησον μόνην, τὴν
ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας νυνί σοι παραδιδομένην,
τὴν ἐκ πάσης γραφῆς ὠχυρωμένην. ἐπειδὴ
γὰρ οὐ πάντες δύνανται τὰς γραφὰς ἀνα-
γινώσκειν....... ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ τὴν ψυχὴν ἐξ
ἀμαθίας ἀπολέσθαι, ἐν ὀλίγοις τοῖς στίχοις
τὸ πᾶν δόγμα τῆς πίστεως περιλαμβάνομεν.
ὅπερ καὶ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς λέξεως μνημονεῦσαι
ὑμᾶς βούλομαι....... ἔχειν δὲ ταύτην ἐφόδιον
ἐν παντὶ τῷ χρόνῳ τῆς ζωῆς καὶ παρὰ ταύ-
τὴν ἄλλην μηκέτι δέξασθαι...... καὶ τέως
μὲν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς λέξεως ἀκούων μνημό-
vevoov τῆς πίστεως, ἐκδέχου δὲ κατὰ τὸν
δέοντα καιρὸν τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν θείων γραφῶν
περὶ ἑκάστου τῶν ἐγκειμένων σύστασιν. Οὐ
yap ὡς ἔδοξεν ἀνθρώποις συνετέθη τὰ τῆς
πίστεως" ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ πάσης γραφῆς τὰ καιριώ-
Tara συλλεχθέντα, μίαν ἀναπληροῖ τὴν τῆς
πίστεως διδασκαλίαν. καὶ ὅνπερ τρόπον ὁ
τοῦ σινάπεως σπόρος-ς...... οὕτω καὶ ἡ πίστις
αὕτη ἐν ὀλίγοις ῥήμασι, πᾶσαν τὴν ἐν τῇ
παλαιᾷ καὶ καινῇ τῆς εὐσεβείας γνῶσιν ἐγ-
κεκόλπισται.

In several clauses of this passage, I
think I can trace marks of objections to
the Faith as recently promulgated by the
Council of Nicwa. Thus Cyril claims
for the Faith which he delivers the cha-
racteristic of antiquity: it, at all events,
was not put together according to the
fancies of men, but ‘‘every word could

S. Ci

be upheld by Scripture;” ‘‘his people
were not to permit a phrase to be al-
tered.” Any one familiar with the Atha-
nasian anxieties will notice allusions—
they may be slight, they may. be ‘‘ inno-
cent allusions’’—to those anxieties. We
may also remark that Cyril claims that
every thing in the ‘‘ Faith’? was drawn
from Scripture.

2 Lecture iv. ὃ ili. πρὸ δὲ τῆς els τὴν
πίστιν παραδόσεως (not, as the “ Oxford
translation,’’ Before making this tradi-
tion of the Faith: for the words illustrate
very beautifully Rom. vi. 17, ὑπηκούσατε
δὲ ἐκ καρδίας els ὃν παρεδόθητε τύπον διδα-
χῆς. The thought is that ‘‘they were de-
livered over to the Faith” rather than
that ‘‘the Faith was delivered over to
them.” However before this was done)
καλῶς ἔχειν μοι δοκεῖ νῦν ἀνακεφαλαιώσει
συντόμῳ χρήσασθαι τῶν ἀναγκαίων δογμά-
TOT τὴ ἵνα νῦν κεφαλαιωδῶς ὑποσπείραντες
μὴ ἐπιλαθώμεθα τῶν αὐτῶν πλατυτέρως
γεωργουμένων ὕστερον. And let those
(he proceeds) who have their senses exer-
cised to the discernment of good and
evil bear with this: in order that they
who are in want of instruction may re-
ceive benefit, and they who have the
knowledge already may have their mem-
ory quickened as to that which they
have known before. (This lecture is pub-
lished in Dr Heurtley’s little volume
‘* de fide et symbolo.’’)

18 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

we find that this was far briefer not only than the collection of
necessary things, but also than the Creed of the Church of Jeru-
salem. “After thou didst renounce Satan, thou wast with sym-
bolic meaning turned from facing the West to the East—from
the region of darkness to the countries of the light. Then it
was commanded thee to say: I BELIEVE IN THE FATHER AND
IN THE SON AND IN THE HOLY SPIRIT AND IN ONE BAPTISM OF
REPENTANCE.” The words are clear and definite’. In these
words each answered the question of which we read elsewhere,
“Did he believe in the name of the Father and the Son and the
Holy Spirit?” In this his reply the candidate “confessed” what

29)

Cyril called “the saving confession *.

§ 3. We find therefore, in these lectures of St Cyril, three
forms of Faith: One, a collection of necessary doctrines delivered
in no fixed or unchangeable frame-work of words, covering ground
far more extensive than any of our modern creeds, resembling in
fact a series of articles as to the Church’s teaching on many
subjects. We find another, a precise and defined expression of
belief, “We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible: and in
one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, who was
begotten of the Father before all the worlds, very God, by whom
all things were made: who coming in the flesh and made man’,
was crucified and was buried, who rose again on the third day, and
ascended into the heavens, and sat on the right hand of the Father,
and is coming in glory to judge quick and dead, of whose kingdom
there shall be no end: and in ene Holy Spirit, the Comforter,
who spake in the prophets; [and in one baptism of repentance
for the remission of sins] and in one holy Catholic Church, and
in the resurrection of the flesh, and in life eternal.” Of this all
the phrases were fixed (although to us there is a little uncertainty
in determining them): they were not to be made known even to
the Catechumens until they were enlisted among the φωτιζόμενοι,
the class who were “being illuminated.” The third was the brief
form in which the candidate for baptism was called upon to ex-

1 Lect. xrx. (Mystic. 1.) ὃ 9, τότε ἐλέ- 2 Lect. xx. (Mystic. 11.) ὃ 4.
vero εἰπεῖν" πιστεύω εἰς τὸν πατέρα καὶ εἰς 3 ἐν σαρκὶ παραγενόμενον καὶ ἐνανθρωπή-
τὸν υἱὸν καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα καὶ εἰς ἕ᾿ϑ᾿ σαντα.
βάπτισμα μετάνοιας. :

TIT. ἢ BAPTISMAL PROFESSIONS, 19

press his own personal belief: it was a still shorter, still more
compact summary of the Faith: it was told thee to say, “I
believe in the Father and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit,
and in one baptism of repentance:” the candidate was not required
to assert with his own mouth that he believed all that was con-
tained within the creed of the Church’.

§ 4. I shall now exhibit a few additional instances of very
short baptismal creeds, or brief personal confessions.

§ 5. That CREEDS as such—summaries which commence with
the all-important words, 7 believe—took their origin in the ad-
ministration of baptism, is a proposition which can scarcely be
questioned. The words in which the holy Sacrament was ad-
ministered were enjoined by our Lord Himself: “Go ye and
make all the nations into disciples, baptizing them into the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching
them to keep all things that I enjoined you.” These solemn
words of Baptism, we may well suppose, soon drew out from the
new disciples corresponding expressions of their belief. I have
not as yet referred to the words of St Paul to Timothy (1 Tim.
vi. 12), “Fight the noble fight of the Faith: lay hold upon that
eternal life to which thou wast called, and didst confess the good
confession before many witnesses.” This connecting of Timothy’s
confession with his call to life, has led many to think that it was
at his baptism that the confession was made. At all events, the
well-known passage in Justin Martyr's Apology shews, that in his
day “ὍΠΟΥ who were persuaded and believed that the things were

1 See Hahn’s Bibliothek. p.51. The They are not mentioned in the intro-

Oxford translation (p. xlvii.) after *‘ who
came in the flesh and was made man”
inserts ‘“‘of the Virgin Mary and the
Holy Ghost.” The editors must have
read with Touttée ἐν σαρκὶ παραγενόμενον
kal ἐνανθρωπήσαντα [ἐκ παρθένου καὶ πνεύ-
ματος ἁγίου] but they did not mention
that Touttée was himself doubtful as to
the words within the brackets. They
added without any authority the name
of Mary the Virgin. Dr Hahn (from
whom I take the remark of Touttée) con-
sidered that the additional words repre-
sent fairly enough the belief of Cyril as
opposed to the views of the Ebionites
on the Incarnation, but that they did
not ferm part of the Jerusalem Creed.

ductory title to chapter tv. nor in ὃ 13
which professes to contain the words
there to be explained. I have followed
Abp. Usher (de Symbolis, p. 11). I
find that Bishop Bull (Judicitum, Oxford
edition, Vol. v1. p. 134) inserts the words.
(Dr Hahn here makes a slight mistake.)
These two great divines of our Church
considered that the Creed of the Church
began with πιστεύω, I BELIEVE, but Hahn
in support of πιστεύομεν refers to vit.
§ 3 &., x. § 4, x1. §$ 1, 14. There is
one other difference of importance: Bishop
Bull reads καὶ els τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, but
the title to Catechesis xv1. has ὃν dy.
wv., a reading which is supported by
xvi. 88 3 and 12, and xvi. 8 3.

2—2

20 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

true which were taught by Christians, were led to some place
where there was water, and were then passed through the laver
in the name of the Father and Lord of all, and of our Saviour
Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit,’—words which imply that
the persons mentioned must have given some expression, some
outward assurance of their belief. I pass over as besides our
present purpose, the passages where Irenzus writes of the “Canon
of the truth” which every one received at his baptism: in these
passages he says, “the Church believes” this and that; it is of the
teaching of the Church that he is speaking: to it we must refer
below. So of most of the passages quoted from Tertullian : but, in
his treatise against Praxeas, we find a short description of the
members of Christ’s Body, which is immediately to our purpose:
“the Holy Ghost (he says) is the Sanctifier of the faith of those
who believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost,” as if
this were the accepted definition of the faithful Christians. In
some parts of the Church the echo of such short baptismal con-
fessions survived for many years. I may refer directly to a pas-
sage in the treatise de Corona Militis, § 3, where Tertullian says,
that “in Baptism we were thrice immersed, answering something
more than the Lord commanded in the Gospel.” In the opinion
of Bishop Bull’ this answer contained mention of repentance and
of remission of sins and of the Church (the reasons for this
opinion I will give hereafter). The writings of St Cyprian dis-
tinctly tell us, that in his day the form of interrogation at
baptism was fixed and definite. He speaks of the “usitata et
legitima verba interrogationis”—and we know as distinctly that
the interrogation included the words “ Dost thou believe in God
the Father, in [His] Son Christ, in the Holy Spirit? Dost thou

1 See too Bull’s Judicium Eccl. Cath.
(Vol. νι. p. 139), on the passage in the
Treatise de Baptismo, ὃ 11. ‘Some
would depreciate baptism, says Tertul-
lian, because our Lord did not baptize.
But His disciples baptized at His com-
_ mand, And whereunto should He have
baptized? to Repentance? to what pur-
pose His forerunner? To Remission of
sins? He gave it by a word. Into
Himself? He was concealing Himself
in His humility. Into the Holy Ghost?
He had not yet descended from the
Father. Into the Church? which the
Apostles had not founded!” Bishop

Bull infers from this that mention was
made of Repentance, of Remission of
sins, and of the Church at the time of
Baptism: but if so, they must have been
spoken of by the Minister, not by the
Catechumen, and therefore this Creed
should fall under a later chapter. In
§ 6 of the same treatise Tertullian gives
the reason why the Church is mentioned,
“ Where the Three are, the Father, the
Son, the Holy Spirit, there is the Church,
the Body of the Three.” Under the
Three are pledged the testatio fidei et
sponsio salutis.

IL. | BAPTISMAL PROFESSIONS. ΟἽ

believe in remission of sins and eternal life through the Church?”
The confession required may have also included the belief that
God is the Creator, and possibly some mention of the Birth,
Death, and Resurrection of the Saviour. Light upon it is un-
doubtedly cast by the Aithiopic version of the Apostolic Constitu-
tions, as published by Archdeacon Tattam*: in this the candidate
for baptism is represented as confessing “I believe in the only
true God, the Father Almighty, and in His only begotten Son
Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, and in the Holy Spirit the
Giver of life.” The next phrase as we there have it is, however,
undoubtedly posterior to the Nicene Council: but of the remain-
der, some clauses may belong to the more ancient confessions:
“one kingdom, one faith, one baptism in the Catholic Apostolic
Church, and the life everlasting’.” The echo, as it seems to me,
is heard in the book de Sacramentis, falsely ascribed to St Am-
brose: “Thou wast asked, Dost thou believe in God the Father
Almighty? Thou didst answer, I believe; and thou wast bap-
tized, 1.6. thou wast buried. Again thou wast asked, Dost thou
believe also in our Lord Jesus Christ and in His cross? Thou
saidst, I believe ; and thou wast baptized, 1.6. together with Christ
thou wast buried. Again thou wast asked, Dost thou believe also
in the Holy Ghost? Thou saidst, I believe; and a third time thou
wast immersed, that the triple confession should remove the

1 Constitutiones Coptice, ed. H. Tat-
tam, 1848, § 46. ‘The latter clauses
‘(I believe] the consubstantial Trinity,
one Lordship, one kingdom, one faith,
one Baptism, in the Catholic Apostolic
Church, and in life everlasting” (as Dr
Tattam reads them), must of course, if
taken as a whole, date from a time when
the word ὁμοούσιος was required as a
test of orthodoxy: i.e. they must be
later than the council of Nicwa. Bunsen
however (Analecta Ante-Niceéna, Vol. 111.
p. 91) suggests that the latter words,
‘‘one Lordship, one kingdom, one faith,
one baptism in the Catholie Apostolic
Church (as he translates it), and in life
everlasting,” are of earlier date than
the clause regarding the consubstantial
Trinity.

Two short baptismal creeds are given
in the notes to Daniel’s Codex Liturgicus,
Iv. p. 497.

i. The Coptsand &thiopians. ‘‘Then
shall the Deacon turn the Catechumen
to the East ....and suggest to him the

Faith in this manner, ‘I believe in one
God, the Father Almighty, and in His
only begotten Son, Jesus Christ our
Lord, and in the Holy Spirit, the Giver
of Life, the Resurrection of the Flesh,
and in one only Catholic Apostolic Holy
Church which is His.’”

ii. The Armenians. The Catechumen
says ‘‘I believe in the most Holy Trinity,
in the Father, in the Son, and in the
most Holy Spirit,” and then they [all?]
recite the Nicene Creed.

2 A ray of light is thrown on this by
the council of Carthage, a.p. 348 (Har-
duin, 1. 685 c). The question was put,
‘‘ought a person—who, on his descent
into the water, had been questioned in
regard to the Trinity after the faith of
the Gospels and the teaching of the
Apostles, and had confessed a good con-
fession towards God on the resurrection
of Jesus Christ—again to be questioned
in the same faith and be again bap-
tized?’’ The answer was ‘‘absit, absit.’’

22 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

multiplied lapse of thy earlier life.” We meet with it again in a
passage to be found in the writings of Facundus of Hermiane (for
which I am indebted to Dr Heurtley’s work, page 53), in which,
after speaking of the Creed at length, the writer refers to the
profession made at baptism as a profession that “they believe in
God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ His Son, and in
the Holy Spirit.”

§ 6. This shortest of Creeds survived to the time of Char-
lemagne. The Codex Palatinus 577 of the Vatican Library, of
the ninth and tenth centuries, contains a form of a renuntiation of
the devil and a profession of belief, which have, ever since their
discovery at the end of the seventeenth century, secured the
attention of German philological and liturgical scholars: they are
assigned in the manuscript to a council held at Liftenas or
Listenas (supposed to be either Louvain or Lessines), in the year
743, under Boniface, the apostle of the Germans. The renun-
tiation is interesting. The faith professed must find a place in

my text.

The manuscript reads as follows:

gelobistu in got al*mehtigan fadaer

ec gelobo in got al*mehtigan fadaer
gelobistu in crist godes suno

ec gelobo in crist gotes suno’
gelobistu in halogan gast

ec gelobo in halogan gasto”

Massmann considers this as a specimen of old Low German".

1 A similar form but of an old High
German character was copied from a
MS., once in the Cathedral at Spire,
apparently by one Jacob Camp, about
the year 1607, into a book printed at
Frankfort in 1606: (a facsimile of the
writing is given by Professor Massmann
in the work from which I have extracted
the above: see p. 68 and the facsimile at
the end). It runs thus: ‘‘ Galaubistu
heiligan geist. ih. gz. Galaubistu heinan
gott almachtigon in Thrinissi in din ein-
nissi, ih.g. Galaubistu heiliga godes
chirichon ih.g. Galaubistu thuruch
tauf8nga suntheno farlaznissi. ih. g.”

This form is clearly défective at the
commencement: the questions as to
the belief of the candidate in the Father,
and in the Son, which invariably pre-

cede the expression of belief in the Holy
Spirit, having disappeared from the
manuscript when it was copied.

[I extract these and some other inter-
esting passages from a work entitled
‘Die deutschen Abschworungs-, Glau-
bens, Beicht- und Betformeln vom
achten bis zum Zwolften Jahrhundert.
Nebst Anhangen und Schriftnachbildun-
gen. Herausgegeben von H. I. Mass-
mann. Quedlinburg und Leipzig, 1839.”
The form ordered by the council of
Leftinas is well known; it is published
by Migne, Vol. Lxxxrx. p. 810, by Daniel,
Codex Liturgicus, Vol.1. p.186. I have
seen a facsimile in Pertz, Monumenta
Ger. Vol. 111. pp. 18, 19. Itis given in
Mansi, x11. 369, and with the form of
renunciation by Mr Lumby, p. 18. ]

111. |

BAPTISMAL PROFESSIONS. AS

§ 7. Beyond the influence of the great Charles no profession
appears to have been required regarding the Holy Trinity. The
Gelasian Sacramentary describes the delivery of the Eastern
Creed to the competentes, in terms which will soon engage our
attention: but even in it the belief proclaimed at the time of

_ We have other similar short baptismal
professions in the work from which I
~ have extracted the above. I do not pre-
tend to give them in exact chronological
order, or to have discovered the exact
periods during which they were respec-
tively in use. My point is to exhibit
the fact that some of these shortest of
creeds have continually existed from the
time of Tertullian until now!. The first
is taken from a Manuscript at Vienna
(122), and begins as follows: ‘‘I believe
in one God the Father Almighty, the
Creator of heaven and earth and of all
created things. I believe in His only
begotten Son our Lord Christ: and
I believe in the Holy Ghost, and I be-
lieve that these Three named are one
true Godhead.” It then proceeds at
great length. The second, from the li-
brary at St Gall, is shorter: the third is
also from St Gall: the fourth from a
MS. at Munich: they all contain a dis-
tinet expression of belief in the Unity in
Trinity: a fifth of much greater length,
given from a manuscript at Strasburg
(now I fear destroyed), commences in
similar fashion (p. 37): a sixth, entitled
in the Manuscript Fides Catholica (p.
81), runs somewhat differently. After
the renunciation it proceeds: ‘‘I believe
in one God, the Father Almighty, who
is the Creator of heaven and earth and
all created things: I believe in His only
begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,
born and murdered: I believe in the
Holy Ghost. I believe that the three
Names, the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost, are one true God, who ever
was, and ever is, and ever shall be with-
out end. I believe that the same Son
of God was announced by the holy angel
Saint Gabriel to our Lady Saint Mary,
&e.”? Another (p. 82) is to a similar
effect, though inasmuch as this and
the next (p. 83) cannot be distinctly
proved to be baptismal professions, I
ought not without hesitation to quote
them here. They may have been formed
for the instruction of adults. But I may
without blame refer to a series of ques-
tions, which I copied from a Manuscript

at Vienna numbered 701, addressed to a
penitent on Easter Eve, before his re-
admission to the Communion on the
following day. ‘‘ When all these things
have been enquired into and the peni-
tent is strengthened, let the priest ask
him thus: Dost thou believe in God the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?
Let the penitent answer, I believe.’
Then—the Manuscript proceeds—but on
an erasure, signifying clearly that this
is a later addition—‘ Dost thou believe
that these three Persons, Father, Son
and Holy Spirit, are one God?”

[The MS. is said to be of the twelfth
century. The passage which I have
paraphrased is this: [Post] ‘‘ista omnia
scrutata et penitentem corroboratum,
interroget eum sacerdos dicens: Credis
in Deum Patrem et Filium et Spiritum
Sanctum? Respondeat poenitens Credo,
Item Credis quia iste tres persone Pater
et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus unus Deus
sit?’? The words in italics are on the
erasure. Portions of a catechism from
this manuscript I hope to give on a later
page. ]

Other short creeds at confession may
be seen in Martene, Liber I. cap. v1.
ΓΟ Vil: Ordo 1s 2V. VEX

The only baptismal profession of an
analogous kind, which is given in the
collection of Dr Heurtley, is extracted
from the Gallican Missal published by
Thomasius, Codices Sacramentorum, p.
4752. It runs as follows: “ Dost thou
believe that the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit are of one virtue? TI believe.
Dost thou believe that the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit are of the same power?
I believe. Dost thou believe that the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, of a triune
unity, are perfect God, the substance
remaining one? I believe.” This creed
given by Dr Heurtley, p. 111, is said by
him on p. 69 to be ‘altogether sui
generis” and is assigned to the eighth
century. It has however an interesting
resemblance to these German forms, al-
though it is much shorter than most of
them.

' The originals of these are in old German. Ἢ
2 This may be seen in Martene, Book I. Art. xviii, Ord. 11.

24 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

baptism was short and resembled not the Nicene but our Apostles’
Creed. The copy of this Sacramentary used by Thomasius was
written apparently in the eighth century: it ran here as follows:
“Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty? I believe. Dost
thou believe also in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord, born and
suffered? I believe. And dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost,
the Holy Church, Remission of Sins, the Resurrection of the Flesh?
I believe’.”. Thus the words “Creator of heaven and earth,” “con-
ceived by the Holy Ghost, of the Virgin Mary,” “under Pontius
Pilate,” and so to the end of the part relating to our Lord, were
omitted, and so were the clauses or words “Catholic” “the Com-
munion of Saints,’ “Life everlasting.” Later baptismal creeds
contain some of these words, but I believe none, before the Refor-
mation, contains them all’.

- §8. Thus it would appear that, before the Reformation, the
Apostles’ Creed, as we have it now, was never used at baptism,
either as a declaratory, or as an interrogatory creed. The clauses
omitted were fewer at one time, more numerous at another: but I
suppose that we may consider that the essential parts of the
baptismal confession were deemed to be contained in that portion
which is still retained in the service books of the Church of Rome.

§ 9. And another subject seems to be deserving of renewed
attention: the introduction of questions relating to the Trinity
was confined to a very small portion of the Christian Church and
apparently the Creed so formed was used only during a limited
period. We have noted it in the short creed in the Coptic manu-
script of the Apostolic Constitutions, and in the German confessions

1 Dr Heurtley notes that in three only Son? I believe. Dost thou also

copies printed by Martene from MSS.
written about 800 the clause ‘ Life
everlasting’? is found; and that in a
copy of the Gregorian Sacramentary, of
the middle of the ninth century, the
words ‘‘Creator of heaven and earth:”
and ‘‘ Catholic”’ are found.

2 In the order as restored by Cardinal
Casertanus (Daniel, 1. p. 173), the cate-
chumen is asked ‘‘ Dost thou believe in
God the Father Almighty, Maker of
heaven and earth? I believe. Dost
thou also believe in Jesus Christ His

believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy
Catholic Church, the remission of sins,
the resurrection of the flesh, and life
everlasting? I believe.”” To this, the
medieval English service, as given by
Mr Maskell, added the words ‘‘ our Lord,
born and suffered,” as well as ‘‘the com-
munion of saints’’ and the words ‘after
death” to the clause ‘‘ everlasting life.”
The modern Roman Ritual agrees with
this older English use, except that the
words ‘‘ after death” are not inserted.

rt. | BAPTISMAL PROFESSIONS. D5

of the times of Charlemagne and his immediate successors. This
fact may throw a little light on the vexed question of the history
of the first formation of the so-called Athanasian Creed. Mr
Massmann gives, p. 84, from another MS. at St Gall, an Anglo-Saxon
Creed’. This follows the line of the Apostles’ Creed, and so far
strengthens me in my opinion that the effects of the Great Charles’s
action to which I have referred did not extend to England. “The
Catholic Faith of the Holy Trinity” ordered at the Synod of
Frankfort, and “the faith of the Holy Trinity, and Incarnation”
enjoined at Aix, were probably substantially contained in one or
other of these German documents which we have been now con-

sidering.

1 In connection with this branch of
my subject, viz. the short professions of
belief which were used at baptism, I may
add the following notices. The synodical
letter given by Theodoret (History, v. 9)
as addressed by ‘‘the bishops assembled
at Constantinople [in 382] to the other
holy bishops assembled at the great city
of Rome”’ defends the adhesion of the
writers to the Creed of Nicwa ‘in sup-
port of which they had suffered.” They
say this evangelical faith ought to please
‘¢you and us and all who do not pervert
the word of the true faith, it is most
ancient and conformable to baptism (ἀκό-
λουθον τῷ βαπτίσματι) and teaches us to
believe in the Name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Ghost, that is
to say, the deity and the power and the
essence of the Father, of the Son and of
the Holy Ghost being believed to be
one in three perfect Hypostases or in
three perfect Persons, &c.” Thus appa-
rently they viewed the Nicene Creed as
an expansion of the baptismal profes-
sion. Ata much later date we find from
the Gallican missal (from which our
form in note p. 23 is taken), that after
the profession of belief ‘‘in the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as of one

virtue, the same power, of triune unity”
the priest used the words ‘‘I baptize
thee believing in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
that thou mayest have eternal life for
ever and ever.” Baptizo te credentem
in nomen Patris et Filii et Spiritus
Sancti ut habeas vitam eternam in secula
seculorum. (Bishop Bull, Vol. vr. pp.
84, 86, and Episcopius agree that the
first baptismal Creed was something like
this. ‘‘I believe in God the Father,
the Son and the Holy Spirit:” the latter
regarding it as the germ of the larger
creed: the former viewing it as an ab-
breviation of it.)

At the Laodicene council which was
held sometime between 341 and 381, a
code of canons was formed: No. 7 is to
the effect that converted heretics were to
learn the symbols of the faith and re-
nounce their heresies: No. 46 was that
the gwrifduevor they who are in process
of receiving light should learn the faith
and repeat it to the Bishop or elders on
the fifth day of ‘‘ the week,” i.e. on holy
Thursday: No. 47 that they who recetve
τὸ φώτισμα in sickness must learn the
creed after they recover.

/ CHA PTI: EV;

RULES OF FAITH OF THE FIRST TWO AND A-HALF
CENTURIES.

§ 1. Bingham’s mistake. $2. The original doctrina tradita. §3. The letters
to the Trallians and Smyrnewans. ὃ 4. Ireneus, passages quoted. ἃ 5.
Inferences from these. $6. Letter to Florinus. 87. Hippolytus. § 8.
Tertullian (difference between fixity of the faith and growth of ritual). § 9.
Deductions from the above. ὃ 10. Origen. ὃ 11. Thoughts suggested.
§ 12. Cyprian. § 13. Council of Carthage. §14. Novatian. §15. Sum-
mary of the contents of all these Rules of Faith. § 16. Thoughts on the
above. 817. An anonymous writer against Artemon. ὃ 18. Indications of
an approaching change.

§ 1. THAT there was a marked distinction drawn in the time
of St Isidore between the Rule of Faith and the Symbolum proper
(7. e. between the teaching conveyed to the candidate for baptism
and the formula recited or assented to by him at his baptism) has
been exhibited on an earlier page. Our English divines, however,
have generally followed the leading of Bingham (Antiquities of the
Christian Church, Book x. ch. iii. § 2), and spoken of the terms
“Rule of Faith” and “Creed” as being equivalent titles for the
same thing; they have thus stated that “The Rule of Faith” is
the common appellation for the “Creed” in Irenzus, Tertullian,
Novatian, and Jerome. Whether they are herein correct, we may
now proceed to examine.

§ 2. That there was a doctrina tradita, a traditionary teaching
of the Church, delivered in the first instance wva voce and inde-
pendently of the writings of the Apostles, no one can question. The
Epistles of St Paul were clearly supplementary to his oral teaching.
A careful student of his and the other Apostles’ letters will notice
that the chief facts of the Gospel narratives are assumed in these
letters, as already known by those to whom they are addressed.
The Epistles themselves are occupied in drawing out their theo-

CH. IV.] RULES OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES. 27

logical import, or their practical application. Even in the Gospels
themselves there are indications that they were written for persons
who had had some prior though perhaps indefinite and inaccurate
knowledge of details of our Lord's life and teaching.—If we would
learn the contents of these traditional Expositions of the Faith, we
must of course resort to the writings of the early Church; and we
are referred by historians who have studied the subject, to those
letters to the Trallians and to the Smyrnzeans, which, although not
accepted as the genuine writings of the great Bishop, whose name
they bear, are yet believed, by our most careful critics, to have
been composed or interpolated in the latter half of the second
century. Thus they hold a place amongst the most important
of early Christian documents.

§ 3. In the letter to the Trallians § 9, we find the writer
urging his readers

“To stop their ears, if any would talk to them without reference to
Jesus Christ, who was of the family of Mary, who was truly born, did
eat and drink, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly cru-
cified and died, whilst things in heaven, and things on earth, and things
under the earth looked on; who also was truly raised from the dead,
His Father raising Him, as after the same likeness His Father will raise
up in Christ Jesus all of us who believe in Him—apart from Whom we

1.0.»

have not that which is truly life’.

A passage of greater length may be seen in the commence-
ment of the letter to the Christians at Smyrna, which I will also
quote in full: I take it also from the shorter Greek recension,
but this, as is known, cannot be identified as a genuine work of
the Martyr:

“T glorify Jesus Christ the Gop who has thus far instructed you:
for I understand that you are perfectly united in faith unmoved, as
though you were nailed to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, both in
flesh and spirit, and firmly established in love in the blood of Christ ;
fully believing in our Lord, as being truly of the family of David
according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power of God,
born truly of a virgin, baptized by John, in order that all righteousness
should be fulfilled by Him, truly nailed [to the cross] for our sakes in
the flesh under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch. From which
fruit” are we from His most blessed suffering, in order that He might
raise for ever through His resurrection a common standard for His holy

1 οὗ χῶρις τὸ ἀληθινὸν ζῇν οὐκ ἔχομεν.
? Hanging upon the cross(?)

28 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

and faithful ones, whether among the Jews or Gentiles, in the one body
of His Church. For He suffered all these things on our account, that
we might be saved. And He truly suffered, as also He truly raised
Himself; not, as some unbelievers say, that He suffered in appearance
only,—they existing in appearance only, and, as they think, so shall it
happen to them, seeing that they are bodiless and like demons. For 7
know (ἐγὼ οἶδα) that after His resurrection He was in the Flesh, and 1
believe that He still 15, And when he came to Peter and his friends,
He said, Zake, handle me, and see that I am not a bodiless demon. And
straightway they touched Him, and believed, being overcome by His
Flesh and Spirit; and so they despised death, and were found superior
to death. And after His resurrection He ate with them, and drank
with them, as being Himself endued with flesh, although spiritually
united (ἡνωμένος) with the Father.”

I quote these passages at length, because, although they are
not described as either Rules of Faith or Creeds, they are put
forth as summaries of Christian teaching, and as containing in
themselves an antidote to the poisonous heresies to which the
readers of the letters were exposed. It must be noted in passing
that they contain no statement regarding our Lord which is not
plainly taught in Scripture.

§ 4. Our next authority shall be one who introduces the
title Canon of the Truth. To the Canon of the Truth the sainted
Irenzus appeals as being sufficient to cause the rejection of the
more numerous heresies of his day. The passages are so well
known, that it may seem at first sight superfluous in me to quote
them: but still I shall adduce them all, in order that my readers
may more easily compare together the various notices of the
“canon” which Irenzeus gives.

There are five passages at least in which the Bishop of Lyons
may be said to quote or refer to the “ Faith of the Church.”

i. In the early portion of Book 1. (i. 6), he speaks of
those who pervert the meaning and corrupt the exegesis of the
evangelic and apostolic teaching: and thus by the cleverness of
their inventions and the craftiness of their adaptations “lead
away captive from the truth those who do not guard firmly the
faith in one God the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus
Christ the Son of God.” But it is a subsequent passage in the
same book (1. x. 1) that contains the summary which is almost
invariably quoted in this connection.

ii. Having shewn with a certain amount of humour the

IV. | RULES OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES. 29

absurdities of those heretics who heap together a number of
names and phrases out of every book of Scripture, and then
fancy that on a foundation such as this they may erect a super-
structure of Christian teaching, Ireneus states that “any one
who holds without wavering the CANON OF THE TRUTH which he
received at his baptism,” will know at once how these names and
phrases are brought together, and will reject the teaching built
upon them ; and, accordingly, he takes the opportunity to exhibit
this truth as it is proclaimed by the Church.

“For the Church (he proceeds), although now scattered over the
face of the whole world, yet guards the faith which it received from the
Apostles and their immediate disciples: the faith in one God the Father
Almighty, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all
things in them: and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was
incarnate for our salvation: and in the Holy Spirit, who by the prophets
had proclaimed the dispensations, and the advents, and the birth from
the Virgin, and the suffering, and the resurrection from the dead, and the
bodily assumption into the heavens of the beloved Christ Jesus our
Lord, and His coming from the heavens in the glory of the Father, to
gather again together all things, and to raise up all flesh of all humanity,
in order that to Christ Jesus our Lord and God and Saviour and King,
by the good pleasure of the Father invisible, every knee should bow, of
things in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue
confess to Him, and [He] do right judgment in all things: that He
should send the spiritual powers of darkness and the angels who trans-
gressed and remained in disobedience, and the impious of men, and the
unjust and the lawless and blasphemers to the eternal fire ; and to the
just and holy, who keep His commandments and abide in His love,
whether from the first or after repentance, should give lite and then
incorruptibility and eternal glory. This teaching and this faith the
Church having so received, although now dispersed over the whole world,
carefully guards, as if it still occupied one house: and in equal measure
it believes these tenets, as having one soul and the same heart, and with
one harmonious voice it proclaims and teaches, and hands them down
as if it had one mouth. The dialects throughout the world may be
dissimilar, but the force of the tradition is one and the same: and neither
do the Churches settled in the Germanies believe differently or teach
differently, nor in the Iberias, nor among the Celts, nor in the parts of the
East, nor in Egypt, nor in Libya, nor those settled in the central parts
of the inhabited world; but as the sun, the creation of God, is in the
whole world one and the same, so too the preaching of the truth (τὸ
κήρυγμα τῆς ἀληθείας) shines everywhere and enlightens all men who
are willing to come to the knowledge of the truth; and neither will the
most powerful of those who preside in the churches teach things alien
from these (for no one is above his Master) ; nor will the weak in word
diminish |shorten] the tradition, For, since there is one and the same

30 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

faith, neither has he who has the power of saying much extended it,
nor has he who can say only little diminished it.”

So much for the first part of his work.

ii. The third book contains more that bears upon our subject.
The bishop* speaks of the duty and privilege of contending for the
truth: and he instructs his readers that if they will attend to him,
they will be able with confidence and determination to resist these
heretics in defence of the true and life-giving faith which the
Church has received from the Apostles and distributed to her
children.

“For (he says) it is only through those by whom the gospel has
come to us that we have learnt the economy of our salvation—which
gospel they preached, and which they through God’s will delivered
to us in the Scriptures; which gospel was to be the foundation and
column of our faith.”

iv. In another well-known passage* he speaks of the four
Evangelists by name, and describes the qualifications each had
for undertaking the work with which we connect his name.

“They all delivered to us the one God, Maker of heaven and earth,
announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ the Son of
God; and if any one does not assent to this, he despises in fact the
companions of the Lord; he despises Christ Himself the Lord, and he
despises the Father also; and he becomes self-condemned, inasmuch as
he resists and struggles against his own salvation—a thing which all
heretics do., For (Irenzeus proceeds) when they are convicted out of the
Scriptures, they turn round to accuse the Scriptures themselves, as being
incorrect, as having no authority, because, forsooth, they were uttered
in divers ways, and because truth could not be learnt from them by
those who know not tradition. For they say that what they teach was .
delivered them not by Scriptures, but by the living voice; for which
cause Paul also said, We speak wisdom among them that are perfect, but not
a wisdom of this world ; and this wisdom every one claims as his own, as
he may discover it out of himself—an utter fiction—so that, according
to them, the truth is worthily to be found at one time in Valentinus, at
another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, at a later date in Basilides,
or else in some one who takes a part opposed to him; for each one of
them, being thoroughly perverted, is not ashamed to deprave the rule of
truth, and to preach himself. When we challenge them to refer to that
tradition which is from the Apostles, and is guarded in the churches by
the successions of presbyters, then they resist tradition, asserting that
they, being wiser not only than all the presbyters, but also than the
Apostles themselves, have discovered the pure and genuine ‘truth: for

1 t11. Introduction and i. 1. ttc? Hg Chan Sa Ἢ

Iv. | - RULES OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES. Bae

they say that the Apostles mixed up with the Saviour’s words things
which are merely legal; and not only the Apostles, but the Saviour
Himself framed His discourses at one time from the Demiurge, at
another time from the Intermediate’, at another from the Height. But
they say they know the hidden mystery without doubt and without con-
tamination-—an assertion which amounts indeed to a most shameless
blasphemy of their Creator. Thus it comes to pass that they give their
assent neither to Scripture, nor yet to tradition, You cannot argue

with them: they struggle only to escape—slipping away like eels’.”

And then Irenzeus once more addresses himself to describe
the true nature of apostolic tradition.

“In every Church, any one who wishes to know what is true, has
it in his power to see the tradition of the Apostles as manifested in all
the world. We have it in our power to count up those who were
appointed by the Apostles to be Bishops in the Churches and their suc-
cessors even to our own days—men who neither taught nor knew any such
thing as is now dreamed by these people. For, if the Apostles had
known these recondite mysteries which (it is said) they taught to the
perfect privately and apart from others, they surely would have en-
trusted them to the men to whom they committed the Churches them-
selves. For these assuredly they must have wished to be perfect and
unblameable in all things, seeing that they left them as their successors,
devolving upon them their own place as masters: men from whom, if
they did well, the utmost benefit would come upon the world: if they
fell away, the utmost calamity.”

Trenzus then enters on the question of the succession of
bishops in the Churches, beginning from the Church of Rome,
founded by the most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, to which
Church, “because of its more powerful lead’,” it is necessary that
every Church should recur’, that is, the faithful from every
quarter; “in which for those who come from every quarter the
tradition which is from the Apostles is preserved,” and he speaks
of Linus and Anacletus and Clemens,

“Who himself saw the Apostles and held conference with them,
keeping the preaching’ of the Apostles ringing in his ears and their
traditions before his eyes: and thus this Clemens in a most powerful
letter to the Christians at Corinth, calling them together to peace and
renewing the faith which he had received from the Apostles, announced
to them One God Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, former of man,
who had brought in the deluge, and had called Abraham, and had led
out the people from the land of Egypt, and had dispensed the law and

1 «*A medietate.” The μεσότης of 1. 3 Propter potentiorem principalitatem.
vi. 4 and vii. 1. 4 Convenire.
ἌΓ ΤΕ, 11: 5 τὸ κηρυγμα.

32 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. — [ CHAP.

had sent prophets, and had prepared fire for the devil and his angels.
And that He was declared by the Churches to be the Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ, any who choose may learn from Scripture itself, and
(so) understand the apostolic tradition of the Church; inasmuch as
the letter from Clemens is of more ancient date than are the men who
now teach falsely and pretend that there is another God besides the
Demiurge, the Creator and Maker of all things.”

Ireneus passes on to his contemporary Eleutherius’, and says
that through these twelve successors to the episcopate—by
the same order and the same teaching—the tradition from the
Apostles in the Church, and the preaching of the truth, have
found their way to us.

And this lesson, which he had enforced by the history of the
Church of Rome, he confirms, (why did it need confirmation 7), by
the instruction handed down in the Churches of Smyrna and
Ephesus, of Asia and Philippi. St John himself, who lived to the
time of Trajan, was a witness to the apostolic tradition. “Surely
(he says, II. iv. 1)

“Tf there were any dispute on the most minute of questions we
should have recourse to the most ancient Churches; churches in which
Apostles lived—and we should learn from them the certainties about
the points at issue. Supposing (even for an instant) that the Apostles
had not delivered to us the Scriptures, should we not follow the order
of the tradition which they delivered to those to whom they entrusted
the Churches themselves ?

“ And to this many nations of barbarians assent, who believe in
Christ, and have salvation written on their hearts by the Holy Spirit with-
out paper or ink, and keep the old tradition ; believing in one God the
Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things in them by Jesus Christ :
who because of His excellent love towards the creature underwent that
birth which was by the Virgin, uniting by Himself man to God: who
suffered under Pontius Pilate, and, rising again from the dead and re-
ceived up into glory, will come again in glory as Saviour of those who
are saved, and Judge of those who are judged; and sending to eternal
fire those who corrupt the truth and despise the Father, and think
little of His own future coming. They who believe the faith without
letters are indeed barbarians so far as concerns their power of discourse
with us: but so far as their opinions and their habits and their lives are
concerned, they are, because of their faith, most wise, and they please
God, living in all righteousness and chastity and wisdom. If any of
these heretics were to come to them, and address them in their own
tongue, they would instantly stop their ears and flee away, not enduring
to hear such blaspheming talk. Thus by reason of that old tradition of
the apostles, they do not even admit into their minds what are to them

ΤΟ ΎΠ 1 9:

Iv. | RULES OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES. ὦ

mere prodigies of language: for with them there never was such ἃ con-
gregation formed, never such a doctrine taught...Since’ the tradition
which is from the Apostles is this and it remains with us, let us turn
back to the Scriptural proofs coming from those Apostles who wrote
the gospels, of whom some uttered this sentiment regarding God, that
our Lord Jesus Christ is truth, and that there is no lie in Him.”

And he traces this tradition to its origin.

v. In 1. xu. 5, after quoting part of the account: of the
healing of the impotent man in Acts iv., Irenzus exclaims :

“These are the voices of that Church from which every Church has
had its commencement: these are the voices of the metropolis of the
citizens of the new covenant: these are the voices of the Apostles ;
these the voices of the disciples of the Lord, the truly perfect, perfected
through the Spirit after the Ascension of our Lord, and invoking God
as Him who had made heaven and earth and sea: as Him who had
been announced of old by the prophets.”

vi. Once more, in III. xvi. 6, he seems to teach us that the
confession of belief in the one Christ Jesus was frequently heard ;
“the heretical (he says) hold themselves up to ridicule, believing
one thing, saying another:” they believe that Christ is two, they
say He is one:

“They believe that there is one Christ passible, another invisible
and incomprehensible and impassible: not knowing that the Word, the
only begotten of God, who always is present with the human race, being
united and made one with His own creation, according to the pleasure
of the Father, and made flesh, is Himself the Jesus Christ our Lord
who suffered for us, and rose for us, and is coming again in the glory of
the Father to raise all flesh, and to shew salvation and the rule of just
judgment to all who have subjected themselves to Him. There is then
one God the Father as we have shewn ; and one Christ Jesus our Lord
who came uniting together all things in Himself.”

vil. In 11. xxiv. 1, Ireneeus appeals from the wicked opinions
of the heretics

“ Regarding our Maker and Creator, to the preaching of the Church,
which is constant everywhere and equally persistent, receiving testi-
mony from Apostles and Prophets and all the disciples ; which, being
received from the Church, we guard ; and which, by the Spirit of God,
as it were an ever juvenescent deposit in a precious vessel, makes that
vessel juvenescent in which it is.”

vill. In Iv. xxxiii. 7, he writes that:
“The spiritual man will hereafter judge those who make schisms,
men void of the love of God, looking out for their own advantage and

EE So ey oes
S.-C: : 3

4. THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

not for the uniting’ of the Church: who for the sake of trifling and
incidental? reasons rend and divide the great and glorious Body of
Christ—talking of peace and making war. He will judge too those
who are outside the truth, that is, outside the Church, whilst he himself
is judged of no man. For to his mind all things are consistent. He
has a complete 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 dispensations by which the Son of God became ἃ man*: and
in the Spirit of God who reveals the dispensations of the Father and the
Son to each generation of men, as the Father wills it.”

ix. And lastly, in Iv. xviii. 5, Irenzeus seems to intimate that at
the time of the offering in the Eucharistic service, mention was
made of the Resurrection of the flesh and spirit*.

§ 5. I have adduced these passages at length in order that
my readers may have materials from which to form their judg-
ment, (i.) whether the CANON OF THE TRUTH, of which Irenzus
wrote, was as yet embodied in a fixed form, A CREED as we under-
stand the word, and (ii.) whether this CANON contained any
articles over and above what may be proved from Scripture. That
Irenzeus was ignorant of any hidden traditions, any Dzsciplina
Arcani, is clear from a passage in II. xvi. 1:

“The Apostles at all events neither knew nor enunciated anything

of the kind before us: for if they had known it, at all events they
would have enunciated it.”

§ 6. And to this, in conclusion, I will add a few lines from
the fragment of a letter of this same great bishop to Florinus—
preserved in Book v. ch. 20 of the History of Eusebius.

“These doctrines, Florinus, to speak even gently, contain no healthy
sentiment. These doctrines are discordant with the Church. These
doctrines not even the heretics who are without the Church ever ven-
tured to disclose. These doctrines the presbyters who were before us,
who companied even with the Apostles, did not deliver to thee... As to
the miracles of our Lord and His teaching, as Polycarp received them
from the eyewitnesses of the Word of Life, so he delivered them to us,—
all things concordant with the Scriptures. These things I heard—com-
mitting them to writing not on paper but on my heart.”

§7. And so Hippolytus (about 220), in that work against
Noetus,—which was published by Fabricius and may be seen in
1 τὴν ἕνωσιν. 4 This may have been in one of the

2 τυχούσας apparently. prayers. See the Liturgies.
3 ἄνθρωπος ἐγένετο.

Iv. ] RULES OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES. 35

Dr Routh’s collection’—after his reference to the writings of the
New Testament, appeals to his readers thus:

‘‘Let us believe, blessed brethren, in accordance with the tradition
of the Apostles, that God the Word came down from heaven into the
Holy Virgin Mary, in order that being of her incarnate and receiving

too the human soul—I mean a reasonable soul—and becoming in all

things as a man, sin only excepted, He might save him that had fallen,

and give incorruptibility to those who believe on His name’.”

A short account of his faith approaching to what we call a
Creed, may be seen on an earlier page’.

“We know one God truly: we know Christ: we know that the
Son suffered as He suffered, died as He died, and rose again the third

day, and is on the right hand of the Father, and is coming to judge
quick and dead. And these things which we have learned we say*.”

§ 8. And so we may pass from the Church at Lyons, and the
Church at the Portus Romanus, to the Church of Carthage: from
Ireneus and Hippolytus to the great Tertullian: and we find him
too even with greater anxiety and greater vehemence appealing to
THE RULE OF THE FAITH. And first as to its existence and cha-
racter. For ordinary persons, he intimates, this should be suffi-
cient. i. The Scriptures (he says, in his work on Prescription,)
had been perverted; some heretics had mutilated them: to the
ordinary mind, therefore, the appeal to Scripture might be danger-
ous in its consequences ; but all are capable of understanding the
appeal to the teaching of the Church: all could apply this test—

“From whom, and by whom (a quo et per quos), and when, and to
whom was delivered the disciplina by which men are made Christians ἢ
For wheresoever it is clear that the truth of the Christian disciplina and

the faith are, there will be also the truth both of the Scripture and of
the explanations of Scripture, and all Christian tradition *.”

1 Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Opuscula
precipua, Vol. τ. pp. 42, &c.

δ δ XVit.p. 10:

Ὁ 8.1. Ὁ: D0;

4 This had reference to the appeal of
Noetus to the Church belief in one God.
‘*Why, what evil have I done? One
God I glorify, one God I know (érlorapa.)
and none other but Him, begotten, suf-
fered, died.” To this the fathers who
met at Smyrna replied in language some-
what similar to that of Hippolytus: “ We
too glorify one God, but we know how
to glorify Him rightly: and one Christ

we have, but, as we know, one Christ the
Son of God, suffered as He suffered, died
as He died, rose again, ascended into
heaven, is on the right hand of the
Father, is coming to judge the quick
and the dead. These things we say hay-
ing learned them from the divine Scrip-
tures.” This is given by Epiphanius
Her. ὃ 57 Migne (Greek) xur. p. 995, or
Dr Hahn’s Bibliothek, p. 44.

5 De Prescriptionibus, cap. 19. The
so-called Oxford translation rendered by
the same English word Rule, both dis-
ciplina, and prescriptio, and regula.

9--

36 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

In chap. 26 of the book we find Tertullian repeating the state-
ment of Irenzeus, that the Apostles could not have had two sets of
doctrines, one for their friends, another for the Church at large.

“Tt is not to be believed that they taught amongst their intimate
acquaintance things which would superinduce another rule of faith,
different from and contrary to that which they published universally
(Catholice) to the world, so that they spoke of one God to the Church,
another in the house ; pointed to one substance of Christ openly, another
secretly ; preached one hope of the resurrection to all, another hope to
the few.”

So in ὃ 82, he challenges the heretics to compare their doctrine
with the doctrine of the Apostles. But perhaps the most inter-
esting point for us to notice is that the Church of Africa is ad-
duced amongst others as holding § 36—

“One God, the Creator of the universe, and Christ Jesus, Son of God
the Creator, born of the Virgin Mary, and the resurrection of the flesh.
She combines the law and the prophets with the evangelic and apostolic
literature. Hence she drinks in the faith; she seals with water; she
clothes with the Holy Spirit ; she feeds with Eucharist ; she exhorts to
Martyrdom. Opposed to this teaching (institutio) she receives no one.”

And once more in § 44 Tertullian introduces our Lord as say-
ing ironically |

“Once had I committed the Gospel and the teaching of the same
rule to my Apostles; but, as you did not believe it, I thought it better to
change it here and there. I had promised a resurrection even of the
flesh, but I reconsidered it in fear that I should be unable to fulfil my
promise. 1 had shewn that I was born of a Virgin, but, afterwards,
that seemed too humiliating for me. I had called Him Father, who
makes the sun and the rain, but another Father has adopted me and
that is better. I had forbidden you to lend an ear to heretics, but I

was wrong.

ii. But we can find, from Tertullian’s writings, other infor-
mation as to the Rule of Faith. His treatise, “on the veiling of
the Virgins,” was written after he became a Montanist; but it is
singularly interesting as exhibiting the growth of the ritual of the

1 After referring to the dispute between
Peter and Paul at Antioch, he says ‘‘uti-
que conversationis fuit vitinum, non pre-
dicationis. Non enim ex hoc alius Deus
quam Creator: alius Christus quam ex
Maria: alia spes quam resurrectio ad-
nuntiabatur.” § 23.

Of the Valentinians and others ‘‘si
alinm Deum predicant, quomodo ejus Dei
rebus et literis et nominibus utuntur

adversus quem predicant? si ejusdem,
quomodo aliter? Probent se novos apo-
stolos esse: dicant Christum iterum de-
scendisse, iterum ipsum docuisse, iterum
crucifixum, iterum resuscitatum.” ὃ 30.
Of the Church of Rome ‘‘ Unum Deum
novit creatorem universitatis et Christum
Jesum ex virgine Maria filium Dei crea-
toris et carnis resurrectionem.” ἃ 36.

ἮΝ a th — »» ἐς ναὶ 1 ti Ὁ ΝῊ μα et —

Iv. | RULES OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES. 37

third century, and the reasons urged by the promoters of that
growth. Old customs were deemed insufficient: new customs
were being enforced by arguments drawn from Scripture; when
these failed, from nature; when these again failed, “ Disciplina”
furnished the argument. The law of Faith was constant; but the
details of discipline and life admitted “a novelty of improvement,
the grace of God working and advancing things even to the end.”
Of course this is not the time to examine whether in these latter
words Tertullian lays down the principle of the Church, or merely
the sentiment of the Montanist body which he had joined: per-
haps we should not be far wrong if we regarded his eagerness to
require all the unmarried women to be enveloped in the veil from
the time they ceased to be children—because “truth required it
irrespective of prescription, of authority, or of the custom of other
countries’”—to be an outcome of the spirit which dictated other
novelties. That much that he enjoined on others, much that he
illustrated by his own example, consisted of novelties, his very
eagerness to enforce them shews; but he is perhaps, on this very
account, the more trustworthy guide as to that which the Church’s
“Rule” contained.

“Customs (he says) grow out of ignorance or simplicity, and are
then strengthened by repetition, and at last they are defended against
the truth. But our Lord gave to Himself the Name not of Custom,
but of Truth (Joh. xiv. 6). Let them look to it to whom a thing is new
which to itself is old. Heresies are refuted not by (the test of) novelty, but
by (that of) truth. But still the rule of the faith is absolutely one, alone
immovable and unchangeable ; the rule, that is, of believing in one God
Almighty, Maker of the world, and in His Son Jesus Christ, born of
the Virgin Mary, crucified under Pontius Pilate, on the third day raised
from the dead, received in the heavens, who sitteth now at the right
hand of the Father, will come to judge the quick and the dead’.”

1 De virginibus velandis, c. 1. The untotheend.” That is, Dr Pusey here

Latin may be also seen in Dr Hahn,
p. 68, Dr Heurtley, p. 16. The passage
is immediately followed by the sentence
I have translated above: ‘‘ Hac lege fidei
manente, cetera jam discipline et con-
versationis admittunt novitatem cor-
rectionis, operante scilicet et proficiente
usque in finem gratia Dei.’ This was
translated by E. B. P. in the Preface to
the Oxford translation of Tertullian:
‘*This law of faith remaining, all other
matters of faith and conversation admit
of the novelty of correction, the grace of
God namely working and advancing eyen

translated disciplina by the word faith.
I have had frequent occasion to warn
my readers against the inaccuracy of
these Oxford Translations. They never
can be depended upon. And yet how
many of our clergy have been tanght to
trust them? Is there no one who has
been emboldened by reading these words
of Dr Pusey’s to conceive that he has
Tertullian’s authority for the belief that
the Church may alter and correct the
early Faith of the Church “with the
novelty of correction,” trusting to God’s
grace “to operate and forward its work”?

38 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

11, Tertullian’s work against Praxeas was also written after
he became a Montanist; but so far as concerns our enquiry, this,
his error, does not diminish the value of his testimony. For
Praxeas maintained the unity of God; and on the doctrine of the
unity he framed his heresy. He said that the Father Himself
descended into the Virgin, was born of her, and suffered; in short,
that the Father was Jesus Christ. He therefore, of necessity
though implicitly, denied the truthfulness of the gospel account
of the Temptation. Praxeas was personally obnoxious to Tertul-
lian, for he it was who roused the Bishop of Rome against the
Montanists: “he drove away prophecy and brought in heresy: he
put to flight the Paraclete, and crucified the Father.” Thus (says
Tertullian, c. 2):

“The Father being born after time began, and the Father having
suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, is preached to us as Jesus
Christ. But we at all times—and more especially now that we are
more instructed through the Paraclete who leads into all truth—believe
indeed that there is only one God; but, under this dispensation, which
we call the economy, we believe that of this one God there is a Son too,
His Word, who proceedeth from Him, through whom all things are
made, and without whom nothing is made: that He it was who was
sent by the Father into the Virgin, and was born of her, Man and God,
Son of Man and Son of God, and named Jesus Christ: that He it was
who suffered, died, and was buried, according to the Scriptures, and_
was raised by the Father, and taken up into heaven, and sitteth at the
right hand of the Father, and is coming to judge the quick and the
dead : who, according to His promise, sent from the Father the Holy
Spirit the Paraclete, the Sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in
the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. And the truth that this rule has
come down from the beginning of the Gospel, before even the earlier
heretics existed (and of course before yesterday’s Praxeas), is proved both
by the lateness of all the heretics, and by the newness of this Praxeas.”
And he proceeds to argue on the opinion of his opponent, “‘as if there
were no other way of holding the oneness of God, except by maintaining
the identity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; as if all were not so One
(unus), as all coming from One, by unity of substance ; and still the sa-
crament of the economy is preserved which disposes the Unity into a
Trinity, arranging the Three, Father and Son and Holy Spirit; but
Three not in status but in degree ; not in substance but in form ; not in
power but in appearanee ; yet of one substance and one status and one
power, because God is One, from whom those degrees and forms and
appearances are numbered in the one Name of Father and Son and Holy
Spirit.”

The position taken by Tertullian was of amendment;’’—the very position
really this: ‘the rule of faith is unal- which the Church of England occupies.
terable: the rule of discipline is capable

IV. | RULES OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES. 39

Discussions upon this fill up the treatise against Praxeas; but
as our interest is rather with the Rule of Faith, I will collect only
a few passages wherein it is appealed to. So we have c. 9: “Re-
member that this is the Rule professed by me, by which I hold
that the Father and Son and Spirit are not separate from each
other. I say that the Father is one, the Son another, the Spirit
another,” but distinction does not imply separation nor division.
Tertullian appeals to Scripture for his proofs: he insists that there

is no polytheism enjoined there:

“We who by the grace of God look into the times and causes of
Scripture, disciples of the Paraclete, not of men, lay down that there are
Two, the Father and the Son ; yea, Three, with the Holy Spirit, accord-
ing to the ratio of the economy, but never out of our mouths do we utter
the words two Gods and two Lords” (ch. 13),

Further on we meet with the definition that ‘the Father is
invisible, the Son rendered visible”—a conception that found its
way into the Creed of the Church of Aquileia. In chapter 29
there are some indications that all agreed in saying that Christ
was crucified: in ch. 30 an appeal is made to the “ Christianum
sacramentum” as contrasted with the “ Judaic faith.”

iv. From these Montanistic, but most deeply interesting writ-
ings, we may recur once more to the orthodox treatise on “ Pra-
scription.” In chap. 13 we have a tolerably full account of “the
Rule,” to which, in the body of the book, Tertullian again and
again refers. The woman who lost the piece of silver sought for
it in her own house:

‘Let us then seek in our own and from our own people and con-
cerning our own, for that which—without damage to the rule of faith—
may possibly come into question.

“ But the rule of faith—that I may now put forth that which I am
defending,—is that by which it is believed that there is one God, and
none besides, the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of
nothing, through His Word sent forth (emitted) first of all: that that
Word, named His Son, was in the name of God, variously seen by
Patriarchs, always heard in Prophets, afterwards sent down from the
Spirit of God the Father and with power into the Virgin Mary, was
made flesh in her womb, and was born of her, and appeared as Jesus
Christ (egisse Jesum Christum) ; then preached a new law and a new
promise of the kingdom of heaven, wrought miracles, was fixed to the
cross, rose again the third day, was caught up to heaven, sitteth at the
right hand of the Father, sent in His place the power of the Holy Spirit
to move believers, will come again with majesty to receive the saints

40 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

into the reward of the eternal life and the heavenly promises, and to con-
demn the impious to perpetual fire; the resurrection of each party having
taken place with the restoration of the flesh. This rule (he proceeds)
taught, as it will be proved, by Christ, has no questions stirred regarding
it amongst us, save those which heresies introduce and which make
heretics. Provided that this form remains in its order, you may seek
and handle as much as you please, and apply the whole lust of curiosity,
if there is anything [else] which seems to you to hang in doubt, or be
shadowed in obscurity.”

§ 9. I think few of my readers can hesitate to acknowledge
that the variety of language with which Irenzus and Tertullian
describe THE RULE oF FAITH and THE CANON OF THE TRUTH is
such as to remove all doubt upon the question whether there was,
in the time of either of them, a fixed and determined form of
words which embraced the various subjects that they both have
mentioned, a form (say) which was submitted to or uttered by
the Candidate for Holy Baptism. If by a CREED we are to un-
derstand a series of Credenda, then, undoubtedly, the CREEDS of
these two great writers, or rather of the Churches of Lyons and
Africa at the time when they lived, were as extensive as were
these Rules of Faith. But if we may limit (as I shall propose to
do) the use of the word CREED to the form of words in which any
Church or Council embodied its Faith, and which was used as a
manifesto of that Faith,—either at baptism or elsewhere,—then,
I say, we must maintain that the Creeds of Justin Martyr, Ter-
tullian, and the rest were exceedingly limited, whilst the RULES
OF FAITH, which guided the clergy and laity, were very extensive.
In fact, if we refer to the fragment of the letter of Polycrates,
Bishop of Ephesus, to Victor, Bishop of Rome, written towards
the end of the second century, we find that the writer declared
that he followed the CANON OF THE FAITH in keeping Easter on
the fourteenth day of the month’. “The Canon of the Faith”
in this case included a point of ceremonial.

§ 10. This result of our investigation receives additional sup-
port from the introduction to Origen’s Work, De Principiis’. Of
this introduction only a few words are preserved in Greek; for the
rest we must trust to the translation of Ruffinus, who at all events

1 The passage is preserved by Euse- Mr Harvey’s Ecclesie Anglicane Vindex
bius, H. E. v. 24, and may be seen in Catholicus, Vol. 1. p. 526. The book is
iouth, Relliquie Sacre, Vol. τι. p. 15. considered to have been written between

2 This introduction may be seen in 212 and 215.

Iv. | RULES OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES. 41

is not likely to have seriously altered here the language of the
great Alexandrian. Origen then drew marked lines in regard to
the subjects which were settled “by the ecclesiastical preaching,”
which had been handed down by continuous succession from the
Apostles and remained in the Churches until the present time:
for that alone should be deemed to be the truth which differed
in nothing from the ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition.

“For the Holy Apostles in preaching the Faith of Christ delivered
openly to all whatever they deemed to be necessary even for those who
seemed to be somewhat slow in searching out the divine science; whilst
they left the reasons of things to be inquired into by those who might
receive the excelling graces of the Spirit, and might have especially the
gift of language, of wisdom, and of knowledge by the Spirit Himself;
in the one case making statements regarding things that they are:
leaving to others, the more studious of their posterity and the lovers

of wisdom, to examine how they are, and whence they are’.”

Amongst those things which were openly handed down by the
apostolic preaching, Origen mentions”

“The creation of all things by the one God, and that this God in the
last days had (as He had promised by His prophets) sent our Lord Jesus
Christ to call first Israel, and then, after the unbelief of His people
Israel, the Gentiles. This God is the God of the Apostles, the God both
of the Old and New Testaments. Jesus Christ Himself, who came, was
born of the Father before all creatures. He who had ministered to the
Father in the creation of all things, had in the last days, emptying
Himself, become Man Incarnate, even whilst He was God. He assumed
a body like our body, except that it was born of a Virgin and the
Holy Spirit. And inasmuch as this Jesus Christ was born and suffered
in truth, so did He truly die; for He truly rose again from the dead,
and, having after His resurrection conversed with His disciples, He was
taken up. Then they delivered that the Holy Spirit was associated in
honour and dignity with the Father and the Son. But whether the
Holy Spirit was born or unborn (natus an innatus, later writers insisted
that He was nec genitus nec ingenitus) was not part of the apostolic
preaching, but was left for enquiry and investigation out of Scripture.”

So it was part of the preaching that® “there should be a resurrection
of the dead, and a future judgment, and that every rational soul possessed
free will and choice, and that we have to pass through a struggle with
the devil and his angels: but, as to the origin of the soul, and how the
powers of the devil came to be what they are, the preaching of the
Apostles does not with any clearness explain.”

Once more*. ‘Tt is in the preaching of the Church that this
world was made and began at a certain time, and is hereafter to be
dissolved : but what there was before the world, and what will be after

§ 4

~ ὦ
S72 SP
NI OT

(abbreviated).

42 THE OCREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

the world, is not known clearly to many ; for as to these points no clear
testimony is borne in the preaching of the Church.”

Again’. “There is the fact that the Scriptures were written by (per)
the Spirit of God, and have a meaning—not merely that which is
apparent, but another which escapes the knowledge of many ; and the
opinion of the whole Church is that this second meaning is known only
to those to whom the grace of the Holy Spirit is given in the word of
wisdom and understanding.”

And Origen passes on to a curious and apparently not very
apposite discussion on the use of the word incorporeal (ἀσώματος)
as applied to the Divine Beings: and he states that an object for
the consideration of the thoughtful will be furnished by the nature
of God and of Christ and of the Holy Spirit: and indeed by the
nature of every soul and every rational being.

In conclusion :

“That there are angels of God and good powers ministering to Him
for the benefit of mankind (he says) is clearly a part of the ecclesiastical
preaching ; but when they were created, and what their nature is, or
how they are, is not enunciated with any clearness ; and manifestly we
have no tradition whether the sun and stars are animated or not. These
are questions of science or knowledge.”

§ 11. The subjects which this passage of Origen opens out
are interesting in the highest degree; but we cannot of course
now enter upon them at length. I will only say that, as the lines
which I quoted a few pages back from Tertullian seem to account
to us for the vast increase of ceremonial in the Church in the
course of the third century, so does this passage assist us to un-
derstand the origin of our scientific theology. This theology was
not part of the Primitive Tradition of the Church, but is the result
of the long and painful exercise of thought on the original verbal
and written Tradition. The “ Ecclesiastical preaching” of Origen,
like the Rules of Faith of Irenzus and Tertullian, contained de
facto nothing which was not contained in Scripture. And so it
is that on Scripture the spirits of devout men have ever been ex-
ercised during the more thoughtful ages and sections of the
Church: the treatises of Augustine and Basil and others furnish
adequate illustrations of the mode in which this exercise was car-
ried on by them. And when we remember that the appeal to
“ Scripture only” for testimony in support of the doctrine of the
Church on any particular difficult subject is the principle of the

1 Ὁ 8,

"“

IV. | RULES OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES. 43

Church of England as laid down by the great leaders of her
Reformation,—we need not ask for better proofs that the same
principle was the principle of Augustine and of Basil than are
furnished by the Essays of the one on the Descent of our Lord
into Hell, and of the other on the Holy Spirit.

§ 12. Ido not remember that St Cyprian very frequently re-
ferred to the Rule of Faith; the few instances however in which
he did so are important. Additional interest in his language
arises from the circumstance that he is said to be the first person
known who uses the word SyMBou. In fact he uses three distinct
terms, LEX, SYMBOLUM, INTERROGATIO BAPTISMI, and a fourth ap-
parently combined of two of these, viz. LEX SYMBOLI. I conceive
the first - word “law” represents what Tertullian calls the rule of
faith: the second, the “symbol,” the gradually formed Watchword
of the Fath: the third, the “baptismal interrogation,’ was shorter
than the symbol’: the fourth, “the law of the symbol” being the
rule of faith,—regarded as that on which, or from which, the sym-
bol was framed. Cyprian’s language on this is well known, being
quoted in all the books, but I will repeat it here, for it is instruc-
tive in many respects.

i. Novatian would be regarded at the present day not as a
heretic but as a schismatic:

So “if any one were to object that Novatian holds the same law
which the Catholic church holds, baptizes with the same symbol that
we do, knows the same God the Father, the same Son Christ, the same
Holy Spirit, and therefore may usurp the power to baptize, because he
seems in the interrogation of baptism not to differ from us, then let the
objector know, first that we and the schismatics have not one law of
symbol, nor yet the same interrogation. For when they ask; Dost
thou believe in remission of sins and eternal life through the holy
Church ?—they speak falsely in the interrogation itself, seeing that they
have not the Church. Then moreover they themselves confess with their
own voice that remission of sins cannot be given except through the
holy Church ; and, as they have not the Church, they shew that with
them sins are not remitted. Neither can it help them to have known
the same God the Father that we know, the same Son Christ, the same
Holy Spirit®.”

1 In the letter of Firmilian to Cyprian, remissionem. But I must note that ac-

No. 75, § 10, we read of the usitata et
legitima verba interrogationis at baptism.

2 Cyprianus Magno, Fpist. ux1x. 8§ 7,
8. I have followed the ordinary text,
adding however with the MSS. in before

cording to Hartel, the Codex Seguierianus
of Paris (it is of the sixth or seventh
century, the earliest extant) omits eun-
dem Spiritum in the earlier passage: and
reads the whole passage ‘‘ mentiuntur in

44 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [CHAP.

i. A similar passage is found in the letter to the Bishops of
Numidia (Lxx. § 2), and this clearly shews that the form “ credis
In uitam zternam et remissionem peccatorum per sanctam eccle-
siam’,” was the form then used by all alike: for Cyprian calls
upon the schismatics either to change the words of the interroga-
tion, or to uphold their truth.

i. But in this branch of our subject it will perhaps be of
greater importance to draw attention to a few passages where the
faith is mentioned, rather than the symbol. Thus to Jubaianus,
Cyprian writes (Letter LXx111. §§ 4, 5),

‘Tf the faith is one with us and the heretics, then the grace may be
one. If the same Father, the same Son, the same Holy Spirit, the same

Church is confessed by us and by the Patripassiani, the Anthropiani,
and so on, then the baptism may be one, if (as they allege) the faith is

one.”

As it is, their faith being different, their baptism is insuff-
cient. Again, quoting the words in which our Saviour instituted
the sacrament of baptism, Cyprian says:

Our Lord “here suggests (or implies) the Trinity in whose mystery
(cujus sacramento) the nations were to be baptized. But does Marcion
hold this Trinity ? does he assert the same God, the Father, Creator,
that we do? did he know the same Son, Christ, born of the Virgin
Mary? which Word was made flesh, bore our sins, by dying overcame
death, initiated the Resurrection of the flesh by Himself rising, and
shewed to His disciples that in the same flesh He had risen? Far differ-
ent is the faith with Marcion and the other heretics.”

Thus, in § 20 of the same letter we read how we ought to
hold firmly and to teach the faith and truth of the Catholic
Church, and, by means of all the evangelic and apostolic precepts,
to exhibit the reason of the divine dispensation (economy) and

unity”.

§ 18. As my object in this chapter is to note not merely
the traces of the existence, but also the character of the “ Rule of
Faith”—not the growth of the symbol, nor the exact form of
the baptismal interrogation —I shall refer my readers to the

interrogatione quando non habeant eccle-
siam. tune deinde uoce sua ipsi confi-
tentur remissionem peccatorum.” The
subject is very difficult.

1 IT do not think the difference of the
order of words is of any consequence.

2 It is in the next section that we
meet with the words salus extra eccle-
siam non est. I would draw attention
to the allusion to the Creation in the
passage from the letter to Jubaianus,

IV. | RULES OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES. 45

collections of Dr Heurtley, of Dr Hahn, or of Mr Lumby on these
latter subjects. I must notice, however, that in the account of
the Council of Carthage given in the collection of Cyprian’s works,
Euchratius of Thenz, § 29, appealed to the words of our Lord in
Matt. xxviii. 18, as giving fully (perimplevit is the word used) “our
Faith and the grace of baptism and the rule of the ecclesiastical
law” (legis ecclesiasticee regulam): and Vincentius of Thibaris,
§ 37, referred to our Saviour’s words in Mark xvi. 18, as con-
taining the “Rule of Truth” to be observed on the return of
heretics. In its synodical letter (see Cyp. Lpist. LXx.) the council
claimed that it was merely carrying out the “truth and firmness
of the Catholic Rule.’ And very interesting is it to find that
some of the bishops during the council, and Cyprian himself after
it was over, appealed to the Scriptures as the one authority when
tradition failed. See, for example, Letter Lxxiv. § 10:

“Tf a channel or conduit which had copiously and largely conveyed
water from a fountain suddenly stops, do we not go to the fountain itself
to know whether the springs themselves have failed, or whether the loss
has arisen from defects in the channel which may be amended? And
this the priests of God ought now to do, observing the divine precepts,
so that if in anything the truth have wavered or tottered, we should
revert to the divine original (originem dominicam) and to the evangelic

and apostolic tradition ; and thus the reason for our action should rise
from that from which both its order and its origin burst forth’.”.

§ 14. But we find Novatian himself appealing to the “Rule

the words were often altered in olden
time, as they are mistranslated in our

1 Before we part with Cyprian I may
remark that there are a few notes of his

faith perceptible in his treatises de Vani-
tate (Quod idola dii non sint) $11. The
passage, written before the Nestorian
controversy, has been much altered by
copyists and editors as by the Oxford
translators to make it orthodox. Thus
Deus cum homine miscetur is there
rendered ‘‘ God is made one with man.”
Carnem Spiritus Sanctus induitur is al-
tered in the editions, apparently without
any authority, into carnem Spiritu Sancto
cooperante induitur. Again hominein
induit which might involve Nestorianism
was translated correctly in the Oxford
series ‘‘puts on man,” but a note is added
‘i,e.human nature. Thus the orthodox
doctrine differs from Nestorianism,” &c.
Of course it does, but what was Cyprian’s
view? The fact is that early writers
frequently used language which was sub-
sequently found to be capable of an
heretical sense: and to evade this sense

own. In the de Lapsis § 2 we have “‘re-
ligiosa vox Christum locuta est in quem
semel credidisse confessa est,” i.e. the
religious voice hath uttered the name of
Christ in whom it once confessed that it
believed. The Oxford translation ren-
ders it ‘‘ which hath already made con-
fession of His Creed.” According to
this, I cannot say I have believed in
Christ, unless I repeat the Creed.

There is perhaps a more distinguish-
able reference to a Creed in the de
Mortalitate § 21. Qui autem in spe
uiuimus et in Deum credimus &e. ‘We
who live in hope and believe in Gop,
and trust that Christ has suffered for us
and risen again, abiding in Christ, and
ourselves rising again through Him and
in Him—why are we unwilling ourselves
to depart out of the world, or grieve
over our friends that haye departed as
if they were lost?”

46 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

of the Truth.” Fragments of his Belief have been collected out
of his treatise de Trinitate by the care of Dr Heurtley, and in
his pages the original may be seen. Novatian says, that the
“Rule of Truth” requires, first of all, that you believe “in God the
omnipotent Father and Lord, that is, the most perfect Creator of
all things.” This he discusses, §§ 1—8. The “same Rule of
Truth” teaches us to believe, “after the Father, in the Son of
God, Christ Jesus, our Lord God, but still Son of God.” This
subject occupies §§ 9—28. Then “the order of reason and the
authority of the faith admonish us, having digested the words
and letters of the Lord, to believe in the Holy Spirit,” &. Dr
Heurtley considers that there can be no doubt that the Regula
Veritatis of which Novatian speaks refers to the Creed: but
I hope that the learned writer will, on reconsideration, agree with
me, that the language adduced clearly shews that this Rule of
Truth cannot be identical with the Baptismal Profession. It
seems to me that Novatian informs us that the Baptismal Profes-
sion was required by the Rule of Truth, by the order of reason,
and by the authority of the Faith, but was not identical with any
of them’.

§ 15. It may be useful now to arrange the subjects, which,
according to the Fathers whom I have quoted, the RULE OF THE
ΒΆΙΤΗ of the first three centuries contained. I need not specify
the writers by whom the various items are mentioned: the com-
parison of the following account with the passages which I have
cited from their works may be easily made by my readers.

We learn therefore the following: that this Rule of Faith
required that all should believe “That there is one God, the
Father Almighty, Who made neve. and earth, Who created all
things out of nothing.

“And that they ἀν believe in one Christ Jesus, the Son
of God, the Word of God, our Lord God, Who was born of the
Father before all creation, through whom God made all things
Who was seen by the Patriarchs, Who was heard in the Prophets,
Who from (ex) the Spirit of God and with power was sent down

1 Migne, Latin series 111., pp. 886 &c. legimus et credimus et tenemus unum esse
See Dr Heurtley p. 21, Hahn p. 74, Mr Deum qui fecit celum pariter et terram,”
Lumby p. 29. In § 30, Novatian adds the word wnum forms a link of connec-
one word of interest: ** Nos scimus et tion with the Eastern creeds.

IV. | RULES OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES. 47

into the Virgin Mary (in Virginem Mariam delatum): Who was
for our salvation made flesh in her womb, uniting man to God:
being Son of Man and Son of God: so that the Son of God
became Man: He was born of her: He preached a new law, and
gave new promises of the kingdom of heaven, and wrought
miracles: He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was fixed to the cross
(fixum cruci), died, was buried: rose again the third day from the
dead: was taken up in the flesh into heaven; sat on the mght
hand of the Father and sent in His stead the power of the Holy
Spirit to lead on believers: He will come again from heaven in
the glory of the Father to collect all things together in Himself
as Head (ἀνακεφαλαιωσάσθαι τὰ πάντα), to raise up all flesh of all
humanity, and to judge the living and the dead, and receive the
saints to Himself to life and incorruption, and condemn the
wicked and the angels which sinned to everlasting fire.

“The belief must also be firm in the Holy Spirit ; Who is associ-
ated in honour and dignity with the Father and the Son, who through
the prophets proclaimed the dispensations, and the economies, and the
birth from the Virgin, and the sufferings and the rising again.”

And we learn from Cyprian that the candidate for baptism
was required to express his belief “in Remission of Sins and
Eternal Life through the Church*.”

§ 16. My readers will be able to compare for themselves this
series of credenda with the contents of our modern version of the
Apostles’ Creed: noting both the additions and the deficiencies.
They will be able also to judge for themselves whether this Rule
of Faith required a belief in anything which is not directly taught
in Scripture. They will then understand why the earliest here-
tics felt themselves compelled to tamper with the books which we
now reckon to be Canonical and Apostolical, before they could
attempt to shew that their views were in accordance with the

1 With this may be compared the
Creed of Marcellus although it belongs
to a later epoch. The original may be
seen in Epiphanius Heres. txxu., Migne
xLit. 385, Dr Heurtley p. 24, Mr Lumby
p. 119, or Hahn p. 5. ‘I believe in
God Almighty, and in Christ Jesus His
only begotten Son, our Lord, who was
born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin
Mary, who was crucified under Pontius
Pilate, and was buried, and on the third

day rose again from the dead, who
ascended into heaven, and sitteth on
the right hand of the Father, from
whence He is coming to judge living
and dead: and in the Holy Ghost, Holy
Church, Remission of sins, Resurrection
of the flesh, Life everlasting.”

The last clause is found in the creed
of the Church of Ravenna as given by
Petrus Chrysologus, a.p. 445, but not in
any intermediate creed.

48 THE CREEDS

written words of Christ’s Apostles.

OF THE CHURCH.

[ CHAP.

We shall thus have an answer

to the questions, “How far does early Church history enable us
to form an estimate as to the contents of the Apostolical Tradi-
tion?” and “Did this Apostolical Tradition contain any thing of
a doctrinal character for which we have not now ample warrant

in the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles*?”

The answer

to this last question is, “ Decidedly not.”

1 Before I pass on I may be allowed
to draw attention to the appeals made
by Mr Newman in 1844, to the Rule of
Faith. The two volumes (or rather the
two parts of the one volume) entitled
“ὁ Selected Treatises of δ. Athanasius,
Archbishop of Alexandria, in controversy
with the Arians, transiated with notes
and Indices,’ (the advertisements to
-which are attested by the initials J. H.
N.) appeared respectively in 1842 and
1844. On comparing the summary of
chapter xi. of the first discourse a-
gainst the Arians, as given in the table
of contents p. vi. published in 1844,
with the summary itself (p. 233) as pub-
lished in 1842 a curious addition will
be noted. The passage under discus-
sion by Athanasius was Philippians ii.
9,10. The special subject was whether
the exaltation spoken of there shewed,
as the Arian maintained, ‘‘the moral
probation and advancement of the
Saviour.” This Arian opinion Athana-
sius resisted (according to Mr Newman),
‘‘First from the force of the word Son
according to the Regula Fidei, which is
inconsistent with such an interpreta-
tion.” But this reference to the Regula
Fidei was added in 1844; mention of
it was not made in 1842. Athanasius
however did not refer to the Rule of
Faith at all, either directly or indirectly :
the language which he used is this:
‘‘Such then I consider to be the mean-
ing of the passage and this decidedly
ecclesiastical.’? Again in the titles to
Discourse 11. Ὁ. vii. or 281 we have (on
Hebrews iii. 2) ‘‘ the Regula Fidei counter
to an Arian sense of the text”; in those
to chapter xv. (pp. vil. and 297) on Acts
ii. 36 ‘“‘The Regula Fidei must be ob-
served’; in that to chapter xxii. on
Proverbs viii. 22 (pp. ix. and 385) ‘‘It is
right to interpret this passage by the
Regula Fidei”; so chapter xxv. (pp. x. and
414) ‘The Arian explanation” of words
in 5. John’s Gospel “15 put aside by the
Regula Fidei”; chapter xxvi. (pp. X1.
and 436) ‘‘We must recur to the Regula
Fidei”; chapter xxviii. (pp. xi. and 549)

‘‘ Arian explanation of’? Mark xiii. 32
**contradicts the Regula Fidei”; chap-
ter xxix. (pp. xii. and 476) ‘‘ Arian in-
ferences” from Mat. xxvi. 39, &c. ‘‘are
against the Regula Fidei” as before ;
chapter xxx. (pp. xii. and 484) ‘‘ The
Regula Fidei answers ‘an objection’ at
once in the negative by contrary texts.”
I suppose that readers generally would
consider that the Regula Fidei thus put
prominently forward by so accomplished
a theologian had, in every place cited,
some counterpart in the writings of
Athanasius, and that this counterpart
corresponded to the Rule of Faith tech-
nically referred to by Tertullian. On
examination however it appears that in
many of the passages there is no re-
ference in Athanasius to any Rule of
Faith whatever: the conception is en-
tirely imported into the text by the an-
notator. In some of them, as in 11, 28,
the appeal is made to the “ cxdzos, the
general tendency or aim of the faith of
us Christians, which tendency or aim
we should use as a rule in our attendance
to the reading of inspired Scripture;”
words which recall to my mind the wise
instruction conveyed in Article xvu.
and xx. of the Church of England, but
have no reference to any traditional doc-
trine. In others the testimony of ‘the
truth’? is invoked. On these Mr New-
man remarked that in some instances
‘the words ἀλήθεια λόγος (sic) &c., are
almost synonymous with Regula Fidei,”
and he took as an example a passage in
§ 36, where Athanasius, after discou-
raging enquiries into such questions as
“ How the Word is with God, How He is
the brightness of God, How God begets,
and What is the manner of such an ac-
tion with Him,’’—adds, ‘‘but we must
not, because of this, entertain concep-
tions against the truth, nor, if we are
at a loss regarding these things, should
we on this account disbelieve what is
written.” In 111. § 29 (Migne xxv1. p. 385),
Athanasius appeals to ‘‘the drift and
character of Holy Scripture,’ Σκόπος
τοίνυν οὗτος Kal χαρακτὴρ τῆς ἁγίας ypa-

Iv. | - RULES OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES. 49.

§ 17. One more reference to the Rule of Faith of the earliest
centuries and to its relation with the written Scriptures must be
permitted to me. Towards the middle or end of the second
century, appeared one Artemon, who denied the Deity of our
Lord; and, anticipating the heresy of Paul of Samosata, main-
tained that the Saviour had become a mere man (ψιλὸν ἄνθρωπον
Tov σωτῆρα γένεσθαι), and he claimed that this was the old
opinion. A writer who had not attached his name to his essay,
resisted this pretension. He wrote, says Eusebius’, “These people
say that all their predecessors and the apostles themselves
received and taught what they now teach: and indeed that so it
continued until the time of Victor, who was thirteenth in the
succession from Peter at Rome: his successor, Zephyrinus’, (they
say) it was under whom the truth had been perverted.” The
argument of the anonymous writer will prove interesting to us:
“they might have put their opinions in a persuasive form,” he
is reported to have said, “if the Holy Scriptures had not in
the first instance stood in their way. But besides there are writings
of some of the brethren, older than Victor, which they composed
in behalf of the truth in reference to the Gentiles and to the then
heresies:” and he specified Justin, and Miltiades, and Tatian,
and Clemens and many others, by whom the Christ is spoken of
as God (θεολογεῖται 6 Χριστός). And he appealed to the works of
Irenzeus and Melito, and to the psalms and hymns (ᾧδαι) in which
the same truth was assumed. “How then can these people affirm
that theirs is the old doctrine, ours the new?” And the same
writer complains :

“That these men had corrupted the Holy Scriptures, had put on
one side the canon of the ancient faith, had ignored Christ, not asking,
what did the divine Scriptures say? but, what was the kind of argu-
ment that might be found to prove the Deity? exercising their wits from
mere love of labour! and then if any one puts before them a sentence of

φῆς, aS teaching, as he had often said,
both the Divinity and the Humanity of
the Saviour: he states that if any one
will after studying John i. 1—5, 14, and
Philipp. ii. 6—8, with the same mind
go through all the Scripture, he will see
how at the beginning God said, Let there
be light and Let us make man, and at
the end of the ages sent the Saviour
into the world to save the world; as it is
written, A virgin shall conceive, &c. The

fact is that the Rule of Faith as it’

8. C.

was used by Tertullian failed to meet
the heresies of the fourth century; and
thus the appeal was made to the general
scope and drift of Scripture, and special
passages of Scripture were interpreted
by the ‘‘ Catholic Fathers” in harmony
with that general drift.

1 Eusebius, H. E., Book v. last chapter,
28—32.

2 Zephyrinus was Pope from 201—
218.

50 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

Holy Seripture, they turn it over, this way and that way, to see whether
by taking it with its context or without they may make it into a mem-
ber of a syllogism. For they have given up the Holy Scriptures of God
and study the measure of the earth’, as being from the earth and speak-
ing from the earth, and ignorant of Him that cometh from above.”
They take the measure of Euclid (proceeds our author) and admire
Aristotle and Theophrastus and almost adore Galenus. ‘“ But surely
I have no need to say that these fellows are far from the faith who use
to the full the arts of the unbeliever in support of their heresy, and
with the clever craft of the atheist adulterate the simple faith of the
Holy Scriptures. Indeed they lay hands on the Scriptures themselves,
and pretend that they have been rendering them correct.”

I can scarcely resist a painful smile whilst I translate these
words; a parallel in the modern interpretation of a few isolated
passages of Scripture lies so close at hand, and the treatment of
Scripture by modern divines seems to have been anticipated
in the times of this anonymous writer.

“ Asclepiodorus and Theodotus and Hermophilus and Apollonius
have tried each his hand in correcting Scripture: how is it that the
results of their operations differ so materially 1”

§ 18. This passage gives additional signs of an approaching
transition from the appeal to the traditional Rule of Faith to
an appeal to Scripture—a transition of which I have already
noted intimations. The fact was that the controversialists of the
third century were compelled to enter on ground where the tradi-
tional Rule of Faith could not reach them: the Arian and the
Catholic could each accept the whole of the contents of the
canon as given by Irenzus or Tertullian. A new series of ques-
tions was now opening before the Church, and it required a new
mode of treatment. On matters of discipline, Tertullian—almost,
if not quite, a Montanist at the time—had appealed to the con-
tinuous action of the Holy Spirit in leading Christians into truth:
the churchmen were compelled now to appeal to the same Spirit
in matters of doctrine. They gradually came to recognise Chris-
tianity as a science: a science, the data of which were to be found
in the contents of the Holy Volume; the power of reading which
was sought for in the action of the life-giving Spirit. Two ques-
tions of deep interest to us had also now to find their answer :
one was, What is Holy Scripture? what criteria are we to use in
fixing its contents? the other was, Are we to allow the general

1 They argue as they would of material objects.

IV. | RULES OF THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES. 51

scope of Scripture to be subordinated to what is the prima facie
meaning of a few special texts? On the first of these questions
I have written at length in my Hulsean Lectures of 1858: on the
second in the series for 1857. I will not detain my readers to
discuss the principles which guided the Church in making its
arrangements. I shall be compelled, however, to give specimens
of the mode in which these arrangements were carried out.

CHAPTER V.

RULES OF FAITH AFTER THE YEAR 250.
a
§ 1. Letter of synod of Antioch to Paul of Samosata, a.p. 269. §2. The expo-
sition of Gregory of Neo-Cesarea. ὃ 3. Creedof Eusebius. § 4. Comparison
of this with the Creeds of the Apostolic Constitutions and of Lucian the

Martyr. §5. Lucian’s appeal to Scripture. §6. Position now gained by
the Church.

§ 1. ΙΝ my opinion the most important document of the third -
century that bears upon our present subject is the letter sent to
Paul of Samosata by the orthodox bishops who met at Antioch in
the year 269. It is true that the great synod held at Carthage
on the subject of rebaptizing heretics had included some bishops
who, when the choice had to be made between the suspension of
an ecclesiastical custom and the infraction of God’s law, main-
tained that custom must give way to Scripture; but as uphold-
ing the corresponding canon in doctrinal matters, this Council
of Antioch has for us a deeper interest. This letter was first
printed (we are told) in its original form in Rome in the year
1608, and thence it has found its way into the collections of the
Councils’. It is to be seen also in Vol. 11. of Dr Routh’s collec-
tion of Relliquie Sacre, and in Dr Hahn’s volume, p. 91. The
genuineness has been disputed, but I believe that all doubts re-
garding it are now considered to be at rest. The letter is said to
have been composed by Malchion a presbyter of the Church of
Antioch, and then to have been adopted by the bishops Hyme-
nus, Theophilus, and others who met in synod.

The Bishops, in addressing Paul, state that they had first compared
together their own belief; and then, in order to render it more clear,
they had resolved to put out in writing the faith which they had re-
ceived from the beginning, which they held as it had been handed down
and as it was kept in the Catholic and Holy Church even to the present
day, being proclaimed by continuous succession from those blessed
Apostles, who had been eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, from

1 Labbe, 1. 843, Mansi, 1. 1033.

CHAP, V.]| RULES OF FAITH AFTER A.D. 250. 53

the Law, from the Prophets, and from the New Testament. Their Faith
was that God is unbegotten, one, without beginning, unseen, unchange-
able, Whom no man hath seen or can see: Whose glory or majesty
worthily to conceive or worthily to enunciate is beyond the reach of
human nature; yea, to have even any, the poorest, conception of Him,
is impossible for us if unassisted. His beloved Son alone reveals Him,
as He saith, Vo one knoweth the Father, save the Son and he to whom the
Son may reveal Him. And this Son we confess and believe (having
known it both in the Old and New Testament) to be Begotten, Only-
begotten, Image of the unseen God, First-born of all creation, Wisdom
and Word and Power of God, Being before the worlds—not in fore-
knowledge but in essence and substance—God, and Son of God. And
whoso shall contend against this, saying, that we ought not to believe
and confess that the Son of God is God before the foundation of the
world, but shall maintain that two Gods are preached if the Son of
God is preached as God, him we consider to be alien to the ecelesiastical
Canon. And all the Catholic Churches agree with us, For concerning
Him it has been written, Zhy Throne, O God, &c.—and they quote
Ps. xlv. 6, 7, and Isaiah xxxv. 4, 5 Our God repayeth judgment—He
will come (αὐτὸς ἥξει) and save us, &e., and Isaiah xlv. 14 In Thee shall
they pray; because God is in Thee and there is no God beside Thee, &c.,
and Rom. ix. 5 Prom whom is Christ after the flesh who is over all, &e.,
where Who is over all, and Beside Thee must be conceived to embrace all
created things’. And again Hosea xi. 9 7 am God and not man, ὅτ.
And all the God-inspired Scriptures signify that the Son of God is
God ;—to put all these forward one by one we must defer for the present”.

‘“‘Him we believe, ever being with the Father, to have fulfilled the
Father’s will with reference to the Creation of all things: for He (αὐτὸς)
spake and they were made; He commanded and they were created. For
he that commands commands some one; and who is commanded here save
God, the Only-begotten Son of God, to Whom the words were spoken, Let
“us make man, ὅτο. 1 and the bishops quote John i. 3, All things were
made through Him, and Col. 1. 16, In Him all things were created.
Then they proceed—“ and thus He truly is, and He worketh at once as
Word and as God: and by Him the Father hath made all things, yet
not as by a material instrument or by an impersonal knowledge: but,
the Father having begotten the Son, as a living and personal energy,
working all in all: the Son not merely looking on, nor being merely
present, but also working for the creation of the Universe, as it is written
(Prov. viii. 30) 7 was with Him, fitting all things for Him. We say
that it was He who came down and was seen by Abraham at the oak of
Mamre, One of the mysterious Three: it was written of Him, Zhe LORD
rained down fire from the LORD. We say it was He who, in fulfil-
ment of the Father’s will, appeared to the Patriarchs, now as Angel,
now as Lord, now testified to as God. He was the Angel of the great
Covenant (Isaiah ix. 6). He was seen by Abraham as Lorp (Gen. xxii.
12, 14), and as God by Jacob (xxxi. 11, xxxii. 30). The Man who is
mentioned at first as appearing, we say, is the Son of God, and Him the

1 πάντων γεννητῶν. Query γενητών
2 Routh suggests τὸ νῦν for τὸν υἱὸν here,

54 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH, [ CHAP.

Scripture itself has signified to be God. So too we say that the Law
was given to Moses through the ministering of the Son of God, as the
Apostle teacheth (Gal. iii. 19), ordained by angels, &. We know of no
other Mediator between God and Man but Him, and we are taught
this by Moses,” and they refer to Exodus ili. 2, 4, 16, iv. 1; all of which
are quoted in succession, as are Deut. xxxiii. 16; Exod. xxxiii. 17—19;
xxxlv. 5, 6, and the passages are compared with our Lord’s words
in John yi. 46, vy. 37, and St John’s words in his Gospel i. 18, and St
Paul’s in 1 Tim. 1, 17 :—

the letter proceeds :

*‘ And we confess and proclaim that the Son, being with the Father,
God and Lord of all created things, and being sent by the Father from
heaven, and incarnate, has assumed man (ἐνηνθρωπηκέναι) : wherefore the
Body, taken from the Virgin, containing all the fulness of the Godhead
bodily, has been, without eapability of change (ἀτρέπτως), united with
the Godhead, and has been deified (τεθεοποίηται). And for the sake of
this incarnation, the same God and Man, Jesus Christ, was prophesied
in the Law and Prophets, and has been believed on in the whole Church
which is under heaven; being, on the one hand, God, divesting Himself’
of being equal with God, and, on the other, Man and of the seed of
David according to the flesh: the signs and wonders which are described
in the gospels, it was the God who wrought; but by participation of
flesh and blood He was in all points tempted like as we are, without
sin, And thus before the Incarnation the Christ was named in the
divine Scriptures as One. In Jeremiah (Lament. iv. 20) the Spirit of
our countenance, the Christ; and the Spirit is the Lord according to the
Apostle (2 Cor, 111, 17). And the same Apostle says They drank of the
spiritual Rock and the Rock was the Christ, and again Let us not tempt
the Lord, &., and of Moses He considered the (ὀνειδισμὸς) bearing the
reproach of the Christ as greater riches, &c.: and Peter, Of which
salvation, &. And if Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God,
is before the ages, so also and so far is Christ one and the same Thing in
essence even though He is regarded under many figures.

“‘Having signified these few things out of very many, we wish to
know whether thou believest and teachest the same things that we do, and
beg thee to inform us whether thou art satisfied with what we have written
or not.”

Several questions of great interest are opened out by this
passage.

It will be seen, as I have said already, 1. that the Rule of
Faith, as we have collected its details from Tertullian and others,
and, as we have found it embodied in the later personal belief of
Marcellus, was not sufficient to meet the errors of Paul of Samo-
sata; a new country was opening out, over which the early tra-
ditional instructions furnished no special maps to guide the tra-

1 κενώσας, the word of Phil. ii. 7, ‘*made himself of no reputation.”

Wel RULES OF FAITH AFTER A.D. 250. 55

veller. On the character and work of the Christ, in His pre-existent
state, the “Rule” was nearly silent: as to the mode of His In-
carnation it gave no information. The orthodox writers of the
latter half of the third century might address this Paul and his
followers and accuse them of deserting the Canon, but they pro-
duced no proofs that the Canon contained clearly and explicitly
a denial of his errors: the teaching of these men was novel cer-
tainly, but was it opposed directly to the earlier teaching of the
Church? The Fathers at Antioch pointed to the pride and self-
assumption of these new doctors: they accused them of petulance:
they complained that they had forbidden the use of psalms which
had been commonly sung in honour of our Lord Jesus Christ, on
the pretence that these psalms were new and compositions of
recent men; and they had really denied that God, the Son of God,
had “come down from heaven,’—but the old Rule of Faith had
not asserted this ; and what were the orthodox to do?

ii. Thus the Antiochene bishops acted with reference to this
new doctrine as the Fathers at Carthage had acted in their diffi-
culty respecting the acknowledgment of heretical baptism: they
appealed to Scripture: by the test of Scripture they tried and
confirmed their own faith, that faith which had not yet been em-
bodied in language. As years roll on, we shall find their newer
rules of faith, supplemented out of the Scripture, crystallising as it
were, more and more, round the thread which the early Canon
enabled them to apply.

11, And we must notice a third thing. We shall have ere
long to discuss the words of Athanasius, that “the Son, in the ful-
ness of time came down from the bosom of the Father, and from
the undefiled Virgin Mary took our man Christ Jesus,” and shall
then draw attention to the fact that these words bear, prima facie
at all events, a Nestorian meaning. So the words of Malchion will
be found to be consistent with opinions which the Church after-
wards rejected. “The Father commanded the Son;” “the Body
from the Virgin was united to the Deity, and was deified.” “He
divested Himself of His equality.” “He was one Thing in essence.”
And it may be noticed, that the unity of the Godhead is nowhere
insisted on: the truth pressed is this, that in essence and in sub-
stance Christ was God before the Incarnation, οὐσίᾳ καὶ ὑποστάσει
Θεόν. The confession is so imperfect that it is reconcileable in one

56 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

part with Arian, in another with Nestorian, in another with Euty-
chian error.

But all this notwithstanding, it is most valuable.. It furnishes
the most important proof that in doctrinal matters, as in cere-
monial, the Church was looking to the promise of the ever re-
newed guidance of the Holy Spirit of God. Tertullian had not
lived in vain. The Church had rejected the personal pretensions
of Montanus, but had learnt to see the truth which rendered even
for a moment the pretensions of the Montanists tolerable. A
guide was wanted to lead the followers of Jesus into the truth,
and the words of the Saviour were remembered that the Spirit
was to be their guide. The mode of His guidance had been pro-
claimed: He would bring to men’s memory the words which the
Redeemer had uttered and enable them to see the truths which
underlie His words. The teaching of these men was imperfect:
in part it was, if not erroneous, at least capable of an erroneous
interpretation: the imperfections were to be filled up as years
rolled on, the errors were to be corrected, the language was to be
amended. Who will dare to say that the outline is even now
filled up completely? May it not become necessary in formule
handed down to us, to correct a shadow here, to erase a line
there, to bring out a feature more prominently in another place,
even as Augustine corrected Athanasius, and the aged Augustine
corrected the young Augustine’s writings ?

§ 2, With this should be compared the ἔκθεσις πίστεως, “the
setting forth of the Faith,” which, according to the legend, was re-
vealed to Gregory of Neo-Cwxsarea, by the Apostle S. John; it may
possibly be contemporaneous with the above’. Here the words
approach in parts nearer to the words of our Nicene Creed, but
the critical conception of the unity of the Divine Essence is not
developed’.

§ 3. More important, historically and permanently, is the
Creed which Eusebius of Cesarea produced at the Council of
Nica in 325. He says that he had received it in substance
during his period of instruction as a catechumen, and again when

11 This Gregory is supposed to have Harvey, Vindew, τ. 532, Lumby 34, or in
died about 270. Mansi, 1. 1030, or Migne, 111. 983.
2 It may be seen in Hahn, p. 97,

RULES OF FAITH AFTER A.D. 250. 57

Vv. ]
he was baptized. Thus, as he was born about the year 264, and,
apparently, was brought up in the Christian faith from his earliest
years, we may consider the document he adduces as the Creed of
Cesarea about the period at which we have now arrived’. Its
antiquity is not affected by the statement that Eusebius was con-
-vinced of the truth of it “from the divine Scriptures,’ and had
believed and taught it during the whole of his ministerial life—
formerly when he was a presbyter, now when he was a bishop. It
is so important that I will give it at length.

“We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things
visible and invisible: and in one Lord Jesus Christ the Word of God, God
of (ἐκ) God, Light of Light, Life of Life, only begotten Son, First begotten
of every creature, begotten of God the Father before all ages, by Whom
too all things wete made: who, for our salvation was made flesh (σαρκω-
θέντα), and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day,
and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the
quick and dead. We believe too in one Holy Ghost:” and Eusebius
proceeds with a kind of supplement which requires our careful attention.
““We believe that Each One is and subsists, Father truly Father, and Son
truly Son, and Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit: even as our Lord in
sending out His disciples for their preaching bade them, Go and make

disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, und of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

§ 4. We should compare with this the Creed of the seventh
book of the Apostolic Constitutions, which in its Greek form is
deemed by competent critics to represent the customs of the Church
of Antioch, at least as early as the year 280°; and the Creed given
by Sozomen, 7. Μὰ 111. 5, and Socrates, H. E. 11. 10, and ascribed
by them to Lucian the martyr, who had died in 311 or 312.

On making this comparison we may notice that the Creed of
the Apostolic Constitutions introduces the thought of St Paul
(1 Cor. vii. 6) Of whom are all things, regarding the Father: By
whom are all things, relating to the Son. (We may notice this
hereafter in some of the Western documents.) The other two
expand into greater fulness the conception “God of God,” the
Creed of Lucian proceeding thus:

1 Unless we accept the unsupported
charge of suppression brought by Dr
Pusey.

* The Creed of Eusebius is given by
Hahn, p. 46, that of the Apostolic Con-
stitutions, p. 40, that of Lucian, p. 100.
They are printed by Mr Harvey, ut sup.
pp. 533—540: and the first and third by

Mr Lumby, pp. 48, and 36 respectively.
Mr Caspari considers that the Creed of
the Apostolical Constitutions was origi-
nally a Creed of the Syrian Church and
of the fourth century, i.e. he puts it
about fifty or sixty years later. See
notes of an essay in his first program.
p. Vi.

58 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

“God of (é«) God, Whole of Whole, Only of Only, Perfect of Perfect,
King of King, Lord of Lord, Living Word, Living Wisdom, True
Light, Way, Truth, Resurrection, Shepherd, Door, Incapable of muta-
tion or of interchange, Unalterable, Image of the Godhead, both of the
Essence and Will and Power of the Father, the First-begotten of all
creation.” It states that He “came down from above” as the Creed of the
Constitutions says “He came down from heaven”: and adds ἄνθρωπον ye-
γνόμενον He was made man’. The Creed of the Constitutions uses the words
σάρκα ἀναλαβόντα He took flesh ; the Creed of Ceesarea reading σαρκωθέντα
was made flesh. Both the last-named Creeds agree in using the word
πολιτευσάμενον, “made His home on earth,” the former adding that He
“lived holily after the laws of His God and Father”: the latter merely
stating that He “lived amongst men.” But very noticeable are the
additions in the former; i. of the clause “of whose Kingdom there shall
be no end,” and ii. of the words with which the Creed is summed up:
“Tam baptized too into the Holy Spirit, that is the Comforter, who
wrought in all the Saints since the world began, and was afterwards
sent to the Apostles also from the Father, according to the promise of
our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, and, after the Apostles, to all who
believe within the Holy Catholic Church (ἐν---ἐκκλησίᾳ): I am baptized
into the resurrection of the flesh and into remission of sins, into the
kingdom of heaven and the life of the world to come.”

The conclusion and indeed the entire framework of the Creed
of Lucian® are more elaborate. As I have already said, I do not
intend to transfer it as a whole to my pages, although I am
tempted to do so because of the continual reference to Scripture.
It commences:

“We believe, in accordance with the evangelic and apostolic tradi-
tion.” Points not previously laid down in baptismal creeds are confirmed
by quotations, as from 8. John i. 1, 3 “the Word was God, and all
things were made through Him.” Christ is “the Mediator between
God and Man; He is the Apostle of our Faith, the Prince of Life, as
He says, I have come down from heaven.” Like Eusebius, Lucian
quotes δ’. Matt. xxviii. 19, and speaks of the Father being truly Father,
&c.: the Names not being used simply or needlessly, but each accurately
signifying the several proper Hypostasis and Order and Glory of each
Being named, as being in hypostasis—(substantia as Hilary in both
places translates it*)—three (τρία): in agreement and harmony one (ἕν).
‘‘This faith we hold, and from the beginning to the end we hold it, and in
the sight of God and Christ we anathematize every heretical false doctrine,
and if any one teaches besides (παρὰ) the sound correct faith of the
Scriptures, saying, that there is or has been time or season or age before
the generation of the Son, let him be anathema. And, if any one says

1 The thought does not occur in the Antioch (a.p. 341). It is also in Socrates,
Eusebian Creed. H. E. 1. 10. It was translated by
2 It is to be seen in Athanasius de Hilary of Poictiers: Hahn gives the
Synodis, ὃ 23 (Migne xxvi. p. 725), but —_ translation.
Athanasius does not give its origin. It 3 «Per substantiam tria, per conso-
was produced he says at the synod of nantiam unum.”

v. | RULES OF FAITH AFTER A.D. 250. 59

that the Son is a creature (κτίσμα) as one of the creatures, or a thing
produced (γέννημα) as one of the things produced, or a thing made (ποίημα)
as one of the things made, and not as the divine Scriptures have de-
livered each detail of the above’, or if any one teaches anything different
(ἀλλο), or preaches any other gospel than that we received (Gal. i. 9);
let him be anathema. For we truly and reverently both believe and
follow all that has been delivered to us out of the Holy Scriptures both
by the Prophets and Apostles.”

§ 5. The above recital is of service to us in two ways. It
shews distinctly that. Lucian was preparing for the Arian heresy,
and as distinctly how he deemed that heresy was to be met. He
appeals to Scripture: and he declares that all that he does believe,
whatever was its origin, he believes because it is also delivered in
Scripture. The three documents furnish to us a valuable and an
interesting introduction to the Creeds as affected by the Arian
controversy’.

We may say that the Church had now attained to the belief in
the equality of the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity, but the
Unity of the Godhead was not brought out. We owe the distinct
appreciation and enunciation of this to the next epoch in the
Church’s history.

1 T follow Socrates’ reading here. this Creed after the Nicene was promul-
2 Of course Athanasius objected to gated.

CHAPTER ‘VI.

THE FAITH OF THE NICENE COUNCIL.

§1. Letters of Alexander of Alexandria. §2. Arius’ account of his own belief.
§ 3. Alexander’s notice of it. ὃ 4. Eusebius’ account of the Council of
Nicea. §5. Comparison of the Creeds of Casarea and Nicwa. § 6. What
was the object of the framers of the Nicene Creed? § 7. Athanasius gives the
answer. §8. Thus the Nicene Creed was intended to be not a Symbol but a
Rule of Faith. 89. Explanation of some wordsinit. $10. Athanasius
satisfied with the document. ὃ 11. The Baptismal Creed still short.

§ 1. Iv is not my object to write a history of the Arian
controversy, but the two letters of Alexander, bishop of Alex-
andria—the one to his namesake at Constantinople, preserved by
Theodoret, H. #.1. 4; the other to his honoured fellow-ministers
everywhere, given by Socrates, H. E. τ. 6—are too interesting to
be passed over. Both letters describe the heresy of Arius in
almost similar terms; and we learn from them what was believed
to be its character. It was, or was suspected to be, an avowal, in
the name of Christianity, of opinions regarding the Saviour which
even a Jew or a Greek might hold: and possibly the secret of the
long-continued struggle between the Arian and the Athanasian
parties lay in this: the former were abetted by the secret fol-
lowers of the older superstition, by men and women who, not
daring to avow openly their hatred of Christianity, shrunk be-
hind the shield of Arianism. The time had come, says Dorner,
when the Church could not stand still: it must choose one of two
courses: either take a step in advance and define the indefinite,
or go backwards into heathenism or into Judaism.

But, as I have stated, my object is not to trace the history of
the Arian controversy: it is to enquire into the growth of the
Creeds and later Rules of Faith, as well as into the principles by
which that growth was directed.

CHAP. VI.] THE FAITH OF THE NICENE COUNCIL. 61

§ 2. Arius’ own statement of the reasons why he was perse-
cuted by Alexander was this:

We do not agree with Alexander in publicly stating “God is Ever,
the Son Ever: together Father, together Son: the Son ever subsists
with God, in an unbegotten mode (συνυπάρχει ἀγεννήτως ὁ Yios τῷ Θεῷ):
He is begotten from eternity’: neither in conception nor by any atom

of time does God precede the Son: ever God, ever Son: from God Him-
self is the Son.”

And Arius complained to his old friend and fellow-pupil
Eusebius of Nicomedia that his

“ Brother Eusebius of Ceesarea and Theodotus and others were
excommunicated (ἀνάθεμα ἐγένοντο) because they say that Gop being
without beginning precedes the Son*. We however hold (he proceeds)
and have taught and teach that the Son is not Unbegotten, nor yet in
any way a part of the Unbegotten; nor yet is He from any presupposed
thing; but that in will and counsel He subsisted before times and ages,
perfect God, only begotten, immutable ; and, before He was begotten or
created or defined or founded* He was not: for He was not unbegotten.
And we are persecuted because we say, The Son hath a beginning, but God
hath no beginning. Because of this we are persecuted, and because we
say, He is from things which are not; for so we say, because He is not a
part of God, nor yet from any presupposed thing.”

The meaning of this is very difficult to transfer to our lan-
guage: but I think, on full consideration, the following will be
found to be a tolerably correct representation of Arius’ avowed
opinion. He believed that the Son of God subsisted (ὑπέστη)
essentially in the counsel and will of God before all ages: but
that hypostatically, He was not before He was created or begotten.
Thus He had a beginning. And, simultaneously, Arius maintained
that the Son was created, as it were at once, as the universe was
created out of nothing (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, but not ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ
Θεοῦ), so that on the one hand He was not what Arius called
a part or division of God, nor yet on the other was He formed
out of previously created matter.

§ 3. Thus we have Arius’ account of his own views: now let
us turn to the letter of Alexander to his namesake and see how

1 Theodoret, H. FE. 1.5. The words ? i.e. that God who is ἄναρχος precedes
are very difficult. ἀειγενής (or ἀγεννῆ) the Son.

ἐστιν, ἀγεννητογενής ἐστιν, ‘came into 3 Most of these words come from Pro-
being without being begotten.” This verbs vii. 22, Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν
misrepresented the orthodox view. αὐτοῦ els ἔργα αὐτοῦ, mpd τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐθε-

μελίωσέ με, & ὈΈΕ( 5

BIBL. MA].
bpSEOLLEGE ἡ

62 . ' HE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. — [CHAP.

he represented these views and resisted them. He says (p. 10’)
that

Arius and his friends did in fact deny the deity (τὴν θεότητα)
of the Saviour, and preached that He was merely equal to any one else ;
they collected out of Scripture all the passages which speak of His
incarnation and humiliation, and turned away from those which tell of
His Godhead from the beginning, and of His unceasing glory with the
Father. ‘‘ We have therefore driven them out of the Church which
adores the Deity of Christ. They are now wandering about, concealing
their true sentiments and inducing other bishops to subscribe to their
statements, and to receive them into the Church (p. 11)—which these
bishops ought not to do, opposed as such action is to the Apostolic Canon.
It is therefore my duty at once to inform you of the character of their
unbelief, for they say there was a time’ when the Son of God was not,
and He who at first did not subsist afterwards came into being, be-
coming, when at last He came into being, such as every man is by
nature. For (they say) God made all things out of things which are not,
and they include even the Son of God within the creation of ‘all things
reasonable and unreasonable.’ And, following out this, they say that He is
of a nature mutable, being capable both of virtue and of vice ; and then,
on this hypothesis of theirs, they sweep away all those Scriptures which
speak of Him as ever being and teach the unchangeable character of the
Word and the Godhead of the Wisdom of the Word, which is the Christ;
and these braggarts say that we too have the power to become Sons of
God, even as He. For it is written, 7 have begotten and brought up
Sons, and when we allege against them the rest of the verse and they
have despised me (which is not suited to the nature of the Saviour),
they reply that God, foreseeing and foreknowing that //e will not despise
Him, chose Him to Himself out of all. For they say He chose Him,
not as being by nature and specially different from others (for they say
no one by nature is a Son of God), nor yet as having any peculiar
characteristic of His own; but as being indeed of a nature capable of
change, yet by the carefulness of his habits and self-discipline never
changing to the worse. Thus they act insolently towards the Scriptures,
quoting the Psalm, Thou hast loved righteousness, Xc., therefore God
anointed Thee with the otl of gladness above Thy fellows.”

And now Alexander proceeds to shew how irreconcileable the
views of these men are with Scripture. He quotes (p. 12) the
words

“ The only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, to shew that
the Father and Son cannot be separated. Inconsistent with this verse is
the conception that there was a time when He was not, and that He had
been made of things which are not. Again the same John says al/
things were made through Him : to shew the peculiarity of His hypostasis,
he says, Jn the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and
the Word was God. All things were made through Him, and without Him

1. I make my abstract from the copy _ by Dr Gaisford.

in Theodoret. The references are to 2 I am obliged so to represent ἣν ποτὲ
Reading’s edition of Valésius, as given ὅτε οὐκ ἣν ὁ vids τοῦ Θεοῦ.

VI. |

was made no single thing’. For if all things were made by Him, how
could there be a time when He who gave to all things their being, Him-
self was not?” And he proceeds to argue that ‘‘the Word made all
things out of things which are not; and that which 1s, τὸ dv, is essentially
opposed to things which wre not, τὰ οὐκ ὄντα. For there is no interval
(διάστημα) between the Father and the Son, and the creation of the uni-
verse out of things which are not was by the Father through the Son.
And thus, seeing how entirely above all human conception is the ‘was’
(τὸ ἦν) of the Son, 8. John, in the depth of his reverence, shrank from
speaking both of his Genesis and Making’, not venturing to describe the
Maker in the same terms as the things which are created—not because
the Word is Unbegotten, for the Father is the only Being Unbegotten—
but because the inexplicable Hypostasis of the only-begotten God exceeds
the comprehension of the evangelists and perhaps the angels also. Let us
remember, Do not seek things too hard for thee, and things too high for
thee do not investigate.” And he quotes the words of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 11. 9,
things which eye hath not seen, &c.; and Gen. xv. 5, Canst thow count the
stars ? and Ecclus. i. 2, Who can number the sands of the sea? and then,
as it were ὦ fortiori, the well-known words of Isaiah, His generation who
can declare? and once more, No one knoweth who the Son is but the
Father, and who the Father is but the Son; and the curious version of
Isai. xxiv. 16, Wy mystery is for me and mine. Alexander proceeds
(p. 13, 1. 25) “If then all things were made through Him, then must all
age and time and intervals, and the time or ‘once,’ in which ‘was not’
is found*, have been made through Him. Yea (p. 14), according to them
the Scripture speaks falsely, which describes Him as the first-born of
every creature*. Consentient with this is Paul again when he says,
Whom He appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the ages:
and again, Jn Him all things were created, things tn heaven and things on
earth...... and He is before all things. It follows of necessity that the
Father was always Father. For He is Father, seeing that the Son is
always present, because of whom He is called Father. He is perfect
Father : we can conceive of no time or interval when He is not Father ;
nor yet was it out of things which are not that He begat the Son.” And
so Alexander proceeds: ‘“ If the express Image of God was not ever,
then He was not ever of Whom Christ is the express Image.” Again
(p. 15) “Christ is God’s own Son. The Father said, his 1s my beloved
Son: the Lorp said to me, Thou art my Son. Once more: From the
womb before the day star I begat thee’. And (p. 16) what can we say of
the Saviour’s words, 7 and the Father are one. He speaks this, not
calling Himself Father, nor yet signifying that the natures are one,
which in the Hypostases are two, but because the Son of the Father
preserves accurately the likeness of the Father; so much so, that when
Philip was anxious to see the Father, the Saviour said, He that hath
seen Me hath seen the Father, the Father being seen, as it were, through

THE FAITH OF THE NICENE COUNCIL. 63

1 None of the manuscripts adds 6 yé-
yovev.

2 i.e. as 1 understand ποίησις, His
making of the world.

3 διαστήματα Kal τὸ πότε ἐν οἷς τὸ οὐκ
ἣν εὑρίσκεται: i.e. all the things which

correspond to the Arian phrases were
made by Him.

4 Clearly the bishop understood this
as we do, ‘‘ Born before all creation.”

5 Psalm cx.=cix. 3 according to the
Septuagint.

64 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

an unstained spotless mirror, through a living divine image. Thus he
that honowreth the Son, honoureth the Father also.” -

And at last (p. 17) he comes to the question of antiquity :

“ Are they not put to shame by the clear meaning of Holy Scripture ?
15 not their boldness against Christ reduced to nought by the consentient
piety of their fellow-ministers? They say that we, when we refuse to
accept their impious and unwritten blasphemy of the ‘things which are
not,’ maintain that there are two unbegotten principles, putting the
alternative thus,—either Christ is of things which are not, or there
are two Beings unbegotten—ignorant how vast is the distance between
the unbegotten Father and the things, reasonable and unreasonable,
which were created by Him out of things which are not, and how, me-
diating between these, the only-begotten Nature—through which the
Father of God the Word made all things out of things which are not—
has been begotten from the Father Himself ὁ ὧν wHo Is.”

And then (p. 18) the Bishop comes to the Creed, the autho-
rized symbol (apparently) of his Church, which he explains with a
running commentary, sufficient to shew how far the theological
questions of the day had outrun the traditional form. I will
content myself now with a brief analysis of this comment :

““We believe (he says, p. 18), as the Apostolic Church teaches, in
one unbegotten Father, having no cause of His Being, ever the same,
admitting neither of augmentation nor of diminution...and in one Lord
Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God; begotten, not of anything
which is not, but of the Father wHo Is, in a way, which is beyond our
power to conceive or describe: His hypostasis cannot be searched out,
any more than can that of the Father, because the nature of reasonable
creatures cannot embrace the knowledge of the Father's Theogony. He
is in all points like the Father except in this point of His generation...
And (p. 19, 1. 33) in addition to this pious belief concerning the Father
and the Son, we confess, as the Holy Scriptures teach us, one Holy
Spirit who moved both the holy men of the Old Testament, and the
divine teachers of what is called the New: one only Catholic—I mean,
the Apostolic—Church, which cannot be overthrown even if the whole
world should agree to fight against it. After this we know the resur-
rection from the dead, of which our Lord Jesus Christ has been the first
fruits, having a body truly and not in appearance from Mary, the
Mother of God; who in the consummation of the ages came to the race
of men to put away sin; who died and was crucified—not because of this
becoming less in His deity—who rose from the dead, was taken up into
heaven, was seated at the right hand of majesty... These things we teach ;
these things we preach; these, the apostolic dogmas of the Church, and
for these we are prepared to die. And it was because Arius and the
rest opposed them that they were anathematised, according to the words
of S. Paul Zf any one teach any other gospel than that which ye have
received let him be anathema, even if he pretend to be an angel from
heaven.”

"VI. | THE FAITH OF THE NICENE COUNCIL. 65

3 And in conclusion Alexander gives the names of the nine
deacons who were anathematised with the presbyter Arius’.

§ 4, The-account given by Eusebius of the proceedings of the
Council of Niceea in this respect is well known. This account was
considered to be so important, that not only did the historians
Socrates and Theodoret embody it in their works, but Athanasius
himself deemed it desirable to place on record the words with
which the panegyrist of Constantine had signified his assent to
the declaration of the Council]. He appended it to his Letter on
the Decrees of the Nicene Council’. Eusebius described the
willingness of Constantine to accept the Creed which he had
adduced, i.e. the Creed of Ceesarea, the Creed (as Dean Stanley
reminds us) of the Church of Palestine: but the majority were
determined to introduce the word ὁμοούσιος, and under this
pretext (he says) they framed the writing.

δ 5. A letter of Athanasius, written forty-four years after the
Council, furnishes some details as to the discussion, which call
for some consideration from us. But I must interrupt the nar-
rative for the purpose of exhibiting together the Creed of Czesarea
and the Creed of the Council, the parts common to the two will
go across the page, subordinate alterations will be found in the
notes :

f
πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα
a /
τὸν τῶν ἁπάντων | πάντων

ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτῶν ποιητήν.
\ > Ψ , 3 a N
καὶ εἰς eva Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν

1 Dr Hahn, who gives only the por-
tions of this letter which contain the
Creed, notes that the characteristic form
of the Oriental symbols is manifested
here, for Alexander brings out only the
essential ingredients of the Baptismal
confession (compare above, p. 21) which,
as we have seen, was in Jerusalem and
elsewhere much briefer than the Creed
at large. He compares it with the Car-
thaginian form as given in Tertullian,
with the Rule of Faith as found in Ori-
gen, and with an interesting passage in
Clemens Alex. Strom. vit. p. 764 on the
unity of tne Church. To me this Creed

is fF further interest: it seems to have

a resemblance to the Coptic form as
S.C.

given above: for it commences with
brief notes on the three Persons of the
Trinity, and, after speaking of the Church
and the Resurrection, it concludes with
articles relating to our Lord: as if these
had been an after thought. (We shall
find hereafter Rules of Faith of similar
character.) It has also an interesting
resemblance to one of the Rules given
by Irenezus.

2 Migne, xxv. pp. 415—477, who how-
ever does not print it there. It may be
seen in Mr Harvey’s Ecclesie Angli-
caneé Vindex Catholicus, Vol. 1. p. 539,
and is translated in the ““ Oxford trans-
lation”? of Athanasius’ works.

οι

66 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [cHAP. |

\ cal lal , \ ey nr nw

τὸν Tov Θεοῦ λόγον τὸν υἱὸδῪ τοῦ Θεοῦ γεννη-
θέντα ἐκ τοῦ Ἰ]ατρὸς μονογενῆ
τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ
πατρύς,

Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός,
Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀλη-
θινοῦ,
Vb , , ς
γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμο-
οὐσιον τῷ πατρί,

ζωὴν ἐκ ζωῆς,

υἱὸν μονογενῆ,

πρωτότοκον πασῆς κτίσεως,
πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ

a x
τοῦ Llatpos γεγεννημένον,
᾽ > No 9 5) εἶ
δι οὗ καὶ ἐγένετο τὰ πάντα
a a \
τά TE ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ
»Ὸν a “
ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς,
τὸν
“ΠΕ a“ χ , \
| dv ἡμᾶς ἀνθρώπους Kat
N \ © ,
διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν
| κατελθόντα καὶ
’ Ν
σαρκωθέντα καὶ
, ’ , x ᾽ ,
ἐν ἀνθρώποις πολιτευσάμενον Kal | ἐνανθρωπήσαντα
, 5 aed , a / id / ΝΥ /
παθόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἀνελθόντα
\ \ , Ν ΨΥ
πρὸς τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἥξοντα | εἰς τοὺς οὐράνους καὶ ἐρχό-
μενον

πάλιν ἐν δέξῃ
κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς"

, \ 2 ἃ a of “
πιστεύομεν καὶ εἰς ἕν πνεῦμα | καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα.

ef
aylov.

The anathematism follows in the Nicene formula:
\ \ , ef Ψ ΄ » 3 Χ \ a
τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας ὅτι ἦν ποτε OTE οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι
οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ
οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, ἢ κτιστόν, τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν
τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ [καὶ ἀποστολικὴ] ἐκκλησία.

1 The Nicene Creed omits καὶ and reads 2 The Nicene Creed is found (1) in
τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο. Eusebius’ letter to the Church of Cxsa-

Vi. | THE FAITH OF THE NICENE COUNCIL. 67

86. What was the object of the framers of the Nicene Creed?
It was never quoted, so far as I know, at least for centuries, with-
out the anathematism. Yet with the anathematism it is clearly
unfitted for liturgical use; unfitted, it would seem, even for use at
baptism. What was the object of it?

§ 7. Athanasius in his letter to the African bishops, to which
I have already referred, gives us a plain answer to the question.
It was prepared to be subscribed at the council, being so worded
that none of the followers of Arius could subscribe it. It was in-
tended to be made a declaration of the faith of the Church with
reference to the points then in controversy; and the conversation
and countenances of the Arian bishops were carefully watched, as
every proposal was made, to see whether they were satisfied or
dissatisfied with that proposal. If they were satisfied, the propo-
sal was further altered: if they were dissatisfied, it was re-
tained.

The account is curious; so curious, that part of it was ex-
tracted by Theodoret from the letter to the Africans and em-
bodied in his Leclesiastical History. I will transfer the chief
portions to my pages.

The object of Athanasius when he wrote this letter (it is supposed to
have been written about the year 369, only four years before his death)
was to induce the African bishops to contend still for the words of the
Creed, not for the sake of the words alone, but for the sake of the mean-
ing which those words conveyed, The Arians were indeed the cause
for the introduction of the words. And he would give an account of
them that all might know the principles which had guided the Synod.
“First they were determined to put out of the way those impious phrases

rea, (2) in Athanasius’ letter to Jovia-
nus, (3) in 5. Basil, letter exxv., (4) in
Cyril of Alexandria, letter to Anastasius,

future people. But since some friends
of piety, acquainted with such things
as (they suggested) ought to be spoken

(5) Eutyches quoted it (Council of
Chalcedon), (6) in Theodotus of Ancyra
against Nestorius, (7) in the Codex Ca-
nonum of the African Church, (8) again
and again in later councils. I have
never seen it without the anathematism.
Sozomen (H. E.1. 20) writing about the
year 440 has an interesting account:
*‘At one time I thought it desirable
with a view to the manifestation of the
truth to append the writing itself—in
order that the symbol of the Faith which
then met with universal approbation (τὸ
σύμβολον τῆς τότε συναρεσάσης πίστεως)
might be made firm and plain for all

and heard only by the initiated and by
those who act as initiators, advised me
to withhold the symbol, I have followed
their advice. For it is not improbable
that even some of the uninitiated may
meet with this book.”

The notice is interesting. It is the
earliest passage that I know in which
the Faith of Nicea is called the Symbol
of the Faith; and here it is connected
with the conception of initiation and
mystery. The friends of Sozomen forgot
for the moment that an unbaptized em-
peror had assisted at the framing of the
symbol,

ΞΟ

68 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

which the Arians had introduced: such as the words ‘of things which
are not,’ saying that the Son was a Thing created or made, and that
there was a time when He was not and that He is of a changed nature.
This they did by the anathematism at the end. Then there came
under discussion the phrase ‘Of God, only begotten’ which was adopted.
The Eusebians assented. But they talked to each other: ‘Let us ayree
to this, for we are of God, for there is one God of whom are all things.’
So the bishops seeing their craftiness stated more plainly what they
meant by the words ‘Of God,’ and wrote that the Son was of (ἐκὴ the essence
or substance of the Father, to exclude this explanation of the Arians:
for this latter phrase can hold only of the True and Only-begotten
Word.” Such was the reason for the introduction of the words of the
substance’. ‘Again, when the bishops asked the minority whether
they would say that the Son was not a creature, but the power, the only
wisdom of the Father, His eternal image, unchangeable in every respect
like the Father and very God, the Eusebians were detected making
signs to each other that this too is true of us, for we too are called the
image and glory of God, and of us it is said We who are alive are always*
and there are many ‘powers:’ nay, we hold ourselves to be the ‘own*’
of God, not absolutely, but because He calls us brethren. And if they
call the Son true God or very God it does not hurt us: for whatever He
is, that He is ‘very’ and true.

“The bishops discovered their scheme, and so they considered to-
gether passages of Scripture, and finally wrote more clearly and concisely
that the Son is ὁμοούσιος with the Father. And when the complaint
was made that this word was not a scriptural word, they replied that
neither were the Arian phrases scriptural. At all events (says Atha-
nasius) for a hundred and thirty years bishops both of old Rome and
our own city have used the word, finding fault with any who maintained
that the Son was a creature and not homéusios with the Father, and
something like this Eusebius admitted in his letter to the people of
Ceesarea,”

§ 8. We have thus traced the Nicene Creed to its comple-
tion: and it must, I think, be acknowledged that the whole his-
tory shews that it was intended at first to be a Rule of Faith,
not a Symbol to be used by the newly baptized or to be pro-
posed to them. A few remarks on the phrases contained in it, as
they were explained by Athanasius himself, may conclude this
chapter,

§ 9. (1) The words He ts tmmutable have the following
meaning, “Men are called upon to become perfect, to become
merciful; the Son of God zs so. He does not become in this

1 These words are now excluded from 3 Of course referring to ‘‘His own
the Creed. Son.”
2 dei yap ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες, 2 Cor. iy. 11(!)

VI. | THE FAITH OF THE NICENE COUNCIL. 69

respect different from what He is: with Him, as with the Father,
there is no variableness nor shadow of turning.”

(2) “God says in Exodus, Iam 6 ὧν. Now hypostasis is the
same as οὐσία, and means nothing else than τὸ ὃν, THE EXISTENT.
Thus the terms ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ mean ‘of God’s essence’
and are contrasted with the Arian statement that the Son came
into being out of things which had no existence—é£ οὐκ ὄντων."

(3) The word ὁμοούσιος is justified by the words of Scripture,
“T and the Father are one:” “He that hath seen Me hath seen
the Father.”

(4) The above statements carry with them the condemnation
of all who affirm that the Son is ἐξ ἑτέρας οὐσίας ἢ ὑποστάσεως,
“of an essence or hypostasis different from the Father’s.”

(5) Athanasius concludes by saying that the words “We
believe in the Holy Ghost,” are alone sufficient to overthrow all
who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit: they shew that “the
Nicene Fathers confessed fully and completely the Faith in the
Holy Trinity, and thus manifested both the character of the
Christian faith and the teaching of the Catholic Church in this
behalf. For it is clear that we cannot have faith in a creature,
but only in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things,
visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ His only-
begotten Son; and in one Holy Spirit : (that is) one God known
in the holy and perfect Trinity: into this faith being baptized,
and in it united to the Godhead, we believe that we shall also
inherit the kingdom of heaven in Christ Jesus our Lerd, through
whom be ascribed to the Father all glory and might, for ever and

ever, Amen’,

1 The brief baptismal faith should be
noticed.

With the words relating to the Holy
Spirit, which I have quoted from Atha-
nasius’ letter to the African bishops,
may be compared the following con-
cluding words of his letter to Jovianus.
“In this faith, Augustus, as being divine
and apostolic, it is necessary that all
should abide, and that no one should
disturb it by persuasive arguments and
logomachies, the very thing that the
Arians have done...... Because of their

assertions the Synod held at Nicwa ana-.

thematised heresy like theirs, and con-
fessed the Faith of the Truth. For it
did not say that the Son was merely

similar to the Father, its object being
that He should be believed to be not
merely similar to God, but very God of
God: but it described Him as Homoéu-
sios, which is the property of the own
and very Son, of the true and natural
Father. Nor yet did it treat the Holy
Spirit as alien from the Father and the
Son, but rather it glorified Him with
the Father and the Son in the one Faith
of the Holy Trinity, because there is
one Godhead in the Holy Trinity.’’ So
the faith of the Nicene Confession, as
distinct from its anathema, is called
thus early THE FairH or THE Hony
TRINITY.

70 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [cHAP.

810. It must be remembered that the date assigned to this
remarkable letter is 369, ὦ. 6. forty-four years after the assembly
had separated whose proceedings Athanasius here records; four
years, as I have said, before his own death. We have, therefore,
here a distinct proof of the great bishop’s own satisfaction with
the Faith of the Council; enunciated as distinctly as we find it in
his letter to the Emperor Jovianus, written six years earlier’.
With this the suggestion of our great divine, Archbishop Usher,
seems to be inconsistent, viz. that the fathers who met at Nica
had, before they separated, modified the Creed, making it resem-
ble the document which we are in the habit of attributing to the
Council of Constantinople; equally inconsistent with it is the
tradition that Athanasius wrote the Athanasian Creed. The
piety of Jovianus led him to enquire what was the Faith of the
Catholic Church. Athanasius replied that the Churches of Spain
and Britain and Gaul, of all Italy, Dalmatia and Dacia, Mysia,
Macedonia, Greece and all Africa, Sardinia, Cyprus, Crete, Pam-
phylia, Lycia, and Isauria, and the Churches of Egypt and the
Libyas, of Pontus and Cappadocia, and the Churches of the
East, except a few which held Arian views, all accepted the
Faith which was confessed at Nicwa. And he once more tran-
scribed the Creed.

It will be noticed that the Church of Jerusalem is not men-
tioned *.

§ 11. One point more is worthy of attention. We know
from the lectures of St Cyril of Jerusalem that the true baptismal
confession in that city was this: “I believe in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The concluding
words which I have quoted from the letter of Athanasius to the
African bishops seem to me to point to the same interpretation.
This confirms the opinion I have already expressed, that the
Nicene Confession was intended for theologians not for neophytes :
for the guidance of the bishops and the clergy, not for the in-
struction of children. Much as we may respect the learning of
those times, and high opinion as we may have of the intellectual

1 The letter is well known. See at Jerusalem about the year 335 on the
Migne, xxvi. p. 813. Τὸ 18 contained in occasion of the dedication of the Church
Theodoret, H. FE. tv. ¢. 3. of the Martyrdom.

* There was an Arianizing synod held

\
VI. | THE FAITH OF THE NICENE COUNCIL. rat

education given in the Alexandrian and other schools, we can
scarcely conceive that they were preparing the members of the
flock at large to understand the mysteries of words which, years
afterwards, Athanasius felt himself compelled to explain to the
bishops of Africa.

There is no proof that this Nicene Faith was ever used in
what we should call public worship. The Church of Armenia,
however, uses a Creed resembling it; the anathematism at the end
including those who profane the Holy Spirit’. But of this below.

1 See Mr Malan’s Divine Liturgy of the Armenian Church, David Nutt, p. 32.

CHAPTER VIL.

OTHER CREEDS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.

§ 1. Frequency and nature of these. §2. The exposition of his faith attributed
to Athanasius, Routh Opus. Vol.11. ὃ 3. Intense interest of this. ὃ 4. Exami-
nation of it. §5. Fresh examination of the Nicene Faith. ὃ 6. Defects
subsequently remedied. ἃ 7. Comparison with Creed of St Cyril. ὃ 8. The
Kcthesis Macrostichus. ὃ 9. Synod of Sardica.

§ 1. THE fourth century was a century for creeds; but these
creeds, in their history, resemble rather the confessions of the
Reformation period than symbola for the baptized. They were
the Faiths of the respective synods or councils. Athanasius
amuses us with this: he says that the bishops who met at the
synods at Ariminum and Seleucia and elsewhere, did not say,
“thus we believe;” but “the Catholic faith was set forth” on such
a year and month and day, “thus proving, without gainsaying,
that they began to believe thus on the day and year named.”
For example: “the Catholic faith was set forth in the presence
of our lord the most pious and victorious Constantine Augustus,
in the consulate of Flavius, Eusebius, and Hypatius; in Sirmium,
on the eleventh of the Calends of June.” The great bishop gives
eleven forms of Arian creeds*, Of course I need not delay my
readers over them. There is no pretence that they ever gained
any general circulation ; but the struggle which they had for ex-
istence, and the effort which was used to displace by one or
other of them the Nicene formula, enables us to learn more clearly

1 In the treatise de Synodis Dr Hahn
reckons up four Antiochene forms, pp.
148—157 (the last being the ‘‘ Ecthesis
Macrostichus”), one adopted at a Synod
at Philippopolis a.p. 347, p. 158 (given
by Hilary of Poictiers): three Sirmian
pp. 160—169. The third is interesting
as enunciating for the first time in a

Creed that our Lord went down to hell,
els τὰ καταχθόνια κατελθόντα. On p. 169
Hahn gives the formula of the Synod at
Nicé in Thrace, a.p. 359 (from Theo-
doret): p. 171 that of Seleucia in Isauria
of the same year: p. 173 that of Con-
stantinople in 360 (it is to this that
Ulphilas subscribed).

CHAP. VIL] OTHER CREEDS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY. 73

what the true object of the Nicene Confession was: it was to be
used as a test, to be subscribed by bishops in proof of their ortho-
doxy. Some of these documents have laboured appendages, writ-
ten apparently to shew an approach, as near as possible, to the
Nicene Creed, without adopting the test words ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας and
ὁμοούσιος. One of them has twenty-seven anathemas. |

§ 2. More interesting to us, perhaps, is the fact, that Atha-
nasius himself is considered to have set forth an “ exposition of his
faith,” which is accepted as a genuine work by the Benedictine
editors (Migne, Vol. xxv. p. 197); and their acceptance is quoted
unhesitatingly by the learned Dr Routh,—who deemed the docu-
ment so important that he printed it at length in the second
volume of the Scriptorum Lcclesiasticorum Opuscula precipua
quedam. 1 can scarcely believe it to be authentic, although
it is possible that Athanasius may have adopted the work of an-
other. Facundus of Hermiane, who lived about the year 547—
two hundred years later than the Nicene Council—called the
document “an exposition of the symbol*.”

My collection of orthodox rules of faith would be incomplete
without it, and I will therefore give a translation of it: especially
since an imperfect and misleading version has been recently
printed ἃ

I may notice in passing that the Church has never assigned
any authority to this exposition, although it is believed to be a
work of Athanasius. Perhaps we may be able to give some
good reasons for this neglect. It begins:

“i. We believe in one God unbegotten, Father Almighty, Maker of
all things both visible and invisible, who has His Being from Himself:
and in one only-begotten Word, Wisdom, Son, having been begotten from
the Father without beginning and eternally: Word*—not as uttered
language not yet as internal Reason, not an effluence of the Perfect One,
not a division of the impassible nature, nor a projection, but Son, self-

1 In Suicer’s Thesaurus the word ἔκ-
θεσις is interpreted by Formula doctrine
and some have thought that the word is
equivalent to a Creed. This is not accu-
rately true. Only very careless writers
would use ἡ πίστις and ἡ ἔκθέσις τῆς
πίστεως as equivalent terms. The latter
is the setting out of the Faith in words
few or many: and the mode in which
the Faith is thus set out will in each
case exhibit whether the exposition is

an explanation or not. I suppose when
Facundus called this document an expo-
sitio symboli he conceived that it was an
exposition of the Creed in the modern
sense of the word exposition. And so
it is.

2 In a book entitled ‘‘ Athanasius con-
tra Mundum” by William J. Irons, D.D.
Prebendary of St Paul’s.

3 λόγον οὐ προφορικόν, οὐκ ἐνδιάθετον.

714. THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

perfect, living and working, the very image of the Father, equal in
honour, equal in glory’, for this (He says) is the will of the Father, that
as they ‘honour the F ather, so should they honour the Son also. Very
God of very God, as John says in the Catholic epistles, We are in the
very [True] One in His Son Jesus Christ: This is the very God and
eternal life. Almighty of Almighty, for over all things over which
the Father has rule and might, the Son also has rule and might: com-
plete of complete ; being like the Father, as the Lord saith, He that hath
seen Me hath seen the Father. But He was begotten in a way beyond
expression and beyond conception, for 1718 generation who shall declare?
This means that no one can. Who in the consummation of the ages’,
coming down from the bosom of the Father, did, of the undefiled Virgin
Mary, take on Himself our Man, Christ Jesus, whom, for our sakes, He
delivered* up to suffer, of His own free will, as saith the Lord, Vo one
taketh My Life from Me: I have power to lay it down and I have power to
take tt again: in which Man*, being crucified, and having died for us,
He rose from the dead, and was taken up into heaven: being created
Jor us the beginning of (God’s) ways*: being on earth He shewed us
darkness from light, salvation from error, life from death, entrance into
the paradise from which Adam was cast out, into which he (Adam or
man?) again entered by means of the thief, as saith the Lord, 70-day
thou shalt be with me in Paradise: into which Paul too entered. He
shewed us also His ascent into heaven where the forerunner entered for
us, the Lordly Man’, in whom He is coming to judge quick and dead.
“ii. We believe likewise in the Holy Spirit who searcheth all things,
even the deep things of God, anathematising the dogmas which are
opposed to this: for we neither conceive a Son-Father as the Sabellians,
who say that He is (μονοούσιον οὐχ ὁμοούσιον) of one only essence not
coessential® and thus deprive Him of His Sonship. Neither do we
assign to the Father the passible body which He bare for the salvation
of the whole world; nor are we to conceive three Hypostases separated
from each other’ as is the case with bodily natures among men—in order
that we may not introduce polytheism as the heathen do: but 85 ἃ river,
although begotten from a fountain, is not separated from it, though
there chance to be two forms*and two names. For neither is the Father
Son, noris the Son Father. For the Father is Father of the Son, and the
Son is Son of the Father. For as the fountain is not the river, nor the
river the fountain, but both are one and the same water which is derived
from the fountain into the river, so is the Godhead from the Father to
the Son derived, though without flux and without separation. For the
Lord saith: J came from the Father and am come. But He is ever with
the Father who is in the bosom of the Father: for never was the bosom
of the Father rendered empty of the Godhead of the Son: for he saith J
have been with Him as harmonizing with Him. But we do not conceive
Him to be a thing created or made, or to be out of things which are not—

1 ἰσότιμον καὶ ἰσόδοξον. ciated with Him.

2 The words of Hebrews ix. 26. 6 Note this. Whoever wrote this could
3 Note this. not have attained the more recent con-
“Prov. viii. 22. ception of ὁμοούσιος.

5 Or the Man of the Lord; the Lord’s 7 μεμερισμένας καθ᾽ ἑαυτάς.

Man: i.e. the Man whom the Lord asso- 8 σχήματα (not μορφαί).

vil. | OTHER CREEDS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY. 18

Who is the Creator of the Universe ; God the Son of God; who is from
Him that is, the only from the only, for whom* from everlasting was there
from the Father equal glory and power engendered with Him: for he
that hath seen the Son hath seen the Father. For, as we all know, all
things were created through the Son: and He is not Himself a created
thing, for Paul says concerning the Lord: Jn Him were all things
created, and He is before all things. He does not say that He was
created before all things, but that He ts before all things: the conception
of created attaches to all things, but that of ts before all things belongs to
the Son alone. —

‘iii. He is therefore an offspring (γέννημα), naturally Perfect from
the Perfect, begotten before all the hills (Prov. viii. 25 or 26), that is,
before every reasonable and intelligent nature, as in another place he
says The First-born of every creature. When he calls Him first-born he
signifies that He is not a thing created, but is offspring of God: for to
be called a thing created is strange with reference to His Deity. For
all things were created by the Father through the Son, but the Son alone
was begotten from the Father in eternity: wherefore God the Word is
Jirst-born of every creature, unchangeable from the unchangeable. But
the body which He bare for our sakes is a thing created: concerning
it Jeremiah’ speaks thus, according to the translation of the Septua-
gint, the Lord created for us for a planting a new salvation, in which
salvation men will go about. But, according to Aquila, the passage
means the Lord created a new thing in the woman. Now that salvation,
which was created for us for a planting, being new and not old, for us
and not before us, is Jesus, who, with reference to the Saviour, became a
man (Ἰησοῦς ἐστιν ὁ Kata τὸν Σωτῆρα γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος)", which word,
Jesus, is interpreted in one place Salvation, in another Saviour: and salva-
tion is from the Saviour, just as enlightening comes from the light,
That Salvation from the Saviour being created new did, as Jeremiah says,
create for us ὦ new salvation, and as Aquila says the Lord created a new
thing in the woman, i.e. in the Virgin Mary. For nothing was created
new in the woman, except the Lordly body* which was born of the Virgin
Mary without intercourse with man: as in the book of Proverbs also in
the person of Jesus, it says the Lord created me the beginning of His
ways, for His works. It does not say, Before His works He created me,
lest any should refer the word created to the Deity of the Son.

“iv. Both passages therefore which speak of a thing created, were
written with reference to Jesus, bodily: for the Lordly Man was
created the beginning of God's ways, which Man He manifested for our
salvation. Zhrough Him we have our access to the Father. For He is
the way which leadeth us to the Father. But a way is a kind of
material visible thing (σωματικόν τι θέαμα), and such a way is the Lordly
Man. At all events the Word of God created all things, not as being
Himself a thing created, but as being offspring of Gop. For no created
thing created anything equal to or like unto itself: but to the Father

1 This ᾧ is a conjecture of the Bene- 3 Such, as I learn from Dr Routh,
dictines for ws and is approved by Routh. was the interpretation of Facundus: the
But ws seems to make sense here, and 1 words are capable of another meaning.
must say I prefer it. 4 τὸ κυριακὸν σῶμα.

2 Jerem. xxxviii. 22 =xxxi. 22.

76 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

belongs to γεννᾶν the producing as offspring; to the Maker, the creating.
At all events that Body which was borne for our sakes by the Lord is
a thing made and created, which body was begotten’ for us (as says Paul)
of God wisdom and sanctification and righteousness and redemption:
even though, before us and every creature, the Word was and is the
Wisdom of God. But the Holy Spirit being a Thing Proceeding of the
Father (ἐκπόρευμα dv τοῦ πατρός) is always in the hands of the Father
who sends Him, and of the Son who conveys Him, through whom He
jilled all things. The Father containing from Himself His Being, begat
the Son—as we have said, but did not create Him—as a river is from
the fountain, a bud from the root, and as a brightness from the light,—
things which nature knows to be unseparated from their source; through
whom be glory, might, majesty to the Father, from all ages to all ages,
and ever and ever.”

§ 3. That this document is of deep interest in the history of
theological science no one will hesitate to allow who will examine
it carefully. It has been said, indeed, by a recent writer, that
“it would almost seem as though this Ecthesis were, together
with the Nicene Creed, a study—the foundation of the entire
Quicunque vult, the doctrine being the same throughout, and
the special terms of the theology sometimes almost identical.” I
am not yet intending to treat of the Quicunque: let us however
examine the statements of the Ecthesis in the light of history.

§ 4. “The Word of God was begotten of the Father before
all ages, and He is ὁμοούσιος with the Father.” This is Catholic.

“The Body which He bare was created in the womb of the
Virgin.” This is now deemed erroneous.

“The Word took our Man of the undefiled Virgin, even Christ
Jesus.” This may be Nestorian.

“This man, Christ Jesus, the Word delivered up to suffer
and be crucified.” Thus the Word did not suffer.

“Jn this man being crucified and having died, He rose again.”

“Tn this man,” the Dominicus homo, of Augustine’, the κυρίακος
ἄνθρωπος, the Lordly Man, or the Lord’s Man, “He is coming to
judge.” Surely two Personalities are taught here.

1 ὃ ἐγεννήθη---5 is requisite for the
argument. But all the MSS. of 1 Cor.
i. 30 have ὃς ἐγενήθη (see note 3, p. 78).

2 Augustine used the words ‘‘Dominicus
homo” (de Sermone Domini in Monte, Vol.
111. part 11. p. 207): “ΝΟ one will be igno-
rant of the kingdom of Gop, when His
only-begotten Son, visible not only to the
eye of the mind but also to the eye of the

body, shall come from heaven, in homine
Dominico, in the Lordly Man, to judge
the quick and dead.” But although
the words were (he said) sanctioned by
Catholic writers, he wished he had not
used them (Retract. 1. ὁ. xix. 8, Vol. 1.
p- 30), “1 have seen that they ought
not to be used, although they may be
defended with some reason,”

Vil.] OTHER CREEDS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY. 71

“ He bare a passible body for the salvation of the world.”

“He was not created, but His Body was a thing created.”

“The Lord’s Body was created in the Virgin:” this is the
interpretation of Prov. vill. 22: κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ,
and of Jeremiah xxxvill. (= xxxi.) 22.

The teaching regarding the Holy Spirit is very defective’.

The Benedictine editors, and Dr Routh, defend the expression
6 κυριακὸς ἄνθρωπος, on the ground that it is used also by Epi-
phanius and Cassian, and the corresponding Dominicus homo by
Augustine. These writers wished it to be understood that Atha-
nasius by ἄνθρωπος understood ἀνθρωπότης.

We must however remember first that Augustine, Athanasius,
Epiphanius, and Cassian, all lived and wrote before the Council of
Ephesus, A.D. 431. And secondly, that to Athanasius, at least in
his later days (see his treatise de Incarnatione, written about
364), the word ἀνθρωπότης, manhood, was familiar. What can
we say, therefore, of the use here of ἄνθρωπος, “the Man”?
‘I can only answer that if, when he used the word man, the
writer of this Exposition meant manhood, he was very careless
and very misleading. As the document comes to us, it may be
quoted in support of Apollinarianism, but its statements are
scarcely consistent with our belief that the Son of God “was made
Man:” it may be quoted in support of Nestorianism, because it
almost openly teaches that the union of the Divine nature with
the man Christ Jesus took place after the birth from Mary.

§ 5. We may now go back to the true Nicene Creed, and
examine the clauses in it which bear upon these points.

Tov dv ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμέτεραν σωτηρίαν
κατελθόντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα: “Who for us
men, and for our salvation, came down, and was incarnate, and
entered on man.”

Is there anything here inconsistent and irreconcileable with
the erroneous views with which the words of the Ecthesis may
be charged ?

I see none. “EvavOpwrncavta certainly is not inconsistent
with Nestorianism, nor is σαρκωθέντα. The author of that

1 See below, section 8, the ἔκθεσις μακρόστιχος.

78 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

wonderfully learned book, of which I give the title in my note’,
quotes “Joan. Garsias Loaisa” as remarking that before the
condemnation of Eutyches and Nestorius, the ordinary use of
the Fathers, Augustine, Ambrose, Origen, Jerome, Gregory of
Nyssa, Hilary (we find it even in the sixth Council of Toledo),
was to say that our Lord suscepit hominem when He became
Incarnate. After the controversies of the fifth century commenced,
the words were “suscepit humanitatem,” which are the only words
acknowledged by the Scholastic Theology. Thus the word of the
Creed is scarcely ambiguous. ᾿Ενανθρώπησεν = He entered into a
man, or He assumed the man. It is defective.

§ 6. This defect was remedied afterwards by the addition of the
well-known words, “ was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin
Mary,’ and to them we shall soon come. At present the stage in
doctrine which we find the Church had reached is this: The Word
of God or Son of God is ὁμοούσιος with the Father, perfect God.
When He came down He entered into a man or entered into man’.

Thus there was room for error, and error came’.

§ 7. Ihave already drawn attention to the Creed of Cyril of
Jerusalem: to its imperfections in the Athanasian point of view,

1 Judicia Eruditorum de symbolo Atha- for polemical purposes. The direct evi-

nasiano, studiose collecta et inter se col-
lata a Wilhelmo Ernesto Tentzelio.
Francofurte et Lipsie, sumptibus Au-
gusti Boeth. Gothe. Typis Christophori
Reyheri, Anno MDCLXxxvitl. p. 46.

(J. C. Suicer in his book on the Nicene
Creed, p. 213, speaks of the difficulty
regarding the meaning of ἐνανθρώπησις.)

2 Gregory of Nazianzus noted the am-
biguity. He interpreted it that the Word
of God was in a Man whom He affixed
to Himself. The Apollinarians took it
as meaning merely that He lived among
men. Compare the Eusebian Creed.
Gregory’s words will be found below.

3 Before we leave this part of our sub-
ject I think that attention should be
drawn to the misquotation by ‘‘Atha-
nasius” of St Paul’s words ὃ ἐγεννήθη
for ὃς ἐγενήθη. The argument of the
writer required this reading, and he so
read it. But not a single manuscript or
quotation is referred to by Tischendorf
as upholding such a reading. Was it
a careless blunder or a wilful misrepre-
sentation? .

I allude to it because we know that
about this time Scripture was perverted

dence for the Catholic verities was weak,
and the education of the great theolo-
gians was not such as to enable them to
appreciate and exhibit the enormous
force of the Inductive Proofs of these
verities. Thus in minor details, copy-
ists altered Mark i. 1 and Luke 11. 43
to suit orthodox views.

And the process extended to matters
affecting the Christian life. It is well
known how Montanus, and after him
Tertullian, enforced an austerity of life
which was not heard of in the second
century. Scripturalauthority was needed
for this teaching, and as it was not at
hand, some was invented. In the pas-
sage 1 Cor. vil. 5 that ye may give your-
selves unto prayer, the text was altered
to ἵνα σχολάζητε τῇ νηστείᾳ Kal TH προσ-
εὐχῇ, that ye may give yourselves to fast-
ing and prayer. In Mark ix. 29, This
kind can come forth by nothing but by
prayer, εἰ μὴ ἐν προσευχῇ, the words καὶ
νηστείᾳ Were boldly added, by prayer and
fasting. The verse (perhaps for another
reason) was then interpolated into St
Matthew.

Vil.] OTHER CREEDS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY. 79

to the anxiety of the Bishop that his catechumens should content
themselves with it, and not allow the slightest deviation from it.
Possibly Athanasius would have called it Arian, although the Son
of God is described in it as Very God; but on this we need not
delay. The words σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα are found in
it, but no reference whatever is made to the birth from the Virgin.
On another Creed or interpretation of the Creed assigned to Atha-
nasius, 1 shall be compelled to touch below.

§ 8. I must not however leave this period without drawing
attention to the Antiochene EKcthesis (called the ἔκθεσις μακρόστιχος)
which was framed in the year 345, and sent to the West in antici-
pation of the Council which afterwards met at Sardica in 347°.
It commences with a Creed affirming the eternal generation of the
. Son, and that He is God of God; it speaks of Him as ἐνανθρωπή-
σαντα καὶ γεννηθέντα of the Holy Virgin, and that His kingdom
continues unceasing to unlimited ages. The exposition concludes:
“We believe too in the Holy Ghost, that is, the Comforter, Whom,
after His ascent to heaven, according to His promise to His Apo-
stles, He sent to teach them and to bring everything to their
remembrance; through Whom the souls of those who have truly
believed in Him shall be sanctified”. The anathema of the Nicene
Faith, altered by the omission of the word οὐσία and in other re-
spects, follows. And the teaching is repudiated of those who say
there are three Gods, or that the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit are the same. The reason assigned for such repudiation
is, that the doctrines rejected are not found in the inspired Scrip-
tures. “We know (they say) only one unbegotten, the Father of
Christ. Nor yet, when we acknowledge three Things and three
Persons (τρία πράγματα καὶ τρία πρόσωπα) of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit according to the Scriptures, do we
because of this make three Gods, since we know the Self-perfect
and Unbegotten, Unoriginated and Invisible to be one God only ;
nor, when we say that there is one God only, do we deny that
Christ too is God from eternity...We detest the opinion of all
those who say that He is the mere word of God, and has no hy-
postasis—some describing Him as the word uttered and spoken,
others as the word conceived and unspoken.” And they speak of

1 It is given by Athanasius de Synodis may be seen in Mansi 1. 1361, and
§ 26, and by Socrates, H. E.1x.11, and Hahn, p. 151.

80 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

Him as having “assumed our flesh from the Virgin about 400
years ago.” Reference is then made to the opinion avowed by the
Marcellians and Photinians, on the pretext of upholding the
Monarchia, viz. that His kingdom will come to an end. The Sabel-
lian or Patripassian heresy is repudiated by name. An orthodox in-
terpretation is claimed for the words of Proverbs, the Lord created
me, &c., the bishops saying that it is “impious and alien to the
ecclesiastical faith to compare the Creator with the things created
through Him.” And the last division is occupied with an attempt
to guard the faith from the imputation of teaching that the Father
and the Son are ever dissociated or severed, either in space or time.
“And when we believe in the all-perfect and most holy Trinity,
that is, in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit; and
when we say that the Father is God, and the Son also God, we
acknowledge, not two Gods, but one majesty of the Godhead, and
one perfect harmony of the kingdom: the Father ruling entirely
over all things, even over the Son Himself, and the Son subjected
to the Father, but, excepting Him, ruling over all things with
Him, and bestowing at the Father's will, ungrudgingly, on the
saints, the gift of the Holy Spirit. For thus have the sacred
oracles delivered to us that the character of the Monarchia in
regard to Christ consists.”

This exposition of the Faith was not accepted at Sardica; nor
can it be regarded as Catholic in any detail save where it repeats
the language of the orthodox Creed. But I would notice that the
Deity of the Holy Spirit is touched on very lightly, and that the
document declares that there are not three Gods, but “one God-
head.” The truth regarding the Holy Trinity was not yet worked
out.

§ 9. The Council of Sardica accepted the Nicene Faith, thus
giving it the seal of the Bishops of the West, three hundred of
whom assembled at this Illyrian city. It also composed “another
formula of faith, which was more copious than that of Nicza, the

intention being to convey the same signification in more perspi-

cuous language’.’” The document appears to be lost.

1 (Sozomen, H. E.111. 12). Thesyn- The question is worthy of consideration
odical letter given by Theodoret H. E. whether the first form given by Epipha-
11.8 does not answer to this description, nius may not be ‘‘the other writing of
but it need not on that account be re- the faith” referred to here.
jected as spurious, as is done by Baronius.

CHAPTER: ὙΠ.

THE APOLLINARIAN CONTROVERSY AND COUNCILS OF
CONSTANTINOPLE.

§ 1. The two Apollinarii. §2. Gregory Nazianzene’s account of the opinions of
the younger Apollinarius. ὃ 8. Principle involved in it. § 4. Epiphanius
of Constantia. His Ancoratus. Hig Creed. § 5. Difficulty of this. ὃ 6.
Comparison with the Nicene Faith. ὃ 7. The second exposition of Epi-
phanius. ὃ 8. Examination of this. § 9. This latter exposition almost
identical with one ascribed to Athanasius. 8110. This not noticed by Mont-
faucon. ὃ 11. So far probably spurious. ὃ 12, Synod of Constantinople,
A.D. 381. § 13. Letter of the Bishops to Theodosius, and their canons.
§ 14. Council of Constantinople, αν. 382. § 15. What is the Tome to
which it referred? § 16. Letter of Damasus to Paulinus. § 17. The
so-called Creed of Constantinople. ὃ 18. Question of its authenticity.
§ 19. Comparison with the Creed of Epiphanius. § 20. Why were the altera-
tions made?

§ 1. THERE were at Laodicea, towards the latter half of the
fourth century, two distinguished men of the name of Apollinaris,
or Apollinarius, father and son. The elder of the two was a great
admirer and friend of Athanasius. When the great martyr was
on his way back to Egypt from his banishment by Constantine,
he passed through Laodicea, and there he made the acquaintance
of Apollinaris, an acquaintance which ripened into a warm friend-
ship. Because of this, Apollinaris was ejected from the Church by
George its Arian bishop’. Meditating (as no doubt he did) on
his undeserved excommunication, Apollinaris would be subjected
to one of two temptations; either to abjure his Athanasian Creed,
or to carry it to extremes. He gave way before the latter; and,
deeply impressed with the conviction of the perfect Deity of our
Blessed Lord, he was led to deny His true Humanity. The Ec-
thesis which I have quoted is entirely consistent with these earlier

* Sozomen, H. E. vi. 25, who attri- both ways) to μικροψυχία, ““ littleness of

butes the erroneous teaching of Apolli- soul.”
naris (or Apollinarius, the name is spelt

5. Ὁ: 0

82 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

views of Apollinaris: he believed that the Divine Nature in
Christ supplied all that was wanted to animate His flesh: he ob-
served that it was not said in Scripture that He became man, but
that He was made flesh: and he could not see how, if our Lord
was not capable of change, He could share in the true character-
istics of the human soul. At a later period father and son gave up
the point so far as relates to the animating Soul, the ψυχή, by the
possession of which man is a living animal’, (for unless Christ had
this Soul, how could He have given His Soul a ransom for many ?)
and confined their objection to a more limited point: they held
that the Saviour had not, when Incarnate, the Reasonable Soul.
Thus they held that He was made flesh, and took up His abode
with men; but they denied that He was entirely or perfectly Man.
Then they went further: they maintained that the Flesh which
the Redeemer took was from heaven, and therefore free, on this
account, from the imperfections of our fleshly nature. As this par-
ticular point (to which indeed we owe an important addition to
the Nicene Faith, and perhaps an important omission from it,) is
not touched upon in those famous chapters of Hooker’s Ecclesi-
astical Polity, from which most of us have received our earliest
philosophical impressions as to the Incarnation of our Redeemer, I
will give a short account of the tenets of the younger Apollinaris
as they were understood by the great Gregory of Nazianzus.
Whether the account gives an adequate and true résumé of the
opinions of the man has been questioned; but there is no reason
to doubt that it gives a true representation of Gregory’s view of
them.

§ 2. In his letter to Nectarius, written about the year 3877,
Gregory complains first of the heresies of Arius and Eunomius,
and then of that of Apollinaris.

He says that the book of the last-named contains things which exceed
all heretical pravity. For “he affirms that the Flesh of our Lord was not
acquired in the economy (¢. e. the Incarnation) by the only-begotten Son,
but that from the beginning that carnal nature was the Son. He mis-
interprets John 111. 13, Vo one has ascended up into heaven, but He that
came down from heaven, the Son of man, Who is in heaven: as if He was
the Son of Man before He came down from heaven, and came down

1 «The first man Adam was made a 2 (Migne, Greek Series, Vol. xxxvu.
living animal, the last Adam ἃ lifegiving 00]. 329).
spirit.”

Vill. | THE APOLLINARIAN CONTROVERSY. 83

bringing with Him His own flesh which He had had in heaven, being, as
it were, itself eternal and made coessential with Him (προαιώνιον and
συνουσιωμένην).

“Thus too he explains 1 Cor. xv. 47, the second man from heaven,
tearing it away from its context. And thus Apollinaris makes out that
the Man who came down from heaven had not the human intelligence,
the νοῦς, but that the Deity of the only-Begotten supplied the place of
this νοῦς: He had the Soul and Body, but the Logos replaced the human
intelligence. But this is not all: he actually teaches that He, the
only-begotten Son, the Judge of all, the Prince of Life, the Destroyer of
death, was mortal: that in his own Deity He underwent suffering, and
in that three days’ submission to the death (νέκρωσις) of the Body, the
Deity also died, and so was raised by the Father from death.”

From the letters of Gregory to Cledonius’, written in 382, we
receive further information of importance. He there complains?

that the followers of Apollinaris assert that ὁ κυριακὸς, the Lordly One,
or the Lord’s Man) as they call Him, “They ought to call Him
Lord and God,” was without the human intelligence (ἄνους). And
then (clearly referring to their teaching as to the Body of our Lord),
Gregory says, that “we hold that our Lord was from eternity not
man, but God and Son, unmixed with Body or Bodily attributes: but
that, at the end, the man was assumed for our salvation: thus He
was passible in the flesh, impassible in the Spirit; circumscribed
in the Body, uncircumscribed in the Spirit; so that by Him, entirely
Man and God, the whole man should be formed again, since he has
fallen under sin. If, therefore, any one considers that Mary was not
Mother of God, he is severed from the Godhead: if any one says that He
ran through the Virgin as through a canal, and was not formed in her
in a divine as well as human fashion—divine as being without a human
father, human as being by the law of fetal growth,—he is equally god-
less. If any one says that the man was first formed, and that then God
assumed the man, he is condemned. If any one brings in two Sons, the
one of God the Father, the second of the Mother, and not one and the
same Son, may he fall away from the adoption of sons, which is promised
to those who rightly believe. For there are two natures, God and Man,
but not two Sons nor two Gods. We speak of one thing and another
thing, but not of one Person and another Person (of ἄλλο and ἄλλο, but
not of ἄλλος and ἄλλος). Thus two things took place in the blending
together (ἐν τῇ συγκράσει); God entered on man, and man was made
God. In the Trinity we speak of one Person and another (ἄλλος and
ἄλλος), that we may not confuse the Hypostases, but not of one thing and
another (ἄλλο and ἀλλο), for the three (τὰ τριά) are one and the same (ἐν
καὶ τὸ αὐτό) in the Deity.”

After a while he proceeds:
“Tf anyone says that the flesh has now been laid aside, and that the
Godhead is deprived of the Body, and is not now with it, and will not
1 Migne, ut sup. col. 175—202. 2 Col, 178.
6—2

84 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

come with it, associated with it, may he not see the glory of His coming.”
... The passages quoted above from 1 Cor. xv., and St John iii., are true,
because of the heavenly union. Gregory taught that the sanctification
of each element in us is to be connected with the truth that that element
was present in our Saviour, and in Him was holy. He charged against
his opponents that they were deceived by the letter of Scripture, and were
ignoraut of the custom, the consuetudo (τὴν συνήθειαν) of the Scriptures ;
they interpreted too narrowly single passages such as this, Unto Thee shall
all flesh come. And then they have gone entirely wrong in regard to the
Trinity. ‘‘Apollinaris indeed gave the name of Deity to the Holy Spirit,
but the full truth of His Deity he did not maintain.” He thought that there
was a Great and a Greater and a Greatest; the Holy Spirit, the Son, the
Father; as it were the Splendour, the Ray, the Sun: whilst we acknow-
ledge that the Names are not mere phrases, marking inequalities of
dignities and power, but, as there is one and the same title, so is there
one and the same Nature, and Essence, and Power.

In his second letter Gregory takes up the subject of the Faith.
Many had come to Cledonius seeking further assurance regarding
it, and therefore Cledonius had begged from his friend a short
definition and canon of his own sentiments.

“We (he replies) have never preferred, and are now unable to prefer,
anything to the faith settled at Nicea by the holy Fathers who then
met to put down the Arian heresy: to that faith we belong and will
belong, even whilst we add some articles, in explanation of that which
was stated there concerning the Holy Spirit, somewhat defectively (zpoo-
διαρθροῦντες τὸ ἐλλιπῶς εἰρημένον ἐκείνης περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου mvevpatos)—be-
cause the question had not then been stirred.” We add “that we ought
to know that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one God-
head, and that the Spirit is God. I beg you, therefore, regard those
who so hold and teach as in communion with you: those who teach
differently regard as aliens both from God and the Catholic Church.”
Gregory subjoins a few remarks on the divine ‘‘entering on man or incar-
nation” (ἐνανθρωπήσεως ἤτοι σαρκώσεως), and says, “If a man does not
agree with us here, he shall have to give an account of it in the day of
judgment.” He complains again of the partial manner in which the
Apollinarians understand Scripture: ‘Their idea of a perfect man (he
says) is not of one who in every point has been tempted like us, yet
without sin: but its subject is the mixture of God and flesh. They are
mistaken again on the word ἐνανθρώπησις: they maintain, not that the
Word was in the man whom He attached to Himself, but only that He
mixed with men and conversed with men—taking refuge in the words
(of Baruch 111. 37), After this He was seen on the earth and conversed with
man... Again, they appeal to the words of the apostle—which they do not
explain in the apostle’s sense—that our Lord was in the likeness of men,
and was found in fashion as a man: they say these words mean that
the likeness was only apparent and put on to deceive. Damasus there-
fore reasonably rejected these, and returned their miserable description

Vill. | THE APOLLINARIAN CONTROVERSY. 85

of their faith with an anathematism :—and they, instead of being put to
shame, harass us with falsehoods.” ‘Let them remove from the vesti-
bules of their churches (Gregory cries) the sentence that we are to
worship not the god-bearing Man, but the flesh-bearing God. What folly!
what madness is this! and yet it has all arisen only within the last
thirty years, whilst nearly four hundred years have passed since Christ
was manifested !”

§ 3. No apology is required for my introduction of this pas-
sage, exhibiting (as it does) the clear conception which Gregory
had of the true mode of overcoming heresies—not merely that of
the Apollinarians, but all others as they might arise. I have
introduced it too for the purpose of exhibiting the need of some
further explanation of the Nicene Faith, a need which was ere
long supplied.

§ 4. Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, was “a well-
read man, but of narrow mind and obstinate.” Among his works
that have come down to us is one entitled Zhe Anchored One, an
exposition of the faith of the Trinity. It was composed at the
request of some presbyters in Pamphylia, and apparently in the
year 374. Towards the close of the work* he writes as follows:

The children of the Church have received from the holy fathers, that
is from the holy Apostles, the faith to keep, and to hand down, and to
teach their children. To these children you belong, and I beg you to
receive it and pass it on, And whilst you teach your children these
things and such as these from the holy Scriptures, cease not to confirm
and strengthen them, and indeed all who hear you: telling them that
this is the holy faith of the Holy Catholic Church, as the one holy Virgin
of God received it from the holy Apostles of the Lord to keep: and thus
every person who is in preparation for the holy laver of baptism must
learn it: they must learn it themselves, and teach it expressly, as the
one Mother of all, of you and of us, proclaims it, saying—‘‘ We believe
in one God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all
things visible and invisible: and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only
begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all the ages, that is
of the substance of the Father, Light of Light, very God of very God,
begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father: by whom all things
were made, both in heaven and earth: who for us men and for our
salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Ghost
and the Virgin Mary, and was made man (ἐνανθρωπήσαντα), was crucified
also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and on
the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended
into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and thence is

1 6 ἀγκύρωτος, Migne, 43, p. 231.

86 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

coming with glory to judge the quick and the dead, of whose kingdom
there shall be no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of
lite, who proceedeth from the Father; who, with the Father and the
Son is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets: in one
holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for
the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the
life of the world to come. And those who say that there was a time when
the Son of God was not, and before He was begotten He was not, or
that He was of things which are not, or that He is of a different
hypostasis or substance, or pretend that He is effluent or changeable,
these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes. And this faith
was delivered from the Holy Apostles and in the Church, the Holy City,
from all the Holy Bishops together more than three hundred and ten in
number.”

§ 5. As this last sentence is incorrect, if it is to be understood
of the Council of Nica, the question arises whether it was meant
to refer to the Council of Sardica, which, according to Sozomen,
collected some three hundred bishops from the West and seventy
from the East: two hundred and fifty according to Theodoret.
I throw it out as a suggestion. For this is not the Nicene Faith.

§ 6. Let us, however, compare it with the Nicene Faith.

The words of heaven and earth are added ;

The order of the phrases only begotten Son, begotten of the
Father is altered ;

That He was begotten before all worlds is added ;

The words of the Nicene Creed, God of God, are omitted ;

The thought that He came down from heaven is more fully
expressed ;

The words of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary are in-
troduced ;

That He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and that
He was buried, is added ;

So too that His Resurrection was according to the Scriptures ;

That He ts seated on the right hand of God ;

That His coming will be with glory ;

~ And that of His kingdom there shall be no end.

This last may have been suggested by the Ecthesis ENE
stichus.

The great addition, however, was in the words which follow
1 believe in the Holy Ghost.

vii. | THE APOLLINARIAN CONTROVERSY. 87

In the anathematism, κτιστόν and τρεπτόν were altered to
pevorov. Apollinaris had never maintained that our Lord was
created: we may possibly say that he held that He flowed through
the Virgin without partaking of her substance.

§ 7. But, incomplete as this account of Epiphanius is, and
incorrect, if he intended to refer us to the Faith of Nica, the

puzzle is increased by a statement which immediately follows.
He tells |

“How in our own generation, that is in the times of Valentinus and
Valens, and the ninetieth year from the succession of Diocletian the
tyrant (7. 6. in the year 374, seven years before the Synod of Constanti-
nople), you and we and all the orthodox bishops of the whole Catholic
Church together, make this address to those who come to baptism,
in order that they may proclaim and say as follows ”—

The words may be seen in Migne, Vol. xuit. p. 233, and
Hahn, p. 58.—This faith contains many interesting passages, It
is almost identical with the true Nicene Creed until we come
to the words “came down from heaven, and was incarnate ;”
here is added the sentence, “that is, was perfectly born of the
Holy Mary, the ever Virgin, through the Holy Spirit.” It then
proceeds as follows :

“ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, that is He took a perfect man, soul, and body, and
intelligence, and everything that man is, without sin; not from the seed
of a man (ἀνδρὸς), nor yet in a man (ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ), but forming for Himself
(εἰς ἑαυτὸν) flesh into one holy unity: not, as in the prophets, where He
breathed and spoke and wrought, but [here] He became perfectly man
(τελείως ἐνανθρωπήσαντα), for the Word was made flesh, not sustaining
any change nor converting His Godhead into Manhood—[but] uniting
into His own one holy perfection and Godhead—for there is one
Lord Jesus Christ and not two, the same God, the same Lord, the
same King—the same suffered in the flesh and rose again, and went up
to heaven in the same body, sat down gloriously at the right hand of the
Father, and is coming in the same body in glory to judge the quick and
the dead; of whose kingdom there shall be no end. And we believe
the Holy Spirit who spake in the law, and preached in the prophets,
and came down at the Jordan, who speaks in Apostles, and dwells in
saints; and thus we believe in Him; that there is a Holy Spirit,
a Spirit of God, a perfect Spirit, a Comforter Spirit, uncreated, proceed-
ing from the Father, received from the Son, and believed. We believe
in one Catholic and Apostolic Church, and in one baptism of repentance
and in a resurrection of the dead, and in the righteous judgment of souls
and bodies, and in the kingdom of heaven and eternal life.” And it
concludes with the Nicene anathematism, extending, however, the

88 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

statements regarding the Son to the Holy Spirit, “‘and again we anathe-
matize those who will not confess a resurrection of the dead, and all
the heresies which are not of this, the right faith.”

§ 8. It will be seen that the explanations are confined to the
subject of the Incarnation of our Lord: ὁ.6. the Nicene Faith, where
it treats of His Prior Existence, was left unaltered and without ex-
position. And these explanations insist upon His perfect humanity.
The document must, therefore, have been drawn up in distinct re-
ference to the Apollinarian controversy. But still the writers were
not express believers in the Deity of the Holy Spirit: they
explain the Nicene, “ We believe in the Holy Spirit,” in a way
which is very different from the explanation of Athanasius in his
letter to the African Bishops’. Nor is this weakness of the
statement in the body of the document removed entirely by the
anathema at the end’.

§9. But in the Vatican Library there is a manuscript of “the
best character and of great antiquity,” which contains some works
of Cyril. Amongst them is a tract headed: “ Athanasius, arch-
bishop of Alexandria: his interpretation of the Symbol’.” This
interpretation commences like the Nicene Creed and Epiphanius’
Faith, but it omits the words “only begotten, that is of the
substance of the Father,’ words which Epiphanius’ second formula
retained: it adds, with Epiphanius, “both which are in heaven
and which are in earth.” Like this same formula it omits the
words “from heaven:” after the ἐνανθρωπήσαντα it proceeds
almost exactly the same, “that is, was conceived (γεννηθέντα)
perfectly of the Virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit, having
taken body and soul and mind and everything that belongs to
man, without sin, truly and not in appearance:” then it omits the
clauses in Epiphanius, “not of the seed of a man,” &c. down to
“the same Lord, the same King:” it proceeds, “ suffered, that. is,
was crucified and buried:” it adds, “the third day,” to Epipha-
nius. The rest relating to our Saviour’s session and future coming
are identical in both. It concludes:

1 Chapter vr. §§ 7, 10, above. the ““ faith of Constantinople.”

* It is interesting to notice that our 3 ἀθανασίου ἀρχιεπισκόπου ἀλεξάνδρειας
English version and was incarnate ὃ} ἑρμήνεια εἰς τὸ σύμβολον. The great Mont-
the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Marycomes _ faucon,the Benedictine editor, considered
from this, and not from what is called it to be genuine.

vul. | THE APOLLINARIAN CONTROVERSY. 89

“ And we believe in the Holy Spirit who is not alien from the Father
and the Son, but consubstantial with the Father and the Son, who is
uncreated, perfect, the Comforter, who spake in the Law and in the Pro-
phets and in the Gospels, who came down on the Jordan, preached to the
Apostles, dwells in the Saints. And we believe in this one only
Catholic and Apostolic Church: in one baptism of repentance and of
remission of sins, in the resurrection of the dead, in the eternal judging
of souls and bodies, in the kingdom of heaven and eternal life.
And those who say there was a time when the Son was not, or there
was a time when the Holy Spirit was not, or that He was made of things
which are not; or who say that the Son of God or the Holy Spirit is
of a different hypostasis or essence—being capable of change—these we
anathematize, because our mother the Catholic and Apostolic Church
anathematizes them. And we anathematize all who will not confess
that there is a resurrection of the flesh, as well as every heresy—that is,
all those who are not of this faith of the holy and alone Catholic
Church’.”

§10. The great Benedictine editor did not notice the marked
similarity between this “ interpretation of the Creed,’ attributed
in his manuscript to Athanasius, and the second formula of Epi-
phanius: nor I believe has any one else. What judgment it may
produce ultimately as to the origin of the document, I am
not prepared to say. My own impression is that future editors
will place this “interpretation” among the spurious works with
which the later of “Athanasius’’’ volumes are filled up. For
Epiphanius’ document is declared by him to have been composed
in the year 374, and Athanasius ended his eventful life in 373.

§ 11. But we must not dismiss the subject without the
further remark that this “interpretation” ascribed to Athanasius
omits very important words, contained in the other, “that is
from the substance of the Father.’ The improbability is very
great, that the renowned Bishop of Alexandria, having struggled
for those words all his life, should have resigned them need-
lessly within a few years of his death, whilst Epiphanius retained
them. Thus we have, as it seems to me, no choice in this investi-
gation. For the present we must conclude that the writer of the
Vatican manuscript was led into an error: and that Athanasius
was not the author of the “Interpretation.” Leaving then this
interesting enquiry, we fall back on the earlier document. pub-

/ 1 Migne, Vol. xxv1. p. 1252.

90 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

lished by Epiphanius, and must note what an important place it
seems tu have occupied in the Church.

§ 12. A small synod, of 150 bishops, met at Constantinople in
the year 381, seven years after the date which Epiphanius so
carefully assigns to this second Creed, and of this synod we
have brief accounts in most of the Church histories’. We have,
indeed, no lengthened record of its proceedings ; its “acts” have
perished. But we have a copy of the letter which the assembled
Bishops addressed to the emperor Theodosius; and two sets of
canons, one longer than the other, but both sets containing one
canon, with which we are now deeply interested.

§ 13. The Bishops informed Theodosius that they had renewed
assurances of unity among themselves, and had then briefly laid
down definitions or canons which confirmed the faith of the fathers
who had met at Nicwa, and anathematized every heresy. In proof
of this they referred to the document which accompanied the
letter. The first canon was to the effect that

“The faith of the 318 fathers who had met at Nicea in Bithynia was
not to be rejected, but that it remained confirmed, and every heresy was
anathematized: and especially that of the Eunomians or Anomeeans,
that of the Arians or Eudoxians, that of the Semiarians or Pneumato-
machi, that of the Sabellians, and that of the Marcellians; that of the
Photinians, and that of the Apollinarians.”

The fifth canon was this: “Concerning the Tome of the Occi-
dentals: we receive those in Antioch also who confess one God-
head of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” What is
meant by the Tome of the Occidentals? no satisfactory answer is
given, so far as Iam aware. It can scarcely refer to the letter of
Damasus to Paulinus, which Theodoret gives after the meeting
of the Bishops at Constantinople of the succeeding year. And
equal uncertainty exists as to the document referred to in the
letter to Theodosius, unless the first canon of the Council answers
the requirements of the problem. All that we hear from Theodoret
as having happened at the time, is this: that after they had made
some canons to regulate the good order of the Church, and or-
dained that the Faith of Nicza should remain established, the
Bishops departed to their own homes.

1 Sozomen, H. E. vu. 7, Socrates v. 8.

VII. | THE APOLLINARIAN CONTROVERSY. 91

§ 14. In the next year, 382, there was another gathering at
Constantinople, arising from an invitation to a very great synod
to be held at Rome. Instead, however, of taking the journey to
Rome, the bishops sent a letter’ to Damasus and Ambrose and
the others. In this letter they speak of the persecutions they
had undergone for the sake of the evangelical faith which had
been confirmed at Niczea in Bithynia by the 318 fathers:

This faith (they said) ought to satisfy all who cared only for the word
of truth: it was ancient, and it was accordant with baptism, and it taught
us to believe in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy
Spirit, as being of one Godhead, and power, and substance: of a dignity
equally precious, of a kingdom coeternal, of three perfect Hypostases or
three perfect Persons, rejecting those, who, like Sabellius and others,
either confused the Hypostases, or divided the essence, or nature, or god-
head; or introduced into the uncreated and consubstantial Trinity any
conception of a Nature later in time, or created, or different in essence.
““We maintain also (they proceed) the statement of the unperverted In-
carnation of the Lord, refusing to regard Him as being without soul or
without intelligence, or to think that the economy of His flesh is imper-
fect, knowing that He was entirely perfect: God the Word before all
ages, and that He became perfect man in these last days for our salva-
tion. Such (they proceed) is the summary regarding the faith which is
constantly preached amongst us:” and then they refer their western
friends, in addition, to the Tome which had been made at Antioch by the
synod that met there, and to that which was put out at Constantinople
last year, by the eecumenical synod that met there, in which they confessed
the faith at greater length, and have framed in writing an anathematism
of the heresies which have been recently innovated’,

§ 15. The question again arises, what was this Tome in
which the 150 who met at Constantinople in 381 put forth at
greater length the faith, and prepared an anathematism of the
recent heresies? Was it the second formula of Epiphanius or the
“Interpretation of Athanasius”? or was it the document which we
now regard as the Creed of Constantinople? The so-called Creed
of Constantinople can scarcely be regarded as containing all that
the meeting of 382 declared that the Tome did contain, and it
hhas no anathema. The question is puzzling. And the puzzling
character is not diminished by the fact that we cannot find that
any writer prior to the summons to the Council of Chalcedon, 7.e.
during the next seventy years, ever refer to the “faith” of this

1 I have referred to this letter already is in Harduin 1. 823, and I presume in

note p. 25, for another purpose. other editions of the Councils.
2 Theodoret, H. E. y.9. The letter

92 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

Council. Indeed the number of those who met here was so small
that it is only by the subsequent reception of its supposed Creed
that it has attained the dignity of an cecumenical council at all.
Its greatness was thrust upon it.

§ 16. But we must here draw attention for a brief space to
the letter of Damasus to Paulinus of Antioch, which, from the ac-
count of Theodoret (H. #, v. 10, 11), followed on this Synod at
Rome, to which the orthodox Bishops of the East had been invited
in 382. The letter is very celebrated: it is contained with varia-
tions in many collections of Canons, and the Brothers Ballerini
copy with annotations Quesnel’s learned note upon it’. The
letter has a distinct reference to the heresy of Apollinaris, and
states that the Catholic Church anathematizes those who hold that
in the Saviour the Word took the place of the human intelligence.
Damasus calls on all to subscribe his letter. He gives the true
Nicene Creed, of course in Latin, adding however to the words
“and in the Holy Spirit” the following, “neither made nor created,
but of the substance of the Deity*.” The Nicene anathematism
follows, and then this interesting memorandum;—“ After this
Nicene Council, a council which was assembled at Rome of Ca-
tholic Bishops made additions relative to the Holy Spirit”—I
presume, by inserting the words specified. Then there follows a
series of anathematisms referring to errors regarding the Holy
Spirit and the Incarnation and the Trinity.

§ 17. I may anticipate here what I must repeat hereafter, viz.
that the only evidence prima manw in favour of the received
account of the origin of the “Creed of Constantinople” is the
unsupported statement of the deacon Aétius at the Council of
Chalcedon in the year 451. This will come under review ere long.
When I reach that date, I will give further details regarding it:
I will now merely transcribe the document, and at a later page
draw attention to the chief points in which it differs from the
Nicene, and from the earlier faith in the Ancorate of Epiphanius.
I will content myself with a translation ®.

‘‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and
earth, and of all things visible and invisible: and in one Lord, Jesus

1 Works of Leo the Great. Ballerini sed de substantia deitatis.
111. 399 (Migne, Vol. ivi. p. 686). 8 The original is in every collec-
2 Neque facturam neque creaturam tion.

VII. | THE APOLLINARIAN CONTROVERSY. 93

Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all
worlds, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten not made, Being
of one substance with the Father, by Whom all things were made; Who,
for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was
incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man
(ἐνανθρωπήσαντα), and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and
suffered, and was buried; and on the third day He rose again according
to the Scriptures, and ascended into the heaven, and sitteth on the right
hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the quick
and the dead: of Whose kingdom there shall be no end. And in the
Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Giver of life, Who proceedeth from the
Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and
glorified, Who spake by the prophets: In one holy Catholic and Apos-
tolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;
we look for the Resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.
Amen.”

§ 18. It has been almost universally assumed until lately
that the account of this Creed given by Aétius is correct, that it
really did receive the sanction of the Council of Constantinople in
381. I cannot say that I believe it: and I must give my reasons.

i, The Council of 382 states (as we have seen) that the bishops
assembled in the previous year had expressed their entire satis-
faction with the Creed of Nicewa, and we know, from their un-
doubted canon and from their letter to Theodosius, they had con-
firmed that Creed. On looking at this new Creed, however, we
find that it omits one very important clause of the faith of Nicea:
a clause for which (as I have said before) Athanasius appears to
have fought continuously throughout his long and arduous life;
a clause which, as he informs his friends in Africa and elsewhere,
was inserted especially to annoy and exclude the Arians. The
clause I refer to is that which follows, γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς
μονογενῆ, V1Z. τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός : “begotten of
the Father, only begotten, that ts, of the substance of the Father.”
That clause was inserted, we may remember, because the
Arians had whispered, “we can allow that the Son of God is of
God, of the Father, because we are all of God: of Him are all
things.” I can scarcely think it probable that the Bishops could
have omitted the clause “in their explanation of the Nicene
Faith” within eight years of the death of Athanasius, and at a
time when they declared their resolve to maintain his Faith’.

1 Etherius and Beatus called the Creed the Creed of the Council of Ephesus.
(Hahn, p. 112.)

94 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

ii. Again, the Tome put forth at Constantinople in 381 is de-
scribed as “confessing the faith at greater length.” It is true that
the additions of the words “heaven and earth” in the first clause ;
further on, of the words “ before all worlds” (omitting the clause
“God of God”); “from heaven;” “of the Holy Ghost and the
Virgin Mary;” “and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;”
“and was buried;” “sitteth on the right hand of the Father;” “of
whose Kingdom there shall be no end;” together with the whole
of the clauses following on “And the Holy Ghost’”—appear at
first sight to satisfy some of the conditions of the problem. But
where is “the anathematism of the recently invented heresies”
which the Tome contained ?

§ 19. And now let us compare the Creed put forth by Aétius
in 451 as “the faith of the 150 fathers who met at Constantinople”
with the first faith in the Ancorate of Epiphanius. We find that
they agree to a remarkable extent; but the Creed of Epiphanius
retains the clause “that is of the substance of the Father,” which
is rejected in the Creed of Aétius: it retains also the words
“which are in heaven and earth” relating to the “things created
through the Saviour.” It has the anathematism of the Nicene
formula, which is omitted by Aétius. Thus the Creed attributed
by Aétius to the Synod of Constantinople was taken from the
Creed of Epiphanius, by omitting the clauses mentioned above.

§ 20. Let us still enquire—first: Why were the additions
to the Nicene faith made by the authors of the faith of Epipha-
nius? I can only answer, “they were felt to be needed:” and I
presume chiefly in consequence of the errors of the Apollinarians.
These held that our Lord brought His flesh down from heaven.
The new Creed asserts that He came down from heaven, but added
that He was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary.

The part relating to the Holy Spirit was inserted to pronounce
the faith of the Church at the time regarding Him; against both
the Apollinarians and the Macedonians.

Secondly : But why were the omassions made? I can only again
guess at the reason; but it may have been thought that after all
the expression “of the substance of the Father” was too bold in
face of the Apollinarian heretics: it may have been thought that
the phrase gave them support for their opinion, that the Son of

vit. | THE APOLLINARIAN CONTROVERSY. 95

man, as regards both His Spirit and His Flesh, was “from the
Substance or Essence of the Father.” Again; I can well conceive
that the words, “by whom all things were made, both which are in
heaven and which are in earth,” were found too extensive: they
might be quoted to shew that the Church held that the Holy
Spirit was “made” through the Son. Thus they were omitted.
And, once more, the anathematism referred only to the Son of God,
and not to the Spirit of God. An attempt was made (as we see
in Epiphanius’ second formula) to extend the anathematism so as
to embrace the heresies regarding the Spirit, but this was so pal-
pably an addition that any one could point to it and say,
“You are altering the faith of the Church: you are modifying the
anathema of Nicza.” So, in the exercise of a wise prudence, even
though the anathematism was true in fact, it was allowed to drop out
of sight: the Church still held as aliens and as excommunicate all
who made the statements regarding the Son which were con-
demned ; but as it was undesirable to draw attention to the dif-
ference of language used at Nicaea regarding the Son of God and
the Holy Spirit of God, the anathematism was allowed to disap-
pear. There is no evidence that the anathematism was removed at
Constantinople in 381. In point of fact, the number of Bishops
assembled there was too small to have ventured to make such an
innovation. The Synod seems to have attracted little general
attention. It is not mentioned (so far as I can discover) by
S. Augustine. At the Council of Chalcedon the Egyptian bishops
repudiated it (or at all events this action of it) entirely. Indeed
it seems to have been due to the statement that this Creed pro-
ceeded from the Council of Constantinople, that the Council itself
was elevated into the position which now it occupies’.

1 Amongst the numerous references to
the Nicene faith, and to proposals to
change it, the following seem worthy of
especial notice.

In a.p. 362 the Council of Alexandria
asks that all may confess the faith which
had been confessed by the Holy Fathers
at Nicwea: some persons had made addi-
tions to the Nicene Faith, but the coun-
cil of Sardica had declared that a second
faith ought not to be set forth, for this
was perfect. And this, although people
had declared that the Holy Spirit was a
Creature, and thus tended to divide the
Trinity.

In the year 366 at Rome it was ordered

that it should be kept ἀκεραία καὶ doa-
λευτός.ς The number of bishops met at
Nicxa was noted as equal to the number
of Abraham’s servants. (In Athanasius’
early writings he said the number was
nearly 300, which the ‘‘ Oxford transla-
tion” represents to English readers as
‘over 300."’) It is called the Catholic
and Apostolic faith. In the synodical
letter they said that all who pretended
to profess the Creed of Nicea, and yet
ventured to blaspheme against the Holy
Ghost (by saying that He is a creature
and by dividing Him from the substance
of the Christ), do little else than this:
they deny the Arian heresy in words,

96.

but they maintain it in their minds.
They wished (vain thought!) to restrain
further enquiry, resolved themselves to
seek for nothing further than the Nicene
confession. The latter is very important
and should be compared with Socrates,
ἘΠ. E. 111. 7, who informs us that there
was much deliberation here on the words
οὐσία and ὑπόστασις, and that the Synod
of which Athanasius was president agreed
that neither word ought to be used of
God, for the word οὐσία never occurred
in Scripture, and the word ὑπόστασις
was used improperly there by the Apos-
tle, under the necessity of dogma: but
they were compelled by the exigency of
the matter to retain both words.

In a.p. 374 the Council of Ilyricum
accepts the Nicene Faith as against the
Pneumatomachi who would separate the
Holy Spirit from the essence of the
Father and the Son. The Bishops main-
tained that the Trinity is consubstan-
tial—acccording to the Faith long ago
put out at Nicewa.

In 3877 the Council of Iconium ac-
cepts the Nicene Faith, but regrets that,
in consequence of the difficulties since
raised, it is necessary to go to the Foun-
tain of the Faith. They taught that as
we believe in the Father and the Son,
so should we believe in the Spirit. But
we must go beyond this Faith now, and
appeal to the Tradition of the Lord,
His words were Go, baptize all nations,
dc. Thus it is necessary that we bap-
tize as we were taught, and believe as
we were baptized, and glorify as we have
believed.

At the sixth session of the orthodox
bishops at Ephesus in 431, both parties
appealed to it with equal zest. It was
again recited, and they said “" Τῦ is fitting
that all should agree to this holy Faith:
for it is pious and sufficient for the good
of the whole Church under heaven.”
(Could they have known of any Creed of
Constantinople?) They wished however
to adduce testimonies from the fathers
to uphold and explain the Faith against
Nestorius.

Then there came the decree against
the putting out of any other Creed, of
which more below. (Again I ask, Did
they know of the Creed of Constan-
tinople?) Turning to the rival Council,
we find that they upheld the Nicene
Faith, and complained that Cyril had
corrupted it. (Harduin, p. 1531 p; 1535
B, E; 1537 a, B, Ὁ: 1574 a; 1575 B.)
They certainly did not know of the addi-
tion ‘‘of the Virgin Mary,” which so far

THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP. ὙΠ:

savours of being a fifth century addition,

1594 π.

At the seventh action we have an in-
teresting letter of Cyril, who declares
that he would not have a single word
altered in the Nicene Faith, for the Spirit
of God spake by the Fathers there.

In a.p. 435 Theodosius refers to the
Faith put out at Nicwa and Ephesus
twice over. (Nothing of Constantinople.)

The circumstances of the recital of
the Nicene Faith by Eutyches at the
Robber Synod and of its use at Chalcedon
will be given at greater length below. I
must notice however here that after Aé-
tius had brought out his version of the
Creed of Constantinople in the second
session, Marcion addressed at the sixth
session the assembly in Latin, and spoke
of the deference due to the Nicene synod
and the Nicene Faith; he said nothing
of the Constantinopolitan Creed.

Passing on, I have memoranda that
at the fifth general council (the second
of Constantinople, a.p. 553) Eutychius
Bishop of Constantinople speaks of the
holy symbol, or rather instruction, τὸ
ἅγιον σύμβολον ἤτοι μάθημα made at Ni-
cea, and says that the 100 fathers who
met at Constantinople made the same
holy Instruction clearer and explained
the part relating to the Holy Spirit τὸ
αὐτὸ ἅγιον μάθημα ἐσαφήνισαν καὶ τὰ περὶ
τῆς θεότητος τοῦ αγίου πνεύματος ἐτρά-
vwoav. The fathers at Ephesus in all
points followed the same holy symbol or
instruction, and those at Chalcedon in
all points assented to the aforenamed holy
synods, and followed the aforenamed
holy symbol or instruction which had
been put forth by the 318 holy Fathers
and explained by the 150 holy Fathers.

The two faiths were guoted at the
sixth general Council held at Constanti-
nople in 680.

' At the second Council of Nicwa, 757,
the Creed of Nicwa was again referred
to, and the confessions of the Holy Faith
of the six synods.

(At the seventh action the Creed of
Constantinople was quoted with sundry
additions. )

The true Nicene Creed with its ana-
themas was quoted as the ‘‘ fides sanctze
Trinitatis et Incarnationis” at the Coun-
cil of Aix, 788.

When Nicephorus bishop of Constan-
tinople sent his confession to Leo III.
about 806, he referred to the Creed of
Nicea and the fathers at Constantinople
who explained it. Labbe and Cossart,
vu. 1215.

CHAPTER IX.

THE NESTORIAN CONTROVERSY.

§ 1. Theodosius Emperor: his laws and fines. § 2. Nestorius Archbishop of
Constantinople. § 3. Sermon of Anastasius. § 4. Judgment of Socrates on
Nestorius. § 5. Argument of Cyril of Alexandria. §6. A new mode of
treatment necessary. Theology became Inductive. § 7. Cyril’s argument
not received at Ephesus. ὃ 8. Appeal to the Nicene Creed. § 9. Creed
of Charisius. ὃ 10. Ecthesis of Theodore of Mopsuestia. ἃ 11. Meaning
(i) of the word Anathema, and (ii) of ‘‘ Another faith.” §12. Cyril’s exposi-
tion of the Nicene Creed. ὃ 13. General acceptance of Cyril’s results.
§ 14, Exposition of John of Antioch. $15. Cyril satisfied with this.

§ 1. CONFINING our attention still to the subject of the Nature
of our Incarnate Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, we must note
that although the arguments of Athanasius and his great band
of followers cannot be said to have crushed the Arians, yet
the active measures of the orthodox Emperors, of whom we
may put Theodosius in the foreground, were successful in silencing
them so far as the influence of these Emperors could spread.
Public assemblies of heretics were first prohibited, and then. the
Catholics were empowered to interfere and disperse them even if
they met privately. Apollinarians, Arians and Macedonians, alike
fell-under the ban of the Emperor. They were not permitted to
keep up their succession of Bishops: the houses were to be con-
fiscated where they assembled. Fleury thinks that these laws—
enacted about the year 383—were not rigorously enforced; that
they were intended to deter rather than to punish. Another law,
however, was enacted which imposed a fine of ten pounds of gold
upon every heretic. This law too may at first have been per-
mitted to lie dormant, but attention was drawn to it at’ a

S.C. τ

98 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. | CHAP.

Council of Carthage in 404, with the view of applying it to the
Donatists’.

Beyond the range of the Empire Arianism continued to exist,
and especially amongst the Goths.

§ 2. We thus pass somewhat easily from the Councils of
Constantinople of 381, 382 and 383, to the election of Nestorius
to the chair of the imperial city in the year 428. He was a
native of Syria, and had been educated and baptized at Antioch.
He is described as having been noted for his zeal against the
Arians, and Apollinarians, and Origenists; and in his first sermon
after his consecration in the presence of the Emperor, he ad-
dressed him thus: “Give me, O Emperor, the earth purged from
heretics, and 1 will pay you with heaven. Destroy the heretics
with me, and I will destroy the Persian with you®.” Six weeks
afterwards, his hearer, the younger Theodosius, passed an edict’
which enjoined all heretics to restore to the Catholics the churches
they had taken from them: and forbad them to ordain any
fresh clergy under the old penalty, the fine of ten pounds of gold.
The Arians, Apollinarians and Macedonians were prohibited from
having any Church at all in any of the cities: whilst permission
to assemble for the purpose of prayer was forbidden throughout
the Roman Empire to the Eunomians, Valentinians, and fifteen
other denominations of heretics, of whom the last-named are
the Manichees. The Pelagians are not mentioned.

§ 3. Before the year had come to an end, Nestorius was
involved in a controversy. His friend and confidant, Anastasius‘,
whilst preaching in the Church of Constantinople, used the words:
“ Let no one call Mary Mother of God: for she was a woman; and
it is impossible that God should be born of a human creature.”
Clergy and laity were disturbed by this. For they had been
taught of old to speak of Christ as God (θεολογεῖν tov Χριστὸν),
and on no account to separate Him as Man in the Incarnation
from the Godhead, being persuaded to this by the Apostle’s
words, “Even if we have known Christ according to the flesh,

1 Fleury, xx1. 53, refers to August. 3 Codex Theodos. 16, Tit. 5 de Her.
Epis. 186=50 ad Bonif.c. vit. ὃ 23, and 65 (from Fleury, xxtv. 55).
Epis. 983=48 ad Vincent. c. v. $17. 4 Socrates, vir. 32, from whom chiefly
‘ 3 Socrates, H. EH. vii. 29, — the following account is taken.

1) THE NESTORIAN CONTROVERSY. 99

yet now know we Him so no more:” and “ Wherefore leaving
the discussions concerning Christ, let us be borne along towards
perfection.” Nestorius rushed to the support of Anastasius: he
did not wish a friend of his to be convicted of blaspheming:
and constantly did he teach in the Church, and, with continually
increasing eagerness, until at last he was accused of maintaining
with Paul of Samosata that Christ was a mere man.

§ 4. Socrates the historian considers that this was a false
accusation: he thinks that Nestorius dreaded the word “Theoto-
cos” like a “bugbear:” he describes him as a-man of little
learning, but of some fluency and great vanity; who did not
care to read the books of his predecessors, thinking himself
cleverer than them all. It is clear that neither Nestorius nor
his opponents took time to comprehend each other’s meaning;
it is equally clear that Nestorius had some authority in antiquity
for his opinions. True that Gregory of Nazianzus, and, before
him, the Empress Helena, had described the Virgin as Theotocos ;
but the idea involved in that word was searcely consistent with
the words which had contented Augustine in his younger days,
and which we find unhesitatingly attributed to Athanasius ;
I mean, that the Son ‘descending from the bosom of the
Father has from the undefiled Virgin Mary assumed our Man,
Christ Jesus, whom He delivered to suffer for us.” Nestorius
again and again expressed his assent to the faith of Nicwea—
he believed on the Son of God κατελθόντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα καὶ
ἐνανθρωπήσαντα. The question had not yet been settled by a
council as to the moment when this Descent and Incarnation took
place. Socrates declares very seriously that he examined the
writings of Nestorius; and, whilst he blames him for his ignorance
of the use of the term Theotocos and his consequent objection
to it, he maintains that Nestorius never denied the Hypostasis
of the Word, but ever confessed that the Word is Personal
and Subsisting (ἐνυπόστατον καὶ ἐνούσιον). The mischief that
followed was due to the exaggeration (ψυχρολογία) of Nestorius.

§ 5. In the present day we can well understand that it was
absolutely necessary that this difficulty should be faced and
fought out. And the very words which Socrates uses regarding
it shew that a further difficulty lurked behind.

c=.

100 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

“Nestorius (he says) was ignorant that it is written in the Catholic
letter of St John, according to old copies, Every spirit that divides Jesus
is not of God. This sense of the passage those have endeavoured to
remove who wish to separate the Godhead from the Man of the Incar-
nation. Wherefore the old interpreters have signified that there have
been some who have tampered with the Epistle, wishing to divide the
Man from the God. But the Manhood has been taken up together with
the Godhead, and they are no more two, but one Thing ; and, because of
this, people of old did not shrink from calling Mary Theotocos.”

Socrates would have been called an Eutychian* if he had
written this twenty years later.

Happily after the instructive discourse of our own Hooker
I need not pause to discuss the mistake of Nestorius or to ex-
amine the masterly way in which the difficulty was explained,
and the truth exhibited by the acute Cyril of Alexandria. The
genius and ability which he has exhibited here have gained for
him the title of Saint,—a title of which his personal character
where known has done much to exhibit him as unworthy. But
we may look at the subject, free from the violent personalities
with which it was then connected: and may feel deep sorrow
that the vanity of Nestorius prevented him from acquiescing in
the truth that the Virgin bare Him who is God and Man,
though she was the Mother of the Saviour in regard to His
Humanity alone. Seeing that in the earlier period of his
episcopacy, Nestorius was so anxious to evince his orthodoxy by
persecuting the Apollinarians who denied the true humanity
of the Saviour, our knowledge of human nature would only lead
us to expect that in his later years his zeal might drive him to
the other extreme, and lay him open to the charge that he
maintained the mere humanity. As we have seen, however, this
charge was false though it was brought against him.

1 And so perhaps would Cyril, for in
the beginning of the controversy he used
the words, ‘‘ We do not say that the na-
ture of the Word was changed and be-
came flesh, nor that it was converted
into the whole man, compounded of soul
and body: but rather that the Word
having united to Himself, in His Hypo-
stasis, flesh rendered living by the rea-
sonable soul, has become Man (γέγονεν
ἄνθρωπος) in an ineffable and incompre-
hensible manner: and was called Son of
Man, not merely out of condescension
and favour, nor yet as if by the assump-
tion of the Person (πρόσωπον, Persona)

alone: but because the two different na-
tures were united in true unity (πρὸς
ἑνότητα τὴν ἀληθινὴν συναχθεῖσαι), and of
both there was one Christ and Son: nor
yet because the characteristics of the
natures were removed because of the
union, but rather because the Godhead
and the Manhood formed for us the one
Lord and Son, Jesus Christ, through
this ineffable and inexplicable concur-
rence into a unity.”

After the Kutychian controversy, the
language would have been, not πρὸς évé-
TnTa, in a unity, but εἰς ἕνα, into one
Being.

Ix. | THE NESTORIAN CONTROVERSY. 101

§ 6. It is of more moment to us in our present enquiry, to
ask how and on what grounds Nestorius was condemned.

Before this time the bishops at large had found that their
education was not such as to enable them διακρίνειν τὰ διαφέ-
povra—to discern and distinguish the points of difference in the
doctrinal questions that were rising. These questions had long
overpassed the boundaries which the traditional RULE oF FAITH
had mapped out: the country to which it furnished a chart
had long been left behind. The Scriptures had next been
appealed to, and almost direct deductions from Scripture were
sufficient for the Arian and Apollinarian controversies: Jesus
Christ must have had a soul, if His soul was exceeding sorrowful:
He must have had an intelligent soul, if He increased in wisdom
and in stature. But the subjects now broached were not such
as could be settled by appeals to single texts: they required a
more comprehensive treatment: they needed what I have called
above a scientific investigation, built on a wide induction: and
what we call induction had not been reduced to a science. Still
the same Spirit who had been working hitherto in the Church
was working still; and even in the din of Alexandrian violence
and the mists of Constantinopolitan vanity, His voice was heard.
And Cyril was the spokesman. We have his letters and they are
wonderfully able and convincing.

§ 7. Yet when Cyril’s letters were brought into the synod of
Ephesus, the Fathers were not satisfied: they deemed it necessary
to collect authorities from earlier writers to uphold the teaching of
Cyril. If we are rightly informed, Sisinnius, who was reader to
Nectarius and afterwards his successor in the chair of Constanti-
nople, had been the first to advise this latter plan. This was at a
synod held some fifty years before’. “He was a man of great
practical experience: he knew both the interpretations of the
Holy Scriptures and philosophical dogmas, and he had learnt that
discussions of a dialectical character never heal divisions: on the
contrary, they rather make the heresies more obstinate than they
were before. His advice had been to call on the partisans of either
side to bring forward the publications of older writers, and so
exhibit which of the two had the greater authorities in their
favour.” And this course was adopted at the Council of Ephesus;

1 About 383. Socrates v. 10.

102 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

and long quotations were made from Peter of Alexandria, Atha-
nasius’, Julius, Felix, Theophilus, Cyprian, Ambrose, Gregory of
Nazianzus, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Atticus, Amphilochius, in
support of the judgment of Cyril and of the views of the Council.
The Nestorian formula was, that “Mary did not give birth to the
Divinity:” the opinion of the bishops was, that “this dogma was
not in accordance with the pious Faith which had been put
forward by the holy Fathers who met at Nicea, and we anathe-
matize those who uphold it.” And they anathematized Nestorius

by acclamation’.

§ 8. Ihave already mentioned that both parties appealed to
the Nicene Faith. It is really wearisome to count up the number
of times this Faith is recited in documents published in the
Concilia, and connected with the meetings at Ephesus—We never
hear of the Creed of Constantinople. I notice, however, that in
the letter of Nestorius to Celestine the Pope of Rome (Mansi, Iv.
1309, B) the writer says that his opponents are not afraid to call
the Virgin Theotocos, although those holy Fathers who are above
all praise, that met at Niczea, are said to have spoken only thus of
the Virgin, viz. “that our Lord Jesus Christ was incarnate of the
Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary ”—words which do not occur in
the Nicene Creed*. They were in the Roman Creed, and in the
first Creed of Epiphanius.

The most important documents connected with this controversy
are printed in Dr Routh’s Opuscula, Vol. 11., and to them I must
be content to refer the student. He will find among them the
original synodical letter of Cyril: to it are appended the twelve
anathemas which are as famous as they are important. In regard
to the Canons we have the following:

“The exposition of the 318 holy Fathers who met at Nicewea having
been read, and the impious symbol which had been concocted by

1 The passages quoted from Athana- give birth to the Deity.” Paul said,

sius are to be found in the third oration
against the Arians, § 33 (Migne, Vol.
XXVI. p. 393), and in the letter to Epic-
tetus, § 2 and § 7 (Ibid. pp. 1053 and
1061).

2 See the charge brought against him
in the collections of Councils (Harduin, 1.
p. 1271). Paul of Samosata had said

that ‘‘Mary did not give birth to the

Word;” Nestorius, that ‘she did not

‘‘Mary brought forth a man similar to
us.” Nestorius spoke of ‘the man born
of the Virgin.”’ Nestorius’ accusers called
these equivalent expressions.

3 In the contestatio these words are
quoted as from the μάθημα of the Church
of Antioch. Thus neither Nestorius
(Bishop of Constantinople) nor his aceu-
sers knew of them as being in the Faith
of Constantinople.

Xi THE NESTORIAN CONTROVERSY. 103

Theodore of Mopsuestia and exhibited by Charisius, presbyter of Phila-
delphia, to the holy Synod; the holy Synod decided (ὥρισεν) that no
one should be allowed either to produce or write or compose another
faith besides the one which had been agreed upon by the holy Fathers
who had met at Nicea with the Holy Spirit.

“And those who should dare either to compose another faith, or to
offer, or to produce one to such as were willing to turn to the knowledge of
the truth, whether from Hellenism, or Judaism, or any heresy whatever,
were, if bishops, to be put out of their bishoprics ; if clerics, out of their
clerus ; if laymen, they were to be anathematized: and, in the same
way, if anyone were detected as either holding or teaching what was con-
tained in the exposition which had been adduced by the presbyter
Charisius relative to the becoming man of the only-begotten Son of God,
or the bitter and perverse dogmas of Nestorius, he must be subjected
to the sentence of the holy cecumenical Synod: 1. 6. if a bishop, he must
be deprived of his bishopric and deposed ; if a cleric he must be removed
from his clerus; if a layman, he must be anathematized, as has been said '.”

This was at the sixth session—It would be of interest to
exhibit the process by which this result of the Council was arrived
at, but this is not the place to give a history of the Councils. The
two rival gatherings under Cyril and under John of Antioch were
conducted with almost equal violence; each party claimed that it
alone stood by the Nicene Faith: the Nestorian body excommuni-
cating Cyril and Memnon and the rest, until recognising their
offence they should repent and receive the faith of the holy
Fathers who had met at Nicwea, without any new or strange
additions: whilst the other, under Cyril, maintained that his
letter was consentient with the Holy Scriptures, and with the faith
that. had been handed down by tradition and set forth in the
great Synod of Nicza’.

§ 9. Reference has been made in the canon of the Council to
the “impious symbol which had been eoneocted by Theodore of
Mopsuestia, and exhibited to the Council by Charisius, presbyter
of Philadelphia.”

This incident had occurred at the sixth session. Charisius
complained that he had met with erroneous teaching among the
Lydians, coming, as he alleged, from friends of Nestorius, who had
reduced their sentiments to the form of an exposition of belief
or rather of unbelief, and had then required their adherents to

1 Routh, Opuse. τι, pp. 8,9. Harduin, very saddening and well illustrates our

1, 1526, et sqq. Article xx1.
2 The account in Mosheim’s notes is

104 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

subscribe to it. By way, I suppose, of exhibiting his own ortho-
doxy, Charisius recited his faith: it differs seriously from the Faith
of Nicsea, and therefore shews that this Faith had not even in 431
superseded, among the orthodox of the East, the Creeds that were
in existence before it was framed’. It may be seen in the collec-
tions of Councils and elsewhere.

§ 10. This was followed by the reading of the Exposition of
the concocted symbol, ὦ. e. undoubtedly the symbol of Theodore of
Mopsuestia.

To me this is interesting as giving another crucial instance of
the difference of meaning between a Symbol and an Exposition of
a Symbol: between a Creed and the Setting of a Creed’.

It commences as follows:

“ All who are now learning, for the first time, the accurate meaning
of the dogmas of the Church, or who wish to turn from any heretical
error to the truth*®, ought to be taught and confess that we believe in
one God, the Father eternal, not at any late period beginning to be, but
Who was from the first eternal God; nor yet at any time becoming
Father, for He always was God and Father ; and we believe in one only-
begotten Son of God, being of the paternal substance, truly Son, and
of the same substance as He of whom He is and is believed to be Son:
and in the Holy Spirit, being of the substance of God, being not Son,
but God in the substance, as being of that same substance of which is
God the Father, from Whom substantially He 15. And 1 Cor. 11. 12 is
quoted in proof.

I cannot transcribe the whole. The writers maintained that the

Three are not different Substances, but One in the oneness of the
Godhead.

‘And in regard to the Economy (Incarnation) which in our Lord
Christ the Lord God wrought perfectly for our salvation, it is necessary

1 Mansi, tv. 1847: Labbe and Cossart,
fit. 070: 1Ve" 2905 eerduim, i>. ΤΡ,
(Fleury calls this the Nicene Creed,
xxv. ch. 56.) It is printed in Hahn,
p. 191. On comparing it with the Ni-
cene Creed I find that it reads κτίστην
ἁπάντων, ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητὴν,
τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ μονογενῆ, Omitting γεν-
νηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ μονογενῆ, τουτέστιν
ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός: it omits too
γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, δι᾿ οὗ τὰ πάντα
ἐγένετο τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς
γῆς. It reads 6’ ἡμᾶς, omitting τοὺς
ἀνθρώπους; adds ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, adds
γεννηθέντα ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας παρθένου, adds

σταυρωθέντα ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ; for παθόντα it
has ἀποθανόντα. The conclusion is καὶ
εἰς TO πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, TO παράκλητον,
ὁμοούσιον πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ, καὶ εἰς ἁγίαν
καθολικὴν ἐκκλησίαν, εἰς ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν,
εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

The Creed is personal: πιστεύω, I be-
lieve, not synodal, πιστεύομεν, we be-
lieve; and of course there is no ana-
thema.

2 See the Councils, Mansi, tv. 1347;
Harduin, 1.1515. Itis printed by Hahn,
p. 202.

3 Compare ὁ“ Whosoever wishes to be
saved, &c.”

IX, | THE NESTORIAN CONTROVERSY. 105

that we should know that the Lord God, the Word, has taken a perfect
Man, of the seed of Abraham and David, according to the plain meaning
of Holy Scripture, being in nature exactly what they were of whose
seed He was, perfect Man in nature, of a reasonable soul and human
flesh subsisting; which Man, being like us in nature, formed by the
power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin—made by (ὑπὸ) a
woman, made under the law—He in an ineffable way united to Himself.
We deny that there are two Sons or two Lords (their reasons being
given at length): we say that there is only one Son and Lord Jesus
Christ ; but, in our minds, we associate with Him (συνεπινοοῦντες) that
which was taken up, Jesus of Nazareth, Whom God anointed with
spirit and with power, as sharing in the Sonship and Lordship by the
union with God the Word, and thus He became the second Adam.” In
conclusion, after quoting Acts xvi. 30, the times of this ignorance...
raising Him from the dead, they proceed, ‘This is the teaching of the
dogmas of the Church, and let every one who thinks contrary to them be
anathema’. Let every one be anathema who will not receive the saving
repentance. Let every one be anathema who will not observe the day of
the holy Paschal feast according to the law of the holy and Catholic
Church.” .

The last two anathemas are omitted in the early translation of
Marius Mercator.

Thus so far as the framework or setting of our Athanasian
Creed is concerned, we meet with it first in the Ecthesis of the heretic
Theodore of Mopsuestia. This Ecthesis had been subscribed by
about twenty bishops. (The subscriptions are not given by
Hahn.)

§ 11. Two further subjects may be considered here, 1. the
meaning of the word anathema.

It must have been observed that the anathematizing of a
layman was, at the Council of Ephesus, considered to be a punish-
ment of the same class as the deposition of a bishop or clerk.
It can scarcely be conceived therefore that, at this time, 7. e. A. Ὁ.
431, the penalty of anathema was considered to involve eternal
consequences. On the contrary the rules of the Bishops were
very precise: a heretic might be admitted to communion on his
death-bed. Thus it seems clear that, at this period of Church
history, “we anathematize” meant merely this, “we refuse to hold
communion with them.” So St Augustine: “When a Christian is
convicted of a crime deserving the censure of anathema, he is

1 Compare ‘Thisis the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully
and firmly, he cannot be saved.”

106 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

separated from the Church for his amendment; and if he does not
repent, it is by himself that ne is cut off from the Church’.” When
we come to the fifth general Council we shall find that, at the
date of it, the meaning of “Anathema” was much extended.

ii. The second subject to which I must devote a few lines is
the meaning of the words “another faith,” ἑτέρα πίστις, in the
definition of Ephesus and in the canon of Chalcedon.

«The Council forbade any other profession of faith to be written or
propounded than that of Nice, and ordained that they who should pro-
pose any other to people desirous of being converted from paganism,
Judaism, or any heresy whatsoever, if bishops or elerks, should be de-
posed ; if laymen, anathematized.”

To this translation of a passage in Fleury (xxv. ch. 56, page
111), Mr Newman, in 1844, appended a note commencing thus:—

“This rule must evidently be interpreted by the occasion which
“called it forth; otherwise it might seem to be opposed to the practice of

requiring the Athanasian Creed or other dogmatic ‘formule of later

times from heretics’.”

A truer mode of solving the difficulty would be to exhibit this
definition of Ephesus as relating to the discipline rather than to
the doctrine of the Church; and no Church, I believe, considers
itself bound by the disciplinary canons of the first four Councils’.

1 Against Parmenianus, Lib, 111. ὁ. 11.
§ 13 (Tom. 1x. p. 131, ed. Gaume. I owe
the reference to Fleury, xx. 46, p. 357 E).
Thus the enunciation of the Athanasian
Creed that ‘‘ except a man believe this
faithfully he cannot be saved”’ belongs
to a date lower than the Council of Ephe-
sus or (as we shall see) of Chalcedon.

2 That is: if the later practice of the
Church breaks a canon of an ecumenical
Council we must find some way of ‘ in-
terpreting”’ the canon.

3 IT am compelled to give up the hope
of escaping the difficulty by supposing
that ἑτέρα πίστις meant a differing faith.
Of course propounders of new faiths
would say that their new faith did not
differ from the Nicene. But the Greek
fathers, at the time of this Council, did
not acknowledge any such distinction be-
tween ἄλλος and ἕτερος. They used the
two words indiscriminately. Indeed the
context of the words shews that the
Fathers at Ephesus would admit of no
other faith savethe Nicene. They dreaded
the change of a single word: and if they

had admitted any change whatever they
would have exposed themselves to the
attacks of the Nestorians. At a later
period the objection of Eutyches to the
alteration at Chalcedon and the at-
tempted answer to it by Dioscorus shew
that in their opinion the Creed of Con-
stantinople was ἑτέρα πίστις in regard to
that of Nicewa, L. and Ὁ. tv. 136 a.

[To an Englishman who accepts the
xxxiurd Article of the English Church,
the very modern usage relating to the
Quicunque will not as such cause the
slightest distress. ]

We have in Socrates, H. E. 11. 39, 18,
the Acacians τὴν ἐν Νικαίᾳ πίστιν pavepws
ἠθέτησαν ἀλλήν τε πίστιν ὑπαγορεύειν ἡνίτ-
TOVTO. :

In 11. 12, we have in the title ἑτέραν
ἔκθεσιν τῆς πίστεως.

11. 18, ἑτέραν ἔκθεσιν in the title, ἄλλην
ἔκθεσιν in the body of the chapter.

τι. 37, at Ariminum ἀναγινώσκεσθαι
πεποιήκασιν ἄλλην ἔκθεσιν πίστεως.

11. 40, βουλόμενος ἑτέραν ἔκθεσιν πίστεως
ἀντεισενεγκεῖν.

Ix. | THE NESTORIAN CONTROVERSY. 107

§ 12. The Council of Chalcedon invests the letters of Cyril
with synodical authority. I will extract from one of them his
exposition of the Nicene Faith. It is found in the letter ad-
dressed in the name of the Synod of Alexandria to Nestorius’.
I will treat it as Cyril’s composition. He begins with an appeal to
the words of the Saviour,

“He that loveth son or daughter more than me”—and on these words
he founds the duty of every one to maintain the faith. This faith had
been dishonoured by Nestorius, and the upholders of it had been banished
from his communion; hence the necessity of Cyril’s interference. He
was acting with the concurrence of his brother and fellow-minister,
Celestinus of Rome.

“Tt? is not enough for Nestorius to confess with us the symbol
of the faith which was put out at Nicea; for whilst he accepts the
words of it, he perverts its meaning. He must also anathematize his
past impious errors.” And Cyril’ gives the Nicene Creed at length
(anathematism of course included), and then expounds it. ‘‘ We believe
and say that the only-begotten Word of God, who was begotten of the
very essence of the Father, very God of very God, came down for our
salvation, and having reduced himself to a condition of humility (εἰς
κένωσιν), became flesh, that is, He took flesh from the Holy Virgin, and
made that flesh His own from the womb. He submitted to a birth like
ours, and came forth, man from woman, without casting away what He
was before....His flesh was not changed into the nature of Godhead,
nor yet did the ineffable nature of the Word of God pass into the nature
of flesh. Even whilst He lay as an infant on the bosom of his mother,
He as God filled all creation, assessor to Him who begat Him, Thus’
we say that the Word became hypostatically united to flesh, and so we
worship one Son and Lord Jesus Christ. Nor do we say that the Word
from God dwelt, as in an ordinary man, in Him that was born of the
Virgin,—lest Christ should be conceived as a Godbearing man. Then’
again we confess that He, the Son, the only-begotten God, although
impassible in His own nature, has in the flesh suffered for us,
according to the Scriptures, and in the crucified body claimed as
His own (οἰκειούμενος) impassibly the sufferings of His own flesh ; for
by the grace of God He tasted death for every man: that so having
trampled on death, He might, as it were, in His own flesh leading the

way, become the first-begotten from the dead and the first-fruits of them:

that slept, and pave the ascent to incorruptibility for the nature of man.
Thus He spoiled Hades.

“And this too we must add of necessity (proceeds Cyril) ς΄ When
we are proclaiming’ the Death in the flesh of the only-begotten Son of
God, and are confessing His Restoration to life from the dead, and His
Ascent into heaven, we perform the bloodless sacrifice in our churches,

1 Routh, τί, 17. 5 8 6. ΟΡ

2.82. : 7 καταγγέλλοντες, cf. 1 Cor. xi. 26.
3 § 8, Thus some Creed was used in Cyril’s
4g 4, time in the Eucharistic office. REGIS

IBL

ΜΑΙ.

a EOLLEG BE

108 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CELAP.

for so we draw near to the mystic blessings and are sanctified, being
made partakers both of the holy Flesh and the precious Blood of Christ,
the Saviour of us all. But not receiving it as common flesh, God forbid !
nor yet as of a man who had been sanctified and was united to the Word
by the unity of merit, that is to say as having a divine indwelling, but
as flesh truly life-giving and belonging to the Word Himself.

‘‘ Nor do we divide’ the words in the gospels of our Saviour between
two Hypostases or Persons.”...‘‘The Lord Jesus Christ is one according
to the Scriptures.”

“ And? if He is called the Apostle and High Priest of our confession,
because as Priest He ministers (ὡς iepovpyav) to God the Father the
confession of the Faith, addressed by us to Him, and through Him to
God the Father®, we still say that He is by nature the only-begotten Son
of God, and we do not assign to a man different from Him the name of
the priesthood, or indeed the thing itself; for He has become Medi-
ator between God and man....For He has offered as a sweet-smelling
savour His own Body for us, not for Himself.”

A few words are found relating to the Holy Spirit*, and in
the last section® Cyril states that “the Holy Virgin bare, accord-
ing to the flesh, God united hypostatically to the flesh.” This
part of the letter concludes :—

“These things we have been taught from the holy Evangelists and
Apostles and the whole God-inspired Scripture, and from the true con-
fession of the blessed Fathers. To these things your piety ought to assent
without any prevarication ; and we have appended to the epistle the
things which it is necessary for your piety to anathematize’.”

The twelve anathemas are appended, but for these I must
refer my readers to Dr Routh or the Concilia.

§ 13. The general acceptance of the results of Cyril’s thought,
at least in the west of Europe, has put that stamp of approval
on them which all inductive proofs require. They are found by
consent to satisfy the conditions of the problem. The key has
been discovered which turns in the lock of Scripture. For few
Christians could accept his dicta merely on the ground that they
were sanctioned by a general Council. If ever there was a body
of men of whom it must be said that they “were not all
governed with the Spirit and Word of God’,” that body was
the Council—the Gicumenical Council (as it is called) of Ephesus.
It is gratifying to learn that the great Roman Divines do not

ΤΣ oa z 6 The series may be examined as above.

: 228

: δ
3 Note this. 4810. 7 Our Article (xx1) “Of the authority
oS EL. of general councils.”

ἘΣ} THE NESTORIAN CONTROVERSY. 109

consider that any Council commands adherence and obedience
ἃ priori: these theologians maintain that it is the subsequent
consent of Christendom that elevates a Synod into the region of
authority. This merely means that the decisions are good when
we have accepted them. The manifesto of the Church of England
requires similar assent, only it states on what that assent must be
founded. “Things ordained by Councils as necessary to salvation
have neither strength nor authority unless it may be declared that
they be taken out of Holy Scripture.” We do not say that Cyril
or the Council of Ephesus erred: we do say that we receive
their definition (that is, here the canon of Chalcedon on Cyril's
letter), because we think that it can be shewn to have been “taken
from Scripture.” For this is the meaning of our somewhat
clumsy Article XXI., “que ab illis constituuntur ut ad salutem
necessaria neque robur habent neque autoritatem nisi ostendi
possint e sacris literis esse desumpta.”

Many congregations in the East are not thus satisfied as to
the anathemas of Cyril: and Churches of Chaldaic Christians,
or Christians of St Thomas, as they are called, remain to the
present day.

§ 14. After the two Councils of Ephesus had separated,
John, Bishop of Antioch, wrote in the interests of peace a letter
to Cyril, which may be seen in the Councils’. It contained a
copy of an Exposition concerning the Incarnation, which had been
agreed upon by the bishops of his party. It ought to be no-
ticed :—

“Concerning the Theotocos, the Virgin Mary, and the mode of the
Incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God, we will give our opinions
not by way of addition (to the faith), but rather by way of filling it up,
even as we have received them from the Holy Scriptures and from the
tradition of the holy Fathers; certainly not adding anything to the
Faith which was set out by the holy Fathers at Nica ; for that (as we
have said) is sufficient for the full knowledge of our religion, and for the
rejection of all heretical false doctrines. So we will speak, not venturing
on the unattainable, but by the confession of our own infirmity shutting
the door against those who would attack us because of subjects which
are bevond human ken.

‘We confess therefore the Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son

1 Harduin, 1. 1692.

110 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [CHAP. IX.

of God, to be perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and a
body, begotten of the Father before all the worlds as to His Godhead, and
the same in these last days for our salvation [born] of the Virgin Mary
as to His Manhood, the Same being consubstantial with the Father as to
the Godhead, consubstantial with us as to the Manhood. For there has
been an uniting (ἕνωσις) of two natures : hence we confess one Christ, one
Son, one Lord: and in accordance with this idea of the uniting without
confusion, we confess the Holy Virgin to be Theotocos, because God the
Word was incarnate and made Man (ἐνανθρωπῆσαι), and from (the time
of) that same conception united to Himself the temple which He took
from her. But as to the evangelical and apostolical words relating to
the Lord we know good theologians who understand some together as of
one Person (προσώπου), and distinguish others as of two natures, and
refer those of a divine character to the Godhead of the Christ, those
of a humbler nature to His Manhood.”

δ 15. Cyml wrote a reply embodying this document, and
expressing his satisfaction with it. (Harduin, 1.1702, &c.) He
expressed also his hope that John would join with him in
“repressing the use of such language as this: that there is a mixing
or confusion of the Word in the flesh, or ὦ shadow of a turning
as to the nature of the Word. For that remains ever what it is,
nor was it changed, nor can it be changed.” At the end of this
reply he remarks that some had issued in a corrupt form the
letter from Athanasius to Epictetus (from which one of the quota-
tions at the Council had been taken), which letter was in itself
entirely orthodox, as he could shew by ancient manuscripts which
were in his possession. A copy of the letter he sent to John.
John had promised that he and his friends would communicate with
all ὅσοι τὴν ὀρθὴν Kai ἀμώμητον πίστιν ἔχουσί τε Kal κηρύττουσι,
“yrectam inculpatamque fidem habentibus et retinentibus” accord-
ing to the old Latin; ‘‘ who hold and preach the correct and blame-
less faith” according to the Greek’.

_ 1 16948. These words are coming and unshaken the right faith in their
into use. Compare Cyril’s expression hearts” ἀσφαλῆ καὶ ἀκατάσειστον τὴν dp-
1701 c. Of those ‘‘who keep secure θὴν ἐν ἰδίαις ψυχαῖς φυλάττουσι πίστιν.

CHAPTER X.

THE EUTYCHIAN CONTROVERSY.

81, Early history of Eutyches. § 2. Synod of Constantinople, 448. § 3. Euty-
ches’ expression of his own opinions. ὃ 4. Condemnation of Kutyches.
§ 5. Eutyches appealed to a larger council. ὃ 6. Leo's first letter to
Flavian, and Flavian’s Exposition of his faith. §7. Synod of Ephesus, 449.
Eutyches upheld: Flavian killed. § 8. Struggle between the Churches of
Alexandria and Constantinople. ὃ 9. Preparation for the council of Chal-
cedon. § 10. Aetius. ὃ 11. Council meets. First time we hear of the
exposition of Constantinople. ὃ 12. Second session. The exposition pro-
duced. §13. Resistance of the Egyptian bishops. §14. A new definition
produced and withdrawn. §15. The history of the received definition of
Chalcedon. § 16. Thoughts upon the council. ὃ 17. Early forgeries.
8 18. The Letter of Leo to Flavian. § 19. Thoughts suggested by it.
§ 20. Protestant character of Leo’s reasoning. § 21. No reference to the
Athanasian Creed. § 22, The definition of Chalcedon.

§ 1. Amonast the strongest supporters of Cyril during his
controversy with the Nestorians was Eutyches of Constantinople.
He was employed or entreated by Cyril to intercede for him with
the Emperor in the year 433". He is mentioned again as insti-
gating Uranius in the year 448 to the prosecution of Ibas, the
bishop of Edessa, on the ground that he wasa Nestorian?. No doubt
therefore his enemies were on the alert to discover where he was
slipping, and he soon gave them an opportunity. In this very
year 448 we are informed that Leo the great, Pope of Rome, sent
a letter to him commending his zeal in opposition to the Nes-
torians*. Eusebius, Bishop of Doryleum, had, at first, supported
him in his efforts; but, finding that Eutyches was going a little
too far in his arguments, he turned against him; and, within five

1 See extract from the letter in Fleury, 3 Fleury, xxvii. 23, says that the Nes-
xxvi. 20: it is quoted from the Synod- _torians in question were in fact Catho-
icon (Baluzius, p. 907), c. 202. lics. The letter is no. xx. in the 601166-

? Harduin, 11. 502, Labbe, tv. p.627p. _ tion of the Ballerini. (Migne, ταν. p. 7 13.)

112 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

months after the reception of the letter of St Leo he denounced
him at a synod held at Constantinople in November, 448.

§ 2. The accounts of the proceedings at this synod were read
at Ephesus in the succeeding year, and interrupted in the reading
by the remarks of the bishops assembled there. The joint account
was read at Chalcedon in 451, with similar interruptions, and we
have to pick our way carefully amidst the Acts of Chalcedon to
elicit what really occurred at each of the previous two meetings.
Happily I am able to compare with my own memoranda the
narrative as it has been drawn out by Fleury’.

As we have seen, Cyril was content with the expressions of
John of Antioch’, “that the Lord Jesus was perfect God and
perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and a body:—consubstantial
with the Father as to the Godhead, consubstantial with us as
to the Manhood. For there had been an uniting (ἕνωσις) of the
two natures.” And this was “an unconfused uniting.” Flavian,
Bishop of Constantinople, in expressing his belief, used the earlier
part of these words; but instead of the last clause he affirmed that
“He was consubstantial with his Father as to the Godhead and con-
substantial with his Mother as to the Manhood: and we confess
that the Christ is of (é*) the two natures after His incarnation: in
one Hypostasis and one Person, we confess one Christ, one Son,
one Lord®.”

At length we come to Eutyches’ own account of his opinions.
On Monday the fifteenth of November, John, the presbyter, who
had been sent to Eutyches with a citation summoning him to the
Synod, produced his answer*. I must not give it at length but
content myself with stating that Eutyches declared his readiness
to express his agreement with the “Expositions” of the holy
Fathers who had met at Nicaea and Ephesus, and to subscribe to
their interpretations:

“But if it should happen that any slip or mistake has been made
by them in any phrase they have used, he will not find fault with them.
He searched the Holy Scriptures only as being more secure than the
Expositions of the Fathers; but after the Incarnation of the Son of God,
1.e. after the conception (μετὰ τὴν γέννησιν) of our Lord Jesus Christ, he

1 History, xxvir. chapters 24, &c. See τί, 119.
Harduin, 11. 110, where the proceedings δι Ibid. 127.
at Constantinople commence. 4 See Fleury, xxvu. 25, or Harduin,
* His letter was read at Constanti- ὀ τι. 142. Mansi, v. 699, 715. L. and C.
nople and so at Ephesus, &c. Harduin, rv. 191, 208.

> ae eae THE EUTYCHIAN CONTROVERSY. 113

worshipped one nature and this the nature of God Incarnate. And he
produced a little book out of which he read a complaint that he had
been falsely charged with saying that God the Word had received Flesh
from heaven. But (he added) that our Lord Jesus Christ was made of
two natures hypostatically united, he had not’ learned from the Exposi-
tions of the Holy Fathers, nor did he receive it, even though some one
Father had said so, because, as he said, the Holy Scriptures were better
than the teaching of the Fathers. And, when he said this, he con-
fessed that He who was born of the Virgin Mary was perfect God and
perfect Man, but had not flesh consubstantial with ours.”

In the course of the day the bishops listened to “Expositions of
the Holy Fathers concerning the faith’;” to which they wished to
compel Kutyches to assent, and then they would pardon him’.
Flavian was kindly disposed to the Archimandrite, and at the end of
the fourth session when they had risen from their seats to separate
he uttered these remarkable words.

“Ye know the zeal of the accuser. Fire itself is cold compared
with his zeal for piety. God knows I have entreated him, and have
urged him not to proceed. But, when he insisted, what could I do?
Do I wish you all to be scattered ἢ Nok would rather collect you
together. Enemies scatter: Fathers collect.”

§ 3. Once more Eutyches sent to express his assent to every-
thing that had been uttered by the Synods of Nicwea and Ephesus,
and by the holy Cyril. But this was not enough. Eusebius must
_ have a retractation of the past, as well as a promise for the future.
At last, at the seventh session, Eutyches appeared. After he came,
the Emperor expressed his desire that Florentius, a layman, and
patrician of Rome—he had been proconsul—should be present.
He came. Eusebius asked whether Eutyches believed that there
was a union of two natures in one Person? Flavian altered the
question; Did he confess a union out of twonatures? Heacknow-
ledged this, but Eusebius was not content: he required a confession
that the two natures remained after the Incarnation, and that the
flesh of Jesus was consubstantial with ours.

When the Synod of Ephesus of the succeeding year heard this,
they cried out, “Burn Eusebius. Burn him tes As he divides
Christ, may he be divided himself.” At Chalcedon the Egyptians
acknowledged that they had said this, and would say it again.

1 So the Latin, and Fleury. The out in the Greek.
negative seems to have been dropped 2 Harduin, 11. 143. 3150 pv,

Spa OF S

114 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [CHAP.

Eutyches was more gentle. He had said before that he could
not speculate on the Nature of his God: “he could not physiolo-
gize his God;” and he adduced his confession: “Thus I believe. I
worship the Father with the Son and the Son with the Father:
and the Holy Ghost with the Father and the Son. I confess that
the Incarnate Presence has been made from flesh of the Holy
Virgin, and that He ἐνανθρωπῆσαι τελείως became perfectly man’
for our salvation. This I confess in the presence of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and of your holiness.”

§ 4. The contest is very painful. It is well narrated by
Fleury. At last Eutyches cried out: “I confess that our Lord
was of (é«) two natures before the union; but after the union 1
confess one nature’.” The synod were not content: he must ana-
thematize every thing opposed to the dogmas now read. “I have
said to your holinesses what I never said before: because your
holinesses teach it me. But the fathers have not all said this.
And if I should pronownee the anathema—woe 1s me—I anathema-
tize my fathers.” The council stood to their feet and cried “ Ana-
thema to him.” Flavian, Seleucus, and Florentius intervened.
Kutyches, in his despair, appealed to the writings of Athanasius
and Cyril: “they maintained that there was one nature after the
union:” but for this the bishops did not care. They agreed that
he was deposed from the priestly order, from communion with
them, and from his position in the monastery: and all who held
intercourse with him were liable to the penalty of excommuni-
cation (ὑπεύθυνοι τῷ τῆς ἀκοινωνησίας ἐπιτιμίῳ).

The judgment was subscribed (according to the Latin copies)
by thirty-two bishops and twenty-three archimandrites.

§ 5. Ihave described this at length, partly, in order that my
readers may have the opportunity of asking themselves the question
whether, in the absence of all reference to it, it seems likely that
the clause of the Quicunque, “God, of the substance of the Father,
begotten before the worlds: Man, of the substance of His Mother,
born in the world,” could have been known as the work of Atha-
nasius and enforced with the penalties of the Athanasian Creed —
betore this discussion took place at Constantinople. And I would
also ask them to contrast the sentences passed on Eutyches with

* Or ‘‘perfectly entered on man,” p. 163. 2p. 165 8.

A THE EUTYCHIAN CONTROVERSY. 115

the condemnations of the Quicunque—“he cannot be saved:”
“without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.” It will be noticed
that the Fathers did not ultimately proceed to the anathema
which they had threatened. Possibly they were deterred by the
bold appeal of Eutyches, in his despair, to the writings of Atha-
nasius and Cyril.

I would also mention that although there are constant appeals
here to the Councils of Niczea and of Ephesus, I have not found a
single reference to the Synod of Constantinople in 381, or to the
document which we are told came from it’. The words “incarnate
of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary” would have been con-
sidered fatal to Eutyches, as was recognised at the Council of
Chalcedon’,

At the end of the gathering, when they were reading his
condemnation, Eutyehes appealed to the holy synod of the Bishops
of Rome, and Alexandria, and Jerusalem, and Thessalonica. This
appeal was not inserted in the minutes*, but Florentius stated
that he heard it, and informed Flavian.

§ 6. Of course a question like this could not be decided by a
synod of 32 bishops, even though it was presided over by the
Metropolitan of Constantinople. And perhaps Leo was not
entirely unwilling to have the opportunity of revising an act of
his brother of the Eastern Rome. He wrote to Flavian* express-
ing his surprise that he had received no information from him on
the subject, and stating his opinion that Eutyches had been un-
justly excommunicated. It is out of our way to give at length the
history of the next troubled years. Suffice it to say that Leo
approved of the action of Theodosius in convening a synod at
Ephesus in August, 449, and sent letters to Flavian regarding it.
Flavian too at the requisition of the Emperor furnished him with a
kind of exposition or explanation of his faith, and I meet here with
the first notice that I have found which places the Council of
Constantinople on a par with those of Nicewa and Ephesus’.
Flavian declares that “he has always followed the Holy Scriptures

1 50 in Leo’s letter to Anatolius, p. 33, 2 See below.
he refers to the Apollinarians, but makes 3 See Harduin, 11. 207 p.
no reference to the Council of Constan- 4 Ep. 23, Migne, ut sup., p. 731.
tinople or to its Creed. He speaks of 5 The letter is in the ‘‘ Councils,” as

the Council of Nicwa as inspired. (Ep. Harduin, 1. 7, Labbe rv. It will be re-
106, ed. Ballerini, § 2, Vol. 1. p. 1165. membered that Flavian was bishop of
Migne, Vol. trv.) Constantinople.

“a

116 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

and the expositions of the holy Fathers who had met at Nica
and at Constantinople, and of those who had met at Ephesus
under Cyril of holy memory, and we preach thus.” He speaks
of no other subject but the Incarnation, and follows at first the
words which were laid down by John in that letter to Cyril, which
was welcomed by the great champion of orthodoxy. He uses
the phrase “consubstantial with His Mother according to His Man-
hood,” and then proceeds,

“Thus when we confess that the Christ is, after His incarnation
from the holy Virgin, in two natures, we still confess one Christ, one
Son, one Lord in one Hypostasis and one Person; and we refuse to
say one nature of God the Word incarnate and made man, because
from the two natures there is the one and the same our Lord Jesus Christ.
Still those who say two Sons or two Hypostases or two Persons, and not
one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, we anathematize.”

Flavian must have been retreating from his position in 448.

§ 7. This Council of Ephesus met on Aug. 1, 449. One hundred
and thirty bishops were present from Egypt and the East, from
Asia and Pontus and Thrace. Dioscorus of Alexandria, the suc-
cessor of Cyril, presided by virtue of a direction from the
Emperor. Kutyches read his faith’. It is identical with the
Faith of Nicza, save that he begins “I believe,” instead of “we
believe ;” that is, he used the faith of the council as his own
personal belief. He said he had received it from his ancestors; he
had’ believed it, and believed it still; in that faith he was born,
and in it was dedicated to God. Being baptized in that faith he
had been sealed; in it he had lived, and in it he prayed to be
perfected. He added that the great Cyril had given him docu-
ments to shew that the synod which met here, in Ephesus, in 431,
had decreed that any one who made additions to it or alterations
in it, should be subjected to the penalties therein prescribed.

The bishops unanimously upheld the Councils of Nicaea and
Ephesus. On this Dioscorus claimed that they were bound to
depose Flavian and Eusebius. Flavian disclaimed their authority.
The Roman legate cried out in Latin, “We oppose it.” Dioscorus
persisted. Onesiphorus, bishop of Iconium, fell before his knees,
and, clasping them, entreated him to desist. Dioscorus gave a
signal, and the room was invaded by soldiers, bringing clubs and

1 Barduin, i. 96.

1 THE EUTYCHIAN CONTROVERSY. 117

chains. The signatures of the bishops were forced from them.
Flavian and Eusebius were thrown into prison, and Flavian was
banished. Before he reached his destination he died in con-
sequence of the kicks he had received from the Syrian monks.
The Emperor Theodosius issued an edict, upholding the authority
of the “second Council of Ephesus.”

It has received in ecclesiastical history the title of the “Robber
Syned.”

§ 8. It is necessary to read this painful narrative to appreciate
the excitement under which the general Council of Chalcedon as-
sembled two years later. Nor can the historian of the Creeds be
far wrong if he draws attention in passing to the struggle that
was now going on between the Churches of Constantinople and
Alexandria. At Ephesus, in 431, the patriarch of Alexandria de-
posed the patriarch of Constantinople. The time was now come
for the clergy of Constantinople to endeavour to crush the
Egyptian bishops. Cyril had driven Nestorius into exile. Flavian
in his death destroyed the prestige of the chair of Athanasius and
Cyril.

§ 9. Theodosius died in July, 450. He was succeeded in
August by Marcian, a distinguished soldier, who at once declared
against Kutyches. He ordered that the body of Flavian should be
brought to Constantinople and interred where the earlier bishops
reposed. The change was as complete as when Elizabeth succeeded
Mary.

We find now, seventy years after it had been held, the
Council of Constantinople of the year 381, so long over-
looked and neglected, starting into prominenee. Leo wrote to
Pulcheria, the sister of Theodosius, the virgin wife of Marcian,
mentioning among other things that Eusebius of Doryleum, the
accuser of Kutyches, had declared his reception of the decrees of
the three general councils of Nica, Constantinople, and Ephesus’.
Marcian urged the desirability of holding another council, even
though Leo was anxious that there should be no further examina-
tion into the mystery of the Faith. Marcian prevailed, and at
length the bishops were summoned to meet at Nicaea on the first

1 Ep. 59...Fleury, xxv. 49. .

118 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

day of September, 451. They met; but, before they proceeded to
business, the seat was removed to Chalcedon, in order that the
Emperor might the more easily take part in its proceedings. The
first session was held on October 8. Nineteen laymen, chiefly
officers of the Emperor, were present and took part in the business
of the council; three hundred and sixty bishops of the East
appear to be mentioned in the acts of the assembly.

Once more I must say that it is not my intention to give an
account of the proceedings of the councils. But as there is one
person in whose conduct we are deeply interested, I must make a
few observations regarding him.

§ 10. Aétius, now Archdeacon of Constantinople, had been pre-
sent as Deacon and Notary at thesynod held there in 448. He had
prepared the acts of the synod. These acts were read, as we have
seen, at Ephesus in the succeeding year, but not without a remon-
strance on the part of Aétius. “The production of the acts, in
order that their accuracy might be attested, would give the im-
pression that the notaries were deemed unworthy of confidence.”
He was compelled, however, to produce his copy; it was compared
with notes which had been taken by the friends of Eutyches. It
was found that opinions of single bishops were represented as
being the judgment of the council. The appeal of Eutyches to the
judgment of a synod to be held at Rome or Alexandria, or Jeru-
salem, had been omitted. Nevertheless Aétius now appeared as
the “ promoter” at the Council of Chaleedon.

§ 11. Theacts of Ephesus, which had been prepared by this ad-
vocate, were read at length at the first gathering of the council. The
interruptions were numerous and disorderly; the magistrates had
occasion again and again to interfere. “These tumultuous accla-
mations do not become bishops, nor will they assist the parties :
let the reading proceed.”

That which, from our point of view, was the most important
interruption, was this. The minutes of the Robber Synod were
being read, and the reader came to the recitation of the faith of
Kutyches. He had proclaimed his belief in the words of the
genuine Nicene Faith, and had declared that in it he had been
baptized, and in it he hoped to be perfected, and then reminded
the synod of the definition of the council of the year 431, which

x] THE EUTYCHIAN CONTROVERSY. 119

prohibited either additions to, or diminutions from, that Faith’.
Here was a difficulty. But Diogenes, bishop of Cyzicus, was equal
to the emergency. He cried out,

“‘Eutyches adduced the synod falsely: it received an addition from
the holy Fathers because of the perversities of Apollinarius and Valen-
tinius and Macedonius and men like them ; and there have been added
to the Symbol of the Fathers the words who came down and was tnear-
nate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary®. This (he proceeded)
Eutyches has passed over, for he is an Apollinarian ; even Apollinarius
received the Nicene Synod, understanding the letter of the Creed in
accordance with his own perversity. The holy Fathers at Nica had
only the words He was incarnate, but those that followed explained it
by saying of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary.”

This statement was immediately contradicted by the Egyptian
bishops; they cried out, “No one admits of addition; no one
admits of diminution: let the decree of Niewa stand good. The
orthodox Emperor has commanded it’.”

The first day’s session was of prolonged duration. It seems
incredible that the council could have listened to all that is said
to have taken place. The fact that they went through so much is
itself a proof of the excitement they were under. They went on
until it was dark, and then wax candles were lighted. Still they
proceeded, cries being heard again for the condemnation of
Dioscorus. At length the reading ceased, and the magistrates
addressed the assembly*. They said that it appeared that Flavian
and Eusebius had been condemned unjustly. The bishop of
Alexandria and others ought now to suffer. The Eastern bishops
cried out their Trisagion, ἅγιος ὁ θεὸς, ἅγιος ἰσχυρὸς, ἅγιος ἀθάνατος,
ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς. The magistrates proceeded to urge that each bishop
present should, without delay, expound his own faith in writing,
without fear of any one, “knowing that the Emperor accepted
the exposition of the 318 fathers who had met at Nicea, and the
exposition of the 150 who had met at a later time, and the
canonical epistles and expositions of the holy fathers, Gregory, and
Athanasius, and Basil, and Hilary, and Ambrose, and the two

1 Mansi, vi. 631, 632. Harduin, 1.98. θόντα καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος
5 δολερῶς προσέταξε τὴν ἐν Νικαίᾳ τῶν ἁγίον καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένον.

ἁγίων πατέρων σύνοδον" ἐδέξατο δὲ προσ- Mansi, vi. 632.

θήκην παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων διὰ τὴν 3 Mansi, vi. 632, Labbe and Coss, tv.
ἔννοιαν τὴν κακὴν ᾿Απολιναρίου καὶ Βαλεν- 134, 5. Harduin, τι. 99,

τίνου καὶ Μακεδονίου---καὶ προστεθεῖται τῷ 4 Harduin, p. 271.

συμβόλῳ τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ""τὸν KaTEXN-

120 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ cHAP.

canonical epistles of Cyril, which had been published and con-
firmed at Ephesus.” And they referred to the letter of Leo to
Flavian.

Thus we hear now for ihe first time of an Exposition of the
150 fathers who had met subsequently to the Synod of Nica.

§ 12. The bishops and magistrates needed some rest on the
day following this prolonged and excited meeting. They did
not meet on that day, but assembled on the tenth of October.
The magistrates again addressed the bishops in the same strain
as that with which they had dismissed the previous meeting—
expressing their anxiety for the removal of doubts regarding
the truth, and urging all without fear or favour, love or hatred,
to expound or set forth the faith in its purity. “The bishops
were to remember that the magistrates as well as the Emperor
euarded the Exposition’ which had been handed down by the
318, and by the 150, and moreover by the other holy and vener-
able fathers.’

The bishops cried out, “No one maketh another Exposition’,
nor do we undertake or venture to send one out: the fathers
taught us: what was put out by them is preserved in writing:
we cannot say more.” The magistrates pressed their demand.
The reply was, “We cannot make for ourselves a written Expo-
sition. There is a canon which directs us to be content with
what is already expounded. The canon directs that there shall
be no other Exposition made.” Cecropius of Sebastopolis said:
“The faith hag been well distinguished by the 318 fathers, and
confirmed by the holy fathers Athanasius, Cyril, Celestinus,
Hilary, Basil, Gregory, and now by the most holy Leo: and we
request that what was done by the 318 fathers and by Leo may be
read.”

Eunomius bishop of Nicomedia read: ‘‘'The Exposition of
the Synod held at Nicsa”—the Nicene Faith, of course with its.
anathemas.

The bishops cried out: “This is the faith of the orthodox;
into this we were baptized; into this we baptize; Cyril believed
thus; Leo has interpreted thus.”

1 Note the one exposition, τὴν ἔκθεσιν. temporaneous explanation of the Canon
2 ἔκθεσιν ἄλλην, Harduin, τι. 285, a,b,c, οἱ HE phesus.
i.e. three times. This is an almost cons

oy THE EUTYCHIAN CONTROVERSY. 121

The magistrates ordered—“ Let the things set out’ by the 150
holy fathers be also read.”

Aétius, the deacon of Constantinople, read thus: “The
holy faith which the 150 fathers set out, agreeing with the holy
and grand Synod in Nicea.”

And at length we have what is called the Creed of Constanti-
nople. |

The bishops cried out: “This is the faith of all the orthodox.
This we all believe*.”

Aétius passed on at once to read two of Cyril’s letters—the
second being his reply accepting the proposals of the Synod of
Antioch. And Veronicianus, as Secretary of the Consistory’, then
read the synodical letter of Leo to Flavian—of which I must give
an account hereafter *.

Passages of the letter were called in question by the bishops
of Illyricum and Palestine, but Aétius, in each instance, produced
testimony from Cyril in support of the language impugned.

The magistrates again insisted on having an Explanation of
the Faith: the bishops still resisted.

At the next session, held three days afterwards, the trial of
Dioscorus commenced in the proper form. Aétius acted as prose-
cutor.

Thus was the “faith of Constantinople” launched upon the
world. It was launched—certainly not without circumstances
calculated to rouse our suspicions. The synod of the year
381 was not such as to attract attention at the time: this
act of the synod—if performed—had been long buried in oblivion.
We know that the 150 had confirmed the Faith of Nicea: but
that they had put forth a faith of their own, different in words,
though agreeing in general sentiment, rests primarily on the
statement of the magistrates in the first session of the Council of
451. The character of that faith rests on the unsupported testi-
mony of the partisan Aétius.

§ 13. It is needless to describe at length the scenes which
now occurred: Dioscorus was deposed. And after his deposition

1 τὰ ἐκτεθέντα, Harduin, 11. 288, L. and 4 The Collections add here testimo-
Ο, 342, Mansi, vi. 957. nies in support of Leo’s teaching, from
2 Mansi, vi. 957, L. and C. rv. 342. Hilary, Gregory and others. The Atha-

3 σηκρητάριος τοῦ θειοῦ Kovotarwptov(!), nasian Creed is not quoted.

122 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

the Egyptian bishops were without a head and in a minority
of ten in a body of 600; and the violence of the heterodox
synod of 449 furnished some pretext to the orthodox council
now. These orthodox bishops without exception gave in their
adherence to the letter of Leo, and stated that it agreed with the
faith of the 318 and the 150*. The ten Egyptian bishops presented
a petition to the Emperor in which they assured him of their ad-
herence to the faith of Nicaea, of Athanasius, and of Cyril. At the
council they declared that they were ready to anathematize
Eutyches. But even this was not enough. They must also
subscribe to the letter of Leo. They replied that they durst not
do this without the consent of the Archbishop of Alexandria:
and there was no Archbishop now. “They must give bail then
not to leave the city until a new Archbishop was appointed.”

Another scene oceurred on the same day with the Syrian
archimandrites. They were urged to acquiesce in the condemna-
tion of Dioscorus. But Barsumas was one of those who had
taken part in the assault on Flavian. ‘The most reverend bishops
cried out, Drive out the murderer Barsumas: the murderer to
the arena! anathema to Barsumas! Barsumas to exile*!” He
was allowed to speak: “I believe as the three hundred and
eighteen fathers; and so was I baptized into the Name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, even as the
Lord taught the Apostles themselves*”” Others also stood to the
Nicene Faith. Aétius went up to them and said, “This holy
and grand synod believes that the 318 fathers collected at Nicexa
expounded the faith: and their symbol they keep and teach
to all that come to them. But, inasmuch as in the meantime
questions have been raised by some persons, and, in opposing
them, the holy fathers Cyril, and Celestinus, and now the
most holy Pope Leo, have issued letters interpreting the symbol
but not putting forth (ἐκτιθέμενοι) any faith or dogma, and
these letters the whole cecumenical synod accepts and assents
to, and their interpretation it delivers to all who are anxious to
learn:—does your love assent to this opinion of the whole
synod? and does it anathematize Nestorius and Kutyches or
not ?”

The Egyptians adhered to the Nicene Faith.

1 Harduin, 11. 386. 2 424Σ͵ 3 498 ¢.

xe THE EUTYCHIAN CONTROVERSY. 123

§ 14. It will be remembered that at the end of the first
session the magistrates expressed their desire that every one
present should write down his faith, to meet the new difficulties
of the day. One such definition (ὅρος) was produced at the
fifth session, but the notary was instructed not to enter it on the
minutes’. Yet with the exception of the Roman and some Eastern
bishops, this definition pleased the synod. The majority said:
“Let it be set down in the Symbol that the holy Mary is
Mother of God.” The Roman bishops, however, were firm, and
the magistrates sent their secretary to the Emperor to report the
difficulty.

§ 15. The Emperor ordered that six bishops of the East and
three from each of the provinces of Pontus, Asia, Thrace and
Illyricum should meet the Archbishop Anatolius and the Roman
legate, and in consultation put into a proper shape a declaration
on the points in dispute regarding the faith*, With a little
modification the proposal was accepted, and to this committee
we owe “ The Definition of Chalcedon.” It was adopted by the
synod: and then, in the presence of Marcian*, the bishops again
expressed their adherence to it—and the Definition being thus
read and subscribed, became the “ Definition of the Church.”

We need not push further our investigations as to the council:
we must turn to the Definition itself.

§ 16. On reviewing the actions of the council, we must
confess that they are clouded with difficulties: and when the
veil is lifted, we find how true the words of our Reformers are
that “A general council is an assembly of men, of whom all are
not moved by the Spirit and Word of God.”

There is little in its proceedings to command our respect
apart from the conduct of the laymen who interfered from time
to time, although even they occasionally acted as partisans.
Among the bishops there was no commanding spirit present.
From the heathenish cry proceeding from the orthodox, “ Bar-
sumas to the arena’’—meaning (as Fleury quietly suggests),
“cast him to the lions of the amphitheatre” —down to the

1 Harduin, τι. 448 a. 3 He spoke of the Council of Nicwa
2 τὰ περὶ τῆς πίστεως ὀρθῶς καὶ dve- but not of Constantinople, Harduin, u.
πιλήπτως τυπῶσαι, p. 450 c, 576 Cc.

124 [ CHAP.

THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH.

abject terror of the Egyptian bishops who rolled themselves upon
the pavement asking fruitlessly for compassion on their gray hairs,
we see that there was no room for debate, no opportunity for
discussion. It was useless to cry, “ The letter of Leo is new: let
us consult our friends at home.” The answer was, “Let them
assent to the epistle at once or receive condemnation.”

It was in the midst of an assembly such as this, that Aétius
produced what he called “the Holy Faith which the Holy Fathers
in number one hundred and fifty put forth, agreeing with the
holy and great Synod of Nicza.” Can the assent of the bishops
to the document be deemed an intelligent approval of the state-
ment of Aétius? Let those judge who read the account. And
who was Aétius*?

§ 17. Greater men than he had been guilty of what we
should call the crime of forging testimony. In the year 419, ata
Council of Carthage a canon was quoted allowing a bishop who
was deposed by the provincial council to appeal to the Pope.
Such a canon had been passed at the western Synod. of Sardica:
but it was quoted at Carthage as having been passed at the
great Council of Niceea. A wonderful difference! The mistake
was detected on the spot: and is explained by Gieseler. But the
falsehood was repeated by no less a man than Leo in 449. Toa
letter addressed to Theodosius the great Pope annexed what he
called the Canons of Nicza: they contained this very Canon of
Sardica. By the bishops at the Council of Carthage the mistake
was detected: would the layman Theodosius be equally able to
detect it? Would he suspect a fraud ?—But what was the motive
of Aétius? The circumstances were these. The magistrates
had demanded a new exposition of the faith of the bishops to mect

1 Fleury, xxvit. 43, p. 313.

Usher in his famous treatise de sym-
bolo Romano quotes Photius of Tyre as
saying that the Bishops at Constanti-
nople confirmed the orthodox faith, and
proclaimed the Holy Spirit also as Very
God and Consubstantial with the Father,
and added to the symbol of the faith
which had been put out at Nicza, these
words: ‘‘And in the Holy Ghost, the
Lord and Giver of Life...... Life of the
world to come. Amen.” And thus hav-
ing filled up the entire symbol of the
orthodox faith, thev have delivered it to

the Church.

This Photius was appointed Bishop of
Tyre in 448, therefore even if the work
is genuine, the evidence is scarcely cor-
roborative: and the writer of his life in
the Dictionary of Biography seems to
question its genuineness. I believe the
work has never been printed. The
statement of Nicephorus Callistus that
the additions were due to the influence
of Gregory of Nyssa does not seem to be
of much value, seeing that Nicephorus

vas living in 1400,

me THE EUTYCHIAN CONTROVERSY. | 125

the difficulties of the day.. They were unwilling to compromise
themselves: unwilling, it may be, to confess that the Faith of
Nicea was insufficient. But Epiphanius had published a Creed
which contained additions “very useful for these times.” It is
sufficiently clear that that Creed of Epiphanius was the foun-
dation for this exposition adduced by Aétius.—And here the veil
comes down upon us, never perhaps to be removed.

§ 18. I have already shewn' the differences between this
Creed of Aétius and the other two with which it is allied. So
my next step will be to exhibit THE LETTER oF LEO TO FLAVIAN
to which the majority at Chalcedon demanded the subscription of
the minority. The letter in the original is contained not only
in the collections of Leo’s works? and of the councils, but also in
Mr Harvey's Keclesie Anglicane Vindex Catholicus, and in
Dr Heurtley’s volume De Fide et Symbolo. It was written when
Leo's opinion of Eutyches had changed. He complains now of
his imprudence and want of skill.

| People fall into this condition of folly “who, when they are hin-

dered by any obscurity from obtaining knowledge of the truth, refer
not to the words of the Prophets, not to the letters of the Apostles, not .
to the authority of the Gospels, but to themselves.” “‘ What knowledge
can a man have of the pages of the Old and New Testament who does not
even comprehend the first lessons of the Symbol?” And Leo quotes
the Roman symbol (of which we have yet to treat) “in which the whole
Body of the Faithful profess that they believe in God the Father
Almighty, and in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord, who was born by
the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary. In these three sentences almost all
the machinery of the heretics is destroyed. For where God is believed
to be Omnipotent and Eternal Father, the Son is shewn to be coeternal
with Him, in nothing differing from the Father. He is begotten, God
of God, Omnipotent of Omnipotent, Eternal of Eternal; not later in
time, not inferior in power, not dissimilar in glory, not divided in
essence. He being the Eternal, Only-begotten of the Eternal Father,
was born by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary. And this birth in
time took nothing from, added nothing to, that divine and eternal
nativity, but devoted itself entirely to the restoration of man who had
been deceived, so that He should both overcome death and also destroy
the devil who had the power of death. For we should not be able to
overcome the author of sin and death, if He had not undertaken our
nature and made it His own; He, Whom neither sin could contaminate
nor death destroy. For He was conceived of the Holy Ghost in the womb
of the Virgin Mary, who brought Him forth, as she conceived Him,

1 Above, p. 94. 2’ Migne, Vol: try. Ep. 38, p. 757:

126 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

without losing her virginity. If Eutyches could not have learnt thus
much from this pure fountain of the Christian faith (i.e. the Creed) he
might at all events have submitted himself to the teaching of the
Gospels.” And Leo quotes Matthew i. 1, and for Apostolic doctrine
Romans i. 1, 2; and then Genesis xxxii. 18, for the prophetic announce-
ment. And Gal. iii. 16, and Isaiah vii. 14, and Luke i. 34, and John
i. 14 furnish proofs or illustrations. The last text “Zhe Word was
made flesh, and dwelt in us,” he explains “dwelt, that is, in that flesh
which He took from man, and which He animated by the spirit of the
rational life (vite rationalis = τῆς λογικῆς ψυχῆς).

“Thus were the peculiarities of each nature preserved ; they met in
one Person, and humility was assumed by majesty, weakness by power,
mortality by eternity ; and, in order to enable Him to pay the debt of
our condition, the inviolable nature was united to a passible nature.
Thus there was one Mediator, and He could die in respect of the one,
Who could not die in respect of the other. Yet He was free from sin.
He augmented the human properties, He did not diminish the divine.
This making Himself of no reputation was the assumption of misery, not
the defection of power. He, Who remaining in the form of God made
man, in the form of a servant was made man. Each nature retains its
properties without defect. Born by a new nativity, as the inviolate
virginity knew not concupiscence, so He ministers the material flesh.
Thus from the Mother of the Lord our nature was assumed, but not our
fault. Because the nativity was miraculous, we must not view the
nature as dissimilar from ours. He that is true God is true Man. Each
form (μορφη clearly) does what is proper to itself in communion with
the other ; the Word doing that which belongs to the Word ; the Flesh
that which belongs to the Flesh. To hunger, to thirst, to be weary and
to sleep are evidently human: to feed five thousand with five loaves; to
bestow on the Samaritan woman the living water, the draught of which
would grant to her that she should thirst no more; to walk over the
sea with footsteps that sank not in it, and to calm down the rising
waves in the storm, are undoubtedly divine. As therefore it is not of the
same nature to weep in tender affection over the friend that was dead,
and to call that friend again to life when he had been dead four days ;
to hang upon the cross, and, turning light into darkness, to make all the
elements tremble; to be pierced with nails, and to open the gates of
paradise to the faith of the robber: so it is not of the same nature to
say I and the Father are one, and to say The Father is greater than J.
From us, His is a humanity less than the Father; from the Father,
His is a divinity equal with the Father.

‘“‘ Because of this unity of Person, understood in either nature, the
Son of Man is said to have descended from heaven, whilst the Son of God
assumed the flesh from the Virgin from whom He was born. Again
the Son of God is said to have been crucified and buried, although He
suffered this, not in the divinity wherein He is coeternal and consub-
stantial with the Father, but in the weakness of the human nature.
Thus we acknowledge in the symbol that the only-begotten Son of God
was crucified and buried’. The confession of Peter recognised as Son

1 The Roman Creed again.

sal oe THE EUTYCHIAN CONTROVERSY. 127

of the living God, Him Whom he saw in the form of a servant, and in
the truth of the flesh’, And why, after the resurrection of His very
Body, did He continue with His disciples those forty days, except to
clear from every stain the integrity of our faith? Conversing with
‘His disciples, living with them, allowing Himself to be handled by
them, He came to His disciples when the doors were shut, and with His
breathing gave them the Holy Spirit, and awakened their understand-
ings to understand the Scriptures. And, once more, He gave them
permission to handle Him and see, that so it might be recognised that
the properties of the human and of the divine nature remained in Him
unsevered.”

He shews how Eutyches feared not to contravene 1 John iv. 2,
according to his reading of it.

“For what is it to solve Jesus but to separate from Him the human
nature, and render void that Sacrament of the Faith® through which
alone we are saved?” and Leo shews that this error affects the whole
doctrine regarding the death of Christ. He speaks of the blood and
water flowing from His side as emblems that the Church should be
bedewed with the laver and the chalice; and the spirit and the water
and the blood of 1 John v. 4, he explains of “the Spirit of Sanctification,
and the blood of Redemption, and the water of Baptism, which three
are one and remain inseparable. None of them is parted from its con-
nection with the others. The Catholic Church lives in this faith; so
that in Christ Jesus neither is the humanity to be believed without the
true divinity, nor yet the divinity without the true humanity.”

§ 19. Such is the substance of this important letter, for which
we have to thank, not the Council of Chalcedon, but the good Spirit
of God guiding Leo into the truth. We cannot feel surprised
that the council accepted its statements and gave it synodical
authority ; and it has remained a landmark for theologians from
that day to this. In England only, during the last few years, has
there arisen a school of clergy who have dared to contravene its
teaching. In their anxiety to inculcate an objective presence of
the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Consecrated Elements,
some have adopted the conception that the Nature of our Lord’s
Body and Blood is changed, a conception which was condemned
at Chalcedon. One indeed has denied the true human character
of His Body during His earthly lifetime’.

1 Tdo not delay to give the passage on Incarnation? I presume the latter,

the primacy of Peter, which it must be 3 And this person is claimed as a
remembered comes from a Bishop of champion of orthodoxy. See my Plea
Rome. for Time in dealing with the Athanasian

2 Does this mean the Creed or the Creed, 1873, p. 94.

128 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

§ 20. Two things remain to be noticed. One is what I may call
the Protestant character of Leo’s argument. The only authority he
recognises is the authority of Scripture. With the assistance of
this he explains, fills up, enlarges the simple scriptural statement
of the early Symbol. There is no reference to other writers; no
appeal to the Rule of Faith as enforcing that which he is pressing.
Calm, reasoning, argumentative, majestic in his style, he shews an
entire confidence that he will convince others as he is convinced
himself. He had fought his way to his belief, and was now
assured that others would follow him.

§ 21. The other is the entire absence of the phraseology of the
Athanasian Creed, even where we should most expect it. The
conceptions overlap at times, but the language is different. In the
Quicunque we have nihil majus aut minus ; nthil prius aut posterius.
Leo speaks of the Son not being mznor or posterior. The Quicunque
says that the Son is wqualis Patri secundum divintatem, minor
Patre secundum humanitatem. Leo’s words are Illi minor Patre
humanitas, equalis cum Patre divinitas. Hilary of Arles was
well known to Leo; indeed there had been some clashing of
opinions between them. Hilary had died in 449. If the Quicunque
had been written by Hilary, it was either unknown to Leo, or
if known disregarded by him. He did not think it of any great
authority. The supposition recently revived that it was of Athana-
sian origin is utterly irreconcileable with the conduct of the
Egyptian bishops at the Council of Chalcedon.

§ 22. We may now turn to the DEFINITION of the Council of
Chalcedon*. But a few words of prelude may be excused as to the
Canons of the council. By the first the bishops decided that all
the Canons put forth by the several earlier synods remained in
force. It would seem, therefore, that such Canons were deemed
to lapse when the next council sat; a thing worthy of remem-
brance. The twenty-six which followed relate to the discipline
and morals of the clergy, monks, nuns. Three others are found in
the collection of Justellus (not however in the old translation of
Dionysius Exiguus), the first of which confirmed and enlarged the
canon of the year 381, regarding the privileges of the Church of

1 It is entitled ‘‘expositio fidei” in in Wiener Sitzungsberichte, tom. Lvt.
one of the Vatican MSS. Rifferscheid p. 579, &e.

pa bea, THE EUTYCHIAN CONTROVERSY. 129

Constantinople, “the New Rome.” The last had reference to the
refusal of the bishops of Egypt to subscribe to the Epistle of Leo,
unless they had the assent of the Bishop of Alexandria. They
were directed to remain in the imperial city until an Archbishop
_ should be appointed.

THE DEFINITION OF THE COUNCIL began as follows’:

“Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in confirming to His disciples
the knowledge of the Faith, said, My peace I leave unto you, My peace I
give unto you, so that no one should disagree with his neighbour in the
dogmas of godliness, but the preaching of the truth be made alike to all.
But inasmuch as the evil one never ceases to sow his tares among the
seeds of godliness, ever finding out something new against the truth,
therefore the Master, providing, as is His wont, for the human race, has
raised up for us this pious and zealously faithful king, and has called
together the leaders of the priesthood from every quarter, so that by the
working of the grace of Christ (who is Master of us all) every pestilen-
tial falsehood may be removed from Christ’s flock, and it may drink in
freely from the fountain of truth. And this we have done, having by a
common vote driven away the dogmas of error and renewed the unerring
faith of the Fathers, proclaiming to all the Symbol of the 318, and
adducing in support of it the Fathers who have accepted this composi-
tion (σύνθεμα) of godliness. Such are the one hundred and fifty who
met in the great city of Constantine, who themselves also subscribed
that Faith. Observing therefore the precedents regarding the Faith (some
of us having been present at the holy synod held at Ephesus, in which
Celestinus of Rome and Cyril of Alexandria were leaders), we define
that predominant over all stands out the Exposition of the holy and
undetiled Faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers who were
collected at Nicza in the time of Constantine of pious memory ; and
then that there remain in force the things defined by the 150 Fathers
who met at Constantinople for the uprooting of such heresies as had
then grown up, and for the confirmation of the same Catholic and
Apostolic Faith.”

Here is inserted “the Symbol of the 318 Fathers who met at
Nicza,” not accurately, however, for (i.) the words both which are
an heaven and which are in earth are omitted from the clause, By
whom all things were made ; (i1.) from heaven was added after
descended ; (111.) of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary was
added after was incarnate; (iv.) was buried was inserted; (v.)
according to the Scriptures was added; (v1.) sitteth on the right hand
of God the Father was added ; (vii.) of whose kingdom there shall
be no end was added ; (vili.) after and the Holy Ghost was added the

1 This will be found in the acts of the fourthsession. It is reprinted by Routh,
Reliquia, Vol. τι.

8. Ὁ, 9

130 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

Lord and Giver of life; and (ix.) out of the anathematism the word
created was omitted. Thus there were eight alterations introduced
into the Confession or Creed. In eight places did this version differ
from the text read by Eunomius a few days previously. Such was
the Chalcedon notion of accuracy of quotation’.

Then follow the words “'The Symbol of the one hundred and
fifty Fathers collected at Constantinople,” and the symbol itself.

In consequence of the alterations introduced into the copy of
the Nicene Creed, the differences between it and the symbol of the
150 as exhibited here are reduced to the following:—The Con-
stantinopolitan Creed (i.) adds of heaven and earth; (11.) instead of
Son of God, who was begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that
is, from the substance of the Father, it reads the only-begotten
Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds ; (iii.) it omits
God of God. In regard to the Incarnation, Sufferings, &c. of
our Lord, the Nicene Creed had been altered to suit this
Creed of Constantinople. (iv.) After the words Lord and Giver
of life, the words who proceedeth from the Father and all that
follow were added. The anathematism is omitted.

The Definition proceeds as follows:

“This wise and saving symbol of God’s grace was sufficient for the
full knowledge and strengthening of godliness, for it plainly teaches the
perfection of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and
explains the Incarnation of the Lord to those who receive it faithfully.
But, inasmuch as those who are endeavouring to put on one side the
teaching of the truth, have by their heresies obtruded vain words—
some attempting to corrupt the mystery of the Dispensation which the
Lord underwent on our account, and denying the use of the word
Theotocos of the Virgin ; others introducing a confusion and a mixture
[of natures], and supposing in their folly that there is one nature of the
Flesh and the Godhead, and teaching the prodigious tenet that the
Divine Nature was by this confusion capable of suffering—for this cause,
this holy, vast, and cecumenical synod, being anxious to exclude all
these machinations against the truth, and teaching openly what has been
unshaken from the very first, DEFINES, first of all, that the Faith of the
318 Fathers remains untouched®. And, on the one hand, it confirms the
teaching delivered by the 150 concerning the Essence of the Holy
Spirit, a teaching which they made known to all not as introducing
anything wanting in the earlier accounts, but as explaining by written
testimonies their meaning in opposition to those who are eager to
detract from the Majesty of the Holy Spirit. And, on the other hand,
because of those who attempt to corrupt the mystery of the Dispensa-

! Neither Fleury nor Dr Routh notice these very important differences.
2 After they had altered it!

3 THE EUTYCHIAN CONTROVERSY. 191

tion, shamelessly fabling that He who was born of the Holy Virgin was
a mere man, it has accepted the synodical letters written by Cyril to
Nestorius and his supporters, to exhibit their folly, and to explain the
meaning of the Symbol to such as in pious zeal desire it. And to
these letters the synod has reasonably added that of Leo to Flavian,
now among the saints, as consentient with the confession of the great
Peter (Matt. xvi. 16), and as furnishing a boundary or limit marking off
those who teach erroneously.

“Following therefore the holy Fathers, we confess One and the
same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ; and we all together in harmony pro-
claim with one voice that the Same is perfect in Deity, the Same perfect:
in humanity, truly God, truly Man, the Same of a reasonable soul and
body, consubstantial with the Father according to the Deity, the Same
consubstantial with us according to the Humanity; in all points like
us, Sin excepted ; begotten of the Father before all worlds according to
the Deity, but the Same, in these last days, for us and for our salvation
[born] of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the
Humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten,
acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without change,
indivisibly, inseparably ; the difference of natures being in no way
extinguished because of the union, but the properties of each nature
being preserved, and meeting together in one Person and one Hypostasis;
not, as it were, parted or divided into two Persons, but One and the
same Son, only-begotten, God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ ; as from
the first the prophets [spake] of Him ; as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself
plainly taught us; and as the Symbol of the Fathers has delivered it
to us.

“This therefore being laid down with all accuracy in every part, the
holy and cecumenical synod decrees that no one shall be allowed to put
forth or to compose a different Faith, or to conceive or teach differently.
And it decrees that those who shall venture either to compose a different
Faith, or to submit or teach or deliver a different Symbol to such as
desire to turn to the knowledge of the truth from Hellenism, or from
Judaism, or from any heresy whatever, shall, if they are bishops or
clerks, be deposed from their episcopate or clerus; if they are monks
or laymen, be anathematized.”

“ After the reading of the Definition, all the most pious bishops
cried out, This is the faith of the Fathers; let the Metropolitans sub-
scribe at once.” And the thing was done.

Four hundred and seventy bishops subscribed. The Legates
of the Pope, according to the Greek text, said, “I have subscribed.”
According to the Latin, Paschasius stated, “I have decreed, have
consented, and have subscribed.” The difference is instructive.

CHAPTER XI.

LITURGICAL USE OF THE NICENE CREED.

§1. The Nicene and Constantinopolitan Creeds as given in the Definition of
Chalcedon. ὃ 2. The latter introduced generally into the Liturgy about a.p.
568. 88. Reverence paid to the four great Councils. Council under Menna,
536. § 4. Edict of Justinian. § 5. Received at Toledo in 589. §6. When
introduced into the Roman Church? §7. Use of Nicene Creed at Baptism in
Greek. 88. It was recited in Greek also at the Eucharist in Germany.
§ 9. Used at Visitation of the Sick and Extreme Unction. § 10. True
Nicene Creed used at Synods. §11. Creed of Constantinople in the Eastern
Churches. §12. Used as an Episcopal profession. $13. Creed of the
Armenian Liturgy continues the anathematism.

WE have now reached such a stage in our work that it will be
convenient to continue the histories of the Nicene and Con-
stantinopolitan Creeds, leaving for the present all considerations
as to the growth of precision of language on the Trinity, and all
notes of the still ever-changing Rules or Definitions of the Faith.
The history of the Roman Creed, thanks to the labours of Dr
Heurtley, need not delay us long.

§ 1. It will be well to recite the Nicene Creed as given in
the Definition of Chalcedon: in my notes will be found the
deviations of the Creed of Constantinople as it is there de-
livered :

‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker’ of all things
visible and invisible: and in one Lord Jesus Christ’, Son of God, who
was begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is from the substance of
the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God,
begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things
were made: who for us men, and for our salvation came down from
heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and

1 Ὁ, adds “ οὗ heaven and earth and.” God, begotten of the Father before all
2 C. reads ‘‘the only-begotten Son of | worlds,” and omits ‘‘ God of God.”

CHAP. XI. ] LITURGICAL USE OF THE NICENE CREED. 133

was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate,
suffered and was buried: and on the third day He rose again according
to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right
hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the quick
and the dead: of whose kingdom there shall be no end: and in the
Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life.”

The Symbol of the 318 in Nicza, as it is called in its title,
concludes with the anathematism of the Council: the Symbol of
~ the 150 Fathers who met at Constantinople continues thus: “Who
proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is
worshipped and glorified,” and so on to the concluding “Amen.”
Thus was the document adapted for Liturgical use, like to
the Creed of Cyril of Jerusalem, and the original Creed of
Eusebius of Ceesarea. For such use the Symbol of Nicaea was
not adapted. It was a declaration of the faith and act of the
Council.

§ 2. Let us now pass on with their history. Timotheus,
bishop of Constantinople in 511, is stated by Theodorus Lector,
in his History of the Church’, to have ordered that the Creed
“should be recited at every congregation ; whereas, before, it bad
been used only on the Thursday before Easter, when the bishop
catechized the candidates for baptism.” The language is curious:
it may imply that this Creed had, prior to the date mentioned,
been delivered privately to the candidates. A similar direction is
said to have been given at Antioch at an earlier period: 1.6. by
Peter the Fuller, who had been patriarch there from 450 to 488.
The learned Zaccaria® thought that these orders of heretical
men could not have been obeyed to any extent. His opinion was
that the Emperor Justin A.D. 568 was the first who directed that
the Creed should be generally used in Service-time. Justin’s
direction was that, in every Catholic Church, the Creed of Con-
stantinople should be sung by the people before the Lord’s Prayer,
It became however the custom to sing it before the Consecration.
These facts are interesting because they enable us to correct some
misstatements which have been made as to the date and character
of what are called the Primitive Greek Liturgies*.

* p. 563. See Usher ut sup. p. 16. 3 Thus Dr R. F. Littledale in the
* Bibliotheca Ritualis, Rome 1776, Preface to the second edition of the
Tom. 11. p. civ. See too Nicolas, Le Liturgies of St Mark, St James, St Cle-
Symbole des Apétres, pp. 52, 58, ment, &c. (London, Hayes, 1868): “The

134 [CHAP.

THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH.

§ 3. Passing onwards I must remark that we now find that
these four great Councils are beginning to be grouped together as
of co-ordinate authority. In the beginning of the sixth century,
the Acephali, a kind of semi-Eutychians, attracted attention, and
in 536 a council was held at Constantinople with reference to
them. It is called the “Council under Menna,” who was Arch-
bishop and Patriarch of the imperial city. At the fourth session
of this council, Anthimus was condemned, although he had “ pre-
tended” that he accepted the holy synods: he was put out of the
priesthood of Trapezus, and deprived of all other (πάσης ἑτερας)
priestly designation and honour, and of the privilege of being
numbered among the orthodox". In the fifth session a kind of
Rule of Faith was read, as addressed to the Emperor Justinian,
which is interesting as covering in part the same ground as our
Athanasian Creed, yet with no verbal similarity with it”. But the
great interest of the Synod arises from the “ Professions of Faith”
which were poured into it, of different dates and from many sides.
Such professions we have from Dalmatia®; from Syria*; from
Antioch® (this recognises only one Symbol, that of the 318) ; from

present edition of the Primitive Greek
Liturgies is practically a reimpression of
the former one......The great impetus
which has been given to Liturgical stu-
dies by causes which lie deeper than the
mere passing controversies of the day,
is a sufficient warrant for bringing these
priceless reliques of early Christian times
once more before the public ; and even
in reference to those controversies it is
impossible to overrate the clearness or
importance of their testimony to the car-
dinal dogmas of the Real Objective Pre-
sence, and the Propitiatory Sacrifice of
the Eucharist for the living and the
dead.”” The fact is that these Liturgies
as reprinted by Dr Littledale never speak
of the Real Presence at all, nor have
I found any allusion to the doctrine
of a Propitiatory Sacrifice in the Eucha-
rist. And yet the majority of the Litur-
gies, as they stand in Dr Littledale’s
reprint, must be of a date below 500.
For the ‘‘ Liturgy of St Mark,” pp. 14,
15, directs that the priest, ὁ ἱερεύς, shall
say the ‘‘I believe in one God.”’ So the
Liturgy of St James, p. 49. Of course
the Creed is not in the Liturgy of St
Clement, which is taken from ‘the
Apostolic Constitutions,” but we find it
in the very modern Liturgy of St Chry-

sostom, p. 131. Thus all of the three
Liturgies which are said to have been
in use in the Churches of Alexandria,
of Jerusalem, and of Constantinople,
“in early Christian times,” contain
internal proof that they were reduced
to their present form after the be-
ginning or middle of the sixth cen-
tury. Again, in these three Liturgies
the Creed precedes the Lord’s Prayer,
by a considerable interval. Apparently
Justin’s direction was that it should im-
mediately precede it. If so, we must
come down to a date later than 568, and
considerably later, because the Liturgies
grew by accretions, and time was neces-
sary for this growth. The date assign-
ed by Dr Neale to the earliest MS. of
which he speaks is the tenth century.
Such is the conception of a ‘primitive
Liturgy.”

1 Harduin, 11. p. 12618. I must ask
my readers to contrast the condemna-
tions of the Quicunque.

2 Harduin, 11. p. 1272 B.c.

3 p. 1284.

4 p. 1306. The condemnation, p. 1315,

‘is this: ‘(If any one wander away from

the path, he surrounds himself with a
cloud of error.”
5 p. 1318.

XI. | LITURGICAL USE OF THE NICENE CREED. 139

Constantinople of the year 518 (which states that the Council of
the 150 confirmed the Symbol of the 318"); from some Archi-
mandrites, who used a phrase which has been rendered familiar
to us by the Justinian Codex, “the Nicene Synod uttered the
holy Symbol in which we were baptized and baptize; the Con-
stantinopolitan Synod confirmed it; that of Ephesus established
it; that of Chalcedon set its seal upon it”.” The Council under
Menna followed on this line. We again hear that the Creed of
the 318 was that into which all were baptized*. And language,
more or less resembling this, came from Jerusalem‘, from Tyre’,
and finally from the Emperor Justinian himself*; but I must
confess that I do not recognise anywhere the language either of
the Athanasian Faith or of its condemnations. The sentence
pronounced on the heretics is still excommunication: it drives
some away as wolves from the flock; it wounds others with
the like anathema’.

§ 4. But, perhaps, I ought to quote here from that long Con-
fession or EDICT OF JUSTINIAN, which is inserted in the Acts of
the Fifth General Council—the Council of Constantinople, held in
the year 553. This edict contains thirteen anathemas: but, before
they are enuntiated, we find the following®:

“There is one definition of the faith, to confess and rightly glorify the
Father, and Christ the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit. This confession
we keep into which we were baptized; it was given indeed by our
great God and Saviour Jesus Christ to His holy Apostles aud disciples,
and by them it was preached in all the world, And the 318 holy
Fathers who met at Nicwa against Arius have handed down the same
confession or symbol and teaching of the faith to the holy Church of
God: and after them the 150 holy Fathers who met at Constantinople
against Macedonius and Magnus, following in every thing the same
holy Symbol which was delivered by the 318, explained the words con-
cerning the Godhead of the Holy Spirit: and then those who met at
Ephesus against Nestorius, and those who met at Chalcedon against
Eutyches, following in every respect the same holy symbol or teaching
of the faith, condemned these heretics and all who thought or think like
them. And moreover they anathematized all who would deliver to such
as draw nigh to holy baptism, or turn from any heresy whatever, another
definition of faith or symbol or teaching besides that which was
delivered by the 318 and explained by the 150 holy Fathers.”

aD. books $ Harduin, ut sup. p. 1335 c.
2 p. 1327. Note that the use of the * 1: “1960 ὍΣ ud (ed B19
Creed at Baptism is mentioned, not any 6 p. 1406 B. 7 p. 1398 E.

use at the Eucharist. 8 Harduin, ΤΠ p. 287.

136 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

Thus Justinian clearly distinguishes between the Nicene con-
sidered as a baptismal Creed, and the fulness of his own Rule
of the Faith.

§ 5. Towards the end of the sixth century, however, the
Creed must have come into general use in the Churches of the
East. For King Reccared, at the Council of Toledo in 589, di-
rected that the Creed of the 150 should be recited in the Liturgy
before the Lord’s Prayer, throughout all the Churches of Spain
and Gallicia, according to the form of the Oriental Churches.
The exact place may be seen by any one who will look to the
Mozarabic Liturgy, as printed by Daniel, or elsewhere—and the
reader will thus be able better to appreciate the amount of
modification which the Greek Liturgies have undergene since
the date before us. And it will be noted that the Creed spoken
of by Reccared is distinctly called the “Creed of the 150.”

§ 6. As for the time of its introduction into the Roman
Liturgy, the authorities vary in opinion. Maldonatus says that
Honorius of Autun (about the year 1130) is authority enough that
Pope Damasus gave the order. Zaccaria asks, “ Who can trust a
writer that lived eight hundred years after the event which he
records? All antiquity is silent on the subject.” Yet Durandus
repeated the statement, and possibly might be cited as an
independent witness’. The fact is, that from Spain the custom of
using the Nicene Creed (as I shall call it henceforth) at the Mass
spread into France: and Martene brings a passage from Czesarius
of Arles that speaks of the Credo in unum Deum bemg then used.
If this be genuine, we must fix the date of the custom in the dio-
cese of Arles, or at all events amongst the Benedictines in that dio-
cese, before the year 542. But this seems too early. For the book
of St Germain on the Gallican Mass is entirely silent as to such a
custom in his time, and he died about 575. But we do know that
in the time of Charles the Great, the Nicene Creed was sung in
the Royal Chapel, and after the Spanish ὑγροῦ From the con-

1 De Divinis Officiis, lib. tv. c. 25. I
take it from Voss. Waterland quotes
the context of the passage (leaving out
this part), amongst his authorities as to
the Athanasian Creed !

* Some consider that the order was

given at the Council of Frankfort, a.p.
794. For example Zaccaria refers to
Aimoin, de gestis Francorum, tv. ¢. 85,
and Aemilius, ib. v.§9. Aineas, bishop
of Paris, 868, speaks of ‘‘ the Catholic
Faith which is chanted on the Lord’s

x1. | LITURGICAL USE OF THE NICENE CREED. 137

versation of Leo III. with Charles’ emissaries (of which below) it
seems clear that the Nicene Creed was not used at Rome, in his
time, during the Mass. Binterim* appears to agree with Mar-
tene in the opinion that it was not adopted there until the year
1014. At that time the Emperor Henry urged on Benedict VIII.
the use of the Creed—possibly in its interpolated form. Benedict
resisted, alleging that the Roman Church did not require it: “it
had never been stained with heresy: from the first it had con-
tinued unshaken in the firmness of the Catholic Faith, according
to the teaching of St Peter: it needed not therefore to chant the
Creed as frequently as those Churches where heresy had ap-
peared®.” But Benedict yielded.

Up to this time, if we might trust some Liturgiologists, the
Roman Church had used the Roman or Apostles’ Creed at the
Mass: but for their opinion there seems to be no support in
history®. From the time of Benedict, however, the Nicene Creed
has been used in the Eucharistic Service throughout the Churches
of Western Europe. It was sung, however, only on great festi-
vals, and then by the communicants, not by the priest. Inno-
cent III., indeed (de mysterio Missae, 11. ὁ. 52; Iv. 6. 31), says
that it was sung by the subdeacons; but Maldonatus explains
this by saying that the subdeacons acted as precentors, leading
the people*.

§ 7. Before we consider the history of the later change of
language in the Creed of Constantinople, we may devote a few

day at the Mass by the whole Church of
Gaul:” he quotes the Nicene Creed.
(Note the title, The Catholic Faith.)
Caspari, p. 218, from D’Achery, Spici-
legium, T. 1. p. 131.

1 Denkwiirdigkeiten, Vol. tv. part iii.
p. 356.

2 See Berno Augiensis de rebus ad
missam pertin. 6. 2, (Migne, Vol. cxutt.
p. 1061, cf. 1058, the passage is given
by Daniel, Codex Liturgicus, 1. 126.)

3 The subject is discussed by Daniel,
1c;

4 There is a passage in the works of
Walfrid Strabo which seems at first sight
to be opposed to this conclusion. He,
writing in the ninth century on the
Nicene Creed (De Rebus Eccles., c. 22,
Migne, Vol. cxtv. p. 947) says that from

the Bishops of the East the use of the
Nicene Creed is believed to have come
to the Romans. As Abbot of Reichenau
he probably drew his evidence from the
Churches north of the Alps, not from the
Churches of Italy proper. In the same
passage Walfrid notices that after the
deposition of the heretic Felix (about the
year 800) the Creed began to be used
generally more frequently in the mass.
But this again must have been in Gal-
lican and German Churches. For Walter,
Bishop of Orleans, in the middle of the
century, passed a canon directing that
the Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui
Sancto, and the Credo in unum Deum,
should be sung by all at the same ser-
vice. (Martene, Lib. 1. 1v., Art. vi: §$ 10,
11, and Migne, Vol. cx1x. p. 727.)

138 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

pages to the use of the Creed in the Baptismal Services of the
West’.

We learn from the Gelasian Sacramentary, as well as from
the Ordo Romanus, and from the interesting Gellone Manuscript
and other Manuseripts at St Gall and Vienna’, that the Constanti-
nopolitan Creed was thus used. Following the Ritual as restored
by Casertanus and printed by Daniel®, we learn that at the
first scrutiny (which was held on the Wednesday of the third
week in Lent), the catechumen was interrogated, amongst other
things, in the brief Roman Creed that we have already noticed.
“ Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven
and earth? I believe. And dost thou believe in Jesus Christ,
His only Son? I believe. And dost thou believe in the Holy
Ghost, the holy Catholic Church, the Forgiveness of sins, the
Resurrection of the flesh and Eternal Life? 1 believe.” These
questions were repeated on the second and third scrutiny—the
latter being held on the Wednesday after the fourth Sunday in
Lent. On this day the deacon brought in the four Gospels,
the catechumens were told of the names of the writers and of
their types in Ezekiel: and a few early verses from each were
read*. Then the Presbyter (he is always called the Presbyter)
addressed them :

“ Beloved, now that ye are going to receive the Sacraments of
Baptism, and to be made new creatures of the Holy Spirit, receive with
all your heart the faith in the belief of which ye are to be justified.
And with your feelings changed by a true conversion’ come to God
Who is the Illuminator of your minds; accepting the Sacrament of the
Evangelical Symbol, inspired by the Lord, appointed by His A postles—
the words of which indeed are few, but the mysteries are great. For
the Holy Spirit, who dictated 10“ to the Masters of the Church, framed
the health-giving Faith with such openness and such brevity that that
which is to be believed by you and always to be professed’, can neither
escape your intelligence nor weary your memory. Fix your minds
therefore and learn the Symbol. And that which we deliver to youas we

1 On this Dr Caspari has a learned
discussion in his earlier Program. 1866,

scripts we have that contain a few verses
from the beginning of each Gospel ?

p. 213, &c.

2 On this Gellone MS., see below, and
the Nouveau Traité de Diplomatique, 111.
221. The other MSS. are described by
Caspari.

3 Codex Liturgicus, Vol. 1. p. 171, ΧΟ:

4 Can this aceount for the manu-

> Conversatione for conversione (as in
some copies of the Athanasian Creed).

6 Muratori’s copy reads ita: Hittorp’s
Ordo Romanus ista.

7 Mur. providendum: Hittorp proji-
tendum.

x1 | LITURGICAL USE OF THE NICENE CREED. 139

have received it, do ye write not on any material which can be corrupted,
but on the pages of your heart.”

The Presbyter asks the Acolyth, “In what language do they
confess our Lord Jesus Christ?” The answer is, ‘Im Greek.”
The Presbyter proceeds, “ Announce therefore the Faith as they
believe.” The Acolyth recites the Nicene Creed in Greek. He
is then asked to recite it in Latin, and this he does also.

A short Exposition (so entitled) of the Symbol follows; and
on the same day the Lord’s Prayer was given to the Catechumens;
this too had its Exposition. And the Catechumens departed, and
the “Missa in traditione Symboli” followed. A fourth, fifth,
sixth, seventh scrutiny was held on as many different days: on
the last, which was held on Easter Eve, the Catechumens recited
from memory the Symbol and the Lord’s Prayer in Latin or Greek
as they had professed it before. Yet, after all, they were not
interrogated at the Font in the words of this Creed: the Roman
Symbol furnished the few words which were there required.

The ceremony is given differently in Muratori’s Liturgia
Romana Vetus. There the Acolyth answers, “In Greek,” if he
holds a boy in his arm: ‘‘ In Latin” if he holds a girl’. In the
Ordo Romanus the question and answer are put in Greek. The
three copies undoubtedly give three phases of an interesting
relic, possibly the last surviving relic, of the Greek origin of the
Western Churches’.

§ 8. In the Ordo Romanus the Creed is given in Greek
letters. But in the Gelasian Sacramentary, as well as in a MS.
at St Gall, of the tenth century, described by Dr Caspari*; in
another at Vienna of the tenth century*, and in an early printed
book (Venice, 1476) °, the Greek Creed is given in Latin letters,
In the tenth century the knowledge of Greek must have been low.
These are so curious that I will give the beginning of the Symbol
as it is found in the Gelasian Sacramentary and the two MSS.°

Gelasian:

Pisteuo . hisena . theon . pathera . pantocrat .
oran . pyetin . uranu . kaegis . oraton .

1 See it in Dr Heurtley’s Harmonia stead of the We believe of the Faith of
Symbolica, p. 157. the 150.

2 Dr Caspari, l.c., p. 234, notes that be BYE 4 p. 246. 5 Ὡς 242,
in all these copies we have I believe, in- 6 From Dr Caspari.

140 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

kaepanton . kaeauraton . kaehisena . kyrion .
Thm. Xpm.

St Gall, 338:

Symbolum Apostolorum Graece.

Pisteuuo isena theon Pa

tira pantocratora piitin uranu kegis
oraton te panton ke aoraton keisena ky
rion ysun christon tonion tu theu ton mo
nogeni

Vienna, 830:

Credo in unum

Piste ugo isena theon panto
crathora pythin uranu keys ora
thonte panthon keaoraton keisena
kyrion ysun criston tonyon tuthe
u ton monogenin.

Of these all three omit with the Constantinopolitan Creed
Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, God of God: the second and third read who pro-
ceedeth from the Father: the first who proceedeth from the Father
and the Son. I must add, however, that in the two Manuscripts
there is nothing to connect the Creed either with the Baptismal
Service proper or with the preparation of the Catechumens. These
copies must therefore have been prepared for some other purpose. |

As to this purpose we may learn something from the Essay
of the great Photius of Constantinople on the Procession of the
Holy Spirit, against the Latins. He says that Leo and Bene-
dict “the great High-Priests” directed that the Creed should
be recited in Greek in Churches of the Roman obedience (if
the account of Photius is correct it seems to refer only to
Churches north of the Alps, where the Creed was already
in use), ἵνα μὴ TO στενὸν τῆς διαλέκτου βλασφημίας παρασχῆ
πρόφασιν, “lest the narrow character of the Latin dialect should
afford pretext for irreverent expression.” Binterim’ assures us
that in the ninth century the Germans sang the Creed both in
Greek and Latin; and Daniel? states that it is known that at
great festivals it was recited in Greek. It seems, therefore, that
the MS. at St Gall was prepared for such occasions. It is de-
scribed as richly illuminated: it contains, among other things,
“the Angelic Hymn in Greek and Latin,” and a Greek transla-

1 Denkwiirdigkeiten, p. 3638. 0.128:

XI.] | LITURGICAL USE OF THE NICENE CREED. 141

tion of the Apostles’ Creed’. The Nicene Creed is also called the
Apostles’ Creed: and under that title 1t is found both in Greek
and Latin. It is accompanied with musical notes. In the Vienna
MS. again the Greek Creed appears, with musical notation,
between the Greek Hymnus Angelicus and the Greek Zrishagion
and Agnus Dei—all, like it, in Latin letters.

§ 9. But the Nicene Creed in Latin was used at other times
and for other purposes. Thus from an old MS. of the eleventh
century, mentioned by Martene”® (it was a Pontifical belonging
to the Church of Narbonne), we know that in the Office of
Extreme Unction in that Church, the Credo in unum Deum was
chanted. So in the Visitation Service of a MS. from Fleury of
the thirteenth century*; and again at the end of the Office of
Extreme Unction. This apparently was intended for use in a
Benedictine Monastery. This usage was continued even to the
sixteenth century at Chalons*.

§ 10. I must add that Honorius of Autun, writing about the
year 1130, speaks of’ four Creeds. The second is the Faith Credo
in Deum Patrem (sic), “which is read in Synods, which the Nicene
Synod put forth.” The third is the Credo in unum Deum,
which was chanted at the Mass—having been put forth by the
Council of Constantinople. JI have not found any allusion to
this use at Synods in any of the “orders” given by Martene for
Provincial Gatherings in France. The Constantinopolitan Creed,
as it is received in the Roman Church, was put prominently
and specially forward at the first meeting for business of the
Council of Trent.

§ 11. The true Creed of Constantinople is found in all the
Liturgies of the Greek Maronites, and other Oriental Churches®,
and it is used in the Hour Services of the modern Horologion.
In fact, it is the only Symbol of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
It is employed, of course, in the Baptismal Service. On being
made a Catechumen the candidate (or his sponsor) renounces

1 This has not (I believe) been print- 3 Tbid. ordo xxtv.
ed. It must be one of the earliest ex- © Nowxxrx
tant. — & Gemma Anime, Lib. τι. cap. v.
2 De antiquis Ecclesie titibus, 1, v1. 6 Bona, Rerum Liturgicarum Lib. τι.

iy., ordo ΣΉ: pp. 384, 385, 388.

142 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

Satan, and ranges himself with Christ. He is asked, “Dost
thou believe in Him?” He answers, “I believe Him as King
and God;” and recites the I believe in one God three times.
On being called to worship Christ, he replies, “I worship Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, consubstantial and indivisible Trinity".”

§ 12. One use more remains to be noticed. Down to the
time of Sergius, Archbishop of Constantinople, each newly-elected
bishop of Rome used to send to his brother at Constantinople,
letters announcing his election, including a copy of the Creed

which he professed—the Eastern Creed without alteration *.

The

Archbishops and Patriarchs of the Greek Churches confessed the
Creed when they attained their dignity®.

§ 13. In “the Divine Liturgy of the Armenian Church of St
Gregory the Illuminator,” as printed at Constantinople in 1823,
and translated by Mr 5. C. Malan, the learned vicar of Broad-

1 Daniel, Codex Liturg., 1v. p. 496, &e.
Daniel quotes a passage from Dr Neale’s
History of the Eastern Church, Intro-
duction, p. 968, which shews that that
great authority on Oriental Liturgies
was not always on his guard against
making somewhat rash statements re-
garding the Creeds of the West. The
words are “Τὺ is an old subject of com-
plaint by the Greek against the Latin
Church that the latter employs [at bap-
tism] the Apostles’ instead of the Nicene
Creed. And a late writer so far sym-
pathizes with them as to propose, in the
event of negociation for our union with
the Oriental Church, that we should sub-
stitute that Creed for it. Such an in-
version of order would seem not only
unnecessary but objectionable. The
Roman Church retained the Apostles’
Creed, when the Eastern thought fit to
substitute for it that of Nicwa. It is
true that the Gelasian Sacramentary
gives the latter in Roman letters,” as
above, p. 139. ‘‘But this seems never
to have been extensively used even at
Rome. And the Gallican Ritual never
employed the Nicene Creed: indeed
some Rituals are of that great age as to
omit the clause He descended into hell.
From Gaul we received an old Bap-
tismal Canon, and this must have been
used in England long before the Council
of Nicea. It is too much therefore to
ask us to surrender an older for a more

modern tradition.” Perhaps it would
have been wiser to say, that it is too
much to ask us to surrender a rite of
the National Church of England, because
that rite does not prevail elsewhere.

Now as for the mistakes contained in
this note of Dr Neale’s:

(1) The Latin Church does not em-
ploy the Apostles’ Creed as the Creed
of the baptized, in the way in which
the Greek Church employs the Nicene
Creed,

(2) The Apostles’ Creed, as we have
it, is of far more recent date than is the
Creed used in the Kast.

(3) The Manuscripts which have been
brought recently to light, shew that the
Gallican Ritual did employ the Nicene
Creed.

We must remember that the Nicene
Creed is called the Apostles’ Creed in
the St Gall manuscript. (See too Usher,
p. 16, ‘‘Finito symbolo apostolorum
dicat sacerdos, Dominus vobiscum.’’)

2 There is some allusion to this cus-
tom in an epistle of Photius, in Labbe
1x. Ὁ. 235. He congratulated himself
that the Pope, John vii1., had not in his
letter introduced the words et filio into
the Creed. Binius’ note on the subject
(Labbe rx. p. 324) is curious. Compare
Voss, xxxvi., and Mr Ffoulkes’ Christen-
dom’s Divisions, Vol. 11. p. 20.

3 Voss, On the Nicene Creed, m1.

ΧΕ! LITURGICAL USE OF THE NICENE CREED. 143

windsor, we read, that after the Gospel follows the direction,
“then shall the Nicene Creed be said in full.” The Creed is not
the Nicene nor yet the Constantinopolitan Faith, but bears a
very marked resemblance to the second Creed of Epiphanius,
with which it must have some connection. It will be remembered
that we have met with a version of this Creed assigned to
Athanasius. In the Armenian Liturgy it concludes with the
anathematism. J have not met with any other instance where
this anathematism is retained in the service. But even more
interesting than this is the connection established between the
Creed of the Armenians and the Creed of Epiphanius.

CHAPTER XII.

THE HISTORY OF THE INTERPOLATIONS.

§ 1. Two additions in the Western version of the Creed of Constantinople.
$2. Deum de Deo and Filioque. § 3. The Council of Toledo, 589. Did it
alter the Creed intentionally? § 4. The additions could not be recalled. § 5.
Later Councils of Toledo. §6. Spread to England. Charlemagne’s action.
Tarasius. § 7. Synod of Frankfort, 794. Of Friuli, 796. Paulinus knew
that the addition had been made since 381. ὃ8 8, Monks of Mount Olivet.
$9. Leo’s conduct. Council of Aix, 809. § 10. Charles and Leo equally
determined. Addition accepted, 1014. 811. Council of Ferrara (Florence),
1438. §12. Council of Trent.

§1. THERE are two important additions to the Western version
of the Creed of Constantinople to which we must now devote some
attention. At some time or other, the words God of God have
been added in the early part, at another period the words and of
the Son have been introduced into the clause regarding the Pro-
cession of the Holy Spirit. The former was probably added in
error, the accuracy of the scribe having been affected by his
memory of the Nicene Creed: with the latter a longer history is
connected, of which however I need give here only the leading
features. |

§ 2. In regard to the first phrase, I may content myself with
copying a note from Dr Routh’s Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Opus-
cula, 1. p. 426. That learned writer informs us that the words
God of God are not found in any Greek copy of the Creed of
Constantinople nor in the old Latin translations of the Acts of
Chalcedon, nor in the Prisca Canonum translatio (Mansi, v1. 1125):
nor in the translation by Dionysius Exiguus (which also omits
Light of Light), nor in the Gelasian Sacramentary. It is found
in the collections of Isidorus Mercator, in the Council of Toledo (of
which we must speak ere long), and in the Creed which Etherius
and Beatus quoted in their work against Elipandus (of which also

CHAP. XII.] HISTORY OF THE INTERPOLATIONS. 145

I must speak below). These data seem to warrant the conjecture
that the words proceeded from a Spanish source’.

§ 3. In the year 589’, a synod was held at Toledo; it is called
_ the third Council of Toledo. It was attended by 68 Spanish
Bishops. (This was shortly before Gregory the Great became Pope.)
The synod was convened by Reccared, the king of the Goths, who
addressed the assembly in a speech preserved in the “Concilia.”
In this address—to which we must recur again—Reccared intro-
duced the latter part of the “Definition of Chalcedon,” commencing
from the Creed of Nicaea and concluding with the condemnation
of those who should introduce another symbol or another faith
(aliud symbolum, aliam fidem). He then subscribed the address,
“I king Reccared have subscribed this holy faith and this true con-
fession which alone the Catholic Church through the whole globe
professes.” His wife followed, and ten Bishops uttered their
acclamations and thanks in the way to which we have become
accustomed. ‘They then in synod framed twenty-three anathemas,
of which the third was this: “Whosoever does not believe or
has not believed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father
and the Son, and does not say that He is coequal and coeternal
with the Father and the Son, let him be anathema.” These were
followed by the Creeds, to which eight bishops and a few laymen
subscribed: and some Canons were subsequently enacted. The
Nicene Creed which they followed was the true Creed, not the
copy in the Definition of Chalcedon: and, as the translation is not
identical with that of Hilary of Poictiers or any other of those
given by Dr Hahn, it seems that it must have been a local or
independent rendering from the Greek. This throws more interest
on the fact that in the Creed of Constantinople we find that the
words Deum ex Deo and et Filio were introduced; were they in-
troduced intentionally or in error?

We have seen that the Council of Chalcedon set the example
of misrepresenting the Nicene Creed. Looking at this fact and at
the fact that this Synod of Toledo pronounced the anathema to
which I have drawn attention, I have no hesitation in coming to

_ 1 Dr Routh says that they are found the point.

in the translation of the Creed by Hilary ? Mansi, rx. 977. Harduin, ur, 467.
of Poictiers, de Synodis, § 84. But that See Hefele, 11. 46.

Creed is the Nicene proper; and not to

S.C; 10

146 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

the opinion that the words were added intentionally. The circum-
stances are certainly not such as to warrant the conception that
they were added merely by mistake.

§ 4. But however doubtful the origin of these interpolations
may appear to be, the reason for their continuance is obvious.
The same national synod at which this Definition was read and
subscribed, passed the canon to which attention was drawn in
my last chapter: viz.

“ For the reverence of the Faith and to strengthen the minds of men,
it is ordered by the synod, at the advice of Reccared, that in all the
Churches of Spain and Gallicia, following the form of the Oriental
Churches, the Symbol of the Faith of the Council of Constantinople,
that is of the one hundred and fifty bishops, shall be recited ; so that
before the Lord’s Prayer is said the Creed shall be chanted with a clear
voice by the people ; that testimony may thus be borne to the true faith,
and that the hearts of the people may come purified by the faith to
taste the Body and Blood of Christ’.”

Thus the Spanish version of the “Nicene Creed” became the
property of the laity: and the natural consequence followed, that
when their attention was drawn to the difference between the
Spanish and Italian versions, these Spanish laymen were unwill-

ing to conform to the Roman rite”.

1 Hence it comes that in the Mozara-
bic Liturgy, the priest recited the Creed
after the prayer of consecration, whilst
he held the consecrated Host in his
hand that it might be seen by the peo-
ple (Daniel, 1. p. 89). The text in the
Liturgy differs from the text in the
‘*Concilia” in the following particulars.
The Liturgy reads Dominum nostrum,
the Council omitting nostrum: the Coun-
cil omitted de celis which the Liturgy in-
serts: both add quein celo et que interra,
words which are not in the true ‘Creed
of Constantinople:” both read de Spi-
ritu sancto ex Maria Virgine: the Coun-
cil read ad dexteram Patris, the Liturgy
ad dexteram dei Patris omnipotentis :
the Council omitted est in inde venturus
est, which the Liturgy inserts: the Li-
turgy adds sanctam as a property of the
Church, and futuri before seculi. It
has credimus at the beginning: but con-
jiteor, expectans at the end. It is clear
therefore that the Creed of the Liturgy
has suffered in the course of transmis-
sion. The Greek word homoousion is re-

tained, and explained as ejusdem cum
Patre substanti@é : crucified is not intro-
duced, nor the thought for us: the words
according to the Scriptures do not occur
in many of the Latin translations, nor
here. Lastly the Liturgy omits in
gloria.

2 In the Paris Library, 12047, is a very
interesting MS., ‘‘The Gellone Sacra-
mentary and Martyrology.” It is con-
sidered to be of the 8th century, i.e.
almost within a hundred years of the
Council of Toledo. Its readings have
not been noticed by Hahn: I learn them
from the Nouveau Traité de Diploma-
tique, 111. p. 82, note 1. They are ‘‘as-
cendit ad celos, sedit (not sedet) ad dex-
teram Patris, et iterum uenturus iudicare
uiuos & mortuos, & spiritum sanctum
dominum & uiuificantem ex patre pro-
cedentem qui cum patre et filio simul
adunatum (for adoratum) & conglorifi-
catum.”? The ordinary but less correct
Latin is adorandum et conglorificandum,
Thus, when the Gellone Sacramentary
was prepared, the interpolation ‘‘and

ΧΗ} HISTORY OF THE INTERPOLATIONS. 147

§ 5. There were other Councils of Toledo in 653 and 681 at
which the Creed was again recited, with the additions, “as we have
received it and as we proclaim it openly in the solemnities of our
mass’.” From this I presume that at the latter dates the Spanish
version had begun to be questioned.

§ 6. From Spain the interpolated Creed spread, and it seems
to have reached England in the year 680. For in that year
there was a synod at Heathfield (see Usher de Symbolis p. 24), and
the words “from the Father and the Son” are pressed in one of
the canons of this synod?. We thus pass on until we come to the
time of Charlemagne, who urged both Hadrian II. and Leo III. to
accept the change. The genuine Creed had been recited and re-
newed at what are called the fifth and sixth general councils
which were held at Constantinople in the years 553 and 681, but
now we come to the seventh council, 1.6. the second Council of
Nicea, held in the year 787. At this gathering Tarasius, Patri-
arch of Constantinople, had delivered a long exposition in which
he professed that he “believed in the Holy Spirit who proceedeth
from the Father by the Son’*;” the papal legates accepted the
words*, but Charlemagne, the then “Defender of the Faith,’ was
not satisfied with them. He wrote to Hadrian to the effect that
Tarasius was wrong, in that whilst reciting his belief he had pro-
fessed not that the “Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father and
the Son” according to the faith of the Nicene Symbol, but that
“He proceedeth from the Father by the Son®.” Hadrian did
not object to the belief of Charles, nor did he write to inform
him that in the true version of the Creed neither phrase, “and
the Son,” nor “by the Son,” occurred: he contented himself with
quoting Athanasius, Hilary, and others to prove that the belief of
Tarasius was not heretical®. Neither of them referred to the Creed
of Athanasius.

§ 7. The motive for Charles’s remonstrance may be learnt

the Son” had not found its way into 4 Ibid. Ὁ. 1145. Harduin, rv. 135.

France. Neither had it when the Gela- 5 Mansi, x11. 760.

sian Sacramentary was written out for 6 In the Latin version of the Creed,

French use. given by Mansi, x11. 729, as having been
1 Harduin, 111. p. 956 and 1718. recited at the seventh council, the add-
2 1 suppose that the MS. has not been ed words arefound. Of course this is an

tampered with. interpolation: but the fact shakes our

* Mansi, xi. 1121. Harduin, rv. 131. confidence in these ‘ Concilia.”

10—2

148 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. GHAR.

from the very brief records that have survived of the Council of
Gentilly, a.p. 767. At this synod, as we learn from Ado of
Vienne, our only authority, there was “a question between the
Greeks and the Romans regarding the Trinity, and Whether the
Spirit as He proceeds from the Father, so proceeds from the
Son: as also regarding the figures of the Saints, Whether they
are to be fixed or painted in the churches?” So the great warrior
statesman and theologian had already been excited on the subject,
and he now called for a council at Frankfort, to consider the papal
answer. The council met in the year 794, and drew together
(it is said) 300 bishops of Charles’s dominions, Spaniards, French,
and Germans: some came even from Britain. They declared their
belief that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son’.
Of more importance, in the literary point of view, is the
Council of Friuh (Forum Julu), which met under Paulinus, Patri-
arch of Aquileia, in the year 796°. The subject of the Creed
came again under discussion, and the interpolated form was
adopted without much hesitation in the province of Aquileia.
Paulinus gives an account of the addition :

“ Just as (he writes) the one hundred and ‘fifty Fathers who met at
Constantinople did, by way of exposition, supplement the meaning of
the three hundred and eighteen, and confess that they believed in the
Holy Spirit the Lord and Giver of life, so afterwards, because of those
heretics who whispered about that the Holy Spirit is of the Father alone,
the words were added Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son.
Yet they are not to be blamed who effected this, as if they had added or
diminished aught in the Creed of the 318-—for they held no opinions
different from theirs—they sought only to fill up the meaning which in
other respects they left untouched*.”

§ 8. At this council the Creed of Toledo was adopted’, and
then other complications followed. Some monks of a Frank
convent on Mount Olivet complained to Leo III. (who succeeded
Hadrian, December 795) that they had been accused of heresy and
partially excluded from the Church of the Nativity on Christmas
Day, because they held that the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the
Father and the Son. Nay, they were accused that in reciting the

1 Mansi, xu. 677. Harduin, 11. 2011. 4 Mansi, x11. 856. It seems hard to
2 Mansi, x11. 905. be called upon to believe that the Qui-
3 Mansi, x111. 827, gives the date 791, | cunque was regarded as authoritative at
but it seems to be now generally thought this time. Harduin, tv. 850.
it was held five years later. 5 Mansi, x11. 842.

149

Symbol they said more than the Romans did: they said Who
proceedeth from the Father and the Son. But yet one of their
number had so heard it sung in the West, in the chapel of the
Emperor. What were they to do*?

A translation of this letter—sufficiently accurate for ordinary
purposes, although not satisfactory to the theologian—is given
in Dr Neale’s Introduction to the History of the Eastern Church’.
Other questions were involved besides the interpolation of the
Creed. The Greeks were jealous of the growing power of Rome;
the previous century had been that of its greatest early en-
croachments ; and the monks of Olivet soon recognised that this
attack by the Greeks upon them covered an attack upon the
Pope. The letter also shews that some interesting points of
difference had been noticed between the Greek and Latin Rituals.
In the Gloria in Eacelsis the Greeks did not say “Thou only art
most High.” They said the Pater Noster in a different way—
adding the doxology. In the Gloria Patri they omitted “as it
was in the beginning.” Further interest in the letter is excited
by this, viz. that the Latin monks averred that “the Faith of
Athanasius” spake in the same manner as their version of the
Symbol of the Faith. The monks begged the Holy Father to
enquire, as well in Greek as in Latin, concerning the Fathers who
composed the Symbol, as to the clause where it is said Who pro-
ceedeth from the Father and the Son: for in Greek they said not
this, but they said Who proceedeth from the Father. They urged
that the clause is weighty, and added, “ Vouchsafe to send word to
the Lord Charles that we have heard as we have said in his
chapel.”

XI. | HISTORY OF THE INTERPOLATIONS.

§ 9. Leo had adopted the belief of the West, but he objected
to the alteration in the Symbol. Notwithstanding his obligations
to Charles, he was firm here. The question was becoming im-
portant: and Charles summoned his bishops to meet him at
Aix-la-Chapelle*® in 809, and from this synod two prelates were

1 The letter was brought to light by
Baluzius, and was published by him in
his Miscellanea, Lib. vit. p. 14 (or Vol.
1. p. 84 of Mansi’s edition). It is quoted
by Binterim, p. 358, and by Mr Ffoulkes,
Christendom’s Divisions, τι. 71, and On
the Athanasian Creed, p. 154. Binterim,
who seems to have been anxious to pass

over the difficulty as to the Filioque,
considered that the passage shewed that
the Roman Chureh still used the Nicene
Creed proper. It leaves me with the
impression that the Roman Church only
used the Roman Symbol.

2 Pages 1155—1158.

3 Eginhard in Migne, crv. p. 472.

150 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. | [ CHAP.

despatched to Rome to discuss the subject with the Pope. The
one was Bernhard, Bishop of Worms: the other Adelard, Abbot
of Corbey. An account of the interview is given in the Councils,
drawn up, it is said, by Smaragdus, Abbot of St Michael in
Lorraine—and the account was deservedly regarded by Dr Neale
as one of the most curious documents of medieval history. It
occupies about four columns in the folios: a brief summary
is given by Dr Neale’. So far as we are at present concerned,
I must be content with stating that the Pope recommended that
the singing of the Creed should be abolished in Germany, as
it was not sung at Rome; for thus the objectionable addition
would drop out of knowledge, and the illicit custom of singing
it would be abolished.

Martene? and Binterim® consider that the Pope wished that
the Creed should be said—not sung—and without the words; but
to me it seems that such a direction would not produce the effect
desired. This could be gained only by the omission of the Creed
entirely from the Mass. And I am strengthened in my opinion
that this was the object of the Pope, by the evidence that the
more frequent use of the Creed in the Churches of Germany had
been only of recent introduction: it was due, as we have seen, to
the energy of the Emperor after the deposition of Felix and
Elipandus.

The message of the Pope was followed by a council held at
Rome in the year 810, which protested against the addition*.

810. But neither the advice of Leo nor the protest of the
council produced the desired effect on Charles. Neither Pope
nor Emperor would give way. The latter died in 814, the Creed
as he desired it being still sung in his chapel, and, no doubt,
recited in the churches of his dominions. The former suspended
in the Basilica of St Peter two silver shields or tablets, “ each
weighing one hundred pounds;” on these was engraved in Greek
and in Latin, in its genuine form, the “Creed of the Council of
Constantinople.” The shields were subsequently moved to the
shrine of St Paul, and were seen there by Damianus in the
eleventh century’. The successors of Charlemagne were as obsti-

1 Ut supra, p. 1163. Harduin, rv. 969. 4 Hefele, Concilien-Geschichte, Ul.
2 Ut supra, p. 138. 702.
3 Do. p. 357. 5 Damianus, xxxvi., de Process. S.S.

XI | HISTORY OF THE INTERPOLATIONS. lol

nate as their ancestor, whilst in the Church of Rome, Leo IV.
and Benedict III. (both between 847 and 858) directed that the
Creed should be recited in Greek, to maintain its genuine cha-
racter. But the Spanish form was still spreading. It was of no
avail that John VIII. condemned the addition in 879": or that in
the spring of the succeeding year his legate approved the act of
the Synod of Constantinople, which reaffirmed the Creeds of the
318 and the 150, and rejected all interpolations®. For already in
868 we find from Aineas of. Paris* that the “whole Gallican
Church chanted the Creed at the Mass every Sunday,” of course
with the interpolations. And Walfrid Strabo has told us that the
same custom had spread wider and wider in the Churches of
Germany® At length the Teutonic Churches overcame the
Church of Rome, and, as we have seen, the Emperor Henry
persuaded Benedict VIII. to use the Creed at the Mass, and he
must have used it in the Spanish or German form. For about
the same year, 1014, the oath taken by the Pope upon his election
appears to have been altered®, Up to that time each Pope had
sworn to preserve unmutilated the decrees of the first five Coun-
cils, and the sixth as well: but in the eleventh century the oath
was altered, and thus, in all the Churches of the West, the

addition was accepted’.

8.11.

(from Mr Ffoulkes, Athanasian Creed, p.
ΤΟΊΝ ον
1 Photius, de Spiritus mystagog.
Migne, Greek series, 102, p. 395 (see
above, p. 140).

2 Labbe, rx. 235 (as above). Ffoulkes,
Christend. Divis. 11. 74, 399, 413.

3 Mosheim, 1. 150 (ed. Stubbs).

4 Apud Dacher. Spicil. Tom.. 1. cap.
Seu, 113.

ὅ De Rebus Eccles., cap. xxii. (Martene,
p. 138, Binterim, tv. p. 3, § 9).

6 δὴν Mr Ffoulkes, Church’sCreed, &c.,

7 The following passage from Berno
of Reichenau, which gives the account of
the change of ritual at Rome,. is inter-
esting (De quibusdam rebus ad Missam
spectantibus,.c. 2): “If we are forbidden to
sing the angelic hymn (Glori@in Excelsis)
on festivals on the ground that the pres-
byters of the Romans.are unaccustomed
to sing it, we may just as well cease to
repeat the Symbol after the gospel on

I cannot follow out the later history of the Credo in

the ground that the Romans never sang
it even up to the present times, of the
Emperor Henry. When they were ask-
ed by him Why they did so, I heard
them (I was standing by) return answer
to this effect: viz. that the Roman
Church had never been infected even
with the dregs of any heresy, but after
the teaching of St Peter had remained
unshaken in the firmness of the Catholic
faith, and therefore it was more neces-
sary that that Symbol should be fre-
quently chanted by those who might
possibly become stained with heresy.
But the lord Emperor did not cease
to press until, with the consent of all, he
obtained that they should chant it at
the public mass. But whether they keep
up the custom now, we cannot say, be-
cause we have no certain information.”

It would appear from this that all the
early psalters which contain the Gloria
in Excelsis must have been prepared
north of the Alps.

152 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [CHAP. XII.

wnum Deum, because it would involve the history of the con-
troversy on the Double Procession. Suffice it to say that when
Eugene IV. in 1438 had opened the Council of Ferrara and
excommunicated the Fathers assembled at Basle, the first sub-
ject that came before him was’the projected union between the
Greeks and the Latins. The Greeks, reduced to extremities by
the Turks, were in hopes that the causes of their dissensions with
the West might be removed, and that they might gain assistance
in their distress. The council was removed to Florence in 1439,
and to this, no doubt, we owe the fact that many of the docu-
ments to which I shall refer are found in the libraries of
that city. Bessarion was gained over to the Latin side, and
exerted his influence to induce his brethren to acknowledge,
amongst other things, that the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the
Father and the Son. But Mark of Ephesus was not to be won,
either by entreaties, or bribes, or threats. The project resulted
in greater anger, and a greater severance. The Latins allowed
the second Rome, the city of that Constantine from whom they
claim to have received the great Donation, to fall into the hands
of the Turks. The city was taken and the Greek empire over-
thrown in 1453".

§ 12. It was, probably, with an eye to this difference with
the Greek Church, that at the opening session for business of the
Council of Trent, held on Feb. 4, 1546, the Latin Bishops there
assembled put forth in the forefront of their dogmatic statements,
not the Roman Creed, nor the Quicunque Vult, nor any of the
other numerous Rules of Faith with which we have, or shall,
become acquainted—but the SyMBoL OF CONSTANTINOPLE in
its interpolated form. Having resolved to enunciate dogmas
which would anathematize the Lutherans, their first act was to
exclude the Greeks:

“Following the example of the Fathers in the early councils, the
cecumenical and general synod resolves that the Symbol of the Faith
which the Holy Roman Church employs shall be expressed in the words
in which it is recited in all the Churches: I BELIEVE IN ONE Gop, &e.”

1 This is little more than an abbreviation of Mosheim’s short narrative.

CHARTER, ΧΊΤΙ.

EARLY HISTORY OF THE LATIN CREED.

§ 1. Difference between the histories of the Greek and Latin Creeds. The latter
not known at allin the East. The Greek translations modern. ὃ 2. Name
‘‘ Apostles’ Creed.” § 3. Tertullian, Cyprian, Novatian. § 4. Marcellus
of Ancyra. §5. Thoughts on his Creed. ὃ 6. Probable origin.

§ 1. WE may now turn to the consideration of the further
development of the Roman Creed, “that which is commonly called
the Apostles’ Creed.” (Article VIII.) The history of this Symbol
differs essentially from the history of the Creed of Nicea: of that
document we can trace historically the successive steps, from the
copy put out by Eusebius at the Council of the 318, past the
modifications which that copy then underwent; then to the altered
document promulgated at Chalcedon, and, finally, to the version
now received, which was adopted by Reccared in 589. The succes-
sive steps of 105 growth may thus be recognised. Of all the symbols,
this approaches nearest to the character of a “Catholic Creed:”
but, as we have seen, no one form of it is universally received.
The Greek Churches refuse to accept the words God of God and
the words And from the Son, which the Latin Church has made
part of its Symbol.

But the so-called Apostles’ Creed has grown to its present
dimensions almost without observation and in the dark. The
persons or authorities by whom the several additions were inserted
are unknown to us: the document was never discussed by a general
council; in its complete form it has been sanctioned by national
councils only in comparatively recent times: its use is confined to
Churches now or formerly in communion with the great Church
of olden Rome. We are told that at the Council of Florence,
Mark of Ephesus, one of the legates of the Eastern Churches,
declared that this Creed was not used in their services; indeed

154 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

they had it not nor had they seen it before’. The Greek forms
which are found occasionally in print are comparatively modern
translations from the Latin and have no independent authority.
The version published by Usher from a manuscript in the Library
of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, and referred to as of value
by Bishop Pearson in his remarks on the word Almighty, is now
considered to be of the fifteenth century—possibly contemporane-
ous with the Council of Florence. The Greek copy in the MS.
Galba A. xvi. at the British Museum, which was printed also by
Usher, is indeed of the ninth century—but it is incomplete’.

Dr Caspari speaks of two other Greek translations’.

It must be noted too that both the Cambridge manuscript and
the Galba A. XVIII. contain these Greek Creeds in Latin letters.
Thus they cannot have been intended for the use of Greek-
speaking Christians.

§ 2. In regard to the name Apostles’ Creed we may note that
it is only of late years that the title has been confined, even in the
West, to the Symbol now before us. And it seems that no one
gave the title to the Western germ of the document, before the
beginning of the fifth century. Before that time this designation
Apostolic was more freely used. Thus the canon of Irenzeus was
called Apostolic: the Constitutions are Apostolic, and speak of the
Explanation of the Apostolic preaching: Lucian mentions the
Evangelical and Apostolical Tradition: Cyprian, the “Pradicatio
Apostolica.”

Usher adduces proofs that the Nicene Creed was, at times,
designated as the Apostolic Creed: and I have mentioned already
that in one of the manuscripts at St Gall referred to by Dr
Caspari both the Nicene and the Roman Creeds are designated as
“Symbolum Apostolorum*”” Thus when we meet with this title
in the first ten centuries, we must be cautious not to assume that
the Symbol meant is that to which we now confine the name.

The C. C. C. Creed

1 ἡμεῖς οὔτε ἔχομεν οὔτε εἴδομεν τὸ σύμ-
βολον τῶν ἀποστόλων. Vera historia
unionis non vere inter Grecos et Latinos
per Sylvestrem Guropulum (or Sgyropu-
lum), sec. vi. cap. vi. p. 150. The pas-
sage is quoted by Waterland, On the
Athanasian Creed, chap. vi. near the
end: and by Nicolas, Le Symbole des
Apéotres, p. 270.

3 See Dr Heurtley, Harmonia Sym-

bolica, pp. 74—80.
is given pp. 81—83. This latter copy is
found in what is called ‘‘ Pope Gregory’s
Psalter:” a title which, whatever its
origin, has proved to be very misleading.

3 See Ungedruckte Quellen, τ. Ὁ. vill.
and 237.

4 The “*Symbolum Apostolorum”’ of
Ambrose is undoubtedly the old Roman
form, as the context shews. See below.

ΧΙ} EARLY HISTORY OF THE LATIN CREED. ἘΠῚ

I shall refer freely to Dr Heurtley’s and Dr Hahn’s collections
of Creeds, as diminishing the necessity for any lengthened disserta-
tion on my part. The former is particularly valuable. It has
been supplemented by the series of essays published by Dr C. P.
Caspari, Professor of Theology in the Norwegian University, to
which I have already referred’.

§ 3. Dr Heurtley traces the growth of the Western Creed
through Tertullian and Cyprian to Novatian, z.e. to the year 260°.
Then we have to leap over about eighty years, and we meet with a
curious and puzzling narrative.

§ 4. Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, had been pre-
sent at the Council of Nicza, and claimed for himself the credit
of there procuring the condemnation of some who had wandered
from the true faith. Of these some in return accused him of
error, retaliating his charge on them. They accused him of
Sabellianism: and it would seem that whatever were his own
views, “which (says Epiphanius) were known to God alone,”
a few at least of his disciples denied the three Hypostases, as being
irreconcilable with the truth of the One Deity, one Doxology.
Epiphanius, who seems to think that Marcellus was innocent of the
charges brought against him, inserts in his account’ a letter which
Marcellus wrote to “his fellow minister Julius,” to whom he had
come in his distress and before whom he laid his views. Whether
the letter was written in Latin or Greek we are not informed; of
course the version that remains of it in the work of Epiphanius
is Greek.

He had stayed (he says) at Rome for a year and a quarter, hoping
that his accusers would have the courage to meet him there: he was
now leaving, and before he left he was anxious to deliver in writing,
penned with his own hand, and with all truth, his faith which he had
learned and had been taught from the Holy Scriptures, From it Julius
might discover with what artifices his opponents strove to conceal and
pervert the truth. He hurls on his accusers the charge of Arianism :
he avers that they deny that the Word of God is truly His Word: he
declares that they come within the anathematism of the Nicene Faith:
they use language which renders them, as he has believed, alien from

1 Page 5, where I have mentioned in making further collections.
that Dr Caspari (to whom I had the 2 See Chapter Iv. above.
honour of being introduced at the Am- 3 Epiphanius, Against Heresies, § 52
brosian Library in 1872) is now engaged (otherwise ὃ 72).

156 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

the Catholic Church. But, following the Holy Scriptures, he believes
that there is one God; and that His only-begotten Son, the Word, is
always consubsisting with the Father, having had no beginning of being,
but truly being of the Father, not created, not made, but ever being,
ever reigning with God the Father, of Whose kingdom according to the
testimony of the Apostle there shall be no end.......... It is He Who in
these last days came down for our salvation, and being born of the
Virgin Mary, τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἔλαβε, took man.

‘“‘T believe therefore in God Almighty and in Christ Jesus, His only
begotten Son our Lord, Who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin
Mary, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and was buried ; and on the
third day He rose again from the dead, ascended into the heavens, and
sitteth on the right hand of the Father, from whence He is coming to
judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost, the Holy
Church, Forgiveness of sins, Resurrection of the flesh, Eternal life. We
have learned from the Holy Scriptures that the Godhead of the Father
and the Son is indivisible. For if anyone separates the Son, that is the
Word of Almighty God, it is necessary that he must either conceive
that there are two Gods—which is alien from the divine teaching—or
must confess that the Word is not God—which also appears to be alien
from the right faith, inasmuch as the evangelist says the Word was God.
But I bave learned accurately that the power of God the Son is
inseparable and indivisible [from God]. For the Saviour, the Lord
Jesus Christ, Himself says Zhe Father is in Me and 7 in the “ather:
and I and the Father are one, and He that hath seen Me hath seen the
Father. This faith then, having received from the Holy Scriptures and
having been taught it by my predecessors in God, I both preach in the
Church of God and now have sent in writing to you, retaining the copy
of it by me. And I beg you to insert a copy of it in your letter to the
Bishops, in order that of those who do not know me well, none may be
deceived by listening to that which has been written against me. Fare-
well.”

§ 5. LI have given at length the contents of this remarkable
letter—remarkable as containing a copy of the Creed which with
two exceptions—the omission of the word Father at the com-
mencement, and the addition of the clause Life eternal at the
end—is identical with that which Ruffinus fifty years later
described as the Symbol of the Roman Church. Yet Marcellus
does not so describe it. Whence did he receive it? How did
he elaborate it ?

Dr Heurtley thinks that this was, at the time, the Creed of the
Church of Rome: Mr Ffoulkes seems to consider that it may have
been picked up from the Church of Aquileia, when Marcellus
passed through that city. Neither suggestion seems to me to
satisfy the requirements of the problem: the words Life eternal
were neither in the Creed of Aquileia nor in the Creed of Rome

XIlI.] EARLY HISTORY OF THE LATIN CREED. 157

in 390. In the Creeds north of the Alps, years, indeed centu-
ries, elapsed before these two words gained admission.

And the circumstances of this document shew that it was com-
posed before the Council of Sardica:—7.e. before the Creed of
Niceea was received in the West.

On comparing this Creed of Marcellus with the fullest of the
earlier known Western Symbola (as distinct from Irenzeus’ Rule of
Faith) we note only the following additions:

The epithet Only-begotten ;

The Conception and birth of the Spirit and the Virgin.

The substance of all the other clauses, apart from their group-
ing, is contained in the Rules of Tertullian or of Cyprian. These
two additions bear an Eastern aspect; the one being in the
Enusebian and Nicene Creeds, the other in the ἘΠΕῚ of Epi-
phanius.

§ 6. Looking at all these circumstances, I am led to the
conclusion that this document is really a composition (I use the
word carefully, σύνθεμα) by Marcellus: that he brought his oriental
knowledge to bear on the Western modes of thought, and arranged
the floating beliefs of the West, the chief contents of their various
Rules of Faith, after the fashion of the Nicene Creed; and perhaps
the distinct mention of the relations which our Lord bears to the
Father and to the Holy Spirit was introduced to repudiate the
charge of Sabellianism brought against him. The fact that we
ind the profession of Marcellus adopted into the Creeds of
Aquileia and Rome in the time of Ruffinus (391) and into the
_ Creeds of Hippo in the time of Augustine (400), and of Ravenna
in the time of Peter Chrysologus (445), and of Turin in the time
of Maximus (460), causes me no surprise. Intercourse was very
rapid in those days, and Churchmen were as ready, then as now,
to avail themselves of that which seemed best adapted to supply a
void. The great merits of the profession found in this letter of
Marcellus are evinced by the fact that it has survived in the
usage of the present day.

There is however one hypothesis which seems to me to be
worthy of great consideration: and, although it is inconsistent
with the opinion which I have been led to adopt, I am of course
bound to mention it. It is this: that the document which Mar-
cellus incorporated into his letter was the Symbol of the Roman

158 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [CHAP. XII.

Church, but he abstained from describing it as such, for, if he had
done so, it would have ceased to be a Watch-Word. The sug-
gestion is somewhat refined, but it deserves consideration. The
secresy which prevailed in the fourth and fifth centuries regarding
the Creed is well known; the lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem con-
tain an instructive memorandum, that no one is to permit a copy
of the lectures to become public property. Augustine says, again
and again, that his hearers, the competentes, are to write what they
receive from him on the tables of the heart, not with ink on paper
or on parchment. Hence small variations in different Churches
were unavoidable. “ Ruffinus” states that the reasons why, in the
Roman Creed, nothing had been added to the words “I believe
in God the Father Almighty” were these: i. No heresy had
arisen at Rome: ii. The custom was there retained, that they who
were to receive the grace of baptism recited the Symbol in the
hearing of the faithful, and thus the difficulty was great of making
additions to the older form. But the problem in regard to this
letter from Marcellus is a curious one, and ought not to be slurred
over. I think Marcellus was its author.

CHAPTER. XIV.

LATER HISTORY OF THE LATIN CREED.

St. Commentary of “ Ruffinus.” §2. Standard Creed of the Roman Church at
the time of ‘‘ Ruffinus.” § 3. Comparison of various Creeds. i. Augustine’s
African. ii. Rome, Ravenna, Turin. iii. English. iv. Aquileian. v.
Pseudo-Augustine. vi. Facundus of Hermiane. vii. Poictiers. viii. Verona.
ix. Faustus of Riez in the province of Arles. x. Spanish Creed. xi. Moz-

' arabic Liturgy. xii. Gallican Sacramentary (Symbolum Traditum and com-
mentary). xiii. Book of Deer. xiv. Creed of Pirminius. xv. Amalarius and
Alcuin. xvi. Antiphonary of Bangor. §4. Origin of the various clauses.
§ 5. General result, that the completed Creed is Gallican.

§ 1. In the first volume of Mr W. W. Harvey’s Ecclesie
Anglicane Vindex Catholicus, as well as in Dr Heurtley’s volume
De Fide et Symbolo, appears a treatise well worthy of study,
containing a very early and succinct comment on the Creed. It is
more systematic than any of the Tracts or Sermons of St Augus-
tine, and was clearly intended for the instruction of full believers;
not merely for the preparation of competentes for the Holy
Ordinance of Baptism. It hag been often printed, and Mr
Ffoulkes, to whose unwearied researches I am here as well as
elsewhere deeply indebted, informs me that in 1468 it was edited
at Oxford as “the Exposition of St Jerome on the Apostles’
Creed, addressed to Pope Laurentius:” so again at Oxford in
1493. At Rome in 1470 and 1576 it appeared with the letters of
Jerome as an Exposition on the Creed: at Basil in 1519 among
the works of Cyprian: at Paris in 1570 without an author’s
name. Mr Ffoulkes says that few tracts have been attributed
to so many different authors; and on the title, which is prefixed
to the exposition in one, and only one, ancient manuscript—
“Incipit Expositio Symboli sancti Rufini”—he remarks that
Ruffinus was never deemed to be a saint. The general accept-

160 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

ance of its present name seems to be due to the great divines,
Bishop Fell and Bishop Pearson, who, in the Oxford edition of
Cyprian, 1682, altered the title from Expositio Hieronymi to
Expositio Ruffini. It seems, however, certain, that the Exposi-
tion in its present form was “composed”—put together—at
Aquileia. Still we have the difficulty of finding two other Creeds
ascribed to the Church of Aquileia; these are placed by Dr
Heurtley under Nos. ΧΙ]. and XIIt.

§ 2. It will be convenient to give here, as a kind of standard
document, THE CREED OF ROME, as it is said by this author to have
been received there at the time he wrote. It will furnish a
means for comparison. I purposely omit all punctuation.

CreDO IN DEuM PATREM OMNIPOTENTEM

ET IN JESUM CHRISTUM FILIUM EJUS UNICUM’
DoMINUM NOSTRUM

QUI NATUS EST DE SPIRITU SANCTO

EX MariA VIRGINE

CRUCIFIXUS SUB PoNTIO PILATO

ET SEPULTUS

TERTIA DIE RESURREXIT A MORTUIS

ASCENDIT IN COELOS

SEDET AD DEXTERAM PATRIS

INDE VENTURUS EST JUDICARE VIVOS ET MORTUOS
ET IN SPIBITUM SANCTUM

SANCTAM ECCLESIAM

REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM

CARNIS RErSURRECTIONEM

§ 3. Starting from this as a standard, we may compare with
it the various documents which have come down to us, until we
arrive at the present completed form. I shall not notice the
more minute deviations.

i. The basis of the Creed of St Augustine was undoubtedly
the same as this. The great African bishop treated on the
Symbol in several parts of his works and at several periods of his
life. Thus we have it commented upon in the tracts De Fide et
Symbolo (vol. 6), De Genest ad Interam (vol. 2), the Enchiridion
(vol. 6), the Sermon Ad Catechumenos (vol. 6), his sermons CCXII.

1 Ruffinus gives wnicum Filium ejus. the words never occur again in that
I have altered it, because I believe that order.

XIv.]_

and ccxIv. (vol. 5).

LATER HISTORY OF THE LATIN CREED.

161

Unfortunately we are troubled with other

sermons attributed with some uncertainty to the great writer;

such as CCXIII. and CCXxV.
tainly spurious.

There are other three which are cer-
The last five I shall pass over for the present.

In framing St Augustine’s Symbol out of these materials we
have this difficulty. He never gives it at length; he objected to

write it out.

Thus we have to separate the text from the com-

ment, and this it is not always easy to do’.

Comparing then his copies with the copy of Ruffinus I note that in

two of the earlier tracts we have wnigenitum for unicum.
we have natus est per Spiritum sanctum ex Virgine Maria.

In one copy
In five we

have natus est de S. S. et V. M. In three we have passus sub P. P.

erucifixus et sepultus.

On these I shall speak hereafter (note p. 168).

1. We may next take the Creeds of the Churches of Ravenna,

of Turin, and of Rome under Leo the Great.

fifth century.

They are all in the

Ravenna has added vitam eternam, the other two agree with the
Roman Creed as I have given it above.

1. With this agrees very closely a Creed which has escaped
Dr Heurtley’s notice, my introduction to which I owe to Casley’s
account of the Royal Library’. I mean “British Museum, 2 A. Xx.”

It reads qui natus est de S. S. et M. V., and has ad dexteram dei

patris, but dei is marked as a mistake.

It adds Catholicam to the

article on the Church. I am informed by Mr E. Maund Thompson that

it is of the eighth century.
below’.

1 Τὴ his treatise addressed to Pamma-
chius (Vol. 1. p. 435) Jerome uses the
following language, ‘‘In symbolo fidei
et spei nostre, quod ab Apostolis tradi-
tum non scribitur in charta et atra-
mento sed in tabulis cordis carnalibus,
post confessionem Trinitatis et unitatem
ecclesiz omne Christiani dogmatis sacra-
hig es carnis resurrectione concludi-

rh etd

2 Or rather to the Nouveau Traité,
where Casley is quoted.

3 The volume Royan 2 A. xx contains
some sections from the Gospels, the
Lord’s Prayer with a Saxon version,
the Apostles’ Creed, the Letter to Ab-
garus, the Fides Catholica (see below).
The Apostles’ Creed runs thus:

5:6:

I shall give some account of the MS.
With our standard Creed agree very nearly the Creed of the

‘‘Credo in dm patrem
omnipotentem et in ihm xpm filium
elus unicum dnm nrm . qui natus
est de spu sco et maria uirgine.

qui sub pontio pilato crucifixus est
et sepultus . tertia die resurrexit

a mortuis . ascendit in coelos

sedit ad dexteram di patris .

inde uenturus est iudicare uiuos
ac mortuos. et in spm scm scam
ecclesiam catholicam remissioné
peccatorum carnis resurrecti
onem: amen.
in nomine patris et filii et spiis sci.”
(folio 12.)

The title symbol. apés has been in-
serted apparently in two different hands,

162

Codex Laudianus of Oxford (Gr. 35. Laud) of the seventh century (it
omits the Catholicam), and the Greek creed of the Athelstane Psalter,

THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

Galba A. xvi. of the British Museum.

(This, but apparently by an

error of the scribe, omits notice of the Church.)

We have thus considered XL XIV. XV. XIX, χε XXL. XXvE
xxx. of Dr Heurtley’s collection, and that of the Royal MS.

owe eX,

iv. Of the two Creeds of Aquileia of uncertain date,

(Heurtley, x11. x1.) No. xt. agrees with our standard text: ΧΠΙ,
reads resurrexit vivens a mortuis, Catholicam and et vitam eternam.

v. Turning now to the Creeds questionably or falsely attri-

buted to St Augustine, we have

(in Heurtley, xvi. sermo ccxi1. or de tempore 119 tom. 5) the full
modern phrase conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Virgine Maria.
Otherwise it agrees with our standard.

Dr Heurtley’s xvi. (Augustine, sermon ccxv), if we put aside all
dubious readings, agrees with our standard, except that it closes thus:

Vitam cternam per sanctam ecclesiam.

To this must be added Dr

Heurtley xvu., from three sermons, all of which place the Church last.
These have assumptus in calos or celum: they seem to belong to
another class, asswmptus corresponding to ἀναληφθείς.

vi. Very distinct, in two respects, is the Creed of Facundus of

Hermiane in Africa (A.D. 547).

and in the margin the articles have been
partly assigned to the various Apostles.
Thus petrus cred. | cred.iohannes | cred.
philippus | and so on, The Canticles
Magnificat, Benedictus, Benedictus es,
Benedicite follow. Then the hymn Rivos
cruoris, Then prayers to the Trinity
from which (as they are clearly indica-
tions of the spiritual character which was
given by some to the results of the con-
troversies of the period) I will tran-
scribe literatim some extracts.

‘‘In primis obsecro supplex obnixis
prescibus summam et gloriosam majes-
tatem di atque inelytam sce individue-
que trinitatis almitatem ut me miserum
indignumque homunculum ' exaudire
dignetur.”

Then a kind of Litany including
prayer to God the Father: Son of God,
God omnipotent: Holy Spirit, Comforter,
God omnipotent. Then on fol. 18:

‘Scam ergounitatem Trinitatis iterum
atque iterum frequenter flagitans suffra-
gare. patrem et filium et spm scm cui
est una natura et una substantia una

It reads

majestas atque eadem gloria sine fine
manens,”

Then petitions to the Angels and
Saints, Rogo Michaelem (before the Vir-
gin): the hosts are saying

SCS SCS SCS ds Sabaoth
pleni sunt coeli ac terrae gloriae tuae
osanna in excelsis. Benedictus qui venit
in nomine dni. osanna in excelsis.

The invocations are numerous, that
of Saint Mary follows those of the
Apostles.

On folio 68*, we have some Greek in
Saxon letters, eulogumen patera caevo
caeigion pneuma.

On folio 69, is a prayer of (=to) Mary
the mother of our Lord.

On folio 28, we have the following (it
has been referred to above):

+ Fides Catholica.
eredimus in unum dm patrem
omnipotentem et in unum dnm
nrm ihm xpm filium di et in
spm scm dm n tres deos.
Sed patrem et filium et spm scm. unum
dm colimus et confitemur.

XIv.] | LATER HISTORY OF THE LATIN CREED. 163

Credimus tn unum deum P. O. et in unum Dominum J. Οὐ, Filium
ejus.

As Dr Heurtley has noticed, the addition of the wnwm in the two
clauses points to an Eastern influence. (This is No. xxi1. in his collec-
tion’.)

vii. The Creed of Poictiers, as we learn it from the genuine
Venantius Fortunatus, is curious :

It omits dominum nostrum and sepultus, but has (possibly by way of
substitution) descendit ad infernum: and for venturus judicare it reads
judicaturus. (Heurtley, xx111.)

vil. No. xxiv. of Dr Heurtley is taken from the Veronese
manuscript, of which a copy was printed by Blanchini in 1732.
It is taken from an explanation of the Creed, entitled in the
manuscript, “Incipit Sancti Athanasii de Symbolo.” I had the
pleasure of seeing the printed volume at Venice in 1872.

Two pages of the MS. are lost. My memoranda differ from the
account given by Walch as cited by Dr Heurtley thus: I read descendit
ad imferna, and die tertia resurrexit a mortuis. Thus the difference
between this and our standard Creed would consist in the addition of
the clause on the descent into hell, and of the words de vivis et mortuis
and sanctam matrem ecclesiam.

ix. Dr Heurtley, xxv. On this Creed, attributed by Dr Heurtley
to Eusebius Gallus, Dr Caspari has a learned and interesting
dissertation. He accepts Oudin’s conclusion that the author of
the sermons from which the Creed is extracted (which sermons he
prints) was Faustus of Reji or Riez, in the province of Arles,
about 490.

This Creed adopts the Augustinian or pseudo-Augustinian phrase
now usual, conceptus de S. S. natus ex M.V., it omits sub Pontio
Pilato: (Dr H. seems to be in error when he represents it as containing
mortuus): it omits ὦ mortuis: it reads Det patris omnipotentis: it adds
sanctorum communionem, and reads vitam eternam. Thus it makes the
greatest step yet observed, since Marcellus, towards our present text.

x. I now come to the Spanish Symbol. I find it first in the
Creed of Hildefonsus, Archbishop of Toledo, who died in 669%.
He has a Sermon or Tract, De Symbolo, in which he makes
the usual distinction between the Faith and the Symbol: “the

_ | See Mr Ffoulkes, p. 141. The not seems also to be an echo of the same
infrequent punctuation of the MSS. Eastern Creed.
Filium ejus, unicum dominum nostrum 2 Migne, xcvi. p. 126, &c.

11—2

164 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP,

Catholic Faith is in the Symbol.” The Creed is certainly worthy
of being given at length, especially as it has escaped the notice of
Dr Heurtley and Dr Hahn.

Credimus in Deum Patrem Omnipotentem.
Credimus et in Jesum Christum Filium Dei
unicum deum et dominum nostrum

qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto et Maria Virgine
passus sub Pontio Pilato

crucifixus et sepultus

descendit ad inferna

tertia die resurrexit vivus a mortuis
ascendit in coelum

sedet ad dexteram Dei patris omnipotentis
inde venturus judicare vivos et mortuos.
credo in Spiritum Sanctum

sanctam ecclesiam Catholicam

remissionem peccatorum

carnis resurrectionem

et vitam eternam.

On comparing this with the Creed of Etherius and Beatus (given in
Heurtley xxx.) in their treatise against Elipandus’ (a. p, 785) it will be
seen that they correspond exactly, except that in the latter we read
omnium peccatorum. This shews that the Creed of Etherius was not a
private document but the Symbol of the Spanish Church, at least that
of the province of Toledo. So now turning to the Symbol at the
end of the Gallican Sacramentary (Mabillon, Musewm Italicum I., part
2, p. 3967, Heurtley, xxvi1.) we must I think ascribe that Creed also to
a Spanish origin. Its title there is ““Symbolum apostolorum cum magna
cautela collectum et credentibus adsignatum.” We have the same
Deum et dominum nostrum. The varieties natum de M. V. per S. S.:
the omission of a mortuis; the phrases credo in ecclesiam sanctam
(without Catholicam) ; per baptismum sanctum remissionem peccatorum ;
carnis resurrectionem in vitam eternam indicate other influences. The
words deum et dominum nostrum are found again in Beatus and
Ktherius, on pp. 358, 362, 392. On the last-named page the passage
runs thus: credere in Deum P.O. et in Ihm Xpm Filium ejus unicum
deum et dominum nostrum qui natus est de δ. S. ex M. V. et in Spiritum
sanctum, in qua fide baptizati sunt. On the whole we see that the words
Dei patris omnipotentis and ecclesiam Catholicam and the last clause
were spreading in quarters which had not as yet accepted the phraseo-
logy conceptus de Spiritu Sancto, natus ee Maria Virgine.

ΧΙ. The Creed of the Mozarabic Liturgy (Migne, LXxXxv. p. 385)

1 This treatise is in the Bibliotheca 2 Mabillon’s tract is républished in
Patrum, Lugdun. Tom. x11, p. 360. Migne, Lxx11. p. 447, see p. 579.

XIV. | LATER HISTORY OF THE LATIN CREED. 169

is curious, and has escaped notice. It is found in the service for
Palm Sunday :

Credo in deum Patrem omnipotentem : et in Jesum Christum filium
ejus unicum dominum nostrum: natum de Spiritu sancto ex utero
Marie Virginis: passus sub P. P. crucifixus et sepultus: tertia die
resurrexit vivus a mortuis: ascendit in celum: sedet ad dexteram dei
Patris omnipotentis: inde venturus judicaturus vivos et mortuos:
eredo in Sanctum Spiritum: sanctam ecclesiam Catholicam : sanctorum
communionem: remissionem omnium peccatorum: carnis hujus resur-
rectionem et vitam eternam. Amen.

It is impossible to say how far this represents the symbol of the date
of Isidore to whom the Missal is attributed. Comparing it with the
Creed of Etherius and Beatus I note that, like it, it omits creatorem caelt
et terre: but it omits also dewm et: for et Maria Virgine it reads ex
utero M.V: andit omits descendit ad inferna, words which occur both in
Hildefonsus and Etherius: it has vwivus a mortuis, as they both have :
but it adds sanctorum communionem: again like the creed of Etherius it
has omnium peccatorum: and like the Aquileian Creed of Ruffinus and
the Creed in the appendix to Augustine’s works (v. Ser. ccxui1. p. 2978)
it has carnis hujus. On the words ex utero compare Council of Seville,
A.D. 613 (Harduin 111. 563). The use there made of the words increases
the value of this copy. (See note on p. 168 below.)

ΧΙ, We have as yet met with no instance in which the clause
creatorem coli et terre appears. It is found first in the Creed
delivered to the candidates for baptism in the Gallican Sacra-
mentary (Heurtley, XXVIII) *.

The same Creed has Filium ejus unigenitum sempiternum but omits
Dominum nostrum: it has conceptum de S. S., passum, mortuum : fol-
lowing to the close our present version. So runs the Creed. But it is
followed by a commentary clearly of an earlier date: here the words
creatorem coelt et terre, det, sanctorum communionem are omitted.

The words wnigenitum, sempiternum are found also in the first creed
of the Gallican Missal (Heurtley, xxrx.’), dominum nostrum being omitted
in the text: the comment omits also to notice creatorem cali et terre,
and descendit ad inferna. The second Creed* omits the descent into
hell, and reads ‘He went up Victor into heaven.” Otherwise it resem-

νι the Creed of the present day. The greater part of the comment is
ost. ; |

xiii. We have approached very nearly to the Creed of modern
times. JI must, however, mention that the Book or DrEER, a
Scotch book of the ninth century, omits mortuus, and reads carnis
resurrectionis vitam eternam. Of this below’.

1 Migne, Lxxir. Ὁ. 489. 4 The ‘“ Boox or DEER” (Cambridge

> Migne, ut sup. p. 349, University Library, li. 6. 832: see fac-
3 Ibid. p. 356. simile reprint in the Spaupina Οὐ

166 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

- xiv. We have come at last to the first dated instance of a
Creed complete as in the present day. It occurs in a treatise by
one Pirminius, a Benedictine, who laboured much in France and
Germany, in the eighth century, dying about the year 758’.
The next instance of a completed Creed that I know of is in the
interesting Gellone Codex of the Paris Library (see Martene,
Vol. 1. p. 87 of the edition of 1783, Lib. 1. cap. i. Art. xii. ordo 11).
Dr Heurtley has noticed an identity also in the interrogative
Creed of the same Codex’ (Martene, Vol. 1. p. 67, Lib. 1. cap. 1.
Art. xviii. ordo vi). This manuscript is assigned to the very end
of the eighth century, say 790. Older versions of the Symbol
were still retained, as we see by the Latin of the Book of Deer,
and the Greek of Galba A. xvii, but the spread in the ninth
century of Psalters, from the writing schools of Charlemagne,
speedily carried this Gallican version of the Creed throughout
the world.

It is interesting to notice that we have now connected this
completed version with a French or German original.

xv. Yet still the completed copy was not accepted even
throughout France in the early part of the ninth century. We
have an exposition of the Symbol by Amalarius, im reply to
Charlemagne, from which we infer that the clauses Conceptwm de
Spiritu Sancto, and Vitam eternam were not in his copy of the
Creed*. And Alcuin had read De Spiritu Sancto et de M. V.,
as we learn from his work on the Trinity’.

collections, A.D. 1869) has a copy of the
Creed on the last folio 85, after the end
of the Gospel of St. John. It reads
thus:

Credo in dm patrem omnipoten
tem . creatorem celi et terre

Et in ihm xpm filium ejus. unici
dnm nrm. qui conceptus— de spii sco...

Natus ex maria uirgine . passus
sub pontio pylato . crucifixus
et sepultus . discendit ad inferna.

Tertia die resurrexit a mortuis.
ascendit in celum . sedit ad dexte
ram di patris omnipotentis...

Inde uenturus~iudicare uiuos et
mortuos. credo et in spm scm scamgq;
eclisiam catholicam . scorum com
munionem . remissionem peccator.

Carnis resurrectionis uitam eter

nam amen...

Two points are especially interesting:
the punctuation connects wnicum with
the following words dominum nostrum
as they are connected in some of
Augustine’s (or others’) sermons. (Dr
Heurtley unfortunately has not attended
to the old punctuation.) The other is
the reading in the last line, carnis resur-
rectionis vitam eternam. I have only
found one MS. with this reading: that
is the Codex Laudianus Gr. 35 of the
Bodleian, where the folio ends carnis
resurrectionis, aS will be seen in Dr
Heurtley’s facsimile, and not carnis re-
surrectione aS in Dr Heurtley’s text
(p. 63, compare p. 64). The fact that
two MSS. present this curious read-
ing must be remembered.

1 Heurtley, xxxz. ? Ebid. {01. note.

3 Migne, xcix. p. 896.

4 Migne, cr. p. 58.

XIV.]| LATER HISTORY OF THE LATIN CREED. 167

xvi. One nation remains. In the celebrated “ Antiphonary of
Bangor” (Bangor in the province of Ulster), which is one of the
treasures of the Library at Milan, we have on folio 19 the fol-
lowing’:

Incipit symmulum. Credo in deum Patrem omnipotentem invisibilem
omnium creaturarum visibilium et invisibilium conditorem. Credo et
in Jesum Christum Filium eius unicum dominum nostrum deum
omnipotentem conceptum de Spiritu sancto, natum de Maria Virgine
passum sub Pontio Pylato qui crucifixus et sepultus descendit ad inferos
tertia die resurrexit a mortuis ascendit in coelis seditque ad dexteram
Dei patris omnipotentis exinde venturum judicare vivos et mortuos.
credo et in spiritum sanctum deum omnipotentem unam habentem
substantiam cum patre et filio sanctam esse ecclesiam catholicam
abremissa peccatorum sanctorum communionem carnis resurrectionem
credo vitam post mortem et vitam aeternam in gloriam Christi. haec
omnia credo in deum. amen.

The MS. is most deeply interesting and I believe has been entirely
transcribed for “the Irish Archeological and Celtic Society,” amongst
whose publications and under the care of the learned Dr Reeves it is to
be shortly produced. Dr Caspari has devoted an essay to this copy of
the creed in the second part of his work, but he seems to have followed
the ever untrustworthy accounts of Muratori. I must confess however
that my own collation was taken somewhat hastily. [emissa pecca-
torum occurs in Tertullian against Marcion iv. 18 and Cyprian, Ep. 59,
70, 73. Cyprian again is quoted in Augustine de Baptismo tv. 18 tom.
Ix. ὁ. 233. Abremissa or abremissam may be an intensification of the
similar word. See below. Perhaps in gloriam Christi is a mistake of
Muratori’s for in gloria Christi. |

This early Irish Creed has interesting points of resemblance with the
Nicene and African and Antiochene formule. I will recapitulate these
points, and leave the further consideration to my readers.

invisibilem, asin the Aquileian creed of Ruffinus :

omnium creaturarum visibilium et invisibilium conditorem, as in the
Nicene Creed, and Cassian’s Creed of Antioch.

Deum omnipotentem of the Saviour is unique.

conceptum de S. S. natum ex M. V., with the Augustinian (?)
sermon ccx1iI. and Faustus of Riez.

mortuus is omitted.

descendit ad inferos, not ad inferna (see below).

We have Dei Patris Omnipotentis, and sanctorum communionem, as
in Faustus.

Deum omnipotentem of the Holy Spirit is also unique, as is the
unam habentem substantiam cum Patre et Filio.

The phrase abremissa peccatorwm is peculiar both in language and
position,

1 T have expanded all the contractions. A copy is in Migne, uxxu. p. 597.

168 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

The Creed has another interest, as throwing some additional
light on the origin of the Church in Ireland.

§ 4. Turning now to the various important readings in suc-
cession, we can have no doubt, I think, that the words Creator of
heaven and earth came into the Western Creed from the Nicene
Symbol, through the Creeds of the Gallican Sacramentary and
the Gallican Missal (Heurtley, XXVIII. XXIX. xxx). The phrase
‘was not in the Spanish Creeds, even in the time of Charlemagne,

though it was of course in the Frank Creed of Pirminius.

The accepted words owr Lord, instead of the words our God
and Lord, carry us away also from the Spanish Creeds.

The exact phrase, conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the
Virgin Mary, appears first in the Creed assigned to Augustine

(Heurtley, xvi.) :

then in that of Faustus of Riez: (it is not in

the Spanish Creeds): then in the Creeds of the Gallican Sacra-
mentary and Missal: then in Pirminius’.

1 The oscillation between these dif-
ferent modes of representing this part
of the Creed is to be attributed to two
causes :

i. The difficulty of representing in
Latin the Greek word γεννηθέντα. The
verb is used in St Luke i. 13, Eliza-
beth thy wife shall bear thee a son. It
is also the verb used throughout the early
part of the first chapter of St Matthew.
Thus the natus de S.S. was insufficient:
indeed the phrase might be deemed in
a moderate degree Nestorian: and so
the words conceptus de S.S. natus ex
M.V. bore acharacter about them which
ensured for them the final victory. ὁ

ii. Another cause is suggested by M.
Nicolas. He says truly that before the
time of Saint Augustine the phrase now
received was unknown: it was adopted
by his imitators, to whom we owe the
Sermons 115, 131, and 195 de tempore.
The older words might be quoted as
suggesting that the Holy Spirit was the
Father of the Saviour, as the Virgin was
His mother: Augustine saw the difficulty
and endeavoured to avoid it. ‘‘If we
use the words born of the Holy Ghost
and the Virgin Mary (he said Enchiri-
dion, § 12, Vol. vr. col. 367) it is difficult
to explain how He is the Son of the
Virgin Mary and not the Son of the
Holy Spirit.” Thus the first alteration
was from Natus de Spiritu Sancto et
Maria Virgine, to Natus de Spiritu

Sancto ex Maria Virgine. But this was
insufficient. Natus per S.S. ex M.V.
was better. Then another difficulty
arose. The Manicheans mocked the ex-
pression. Augustine was driven to put
more prominently forward the part of
the Holy Spirit in the conception, and
to make the part of the Virgin more
passive: hence the phrase conceptus de,
conceived of the Holy Ghost, natus ex,
born from the Virgin Mary. At the
Synod of Seville, a.p. 613 (Harduin, Vol.
111. p. 563), there was a long actio on
the two natures of Christ in the one
Person, against those who confuse the
natures, and hold that in Him the
Deity was passible. The bishops re-
ferred to Scripture largely, and then say
‘‘Again in the very beginning of the
apostolic symbol the distinction of the
natures in one and the same Christ
is thus shewn: of the Deity from the
Father when it says, I believe in God
the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ
His only Son our Lord: of the Humani-
ty from the Mother when it says, born
of the Holy Spirit from the womb of
the Virgin Mary.” After a while the
bishops quote the Fathers largely: St
Hilary, St Ambrose, St Athanasius “in
the tract which he wrote on the Nativity
of Christ...The same in his Exposition
of the Faith,” but this is not the Qui-
cunque, of the existence of which there
is not a hint given. Yet it would have

XIV. |

eLATER HISTORY OF THE LATIN CREED.

109

Mortuum occurs for the first time, undoubtedly, in the Gallican

books.

It is not in the Spanish, English, Scotch, or Irish Creeds.

He descended into hell (descendit ad inferna) was in the Aqui-
leian Creed of Ruffinus, but not in the other Aquileian Creeds:
then it appeared in the French Creed of Venantius Fortunatus
(ad infernum): in the Veronese explanation of the Pseudo-
Athanasius (in inferna): but not in Faustus nor in the English
Creeds: it was in the Spanish Creeds and then in the Gallican

books’.

furnished, if it had been known to the
Spanish bishops, very valuable corrobo-
ration. The words so far as they are
quoted agree entirely with the Creed of

- the Mozarabic Liturgy. (The Greek did

not present the same difficulty: the
phrase γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου 18
taken from St Matt. i. 20, and there is a
difference between πνεῦμα ἅγιον and τὸ
ἅγιον πνεῦμα Or τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. The
latter expression must refer to the Holy
Spirit personally: the former not neces-
sarily : it may refer to His effusion, His
operation, His work, thus πνεῦμα ἅγιον
ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ: πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἣν ἐπ᾽
αὐτόν : οὔπω ἣν πνεῦμα ἅγιον: ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ
εἰ πνεῦμα ἁγιόν ἐστιν ἠκούσαμεν. So λά-
Bere πνεῦμα ἅγιον. On this see Hooker,
E. P., v. \xxvii. 5. The distinction is
difficult to convey into other languages
without a periphrasis. I have drawn
attention to the mode in which the
Chalcedon or Constantinopolitan words
are ere altered in our ‘‘ Nicene Creed.”’)

1 We cannot enter into the meaning
of these different expressions without
looking to the earlier and later concep-
tions of the meaning of Psalm xxx. 3
(xxix. 4). The account of the words
given by Ruffinus is this: ‘‘The same
meaning seems to be contained in the
word sepultus.”—‘*‘ But that He descend-
ed into infernum is evidently taught in
the Psalms when we read, Thou hast
brought me into the dust of death, and
again, What profit is in my blood when I
shall descend to corruption? And again,
I descended into the mud of the deep and
there is no substance. But John too
says, Art thow he that is to come (into
infernum no doubt) or do we expect
another? Whence also Peter says, Be-
cause Christ, being mortified in the
flesh, vivified in the Spirit which dwells
in Him, descended to preach to those
spirits which are detained in prison,
which were unbelieving in the days of
Noah: a passage in which it is also de-

clared what work He performed there.
Yea the Lord Himself speaks by the
prophet as of something future, Thou
wilt not leave my soul in inferno nor wilt
thou give thy Holy One to see corruption.
And again, the prophet exhibits this as
completed when he says, Lord, thou hast
brought out my soul from infernum, thou
hast saved me from them that go down to
the pit.” HKvery one remembers the ex-
pression of St Augustine in his tract on
this subject.

Let us now look to the change of
language. In infernum clearly means
into infernum, just as ad inferna or ad
infernum means to, i.e. to the gates of
infernum. Thus at first it was regarded
that the sentence of the Aquileian Creed
meant He was buried: for Sheol=the
grave. He descended into the grave.
But in time (as we see in Ruffinus) the
words of the Psalmist were more care-
fully examined, and it was felt that it
was improper to speak of Christ’s soul
going into the grave: and then they
thought that infernum or inferna must
mean something else. It was the place
of misery. But Christ could not have
been in misery during the hours of the
great Sabbath; on the contrary He went
to Paradise: so when His soul descend-
ed—as it must have done—to inferna
He must have gone there not to stay
there, but to burst the door and set the
captives free. Thus at last ad inferos
was seen to be safer language than even
ad inferna: we have it in one Creed of
the Saxon Church: we have it in every
copy that I know of the completed Qui-
cunque. (In the incomplete copy com-
mented upon in the Oxford MS., Junius
25, it is ad inferna, as well as in the
early form remaining in the Codex Col-
bertinus. But of this below.)

This medieval difference between in-
fernum and inferi may be noted by com-
paring two passages in the letter of St
Boniface to Ethelbald king of Mercia

170

The right hand of God the Father Almighty. First in Faustus,
then in the Gallican and Spanish Creeds, but not in the English.
(In the Royal MS. 2 A. xx. di is marked as a mistake’.)

The epithet Catholic appeared for the first time, undoubtedly,
in Faustus: then in the Gallican books and the Spanish Creeds of
Hildefonsus, Etherius, and the Mozarabic Liturgy.

The Communion of Saints for the first time in Faustus, then
in the Gallican Sacramentary and Missal. Not in the genuine
Spanish nor English books.

Life eternal was received in the same way.

ὃ 5. The general result of this is unquestionable. The com-
plete copy of the Apostles’ Creed, as it exists in the present day,
was Frank: the separate articles which distinguish it from the
old Roman, Aquileian, African, Spanish, English, Scotch, and
Trish types are all of Gallican origin. They came through, or from,
Faustus of Riez and the old Gallican Service-books to Pirminius,
the Frank missionary of the middle of the eighth century: and
the completed Creed gradually spread from that time.

The progress of this spreading movement is not noted, I think,
either by Dr Caspari or Dr Hahn. But the vehicle by which it
was circulated far and wide was furnished by the Psalters which
were written in abundance in and after the time of Charlemagne.
It will be necessary for me, ere long, to devote a few pages
to the description of these Psalters; one of the earliest known
is attributed to Charles himself, and is supposed (rightly or
wrongly, as we shall see hereafter) to have been offered or sent
by him to his friend Hadrian II. It contains a completed copy
of the Apostles’ Creed. The Psalters of the next century,
almost invariably, contain the Creed. Thus the text was con-
sidered to be settled, so far as the new Holy Roman Empire
was concerned. And if for a time some older form lingered in

THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

(Haddan and Stubbs, mt. pp. 354, 355),

“ΠῚ harlots whether nuns or seculars.

often slew the infants they had conceived
in their sins, filling not the churches of
Christ with adopted children, but the
graves with corpses and inferit with
miserable souls:’? whilst undoubtedly,
sine dubio, ‘‘Ethelbald’s predecessor
Ceolred who had died in his sins had
passed from this world to the torments
of infernum.”

1 Here again we are brought into con-
tact with the Quicunque. ClaudiusC. v1.
and all the psalters have ad dexteram Det
patris omnipotentis : the Ambrosian Co-
dex and the codices of Junius’ com-
mentary, read ad dexteram patris. The
Codex of St Germains (now lost) is said
by Montfaucon to have had ad dexteram
patris omnipotentis: the Colber. ad dex-
teram dei patris.

XIV. |

LATER HISTORY OF THE LATIN CREED.

England, or Scotland, or Ireland, beyond the direct influence of
the Emperor, such form could not have lasted long. We have
a manuscript of the ninth century at Lambeth (No. 427), which
contains the Creed, reading, however, ad inferos ; and one in the
Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, of the twelfth century
(which belonged at one time to the Church of Canterbury), in
which the Creed is exactly the same as in Pirminius’.

1 On page 126 Dr Heurtley has the
following passage and note: “ By the
end of the eighth century the formula
now in use may be considered as on the
whole established. And this date as it
coincides with the time at which the
Bishops of Rome were strenuously en-
gaged in endeavouring to conform the
Liturgies of the other churches to the
Roman order, so it suggests what is in
all probability the true account of the
eventual prevalence of one and the same
type of the Creed throughout Western
Christendom.” I may have misunder-
stood this passage, but the impression
it conveys to my mind is certainly in-
correct in fact. There is no proof what-
ever that the Creed which thus ulti-
mately prevailed came from Rome in
its complete form. The last hint of a
Roman Creed that we have, is in the
imperfect account of Leo the Great, and
the words there are distinct, ‘“‘ Natus de
Spiritu Sancto ex (or et) Maria Virgine.”
There is no proof that the Roman
Church had altered this in the time of
Hadrian. And if the Romanus orda as

to Baptism was introduced into Gaul in
the middle or end of the eighth century,
it must have brought in the use of the
Nicene Creed, not the Apostles’ Creed.
I am thus confirmed in the opinion I
have mentioned in the text, that this
copy of the Apostles’ Creed is really of
Gallican origin. The anxiety of Charles
to conform to the Church of Rome must
not be put too high. We know that
he refused to accept the Roman ver-
sion of the Creed of Constantinople:
we know that two hundred years later
the Church of Rome accepted his ver-
sion of that Creed. We know that the
Gallican use of the Gloria in Excelsis
spread to Rome: and we know that the
Gallican Psalter displaced the so-called
Roman Psalter. There is nothing, there-
fore, ἃ priort improbable in the sup-
position—which we see has in its favour
whatever little historical evidence is
forthcoming—that as Pirminius’ version
of the Apostles’ Creed spread speedily
over Germany and France, so it spread
ultimately to Italy and Rome.

CHAPTER XV.

USE OF THE APOSTLES’ CREED.

§1. The title symbolum, ‘‘signum” or ‘collatio.’? Account by ‘ Ruffinus.”
§ 2. The introduction of the conception of a “mystery.” 8 3. Cyprian,
Ambrose, Augustine, &c. δ 4. The traditio symboli. § 5. Theuse in the Hour
services in the time of Amalarius and Rabanus Maurus. § 6. Augustine’s
and Aquinas’ account of its origin from Scripture. § 7. Importance attached
to the Creed. i. Chrodegang. ii. Ordo Romanus, &ec. iii. The Capitulars of
Pepin; Charlemagne, Louis. iv. Canons of Aix, 789. v. Synod of Frank-
fort, 794, vi. Theodulf. vii. Synod of Aix, 801. viii. ‘ Visitation Articles”?
of Charlemagne and the replies. § 8. Death of Charlemagne. § 9. Further
growing importance of the Creed. Hatto. Hinemar. §10. Influence on the
Psalter. 8.11. Later use at the Hour services. ὃ 12, Old English versions,
ArpenpIx.— Additional illustrations of the value set in England and Germany
on the Creed as containing the Catholic Faith.

§ 1. THE earliest use of the Latin Creed was in the prepara-
tion for baptism. “The Novatians baptize with the Symbol which
we employ,” are the well-known words of St Cyprian: and the
name or title, Symbol, suggests the object which it was deemed to
serve. As early as the time when the commentary ascribed to
Ruffinus was composed, doubts had arisen amongst Latin writers
as to the origin of this designation: confusion had arisen between
σύμβολον, a mark or sign, and συμβολή, a collation or joint con-
tribution: or rather, attempts were made to ascribe to σύμβολον
the signification οἵ συμβολή.

“Our fathers tell us (says Ruffinus) that after the Ascension of our
Lord, at the time when the tongues of fire sat upon each of the Apostles
through the coming of the Holy Spirit, command was given to them by
God to go and preach the word to every nation. When they were
about to part from each other, they agreed upon a rule to guide their
future preaching: lest by any means when they were separated, one in
one place, another in another, they should expound the faith differently to
such as were invited to believe in Christ. Thus, being present all together
and all filled with the Holy Spirit, they composed this short index of

CHAP, XV.] .USE OF THE APOSTLES’ CREED. 173

their future preaching, bringing together what each thought, and then
they agreed that this should be given asa rule to believers. And so,
for reasons good and sound, they wished that it should be called a
Sympot, For the word ΎΜΒΟΙ, in Greek means both a sign and a
collation—a collation being the result when many bring together into
one common store. And it is called a Sign or Index or Watchword,
because at that time (as Paul the Apostle tells us) there were many
Jews who pretended to be Apostles of Christ, and wandered about for
the sake of gain, naming indeed the name of Christ, but not preaching
Him according to the lines of the old tradition. Thus the Apostles
fixed upon this index by which might be recognised the man who
preached according to the Apostolic rules. Just as in civil war, where
men wear the same dress and speak the same language, watchwords are
given to the soldiery to distinguish friend from foe ; so is it amongst
us. And thus they handed it down that their watchword should not be
written on paper or parchment, but be retained in the hearts of the
believers, so that there could be no doubt that, if any one knew it, he
must have received it from the Apostles by tradition, and not by
reading it in a book; for a book perchance might fall into the hands of
unbelievers.”

We need not delay to speak of the futility of this explanation :
Ruffinus forgot that followers of the Apostolic tradition might
become schismatics or even heretical as to points not distinctly
enuntiated in this document, and then carry away their watch-
word into the enemies’ camp: “the Novatians use the same
Symbol that we do.” Nestorians and Eutychians were as earnest
as were the followers of Cyril and Flavian in standing by the Faith
of the Nicene Council.

δ 2. We must look out for another explanation: and we have
it in the circumstances of the third century, when the precept of
the Saviour, that the Gospel should be preached to every creature,
became checked by the prevalent persecutions; and the example
set by St Paul, when he stood before Agrippa, was, from the same
causes, deprived of its force. Driven unwillingly to secresy, the
Christians, with a not unusual aptitude, began to represent to
themselves and others that their secresy had its advantages; in
point of fact it was in itself desirable. For did not St Paul
speak of Christian rites as a mystery? and if so, was it not
necessary that the faith should be treated as such? Was it not
a mistake of the early ages, of Justin Martyr and the Apologists,
to exhibit to the heathen Emperors and to the heathen world the
character of the initiatory rite? the character of the mystic feast 2

174 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

And thus, as it seems to me, the conception spread most rapidly,
by which the candidates for baptism were styled “those who are
being enlightened,” and the baptized were “the initiated,” and
the Services of the Church were designated as “the mystic rites,”
and doctrines were reserved to be the disciplina arcani, and the
formula of initiation was the Symbol’. But the fact is un-
doubted that in the Eastern Church the unbaptized Constantine
took part in framing the Faith of Nica; the shorter pass-
word into the Church being still taught only to the candidate for
baptism, as we learn from the Lectures of St Cyril of Jerusalem.
In the Western Church the longer password was kept equally
sacred. It was kept secret—unwritten—long after the dates of
Ruffinus, and Ambrose, and Hilary, and Augustine.

§ 8. The first intimation I have met with as to the sacred-
ness of the Symbol, is found in the Testimonies of Cyprian:
“That the sacrament of the faith is not to be profaned, we are
taught by Solomon in the Proverbs (xxiii. 9), Speak not in the ear
of an imprudent man, lest when he has heard he may ridicule the
wisdom of thy words: and by the Gospel according to Matthew,
Give not that which is holy, &c.*” And St Ambrose says’, “Be
cautious, lest thou divulge the mysteries of the Symbol and of
the Lord’s Prayer.” So Peter Chrysologus* frequently. In point
of fact, it was only at a late period of their preparation that the
candidates for baptism received the Symbol in this age of the
Church. “It was on the Lord’s day, when, after the Lessons and
the Sermon and the Catechumens had been dismissed, I was
delivering the Symbol to the Competentes in the Baptistery,”
that, as Ambrose tells us, he was called upon to rescue an
Arian®, We have frequent allusions to this secresy in the

1 For further illustrations, see King’s
History of the Creed, p. 20.

2 Testim. 111. no. 50.

3 De Cain et Abel, Lib. 1. ¢. ix.

4 Sermones 58, 59, 60.

5 Lib. v. ep. 35. In the second pro-
gramme of Dr Caspari, pp. 50, 51, are
printed two copies of an exposition on
the Creed, attributed to St Ambrose.
The writer accepts the interpretation of
symbolum as=collatio, and calls the
Creed a breviarium fidei, made by the
Apostles themselves: he knows that “in
the parts of the east” they have added

to the Creed, and says that possibly they
have added too much: he says that the
words invisibilem et impassibilem (of the
Aquileian Creed?) were thus added to
exclude the Patripassian error, but such
additions are not required by us: we
cannot be charged with maintaining the
error, because symbolum Roman@ eccle-
sié@ nos tenemus. On page 57, we have
the Creed complete. Comparing it with
the Roman Creed as learnt from Ruffi-
nus, I remark that it contains the words
qui conceptus est de S. S.,natus de Maria
Virgine passus sub P. P. crucifixus,

Xv. | USE OF THE APOSTLES’ CREED. 17}

writings of St Augustine. Indeed, the great bishop says, that
“the Creed is called the Symbol, because by the confession of it,
as it were by a signal, the faithful Christian is recognised’? So
again St Leo the Great, and Maximus of Turin.

§ 4. At a later period the order was this. The Creed was
delivered to the Competentes eight days before Easter Eve*: it
was delivered with short expositions of the several clauses, of
which expositions we have many instances in the genuine writings
of St Augustine, and others amongst the spurious sermons attri-
buted to the great bishop; others again in the older Liturgies.

This ceremony was called the TRADITIO SYMBOLI*.

mortuus et sepultus : it has Dei Patris:
and sanctorum communionem, and it con-
cludes with vitam eternam. And so the
writer counts up duodecim sententie cor-
responding to the twelve Apostles. He
distinctly says that the Creed ought not
to be written, but ““ retained in the me-
mory, it will prove of more use there.”
There certainly may be some hesitation
in accepting this as an entirely correct
representation of the Milanese and
Roman Creed of the date of St Ambrose.
But the same indefatigable investigator
has printed (p. 134) another Creed from
an ‘‘ exhortation of St Ambrose,’’ found
in a MS. at Vienna, which has the clause
‘‘natus de 8. S. et ex Maria Virgine,”
but, omitting ‘“sanctorum communio-
nem,” ends (as Jerome says all Creeds
end) with ‘‘carnis resurrectionem.” On
p. 204, he prints a more correct copy
(as would seem) of the Creed which Dr
Heurtley ascribes to Eusebius Gallus,
but Dr Caspari to Faustus of Riez; this
contains the clauses ‘‘ qui conceptus est
de 8. 8. natus ex M. V.” and ‘sancto-
rum communionem.” There is much
other information, which must be seen
in the ‘‘ Programme”? itself.

1 Sermon, 214 § 12, Tom. v. col. 1379
(Gaume).

2 In the Churches of Spain, 20 days.

3 I will give a specimen from the Mo-
zarabic Liturgy (Martene, Iv. cap. xx.
ordo vitl., or Migne, Lxxxv. p. 394).

In the course of the service on Palm
Sunday, we have the following. It is
corrupt at parts,

** Hic fiat sermo ad populum.
Symboli traditio in dominica pal-
marum.

Carissimi accipite regulam fidei quod

The candi-

symbolum dicitur: et, cum acceperitis,
in corde scribite et quotidie apud vos-
met ipsos dicite; antequam dormiatis,
antequam procedatis, vestro symbolo
vos munite. Symbolum nemo scribit ut
legi possit ; sed ad recensendum ne forte
deleat oblivio quod non tradidit lectio,
sit vobis quod ex vestra memoria, quod
audituri estis, hoc credituri: et quod
credituri, hoc etiam lingua reddituri:
ait enim apostolus, Corde creditur ad
justitiam, oris confessio fit ad salutem.
Hoe enim symbolum quod retenturi
estis et credituri. Signate’vos, respon-
dete.
Fides.”

The Creed follows of which I have —
already given a description, Chap. xiv.
p. 165. Then we have the following.

Submissa voce. Ut facilius memoriz
vestre possint inherere que dicta sunt,
textum symboli ordinemque repetamus.
Crepo IN D. P. O.

Submissa voce. Tertio quoque textum
symboli recenseamus, ut quia fidem
divine Trinitatis symbolum in se con-
tinet, ipse numerus repetitionis cum
sacramento conyeniat Trinitatis. Crepo
IN Deum Parrem O.

Submissa voce. Hane sancte fidei re-
gulam quam vobis nunc tradidit sancta
mater ecclesia, firmissima mentis vestre
retinete sententia: ne aliquando dubi-
tationis scrupulum in corde vestro oria-
tur: quia si, quod absit, in hoc vel
tenuiter dubitatur, omne fidei funda-
mentum subruitur et anime periculum
generatur. Et ideo, si aliquem vestrum
inde quidpiam movet, reputet quia hoe
intelligere non possit, vera tamen esse
credat omnia que audivit.

&e. &e.

176

dates then learnt it by heart: and immediately before their
baptism it was recited either by them or by the bishop in their
hearing. A similar course of proceeding took place before Whit-
suntide: for on Whitsun Eve as on Easter Eve the sacrament of
baptism was administered. The custom at Rome was to recite
the “Creed from a position of some eminence in the sight of the
faithful people,” as we learn from St Augustine’. And to this
fact Ruftinus distinctly (and perhaps the pseudo-Ambrose by im-
plication) points as being the means by which the Church of
Rome retained uninjured and unaltered the “Symbol of the
Apostles.” Its copy must have been very different from our
modern version.

§ 5. The first intimation that we have of the use of the
Apostles’ Creed in the Hour Services is to be found in the fourth
book of the work De Lcclesiasticis Offictis, which used to be
attributed to Amalarius Fortunatus, Archbishop of Treves, who
died in 819, but is now assigned to Symphronius Amalarius,
a presbyter of Metz, who survived his namesake by about fifteen
years*, We have records of the Hour Services in use in Spain,

THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP,

Then came the missa, in which the
following address was made :

‘*¢ Catholicam fidem, fratres charissimi,
cordis integritate servantes, Deum Pa-
trem, Deum Filium, Deum fateamur et
Spiritum Sanctum, nec tamen Deos
plures adfirmare gentiliter audeamus,
sed in tribus unum Deum fiducialiter
adoremus. Una quippe est Trinitatis
essentia, nec est altera creatrix et eterna
substantia.......... Nullus impares gradus,
ubi summa equalitas reperitur, interse-
rat: non est Pater Filio, quia generavit,
antiquior: neque Filius est gignente
posterior...... Istam proinde fidem delec-
temur, usque ad sanguinem, vindicare,
si volumus Dei Patris heredes existere,
ut hac fidei firmitate muniti ad cceleste
regnum perveniamus inlesi.

R. Amen.”

The prayers Inlatio, &c., all bear on
the Trinity, but I cannot recognise any
verbal identity with the Athanasian
Creed.

In the Inlatio come the words “ Spi-
ritus Sanctus qui procedens de utroque
non est genitus aut creatus sed creator
Universitatis Dominus.”

The whole ought toe be studied. And

the notes on the Lord’s Prayer, and the
Benedictio are especially interesting.

+ Confesstons, Vill. GC. 2,9-Lom. τ᾿ Ὁ:
253. The custom may have extended
further. At all events in the sixth cen-
tury Ferrandus, a deacon of Carthage,
wrote thus to Fulgentius of Ruspe:
‘“‘Universa quoque religionis catholice
veneranda mysteria cognoscens atque
percipiens celebrato solemniter scrutinio
per exorcismum contra diabolum vindi-
catur (catechumenus), cui se renunciare
constanter sicut hic consuetudo poscebat,
auditurus symbolum profitetur. Ipse
insuper sancti symboli verba memoriter
in conspectu fidelis populi clara vace
pronuntians, piam regulam dominic
orationis accepit.”” So too apparently
in the Churches of Spain, Concil. Brac-
ear. (I take these from Massmann:
p. 12, note.)

2 Bede however reminded Egbert that
Ambrose urged all the faithful to recite
or chant the words of the Symbol at the
matin hours: it would serve as an anti-
dote against the poison of the devil by
night and by day. His language shews
that this was not ordinarily done in
England, though custom did enjoin the
frequent use of the Lord’s Prayer with

¥v.-]2 USE OF THE APOSTLES’ CREED. MW Are

in the time of St Isidore of Seville (who died in 636), but there is
no mention there of the Apostles’ Creed: on the contrary, the
language which the Archbishop uses of the Creed of the 318
seems to decide against there being any contemporaneous use, in
any service, of the Apostolic Symbol. St Isidore says’:

“The Symbol which at the time of the sacrifice is proclaimed to the
people was put forth at the Synod of Nicwa by the collation of three
hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, and the rule of this faith is so
excellent relating the mysteries of Christian doctrine, that it speaks of
every part of the faith, and there is scarcely any heresy for which an
answer is not found here in some one word or phrase. For it tramples
down every impious error, every misbelieving blasphemy ; and on this
account it is proclaimed by the people in all the churches with one and

a like profession ’®.”

The Prime office is so far different from the modern usage
that I may be allowed to give Amalarius’ description of it?:

It began with the Deus in adjutorium meum: Domine ad adjuvan-
dum. The Gloria Patri followed, or the Alleluia at certain seasons.
The Psalm followed “which David sang when the Ziphites wished to
seize him and deliver him into the hands of Saul” (i.e. our Psalm lie),
and then, apparently, two portions of Psalm cxix (verses 5 and 18) and
the verse Arise, help us and deliver us for thy name’s sake. After this
the pieces Kyrie eleeson : Christe eleeson: Kyrie eleeson, which Amalarius
explains as appealing to Christ, (1) as it were before His Incarnation,
(2) as incarnate, (3) as glorified. Then followed the Lord’s Prayer, and
after that the Apostles’ Creed. Of this I will give his own description.
“After the Lord’s Prayer follows our Belief (nostra credulitas) which
the Holy Apostles framed concerning the Faith of the Holy Trinity and
the economy of the Incarnation of the Lord and the state of our
Church*.”

This is, as Mr Ffoulkes describes®, the first indication known
of the use of the Apostles’ Creed at the Canonical Hours. It
follows, as will be observed, on the reforms of Charlemagne and
Alcuin.

Rabanus Maurus*, who died in 855, wrote three books De
Institutione Clericorum. He speaks of the use of the “Symbol of
the Apostolic Faith” in the preparation of the catechumens for

bended knee. Haddan and Stubbs, m1. but no mention is made of the Apostles’

p. 316. Creed.
* §. Isidori de Ecclesie@ Oficiis Lib. τ. 3 Book iv. chap. 2. Migne, cv. col.
cap. 16. Migne, Vol. rxxxtr. p, 815. 1165.
2 St Isidore speaks of the services of 4 Migne, cv. c. 1168.
the third, sixth and ninth hours, of ves- 5 Athanasian Creed, p. 186.
pers and compline, vigils and matins: 6 Migne, cvir. Ὁ. 311, 327.

a, ΤῈ,

178 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

baptism (Apostolicee fidei ostenditur ei symbolum): and he has
a few words on the Offices for the Hours. Nothing, however,
can be learnt from these last, as bearing on the point before
us. Walfrid Strabo, who died in 849, is more profuse than
Rabanus on the Hour Services, and yet his chief value to us
arises from the intimation which he gives that these services were
receiving frequent alterations. He maintained that new matter
“ought not to be rejected if it did not disagree with the Faith
of Truth.” Thus, “Paulinus of Forisjulu, the Patriarch, had
introduced into private masses the use of hymns composed
either by himself or others” He refers to a dispute between
the Greeks and the Latins on the precise form of the Gloria Patri
(no doubt the same difference that had attracted the attention of
the monks of the convent at Bethlehem), and he mentions that
some of his contemporaries believed that this last short hymn
had been put forth by the Council of Nicsa, “in order that,
mingling with all the offices and all the prayers, it should enforce
the Faith of the Coeternal Trinity.”

§ 6. It is impossible to overrate the importance attached to
the Latin Symbol now that it had assumed its present and com-
pleted form. It was believed, and therefore taught, that it had
proceeded in that form from the gathering of the twelve on the
day of Pentecost. I have a photograph from a manuscript at
Venice where it is entitled SYMBOLUM APOSTOLORUM IN PENTE-
COSTEN (sic). The ingenuity of the age soon discovered which
article was contributed by each of the twelve. It is true that
these accounts varied—but the variation was of httle moment.
Then Sermons were attributed to St Augustine, and thus _ his
name was used as giving authority to the statement. But these
writers were not over anxious to make their oracle consistent
with himself. Two Sermons (Vol. v., Appendix, CCXL. and CCXLL,
columns 2970 and 2972) distribute the articles differently. The
former sermon adds brief explanations, as from the Apostles, of
the clauses which they severally added. It terminates with
enforcing the duty of “our holding faithfully and firmly the faith
and gospel of the Apostles handed on to us by their successors,
and guarding inviolate the pact made by us in baptism with the

1 Migne, cxiv. c. 952, 954.

XV. | USE OF THE APOSTLES’ CREED. αν,

Lord.” Still the nobler spirits rejected the tradition. As Euche-
rius, Bishop of Lyons in the fifth century, had taught that the
Creed was collected out of Scripture, its existence being due to
the anxiety of the Fathers of the Churches regarding the salvation
of their flocks, so did Thomas of Aquino in the thirteenth
teach :

“Only a few have the opportunity of learning from Scripture what
is necessary to be believed, therefore a summary was collected out of

the sacred writings; and this summary must be regarded not as added to
Scripture, but as extracted from it.”

Such too had been the opinion of the great Augustine’.

§ 7. The opinion which I have adduced that the Lord’s
Prayer contained all that was necessary to be asked from God,
and the Apostles’ Creed all that was necessary to be believed
of God, was constantly put forward in the age of Charlemagne.
I must add further proofs of its acceptance, but I will not attempt
to arrange them in precisely chronological order. I shall not
shrink, however, from mixing with them proofs of the prevalence
of other and shorter Creeds, such as I have already noted as being
used at the time of Baptism, reserving for a later chapter

Creeds or Professions of another character.

i. In the rule of Crodegang, Bishop of Metz’, we have an

1 “Tn sanctis seripturis et in sermo-
nibus ecclesiasticis ea (the contents of
the symbol) multis modis posita soletis
audire. Sed collecta breviter et in ordi-
nem certum redacta atque constructa
tradenda sunt vobis ut fides vestra edi-
ficetur, et confessio preparetur, et me-
moria non gravetur.” S. August. Opera,
v. col. 1371. Serm. ccxtv. Jn traditione
symboli, 111.

So Eucherius :

“Keclesiarum patres de populorum
salute solliciti ex diversis voluminibus
scripturarum collegerunt testimonia di-
vinis gravida sacramentis. Disponentes
itaque ad animarum pastum salubre
convivium collegerunt verba brevia et
certa expedita sententiis sed diffusa
mysteriis et hoc Symbolum nominave-
runt. De canonicis itaque lectionibus
facta est in unum pretiosa collatio, an-
gusta sermonibus sed divisa sensibus et
de utroque testamento totius corporis
virtus in paucas est diffusa sententias.”’
Homilia τ. de symbolo. (It will be no-
ticed that Eucherius adopted the con-

ception that symbolum=collatio: but
the persons who made the collatio were
the bishops of the churches, not the
Apostles.)

The following is the passage from
Aquinas : *

‘Veritas fidei in sacra scriptura dif-
fusa continetur et variis modis, et qui-
busdam obscure; ita quod ad elicien-
dam fidei veritatem ex sacra scriptura
requiritur longum studium et exercitium,
ad quod non possunt pervenire omnes
illi quibus necessarium est cognoscere
fidei veritatem, quorum plerique aliis
negotiis occupati studio vacare non pos-
sunt. Et ideo fuit necessarium ut ex
sententiis sacre scripture aliquid mani-
festum summarie colligeretur quod pro-
poneretur omnibus ad credendum : quod
quidem non est additum sacrex scrip-
ture, sed potius ex sacra scriptura sump-
tum.” Summa, pars 11. quest. 1, arti-
61]. 9. (I have taken these passages
from Nicolas, pp. 38, 39.)

2 Migne, Lxxxix. p. 1073.

12—2

180 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

account of the Faith on which the monks or priests of his order
were to be interrogated at the time of Confession. The Confessor
asked the servant of God:

“Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven
and earth? Dost thou believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit? Dost thou believe that these three Persons, as we have said,
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are three Persons and one God? Dost
thou believe that in the Flesh in which thou now art, thou shalt receive
(recipere habes) what thou hast done and what thou shalt do, whether
it be good or bad? Dost thou believe that there will be a resurrection
to eternal life after death?” To each of these questions the penitent
replied “I believe,” and then the question was put “ Art thou willing
to forgive?”

il. The Confession in the Ordo Romanus* was almost identi-
cal, and we meet with numerous similar questions in the “Orders”
printed by Martene out of several ancient manuscripts’. Thus we
are introduced to the mode in which the enquiries enjoined by
Charlemagne as to the belief of his people in the Holy Trinity
were practically enforced: but we should err if we thought that
the full teaching of the Church on this grand subject was pressed
either at that time, or for many subsequent generations, on all
alike. It was a direction of Chrodegang, that in teaching dogma
great discretion must be used; ‘‘One and the same doctrine
must not be taught to all indiscriminately, for things which are

closed must not be opened to all alike®.”

iii. We may now turn to the Capitulars, which I shall quote
from the grand edition published by Baluzius, at Paris, in the
year 1677.

I have, I think, already referred to the direction of the Synod
under Pepin, in the year 744, that “the Catholic Faith, as given
by the Bishops in the Nicene Synod, should be taught; that so
the law of God and the Ecclesiastical Rule should be recovered
where it had been lost sight of under earlier princes*.” Allied to

1 Hiltorp, p. 18*.
2 e. g. out of the MS. of St Gatien of

Tours, 1. vi. vir. ordo ili. iv. Gellone,
vi. Noyeau, x.
3 Migne, vol. txxxrx. p. 1094. St

Boniface, about a.p. 745, directed that
the presbyters should enjoin all the
faithful subject to them to commit to
memory the Symbol and the Lord’s

Prayer, that by faith and prayer under
the illumination of the Holy Spirit they
might be saved. And no one was to
‘take up a child from the font” unless
he knew by memory the Symbol and the
Lord’s Prayer. Cf. Rules, xxv. xxv1.

4 This seems to me to be worthy of
being borne in mind in questions as to
the dates of manuscripts.

ἐς USE OF THE APOSTLES CREED. 181

this is a direction of which we find a note in Pertz’, that every
presbyter was to give an account “de fide catholica,” to his bishop
each Lent. Very interesting is it to notice the determination of
these grim old kings to maintain their Church, not only pure in
the faith but also national: and this determination is particularly
to be noted in the reign and acts of Charlemagne. Scarcely had he
entered on his work when we find a decree repeating the order
which I have just quoted from Pertz*: it was enjoined that

“Every presbyter residing in any diocese should be subject to the
Bishop in whose diocese he is, and that he should each Lent submit to
the Bishop a report of his ministry with reference to Baptism, to the
Catholic Faith, to the Prayers and Order of the Mass.”

The zeal of this great king increased as time rolled on. In
the year 782° we have his famous order about the improvement
of service-books, an order which was repeated in 787 or 788*.
He speaks of the study of letters as having almost perished ; he
states that the books of the Old and New Testament had been
depraved by want of skill in the copyists: he mentions his ap-
pointment of a suitable officer to investigate carefully the books
which remained, and out of them, as out of a choice garden, to
cull the flowers, and place them, as it were, in a border. Two
volumes were to be prepared of treatises and sermons of the
Catholic Fathers, suited for each festival, and these were to be
handed to the clergy for them to learn’.

iv. In 789 was held the famous Synod of Aix, at which a very
important and voluminous collection of Canons was prepared,
compiled from earlier Councils. It was then published. In
the preface Charles compared himself to King Josiah’, who had
in his day endeavoured to recall his people to the worship of the
true God, going about his dominions, correcting and admonishing.
We find that he insisted that the faith and the life of each

1 Monumenta Germania historia. Le-

vi. p. 1652.
gum, Tom.1.p.17. This is under the

3 Pertz, ut sup. p. 44.

year 742.

2 Baluzius, p. 192, or Pertz under the
year 771. Such was the ignorance of
some of the clergy that a question arose
in 754 concerning a presbyter who had
baptized, but did not know either the
Symbol or the Lord’s Prayer: nor did
he remember the Psalms, or know whe-
ther a bishop had blessed him. Labbe,

4 Ibid. 52. Baluzius, p. 203.

5 This certainly gave the opportunity
for compiling the numerous collections
which now appeared. The collectors
were not scrupulous as to the authors to
whom they assigned ‘the documents they
copied, an over regard for accuracy not
being a fault of the times.

6 Baluzius, p. 209.

18 5.. THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

person who applied for ordination should be examined into by the
Bishop’. We find the Psalms limited to 150°: we find (no. 31
or 32°) the order which directs that “the Faith of the Holy
Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ, His Passion, His Resur-
rection, His Ascension should be proclaimed to all.” For this
is quoted the authority of a Council of Carthage; it can refer
only to the true Nicene Creed, and so it is understood by both
Baluzius and Labbe‘. In a later Canon (59 or 60°) we find that
“the Catholic Faith shall be diligently read and taught by
Bishops and Presbyters to all the people, because this is the first
Commandment: Hear, O Israel, the Lorp our God is one God.”
In a later Canon (68 or 69 or 70°) we meet with an order which
I must exhibit at greater length. It is this:

“The Bishops must enquire diligently through their dioceses from
the Presbyters, as to their Faith, their Baptism, and celebration of Masses ;
whetber they hold the right Faith and observe the Catholic Baptism,
and well understand the Prayers of the Mass; whether the Psalms are
properly modulated according to the divisions into verses’; whether
they themselves understand the Lord’s Prayer, and teach it so as to be
understood by others, that each may know what he is asking from God ;
whether the Gloria Patri is sung by all with all honour ; whether the
Priest himself with the holy Angels and with the people of God sings
as with one voice the Hoty, Hory, Hoty.” Not boys but men were to
be employed to copy the Evangel, the Psalter, and the Missal (Νο. 70 οΥ
72)*. All doubtful narratives against the Catholic Faith were to be
suppressed (No. 77 or 78)°, whilst in the last canon the subjects for the
sermons of the clergy were laid down. The Presbyters whom the
Bishops send forth are to proclaim to all alike that “they must believe
that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God, omnipo-
tent, eternal, invisible ; Who created heaven and earth, the sea and all
things that are therein; and that there is one Deity, Substance, and
Majesty in the three Persons of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit. They must preach next how the Son of God was incarnate of
the Holy Ghost and of Mary ever Virgin, for the salvation and repara-
tion of the human race; how He suffered, was buried, and rose again
the third day, and ascended into heaven, and will come again to judge
all men according to their merits; how the impious because of their
crimes shall be sent with the Devil into eternal fire, but the just with
Christ and His holy Angels shall go into life everlasting. Then they
must preach diligently concerning the resurrection of the dead, that

1 Baluzius, p. 214. 5 Baluzius, p. 233, or Labbe, or Pertz.
2 An additional hint as to the dates of 6 Labbe, vir. 985. Baluzius, p. 236.
the various Psalters. _ 7 Tt was now that the Roman chant
3 Pertz, ut sup. Baluzius, p. 223. was enforced.
Labbe, vit. 977. 8 Baluzius, p. 237.

4 Baluzius, p. 225. Waterland does 9 Labbe, vir. 986.
not notice this.

XV. | USE OF THE APOSTLES’ CREED. Lee

people may know and believe that in the same bodies they shall receive
the reward of their deeds: and lastly they are to preach what those sins
are for which men shall be condemned with the Devil to eternal
punishment (they are the sins mentioned by St Paul in the letter to the
Galatians): each of these the great preacher of the Church of God men-
tioned one by one, and it is for us to remember how terrible are the
words which he added, that they who do such things shall not inherit the
Kingdom of God'.”

v. But I have been led insensibly away from the distinct
subject of this chapter, which is the use of the Apostles’ Creed,
and of forms cognate to it”. We must pass then to the Synod of
Frankfort held in the year 794, from the 18th Canon of which
we learn that the King and Synod directed that it could not be
permitted that a Bishop should be ignorant of “the Canons and
the Rule,” and in the 3lst (or 33rd) we read that the Catholic
Faith of the Sacred Trinity, and the Lord’s Prayer, and the Symbol

should be delivered to all’.

vi. In the Capitular of Theodulf, No. xxi‘ enquiries were

enjoined :

Whether all the faithful learn the Lord’s Prayer and the Symbol,

because they are sufficient.

“They are to be told that in these two

documents all the foundation of the Christian faith reposes, and unless
a man has in his memory these two, and believes with all his heart, and

1 Baluzius, p. 240.

2 Yet in the previous extract we see
the Apostles’ Creed used as a sermon.

3 Labbe, vir. p. 1061. Baluzius, p.
267. Pertz (who puts the Synod under
the year 791), p. 72. Waterland both in
Chap. το and in Chap. vi. (under “- Ger-
many”’’) refers to this canon. In the
latter chapter he says, ‘‘ What passed in
the Council of Frankfort (if I mistake
not in my construction of it) may war-
rant the carrying the Athanasian Creed
up as high as 794.” In the earlier pas-
sage he explains his view: ‘‘ Besides
that Fides Catholica, &c. has been more
peculiarly the title of the Athanasian
Creed: and it was no uncommon thing
either before or after this time to recom-
mend it in this manner together with
the Lord’s Prayer and Apostles’ Creed
just as we find here.” On this I merely
remark that there is no evidence that
the title Fides Catholica Sancte Trini-
tatis (which, as it seems, Waterland
meant by his words Fides Catholica, &c.)
was ever given by any person whatever

to the Athanasian Creed: and no evi-
dence is adduced or adducible that it
was the custom at any time, either after
or before the year 794, to recommend
that this Creed should be proclaimed to
all (omnibus predicetur et tradatur), to-
gether with the Lord’s Prayer, and
Apostles’ Symbol. Indeed, we learn from
the canon of 789, that the people were
instructed in the Faith of the Trinity,
and we learn too how they were in-
structed in it. And both Baluzius (p.
267) and Pertz refer to that canon, as
illustrating the one which is now before
us. The two series of canons of 789
and 794 run to a considerable length
parallel to each other. The Fides Ca-
tholica Sancte Trinitatis of the one,
must mean the same thing as the Fides
Sancte Trinitatis of the other.

Charles wrote about this time to Offa
king of the Mercians to express his
satisfaction that the latter held the
Catholic Faith. Baluzius, p. 273.

4 Labbe, vir. 1141. Baluzius, p. 413.
Migne, cv. p. 198.

184 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

is most frequent in prayer, he cannot be a Catholic. And so it is
appointed that no one receive the chrism, or be baptized, or receive
another from the font, or present another to the bishop to be confirmed,
if he do not hold in his memory the Symbol and the Lord’s Prayer,
except those whose age has not permitted them as yet to speak’.”

vii. In the Council of Aix, 801, the order was repeated that
every priest should preach the Gospel every Sunday and teach
the Lord’s Prayer and the Symbol to the people. The same
injunction appears to have been delivered the next year*. In 804
the words were altered:

God’s priests were “to be learned in the Divine Scriptures and
believe rightly the Faith of the Trinity and teach it to others; to
know the whole Psalter by memory, the mode of baptism, the peniten-
tial, the cantus and the compotus (the Calendar), and not to baptize
except at Easter and Pentecost*.”

This was the capitular of Salz. In the same year Charles
wrote to the bishop, Garibaldus’, urging him to take care that

‘Every one of you shail preach and teach according to the canons ;
first of all, of the Catholic Faith, that those who can do no more shall at
least hold and recite from memory the Lord’s Prayer and the Symbol of
the Catholic Faith as the Apostles taught it.”

Then follows in Pertz the Encyclic of Garibaldus to his clergy,
bidding them that every one must, according to his ability, obey
these directions, and learn the Lord’s Prayer, 1.6. Pater Noster
qui es m celis, and the Symbol. This was pressed under pains
and penalties: “Ifa man did not know them, he was to be put
on bread and water: and the women to be flogged or starved*.”

At Aix, in 809, it was directed that the Lord’s Prayer, 1. 6.
Pater Noster, and the Credo in Deum were to be taught to men
and women as well as children’.

1 These capitulars are in the MS. 914,
at Vienna, which I shall quote below.
They are there introduced thus, ‘‘ Haec
et quae sequuntur capitula Theotolfus
epus edidit.” The MS. is said to be of
the tenth century.

2 Pertz, p. 87.

3 Labbe, vir. 1179.

4 Labbe, vir. 1183.
Baluzius, p. 417.

5 Pertz, p. 128.

6 Pertz, p. 130, Et si quis ea nune non
teneat, aut vapulet aut jejunet de omni
potu excepta aqua usque dum hee ple-

Pertz, p. 124.

niter valeat. Et qui ista consentire nolu-
erit, ad nostram presentiam dirigatur.
Femine vero aut flagellis aut jejuniis
constringantur. Quod missi nostri cum
episcopis prevideant, ut ita perficiatur;
et comites similiter adjuvent episcopis,
51 gratiam nostram velint habere, ad hoc
constringere populum ut ista discant.

7 Pertz, p.160. The Council was sum-
moned to consider the question of the
double procession. Ado of Vienne re-
marks, ‘‘ that the rule and ecclesiastical
faith establishes that the Holy Spirit
proceeds from the Father and the Son,

5 60 USE OF THE APOSTLES’ CREED. 185

viii, And now we come to one of the most interesting acts
of Charlemagne’s later years: the enquiry which he issued to the
‘metropolitans of his dominions as to the life and teaching of their
suffragans.

In the year 811 the Emperor issued this Encyclic’:

He pressed the archbishops once more to watch those entrusted to
them.; to urge them more and more “to labour in holy preaching and
salutary doctrine, that so through their devoted attention the word of
eternal life might grow and run, and the number of Christian people be
multiplied. We wish therefore (he proceeded) to know, either by
writing or by personal intercourse, how you and your suffragans instruct
the priests of God and the people committed to you on the subject of
baptism ; that is, how at first an infant is made a catechumen; what a
catechumen is; and then, in order, every thing that is done. Of the
scrutiny, what the scrutiny is; of the Symbol, and what is its meaning
in Latin ; of the Creed (de credulitate), how we are to believe in God
the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ His Son, and in the Holy
Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, and the other things which follow in
the same Symbol ; of the renouncing of Satan and all his works, and
what renouncing is, and what are the works of the devil and his pomps.
Why the child is breathed upon; why he is exorcised; why salt is used,
and oil, and the white vestments, and the sacred chrism, and the mystic
veil ; and why he is confirmed with the Body and Blood of the Lord.”
These are the questions for which he desires to have answers. He bids
them farewell and begs their prayers.

These questions are the more important, because we have,
scattered in various works, four series of answers. Pertz (p. 170)
gives the replies of Odilbert of Milan: Migne (LXxxIx. p. 896)
the answers of Amalarius of Treves: Martene (1. i. xvit.) those of
Magnus of Sens: Mabillon (Anecdota, ut. or tv.) those of Leidrad
of Lyons. They are all interesting, all instructive: and they are
the more valuable because they are all dated documents.

We learn from these replies that the Creed of Amalarius did not
as yet contain the clauses unicum dominum nostrum, conceptum de
Spiritu sancto; it omitted Patris and Vitam eternam. The
Archbishop gives his belief on the Trinity, but nothing in any way
bearing on our controversies regarding the Athanasian Creed.
The Emperor was satisfied with his reply, and deemed it Catholic.
In the answer of Odilbert no passage occurs in any degree re-
minding us of the Quicungue vult. The answer of Magnus is
interesting. It describes how his clergy teach the catechumen,

and is not created nor begotten, but Father and the Son.” Labbe, vir. 1194.
co-eternal and consubstantial with the 1 Baluzius, pp. 479, 483. Pertz,p.170.

186 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

that he must hear and learn the mystic sacraments of the
Christian religion, and then learn the Faith of the Holy Trinity
and the Symbol, and the other things which the Christian law
advises. As to the enquiry on the Symbol, the Archbishop of
Sens states :

‘How they who are to be baptized profess to believe in God the
Father Almighty and in His Son Jesus Christ (the phrase wnicum
dominum nostrum was again either missing or passed over), and in the
Holy Spirit and the rest—although little children are not able to make
their profession by themselves, still by the hearts and mouths of those
that hold them (their sponsors), the Catholic Faith is professed, 1. 6. the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit, of one essence, one: power and eternity,
without beginning and without end; one God invisible; so that the
properties of each Person being maintained in each, the Trinity may not
be divided in Substance or confounded in Person: that the Father is
unbegotten; the Son is begotten, and, being born of the Virgin Mary
and crucified and dead, hath both risen again and ascended into the
heavens, and is sitting on the right hand of the Father, and thence will
come in the same flesh to judge the quick and the dead; and the Holy
Spirit is neither begotten nor unbegotten, but proceeding from the Father
and the Son. And moreover they confess one Catholic Church and
Communion of Saints, i.e. the congregation of all faithful men in Christ,
and they believe the remission of sins and resurrection of the flesh and
life after death, and that they will reign with Christ for ever and ever.
Amen.”

Thus after the renunciation of Satan, “The confession of the Holy
Trinity rightly followed, in order that where sin abounded, grace might
much more abound.” |

We have learnt from other sources that the ordinary confes-
sion at this time in Germany resembled the following: “ Dost thou
believe in God the Father Almighty? Dost thou believe in
Christ, God’s Son? Dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost? Dost
thou believe one God Almighty in three Persons? Dost thou
believe in God’s Holy Church'?” This, therefore, or something
resembling it, must have been regarded as containing the “Con-
fession of the Holy Trinity*.”

Passing onwards, I notice that we have a repetition of the
order that the priests should teach the Catholic Faith and the
Lord’s Prayer, in the 45th Canon of the Council of Mayence, held
in the year 813°: and, in a council at Rheims, of the same date,

1 See note, p. 23. instruct their children in the faith. Balu-
2 See too above, p. 180. zius, p. 503. Of course, in the vernacu-
3 Labbe, vit. 1251. Parents were to lar, Massmann, p. ἜΘ

XV. | USE OF THE APOSTLES’ CREED. 187

all were enjoined to learn, and in their own language, de Pider
ratione, as well as the Lord’s Prayer’.

δ. 8. In the succeeding year, 814, Charles died. He left a
mark behind him which has never been and can never be obliter-
ated. I must confess, that on my mind the impression is made
that no man has ever occupied such a prominent position, who
was of a grander character, of a mind of so many sides, of a will so
determined, but yet of views and objects so self-denying and so
pure. The effect which he produced on the Church, on the
Church’s literature, and on the Church’s usefulness, is beyond our
measure now. But I cannot pass on without drawing attention
once more to his anxiety for purity of doctrine, at a time when the
bishops of the great Western metropolis, the old Rome, seem to
have been mainly anxious for the aggrandisement of the see which
they held and for the consolidation of its power. If, as St Ambrose
says, “Rome kept ever uninjured the Symbol of the Apostles,”
we must say that with the exception of a few Popes, men like
St Leo the Great and St Gregory the Great, her retention of that
Creed was rather passive than active. She left to others the duty
of contending for the Faith. When her bishops ceased to be
Greeks and became uniformly Latins, the Roman lust of power
and the Roman instinct for consolidation predominated over
the general Christian anxiety for purity and truth. Leo III., who
crowned Charles Emperor, was careful to quarrel neither with
him nor with the East in the matter of the Creed of Constan-
tinople. Neither at that time nor in subsequent ages, did the
Pope of Rome often aim to direct public thought on matters of
doctrine: the policy of his court has been to wait until opinions
have been formed elsewhere and opposition apparently dropped,
and then to pronounce that to be Catholic, on which the Churches
in communion with her have agreed. In one point only has
she taken the lead, and that point has been the subject of her
own prerogative, her own possessions, her own claim for power.
And here too Charlemagne’s conduct is instructive. His view of
the Catholic Church was, that it is a body made up of many
members and that all the members have not the same office. The
Church of his dominion was, in his idea, a national Church; and

1 Labbe, vir. 1256.

188 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

it was his interest, as he felt it to be his duty, to keep that
Church faithful to its work and pure in its teaching. He held
that its Archbishops, its Bishops, its Clergy, were responsible to
him for the way in which they fulfilled their duties. And he
would see that they were so. The Royal Supremacy was claimed
by him: and no Pope attempted to deprive him of it. He would
not say, without consultation, what was heresy: but he insisted
that his clergy should not adopt views which he deemed after
consultation to be heretical. He would not say what the duties of
the clergy were in detail: councils and synods must declare that:
but he insisted that the clergy should fulfil their duties or answer
to him for their omission. In matters of ritual he claimed inde-
pendence of Rome.

§ 9. 1 shall reserve other remarks for a later page. I must,
however, briefly note some other proofs of the growing importance
attached in this century to the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s
Prayer. In the Capitularies of Hatto or Ahyto, Bishop of Basle,
about the year 820°, it was ordered:

J. That the faith of the priests should be enquired into ; how they
believed, how they taught others to believe. II. It must be ordered
that the Lord’s Prayer, in which every thing necessary to the life of man
is comprehended, and the Symbol of the Apostles in which the Catholic
Faith is entirely comprehended, should be learnt by all, both in Latin
and in the vulgar tongue, so that what they profess by the mouth may
be believed by the heart and understood’.

The effect of Charlemagne’s energy still continued. Thus,
I notice that in a synod held at Aix, in the year 836, it was
ordered that every Bishop should know the sincere faith: and
inquiries should be made how each held and believed the Faith

1 Pertz, 111. 439, puts them down to
the year 856.

2 Mansi, xiv. 395. Labbe, vir. 1522.
The fourth rule is that which relates to
‘‘the Faith of St Athanasius” mention-
ed in Waterland, Chapter 11. under the
year 820. There is a copy of these re-
gulations in the MS. 914, of the Library
at Vienna, fol. 23. It is introduced
thus: ‘‘ Haec capitula que secuntur arto
basiliensis ecclesie antistes et abbas ceno-
bii qd augia dicitur presbyteris si dioce-
sian (sic, On an erasure) eos ordinavit
quibus monerentur qualiter se ipsos ac
plebem sibi commissam caste et juste

regere atque in religione divina confir-
mare deberent’’ As the manuscript is
of the tenth century, it must be regarded
as conclusive as to the identity of the
author of these Constitutions. They
are twenty-five in number: at the close
we read, ‘‘Finiunt capitula eitoni epi.”
The second begins thus: ‘‘ Secundo
jubendum ut oratio dominica in qua
omnia necessaria humanae vite compre-
henduntur et simbolum apostolorum in
quo fides catholica ex integro compre-
henditur ab omnibus discatur tam latine
quam barbarice.” (Note the fides catho-
lica,)

ΧΥ.] USE OF THE APOSTLES’ CREED. 189

and Creed of the Holy Trinity’. Again, all were to learn the
Apostles’ Symbol and the Lord’s Prayer*. Again, at the Council
of Mayence, 847, all were to be taught regarding the Catholic
Faith, as they were able to receive it; of the perpetual retribution
of the good, the eternal damnation of the bad, of the future resur-
rection, of the final judgment®. The injunctions of Hatto were
repeated by Louis IL. in the year 856%. In the instructions of
Hincmar to his presbyters, we read that Christ Jesus, in the
words recorded by St Matthew (chap. xxvii.), bade His Apostles
first of all to teach the Catholic Faith, and when the Faith was
received, to baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity’. And he
describes how the Faith of the Apostolic Symbol is delivered,
and the Lord’s Prayer. The Apostles made the Symbol:
the clergy are to have expositions of it: the baptized person
professes that he believes in the Father, and the Son, and the
Holy Spirit’. In the capitula of Herard, Bishop of Tours, 858,
it was ordered that the Faith should be preached to all the
faithful by the presbyters in their own language: the Incarnation,
Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension: the giving of the Holy
Spirit, the Remission of Sins. Again, by Canon ΧΥ͂Ι., all should
know by memory the Lord’s Prayer and Symbol: and the Gloria
Patri, and Sanctus, and Creed (credulitas), and the Kyrie Eleeson
should be sung by all reverently, and the Psalms by the clerks’;
and no one was to receive a child at the font who did not know
the Symbol and the Pater Noster. And here I might pause, thank-
ful that we have attained some degree of proof that the Credulitas,
or Creed, of which we have been anxious to have a hint, was
the so-called Nicene Creed that was sung at the Mass. But one
more set of orders must be mentioned: those of Walter of Orleans,
about the year 866. The Archdeacons were to examine their
clergy’s Faith, Baptism, Celebration of Mass. Did they understand
the Lord’s Prayer, with the Symbol, and the Catholic Faith, the
Gloria Patri, the Credo in Unum Deum, the Sanctus Sanctus.

1 Labbe, vir. 1707.

= Tid. Vir ok

3 Ibid. vii. 42.

4 Pertz, ut supra, p. 439.

> Labbe, vir. 593. Other injunctions
of Hincmar will engage us afterwards.
Somewhat earlier than this we have an
injunction (Baluzius, p. 531, no. 11.) that
the clergy should teach the Lord’s

Prayer, i.e. the Pater Noster, and the
Credo in Deum, to all who were placed
under their charge, and see that as well
men and women as children should re-
peat them to them.

6 Labbe, vi11. 595—598.

7 Ibid. vir. 628—631. Massmann,
p. 10. The Kyrie eleeson is the early
Litany.

190 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

I was tempted to believe that the “Catholic Faith” here must
signify the Quicunque, but I was shaken in my opinion by the
words that follow in the second Canon. Here the enquiry is put:
“ How is every person fitted to teach his brethren in the Faith of
the Sacred Trinity? that they should believe that the Father;
Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, omnipotent, eternal? and
that there is one Deity and Substance and Majesty’ ?”

$10. Ihave been at considerable pains to collect these inti-
mations of the use and importance of the Apostles’ Creed in this
century, because we find here both the object and the result of its
being inserted in all the copies of the Psalter which now come
into notice. The schools of Charlemagne and Alcuin had wrought
a revolution in the literary no less than in the theological world :
and it is gratifying to find surviving to the present day so
many exquisite specimens of calligraphy, assigned by experts
to the period of, or immediately succeeding to, the lifetime of
Charlemagne. ‘This Emperor had ordered that only men should
be employed in copying the sacred books. Walter, of Orleans,
in synod directed that each of his clergy should have a Missal,
a Psalter, and so on, and amend his copies by comparing them
with well-corrected manuscripts.

§ 11. Thus the APosTLEs’ CREED found its way into the
Matins Service of the Gallican Church. How ‘soon it was recited
under breath I know not: I only know that this was the custom
in the time of Durandus, who gives his explanation of the
custom®. J understand from Mr Freeman’s valuable work, that in
the English Church the Creed and Lord’s Prayer always followed
the Psalms in the nocturnal office or Matins, which was said, of
course, only by the choir and privately. The two were used also,
almost daily, in the body of the English services at Prime. Hence
it passed at the revision of 1549 into our Reformed Service-Book :
being then “said by the Minister, with a loud voice, all devoutly
kneeling.” The modern order that the Creed “should be said by
the Minister and people, standing,’ dates from 1552: the direc-

1 Labbe, vit. 637, 638. eousness, but with the mouth confession
2 «The Creed is said in alow voice, is made unto salvation.” Durandus, ad

but the conclusion aloud: to signify that Prin. (Freeman, 1. 98.)
with the heart man believeth unto right-

χΥ.] USE OF THE APOSTLES’ CREED. 191

tion that it should be omitted when ‘the Creed of St Athanasius
is appointed to be said,” from 1662.

§ 12. Several early Saxon and English versions of the Creed
from Manuscripts supposed to be of the ninth and later centuries
may be seen in the pages of Dr Heurtley’s and Mr Maskell’s
volumes. There is another in the Royal Library, 8 A. xv. (see
Casley). The full Creed is given in the Saxon Ordo ad facien-
dum Catechumenuwm (Maskell, 1. p. 12): and the godfathers and
godmothers were enjoined to see that the child was taught the
“Credo” (p. 14). A shortened Creed was asked at Baptism
(p. 23). At the visitation of a sick person, if he was well in-
structed, his examination on his belief was framed on the Articles
of Faith put forth by John Peckham, Archbishop of Canterbury,
1278—1292: if he was a layman, or simply literate, he was
examined on a kind of Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed*; of this
I must speak again hereafter. The traces of these directions in
our present Prayer-Book are perceptible to all. But the Church
of England interrogates the catechumen, not on portions of the
Apostles’ Creed, but on it as a whole: in her Catechism she
describes it as containing “all the Articles of the Christian Faith,”
in her Visitation Service as containing “the Articles of our
Faith, so that hence we may all know whether we believe as
Christian men should believe or not.” It forms the basis of the
instruction conveyed according to the Catechism of the Council
of Trent, where it is stated to have been composed by the Apostles
themselves. It is adopted by all the Reformed Churches, except
the Presbyterian. Allowing for this exception, and also regard-
ing the omission by the Episcopal Church of America of the
words “He descended into hell” as justifiable, on the ground
that the meaning of the words is much disputed among those who
retain the clause, we must regard this Symbol as the SYMBOL OF
THE GREAT WESTERN BopDy orf CHRISTIANS. We have here the
ONE FaiTH taught indeed throughout the world: taught by us
and by the Roman Church as necessary and sufficient for thé
salvation of those with whom we have to do.

1 At confessions in Germany, at one made of this: “I have not taught my
time the Nicene Creed was used. Mass- children or my god-children as I should.”
mann, pp. 122, 150. Very interesting is Massmann, p. 137. After confession they
it to notice that ina form of confession used to repeat the Apostles’ Creed with
(from a Dusseldorf MS. of the middle the priest (clearly not as a penance).
of the ninth century) special mention is Ibid. p. 149, ef. 46.

192 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ APPEN.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XV.

To prevent my work from becoming too cumbersome I will add here
some further illustrations of the use and importance of the Symbol in
the 150 years between 720 and 870.

The references to the Froes Catuorica in the third volume of
Haddan and Stubbs’ Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents are very
numerous. The key-note to the meaning of the phrase is given ina
passage from a letter from Bede to Egbert, Bishop of York (p. 316),
which the learned editors have taken as the motto for their volumes
(p. 6). “In qua preedicatione hoe pre ceteris omni constantia procuran-
dum arbitror, ut fidem catholicam que Apostolorum symbolo continetur
et Dominicam orationem quam sancti evangelii nos scriptura edocet,
omnium gui ad tuum regimen pertinent memorize radicitus infigere
cures.” They who knew not Latin were to learn the two in their own
tongue. Thus the Catholic Faith was contained in the Apostles’ Creed,
and was not identified with it, still less was it independent of 1t. After this
caution 1 will refer to some other passages which I have noted in this
volume. Thus p. 52 (A.p. 604): pp. 111, 112 (a.p. 667). See too the
prayer of Oswy that all his subjects might be converted to the Catholic
and Apostolic Faith (pp. 116, 133); and Agatho’s anxiety as to the testing
of the faith of the English Bishops (p. 140). Bishop Wilfrid of York
confessed the true and Catholic Faith, and attested it with his signature.
So, at the Council of Hatfield, Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, and
his suffragans put forth the right and orthodox faith: “sicut dominus
noster Jesus Christus incarnatus tradidit discipulis suis qui presen-
tialiter viderunt et audierunt sermones ejus, atque sanctorum patrum
tradidit symbolum...... Hos itaque sequentes, nos pie et orthodoxe,
juxta divinitus inspiratam doctrinam eorum professi, credimus conso-
nanter, et confitemur, secundum sanctos patres, proprie et veraciter,
Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum Trinitatem in Unitate consub-
stantialem et Unitatem in Trinitate; hoc est unum deum in tribus
subsistentiis vel personis consubstantialibus equalis gloriz et honoris.”
At the end they added ‘“glorificamur...Deum Patrem sine initio, et
Filium ejus unigenitum ex Patre generatum ante seecula, et Spiritum
Sanctum procedentem ex Patre et Filio inenarrabiliter...Et nos omnes
subscripsimus qui cum Theodoro Archiepiscopo fidem Catholicam expo-
suimus.” This was in the year 680.

' We find that so far as the British bishops were concerned ‘“ inventa
est in omnibus fides inviolata catholica” (p. 144). This phrase is
interesting (p. 185); “de presbitero pagano, qui se baptizatum estimat,
fidem Catholicam operibus tenens,” he must be baptized and ordained.
Compare pp. 270, 313, 336, 359. On page 385 we have the canons
from the capitulary of Carloman. On p. 443 Simon of Durham speaks
of the legates of Hadrian (A.D, 786) renewing the old friendship which
existed between the Roman and the English Churches as well as the

CH. Xv. | USE OF THE APOSTLES’ CREED. 193

Catholic Faith which St Gregory the Pope taught by the blessed
Augustine.

Thus it is clear that the Catholic Faith was considered to be con-
tained in the orthodox creeds, and was not identified with any of them.

Bede (p. 59) speaks of Sigberct, king of the East Angles (about the
year 636), as having been fidei sacramentis imbutus in Gaul, during an
exile. When he became king he made all his province partakers of the
same.

On page 341, under the Council of Cloveshoo (A.p. 742), there is an
interesting statement that under the presidency of Athelstan, king of
the Mercians, the bishops diligently examined “circa necessaria totius
religionis, et de symbolo ex antiquis sanctorum patrum institutionibus
tradito.” No results are given. William of Malmesbury states that
at the Council of Cloveshoo orders were given that the presbyters should
learn and teach the Lord’s Prayer and the Symbol in English (p. 361).

The Acts of the Council, as published by Spelman (H. and 8. p. 366),
call the Creed “symbolum fidei,” and direct that the presbyters shall
explain in English the sacred words used in the celebration of the Mass
and at Baptism. The clergy are to have right views “de fide sacree
Trinitatis.”

At the legatine synod of 787 the legates of Hadrian I. directed that
the presbyters should be yearly examined as to their knowledge of the
Nicene faith, which they were to hold “ faithfully and firmly ;” everyone
in general was to learn the Lord’s Prayer and the Symbol, so that when
Sponsors had to answer for infants “ob renuntiationem Satane seu fidei
credulitatem,” they should know what they were undertaking (p. 448).

On pages 511, 526, 543, 580, 615, 623 we have mention of the
Catholic Faith. On 580 this mention is found in the first canon of the
Council of Celchyth, a.p. 816, where the Bishops say “ Primo in loco
exposuimus fidem catholicam.”

There are several confessions in the volume, as made by several
bishops on their consecration. They lead me to believe that the Apostles’
Creed, as we have it now, was not yet fully accepted in England. |

I find from Labbe, rx. 683, that in the year 967 King Edgar ordered
that every person should imbue his children with the Christian Faith
and teach them the Pater Noster and the Credo, that is, the Lord’s
Prayer and the Apostolic Symbol ; and no one was to be buried in con-
secrated ground unless he had known them.

Tn the laws of Canute (xxi) we read: “We exhort that every
Christian shall know at least the sincere faith and learn thoroughly
the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostles’ Creed.” (Labbe 1x. SOLS ae ae bigs
person will not learn them let him be deprived of the Eucharist.” (Zbid.)

Of the Canons of Ailfric (1049), No. xxizr. enjoined that on Sundays
and missal days “the presbyter was to teach the people the meaning of
the Gospel in English, and to use for their instruction the Pater Noster
and the Credo, so that they might know by memory the Symbol of the
faith.” (Labbe rx. 1006.) And on a later page (1014) we read that
‘all, from the least to the greatest, were to learn the Symbol and the
Lord’s Prayer, and unless a person knew these by memory and believed
them with his whole heart, and was very frequent in prayer, he could
not be a Catholic.” (We have had something resembling this before.)

51.0; 13

194 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ APPEN.

To the German instances which I have quoted from Baluzius and
Pertz and Labbe, I may add the following (Massmann, ut supra, p. 6):
In the Wolfenbuttel MS. of the ‘‘ Catechesis Theotisca” it was directed
that ‘every presbyter should admonish his people that all males and
females should know by memory the Lord’s Prayer and the Symbol, 1. 6.
the Credo in Deum.”

Massmann draws great attention to the anxiety of Charlemagne and
his successors to present the teaching of the Church to the people in
their own language, whether it was rustica romana or theotisca. (p. 10.)

A similar order was given by an unknown bishop, whose directions
may be seen in Martene and Durand’s Amplissima collectio, vit. 4: he
added that every clergyman ‘“ was to have by him an exposition of the
Symbol and the Lord’s Prayer, and be able to explain the Epistle and
Gospel juata litterwm.”

From the same volume, p. 16, I learn of a MS. “about 800 years
old,” i.e. about the date 900, in which Gerhard, Bishop of Liege,
described the Apostles’ Creed as containing the “(fides recta et catholica:”
and all sponsors were to know it. He gives a continuous exhortation.

The fact is that Paulinus, the Patriarch of Aquileia, represented the
unanimous sentiment of antiquity on that subject. “The common
people were to learn the Symbolum and the Lord’s Prayer. Any one
who observed these and kept himself from wicked works would be safe
(salvus) in the present world, and rejoice together with the angels in the
world to come.” The Clergy were to know and believe more (Migne,
XCIX. ἢ. 295).

CHAPTER XVI.

THE ATHANASIAN CREED. INTRODUCTORY.

§ 1. Introductory. § 2. General belief from a.p. 1200 to 1500 as to the origin
of the Creed. Jewel. 8.8. Voss. §4. Usher. §5. Utrecht Psalter.
§ 6. Athelstan’s Psalter. ὃ 7. Vienna Psalter. § 8. General result.
§ 9. Comparison with Athanasius’ writings. i. In regard to the damnatory
clauses. ii. In regard to the Holy Spirit. iii. In regard to the Incarnation.
§ 10. Result.

§ 1. WE now come to investigate one of the most intricate of
literary questions, the date of the Athanasian Creed. Perhaps it
will be best that I should at once state the opinion to which
I have been led, which is this: that the Creed was not known
in its present form before the latter years of the eighth century.
This I conceive to be capable of proof. But I will simply lay
down now some facts which may help to guide others to form
their own decision. Whether that decision agrees with my
Opinion on the subject, may be deemed a matter of little im-
portance; and it is of little importance, so far as I am con-
cerned. For every investigator must be content in his search
after truth to find himself committing many mistakes; he must
make many guesses which he will have to throw aside before
he suggests the hypothesis which ultimately satisfies the require-
ments of the case. Very probably the true solution of the diffi-
culty will come from another quarter. But if I produce my
evidence fairly, and uphold my opinion calmly, I trust that I shall
not be excluded from the honourable class of Scientific Investi-
gators.

§ 2. For two or three centuries before the Reformation, it
was regarded as almost unquestionable, that the Quicunque vult
was written by St Athanasius. When Bishop Jewel, however,

13—2

196 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH.

[ CHAP.

published his answer to Harding (it was dated December, 1569),
this opinion seems to have been shaken. For in the beginning of
the Second Part of the Defence of the Apology, the Bishop speaks
“of the Creed called Quicunque vult, written as some think by
Athanasius; as some others by Eusebius Vercellensis’.” The
notion seems to have been that Athanasius wrote it in Greek,
and Eusebius transferred it into Latin. I have not seen the work
of Pithzeus, to which Voss refers with great respect in the book to
which I must next refer. Pithzus seems to have adduced strong
arguments against the received opinion, and prepared the next
generation for a more determined onslaught on that opinion.

§ 3. The ablest investigatérs into the history of our Creeds,
which the seventeenth century produced, were, undoubtedly,
G. J. Voss and Archbishop Usher. The former, in a work, De
tribus Symbolis, published in the year 1642, exhibited the results
of considerable research as to the Athanasian Creed. He was led
to believe that it was first put forth in the beginning of the ninth
century. The great Roman annalist, Baronius, had adopted the
opinion that it had been produced at Rome by Athanasius himself
during his exile, and had remained long unnoticed among the
archives of the great metropolis. This was mere surmise. Voss
rejected the opinion, and attempted to arrive at a conclusion sup-
ported by some historical evidence.

§ 4. Five years later, 1.6. in the year 1647, the learned
Usher printed his famous treatise, De Symbolo Romano, now found
in volume vit. of his collected works. In it he addressed a kind
of dedicatory letter to Voss, in which he gently remonstrated
against the conclusion at which his friend had arrived. Usher's
evidence seemed very strong. He had found amongst the manu-
scripts of the Cotton Library two, which he deemed to be of
greater antiquity than the date to which Voss assigned the Creed.

1 Parker Society’s edition, p. 254. The
passage is curious, and as it was known
to Voss is worthy to be produced here.
Harding had ridiculed the formule of
Protestants, representing that of old
there was only one Creed—the Apostles’
Creed. Jewel replies: ‘‘ Yet being learn-
ed and having travailed through the
ancient writers, you must needs have
seen the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene

Creed, St Basil’s Creed, Damasus’ Creed,
St Hierome’s Creed, St Cyprian’s or
Rufine’s Creed, Gregorius’ Creed, the
Creed called Quicunque vult, written as
some think by Athanasius, as some
others by Eusebius Vercellensis, the
Creed contained in the hymn called Te
Deum, whether it were written by St
Augustine or St Ambrose; every of
these under several and sundry forms.”

ΧΥΤῚ THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 197

They both contained the Athanasian and Apostles’ Creeds, and
the Te Deum. The former MS. he judged from the character of
the pictures and of the writing to be of a date not later than
Gregory I: the latter bore the name of Athelstan, but from the
Calendar prefixed (he said) it must have been written about the
year 703. Thus, if he was correct as to either Manuscript, the
arguments of Voss would be superseded by this additional evidence
of antiquity.

§ 5. From the time of Usher until the autumn of 1871, the
former Manuscript was lost to England and to English writers.
In 1871, with a view to the controversy which was impending
in regard to the Quicunque, I was preparing materials for an
edition of Waterland’s celebrated treatise upon it, and endea-
vouring to identify the Manuscripts which Waterland refers to.
In the course of my enquiries I met with great attention and
kindness from Mr Henry Bradshaw, the distinguished Librarian
of the University of Cambridge. He mentioned to me, one day in
the month of November, that he had discovered a notice of the
Athanasian Creed of the seventh or eighth century. He led me
to Professor Westwood’s magnificent work on The Miniatures and
Ornaments of Anglo-Saxon and Irish Manuscripts, and shewed me
a drawing from a Utrecht Psalter, and the accompanying letter-
press. I examined the latter with avidity. I felt confident that
Protessor Westwood had discovered the long missing Manuscript,
by which Usher had overthrown (as was thought) the theory of Voss;
but I wished to see once more what Usher had said before I gave
vent to my delight. A few minutes were sufficient: and Mr Brad-
shaw also was convinced. I mentioned the discovery in a little pam-
phlet which I put out on Nov. 30 of that year. The circumstance
attracted attention, Through the liberality of Professor Jones,
S.J., of St Beuno’s College, St Asaph, and the exertions of Pro-
Ἢ Arntz of the Sena at Cuilemberg, near to Utrecht, a
few coloured lithographs of the pages containing the Athanasian
Creed were received in England in May, 1872; one of which I was
able to deposit in the Library of the University of Cambridge.
They were followed by others of a slightly different impression,
late in June or early in July. These attracted greater attention,
for one was transmitted to the Record Office and placed in the
hands of Sir Thomas Duffus Hardy, the distinguished Deputy

198 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

Keeper of the Public Rolls, who rapidly formed an opinion on the
lithograph, similar to that of Archbishop Usher. A few days
later, this copy was produced in the Upper House of Convocation,
where it received great attention. At a later period of the year,
the authorities of the University of Utrecht transmitted three
photographs of the pages in question; of which I had the honour
of receiving one. Increased attention was drawn to the Manu-
script by Sir Duffus Hardy in a Report which he submitted to
Lord Romilly, the Master of the Rolls. It was with great regret
that I found that the learned writer upheld his earlier opinion by
arguments of a literary character, which I knew were untenable;
and I waited with some anxiety the judgment of Palzeographers,
whose experience had been gained rather amongst books than
amongst charters. The interest in the subject waxed greater:
reference was made to this Report at an excited meeting held in
the spring of 1873, and at last, through the intervention of the
Foreign Office, the Trustees of the British Museum obtained
temporary possession of the precious volume. It was then exa-
mined by some of the most experienced librarians and palzogra-
phers in England. The result is, so far as I am aware, that Sir
Duffus Hardy stands alone of living authorities in his opinion.
I believe that every other authority who has examined the volume
simply on artistic and paleographical principles, has come to an
opinion similar to that which I have been compelled to form from
the general contents of the volume. The Manuscript is said by
these gentlemen to be not earlier than the school of Charlemagne.
The Canons and Capitulars of that monarch, to which I have
already drawn attention’, throw great interest upon the manu-
scripts of the period, and help to set the question at rest. ὃ

The Cottonian press-mark for the Psalter was Claudius
C. vil.: and by this title I shall generally refer to it. I shall
have to discuss some points regarding it hereafter.

§ 6. Of the other Manuscript mentioned by Archbishop
Usher, a clear and interesting account may be seen in Dr
Heurtley’s volume on the Creed*. The Manuscript, as it exists
at present, consists of three parts, written at three different
periods. And the part which contaims the Athanasian Creed

' Chapter xv. pp. 181, 182, 190. 2 Harmonia Symbolica, pp. 74—80.

XVI. | THE ATHANASIAN CREED. Pele OU

is acknowledged by all modern authorities to belong to the ninth
or tenth, or even the eleventh century. The press-mark is Galba
A. XVIIL

Thus the two documents on which Usher’s objections to the
theory of his friend were founded, are too frail to build a decided
opinion upon: and the literary arguments of the learned Voss
again assume an important character.

§ 7. Another disturbing element, affecting the arguments of
more recent enquirers, was furnished by a third volume, to which
J must briefly refer. It is the beautiful Psalter in the Library at
Vienna, which Lambecius, the librarian in the seventeenth cen-
tury, described at length, and which he regarded, without any
hesitation, as having been prepared by the orders of Charlemagne
as a present for the Pope, Hadrian I. If so, it must belong to
some year between 772 and 795. The precise date of this
Manuscript is, at the present stage of our enquiry, comparatively
unimportant. I must, however, add, that more recent paleogra-
phers have been led to question the account, on arguments purely
scientific: and that the librarians at Vienna (who, of course, can
take little interest in our English questionings as such) consider
that the Charles from whom it was a present, was Charles the
Bald, and the Hadrian, to whom it was offered, was Hadrian II.
To use the words of one of them, they consider that the account
of its being of Charlemagne’s time is “a myth, and not true’.”

§ 8. I do not know that the controversy has been much
affected by the mistake of Usher as to the date of “ Athelstan’s
Psalter.” But the very interesting account given by Tentzel—(in
the little volume from which Waterland drew most of his infor-
mation as to the opinions of foreign divines)—of the grounds on
which Leo Allatius, and Ruelius, and Quesnel, and Sandius, and
Gundling, and Cabassutius, formed their respective opinions, shews
the great importance which these learned men attached to the
judgments of Usher and Lambecius respectively as to the dates
of the other two famous Psalters. We need not, therefore, now
enquire into the respective claims of Vigilius of Tapsus, or Atha-
nasius of Spire, or Vincentius of Lerins, or Venantius Fortunatus,
or Hilary of Arles,—although, perhaps, some reference is due to a

1 Private letter.

200 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

work, which created a little sensation when it appeared in the
course of 1872, entitled Zhe Athanasian Origin of the Athana-
sian Creed. To this book I shall devote the remainder of this
chapter.

§ 9. Of the work to which I have now referred, the following is
stated to have been the object of the writer: “ΤῸ shew the har-
mony of the Athanasian Creed with the teaching of St Athanasius.”

- As the Church of England has on no occasion identified her-
self with the teaching of Athanasius—which we have seen to have
been, according to all accounts, very imperfect—we are con-
cerned with the proofs of this proposition in their literary and
historical bearings only. The interesting question is simply this:
« Are the sentiments throughout identical with the sentiments of
the great Patriarch of Alexandria?” I have in an earlier chapter
adduced a work of the Bishop, which is generally considered to be
genuine, that shews a marked divergence in thought from the
document before us: it contains an expression, which to our
more accurate knowledge is decidedly imperfect, if it is not
heretical; an expression which Augustine used in his earlier
days, and regretted in his later years that he had ever adopted.
No one amongst us charges the teaching of the Quicunque, in its
Theological or Christological statements, as being so far erroneous:
the great objections to it are, (i) that it presses on our people
distinctions which only an educated mind ean appreciate: and
(ii) that it enforces the reception of these distinctions, in lan-
guage which has recently called forth a Synodical Declaration to
explain. Thus it is regarded as unintelligible to the ordinary
churchman in its language: and unintelligible to him Jin its
sanctions.

i. However, I turn to the volume the title of which I have
given above, and f find an attempt made to exhibit clause by
clause words of Athanasius, similar in their purport to words
of the Quicunque. And what is the result? In the statement
of the first two clauses: “Whosoever will be saved, before all
things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith; which
faith, except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without
doubt he shall perish everlastingly,”’ the penalty of the non-reten-
tion of the Faith of the Church 15 represented as being everlasting
death. Nothing is adduced from Athanasius in proof that he

KV] THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 201

held such an opinion. It seems that he held and taught some-
thing, which, though in direct antagonism to the words of our
~ Saviour, still ought not to have been adduced, as it is, in proof
that he would have accepted the sentiment of these clauses. The
Saviour had said (Matt. xu. 32), “Whosoever shall speak a word
against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him:” but Athanasius
is quoted (p. 20 of this book) as stating: “Whosoever blasphemes
(speaks against) any one Person (ὑποστάσεων) in the Trinity, has
no forgiveness, neither in this world nor yet in the world to come:
but God can open his eyes,” &c. But, putting on one side this
strange perversion of the words of our Saviour, I contend that the
non-acceptance or the non-retention of scientific truth relating to
the Holy Trinity, is not a sin to be compared with the blas-
pheming of One of the Three Divine Persons. Athanasius con-
demned positive and active blasphemy: this Creed condemns the
want of a correct or Catholic Belief. Elsewhere (p. 31) lan-
guage of Athanasius regarding the Son as self-complete, living
and energising, the true Image of the Father, equal in honour,
equal in glory, is referred to (it 1s not quoted) as in strict accord-
ance with “the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds,’ “Who with the
Father and the Son is magnified (sic) and glorified’””—words of
which of course the Holy Spirit is the subject, and which, by the
way, are not found in either the Athanasian or Nicene Creed
proper. Again, the words “all things were created through the
Son, but He Himself is not a thing created,” are quoted (p. 33),
as throwing the sanction of Athanasius over the clause, “the
Son uncreate, the Holy Ghost uncreate.”

1. The fact, however, 15 that the statements of the Quicunque
relating to the Hoty Sprit are historically of a date later than
the active period of the life of Athanasius. The work of his
age and the work of his life was to exhibit the truth that the
SON OF Gop is of the Substance of the Father, illimitable, eternal,
co-essential. He was unwilling to modify the Nicene Creed, so as
to introduce in it even similar language regarding the Holy Spirit.
His letter to Jovianus proves this. The Arian heresy was re-

viving, he says (§ 1), and the heretics represented that the Holy
Spirit κτίσμα εἶναι καὶ ποίημα διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ γεγενῆσθαι, is “a
thing created, and had been made through the Son: therefore he
will enuntiate once more the Faith of the Nicene Council, ac-
cepted, as it is, throughout almost all Christendom.” The

202 THE CREEDS

OF THE CHURCH.

[ CHAP.

contrasts in this respect between the Creed of Nicza and the
second Creed of Epiphanius, and again between the writings of
Athanasius and the Panarion of the latter writer, are most in-

structive.

I shall refer to the latter in a succeeding chapter’.

11. When we come to the clauses relating to the Incarnation,
we may notice an increased difficulty in finding parallel expressions

1 Chap. xvi. The book which exists
only in Latin ‘‘ de Trinitate et de Spi-
ritu Sancto,” was long considered to be
spurious. The Benedictine editors, how-
ever, have placed it among the genuine
works. Before I pass on, I am com-
pelled to remonstrate against a practice
that has come into vogue in late years,
of interpreting clauses of the Creeds not
by the original Greek or Latin, but by
the English, even where the meaning
of the original is definite and the mean-
ing of the English is ambiguous, Thus
the English expression, ‘The Holy
Ghost is of the Father and of the Son,”’
might mean that ‘‘He is the Spirit of
the Father and the Spirit of the Son.”
It is assumed that this is the mean-
ing, and then in proof of the agreement
of the clause with the opinions of St
Athanasius, the following words of the
latter (1. 552, Epist. 1. ad Serap, τι. 626
of Migne) are referred to and partly
quoted. ‘‘As the Son saith, All things
that the Father hath are mine, so shall
we find that these all are through the
Son and in the Spirit. And as the
Father pointed out the Son, saying, This
is my Beloved Son in Whom I am well
pleased, so too is the Spirit the Spirit
of the Son (οὕτως τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐστι τὸ πνεῦμα),
for the Apostle saith, He sent forth the
Spirit of His Son into your hearts, cry-
ing, Abba, Father: And the paradox is,
that as the Son saith, All mine are the
Father’s, so the Holy Spirit is the Fa-
ther’s also, even when He is called the
DOM 6a act: ‘So throughout the Holy
Scripture you will find that the Holy
Spirit Which is said to be the Son’s is
also said to be the Father’s.’’ These are
the words of Athanasins. The following
are the words of his commentator (p. 47):
“ΝΟΥ it is worth observing that the ex-
pression, ‘is of the Father and of the
Son,’ is a close imitation of the words
of Athanasius (τοῦ υἱοῦ, τοῦ πατρός), and
scarcely amounts to the strict termino-
logy by which the Greek heresy was
afterwards met, ‘proceeding from the
Father and the Son.’” But to make the
parailel with the words of Athanasius

in any degree applicable, the Latin of
our Creed ought to be, ‘‘ Spiritus Sanctus
Patris est et Filii, non factus, nec crea-
tus, nec genitus, sed procedens.” Yet
every tiro in this matter knows that the
words are ‘‘ Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et
Filio.”” Thus the quotation from Atha-
nasius is entirely out of place. And yet
the same writer in 1871 adduced in
favour of a Greek original of the Creed,
the facts that ‘‘ John Plusiadenus” read
the words, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἀπὸ τοῦ
πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ οὐ ποιητὸν, οὐ κτιστὸν,
οὐδὲ γεννητὸν, αλλ᾽ ἐκπορευτόν; and John
Veccius or Becchius, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον
ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ, κιτιλ. The
Greek manuscript in Venice, for a pho--
tograph of which we are indebted to the
energy of Sir Duffus Hardy, reads, τὸ
πνεῦμα TO ἅγιον ἀπὸ tov πατρός. The
copy in the modern Greek Horologium
reads the same.

Again, a notice was given in the Lower
House of the Convocation of the Pro-
vince of Canterbury, on May 6, 1873, of
a proposal to the following effect : ‘‘ That
in the words ‘of the Son’ in the Atha-
nasian Confession of Faith, and in the
words ‘and the Son’ in the Niceno-Con-
stantinopolitan Creed, we profess and
teach that the Holy Ghost Who ineffa-
bly and from all eternity proceedeth
from the Father is ineffably and from
all eternity the Spirit of the Father
and of the Son, &c.;” that is to say,
it was proposed that the Clergy of the
Convocation of Canterbury should avow
that when we recite “the Holy Spirit is
of the Father and of the Son,” we mean
that He is the Spirit of the Father and
the Son. Somehow the words of the
motion were altered after the notice was
given: and the new motion was with-
drawn entirely on May 8. Convocation
was thus preserved from the temptation
of putting on the words of a translation,
a signification which the words of the
original do not and cannot bear: and
this with the hope of removing what was
called ‘‘a condemnation of the Eastern
Church.”

XVI. | | THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 203

amongst the writings of Athanasius. The perfect Deity of the
Saviour was taught by him, as well as His perfect Humanity ;
but on the Union of the two Natures in the one Person Atha-
nasius is not explicit. Nothing is adduced to shew that he held
that the Saviour was Man of the Substance of His Mother. I
think he would have shrunk from such words: to his acute mind
they would have seemed (as they do to others) to introduce a
materialistic conception of the words “of the Substance of the
Father” in the original Nicene Creed. Nor, again, is there a single
passage adduced to illustrate the antithesis, “Equal to the Father
as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching
His Manhood.” So, again, the words “by the taking of the
Manhood into God” (or “in God”), belong to a date later than
Athanasius ; and the phrases “not by confusion of Substance, but
by unity of Person,” are due to the controversies of the next
generation. To illustrate the connection of Athanasius with
clause 37, “As the reasonable soul,” &c., a passage is taken from a
Greek monk, who was living in the year 1118, more than seven
hundred years after the death of Athanasius.

§ 10. We are thus enabled to judge how far the conclusion of
this writer can be maintained, “That these proofs are sufficient
to convince all men of ordinary candour that the similarity
between the teaching of St Athanasius and the Athanasian Creed,
is sufficiently close to justify the Church of England in retaining
that Creed unimpaired and unaltered as a Confession of our
Christian Faith.’ I have before stated that we have what is
considered to be a genuine confession of the Faith of Athanasius,
which we entirely neglect: and again, that the Church of England
does not as yet accept as Scriptural any dogma because it has
been enuntiated by any number of Fathers. This work, therefore,
elaborate though it may be considered to be, is, in its aim, so
far as we are concerned, completely beside the mark. But when we
notice that the extracts adduced fail to prove that Athanasius
sympathized in any degree with those clauses against which
the continuous opposition of members of the English Church
has been raised; yea, moreover, that so far as we can judge,
Athanasius did not hold, as assuredly he did not express, the
opinion, that the Arian Emperors who persecuted him from city
to city were beyond the pale of Salvation, the contrast becomes

204 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

more striking. Henceforth we may point to the pages of this little
volume as proving that, even by a zealous and earnest advocate, no
adequate support for these clauses could be found in the writings
of Athanasius.

As it will be necessary to refer from time to fime to the
clauses of the Athanasian Creed by number, I will here print
the received text of the Creed as it is found in the Roman
Breviary, adopting however our English division of the clauses.

SYMBOLUM ATHANASII.

1 Quicunque vult salvus esse : ante omnia opus est ut teneat
Catholicam fidem.

2 Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit : abs-
que dubio in zternum peribit.

3 Fides autem Catholica hee est : ut unum Deum in Trinitate,
et Trinitatem in Unitate veneremur.

4 Neque confundentes personas : neque substantiam separantes.

5 Alia est enim persona Patris, alia Filii : alia Spiritus Sancti.

6 Sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti una est Divinitas :
eequalis gloria, cozterna majestas.

‘7 Qualis Pater, talis Filius : talis Spiritus Sanctus.

8 Increatus Pater, increatus Filius : increatus Spiritus Sanctus.

9 Immensus Pater,immensus Filius : immensus Spiritus Sanctus,

10 Aternus Pater, zeternus Filius : zternus Spiritus Sanctus.

11 Et tamen non tres eterni : sed unus eternus.

12 Sicut non tres increati nec tres immensi : sed unus incre-
atus et unus immensus.

13 Similiter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius : omnipo-
tens Spiritus Sanctus.

14 Et tamen non tres omnipotentes : sed unus omnipotens.

15 Ita Deus Pater, Deus Filius : Deus Spiritus Sanctus.

16 Et tamen non tres Dii : sed unus est Deus.

17 Ita Dominus Pater, Dominus Filius : Dominus Spiritus
Sanctus.

18 Et tamen non tres Domini : sed unus est Dominus.

19 Quia sicut singillatim unamquamque Personam Deum et
Dominum confiteri : Christiana veritate compellimur ;

20 Ita tres Deos aut Dominos dicere : Catholica religione pro-
hibemur.

XVI. | THE ATHANASIAN CREED. 20

21 Pater a nullo est factus : nec creatus nec genitus.

22 Filius a Patre solo est : non factus nec creatus sed genitus.

23 Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio : non factus nec creatus
nec genitus sed procedens.

24 Unus ergo Pater, non tres Patres : unus Filius, non tres
Filii : unus Spiritus Sanctus, non tres Spiritus Sancti.

25 Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius : nihil majus
aut minus.

26 Sed tote tres Persone : cowterne 5101 sunt et cozquales.

27 Ita ut per omnia (sicut jam supra dictum est) et Unitas in
Trinitate : et Trinitas in Unitate veneranda sit.

28 Qui vult ergo salvus esse : ita de Trinitate sentiat.

29 Sed necessarium est ad eternam salutem : ut incarnatio-
nem quoque Domini nostri Jesu Christi fideliter credat.

30 Est ergo fides recta ut credamus et confiteamur : quia Do-
minus noster Jesus Christus, Dei Filius, Deus et homo est.

31 Deus est ex substantia Patris ante seecula genitus : et homo
est ex substantia matris in szeculo natus.

32 Perfectus Deus, perfectus homo : ex anima rationali et
humana carne subsistens.

33 Aiqualis Patri secundum Divinitatem : minor Patre secun-
dum humanitatem. ᾿

34 Qui licet Deus sit et homo : non duo tamen sed unus est
Christus.

35 Unus autem non conversione Divinitatis in carnem : sed
assumptione humanitatis in Deum.

36 Unus omnino, non confusione substantive : sed unitate
Persone.

37 Nam sicut anima rationalis et earo unus est homo : ita
Deus et homo unus est Christus.

38 Qui passus est pro salute nostra, descendit ad inferos :
tertia die resurrexit a mortuis.

39 Ascendit ad czlos, sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris Omnipo-
tentis : inde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos,

40 Ad cujus adventum omnes homines resurgere habent cum
corporibus suis : et reddituri sunt de factis propriis rationem.

41 Et qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vitam wternam : qui vero
mala, in ignem eternum. |

42 Heec est: fides Catholica, quam nisi quisque fideliter firmi-
terque crediderit : salvus esse non poterit.

CHAPTER XVII.

INFLUENCE OF AUGUSTINE'S WRITINGS ON THE
SUBJECT OF THE TRINITY.

§1, Review. We must look to the West for further developments. § 2. The
Quicunque does not use the language of the Definition of Chalcedon. § 3.
We go back to the times and writings of St Augustine. § 4. Still earlier
to Philastrius. ὃ 5. Augustine’s commendation of the truth. ὃ 6. In-
fluence of Epiphanius on Augustine. § 7. St Augustine de Trinitate.
§ 8. The work used by Alcuin. 89, Augustine’s conference with Maximi-
nus. 8110, HisSermons. §11. Results. §12. Augustine’s Prayer.

THE discoveries of the last few years have thus left, as it were,
a tabula rasa, for future investigators on the history of the so-
called Athanasian Creed. We have, in fact, to do everything
over again, And first we have to collect our evidence.

§ 1. We must then notice first, that, so far as the Eastern
Churches and the Eastern Councils spoke, they considered that the
Ecthesis of the 318 at Niczea and the Definition of the 150 at
Constantinople ought to have been enough to proclaim the
perfect faith of the Church concerning the Father and the Son
and the Holy Spirit. Further investigations regarding the Holy
Trinity were almost inconsistent with this Decision of Chalcedon.
I am almost inclined to suppose that these words were used with
reference to the great work of St Augustine, Bishop of Hippo.

§ 2. But looking at the language of the Council of Chalcedon
concerning the Incarnation, and comparing it with the corre-
sponding phrases in the latter part of the Athanasian Creed,
we cannot but observe, I conceive, a refinement of phraseology in
the latter which indicates that it was prepared at a later period
than the Definition of the Council: in other words, the language

CHAP. XVII. ] ST AUGUSTINE ON THE TRINITY. 207

of the Council led up to the language of the Creed. The clauses
are more compact: the subjects better arranged: the “antitheti-
cal swing of the sentences, forcing and exulting in forcing a
mystery on recalcitrant minds,” is surely due to long years of
meditation over the truths established at the fourth great Council.
In lieu of the words reasonable soul and body, we have in the
Creed reasonable soul and human flesh : in lieu of in these last days,
we have in seculo, in the world, so as to balance the ante secula,
before the worlds. And we must notice that the latter portion of
the Creed follows the lines of the Western Symbol. The phrase
descendit ad inferos, He descended into hell, shews this.

§ 3. But the perusal of the great work of Augustine on the
Trinity sufficiently exhibits that it is to him that we owe, directly
or indirectly, the substance and the language of the earlier part
of the Creed—the part relating to the Trinity. He had been asked
by a friend (“ Quod-vult-deus”), a deacon of Carthage, to give an
account of all the heresies which had then appeared. At first he
referred his friend to the work of Philastrius, Bishop of Brescia, and
to the similar, though more learned, treatise written by Epiphanius.
From Philastrius, probably, Augustine learnt some of the phrases
which he adopted: he had met him, he says, during his visit to
Milan (384 to 387), and there had probably learnt his character.
And thus it is that we look to an Italian bishop for our first
glimpse of expressions which have come to us, expressions which
have gained their currency from the stamp that was given to
them by the Bishop of Hippo.

§ 4. Thus we read in his fifty-first chapter that Philastrius
mentions |

Some who separated themselves from the Catholic Church, not
understanding that qualis immensus est Pater, talis est et Filius, talis est
et Spiritus Sanctus, “as the Father is unmeasured (incomprehensible is
our English word here), so too is the Son, so too is the Holy Spirit:
equal in all things, so that the Trinity is immovable, unmeasured,
omnipotent, and eternal.” In chapter Lv. we read that Selewcus denied
that the Saviour is seated in the flesh at the right hand of the Father:
in LVI. the Procliniate denied that Christ had come in the flesh, or that
there shall be a resurrection and a judgment: in Lvu. the Mlorians
denied also that Christ was born of a Virgin. Paul of Samosata (chap.
1.Χ111.} denied that the Word of God, t.e. Christ, is God the Son, sub-
stantive, and personal, and eternal with the Father. The Arians are

208 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

referred to in chap. Lxvi.; and in chap. Lxvil. we are told that the
Semi-Arians hold right opinions of the Father and the Son, believing
that there is only one Divinity, but teach that the Holy Spirit is not of
the Divine substance, nor is He very God, but is made and created.
The Z'ropite (ch. Lxx.) say that the Word was converted into flesh.
Photinus (xct.) denied that Christ the Lord was with the Father ante
secula, before all worlds. But chapter ΧΟΙΠΙ. is even more to our purpose:
Philastrius was speaking of those who made “Triformem Deum.” He
enunciated the Catholic Faith on the subject thus: “There is a true
Person of the Father which sent the Son: and there is a true Person of
the Son which came from the Father: and there is a true Person of the
Holy Spirit which was sent from the Father and the Son. Of these
three Persons there is one truth, majesty, equality of substance, and
eternal divinity. For as the Person of the Father is immeasurable and
ineffable, such is the Person of the Son, such is the Person of the Holy
Spirit. So that in the distinction of Names and of three Persons there
is no diversity of nature. This Trinity therefore is immeasurable
(immensibilis), invisible, and ineffable*.”

§ 5. But although St Augustine owed some of the expressions
which we shall find him using to ‘his predecessor, Philaster or
Philastrius, it is clear that he exercised his own maturer judgment
upon them. He was not entirely satisfied with the work of
Philaster. He speaks of its being prolix: and, whereas Philaster
had used the term “ equality of substance,” Augustine very care-
fully avoided the words, and in his book, De Heresibus®, declares
that “the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit are of one and the
same Nature and Substance, or (that it may be said more ex-
pressly) Essence; which in the Greek is called οὐσία" He
mentions, too, that the Donatist Bishop, Majorinus, “had not
Catholic views regarding the Trinity; for, although he held that
They are of the same substance, he considered that the Son is
less than (or inferior to, minor) the Father, and the Holy Spirit
less than the Son*” The progress of thought on this subject is
indicated, I conceive, by the entire omission in the Quicunque
of the Nicene phrase ὁμοούσιος, of its Latinized form homdusios,
or its Latin equivalent. From the words with which Augustine
closes his tract, I quote the following: they will shew that, at all
events, he is not responsible for the sentiment with which the
Quicunque ends.

1 Migne (Vol. x11.) reprints this work whose first edition came out in 1723,
from the edition of Gallard, canon of and second in 1727.
Brescia, published in 1738. Thus per- 2 In Vol. vit. of Gaume.
haps it was not known to Waterland, το ἡ Fp. 0.0

XVII. | ST AUGUSTINE ON THE TRINITY. 209

“Tt is of great assistance to the faithful heart to know what ought
not to be believed, even though he may not have the power of refuting
such errors by disputation. Every Catholic Christian ought not to
believe these things, but it does not follow that every one who does not
believe them ought to call himself a Catholic Christian. There may be
other heresies which are not spoken of in my work; and if a man holds
any one of these he cannot be a Catholic Christian. Our duty is to
avoid all heretical poisons, not only what we know but what we do not
know; not only such as have arisen already, but such as may arise
hereafter.” Augustine does not intimate that every perscn who is not
a Catholic Christian cannot be saved.

§ 6. The great work of Augustine on the subject before us is
entitled from it De Trinztate. It was commenced (as he informs
us, through his friend Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage) when he was.
a young man: it was published when he was old’. We must
regard it, therefore, as embodying the result of much study and
much thought. He was not a mere producer of other men’s
language.

And it is interesting to know that he was acquainted with
the writings of Epiphanius, to whose work on the Heresies of
his day we have already found references in the writings of
the great African Bishop. Thus Augustine knew of the language
which the Bishop of Constantia had used of the Incarnate Word ;
that “He had flesh and soul in truth, and all that belongs to
man:” that “He was perfect God and perfect Man, without sin,
having taken the body from Mary, and received soul and νοῦς
and all that belongs to man:” that “He underwent no conversion,
nor did He change His Deity into Humanity: that the Word was
not turned into flesh; that the Godhead did not die, but Christ
died in the flesh: the same, God; the same, Man; that empowering
an earthly body with the Godhead, He united them in one Power,
gathered them into one Godhead, being one Lord, one Christ,
not two Christs nor two Gods: God and Man, not two but one;
uniting but not confusing’.” Nor was the language of Epipha-
nius concerning the Trinity of less assistance to him. “There was
never a time when the Son was not: never a time when the Holy

1 About the year 416, because it contains not only the whole

* Most of these expressions on the of the letter of Athanasius to Epictetus,
Incarnation will be found in the long but also an account of a disputation
chapter of Epiphanius’ “Panarion” which Epiphanius held with the Apolli-
against the Dimoerites, who denied the narian bishop Vitalis. (Epiphanius de-
perfect Incarnation of the Christ(Heresy, scribed Apollinaris as ev\aBéoraros. )
LXXVII. or LviI.), The chapter is long,

5. 6, 14

210 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH.

[ CHAP.

Spirit was not:” “the Father ever, the Son ever, the Holy Spirit
ever:” “the Holy Spirit ever; not begotten, not created, but of
the same substance with the Father and the Son:” “proceeding
from the Father, receiving from the Son’.”

§ 7. Such was the language with which Augustine’s mind
had been familiarized—and with this brief account before me,
I would adduce some of the many passages from this great WORK
ON THE TRINITY, which seem to have given rise to expressions
in our so-called Athanasian Creed. I have endeavoured to find

something corroborative of every clause of the Creed.

When

I am silent, it must be assumed that I have been unsuccessful.
I will arrange his words in the order of the verses of the Creed.

Of the Catholic Faith he uses words which might well be the
motto of my present volume: “ Let not my reader love me more
than the Catholic Faith: let him not love himself more than
the Catholic Truth” (111. 2, p. 1214).

“Let there be no confusion of Persons, nor such a distinction as to

represent One as unequal to Another” (vir. 12, p. 1320).

is inseparable” (1. 7, p. 1159).
Persons, why not Three Gods?

“The Trinity

The question is put “If we say Three
Surely as the Father is a Person, the

Son a Person, the Holy Spirit a Person, they are Three Persons ; if
then the Father is God, the Son God, the Holy Spirit God, are they not

three Gods?”

The answer is “In saying three Gods we contradict
Scripture ; in saying three Persons we do not” (vi. ὃ, p. 1312).

The

words “equal and coeternal” are found together in 111. 27 (p. 1240). In

1 No. txxv. (or itv.) of the Panarton
is directed against the Pneumatomachi;
and in connection with them the con-
troversies of Augustine’s time regarding
the terms to be used of the Holy Trinity
arose. Epiphanius held (cap. tv.) τρία
ayia, τρία συνάγια, τρία ἐνύπαρκτα, τρία
συνύπαρκτα...τρία ἐνυπόστατα, τρία συνυ-
πόστατα. τρίας αὕτη ἁγία καλεῖται, τρία
ὄντα, μία συμφωνία, μία θεότης τῆς αὐτῆς
δυνάμεως, τῆς αὐτῆς ὑποστάσεως. (Cap. ΧΙ.)
ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς ἀκατάληπτος, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα
ἀκατάληπτον. (Cap. XII.) τέλειος ὁ πατὴρ,
τέλειος ὁ υἱὸς, τέλειον τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα...
ἣν ἀεὶ πατὴρ καὶ υἱὸς καὶ ἅγιον πνεῦμα...
πατὴρ οὖν ἀεὶ ἀγέννητος καὶ ἄκτιστος καὶ
ἀκατάληπτος" υἱὸς δὲ γέννητος ἀλλ᾽ ἄκτισ-
τος καὶ ἀκατάληπτος" πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἀεὶ οὐ
γεννητὸν, οὐ κτιστὸν, οὐ προπατόρον, οὐκ
ἔγγονον ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας πατρὸς καὶ
υἱοῦ.

Hagenbach in his History of Doc-

trines ὃ 94, note 2 (Clark’s Translation,
I. p. 262), adduces these passages. Epi-
phanius, Ancorat. § 9, after having
proved the Divinity of the Spirit, e.g.
from Acts v. 3, says dpa Θεὸς ἐκ πατρὸς
καὶ υἱοῦ τὸ πνεῦμα, without expressly
stating that He ἐκπορεύεται ἐκ τοῦ
υἱοῦ. Compare Ancor. ὃ 8, πνεῦμα yap
Θεοῦ καὶ πνεῦμα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ πνεῦμα
υἱοῦ οὐ κατά τινα σύνθεσιν, καθάπερ ἐν
ἡμῖν ψυχὴ καὶ σῶμα, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν μέσῳ πατρὸς
καὶ υἱοῦ, ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ, τρίτον
τῇ ὀνομασίᾳ.

If we are to look for a Greek author
of the Athanasian Creed, we must prefer
Epiphanius to Athanasius.

The Panarion was written in or after
the 92nd year of ‘‘ Diocletian,” i.e. in or
after the year 376. Thus the language
of Epiphanius in it may be deemed
more careful than in the Ancorate,
$$ 8, 9.

XVIL. | ST AUGUSTINE ON THE TRINITY. 211

v. 9 (p. 1280) we have St Augustine insisting that it is improper not
only to say Three Gods, but also to say Three Great Ones (tres nagnos).
Thus again, “‘the Father is good, the Son is good, the Holy Spirit is
good ; not Three Good but One Good, of whom it is written Z’here is none
good but one, that is God.” “The Father is Almighty, the Son
Almighty, the Holy Ghost Almighty ; yet not three Almighties but one
Almighty.” The words “The Father is God, the Son God, the Holy
Ghost God ; yet not three Gods but one God” occur almost in the same
connection in 1. 7 (p. 1159), 1. 8 (p. 1160), and elsewhere. The word
singulatim, the meaning of which is (unhappily) inadequately represented
in our English translation of clause 19, occurs again and again in Augus-
tine: but, in a passage which resembles that clause (v. 9, p. 1281), we find
singulariter used in preference. ‘‘Quicquid ergo ad seipsum dicitur, et de
-singulis Personis similariter dicitur, id est de Patre et Filio et Spiritu
Sancto, et simul de ipsa Trinitate, non pluraliter sed singulariter dicitur.”
The true meaning of the clause is given in the following passage
(v. 14, p. 1285). “If we are asked separately of the Holy Spirit,
(sigillatim st interrogemur de Spiritw sancto, respondemus,) we answer
most surely that He is God, and with the Father and the Son together
one God.” In the last book, which was written latest, he maintains
that “As the Father hath life in Himself and hath given to the Son to
have life in Himself, so from the Father proceedeth the Holy Spirit ;
and the Father hath given to the Son that the Holy Spirit proceed from
Him, and both without time” (xv. 47, p. 1511). Our clause 24 “So
there is one Father not three Fathers” is explained in vu. 27 (p. 1311).
“The name of Father is not common to Them, as if They were Fathers
reciprocally to each other ; as friends, when spoken of relatively to each
other, may be described as three friends. Not so here. For only is the
Father Father, and still not the Father of the other Two, but Father
of the Son alone: nor are there three Sons; for the Father is not Son,
nor is the Holy Spirit Son: nor are there three Holy Spirits ; because
the Holy Spirit also, in His proper signification, when spoken of as the
gift of God, is neither Father nor Son.” The conception of priority in
any One, or of greater power in any One, is repudiated again and again.

On the Incarnation of our Lord and Saviour, Augustine was
clear and precise: but this work on the Trinity does not furnish
many passages on this subject. The heresies of Nestorius and
Kutyches attracted attention after his day. And although he wrote
after the Council of Constantinople, I have not found any reference
to that so-called cecumenical assembly. But Augustine was aware
of and rejected the heresy of Apollinarius:

Thus he speaks of the reasonable Soul of Christ in mt. 8, p. 1222,
and elsewhere ; and in 1. 3, p. 1156, appear the words divina virtus in
qua equalis est Patri. The expression that “(in the form of God He is
equal to the Father, in the form of the servant less” (which are not the
words of the Quicunque), occurs again and again. In one place it is
modified thus: natura equalis, habitu minor, “equal in nature, in

14—2

212 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

fashion less.” The time had not come for the necessity of insisting
much on the union of the two natures, but we have in 1. 14, p. 1166,
‘“‘ Neither was the Divinity changed into creature so that it ceased to be
Divinity ; nor was the creature changed into the Divinity so that it
ceased to be creature.” And we find “that “the Unity of Person” 15
spoken of in 11. 12, p. 1198, and tv. 31, p. 1272.

But in vain have I searched throughout these books for any-
thing resembling the clauses with which, in the Quicunque, the
Catholica fides is enforced. I find however this passage early in the
first book: “This is my Faith, because this is the Catholic Faith.”
The spirit of the whole work is exhibited in the passage with
which the whole work concludes. That passage I will translate
below.

§ 8. These books of Augustine’s are also historically of great
moment: for out of them Alcuin, the great friend of Charlemagne,
collected and compiled, for his imperial patron, a treatise on the
Trinity. To this borrowed work our attention must be turned
ere long.

§ 9. But there are other works of the great African Doctor,
which, though not of the same historic importance, are of equal
value in admitting us to an insight of the latest workings of his
great mind on this grand and difficult subject. His conference
with Maximinus, and two books which he wrote when that confer-
ence was over, belong to a date twelve years’ after his work on
the Trinity was completed. The conference arose from questions
started in his greater volume.

Maximinus attacked the opinion of Augustine and of the
Church in its most tender part.

“You acknowledge that there are Three Equals: prove this from
Scripture: prove that there are Three Equals, Three Omnipotents,
Three Unrevealed, Three Invisibles, Three Incomprehensibles (tres
incapabiles).” Augustine replied, as we should expect ; ‘““We do not say
there are Three Omnipotents, inasmuch as we do not say there are Three
Gods. If we are asked Is the Father God? we answer Yes: Is the Son
God? we answer Yes: Is the Holy Spirit God? we answer Yes: Are
there three Gods? we answer No: for the Scripture teaches //ear O
Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord, and in this divine prescription
we learn that the Holy Trinity is one God.” So of the Omnipotent: so
of the Invisible’.

1 About the year 427 or 428. (Hahn, p. 183, Harduin, 803, under the
2 Of the anathematisms of which dite 379) no. xxi. was this:
Damasus is considered to be the author “Si quis non dixerit tres Personas

XVII. | ST AUGUSTINE ON THE TRINITY. 313

The conference proceeds, and I think that every one who will
read it carefully will rise with clearer views of the Arian difficul-
ties than he had before; he will know, too, what meanings were
attached to the words omnipotens, immensus, incapabilis. Maxi-
minus contended that we have no right to argue from Scripture:
we must look to direct testimony only; we have no right, he says
ΠΟΥ seems to say, to ask what was the thought in the minds of
the writers when they used such and such language, and then
apply our inference to the case in hand.

This is not the place to discuss this principle: I have treated
the subject elsewhere’, and maintain that it is simply impossible
to cramp men’s minds within the narrow limits within which
Maximinus would have confined them. The surest proof of the
weakness of the Arians was this: They did not ask, and would not
ask, What was, what must have been, the Nature of our Lord, to
justify Him in using the language which He did? Mr F. W. New-
man, I believe, held at one time that He was not authorized m
uttering the reproaches found in Mat. xxiii, and so as a man was
justly condemned. There is no resting-ground between this view
and the Catholic doctrine of the perfect Deity and perfect Humanity
of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The conference, I say, is interesting: it was conducted on the
whole with moderation on both sides, and certainly there was no
expression on the part of St Augustine of what is now called “the
true charity” of informing Maximinus that he was in danger of
perishing everlastingly, since he did not hold the Catholic Faith.

The conference was, however, so important, that Maximinus
put in writing his objections to the opinions of Augustine, and
Augustine promised him a written reply. And thus they parted ;
Maximinus stating that he would acknowledge himself worthy of
blame if he did not in turn reply to Augustine’s proofs. |

veras Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti
eequales, semper viventes, omnia con-
tinentes visibilia et invisibilia, omnia
potentes, omnia vivificantes, omnia fa-
cientes, omnia que sunt salvanda sal-
vantes; anathema sit.”

1 cannot see how it is possible to
avoid the conclusion that Damasus
taught under the pain of anathema that
there were three Eternals, three Incom-
prehensibles, three Omnipotents.

Theodoret, IZ. Ε. v. 11, gives a Greek

translation of this series, entitling it,
ὁμολογία THs καθολικῆς πίστεως nv ὁ πά-
mas Δάμασος ἀπέστειλε πρὸς ἸΤανλῖνον ἐν
τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ.

The author most certainly denied (no,
xiv.) that ‘‘ God, the Son of God, suffer-
ed on the cross:’’ he held that it was
the flesh with the soul that suffered.
I suppose therefore that, according to
the Quicunque, this Pope is doubly con-
demned,

1 My Hulsean Lectures.

214 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

I need not give an abstract of Augustine’s books against
Maximinus. They were written witn the same courtesy that
characterised the interview. The nearest approach to his opinion
on Maximinus’ spiritual state is given in Book 11. chap. v. (Tom.
viu..p. 1067) :

“If you place such idols in your heart, as to make two Gods, one
greater, z7.e. the Father, the other less, z.e. the Son; and pretend that
the Holy Spirit is so far least of all that you will not deign even to call
Him God :—this is not our Faith, for it is not the Christian Faith, and
so it is not the Faith at all.”

The “ Right Faith” is spoken of in Book II. ch. x11. 2, p. 1076.
In ch. xIv. p. 1079, we may note further progress in Augus-
tine’s thoughts: “The Son is of (de) the Father: the Holy Spirit
is of (de) the Father: but the One Begotten, the Other Proceed-
ing: the One is the Son of the Father from whom He is begotten:
the Other is the Spirit of Both, because He proceeds from Both.”
In § 3, p. 1082, he appeals to the Scriptures as authority to which
both Maximinus and he would bow; the opinions of councils were
insufficient: in Xvi. p. 1099, he uses the Pauline expression,
JSulness of time, where the Quicunque has in seculo. But it is
from chapter XXII. onwards that our interest augments. And I
cannot but note the increase of precision in the language used
regarding the Persons of the Trinity: a precision for which few
seem to know that they are indebted to the Doctor of the
West.

He insists that the Father and the Son are wnwm, non unus,
but not absolutely so; They are wnwm, because They are of one
substance; but yet we affirm, that as He who cleaveth to the Lord 1s
one Spirit, unus Spiritus (of course Augustine follows the Latin),
so we may say, that the Father and Son are wnus, provided always
that we add something to this wnus, as unus Deus, unus Dominus,
unus Omnipotens. He quotes 1 John v. 8: There are three wit-
nesses, the spirit and the water and the blood, and three are one,
tres unum sunt; these witnesses being sacramenta, as to which we
must enquire, not what they are, but what they indicate; they
are signs of something higher; being one thing, signifying another.
They signify—the spirit, God the Father—the blood, the Son—
the water, the Holy Spirit. These are the three witnesses to
the Saviour, and Three are One, because They are of one substance.

XVII. | ST AUGUSTINE ON THE TRINITY. 215

Thus these signs, as proceeding from the Body of the Saviour,
figured the Church preaching one and the same nature of the
Trinity ; for the Church is the Body of Christ. And thus from the
Body of Christ proceeded the words, Go, baptize all nations in the
name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. He said, In
the Name, not In the Names, for These Three are one, unum sunt,
and these Three is One God, Mi tres unus est Deus. “ But,”
he proceeds, “if the depth of the Sacrament in the letter of St
John can be expounded in any other way—according to the
Catholic Faith, which neither confounds nor yet separates the
Trinity, which neither denies the Three Persons, nor yet believes
that they are different substances—on no account let such expla-
nation be rejected.”

After this it becomes of less moment to observe that in
XXIII. ὃ 2, pp. 1115, 1116, we have, “ Hear, O Israel, the Lord
thy God is one Lord, because the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost is (est) not three Gods but one God, not three Lords but
one Lord’. So if you ask me Which is Lord? I answer Each One:
but at the same time I say, Not three Lord Gods, but one Lord
God (p. 1117). This is my Faith, because it is the right Faith,
because it is the Catholic Faith.”

It is not necessary that I should multiply quotations in
which the same thoughts, and almost the same words, are re-
peated again and again. But there is one sentence which seems
to be specially worthy of remark: for it is just possible that to an
earlier expression of the sentiment therein conveyed we owe one
word of the Quicunque. “You (says Augustine to Maximinus)
have spoken with incredible temerity of the Son of God—as good
according to the measure of faith (xxul. § 7, pp. 1121, 1122).
You cannot, with sound faith, say even that the Father is with-
out measure, immensus. You assert that the Son is not equally
wmmensus: you regard Him as limited by measure (mensura
terminatum). Keep your measure to yourself, because you are
measuring (metiaris) your own false lord, but of the true God you
are telling falsehoods (mentiaris).” In xxvt. ὃ 13, p. 1136, he
sums up the subject and adduces the passage from Baruch (iii. 25),
whence the word must have come originally. Augustine applies

1 Of course Augustine did not know Jxrnovan. He puts 1 Cor. viii. 6 in con-
that Lord is here the proper name, nection with it.

*216 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

the whole to the Saviour, He is great and hath no end: high and
unmeasurable, “ excelsus et Immensus.”

The commendatory words with which Augustine closes this
discussion are these: “If you peacefully acquiesce in these testi-
monies and others like them’’—I have not space to put them all
together—“ you will become what you say you desire to be, a
disciple of the ‘Holy Scriptures.
brotherhood.”

Then I shall rejoice in your
May I refer once more to his appeal to Scripture 4

§ 10. Of course in other works of St Augustine we shall find
the same thoughts reproduced: in some, we shall find additional
clauses illustrated. Thus, Sermon cv. (Vol. v. p. 777), On the
Three Loaves, furnishes the following language: “ Panis est, et
Panis est, et Panis est. The Father God, the Son God, the Holy
Spirit God. The Father eternal, the Son co-eternal, the Holy
Spirit co-eternal. The Father immutable (tncommutabilis), the
Son immutable, the Holy Spirit immutable. The Father, and
Son, and Holy Spirit, Creator. The Father, and Son, and Holy
Spirit, the food and bread eternal. Learn and teach: live and
feed.” The following furnish specimens of his warnings: “This is
the Faith: hold what you do not see. Necessary 15 it that you
should continue to believe in that which you do not see, that so
you be not ashamed when you do see Him” (CXIX. p. 853). “Hold
this firm and fixed, if you would remain Catholics: that God the
Father begat the Son without time, and made Him of the Virgin
in time” (CXL. p. 981). “The impious say this: thus do the
heretics blaspheme the Son: but what says the Catholic Faith ?
God the Son is from God the Father, but God the Father 1s not
from God the Son*.”

§ 11. Thus, if we have been led to state that Epiphanius
furnished to Augustine some conceptions now embodied in the

1 The Sermons On the Nativity may on S. John, ὃ 12, and in the same sec-

also be consulted, especially cLXxxvI.
and CLXxxviI.; so Sermon ccxiv. (111. On
the Tradition of the Creed), CCLXIV.
(On the Ascension). Out of the Enchi-
ridion (Vol. v1. p. 364, ch. xxxv.) the fol-
lowing words have been quoted, ‘ Pro-
inde Christus Iesus Dei Filius est et
Deus et Homo, Deus ante omnia sexcula,
Homo in nostro seculo.” The words
‘“nec tamen tria hee tres Christi sed
unus Christus,” occur in Tract. XLYII.

tion, ‘‘Quomodo est unus homo anima
et corpus, sic unus Christus Verbum et
Homo” (Vol. 11. p. 2153): compare
‘‘siecut unus est homo anima rationalis
et caro, sic unus est Christus Deus et
Homo.” (Ibid. Ὁ. 2285.)

St Augustine’s own Creed in the de
civitate Dei (Book x1. chap. xxiv. Vol.
vit. p. 466) has been neglected in these
discussions,

XVIL, | ST AUGUSTINE ON THE TRINITY. 217

Athanasian Creed, we must add to our statement that these con-
ceptions took root and grew in Augustine’s mind. With the
exceptions of the commending clauses, of a few turns of the lan-
guage, and of a few phrases which savour of the fifth century, the
document is made up, to a large extent, of Augustine’s thoughts
and Augustine’s words. Yet, often as we meet with an identity
of expression, no one has ever suggested that Augustine was the
writer of the Quicunque, or that Augustine quoted from it.

1. Thus, when we meet hereafter with manifest coincidences
of expression between the Quicunque and other documents, we
must at least suspend our judgment before we say that to the
writers of these documents the Quicunque was known in its present
form. ‘They may possibly have been quoting Augustine as using
language which, having been used by Augustine, was now the
property of the Church at large.

2. Again, if in this language Augustine did not quote the
Quicunque, it follows that the expressions used were not formu-
lated in his time. It becomes, therefore, a subject for further
enquiry: When were the phrases formulated ?

3. It is clear, moreover, that with St Augustine the Catholica
Fides meant something, I will not say independent of the Sym-
bolum, but additional to it. It went into subjects on which
the Symbolum was silent; into subjects on which the Catholic
Christian ought to hold definite opinions if he were capable of
doing so, but which, at least in their fulness, were beyond the
capacity of ordinary believers. I do not remember ever to have
read in English an explanation of the differences between wnum
and unus, and between unus and unus eternus. Yet a knowledge
of these differences is essential to the understanding of the mean-
ing of the Quicunque.

§ 12. I need no apology for concluding my chapter with the
following attempt to reproduce the closing words of St Augustine’s
treatise :

“Ὁ Lord our God, we believe in Thee, the Father, and the Son, and
the Holy Spirit. For the Truth would not have said Go, baptize all
nations in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
if Thou wast not a Trinity. Nor wouldest Thou have commanded us,

O Lord God, to be baptized in the name of One Who is not Lord God,

218 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [CHAP. XVII.

nor would it have been said by the voice divine Hear, O Israel, the
Lord thy God is one God, if Thou wast not so a Trinity as also to be One
God. And if Thou, O God, wast Thyself the Father and Thyself the
Son, Thy Word Jesus Christ, and Your gift the Holy Spirit, then we
should not have read in the Creed of truth, God sent His Son, nor
wouldest Thou, O Only-begotten One, have said of the Holy Spirit,
Whom the Father will send in My Name, nor Whom I will send from the
Father. By this rule of Faith have I directed the efforts of my mind,
as much as 1 had the power, as much as Thou hast given me the power ;
and so have I sought Thee. I have longed with my intellect to see that
which I have believed, and much have I disputed and much have I
laboured. O Lord my God, my only hope, hear me I beseech Thee,
that I may not through weariness cease to seek Thee. Let me rather
seek Thy face, always, eagerly. Do Thou give me the power to seek
Thee, Who hast created me to find Thee, and hast given me the hope
of finding Thee more and more. Before Thee lie my strength and my
weakness ; preserve the former, heal the latter. Before Thee are my
knowledge and my ignorance. Where Thou hast opened to me, receive
me entering: where Thou hast closed to me, open to me knocking.
May I remember Thee. May I understand Thee. May I love Thee.

“0 Lord God, one God, God the Trinity : whatever of Thine I have
said in these books, may Thy people also acknowledge; whatever of
mine I have said, do Thou forgive—and they. Amen.”

CHAPTER XVIII

VINCENTIUS OF LERINS.

81, The opinion of Antelmi that Vincentius was the author. § 2. Design of
the Commonitorium. § 3. Résumé of the work, with notices of parallel
passages. §4. Summaryof results. ὃ 5. What do we learn from this?
§ 6. Clause 33 not in Vincentius, § 7. Still it seems that Augustine and
Vincentius furnished most of the language. ὃ 8. Exhibition of the result.

§ 1. I HAVE remarked on the influence of St Augustine’s
writings upon the earlier part of the Quicunque, and noted some
expressions in the latter part as probably of Augustinian origin.
But the verses which are directed against the views of the
Nestorians and Eutychians meet with no parallel in the writings
of the great Bishop. They must belong to a later epoch.

I believe it was Antelmi who first suggested that Vincentius
of Lerins was the author of the Quicunque. Waterland refers to
this opinion under the year 1693". It does not appear that
Waterland had seen Antelmi’s work: I have been equally un-
successful*, Antelmi’s judgment was influenced (as I learn from
the Benedictine edition of Athanasius, Vol. Iv. 1578) by the
interesting Colbertine Manuscript, to which I must, ere long,
request the attention of my readers. Antelmi seems to have
discovered the manuscript. He considered it to be, when he
wrote, eleven hundred years old, 1.6. to have been written about
the year 590. Montfaucon regarded the manuscript to be of a
much later age: no one to whom he had shewn it considered it to
be older than the eighth century’.

§ 2. That there is great verbal similarity between passages in
the Creed and passages in the famous Commonitory of Vincent,
1 Tn his first chapter. ful attention to the surmise of Antelmi

2 Mr King has been more successful. that Vincent was the author. He how-
3 Montfaucon devotes much respect- ever rejects it.

220 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

is evident. Some of these passages Antelmi placed in correspond-
ing columns, so as to exhibit the similarity more clearly. Before
I had seen the Benedictine reproduction of these tables, I had
made my own collation. And this I will place before my readers.
I must remind them however of the character of the Commv-
nitorium. It was intended to shew to the young theologian how he
should protect himself against errors of any kind that might grow
up. And the famous, but practically useless, phrase is found
herein: “In the Catholic Church we must especially take care
that we hold quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum
est,’ in other words, we must follow “universality, antiquity,
consent.” ‘The pious author quotes Ambrose, and refers to Atha-
nasius, Cyril, Basil, the Gregories; he appeals boldly and fre-
quently to the words of St Paul to the Galatians (i. 8, 9), words
which cut away—or ought to cut away—from the Faith of the
Church all additions to the Faith once delivered to the saints:
- and, in one place where he quotes the words (ch. vuut.), he exhi-
bits to us what was his conception of the anathema of the
Apostle. It meant, not eternal death, but excommunication: “Let
him be anathema, that is, separated, put apart, excluded; lest the
dire contagion of one sheep should by a poisonous intermingling
contaminate the innocent flock of Christ.” Vincent was a con-
temporary of Nestorius and Eutyches, and his view of the ana-
thema corresponded with those of the Fathers of the Council of
Chalcedon. For he says (ch. XxXIx.) that his work was written
three years after the Council of Ephesus, 2.e. in the year 434,

§ 3. There are two modes of exhibiting this similarity of
thought and language: the one would be to set side by side
the clauses wherein the likeness may be observed; the other
to give a kind of résumé of Vincent’s work, noticing more at
length the passages where the similarity is most striking. I will
adopt the latter.

The object then of Vincentius being to protect the young from the
dangers of falling away from the truth of the Catholic Faith, especially
at a time when the approach of the day of judgment required the study
of religion to be increased, he lays down his grand principle that amidst
the various teachings of Novatian and Photinus, Sabellius and Donatus,
Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius, Apollinaris and Priscellianus, Jovi-
nianus, Pelagius, Ccelestius, and lastly Nestorius, one point should be
observed, viz. that we follow universality, antiquity, unanimity. He

XVIII. | _ VINCENTIUS OF LERINS. 221

proceeds to apply this to the times of Donatus and the Donatists, when
only those in Africa who preferred the consensus of the Church of
Christ to the sacrilegious rashness of one man, could be safe within the
sanctuary of the Catholic Faith. He applies the same principle to the
times of the Arians, whilst of the Donatists he says, chap. v1., ‘* Who is
so mad as to doubt that that light of all Saints and Bishops and Martyrs,
the blessed Cyprian, will with his colleagues reign for ever with Christ ?
or who so sacrilegious as to deny that the Donatists and other pests,
who boast that on the authority of the Council of Carthage they re-
baptize, will burn for ever with the devil?” He is severe on schis-
matics: he does not say this of heretics. In chap. vir. he cuts away
the ground on which, in modern days, the authority of the Church of
Rome is built.. ‘ Even if Peter, even if Andrew, even if John, in short,
even if the whole band of the Apostles bring you tidings besides that
which we have brought, let him be anathema. Tremendous difficulty !
for the sake of maintaining the hold of the first faith, Paul spared neither
himself nor the rest of the Apostles!” ‘* He cries out, and he repeats
the cry: and for all persons, and for all times, and for all places, does
he cry: he, the vessel of election ; he, the teacher of the Gentiles ; he,
the trumpet of the Apostles; he, the herald of the earth ; he, who was
admitted into the secrets of heaven—he cries out, Jf anyone shall teach
a new dogma, let him be anathematized.”

In chap. x1. Vincent refers to the teaching of Nestorius, of Photi-
nus, of Apollinaris ; and, in the next, he explains what their teaching was.
“The sect of Photinus (he says) declares that God is single and solitary,
and must be confessed after the manner of the Jews: it denies the fulness
of the Trinity, nor thinks that there is any Person of the Word of God,
or any of the Holy Spirit; it asserts that Christ is a mere solitary
man, whose beginning is from Mary; and it declares that we
ought to worship only the Person of God the Father, and only Christ
the Man. Apollinaris boasts, as it were, that he agrees as to the Unity
of the Trinity, but he openly blasphemes in regard to the Incarnation of
our Lord: he says that in the flesh of our Saviour there was either
absolutely no human soul, or, at all events, not a soul in which was
mind and reason. ‘The flesh of the Lord (he asserts) was not taken
from the flesh of the Holy Virgin Mary, but descended from heaven
into the Virgin. Unsteady and uncertain, he held, at one time, that it
was coeternal with God the Word ; at another, that it was made out of
the Divinity of the Word. He would not acknowledge two substances
in Christ, the one divine, the other human: the one from the Father,
the other from the Mother: but held that the nature of the Word was
itself divided into two; as if one part of it remained in God, another
part was changed into flesh, so that, where the truth saith, that there
is one Christ of two substances, he, in opposition to the truth, main-
tained that the two substances were both made. Nestorius again, in
opposition to the pestilence of Avpollinaris, suddenly introduces two
Persons, and, with an unheard-of wickedness, would have two Sons of
God; two Christs ; the one God, the other Man; the one generated of
the Father, the other from the Mother: and thus he asserts that the
holy Mary is to be called not Theotokos but Christotokos ; becanse from
her was born not the Christ Who is God, but the Christ who is Man.

222 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

“But (ch. xi.) the Catholic Church, having right views both of
God and of our Saviour, blasphemes not against the mystery of the
Trinity nor against the Incarnation of Christ, for it worships (venera-
tur) one Divinity in the fulness of the Trinity, and the equality of the
Trinity in one and the same majesty: and it confesses one Christ Jesus,
not two; and Him to be equally God and Man: one Person in them
but two substances, two substances but one Person ; two substances,
because the Word of God is not mutable, so that it should be changed
into flesh; one Person, lest by professing two Sons it should seem that
we worshipped a Quaternity, not a Trinity.” But the Church holds
(ch. x11.) ‘‘ In God there is one Substance, but three Persons ; in Christ
two Substances, one Person. In the Trinity One and Another, but not
one Thing and another Thing; in the Saviour one Thing and another
Thing, not One and Another. But how is there in the Trinity One and
Another, not one Thing and another Thing? because, indeed, there is one
Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost ;
but still the nature of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost
is not one and another, but one and the same.” Again: “In the one
and the same Christ there are two Substances ; one divine, the other
human; one from His Father, God, the other from His Mother, the
Virgin ; the one coeternal and equal with the Father, the other in time
and less than the Father ; the one consubstantial with the Father, the
other consubstantial with the Mother, but still one and the same Christ
in each substance. There is therefore, not one Christ, God, the other
Man ; one increate, the other create ; one impassible, the other passible ;
one equal with the Father, the other less than the Father; one from
the Father, the other from the Mother; but one and the same Christ,
God and Man; the same increate and create; the same incommutable
and impassible, and commuted and passible ; the same equal to and less
than the Father; the same begotten of the Father before all times
(ante secula), and born of the Mother (in seculo) in time; in the God
supreme Divinity, in the man full humanity; full humanity, I say,
because He possesses soul and flesh, but true flesh, our flesh, the maternal
flesh ; and a soul endowed with intellect, strong with mind and reason.
There are therefore in Christ, the Word, the Soul, the Flesh; but these
all form one Christ, one Son of God, one our Saviour and Redeemer ;
but one, not by any kind of corruptible confusion of Divinity and
Humanity, but by a complete and singular unity of Person.”

The work itself consists of thirty-three chapters, but I have
extracted the passages which most nearly illustrate and contain
our Creed. Of course there are some repetitions in it. I will con-
tent myself with two more quotations.

In chapter xx. Vincent explains the words guard the deposit
pter XXII, Ρ 9 i
thus: “preserve inviolate and pure the talent of the Catholic Faith”

(Catholice fidei talentum inviolatum illibatumque conserva).

Vincentius had correct views of the true growth of Christian
dogma. He says (chap. XXIII.) :

XVIII. | . VINCENTIUS OF LERINS. Ayes

“Like as the human form becomes grander and larger, not by the
addition of features but by the growth of those with which the infant is
born ; so does the dogma of the Christian religion follow the same law.
It is consolidated with years, it unfolds with time, it is elevated with
age, but it remains uncorrupt and uninjured, in all the measure of its
various parts, in all its members and all its senses, admitting of no other
permutation, no loss of its properties, no variation of its definition.”

§ 4. Summing up now the passages in the Quicunque which
meet here with illustration, I find that they include the fol-
lowing:

The phrases Catholica fides and Salvus esse of clause 1 are paralleled
by the words of chap. Iv., which I have quoted above; Soli ex illis
omnibus inter sacraria Catholice fidei salvi esse potuerunt ; and clauses
1 and 2 together by chap. v., Satis claruit eos qui violaverunt fidem tutos
esse non posse. ‘The duty of preserving the faith whole and undefiled, I
have illustrated from chapters xx11. and xx. Clause 3 is very similar
to a passage in Xvi, and clause 5 is found totidem verbis in XIIL., the
passage proceeding Sed Patris et Pili et Spiritus Sancti, non alia et alia,
sed una eademque natura. Sabellius was charged with daring 7rinita-
tem confundere (in Xxiv.), and the Catholic Church lauded in xvi,
because it held the truth so that Neither did the unity of the substance
confound the properties of the Persons, nor did the distinction of the
Trinity separate the Unity of the Deity. Thus with the exception of the
words Absque dubio in eternum peribit, equalis gloria, coeterna majestas,
we must consider that the language contained in the first six clauses is
as old as the time of Vincentius. But we have, in Vincentius, nothing
in any way bearing on the thoughts which follow, the thoughts of clauses
7—29 inclusive ; the language of these, as we have seen, has been taken
largely from Augustine.

Passing to the Incarnation of our Lord I note that the words of
clause 30, as they are found in the Colbertine fragment and in some old
MSS.*, are similar to these words of chap. xu, Dewm pariter atque
hominem confitetur. With clause 31 compare the words in the same
chapter ; /dem ex Patre ante secula genitus ; idem in seculo ex matre
generatus: with clause 32, perfectus Deus, perfectus homo. The anima
rationalis of the-Creed is the same as the anima ratione pollens of chap.
xi. Non duo, sed unus Christus, may be seen in x11. Clauses 35, 36,
37 are also virtually contained in the Commonitory. Apollinaris is
held up to reproach for holding Quasi aliud ejus permaneret in Deo,
aliud vero versum fuisset in carnem (chap. xu.). We meet with the
words Won conversione nature, sed persone ratione in Xvi.; and with
Unus non corruptibili nescio qua divinitatis et humanitatis confusione,
sed integra et singulari quadam unitate persone in Xit.; whilst clause
37 had its parallel in a passage in the same chapter, of which I have
given a translation above: Sicut in homine aliud caro et aliud anima......
via in uno eodemque Christo due substantic...... una ex Patre Deo, altera
ex matre Virgine.

1 For this see below.

224° THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

The remaining clauses of the Quicunque have nothing specially
resembling them in Vincentius.

§ 5. Now I think that no one can hesitate in coming to the
conclusion that there must have been some connection between
component parts of Vincent’s Commonitorium and parts of the
Quicunque. The resemblance extends even to the sicut of clause
37 of the latter. The question is, What is the character of this
connection? Three answers occur to my mind. One is, that the
writer or writers of the Quicunque had Vincentius’ words before
their eyes: another, that Vincentius had the Quicunque before
his eyes: the third, that both the one and the other had, before
them, the common Faith of the Church, the Catholic Faith—
although, perhaps, not formulated as yet to the extent to which it
has now attained—and that they both adopted phrases which were
already in use.

To assist us to the true solution, it is worthy of notice: first,
that there is no appearance in his work that Vincentius was
quoting any particular document. Although, of course, the
Quicunque may have been written then, there is nothing that
appears to be a quotation from it or reference to it. The decrees
of the Council of Ephesus are Vincent’s great authorities: besides
these, he refers only to the great Fathers who were present
at the council or whose writings were quoted at it. Their names,
as he gives them, are St Peter of Alexandria, a most excellent
Doctor and blessed Martyr; St Athanasius, Bishop of the same
city, a most faithful Master and eminent Confessor; Theophilus,
Cyril, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and so on.
We know from the Acts of the council what quotations were
taken from these writers; and, surely, the inference is, that if
there was any document known to Vincentius having the autho-
rity we now assign to the Quicunque, and from which Vincentius
drew his language, that document would have been quoted by
name. Another point is, that Vincgntius never, I believe, refers
to Augustine. The inference is, to my mind, clear and unques-
tionable; and it is this: The latter part of the Quicunque (like
the Commonitory) embodies the teaching of the Council of Ephesus,
and must (like the Commonitory) have been composed after that
council.

XVIII. | VINCENTIUS OF LERINS. 995

§ 6. But there is one clause of the Quicunque which has no
parallel in Vincentius. It is the clause Aqualis Patri secundum
Divinitatem : minor Patre secundum humanitatem. Nor do I find
the words adsumptio humanitatis in Deo or Deum, or anything
equivalent to them. Of course I have a right to ask, What was
there which rendered these words unnecessary in the time of Vin-
centius, but called them forth at another period? The answer
must bring us into contact with the error of Eutyches. The
former phrase exhibits, more clearly than do any words of Vin-
centius, the permanent distinction of the two Natures: the latter
—especially in the old reading in Deo—suggests the mode in
which this distinction was maintained. On earth the Son of God
was “equal to the Father as to His Divinity; inferior to the
Father as to His Humanity.” “He took up the Humanity in
God.” Thus, as it seems to me, the writers of the Quicunque
avoided an expression, which, as used in the second Creed of
Epipkanius, is capable of an Eutychian interpretation: I mean
the expression συνενώσας.

§ 7. Thus again, we find that the language of the Quicunque
is drawn from a Latin channel. And it would seem to be almost
demonstrated that the dogmatic parts of the Quicunque were
“composed,” made up, of thoughts and language drawn partly
from Augustine, partly from Vincentius of Lerins; and that
Vincentius was not acquainted with the writings of Augustine.
Thus the hypothesis of Antelmi falls to the ground. It remains,
therefore, for us to enquire when this composition can have been
effected. Assuming the truth of Waterland’s conclusion that the
Quicunque is of Gallican origin, we must, in our investigations,
be eagerly on the watch to note the epoch when the language of
Augustine became familiar to the Gallican Church; and when the
conception embodied in what we call the Damnatory Clauses
appears either there or elsewhere. For, as Montfaucon truly
remarks, all conceptions and language must have become familiar

1 I must give the passage: capkw-
θέντα, τούτεστι τέλειον. ἄνθρωπον λαβόντα,
ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα καὶ νοῦν καὶ πάντα, εἴ τι
ἐστὶν ἄνθρωπος, χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας, οὐκ ἀπὸ
σπέρματος ἀνδρὸς οὐδὲ ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ, ἀλλὰ
εἰς ἑαυτὸν σάρκα ἀναπλάσαντα εἰς μίαν
ἁγίαν ἑνότητα... τελείως ἐνανθρωπήσαντα᾽

Dents

(ὁ yap λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο οὐ τροπὴν ὑπο-
στὰς οὐδὲ μεταβαλὼν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ θεότητα
εἰς ἀνθρωπότητα) εἰς μίαν συνένώσαντα ἑαυ-
τοῦ ἁγίαν τελειότητά τε καὶ θεότητα. The
τελειότητα at the end of the quotation
refers (I presume) to the ““ perfection of
the humanity.”

226 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. ([CHAP. XVIII.

to the religious mind before they were adopted into a Creed of
the Church.

§ 8. I think we may now sum up the passages or clauses
of the document which we find nearly in the same words in Augus-
tine or Vincentius. Thus,

Clauses 1, 2. The conception of being salvus, safe, tutus, within
the bounds of the Catholic Faith, belongs to Vincentius, who also speaks
of the duty of preserving inviolate the faith; inviolatam ilibatamque
conserva. Integrum occurs in the same connection in chap. vi.

Clauses 3, 4, 5 and the first half of 6, are found scattered over the
Commonitory.

Of clauses 7 to 26 we find the substance and, one might almost say,
the words in Augustine, but not in Vincentius.

The commending or damnatory clauses (as Waterland calls them) 27,
28, 29 are found neither in Augustine nor Vincentius.

The substance of 30 is of course in both.

Clause. 31, Deus est ex substantia Patris, &c., is found in part in
Vincentius, who however never uses the words ex substantia matris.

Clause 32 may be from Vincentius.

Clause 33 in its essence is from Augustine.

Clauses 34—37, except for the word “assumption,” might be from
Vincentius.

For 37 we have found authority in Augustine.

Clauses 38—41 are taken, with interesting variations, from the
Apostles’ Creed.

For the final clause, 42, we have no support either in the Commoni-
tory or in Augustine.

CHAPIER: XIX.

RULES OF FAITH FOUND IN COUNCILS AND SYNODS
BETWEEN 451 AND 700.

§1. Language of St Augustine unnoticed except by Sophronius. § 2. Profes-
sion submitted to Hunneric, a.p. 484. 8 3. Conference of Constantinople,
A.D. 5338. § 4. The Fifth General Council of Constantinople, a.p. 553.
Justinian’s Kethesis. ὃ 5. Third Synod of Toledo, a.p. 589. ὃ 6. Fourth
Synod of Toledo, a.p. 633. 87. Synod of Seville, a.p. 619. 8.8. Isidore’s
Rule of Faith. ὃ 9. Council of Toledo, a.p. 638. ὃ 10. Lateran Council,
A.D. 649. § 11. Chalons, a.p.650. §12. Toledo, a.p.653. $13. Merida,
A.D. 666. §14. Autun, a.p.670 (2): §15. Toledo, a.p. 675. §16. Other
Spanish Councils. 817. Summary of Spanish testimony. ὃ 18, Council
of Constantinople, a.pv. 680. ὃ 19. Summary of evidence up to this time.

§ 1. It would be wearisome to accumulate testimony to shew
how little the expressions of St Augustine affected the theology or
theological language of the generations which immediately suc-
ceeded him. He was one of those wonderful men who are so far
in advance of their contemporaries as to foresee and provide for
difficulties which are unperceived by others, not only in their own
time, but in times directly following. His writings are of the
class which affects later ages: he himself, one of those few great
men, who, like great mountains, impress the beholder more as he
recedes from them. Thus, with the exception of some passages in
Sophronius, who was made Patriarch of Jerusalem in 634, I do
not remember any instance at this time, of writings through
which the same lines of thought in regard to the Unity in
Trinity and Trinity in Unity, that we have noticed above,
appear to run.

§ 2. Thus if we look to the long Profession of Faith, which
Eugenius, Bishop of Carthage, in connection with the Catholic
Bishops of Africa, Mauritania, Sardinia and Corsica, delivered in

15—2

228 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [CHAP.

484 to the Arian Huneric, king of the Vandals, we find much
regarding each Person of the Holy Trinity, but little of their
relations to each other in the Unity. The Profession is deeply
interesting, and exhibits the truth in a form which even now can-
not be regarded as out of date: it includes the great scriptural
proofs which we still adduce to shew that the Son of God is God
of the substance of the Father; it contains much which enables
us to see that these bishops professed “the Father, the Son, the
Holy Spirit in the Unity of the Deity; so that the Father sub-
sists in the Person of singularity, the Son exists in His proper
Person, the Holy Spirit retains the propriety of His Person.” The
Confession occupies more than ten closely printed columns in the
folio of Labbe and Cossart, yet we meet with very little of the
language in which the Quicunque coincides with the language of
St Augustine, and nothing approaching to the Augustinian
formula, non tres immensi, sed unus immensus. It is true that this
Confession was called out by an appeal from an Arian king, and so
it may be said that there was no room for the antitheses in which
the Quicunque has been said to glory. This, I say, is true: “but
the same prevalence of Arianism might be adduced with equal
fairness to prove that as long as Arianism existed, so long were
the times unsuited for the composition of the Quicunque in the
form in which we have it’.

The paper concludes thus: “This is our Faith, established by
the traditions of the Gospels and Apostles, and by the society of
all the Catholic Churches of the world: and in this we trust and
hope to continue, by the grace of the omnipotent God, to the end
of our life.”

§ 3. I have already mentioned that the Church of Rome
seems to have become so involved in a constant effort to assert

1 Labbe, rv. 1132. Harduin, τὴς 858.
I extract a few phrases which have struck
me:

largiturus: impiis atque incredulis me-
rita supplicia redditurus.” I also catch
the words ‘detestamur Sabellianam

‘‘Ingenitus pater: genitus filius: spl-
ritus procedens.”? ‘‘Gratias agamus do-
mino nostro Jesu Christo qui propter
nos et propter nostram salutem de ccelo
descendit, sua passione nos redemit, sua
morte nos vivificavit, sua ascensione
glorificavit. Qui sedens ad dexteram
Patris venturus est judicare vivos et
mortuos, justis eterne vite premium

heresim, que Trinitatem confundit.—
Hee fides plena, hee nostra credulitas
est...In hac Trinitate unitatem substan-
tie fatemur.”—The words 1768 sunt qut
testimonium dant in celo, Pater, Verbum
et Spiritus Sanctus et hi tres unum sunt,
are quoted here as words of John the
Evangelist. (I do not find the fact men-
tioned by Tischendorf.)

xix, | CONFESSIONS OF SYNODS FROM 451 TO 700. 229

its own supremacy, that we look in vain to it, during this period,
for efforts to promote the purity of the faith. But at Constan-
tinople, under the year 533", we find that there was a conference
on the Eutychian controversy; which I notice the more readily,
because Cyril, Athanasius, Flavian, the Gregories, and Ambrose
were quoted, with more or less profuseness, but I have not found
the name of Augustine. Amongst other quotations I find a
passage from the letter of Cyril to John of Antioch; it is really
from the Creed of the latter; a passage which I have given
above’.

§ 4. A few years passed, and in 553, what is called the fifth
general Council, the second of Constantinople, was held. 'The
Pope of Rome, Vigilius, was present at Constantinople, but he did
not attend the council. The council was directed against writings
of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas: but the
interesting point to us is, that it was addressed by the Emperor
Justinian, now in his sixty-second year, on the subject of these
writings. Justinian had circulated in 544 a long Ecthesis or
Confession of his Faith, addressed to the “fulness” of the Catholic
and Apostolic Church ; it occupies twenty-one columns in Labbe’s
edition of the Councils’, and includes thirteen Anathemas against
those who held as many heresies. I have read this Ecthesis
carefully through, and once more I note that there is nothing in it
in any way reflecting the words or thoughts of Augustine on the
Trinity. Justinian quotes Cyril and the Gregories; he refers to
Athanasius; he cites St Augustine’s letter to Boniface on the
treatment of Coelestinus, but that is all: his books on the Trinity
were unknown or disregarded. We have expressions bearing on
the old questions which occupied the minds of earlier genera-
tions :

‘We do not confuse the persons or subsistences in the Trinity.
We worship the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity:” but the
main subject of the letter is the Incarnate Word of God. The
Emperor adopted phrases with which we are already familiar. “He is
God, of the Father, born before the ages, and in the last days born of
His Mother. He is consubstantial with the Father in His Deity, with
His Mother in His Humanity: He is perfect God and perfect Man:
He is one Christ: the divine nature was not transmuted into the human,

1 Labbe, 1v. 1764. Harduin, 11. 1159. Sopp: 1097 110
3 Nineteen in Harduin, τι. 287, &e.

230 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

nor was the human converted into the divine: Christ was not formed
(ἐδημιουργήθη) from the first of Deity and Humanity, as man is of soul
and body, but in these last days He became man.” Justinian refers to
the earlier usage of the thought that ‘‘as man is one, though consisting of
soul and body, so is Christ one, though composed (συντεθεὶς) of Deity
and Humanity.” The terms in which he enforces this confession are
these: “This good deposit which we have received from the holy Fathers
we keep ; in it we live, and it we would take as our companion out of
this life, our confession in the Father, and in Christ the Son of the living
God, and in the Holy Spirit.” Or again, where he introduces the
anathemas, ‘These things being confessed by the Catholic Church of
God, we desire all Christians to know, that as we have one God and
Lord, so we may have one Faith. For there is one definition of the
Faith, to confess and rightly glorify the Father and Christ the Son of
God and the Holy Spirit. This confession we keep; into it we were
baptized.” He refers to the Confession or Symbol or Instruction in the
Faith composed at Niceea, and to the Explanation of the part relating to
the Holy Spirit given by the Fathers at Constantinople (ἐτράνωσαν τὰ
περὶ τῆς θεότητος τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος).

But the most important part of this edict in my opinion is this;
when it was resolved to anathematize those who defended Theo-
dorus, it became necessary in all consistency to anathematize
Theodorus himself; but he had died in the year 429, and so the
meaning of the word ‘anathema’ had to be extended:

‘‘Every heretic persisting in his error to the end of his life is with
justice subjected to a continuous anathematism even after death.”
ςς Theodorus was accused in his lifetime, anathematized after his death.”
The narrative was wrong, but the object is manifest. Thus “Anathema

means nothing else than separation from God ; as, both in the Old and
239

New Testaments, the sentence of anathema exhibits*.

Thus the meaning of the word was altered: and, so far, we
approach nearer to the signification of the first and last clauses
of the Quicunque.

The Emperor and the obsequious council condemned the
books of Theodorus, though they had passed uncondemned at the
Council of Chalcedon. The imperial edict usurped the form of a
Confession of Faith, and trespassed on the exclusive right of the
clergy to anathematize those who hold erroneous doctrine. “Great
part of the submissive or consentient East received the dictates of
the imperial theologian: the West as generally refused com-
pliance.”

1 Words which I have quoted already, p. 135. 2 Harduin, m1. 314.

XIX.] CONFESSIONS OF SYNODS FROM 451 To 700. 231

§ 5. We now come to a series of provincial or national
synods which have a peculiar interest. Their history is tolerably
continuous, and we can trace in it the effects of an intense and
honest anxiety to be correct in the Faith. They are interesting
also as exhibiting to us the working of a National Church, long
before National Churches were crushed under the domineering
influence of later Rome: and they exhibit the effect which one
such National Church acquired in influencing the action, in theo-
logical matters, of Rome itself.

I refer to the series of synods held at Toledo, stretching, so
far as we are concerned, from the year 589 to the year 683. To
us they are of the greater importance, because in his sixth
chapter Waterland has assumed, after Baronius, that the Fourth
Council of Toledo, held in the year 633, cited a consider-
able part of the Quicunque, “adopting it into its own Con-
fession.”

The first of the series was the famous one in which King
Reccared produced the Creed of Constantinople, with the clause
Deum de Deo and the words et ex Filio. The converted Arian
king recited, as we have noticed’, the Creeds of Nicsea and Con-
stantinople and the tract of the Council of Chalcedon; and
avowed that his object was to bring his people back “to the
knowledge of the Faith and the fellowship of the Catholic
Church.” The Synod in its eleventh, and again in its nine-
teenth and following canons, had maintained the value of the
four great Councils (it passed over the fifth), and in its twenty-
third declared that there was nothing “more lucid for the know-
ledge of the truth than the statements of these four Councils,
With reference to the Trinity and Unity of the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit, nothing more true, nothing more clear could
be exhibited either then or at any future time. As to the mystery
of the Incarnation also, sufficient had been set forward in these
councils, and what was set forward they believed.”

Let us notice, however, the phrases which are found in the
records of this council analogous in any way to the phrases of our
“Creed.” We shall be better able then to form an opinion
whether the Creed was composed after the Council, or the
declaration of the council was prepared posterior to the Creed,

1 Chapter x1. p. 136. See Harduin, ὙΠ. Ὁ. 467.

THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

The canons speak of Christ Jesus “being begotten of the substance
of the Father, without beginning, and equal to the Father ;’ they speak
of “the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father and the Son, co-equal
and co-eternal ;’ they require us to “distinguish the Persons,” and to
“ acknowledge the unity of substance.” We must not hold that “ either
the Holy Spirit or the Son of God is less than the Father :” we must
believe “that the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit are of one substance,
omnipotence, eternity.” I notice the word separate in canon XII. ; and, in
the preliminary speech of Reccared, that it is a mark of true salvation
to “think (of) the Trinity in Unity and Unity in Trinity.” The words
“perfect in Deity, perfect in Humanity, true God, true Man, of reason-
able soul and body : in His Divinity of one nature with the Father ; in
His Humanity of one nature with us; in all things like us, yet without
sin; born of the Father before all worlds in regard to His Divinity, but
in these last days for us and for our salvation made Man of the Virgin
Mary, Mother of God,” are quoted from the decree of the Council of
Chalcedon ; and in Reccared’s opening speech he uses words with which
we find analogies in the Quicunque. ‘The Father from Whom is the
Son, but He Himself of no one else; the Son Who has a Father, but
subsists without beginning and without diminution in that Divinity in
which He is coeternal and coequal with the Father. The Holy Spirit is
equally to be confessed by us, and to be proclaimed as proceeding from
the Father and the Son, and of one substance with the Father and the
Son, but the third Person in the Trinity. He has common essence of
Divinity with the Father and the Son; for this Trinity is one God.”
Thoughts like these lie scattered, as we have seen, over the pages of
Auguste; but I think this is the first time that they are brought
together. Yet Reccared repudiates all authority, save the authority of
the four great councils’. ἡ

$6. This was in the year 589. Baronius and Waterland
omit to notice this similarity; they reserve their strength for the
fourth Council of Toledo, held in 633. The former says that the
words used by this council are taken from the Creed: the latter
that the council cites a considerable part of it, adopting it into
its own Confession. ‘We may be confident,” he proceeds, “that
the Creed did not borrow the expressions from them, but they
from the Creed; since we are certain that this Creed was made

xxl. ‘* Quicunque hance fidem sanctam
depravare, corrumpere, mutare tentave-

1 Before we leave this synod, I must
note some of the clauses with which the

faith of the councils is pressed on at-
tention. We may remark some pro-
egress. Thus Canon xvi. ‘‘ Hee est
vera fidzs quam omnis ecclesia Dei per
totum mundum tenet: catholica esse
creditur et probatur. Cui hee fides non
placet aut non placuerit, sit anathema,
maranata, in adventum Domini nostri
Jesu Christi.” Once more, in Canon

rint, aut ab eadem fide vel communione
catholica, quam nuper sumus Deo mise-
rante adepti, egredi, separari vel disso-
ciari voluerint, sint Deo et universo
mundo crimine infidelitatis in #ternum
obnoxii.’” ‘he parties who are anathe-
matized are those who reject or corrupt
the faith.

58 8.9 CONFESSIONS OF SYNODS FROM 451 TO 700. 233

long before the year 633.” This statement is utterly worthless, as
we shall see. “ Baronius is positive that the council took their
expressions from it. Calvisius dates the publication of the Creed
from that council: so also Alstedius,’ and so on. Yet the Creed
resembles the Commonitory of Vincentius far more than either
resembles the Declaration of Faith of this Synod of Toledo. The
only phrase to be found in identically the same language in the
two documents now before us, is our clause 33. Moreover, if
the Spanish bishops had our Creed before them, one thing of
importance becomes apparent. They must have deliberately
rejected its first and last clauses, and as deliberately adopted lan-
guage less severe. The circumstances were these. Sixty-two
bishops met and were presided over by St Isidore, the Arch-
bishop of Seville. They passed seventy-five Canons, but first of all
they must lay the foundation of Faith in God. And thus their
first Canon commenced:

“In accordance with the divine Scriptures and the teaching which
we have received from the holy Fathers, we confess that the Father and
the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one Deity and Substance ; in the
divinity of Persons believing a Trinity, we neither confound the Persons
nor divide the Substance.”

They have also language similar to the language of portions
of our clauses 21, 22, 23, 31, 33, but with this the similarity ends.
They have nothing corresponding to clauses 1, 2, 5—20, 24—28,
35—37 of the Quicunque. I notice too that the words are, Our
Saviour when incarnate “received a perfect man without sin” (per-
fectum sine peccato hominem suseipiens), whereas the Creed adopts
a later phrase: it speaks of the “assumption of humanity,” or
“the taking of the manhood.” The concluding words of the
council are: “This is the Faith of the Catholic Church. This
Confession we keep and hold. And whosoever shall guard it most
firmly shall inherit eternal salvation.” The declaration of the
Faith of this Council of Toledo was adopted in toto by a synod
held at Arles in 813, in preference to the Athanasian Creed.
I give the document in my note’. With all deference to the

1 Councit oF ToLEpo, tv. A.D. 633. mur in personarum diversitate Trinita-
Canon I. tem credentes, in divinitate unitatem

Secundum divinas scripturas doctri- predicantes, nec personas confundimus
nam quam a sanctis Patribus accepimus nec substantiam separamus. Patrem a

Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum nullo factum vel genitum dicimus: Fi-
unius deitatis atque substantie confite- lum a Patre non factum sed genitum

234 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

opinions of Baronius, Calvisius, Alstedius, Gavantus and Water-
land, I throw myself unhesitatingly on the side of the Ballerini
and Muratori, whose opinion was, that the Fathers of the Council
did not take their language from our Creed.

§ 7. Isidore, Archbishop of Seville, was, as I have mentioned,
president at this council. We meet with him on two other occa-
sions parallel to this. He had presided at a smaller assembly
held at Seville in the year 619, and in the proceedings of the
thirteenth day of their assembly we find recorded a long declara-
tion of their Faith with reference to the Incarnate Word of God,
illustrated and supported by scriptural proofs. There is not
much here relating to the Trinity, but with reference to the two
natures of the One Person of our Blessed Lord the exposition is
profuse. The document may be seen in all Collections of the
Councils, and in it, as I may repeat in passing, the Apostles’
Creed is quoted without the words “Maker of heaven and earth?.”
Instead of the words in seculo of the Athanasian Creed of the
time of the Incarnation, we still read in these last days ; but more
interesting to us in our present investigation is it to remark that
passages are introduced from the writings of Ambrose, Athanasius,
Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, Cyril, Augustine, Leo, and F ulgen-
tius; those from Athanasius are taken from the tract which he
wrote on Lhe Nativity of our Lord, and from his Exposition of
Faith; the phrases professing to come from the latter may be

asserimus ; Spiritum vero Sanctum nec
creatum nec genitum sed procedentem
ex Patre et Filio profitemur. Ipsum
autem Dominum nostrum Jesum Chris-

in utraque natura, perferens passionem
et mortem pro nostra salute: non in
virtute divinitatis sed infirmitate huma-
nitatis. Descendit ad inferos, ut sanctos

tum Dei Filium et Creatorem omnium,
ex substantia Patris ante secula geni-
tum, descendisse ultimo tempore pro
redemptione mundi a Patre, qui nun-
quam desiit esse cum Patre. Incarna-
tus est enim ex Spiritu Sancto et sancta
gloriosa Dei genitrice Virgine Maria, et
natus ex ipsa, solus autem Dominus
Jesus Christus; unus de Sancta Trini-
tate, anima et carne perfectum, sine
peccato, suscipiens hominem, manens
quod erat, assumens quod non erat:
equalis Patri secundum divinitatem,
minor Patre secundum humanitatem ;
habens in una Persona duarum natura-
rum proprietatem ; nature enim in illo
duzx, Deus et homo, non autem duo
ἘΠ et Dei duo, sed idem una persona

qui ibi tenebantur erueret: devictoque
mortis imperio, resurrexit, assumptus
deinde in cclum, venturus est in fu-
turum ad judicium vivorum et mortuo-
rum: cujus nos morte et sanguine mun-
dati remissionem peccatorum consecuti
sumus, resuscitandi ab eo in die novis-
simo, in ea qua nune vivimus carne, et
in ea qua resurrexit idem Dominus
forma, percepturi ab ipso, alii pro jus-
titia meritis vitam eternam, alii pro
peccatis supplicii eterni sententiam.

Hee est catholice ecclesie fides:
hane confessionem conservamus atque
tenemus: quam quisquis firmissime cus-
todierit perpetuam salutem habebit.

1 Labbe, v. 1669—1672. Harduin, 111.

562—568,

XIX.| CONFESSIONS OF SYNODS FROM 451 To 700. 285

said, with some degree of laxity, to be contained in the Ecthesis,
but they are not taken from our Athanasian Creed.

§ 8. But Isidore adduces further testimony. I have men-
tioned already his work On the Offices of the Church, and illustrated
from it the difference between a Creed and a Rule of Faith.
To the Archbishop’s Rule of Faith I must now draw more atten-
tion.

The chapter entitled “De Regula Fidei” 1s numbered twenty-
three and commences thus:

“This, after the Apostles’ Creed, is the most certain faith, which
our doctors have handed down to us, that we should profess that the
Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one essence and of the
same power and eternity, one God invisible; so that, the properties of
each Person being preserved, neither should the Trinity be divided in its
substance nor confused in its Persons. We should confess the Father as
unbegotten, the Son as begotten, the Holy Spirit as neither begotten
nor unbegotten, but proceeding from the Father and the Son.” It states
that the Son took perfect man of the Virgin without sin ; it speaks of
His crucifixion, His resurrection, His ascension in the flesh ; it declares

that in that flesh He will come to judge the quick and the dead.

The document is so important that I have given large extracts

from it in my note’.

1 This Rule is of the greater interest,
because it was adopted almost verbatim
by Rabanus Maurus in the ninth cen-
tury. The varieties of reading are very
minute and not worthy of notice.

5. Isidori De Ecclesiasticis Officiis,
Lib. 11.cap.23, De Regula Fidei. (Migne,
XXII ἢ. 811.)

‘“‘Heee est autem post apostolorum
symbolum certissima fides quam doc-
tores nostri tradiderunt ut profiteamur
Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum
unius esse essentiw ejusdemque potes-
tatis et sempiternitatis, unum Deum in-
visibilem, ita ut singulis Personarum
proprietate servata, nec substantialiter
Trinitas dividi, nec personaliter debeat
omnino confundi. Patrem quoque con-
fiteri ingenitum, Filium genitum, Spiri-
tum autem Sanctum nec genitum nec
ingenitum sed ex Patre et Filio proce-
dentem: Filium autem ex Patre nas-
cendo procedere, Spiritum vero Sanctum
procedendo non nasci. Ipsum quoque
Filium perfectum ex Virgine hominem
sine peccato suscepisse ut quem sola
bonitate creaverat, sponte lapsum mise-

Its existence shews that the example set by

ricorditer repararet. Quem _ veraciter
crucifixum, et tertia die resurrexisse et
cum eadem ipsa carne glorificata adscen-
disse in ceelum, in qua et ad judicium
vivorum et mortuorum expectatur ven-
turus. Et quod divinam humanamque
naturam, in utroque perfectus, una
Christus persona gestaverit: quia nec
geminavit utriusque substantie integri-
tas personam, nec confudit geminam
unitas persone substantiam. Altero
quippe neutrum exclusit, quia utrum-
que unus intemerato jure servavit.
Quod novi et veteris testamenti salubri
commendatur auctoritate, illa per pro-
phetiam, ista per historiam, veraciter
persoluta: quod neque de Deo neque de
creatura veraciter sit cum paganis aut
hereticis aliquid sentiendum in his qui-
bus a veritate dissentiunt, sed quod in
utroque testamento divina protestantur
eloquia, hoc tantummodo sentiendum.”
The Rule proceeds by stating that God
created the worlds under no necessity
compelling Him to do so: that God is
supremely and immutably good, the
creature in an inferior sense and muta-

236 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

the Council of Chalcedon in issuing, after the Symbol, a much
longer exposition or declaration of the Faith, was not forgotten:
the Symbol being intended for the baptized; the Rule of Faith
for the clergy. It shews too that the Quicunque could not
have come under the ban of the Councils of Ephesus and Chal-
cedon until it was allowed, as in our Services, to supersede the
Apostles’ Creed.

It concludes, ‘‘ This is the true fulness of the Catholic tradi-
tion and faith: out of which, if one point alone is rejected, the
whole belief of the faith is lost.”

Many subjects of interest arise from the study of this docu-
ment. We see that it was framed after the questions regarding
the Person of the Incarnate Son of God were settled: again, that
it must have succeeded the fifth Council, wherein the opinions of
Origen were condemned. The words regarding the Procession of
the Holy Spirit shew that’ it was composed after the tenet had
been received in Spain, 1.6. after the council at which Reccared
presided in 589. It is equally clear that the Quicunque was not
known to Isidore, or, if known, it had no authority: for this
Rule of Faith, however it may resemble the Quicunque in the
conceptions of its first part, has in its final words no verbal
similarity with it. The mixed resemblances and disagreements
in the clauses “ Patrem ingenitum,” &c. prove its independent
origin. |

But there is another point of detail to be considered before we
come to the grand fact demonstrated by the existence of this

bly good: that the origin of the soul is
uncertain, but it was created, yet is not
corporeal: that it was created after the
image of God in a moral probity, with-
out which the faith of the divine wor-
ship would be torpid, but with which
the integrity of the divine worship is
perfected ; so that whosoever loveth God,
and his neighbour in God, may stretch
forward even to the love of his enemies,
and by stretching forward may obtain
it. One man cannot be polluted by
another’s sin, unless there is a consent
of the will thereto. The Rule proceeds
to the defence of lawful marriage, even
though from it an offspring is produced
tainted with original sin, and a virgin
life is to be preferred. Baptism is not
to be repeated, for the blessing thereof
comes not from the minister but from
God alone, Repentance (penitence, pe-

nance) is needed and must not be re-
jected. It proceeds with speaking sen-
sibly enough of worldly goods, that it is
not by the possession of them, but by the
use we make of them, that we shall be
judged. It concludes with speaking of
our resurrection and of the eternal pun-
ishment of Satan with his angels and
worshippers, ‘‘Nor, aS some persons
sacrilegiously dispute, is he to be re-
stored to his former, that is, his angelic
condition.” It concludes:

“Hee est catholice traditionis et
fidei vera integritas, de qua, si unum
quodlibet respuatur, tota fidei creduli-
tas amittetur.”

It must be remembered that Rabanus
Maurus must have adopted this in pre-
ference to the Athanasian Creed if he
knew the latter.

XIX. ] CONFESSIONS OF SYNODS FROM 451 To 700. 237

document. The Faith of the Trinity, though put most clearly
in the opening of this Rule, as we find it in that of others, is
exhibited in a comparatively simple form, withcut that “ glorying
in subtle antitheses,’ which proceeded from the labours of Augus-
tine. In this respect it resembles the version of the Catholic
Faith contained in the Profession of Denebert, the clauses quoted
in the treatise of Hinemar, and the Faith as given in the Vienna
Manuscript, all of which I shall adduce below. Once more: the
reference we find here to questions relating to the origin of the
soul and the ultimate salvation of Satan—things omitted in our
Athanasian formula—shews that the points put forward in these
Rules of Faith varied according to the exigencies of the times.

But the grand fact which these documents exhibit is this:
that in the seventh and later centuries there was, in addition to
the Symbolum or Creed, a series of wider and more expansive
documents, which went into details, expounding and enforcing the
Faith of the Symbolum—the very thing which the “ Fides Atha-
nasii” is evidently, from its construction, intended to do. The
“Creed of Saint Athanasius” begins Fides autem Catholica hec
est; the one before us commences Hwe est autem post A postolicum
symbolum certissima fides. Our version of the Faith is commended
by the words Hee est fides Catholica, quam nisi quisque fideliter
firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit: that of St Isidore
is similarly, though more mildly enforced, Hac est Catholica tra-
ditions et fider vera integritas, de qua si unum quodlibet respuatur,
tota fider credulitas amittetur*. Our question is, Which is the
more ancient ?

§9. There was another Council at Toledo in 636, and another
in 638. The latter again put forth a profession of its belief.
The leader of the Church had changed. St Isidore was dead:
and possibly the later bishops thought that they might improve on
the work which their predecessor had accomplished. Again
I think an extract from the Canon or Chapter worthy of being

11 may mention that Canon xu.

Church in consequence” appears to be
of this council defends the use of

ironical. Canon xiv. directs that the

hymns in the Church. The same canon
is frequently referred to as noting that,
in the Gloria in Excelsis, the ecclesias-
tical doctors composed all that followed
on the angelic words. The direction
that ‘‘This is not to be sung in the

‘Hymn of the three Children,” which
had been sung on Sundays and the Fes-
tivals of the Martyrs only, ‘should
throughout Spain and ‘‘ Gaul” be chant-
ed in the pulpit at every mass.

238

THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH.

[ CHAP.

reprinted’: the progress of thought is thus more easily perceived.
On comparing this and the last together, we find the conception
that “God is solitary’ expressly excluded from the Faith: other
phrases draw nearer to our Creed :

“The Father unbegotten, uncreated, the fount and origin of all
divinity ; the Son from the Father without time and before all creation,
without beginning; begotten, not created...in all things coequal with the
Father, very God of very God; the Holy Spirit neither begotten nor
created, but proceeding from the Father and the Son, is the Spirit of

1 TOLEDO, VI. A.D. 638.

From Canon I. (Harduin, 111. 601.)

Credimus et profitemur sacratissi-
mam et omnipotentissimam Trinitatem
Patrem et F. et S. 8. unum Deum, solum
non solitarium ; unius essentie, virtutis,
potestatis, uniusque nature: discretam
inseparabiliter personis: indiscretam
essentialiter substantiam deitatis: crea-
tricem omnium creaturarum. Patrem
ingenitum, increatum, fontem et origi-
nem totius divinitatis: Filium a Patre
intemporaliter et ante omnem creaturam
sine initio genitum non creatum: nam
nec Pater usquam sine Filio nec Filius
extitit sine Patre: sed tamen Filius
Deus de Patre Deo non Pater Deus de
Filio Deo: ille autem Filius Patris et
Deus de Patre per omnia coqualis
Patri: Deus verus de Deo vero: Spiri-
tum vero Sanctum, neque genitum, ne-
que creatum, sed de Patre Filioque pro-
cedentem utriusque esse Spiritum: ac
per hoc substantialiter unum sunt, quia
et unus ab utroque procedit. In hac
autem Trinitate tanta est unitas sub-
stantie, ut pluralitate careat et sequali-
tatem teneat: nec minor in singulis
quam in omnibus nec major in omni-
bus quam in singulis maneat Personis.
Ex his igitur tribus divinitatis Personis
solum Filium fatemur ad Redemptio-
nem humani generis propter culparum
debita, que per inobedientiam Ade ori-
ginaliter et nostro libero arbitrio con-
traxeramus, resolvenda a secreto Patris
et arcano prodiisse et hominem sine
peccato de sancta semper Virgine Maria
assumpsisse, ut idem Filius Dei Patris
esset Filius hominis: Deus perfectus et
Homo perfectus, ut Homo Deus esset
unus Christus naturis in duabus, in
persona unus; ne quaternitas Trinitati
accederet si in Christo Persona geminata
esset. Ergo a Patre et Spiritu Sancto
inseparabiliter discretus est persona ;
ab homine autem assumpto, natura.
Item, cum eodem homine unus extat
persona, cum Patre et Spiritu Sancto
natura: ac, sicut diximus, ex duabus

naturis et una persona unus est domi-
nus noster Jesus Christus in forma divi-
nitatis equalis Patri, in forma servi
minor Patre: hine enim est vox ejus in
Psalmo: de ventre matris mee Deus
meus es tu. Natus itaque a Deo sine
matre, natus a virgine sine patre: solum
Verbum caro factum est et habitavit in
nobis : et cum tota cooperata sit Trinitas
formationem suscepti hominis (quo-
niam inseparabilia sunt opera Trinita-
tis), solus tamen accepit hominem in
singularitate persone, non in unitate
divine nature, in id quod est proprium
ΕἾ] non quod commune Trinitatis.
Nam si naturam hominis Deique alte-
ram (? omit) confudisset, tota Trinitas
corpus adsumsisset: quoniam constat
naturam Trinitatis esse unam, non
tamen personam. Hic igitur dominus
Jesus Christus missus a Patre suscipiens
quod non erat nec amittens quod erat,
inviolabilis de suo, mortalis de nostro,
venit in hune mundum, peccatores sal-
vos facere et credentes justificare, fa-
ciensque mirabilia, traditus est propter
delicta nostra, mortuus est propter expia-
tionem nostram, resurrexit propter jus-
tificationem nostram, cujus livore sanati,
cujus morte Deo Patri reconciliati, cujus
resurrectione sumus resuscitati. Quem
etiam venturum in fine expectamus scu-
lorum et cum resurrectione omnium
sequissimo suo judicio redditurum justis
premia et implis penas. Ecclesiam
quoque catholicam credimus sine ma-
cula in opere et sine ruga in fide corpus
ejus esse, regnumque habiturum cum
capite suo omnipotente Christo Jesu,
postquam hoc corruptibile induerit in-
corruptionem et mortale immortalitatem,
ut sit Deus omnia in omnibus. Hace fide
corda purificantur, hac hereses extir-
pantur; in hac omnis ecclesia collocata
jam in regno ccelesti et degens in szculo
presenti gloriatur: et non est in alia
fide salus nec enim nomen aliud est sub
celo datum hominibus in quo oporteat
nos salvos fieri.

XIX.] CONFESSIONS OF SYNODS FROM 451 To 700. 239

Both, and by Him They are substantially One (unum) because the One
(unus) proceedeth from Both ; and this Trinity is not less in any than
in all, nor greater in all than it remains in the several Persons.” And
then avoiding once more the subject of clauses 5—20 of the Quicunque,
the Profession passes on to the subject of Christ’s Humanity. Once
more we read of Him assuming man. We have the words “ Perfect God,
perfect Man, the Man-God one Christ, in the form of divinity equal to the
Father, in the form of servant less than the Father.” And it proceeds
with the history of the Redeemer’s work. After speaking of His return
to judgment, it adds a few words on the Catholic Church, and of that
glorious time when God shall be all in all; and concludes ‘with this
faith hearts are purified; with this heresies are extirpated ; every Church
grounded in this already glories in the kingdom of heaven; there is no
salvation in any other, Yor there is none other Name given under heaven
whereby we can be saved.”

The persistency of the mention of the Holy Trinity in these
formule was probably due to the sect which had grown up at the
end of the sixth century under Philoponus of Alexandria, a sect
which held a modified tritheism : whilst ere long the monothelistic
disputations made the latter of the Toletan Canons important.
The introduction of the words non solitarius may be due to the
influence of Vincentius as against the Photinians. Perhaps it is
worthy of notice that we see a glimmer of the language of St
Augustine appearing in the latter part of the Canon. The phrase
“In tbe form of God, Christ Jesus is equal to the Father, in
the form of the servant, less,” I have quoted from the great
Bishop’s work. We shall see further proofs of his influence
hereafter.

§ 10. We find the Lateran Council of 649' insisting on the
expression of belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation. The form
should be observed: “If any one does not confess” this or that
“may he be condemned.” The great object of the synod was to
discuss, and its great result was to condemn, the opinions of the
Monothelites, and the Canons were framed accordingly. But
I remark no progress in regard to the subject of the Trinity’.
I notice, however, what is to me most interesting, that Augustine’s
works were frequently quoted in the discussions of the council,
and those of Athanasius also. I cannot, in all fairness, build any-
thing on the fact that the Quicunque is not quoted: because the

1 Labbe, vi. p. 350. Harduin, 11. 2 Incomprehensibilis is used where we
687. now have immensus.

240 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

Quicunque contains nothing which bears particularly on the ques-
tion in dispute’.

§ 11. In the Council of Chalons, in the year 650, attended
by about forty bishops from Lyons and the neighbourhood, the
“ Fidei norma” of the first four Councils was alone confirmed.

§ 12. The eighth Council of Toledo contented themselves with
reciting the Creed “as they say it at the mass” and passed on to
other business. This was in 653. They urged, however, the
bishops to clear up anything that was obscure in the doctrine of
the Trinity, even whilst they were content with the interpolated
Constantinopolitan Creed.

§ 13. The Council of Hmerita (Merida), in the year 666,
recited the Spanish version of the Creed of Constantinople, and

added :

“This is our faith; this our belief; whosoever holds this worthily
shall, at the day of judgment, receive a worthy remuneration ; whosoever
shall have departed from it, or shall be unwilling to be in the faith,
shall with the devil suffer eternal punishment...If any one will not
believe or confess that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are One in the
Trinity, let him be anathema.”

The next Canon gives directions for the observance of vespers.

§ 14. We now come to a Council of Autun, supposed to have
been held in the year 670: at which it is said that a Canon was
passed to the effect that

“Tf any presbyter, deacon, subdeacon, or clerk shall not learn,
without fail or fault, the Symbol which under the inspiration of the
Holy Spirit the Apostles handed down, and the Faith of the holy bishop
Athanasius, let him be condemned by the Bishop.”

As this Canon does not give the text of the “ Faith of Athana-
515, it will not assist us at present to any great extent. All
discussion regarding it may, therefore, be delayed until we come

1 We have Trinitas in unitate et mis seculorum de sancta Virgine (Canons
unitas in Trinitate (Canon 1.); tribus τιτ. 8} 1γ.}: consubstantialem Deoet Patri
subsistentiis not personis: crucificum secundum divinitatem, consubstantialem
carne (the descent into hellis not men- homini et matri secundum humanitatem
tioned): resurrexisse tertia die, seden- (Ibid.). The preface is taken largely
tem in dextra Patris (Canon 11.): a Deo from the Chalcedon definition; ‘‘ pariter”’
Patre ante omnia secula natus, in ulti- ‘occurs in Canon xty. (Harduin, τι. 822.)

XIX.] CONFESSIONS OF SYNODS FROM 451 To 700. 241

to the consideration of the disciplinary canons of a similar cha-
racter. It will be remembered that we have already met with
three documents, three expositions of the faith which have been
attributed to Athanasius: to two others, besides the Quicunque,
I must draw attention ere long.

§ 15. In the year 675 was held what is called the eleventh
Synod of Toledo. It was attended by seventeen bishops.

Their first object (they said) was to confer on the “sacred purity of
the faith; for, seeing that to men who have to be initiated into the life
of blessedness, this is the first step of salvation, they ought to point out
the road both in action and in precept.” They agreed, therefore, to discuss
the subject among themselves, taking their start from the first four
councils, and then to reduce to writing the results of their deliberations,
in order that the clergy ‘‘might thus have in an expanded form what
otherwise might be perplexing from its brevity.” Their declaration took
the form of a Creed, ‘‘We confess and believe ;” an expansion of the
Eastern Creed, occupying more than four columns of Labbe’s folios’.

Comparing the language of this Confession with that of our Qui-
cunque, as already illustrated from the earlier councils held in this city,
I notice that the substance of our clauses (21, 22, 23) appears once more,
with language approaching nearer to our own. Jt is expanded and
explained at length. I will take the words or thoughts as they occur,
begging the reader to remember that he may have to supply many words
in the intervals which I have marked. ‘‘We profess that the Father
indeed is not begotten nor created, but unbegotten. We confess that
the Son is of the substance of the Father born (natum) without
beginning before the ages, but not made. The Father therefore is
eternal, and the Son eternal...but this Son of God is Son by nature, not
by adoption ; and we believe that the Holy Spirit, Who is the third
Person in the Trinity is God, one and equal with the Father and the Son,
but not begotten nor created, but proceeding from both. This Holy
Spirit is believed to be neither begotten nor unbegotten. Nor
though we speak of three Persons, do we speak of three Substances,
but one Substance, three Persons. For, if we are asked of the Persons
severally (de singulis Personis) we confess of necessity that each is God.
The Father is said to be God, the Son God, the Holy Ghost God, one by
one (singulariter); yet net three Gods, but one God. The Father is said
to be Almighty, the Son Almighty, the Holy Ghost Almighty, one by
one; yet not three Almighties, but one Almighty.” For other expres-
sions 1 must refer to the note’, adding, however, that the phrase

1 Four in Harduin, 111. 1020.

2 «Patrem quidem non genitum, non
creatum, sed ingenitum profitemur...
Filium vero de substantia Patris sine
initio ante secula natum nec tamen
factum esse fatemur...sempiternus ergo
Pater, sempiternus et Filius:...hic enim
Filius Dei natura est Filius, non adop-

ae OF

tione...Spiritum quoque Sanctum qui
est tertia in Trinitate Persona unum at-
que equalem cum Patre et Filio credi-
mus esse Deum—...non tamen genitum
vel creatum sed ab utrisque proceden-
tem...Hic Spiritus Sanctus nec ingenitus
nec genitus creditur (which they ex-
plain). Hee est Sanctx Trinitatis re-

242 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

employed is still that the Son of God asswmed man; not, as it is in the
Quicunque, that He became man by the assumption of humanity, or, as
our version reads it, by the taking of the manhood into God.

The last words are: “This is the Faith of our Confession,
exhibited and explained;” or, “This Faith of our Confession is
exhibited and set forth: by which the teaching of all heretics is
destroyed, the hearts of the faithful are cleansed, and we draw nigh
to God in glory.”

It seems to me that we may note here further progress towards
the language of the Quicunque: but the differences are still such
that I cannot reconcile them on the supposition that the Quicun-
que, if known, was regarded as of any authority by the Spanish
Bishops in the year 675. And in their long account we find
nothing in any way approaching to the meaning of the first or last
clauses of the Athanasian Creed.

§ 16. I will now finish with the Spanish Councils. The
bishops who met at Bracara, in the same year, were content with
quoting “the Rule of Faith as settled at Nicza,” when they were

lata narratio: que non triplex sed Trini-
tas et dici et credi debet. Nec recte dici
potest ut in uno Deo sit Trinitas, sed
unus Deus Trinitas...Nec sicut tres Per-
sonas, ita tres Substantias predicamus,
sed unam Substantiam, tres autem Per-
sonas...Nam si de singulis Personis in-
terrogemur (it will be remembered that
these are the words of St Augustine ;
although Augustine’s name 18 not
mentioned we shall hear of him a few
years later, in this neighbourhood),
Deum necesse esse fateamur. Deus ergo
Pater, Deus Filius, Deus Spiritus Sanc-
tus, singulariter dicitur: nec tamen tres
Dii, sed unus est Deus. Ita Pater om-
nipotens, et Filius omnipotens, et Spi-
ritus Sanctus omnipotens, singulariter
dicitur, nec tamen tres omnipotentes
sed unus omnipotens: sicut et unum
lumen unumque principium predicatur
...Una est majestas sive potestas, nec
minoratur in singulis nec augetur in
tribus:...Personas distinguimus, non
deitatem separamus.” Passing on to
speak of the Incarnation, the Confession
(as I have remarked above) still retains
the phrase, ‘‘ verum hominem sine pec-
cato credimus assumpsisse.” After a
while we read ‘‘Nec tamen Verbum
ipsum ita in carne conversum atque mu-
tatum ut desisteret Deus esse, qui homo

esse voluisset: sed ita Verbum caro fac-
tum est, ut non tantum ibi sit Verbum
Dei et hominis caro, sed etiam rationalis
hominis anima. Unde perfectus Deus,
perfectus et Homo in unitate Personz
unius est Christus...Deus Verbum non
accepit Personam hominis, sed naturam;
et in eternam Personam divinitatis tem-
poralem accepit substantiam carnis.”
Thus they had the conception of the
humanitas, although they did not catch
the word. Lower down, I find the phrase
“in fine seculorum’’ (not in seculo),
replacing the novissimis diebus of the
earlier councils, but the words forma
Dei, forma servi, are still retained. As
we approach the end of the document,
we find the identity of the Resurrec-
tion-body with our present frame in-
sisted upon with greater clearness than
as yet I have been able to notice: ‘‘ Nec
in aerea nec qualibet alia carne, ut qui-
dam delirant, surrecturos nos credimus,
sed in ista qua vivimus consistimus et
movemur.’”’ The hope of a future re-
surrection to eternal life is gently ex-
pressed, and the document concludes
‘‘Hee est confessionis nostre fides ex-
posita, per quam omnium hereticorum
dogma perimitur, fidelium corda mun-
dantur: per quam etiam ad Deum gloriose
acceditur.”’

XIx.] CONFESSIONS OF SYNODS FROM 451 τὸ 700. 243

really taking up the Spanish version of the so-called Creed of
Constantinople. At Toledo, in 681, the bishops were more
cautious: they recited the interpolated Creed as “the Sacramen-
tum handed down to them, and used in the solemn service — of
the Mass.” This they thought would render unnecessary any
longer exposition on the subject of the Trinity. The same was
done at the thirteenth Council in 683. At the fourteenth Council
in 684 the Fathers expressed at length in their Canon vill. the
orthodox view of the union of the two natures in our Lord; from
it they deduced the twofold will and the double operation.
And they declared anathema to those who subtracted aught from
the orthodox faith. Four years later and they met in larger
numbers, sixty-one in all, to consider the decrees of the sixth
general Council, which had been held in 680. They commenced
once more with reciting the Creed of Constantinople as they
received it, and then, in considering the question of the will,
they quoted at some length passages, spurious and genuine, from
Athanasius, Cyril, Ambrose, Fulgentius; from Augustine’s “ Book
of Questions against the Apollinarians’,” from the Enchiridion,
from the Liber Trinitatis Dei (they quote book xv.); from one
of the “Tracts on the Symbol;” and from the De Fide ad Petrum
(which is now considered to be a work of Fulgentius).

They brought out, once more, the Definition of Chalcedon,
and upheld the truth of the two wills in our Redeemer by the
_ analogy of man’s nature, “who consists not only of soul but of
body, not only of body but of soul.” I do not find anything
analogous to the final clause of the Quicunque. The following
passage will scarcely be deemed so: “If any one shall willingly
act against these definitions, he shall be fined in one-tenth of his
property, and moreover be smitten with the sentence of excom-
munication.”

One more of these Spanish Synods and we must dismiss
them. It was held in 692 or 693; and the decrees were signed
by fifty-seven bishops, five abbots, three vicars of bishops, fourteen
counts, and two other laymen. It was opened (as were many of
the others) with the reading of a letter from the king, informing
them of the subjects which he was anxious that they should
discuss. They received the letter with thankfulness—the more

1 Is this the liber questionum, ὃ txxx. Tom. νι. (p. 129, of Gaume.)

16—2

244 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [σΒΠΑΡ,

fervent souls with hymns of praise. Then they recited their
Creed—“ We believe and confess”—different from any that I have
noticed elsewhere, but still the Trinity and the Incarnation occupy
the whole of its length. In addition to the clauses which I have
already illustrated, I cannot find any on which light is thrown
from this document, unless, perhaps, the subject of clauses 13, 14,
15,16 is brought out still more clearly (not three Omnipotents
but one Omnipotent) *.

The Confession towards its close speaks of our Resurrection,
of the future Judgment, and of the reign of the Church with
Christ. And at length we have a phrase which covers the ground
which our final clause may be said to occupy: “And all who do not
stand by this in every, even the least degree, or who have receded
from it, or shall recede from it...or do not believe without the
slightest shadow of doubt,” what the four general and other
Councils have ordained, “shall be punished with the sentence
of eternal damnation, and in the end of the world shall burn with
the devil and his angels in devouring flames’.”

In 694 there was another synod, at which the bishops were
contented with repeating the interpolated Nicene Creed.

We have thus traced to the Spanish Bishops, and to the year
693,, the first appearance in any council of the thought of the
final clause of the Quicunque’.

§ 17. We must notice one or two points by way of sum-
mary.

One is the gradual way in which the enuntiation of what
I must call the great verities of our Faith was unfolded. The
substance of clauses 4 and 5 of the Quicunque is met with
in the year 589; it is met with again in 693. But we have
found as yet nothing analogous to clauses 6, 7, 8,9. Clause 13 is
found in the year 589; clauses 14, 15, 16 in 675 and 693 contem-

ΤῚ read ‘‘Pater a nullo originem
sumpsit : Filius Patre generante existit.
Spiritus quoque Sanctus ex Patris Filii-
que unione consistit.’”’ I read too ‘‘ Ni-
hil in eadem Trinitate anterius poste-
riusve credendum est...... Nihil in eadem
sancta Trinitate majus aut minus cre-
dere oportet.’”’ This isa marked advance.
I find too the quotation from Hosea xiii.
14, “O mors, ero mors tua,” ““Ο inferne,
ero morsus tuus,” which I have noticed

in one of the Pseudo-Augustine Ser-
mons (Vol. νι. 1740), and which will be
found in the Exposition of Fortunatus.

2 Perpetua damnationis sententia ul-
ciscetur, atque in fine seculi cum diabolo
ejusque socils ignivomis rogis cremabi-
tur. (Harduin, rv. 1793.)

3 And even this was limited to the
subjects laid down in the four great
Councils.

XIX. | CONFESSIONS OF SYNODS FROM 451 To 700. 245

poraneously, as it will be observed, with an increased knowledge of
the writings of St Augustine. To clauses 17 and 18 we have no
parallel. The true meaning of our clause 19 is given by the
Council in the year 675; clauses 21, 22, 23 were substantially (not
verbally) contained in the Confessions of 633 and later years,
though the words nec creatus of 21, 22, and non factus of 23
nowhere appear. The antithetical language

Patera nullo est factus nec creatus nec genitus
Filius a Patre solo est non factus nec creatus sed ge-
nitus
S. Sanctus a Patre et Filio non factus nec creatus nec geni-
tus sed procedens,

was a later refinement. For the sake of it the composers of the
Quicunque avoided the cautious expression of earlier days that
the Holy Spirit was nec genitus nec ingenitus. We find the expla-
nation of 24 in more than one council, but not the language.
The two clauses of 25 are not found until the year 693, and then
at a somewhat wide interval apart. Clauses 28, 29, 30 nowhere
appear. The words in seculo are not to be found in the Spanish
Councils; and for genitus the older word natus is invariably met
with; of the next clauses we have had the substance again and
again; of 31 and 32 in 633; of 33 in 589, and later years; but
the words have always been in forma servi, in forma Dei. We
have never met with the expression that our Lord asswmed
humanity ; it always has been that He asswmed man. The sub-
stance of the remaining clauses, 1.6. 36 to 41, has been noted at
various times. In regard to 42, however, although we have met
with punishment of varied degrees of severity denounced against
those who deny or reject the truth, we have found nothing directed
against those who, de facto, do not believe. I have found nothing
resembling clauses 1, 2, 3. |

I have thus traced down to the year 693, the history of the
Spanish Rules of Faith, including what I may call the warnings
of orthodoxy, the monitory words by which the True Faith was
commended to the attention of Spanish Christians. I have shewn,
how, from being at first encouraging, the language of the Spanish
Councils became minatory, and, finally, condemnatory; but it did
not become condemnatory until more than three hundred years
after the death of Athanasius or two hundred and sixty years after

246 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

the death of Augustine; 7.e. two hundred and forty years after the
Council of Chalcedon, at which we may consider that the truths
of our Quicunque relating to the Incarnate Word of God were
worked out in the Church. Thus the framework of the Athana-
sian Creed is historically of later date than the Catholic Faith
which it contains: the setting is of later date than the gems. But
there is no proof that we have as yet reached the time when the
framework was completed, or the setting assumed its present
form.

§ 18. We must now turn back to ask the question, Was the
Faith of the Quicunque as yet received in the Italian or Roman
Churches? Before we can answer the enquiry, we must go to the
documents which preceded, to the debates which accompanied,
and to the definitions which resulted from the sixth general
Council—7.e. the third of Constantinople—held in the years
680 and 681. At this council, in which the Emperor Con-
stantinus Pogonatus took an active part, an Address from a Synod
at Milan, enclosed in a letter from their Metropolitan Mansuetus,
and containing an Exposition of their Faith, first calls for atten-
tion. We learn from the two documents that St Augustine’s
writings were now attracting attention: the synod referred to
Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius,
John Chrysostom, Hilary of Poictiers, Augustine of Hippo, whom
it described as omni sapientia clarwum, Ambrose, and Jerome,
“the most learned, and brilliant with every light.” The exposition
of their Faith* commences :

“We profess that we believe the Holy indivisible Trinity, that is,
Father and Son and Holy Spirit, one God, yet so one as trine, so trine
as one; Trinity in distinct Persons, that is the Father, of Whom are all
things; the Son, by Whom are all things; the Holy Spirit, in Whom are
all things; but yet of one divinity, one essence, and one substance.”
I must resist the temptation of reciting the whole ; I will note only any
words in which there is a close approximation to the language of the
formula before us. I find these: “ We confess the Holy Trinity in Unity
and Unity in Trinity. When we call Him Holy Spirit we shew that
He proceeds from the Person of the Eternal Father*. We believe that
the Word of God was Incarnate and made Man within the Virgin’s
womb.” He is “perfect God, perfect Man, in two natures, that is of the
divinity and humanity ; consubstantial with the Father in regard to His

1 Harduin, ur. 1053.
? The Church of Milan had not received as yet the double Procession.

XIX. ] CONFESSIONS OF SYNODS FROM 451 To 700. 247

divinity, consubstantial with us in regard to His humanity. He was
born before the worlds (natus ante seecula), but in the last days was
incarnate of the Virgin.” The synod then proceeded to speak of the
two wills, the subject which was attracting so much attention at the
time and was forgotten in the West so soon afterwards.

I notice one more resemblance to our Quicunque: the document
ends with speaking of the Return of the Lord to judgment.

At the end of the first session, Constantine called for proofs
“from universal Synods and from approved Fathers,’ bearing upon
the subject before him. The reign of authority had commenced.
The bishops could no longer do that which St Augustine and St
Athanasius had done, and on the successful performance of which
their value and their fame are built up. They had lost con-
fidence in the promise of their Saviour that the Holy Spirit should
lead His followers into all truth, and so they ceased to ask for
wisdom direct from God: all that they could do was this, to trust to
earlier writers for guidance, and appeal to that which they had
deduced or inferred from Scripture.

And so it is, that now we have, I will not say the earliest,
but one of the most noticeable attempts to forge documents where
evidence was missing. Paul, “the magnificent secretary’” of
the Emperor, produced a volume which was said to be the
record of the fifth Synod. It began “The discourse of the
Holy Menna, Archbishop of Constantinople, addressed to Vigilius,
Pope of Rome, on the subject that there is only one will in Christ.”
The legates of the Apostolic see rose up and cried, “O pious Sir,
the book 15 falsified: it is corrupted! Let it not be read!” The
volume was examined, and it was found that “three quaternions
(or quires) had been inserted at the beginning, not having the
subscribed number’, which is usually fixed upon the quire; on the
contrary, the fourth quire was numbered one, and the fifth was
numbered two, and so on:” thus the addition was detected.
The part thus inserted into the volume was not read at the synod,
but they began with the procemium proper of the Council. This
curious and instructive scene occurred at the third session’®.

At the next meeting a long letter from Agatho, the Pope
of Rome, was read*. It occupies more than twenty columns both
in Harduin and Labbe; and, although it contains quotations from
Ambrose, Athanasius, Augustine against Maximinus and against

τὶ Ὁ μεγαλοπρεπέστατος ἀσέγκρετις. 3 Harduin, m1. 1067.
This is the Greek of the synod! 4 Harduin, 111. 1073.
2 The “signature.”

248 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

Julian, Gregory of Nazianzus, and others, and the Chalcedon
Council, it contains, what is even more valuable, arguments from
Scripture—opening them and alleging, that as there were two
natures in the Incarnate Word, so of necessity were there two
wills. The Pope begged for freedom of discussion, so that “no
one speaking for the purity and integrity of the Catholic Faith,
should be deterred or hindered.” The letter is followed by a copy
of the instructions given by the Pope to the Roman legates’:
in the middle of which I find a passage which merits our at-
tention*:

“This is our perfect knowledge—that we should preserve (tota
mentis custodia conservemus) with the whole energy of our mind those
limits of the Catholic and Apostolic faith, which up to the present time
the Apostolic see with us both holds and passes on (tradit et tenet),
believing in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and
of all things visible and invisible, and in His only-begotten Son, Who
was born of Him before all worlds, very God of very God, Light of
Light, born not made, consubstantial with the Father, that is of the
same substance with the Father, through Whom all things were made,
which are in heaven and which are in earth: and in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord and Giver of life, proceeding from the Father, who with the
Father and the Son is to be worshipped and glorified*: the Trinity
in Unity and Unity in Trinity; a Unity of essence, but a Trinity of
Persons or subsistences*: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy
Spirit; not three Gods but one God, Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit.”
And so it proceeds to the Incarnation, differing little from the Definition

of Chalcedon, and thence deducing (as before) the necessity of the truth
that there were two wills in the Saviour’.

They use the phrase which 15 still of interest to us as coming
from a Roman Pontiff: “the true faith cannot be altered; nor
can it be preached, at one time in this way, at another in that®.”

Reading onwards, I find a regret expressed that our Theo-
dore, Bishop of Canterbury, was not able to join the bishops in
their deliberations: but Agatho was thankful that amongst the
Lombards and Sclaves and Franks and Goths and Britons were
many who were watching with interest the course of the delibera-
tions of the council. (It is curious that the Spaniards are not
mentioned’.) And towards the conclusion we find the following
admonition :

1 Harduin, 1.0 p. 1115. 5 See the clause ‘ Hanc etiam mere ca-
2 Ibid. 1119. tholice confessionis regulam,” p. 11228.
3 Coadorandum et conglorificandum. 6 p. 1122 pv.

4 Personarum sive subsistentiarum. 71 infer that the Spaniards alone

Harduin, Ὁ. 1119 s. held the double Procession at this time.

Ix. | CONFESSIONS OF SYNODS FROM 451 To 700. 249

“Whatever priests are anxious to preach, with us, the things which
are contained in this confession of our humility, we receive, as joining in
our Apostolic faith. But those who may be unwilling to confess these
things we regard to be liable to eternal condemnation, as being hostile to
the Catholic and Apostolic confession *.”

This document was signed by the Pope and about one hun-
dred and twenty Italian bishops.

In the eighth Session of the council we find the Confession of
Macarius’, who was called upon to account for his opinions.

This confession also contains extracts from the Creed of Constanti-
nople ; it speaks of the Holy Spirit as proceeding from the Father, and
manifested through the Son. It proceeds, of course, to the subject of
the Incarnation, and asserts that we do not say “that the flesh passed
into the nature of the Divinity ; nor again that the ineffable nature of
the Word of God was derived into the nature of the flesh*.” Macarius
makes some statements with regard to the Eucharist which are worthy
of notice, and declares that he accepts the five great Councils.

This over, his cross-examination commenced, and the day
passed. At the tenth Session, a book* was produced on parch-
ment, bound in silver, from the Treasury of the great Church of
Constantinople, having this superscription :

“ΠῚ. 6 testimonies of holy and approved fathers, shewing that there
are two Wills and two Operations in our Lord and God and Saviour,
Jesus Christ.”

From this volume were recited passages from Leo, Ambrose, Chryso-
stom, and others; from a book of Athanasius on the Trinity and In-
carnation, which is clearly spurious’, and from his genuine work
against the Apollinarians. Augustine furnished another passage, and
Gregory of Nyssa others, and Anastasius of Antioch® many more.
Towards the end of the day another Creed was read, which had been
offered by Peter, Bishop of Lycomedia, on the Trinity and the Incar-
nation’, beginning with portions of the Creed of Constantinople; in other
respects similar to, though not the same as many that we have seen
before.

But in the next Session we find at length a tract which
exercised important influence on the controversies between Hinc-
mar and Godeschalk. It is a synodical letter of Sophronius, who
had been Patriarch of Jerusalem in tbe early part of the century

1 Harduin, 1126 8, effabilem Dei Verbi derivari naturam,
2 Ibid. p. 1167. &e.”
3 Harduin, p. 1169 πὶ, ‘‘ Nec enim car- 4 Harduin, p. 1201 p.

nem dicimus in divinitatis transire natu- 5 Harduin, p. 1207.

ram neque iterum in naturam carnis in- 6 p, 1235. 7 p. 1250.

250 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

and died about the year 688. It occupies 21 columns in our
folios’ and is too long either to copy or to abbreviate. He says
that

““He believes in One God the Father Almighty...and in One
Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, and in One Holy Spirit,
Who everlastingly proceedeth from God the Father, Who is Himself to
be acknowledged as God, coeternal, consubstantial with the Father and |
the Son, of the same essence, nature and deity...We believe (he says)
the Trinity in Unity, and glorify the Unity in Trinity. One God is
believed by us; One Lord is proclaimed by us; One God, One Deity,
not three Gods, three Deities. We maintain One first Principle: One
Godhead, One kingdom.” Once more’, “ The Father is perfect God, the
Son perfect God, the Holy Ghost perfect God, but these three are one
God; the Deity does not admit of division.”

Sophronius shortly proceeds to speak of the Incarnation, making
special mention of the errors of Nestorius, Apollinarius, and others*. On
a later page* I notice that he held that men’s souls have not a natural
immortality ; it is by the gift of God that they receive the grant of
immortality and incorruptibility. Towards the end he gives a long list
of errors and heresies which he anathematizes, but I see nothing that I
can compare with the last clause of the Quicunque. |

This being read, Constantine called upon the bishops to test
the writings of Macarius by the documents which they had heard
recited. Shortly afterwards the council proceeded to depose and
banish him; he declaring that he would rather be torn limb from
limb than renounce his opinions. I need not proceed with re-
lating the further incidents of the council: its Definition was put
forth in the eighteenth Session’, and may be seen in the second
volume of Dr Routh’s Opuscula. The synod confirmed the actions
of the previous five Councils; it received and confirmed the Sym-
bolum which was put out by the 318 Fathers and confirmed by
the 150. The two are recited at length (the former being the
true Creed, of course with its anathema), and then the Holy
(Ecumenical Synod said :

“This pious and orthodox symbol at one time sufficed for the perfect
knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith; but the worker of
evil has always found organs to spread some poison, and now Theodore,
Bishop of Pharan, and Sergius, and Pyrrhus, and Paul and Peter, who
have been Bishops of this royal city of Constantinople, and Honorius,
too, who has been Pope of the older Rome, and Cyrus of Alexandria,

1 Harduin, 111. 1258. Labbe, p. 852. ' 8 Harduin, 1265 nr. Labbe, 864.
5 Harduin, 1263 5, 12654. Labbe, 4 Harduin, 1282c. Labbe, 881 σ.
861 8. 5 Labbe, 1019. Harduin, 1395.

XIX.] CONFESSIONS OF SYNODS FROM 451 TO 700. 251

and Macarius of Antioch have denied the perfection of the Incarnation
of our one Lord Jesus Christ, by asserting that there was only one will
and one energy in His two natures,”

The Definition follows the course of the similar document
which proceeded from Chalcedon, having, however, noteworthy
additions here and there. Thus we find our Saviour spoken of twice
as One of the Holy Consubstantial and life-giving Trinity’. In
regard to our Lord’s Incarnation, the words were added, “that He
was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who was truly
and specially Mother of God.” The older phrase was, “that He
was born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God.” Then comes
a long insertion, called out by the question of the Will, in which
the all-wise Athanasius’ is quoted as speaking of the Will of Christ's
flesh being subjected to His Divine Will. This Definition con-
cludes, as does the other, with declaring that “those who should
venture to compose a different faith should, if bishops or clergy,
be deprived of their office; if monks or laymen, they should be
anathematized,” but the warning was extended to those who should
introduce any new language or expressions®, such as would tend
to the subversion of what was now defined.

§ 19. I have gone into this at some length to shew that, up
to this time, neither the Church of Milan nor that of Rome nor
the Bishops assembled at Constantinople in 681, had deviated in
any way from the statement of the Creed of Constantinople on
the procession of the Holy Spirit; and that so it is inconceiv-
able that what we call the Athanasian Creed could have been
received or known as such by either Church. The Italian bishops
insisted everywhere that “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the
Father ;” the Spanish Councils maintained that “ He proceedeth
from the Father and the Son.” Even St Augustine’s influence
had produced no effect as yet, in this respect, on the theology of
Italy: nor, as yet, had it produced effect on the theology of
France. The Frank Churches were at one with the Roman
Church. Whatever was meant by the Faith of Athanasius in
the undated canon of Autun, we must hesitate before we affirm
that the Quicunque, as we now have it, was signified by those

1 Tov ἀληθινὸν Θεὸν ἡμῶν, τὸν ἕνα τῆς 2 Κατὰ τὸν πάνσοφον ᾿Αθανάσιον.
« ΄ κ “ ©
ἁγίας ὁμοουσίου καὶ ζωαρχικῆς Tpiadds. 3 ΚΚαινοφωνίαν ἤτοι λέξεως ἐφεύρεσιν.

252 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [CHAP. XIX.

momentous words; unless indeed we put the date of the synod
at a much later period than 670. Anything framed at that
time would have borne marks of the Monothelitic enquiries:
the Quicunque has no such marks. It must have been com-
posed either much earlier than 670, before the question was
mooted; or later, when it had died away. Amidst the crowd of
professed quotations, amidst the mass of testimonies adduced,
amidst the accumulated and ever-varying Confessions that we have
noted, there is not one professed quotation from “the Faith of
Athanasius.’ What can our conclusion be, save that the Qui-
cunque vult was not known in its present form? or, at least, that
it was not known as the work of Athanasius or of any Father of
the Church? Yet its substance was known. The Rule of Faith of
Isidore, the Confession of Toledo, the Encyclic of Sophronius, the
Address of the Milanese Bishops to the sixth general Council, the
Letter of the Synod of Rome under Agatho, the Belief of Peter,
Bishop of Lycomedia, the Confession of the heretical Macarius, are
all framed on the same general lines as the Quicunque (omitting
always the first two clauses) and they approach to it in general
conception. Of these many are clumsy, verbose, wearisome.
This is neat, concise, attractive; in every respect, save one,
superior.

CHAE Tih Xx

CREEDS AND RULES OF FAITH FOUND IN SYSTEMATIC
COLLECTIONS OF CANONS AND CONSTITUTIONS.

§ 1. Quesnel’s Collection and argument. § 2. The Exposition against the
Arians. §3. The Faith of Faustinus. §4. ‘‘Fides Romanorum,”’ attri-
buted to Athanasius and to Augustine. ὃ ὅ. ‘ Augustini Libellus de Fide
Catholica.” 8.6. The Creed of Jerome. 87. Other attributed to Augus-

tine. ‘“‘Rogo et ammoneo, Quicunque vult,&c.” ὃ 8. St Blaise Collection.
Account of the St Blaise manuscript. 89. The other manuscripts. ἃ 10.
Paris, 3836. ὃ 11. Consideration on the fragment. ἃ 12. Comparison

with our present text. §13. Probable origin of the legend that Athanasius
wrote the Quicunque. §14. Bearing on the Canon of Autun, §15. and
on the Commonitory of Vincentius. § 16. Other collections containing the
Quicunque. Vat. Pal. 574. S L/s Paris; 1451: § 18. Paris, 3848 ἘΠ
§ 19. Reflections. § 20. The ‘“Hadriana.’? § 21. Vatican Collection.
§ 22. The Herovallian Collection and Canon of Autun. Appendix. Creeds of
Faustinus, Pelagius, &c.

§ 1. Lavina for the present the history of Confessions of
Faith put forth at any particular Council or Synod after the year
700, I would draw the attention of my readers to another source
of information on which Waterland was silent. I refer to the
old Collections of Canons and Constitutions, of which many con-
tain documents of the nature of Creeds; some, as we shall see,
contain copies of the Athanasian Creed. The Archdeacon was,
however, aware of the nature of these collections, for in his first
chapter, under the year 1675, we have the following:

‘Our next man of eminent character is Paschasius Quesnel, a cele-
brated French Divine. In the year 1675 he published his famous
edition of Pope Leo’s works, with several very valuable dissertations of
his own. His fourteenth contains, among other matters, a particular
enquiry about the Author of this Creed. He ascribes it to Vigilius
Tapsensis, the African, and so well defends his position that he has
almost drawn the learned world after him. He is looked upon as the

254 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.
father of that opinion, because he has so learnedly and handsomely

supported it ; but he is not the first that espoused it.”

The occasion on which Quesnel entered on the discussion
was this :—

He had paid much attention to a Manuscript, which he con-
sidered to be of great antiquity, of “the Canons of the Church of
Rome.” He had received a transcript of this from Oxford, where
the original was, and is, in the library of Oriel College. He
considered it to be nearly 600 years old, 1.6. of the eleventh
century, but to have been a copy of a much earlier manuscript.
Another manuscript of the same collection existed in the library
of Augustus de Thou. This was of the ninth or tenth cen-

tury’.

The first-named manuscript contained some letters of Leo, and this
fact furnished the motive for Quesnel’s dissertations.

Of these the fourteenth is devoted to the consideration of various
treatises or specimens of Creeds contained in this Oxford manuscript ;
and, in consequence, Quesnel entered on the question of the origin of
the Athanasian Creed’.

The manuscript contains canons of several early Councils, various
edicts against Pelagianism, four decretals of Pope Innocent I. (402—
417): Acts of the Council of Chalcedon: Constitutions of Valentinian
and Marcian (about 450) : some writings of Siricius, Zosimus, Boniface [.,
and Celestinus I. (432). Then come four formule of the Faith to
which I must refer just now. And these are followed by letters
written to or by Athanasius, Leo, and others ; some genuine and others
spurious.

Quesnel’s surprise was excited by the fact that the Symbol of St
Athanasius was not among these formule of the Faith, and he noted
that in the famous letter of Pope Leo to the Emperor Leo (p. 134 or
166), where every one would expect mention to be made of the Creed of
Athanasius if such a document had been known, the Pope was entirely
silent regarding it. He remarked next that the Creed was never men-
tioned by any writer of the fifth century. But Quesnel believed that it
must have existed in 670 “when it was mentioned by the Synod of

1 Professor Maassen, in his Geschichte
der Quellen und der Literatur des
canonischen Rechts im A bendlande,Gratz,
1870, devotes a section to what, from
Quesnel, he calls die Quesnel’sche Samm-
lung. He speaks of five other manu-
gcripts as containing this collection.
The oldest, Codex Lat. Paris, 3848 a, is
of the end of the eighth or beginning of
the ninth century: the Codex LFinsidl.
191, is nearly of the same date. Another,
Vienna, 2141, is of the ninth century,

and a second at Paris, 1454, is of the
ninth or tenth. And so is a second at
Vienna, 2147, to which Professor Maas-
sen devotes most attention (§ 618, pp.
486—500). The collection of Quesnel
was republished by the brothers Balle-
rini in their beautiful edition of St
Leo’s works; and, from this, has been
reprinted by Migne, Vol. Lxv1. p. 339,
ἄο.
2 Migne, ut sup. 1041.

XX.] RULES OF FAITH IN COLLECTIONS OF CANONS. 255

Autun ;” nay, in 633, when portions of it seem to have been used by
the Council of Toledo. Thus he was led to look out for some notable
man before the earlier date, whom he might regard as likely to have
composed it ; and he fixed upon Vigilius of Tapsus, who was a warm
defender of the Faith and living about the year 500; one of whose
merits seems to have been, that things which he wrote under the pres-
sure of persecution he put forth under the name of some more ancient
Father or more celebrated Author.

Quesnel however felt some scruple in accepting the received date of
this Council of Autun ; and he says distinctly that he should not have
ventured to do so if Sirmond, de la Lande, and Godfrey Hermant had
not been positive on the subject. The MSS. of the Council do not help
us to the date, nor have we any collateral information on the subject.
“There is no more reason to fix this Synod of Autun to the time of St
Ledger, than to that of any other bishop’.”

I do not see that we have any reason to trouble ourselves with
the conclusion to which Quesnel arrived. We have our own
opportunities, greater than he had, of judging whether the Qui-
cunque is older than 670 or 633. My object here is to draw
attention to these older Formule of Faith which Quesnel’s manu-
script contained, and to others of a similar character; to discover
the countries over which the knowledge of these formule extended ;
and then to search how far the Quicungue was embodied in other
collections of a similar character.

1 must mention that Professor Maassen arranges these collec-
tions of Canons under several heads: and I shall follow him in
the names or titles by which he describes those which contain
the documents to which I shall now refer.

§ 2. I shall pass over, of course, the Creeds of Nicea and
Constantinople. They are given, I believe, in every manuscript
which contains the canons of the Councils cf Nicea and Chal-
cedon. |

The first of the four Formule of Faith contained in this Quesnel
collection (the four are numbered XXXVII., XXXVIIL, XXXIX,
XL.), is dn Exposition of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith against
the Arian Heresy. Some manuscripts entitle it simply Expositio
Fidet Catholice : others simply De Fide Catholica. This is found
not only in the Quesnel collection (Maassen, p. 394), but also in
the collections i. of the MS. of Saint Blaise, which Prof. Maassen
describes, p. 504: and ii. of the manuscript of Diessen, p. 624

* Ballerini, mt. p. 940. Migne, 1063.

256 THE OCREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

Of the former, one manuscript is of the sixth century. Of course,
therefore, the Creed is at least as old as the sixth century.
It is as follows’:

‘“We confess the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in a perfect Trinity,
so that there shall be both a fulness of Divinity and a Unity of power.
For he who separates the Godhead of the Trinity, speaks of Three Gods.
The Father is God, the Son God, the Holy Ghost God, and the three
are one (unum) in Christ Jesus, There are therefore three Persons but
one Power. Diversity makes more than one, but unity of power
excludes quantity of number, because unity is not a number. There-
fore there is one God, one Faith, one Baptism. If any one has not this
Faith he cannot be called a Catholic, because he does not hold the
Catholic Faith. He is a liar, profane, and rebellious against the truth*.”

§ 3. The next of the four is entitled, The Faith of the Pres-
byter Faustinus, sent to Theodosius the Emperor. It is contained
only in this Quesnel collection*: and is from it copied into the
edition of the Ballerini, 111. p. 278; Walch, 202; Hahn, 190; and
Migne, 582. I will give a copy of it below’. It was written to
defend the opponents of Arius from the imputation of Sabel-
lianism.

§ 4. The next formula was one of the greatest favourites of
antiquity’. It is said by Maassen (p. 395) to be found in eight
different series of collections: one manuscript is of the sixth
century: two are of the eighth: thirteen of the eighth or ninth.
It commences generally Credimus in unum deum patrem omnipo-
tentem et in unum unigenttum, &c.: but sometimes we have Credo
for Credimus; and unum is omitted. In the various collections
noted by Maassen it is entitled, sometimes Expositio fidet and
is attributed to Damasus (the second half is often separated
and called ejusdem sermo), (pp. 507, 631); sometimes alter
libellus fidei (p. 497); in a Vatican manuscript of the ninth or
tenth century and elsewhere, it is called fides catholice romane
aecclesiae® (pp. 460, 521); in another of the ninth, fides roma-
norum (pp. 606, 616). But a Creed so similar as to be ranked by
the Ballerini with this (for it differs only in what we might call

1 Ballerini, 277. Migne, 582. Maas- 4 Appendix II.
sen, 497. 5 Ballerini, 279. Migne, 583.
2 See the original in Appendix I. 6 Did the Church of Rome refuse at

3 Maassen, § 353, p. 348. first the Catholic faith of Athanasius ?

XX, ] RULES OF FAITH IN COLLECTIONS OF CANONS. 257

various readings), is in two manuscripts described as Jerome's (it
is printed in Jerome’s works as Damasi Symbolum). An expanded
form of it is printed by the Benedictines in the Appendix to
Vol. v. of their edition of Augustine (Sermon CCXXXV. p. 2957,
Gaume’). It was claimed by Chifflet as the work of Vigilius of
Tapsus, but he speaks of it as being also assigned to Gregory
of Nazianzus: Quesnel thinks it may have been written by
Gregory “Beeticus,” afterwards Bishop of Elvira. But one curious
fact remains to be noticed. In several manuscripts it is ascribed
to Athanasius, and placed at the end of the eight books on the
Trinity, which are published in the Paris edition of Athanasius’
works. In these MSS., the title generally runs thus: Jncipit
libellus fidec Patris et Filic et Spiritus Sancti Athanasw episcopr.
It was so designated in Sangerman. 724, and I found it so in the
Arundel manuscript, 241, of the British Museum. Migne reprints
‘the work in his edition of Vigilius of Tapsus, and, therefore, omits
it in his reprint of the Benedictine Athanasius. Montfaucon re-
marked that Hincmar quoted from the books as from a genuine
work of Athanasius; and I have discovered that the Archbishop’s
famous quotation from what he calls the Symbolum Athanasti is
taken from this Zibellus. Usher too, who printed it (De Symbolo
Romano, near the end), remarked that Ratram of Corbey quoted
it as Athanasius. This, therefore, was the belief regarding it in
the ninth century, and as we know it was in existence in the
sixth, the question arises whether it be not the “ Faith of Athana-
sius” referred to in the Canon of Autun.

I print it in my Appendix JII. in the form in which it is
ascribed to Athanasius.

§ 5. The fourth of these Confessions which attracted the
attention of Quesnel is known as Augustini Lnbellus de Fide
Catholica contra omnes Hereses. It used to be printed among
St Augustine’s works, being numbered Sermo 129 de Tempore ;
but we are told (Ballerini, p. 282) that it is not found in any
manuscript of Augustine, and, therefore, it is now relegated to
the Appendix of Vol. v. (No. 233 in the Benedictine edition,
Gaume, V. p. 2950), except that the second series of anathemas
there appended belong to a Faith different from this Augustini

1 In the Cambridge Library there is ‘‘Symbolum dictatum a beato Augus-
a late manuscript in which it is called tino.”

S.C: 7

258 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

Libellus, and are almost the same as are usually found amongst the
anathemas of Damasus’.

I print this also below, Appendix IV.

It is considered by some to be as old as the Council of Toledo
in 400, where it is inserted in the Acts as Regula Fidei, and
the Ballerini? have no hesitation in stating their opinion that
it was known to Leo the Great in 447.

§ 6. 1 also print Appendix V., the so-called Creed of Jerome.

§ 7. But there were other expositions which found their way
into these collections.

Thus an expositio fidet commencing Profitemur nos credere, published
by Mai*: an exemplar fidei Sancti Augustini, which seems never to have
been printed (it is found in a MS. of the 1xth century). So a sermon
falsely attributed to St Augustine*. Sermo antequam symbolum tradatur,,
commencing Queso vos fratres carissim, and ending, vitam eternam :
absque ulla dubitatione fatemur vos vitam eternam consecuturos si hac
que vobis exposuimus sacramenta fideliter teneatis et bonis actibus conser-
vetis. ‘Without any hesitation we confess that ye shall obtain eternal
life if ye faithfully hold the mysteries we expound to you, and preserve
them by a good life.” This is found in two manuscripts of what is
called the Herovallian collection. They are of the ninth century. The
same manuscripts have another sermon which is sufficiently interesting
for me to give an analysis of it’, I do not know the authority on which
these two documents have found their way into the works of Augustine.
In the two manuscripts in which Professor Maassen® found them they
have no author’s name assigned. The title of the one I have given
above. The second is ushered in with the words [tem expositio fider.
Gieseler considers that this sermon refers to the Athanasian Creed, and
alludes to a belief of the Benedictine editors that its author was Cesarius
of Arles; but this (he adds) is mere conjecture’.

This is a translation of the sermon: “I beseech and admonish you,
dearest brethren, that whoever would be saved should learn the right
and Catholic Faith, firmly hold it and preserve it inviolate. Thus
then ought every one to ohserve, that he should believe that the
Father is, believe that the Son is, believe that the Holy Spirit is. The

1 Numbered 10—16, 18—24, in Hahn,
p- 181—183.

2 Ballerini, p. 950. Maassen, 395.

3 Bibliotheca nova Patrum, τ, p. 463.
(I take these references from Maassen,
p. 349.)

4 Augustin. v. Appendix ccxuir. (p.
2975).

5 §t Augustine’s works, Vol. v. Appen-
dix, Sermo ccxuty. (Gaume, Vol. v. p.
2980.)

6 Maassen, p. 396. See too his Bi-
bliotheca Latina juris Canonici manu-
scripta. First part, 11. pp. 214, 241.
They are both Paris manuscripts num-
bered respectively 2123 and 3848 Β, the
latter contains the Athanasian Creed, of
which below.

7 Gieseler, Third Period, Division 1.
§ 12, note 7. (Translation, Vol. 11. p.
278.)

χει RULES OF FAITH IN COLLECTIONS OF CANONS. 259

Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost God; but yet not
three Gods, but one God. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and
such is the Holy Ghost. And yet let every faithful one believe that
the Son is equal to the Father as touching the Godhead, and is less than
the Father as touching the manhood of the flesh, which He assumed of
ours. And the Holy Ghost (is) proceeding from both. Believe, there-
fore, most beloved, in God the Father Almighty ; believe too in Jesus
Christ, His only Son, our Lord; believe that He was conceived of the
Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary, who was a virgin before His
birth, and virgin ever after His birth, and continued without contagion
or spot of sin. Believe that He for our sins suffered under Pontius
Pilate ; believe that He was crucified, dead and buried ; believe that He
descended into hell, that He bound the devil, and that He liberated the
souls who were there detained in custody, and led them up, with Him-
self, to His heavenly country. Believe that He rose from the dead on
the third day, and shewed to us an example of a Resurrection. Believe
that He ascended to the heavens with the flesh which He assumed of
ours (de nostro). Believe that He sitteth at the right hand of the
Father ; believe that He is coming to judge the quick and the dead.
Believe in the Holy Spirit; believe that there is a Holy Catholic
Church ; believe that there is a Communion of Saints; believe that
there is a Resurrection of the flesh ; believe that there is a remission of
sins; believe too that there is a life eternal.

“Therefore (it proceeds) if any one would be a disciple of Christ, let
him keep His commandments; let him learn humility, as He Himself
says, Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly of heart; let him pray God
with his heart, because there are many who appear outwardly to humble
themselves, but inwardly are full of the swellings of pride. But Christ
humbled Himself for us. He took the form of a servant, being obedient
to the Father, even to death and that the death of the cross. For us,
brethren, in order that He might wipe away our sins, He assumed the
human flesh ; He was born of a virgin, laid in a manger, covered with
swaddling clothes, by the Jews rejected, persecuted, apprehended,
scourged, insulted with spittle, crowned with thorns, transfixed with
nails, pierced with the lance, suspended on the cross, fed with vinegar
mixed with gall, numbered with the transgressors. All these things,
beloved, He underwent, that He might deliver us from the jaws of hell.
Therefore, beloved, since the Lord sustained such things and so many
things for us, we, if we would come to Him, ought to follow His steps
and imitate the examples of His Saints. The Lord saith in the Gospel,
If any one would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his
cross and follow Me. And elsewhere He says, Go, sell all that thou
hast and come, follow Me. Holy martyrs, beloved, followed the steps of
Christ, and drank of the cup of suffering which He drank. Peter the
Apostle was crucified for the name of Christ ; Paul beheaded ; Stephen
stoned ; and others, very many, so suffered for His Name.

‘Therefore, beloved, crucify and mortify your members which are
upon the earth, that ye may be able to please Him Who created you.
He that was proud, let him be humble; he that was unbelieving, let
him be faithful ; he that was luxurious, let him be chaste ; let him who
was a robber, become fit for duty ; that was a drunkard, be sober ; that

17—2

260 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

was sleepy, be watchful; that was a miser, be bountiful; that was double-
tongued, speak good things; that was a backbiter and envious, be pure
and kind; let him who used to come late to Church, now hasten to it
more frequently. Let every one redeem himself with an abundance of
alms, because as water extinguisheth fire, so doth alms sin. Of all the
fruit that ye collect, give a tenth each year to the churches and the
poor. Love fasting; avoid gluttony and excess of wine. Feed the
hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, seek out those that
are in prison. Visit the weak, collect guests into your houses, wash
their feet, wipe them with a towel, kiss them with your mouth, prepare
their beds. Let no one commit murder, theft, adultery, perjury, or bear
false witness. Let every one honour his father and mother, that he
may live long on the earth. Let him love God more than himself; let
him love his neighbour as himself. Whoever has committed any of the
things that have been mentioned, let him speedily amend, let him give
his confession ; do true penitence, and his sins shall be remitted to him.
If ye fulfil the commands which I have suggested, ye shall receive
remission of sins and obtain eternal life from the hand of our Lord Jesus
Christ, who liveth and reigneth for ever and ever. Amen.”

The manuscript is of the ninth century; but the question is,
What is the date of the document? The Apostle’s Creed illus-
trated by it, omits creatorem celi et terre; it reads, conceived of
the Holy Ghost, &c.; the right hand of the Father. This seems to
be of the sixth or seventh century. Were the first words Quicun-
que vult taken from the Athanasian Creed? Or did they suggest
the opening of the Athanasian Creed? These are questions which
it is impossible to answer hastily. I must, however, notice that
one manuscript which contains the document does not include the
Quicunque in its contents (I refer to Paris, 2123): the other has
it (do. 3848 B).

We may now enquire under what circumstances the Quicunque
first appears in these collections.

§ 8. Amongst the series to the study of which Professor
Maassen has devoted so many years of his life, is one which has
the title Collection of the Manuscripts of St Blaise, from the
character of the earliest copy of the Collection*. This is now,
I understand, in the library of the monastery of St Paul in Karn-
then: it formerly belonged to the monastery of Augia, 7.e. either
Reichenau, or Rheinau, or Mehrerau. This manuscript is of the
sixth century. The other manuscripts which contain the same
collection are Paris, 3836 (Colb. 784) of the eighth century : one at

1 Maassen, 504.

xx. | RULES OF FAITH IN COLLECTIONS OF CANONS. 261

Cologne (Darmst. 2336) of the eighth: one at Lucca (490, for-
merly 89) of the time of Charlemagne: another at Paris (4279,
Colb. 2489) of the ninth. Thus there are five in all. The learned
Coustant has given an account of the Paris 3836 in the preface to
his volume entitled Lpistole Romanorum Pontificum ; and Mansi
an account of the Lucca manuscript, in a work entitled D. Angelo
Calogiera Raccolta d Opusculr scientificr e filosoficr’.
The St Blaise manuscript contains

1. The Nicene Canons of the Isidore version [2].

2. The Canons of Ancyra, Neocesarea, and Gangra [7, &c.].

3. “Constituta quae aput Kartagine acta sunt” [15].

4, “Statuta quingentesimo anno sub imperatore piissimo Marciano
constituta.” (These are the Canons of Chalcedon, partly the old ver-
sion, partly in that of Dionysius Exiguus.) [ ?].

5. Canons of Constantinople [ ?].

6. “Canones Serdicenses” [37].

7. “Constituta canonum Antiocensium” [43].

8. Five apocryphal pieces, viz.: Constitution of Sylvester, Acts of
Liberius, Acts on the purgation of Sixtus, Acts regarding the accusa-
tion of Polychronius, and the Synod of Sinuessa [48, &c. ].

9. Some writings of Siricius, Boniface I., Zosimus, Celestine L.,
Innocent I., Leo I. [62, &e.]. Then we have this:

10. “Incipit synodus episcopalis Calcedonensis habitus a quin-
gentis viginti episcopis contra Euthicitem” [87]. This includes the
Definition of Faith of the Council. At the end we read “ Explicit
synodum mundanum id est universalem apud Calcedona” [89].

11. “Incipit synodo Nicaeno scribta papae Damassi a Paulinum
Antiocene urbis episcopum.” Here follow the Nicene symbol, and the
anathematisms of the synod of the year 378 under Damasus [89 verso].

12. ‘ Incipit expositio fidel. Credimus unum Deum” [91].

13. “Incipit ejusdem sermo. Credimus Jesum Christum” [917].

14. The anti-Arian formula Vos patrem [91].

15, 16. Statutes and constitutions of Gelasius [93]’.

§ 9. The contents of the other four manuscripts are generally
the same; and it seems pretty clear that this manuscript of St
Blaise approaches nearest to the character of being the original
collection. But when we go into details, we find that each of the
five has peculiarities of its own: two contain documents which are
absent from the others. Yet the “planless” though, generally

' I have seen Coustant’s account and cles are found: these are from my own
examined the Paris 3836 carefully. The observation.
information regarding the others I take 2 According to Maassen in the Paris
from Maassen; but the number within MS. there follows the letter of Innocent
brackets thus [7] represents the folio of 1. to Bishop Decentius of Gubbio.
3836 on which the corresponding arti-

262 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [cHapP.

speaking, uniform arrangement of the contents, shews, either
that they are (with the exceptions named) copied one from another,
or else that all are derived from some lost original.

§ 10. The Paris manuscript, 3836', alone contains a document
which is to us of the deepest interest. Between the articles which
I have numbered 10 and 11 of the St Blaise collection, 1.6. after
the words explicit sinodum. mundanum. id est uniuersale. aput
Calcedona. which are in red; the writer proceeds in another
line, still in red, Hee inuint treverts im uno libro scriptum. sic
enciprente Domini nostri Ihesu Christi. et reliqua. Domanr. nostrr
Lhesu Christi fideliter credat. Then in black ink, Est ergo fides
recta. The resemblance between this and the latter part of our
Athanasian Creed has been marked from the time that the dis-
covery was made, as I believe, by Antelmi. Montfaucon con-
sidered it to be “of an earlier date than Charlemagne, probably
nine hundred years old,” bringing it to the year 760: other skilled
witnesses regarded it as of the time of Pepin: but I believe that
the opinion is now nearly uniform that the manuscript was
written about the year 730.

The manuscript proceeds as follows :

Est ergo fides recta

ut credamus et confitemur quia dominus ihesus christus dei filius.
deus pariter et homo est. deus est

de substantia patris ante saecula genitus. et homo de substantia
matris in saeculo natus. perfectus deus. per

fectus homo ex anima rationabili. et humana carne subsistens

aequalis patrisaecundum diuinitatem minor patri. saecundum humanita

tem qui licet deus. sit homo non duo tamen sed unus est christus.
Unus autem non ex eo

quod sit in carne. conuersa divinitas. sed quia est in deo adsumpta
dignanter |

humanitas. unus christus est non confusione substantiz sed unitatem
personee

qui saecundum fidem nostram passus et mortuus ad inferna dis-
cendens. et die

1 This manuscript has long attracted
a great deal of attention from palxo-
graphers. It furnished many illustra-
tions to the Benedictine editors of the
Nouveau Traité de Diplomatique, see
“Πα. 36, πὶ A be 2 and ye ANd ὙΤ’
Table 49. 11. v. 1, and 50. 1. vi. and
thence the Inyin1 Treveris found its

way into Astley’s History of Writing, and
other books. Professor Westwood in-
forms me that several pages are copied
in Count Bastard’s magnificent work.
The two pages have been printed in fac-
simile (except the colours) for the mem-
bers of the Paleographical Society.

XX.] RULES OF FAITH IN COLLECTIONS OF CANONS. 263

tertia resurrexit adque ad celos ascendit. ad dexteram dei patris sedet
sicut

uobis in simbulo tradutum est. Inde ad iudicandos uiuos et mor-
tuos. credimus

et speramus eum esse uenturum. ad cujus aduentum erunt omnes
homines. sine dubio

in suis corporibus resurrecturi et reddituri de factis propriis rationem
ut qui bona

egerunt eant in uitam aeternam qui mala in ignem aeternum. Haec
est fides sancta

et Catholica. quam omnes homo qui ad uitam aeternam peruenire de-
siderat scire integrae debet. et fideliter custodire.

It proceeds with the subject numbered above as 11 of St
Blaise

INCIPIT DE StInoDO NICAENO SCRIPTA PAPE
DAMASI AD PAULINUM ANTIOCHENAE URBIS EPISCOPUM.

The first line having yellow, green, and brown capitals : ᾿ς
second being chiefly in Hy uncials.

This fragment was, I believe, never printed consecutively
until I published it in the autumn of 1871’. Montfaucon, and
therefore, of course, Waterland, represented the manuscript as
containing merely a copy of the Athanasian Creed, which might be
compared with the received text in the ordinary way of exhibiting
various readings. The brothers Ballerini® simply say that “ it
contains Hst ergo fides recta &c. usque ad finem.” <A very little
consideration will shew that this gives a very imperfect, and,
indeed, erroneous view of the subject.

For, first of all, the fragment, as it was found by the writer of
this manuscript (Paris, 3836), was evidently part of an address of
a preacher to his congregation. As to the purport of the preced-
ing part of the address, we are left in the most complete ignorance;
and, therefore, any amount of surmise is legitimate. We may,
therefore, note that the sermon was found at the beginning of a
book, 2.¢.1t would appear that only a few leaves had been torn away.
Again, it clearly had not been known previously to the copyist ;
for he was struck with its appropriateness as connected with and
illustrative of the Definition of Faith of the fourth Council on the

1 “Further investigations as to the Westcott.
origin and object of the Athanasian a Leo’s works, 11. ἢ. 959. Migne, ut
Creed,” by the present writer: my atten- sup. 1075.
tion had been drawn to it by Professor

264 . THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

Incarnation. Again, although the writer was a travelled man, he
had not met anywhere else with a complete copy of the address.
The inference seems to be inevitable, as Professor Maassen sug-
gests, that this was an entirely new discovery ; and that the latter
part of the Quicunque could not have been generally known at the
time that the discovery was made. I gladly avail myself of an ex-
pression of opinion by the distinguished Professor Stubbs: “The
Athanasian Creed could not have formed part of the education
of the ordinary clerk at the beginning of the eighth century.”

§ 11. I say then that this fragment, discovered at reves,
bears unquestionable marks that it was an address to persons
under instruction, and that it was to a certain extent an Expo-
sition of the Apostles’ Creed. The teacher refers to the Creed
twice: Who, according to our Faith, suffered; He sitteth at the right
hand of God the Father, as is delivered to you in the Symbol. It is
thus analogous to those numerous Expositions of the Symbol
which we find. among the writings, or in the Appendix to the
writings, of St Augustine.

Looking at the photograph of the manuscript very carefully,
any one may see that the line which begins de substantia patris,
has been rewritten; and a very careful inspection will shew that
it was rewritten on purpose to introduce the words ante swcula
gemtus. At what period these words were inserted we cannot
of course discover. I will merely mention now that the same
words were not contained originally in the Ambrosian copy, to
which I shal! speedily call attention.

.§ 12. On comparing this fragment with the present version of
the Quicunque, we shall see, I think, that the “antithetical swing”
of which we have heard so much, the parallelism which renders it
so well adapted for chanting, was not developed in the early form
to the extent in which it is developed now. From the fact that
the words Domini nostri Jesu Christi fideliter credat were in red
letters, not black, I conjecture that it was fully understood by
the copyist that they were not part of the Credenda of the
document, but were introductory to those Credenda; as if they
were part of the framework or setting of the Creed. Thus com-
paring this version with our present text, I note the following
differences :

XX.] RULES OF FAITH IN COLLECTIONS OF CANONS. 265

In our clause 30, noster has been introduced, but pariter has been
omitted :

in our clause 31, ante secula genitus has been introduced :

in 32 we read rationali where the manuscript had rationabili :

our clause 35 is read in an entirely different way, the rhythm
being, comparatively speaking, very imperfect in the manu-
script :

our clause 37 (which is really Augustinian) does not appear at all:

in our 88, secundum fidem nostram has disappeared, but pro salute
nostra has been added :
mortuus has dropped out :
we have descendit ad inferos where the manuscript had ad

enferna descendens ;

we have introduced a mortuts ;

in 39 we have introduced omnipotentis; and have left out all
reference to the sembulum : |
the alteration as to the judgment is immaterial, but we must

notice the words credimus et speramus :

in 40, for erwnt...sine dubio in suis corporibus resurrecturt, we have
resurgere habent cum corporibus suis’:

in 41, for et qui...cbunt, the manuscript has ut qut...eant.

The summary is different. For our well-known words the
manuscript reads: Hwe est fides sancta et catholica quam omnis
homo qui ad vitam eternam pervenire desiderat scire integre debet
et fideliter custodire: “This is the holy and Catholic Faith, which
every one who desires to attain eternal life ought to know entirely
and guard faithfully.”

§ 13. I believe that every person who has devoted any atten-
tion to this most interesting document since Usher’s Cottonian
manuscript has been rediscovered, has come to the conclusion that
this Treves fragment must have furnished the lines on which the
latter part of the Quicunque was framed, as well as the occasion
of ultimately referring the whole document to Athanasius. It
was known that Athanasius had taken refuge at Treves,—what
more satisfactory than to suggest that he was the writer of the
paper’? Certainly those who have been satisfied for years with

1 On this use of habeo see a note be- 2 The Benedictines who prepared the
low. Nouveau Traitg seem to have considered

266

THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH.

[ CHAP.

the arguments of Waterland to shew that Hilary of Arles compiled
the Quicunque, have no reason to quarrel with such a conclusion,
so easily taken up. There were other notable men besides Hilary
in the fifth century; but there was no one more notable than
Athanasius connected with Treves’.

that this was the origin of the tradi-
tion. They must have thrown on one
side all difficulty as to the Canon of
Autun.

1 T have not thought it necessary to
refer to the Sylloge dissertationum of
Galland, where (on pp. 35, &c., and
134, &c.) notes are given of this manu-
script and of another at Paris numbered
3268 or 3368, which is said to contain a
similar series of documents. I suppose
that Professor Maassen’s work has super-
seded all earlier dissertations. I would
however ask attention to two illustra-
tions which these pages offer of the
change from the Latin of classical times
to the French of the modern age.

(1) In regard to unus. Hee invini in
uno libro=dans un livre. On unus Du-
cange has the following: ‘‘UNus pro
quidam: quomodo dicimus un. Vetus
Charta Hispanica apud Bivarium ad
Chron. Maximi, p. 330, Et unus disci-
pulus proterva mente respondit. Hispani
dicerent, Un discipulo respondio. Vita
S. Wunebaldi, cap. 30, Evenit ut unus
homo vinctus diceretur. Adde Hode-
poricum 8. Willebaldi, ἢ. 14,15. Vors-
tium de Latinitate falso suspecta et
Olaum Borrichium de variis lingue La-
tine etatibus, pag. 265.”

(2) The Resurrecturi erunt of the Col-
bertine manuscript was altered to Resur-
gere habent = ressusciter-ont. On this

I will again quote Ducange. ‘‘ HaBErg, °

vel debere. Lib. 1. Capitular.
6. 61. Qui in sanctis habet jurare, hoc
jejunus faciat, &c. Rupertus abb. in
vita 5. Heriberti Archiep. Colon. n. 23.
Currens affer illum ad me, ego enim eum
habeo baptizare. Num. 26. 7086 enim,
quia e@egrotat, habeo ewm visitare. Ful-
bertus Carnot. Epist. 102. Rex prozi-
mo rugitu, ut dicitur, venire habet in
silvam Legium, &e....Leges Luitprandi
Regis Longob. tit. 108, § 1. Veni et
occide dominum tuum, et ego tibi facere
habeo bonitatem quam volueris. Mox:
Feri eum adhuc, nam si non feriveris,
ego te ferire habeo. Statuta ordinis S.
Gilberti: omnes Canonici, qui Sacerdotes
non fuerint, omni die Dominica habent
communicare, id est tenentur. Occurrit
ibi pluries: formula loquendi a veteri-

velle,

bus etiam usitata. Vide Penitentiale
Theodori, ὁ. 3. Juretum ad Symma-
chum, Lib. 1. Epist. 26, et Cerdam in
Adven. Sacr. cap. 17, num. 3. Vide
Glossar. med. Grecit. in ἔχειν.

* Ronsch, ‘‘Itala und Vulgata,” p. 447,
gives additional instances of this use in
the translation of Irenzus, in Tertullian,
Cyprian, Ambrose, Lactantius. Thus
qui pro salute nostra pati habuit. In
Haddan and Stubbs, 111. p. 96 (a. pd. 653)
I find tu mori habes. See too Sir G.
Cornwall Lewis’ well-known volume.

Before we leave this manuscript I
would mention that it has for many
years attracted a great amount of atten-
tion. The Benedictines who edited the
wonderful Nowveau Traité de Diplomati-
que, remarked, Vol. 111. p. 70, that we
find in it notes full of solecisms; and
they comment upon the barbarous
Latin in which the additions made by
the transcriber are composed, and, con-
ceiving that it was written at Rome,
make some contemptuous remarks on
the state of scholarship at the Papal
city at the time. (Professor Maassen
however adduces evidence that the col-
lection was probably made North of the
Alps.) They remark (as others have
done) on the spurious pieces contained
in it: but we have seen that these are
in the earliest ‘‘ edition” of it, in that of
the sixth century. They say that two
whole quires are inserted in the manu-
script, and that at the end of folio 47,
and on folio 51, there are memoranda
which shake the character of the docu-
ment. Again, on folio 53, they say
there is another forged piece for which
Baronius ‘sweats blood and water” (ἢ
to prove its genuineness. This is about
Xystus. Another forgery Baronius aban-
dons, although Pope Nicholas quotes it
as genuine. Folio 67 contains the pre-
tended Council of Sinuessa. All these
(they say) are written in a hand different
from that of the earlier pages. After
a while the old hand appears again.
They are inclined to suspect some fraud :
the quires are in much disorder, some
consist of six folios, some of twelve,
others of four, others of three because
one has been cut out, others of two be-

XX.] RULES OF FAITH IN COLLECTIONS OF CANONS. 267

§ 14. This investigation seems to sweep away all thought that
the Canon of Autun, if published before 730, could have reference
to our Quicungue as it is. For Treves and Autun are not very
far apart, although the latter was in the province of Lyons. At
all events it is difficult to believe that the Quicunque was so
well known at Autun in 670, that every priest and deacon was
required to repeat it by heart, whilst fifty or sixty years later our
“travelled man” was content with copying the fragment that
he found at Treves. The Faith of Athanasius mentioned at
Autun is more probably the same as the Symbolum Athanasi
of Hincmar.

δ 15. There is, however, a connection between the Treves copy
and the Commonitory of Vincentius. Words used by Vincentius,
but unknown or unused in the versions of Chalcedon, appear
once more here. The phrase in seculo natus is one. Again,
Vincent had nothing bearing on the comparison between the
constitution of man, and the constitution of the Incarnate Son of
God.—The clause is omitted here.

8 10. Out of the large number of collections which Professor
Maassen has examined by himself or friends, there are three others
which contain the Athanasian Creed.

One manuscript is in the Vatican, having come thither from
the Palatinate Library. Its origin was Lorsch.

The collection is different from others. -The manuscript is of the
ninth century according to Reifferscheid. In the catalogue it is num-
bered Vat. Pal. 574. It contains a series of synodical canons, the later
ones entirely Gallican; almost all these are in chronological order. The
latest is of the year 549. It has one sermon of St Augustine’s. To-
wards the end of the book we have:

Incipit fides catholica atanast episcopt Quicumque vult salvus esse’.

cause two have been removed, either
before or after the manuscript was
bound. The quires have no signatures,
Unluckily it was rebound by Colbert.
‘* These new bindings are very injurious
to old manuscripts.”

They observe moreover (p. 67 note)
that, after the letter of Innocent to
Decentius, we may note the names of

the Books of Scripture ‘‘ which were
read in the Church of St Peter.”” On
this they conclude that the manuscript
was written at Rome. If the note is
not found in the other ‘‘ editions” we
may perhaps infer that the writer had
at least extended his travels to Rome.
1 Maassen, p. 590.

268 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

§ 17. Another is at Paris, 1451* (Colber. 1868). This con-
tains, after folio 25, a long series of Canons, the later ones again of
French Councils (including, however, the Canons of Toledo, “when
Reccared was converted”).

But on the first 24 folia is a series of papers of great interest to us.
The first fixes the date as after March 25, 793. The second is Incipit ea-
emplar fider sancti Athanasti Alexandric ecclesiae. Quicunque vult, &c.*
Then a copy of the faith of St Augustine. Then Interrogationes de
trinitate et unitate patris et filrd et spiritus sanctt. Interroget, Dic mihi, ἔχε.
Then the “Creed of St Jerome,” really the creed of Pelagius, to which I
have drawn attention. After which, Statuta antiqua ecclesiae, and some
apocryphal pieces attributed to Jerome and Damasus. After the
Councils, we have the /%des Romanorum,of which I have already spoken.
Then the Nicene Cr eed, and, after a while, again, Adcansi (i.e. Athanasii)
sanctissimi episcopr Alenandriae adversus Arrium, the collection of quo-
tations used in the Council of Ephesus.

δ 18. A third is 3848 B (Bibliotheca, τι. p. 241), of the early
ninth century. These three volumes in which the Quicunque

appears are clearly of French origin. ‘Their date is after the year
793 or 800°.

§ 19. The force of this evidence can only be appreciated
when we learn that the Canons of the Councils which are con-
tained in these two manuscripts, Vat. Pal. 574, and Paris, 1451,
are contained also, speaking generally, in ten or more other
collections, including on the whole more than thirty manuscripts,
but the Athanasian Creed is only in these two. Of the others
some are of the sixth century, some of the seventh, some of
the eighth. But not one of the early copies contains the
Quicunque. Their history is this. When a Frank Synod met,
it was the rule to read over Canons of earlier Synods, and to
signify in what points the meeting was prepared to dissent from
such earlier rules*. Thus the Canons gradually accumulated, and
we now see the meaning of the fact to which I have invited
attention. Although several of the earlier manuscripts contain
the documents I print in my Appendix, and these documents
were afterwards copied again and again, we come to the extreme

1 Maassen, p. 614. Jones to Pére Martinoff, the eminent
2 M. Delisle gives it fidei cht sci, i.e. Russian savant, for a collation of these
catholice sancti ? Paris manuscripts.

3 I am indebted through Professor 4 See Maassen, p. 186.

XX.] RULES OF FAITH IN COLLECTIONS OF CANONS. 269

end of the eighth century or to the beginning of the ninth before
we find any trace in these collections of the Quicunque vult saluus
esse.

§ 20. It is surely worthy of remark that the Quicunque is
not contained in any manuscript of the collection called the
“Hadriana,” .6. the collection which Hadrian transmitted to
Charlemagne. Of this there is an enlarged edition containing
some of the Confessions of Faith to which I have drawn attention’.
The manuscripts of this series are more than seventy in number,
and of these at least twenty-six are assigned to the eighth or ninth
century.

§ 21. What is called the Collection of the Vatican Manuscript
contains some of these Confessions but not the Quicunque’.

§ 22. The famous Canon of Autun really comes before us in a
systematized collection, and should therefore be treated of here
rather than in the last chapter. It is thus found in a manuscript
at Einsiedeln (205) of the ninth century.

“Can. gustodunens Neri. Si quis presbyter diaconus sub-
diaconus vel clericus symbolum quod inspirante Sancto Spiritu
Apostoli tradiderunt et fidem sancti Athanasii preesulis irrepre-
hensibiliter non recensuerit ab episcopo condemnetur *.”

“Tf any presbyter, deacon, subdeacon or clerk, cannot repeat
without fault the Symbol, which under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, the Apostles have handed down, and the Faith of the
prelate Saint Athanasius, let him be condemned by the bishop.”

This Canon is found in manuscripts of two collections, called
respectively the Herovallian and that of the manuscript of Anjou.
Of the latter there are six manuscripts extant, one of the eighth
or ninth, the rest of the ninth century: all contain Canons of
various Councils and Synods (most of the later being Gallican),down
to one at Autun under St Leodgar*. Of the other, there are four

1 Maassen, p. 457, no. txxxvi. and p. omit subdiaconus entirely. Tentzel, p.
460, nos. CXXII, CXXIII. CXXIV. 58. The title is taken from a paper of
2 Ibid. Ὁ. 517, no. xxxvi., and 521, no, Professor Maassen’s in the Sitzungsbe-
A richte der philos. hist. Cl. der kaiserli.
3 I will not answer for the spelling Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1867, p.
(except in the title) nor indeed for the 205.
exact text, for some of the manuscripts 4 Maassen, p. 821, &c., §§ 859—865.

ΧΟ

270 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. | CHAP.

manuscripts of the ninth century, three of the tenth and eleventh’.
The Herovallian bears strong marks that it is a kind of revision
of the former. ‘The Canons are generally arranged under subjects ;
and under Cap. XLV. of the Anjou, 11. of the Herovallian collec-
tion, we find some “de monachis et monasteriis’.” And here we
have inserted Canons 1., V., VIL, ΥἼΠ., X., XV., of a series put forth
_ by “St Leodgar, Bishop of Autun, with the consent of his bre-
thren’®.” These may be seen in Mansi*. There is some doubt as
to the year when they were. promulgated, opinions differing
whether they should be assigned to 663, or 666, or 670. In two
manuscripts of the Anjou collection (Paris, 1603; Cologne, Darm-
stadt, 2179), at the very beginning, before the table of contents,
is found this Canon of Autun’ which is interesting us; and as
I understand, it is also found under the first title in all the manu-
scripts of the collection of Herouvalle®. The learned Jesuit,
Sirmond, was the first to discover this Canon in a manuscript
belonging to the Church of Dijon, now, I am afraid, lost; and
printed it in his magnificent Concilia Antiqua Galliew, Vol. τ. 507.

Sirmond “guessed” (autumavit) that the canon might be as-
signed to the Council of Autun under Leodgar, although in every
manuscript where it is found it is dissociated from the Council,
And the process by which his guess was upheld is rather
amusing.

This NERI of the Einsiedeln Codex is given in the Paris manu-
script as HIRA PRIMA’. It was assumed* that HIRA meant AERA,
and that AERA I. was a mistake for AERAEDCCI. This would cor-
respond to A.D. 663, when Leodgar was bishop.

“Therefore, &c. Q.E.D.”

Tentzel asks, Why not read DCCCI or DCCCCI? 1.6. A.D. 763 or
863? The evidence is just as satisfactory.

Thus we shall probably agree with Natalis Alexander and
Tentzel, that the evidence afforded by this Canon as to the
existence of the Quicunque in the year 663 is of a somewhat
“slippery character®’.” And, perhaps, I may be excused if I

1 Maassen, p. 828, &c., $$ 866—870. 7 There is a facsimile in the Nouveau
2 Maassen, 823, and 830 (misprinted Traité, Vol. 111, Plate 38.

380). 8 By Le Cointe. See Tentzel.
3 Maassen, 969, 971. : 9.51 omnia accuratius ponderaveris
4 Concilia, x1. 123. lubricam admodum deprehendes Ca-
5 Maassen, p. 823. nonis illius auctoritatem. Tentzel, p.

6 Ibid. p. 830. 59.

XX.] RULES OF FAITH IN COLLECTIONS OF CANONS. 271

express my regret and surprise that Waterland, acknowledging
as he did in his Chapter 11, that the evidence can amount to no
more than probable presumption or conjecture, should yet insert
the date 670 in his table at the end of the chapter without a note
of hesitation or doubt, and subsequently appeal to this date as
confirming his argument in regard to the supposed knowledge of
the document by Venantius Fortunatus’. But an increased
acquaintance with the technical knowledge of the old collections
shews to us, that this Canon cannot have been put forth in the
Council held under St Leodgar. For it is now known that the word
Hira was used for Canon, and Hira prima meant First Canon or
Chapter. The editors of the Nouveau Trarté give another facsimile
from the Paris Codex, 1603, “Canon Nicen. Hira x.,” beginning
Quicunque de lapsis. So we have in copies of this same collec-
tion’ “Can. Sardicensis hera x11. :” “In Synodo Tolitanz urbis in
Spaniis, hera x11.:” “Canon Cartagii, hera xx11.:” “ In ipso can.
Cartagin. hera xx.” Thus “Canones Augustodunenses. hera
prima,” means “ First Canon.” But of the Synod held under St
Leodgar we have a First Canon of a different character. So the
rule before us cannot belong to the Synod held under him: and
the words of the Vienna manuscript, 2171 (Maassen, p. 969),
preclude us from supposing that he held a second. Thus the
evidence that this canon belongs to the end of the seventh cen-
tury completely breaks down®. And I am afraid that the trou-
bles which St Leodgar had to meet were of such a kind as to
preclude him from enforcing the knowledge of the Quicunque.
The monks in those days were too riotous to listen to such a
direction as this. Aigulf, Abbot of Lerins, who merely wished to
keep order in his monastery, was abused, banished, and in 675
murdered. And St Leodgar himself was put to death by the
Major domts Ebrun in 678*. It is not unlikely that he was the

1 Waterland, chap. VI.

2 Maassen, p. 824, 825. This Codex
met with much attention from the edi-
tors of the Nouveau Traité, τι. They
assigned it to the eighth century, Maassen

es fee

39. On the word era, see their Vol. 111.
p. 100.

3 To me it is interesting to note that
one of the Paris Codices which contains

the Canon contains also the Quicunque.
I refer to 3848 B, from which I shall
print a collation. The connection will
shew that the supposition of Pape-
brochius (over which Waterland spends
some time) is untenable, viz.: that the
Faith of Athanasius in the Canon meant
the Nicene Creed. It may have been
the title for the Creed of which I have
spoken above, p. 257.

4 Gieseler, Translation, Vol. τι. p. 187,
note 2.

272

THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP. XX.

author of another Canon attributed to him, to the effect that “no
one filled with food, or elated with wine, should presume to touch

the sacrifice or offer the mass’.”

We must not, however, forget that the Canon is found in five
manuscripts of the ninth century, and one of the eighth or ninth.
It has, therefore, great antiquity; and our ultimate judgment of its
purport will be formed, as on a question of probabilities. Which
of the many documents that have been entitled Zhe Faith of
Athanasius, is it likely would be associated with the Apostles’

Creed in the Rule before us ?

1 “ Nullus presbyter confertus cibo aut
crapulatus vino (cf. Ps. Ixxvii. 65 vulg.)
sacrificia contrectare aut missas facere
presumat: quod, si quis presumpserit
amittat honorem.”’ Mansi, x1. 125. Does
this throw any light upon the history of
Fasting Communion ?

There is an interesting account of St
Leodgar in Duchesne (Vol. 1. p. 600,
Paris, 1696). Amongst other things it
is mentioned that he instructed the
clergy in the Divine Offices.

In the same volume there is a letter
to Queen Chlodosainda from Archbishop
Nicetus, who, I suppose, is the Nicetus
to whom the ΤῈ Drum has been a-
scribed. He urges the Queen to strive
to bring her husband over to the Catho-
lic Faith. He warns her against those
who preach two gods: ‘‘Alium Deitate
Patrem, alterum in Deitate sed pro
creatura Filium” (p. 854 8). He draws
near to the condemnation of our Qui-
cunque when he says, ‘In the day of
the Resurrection he will not be able to
abide or to appear, who has not believed

the Trinity in Unity.” (In die resurrec-
tionis nec manere nec apparere poterit,
qui Trinitatem in Unitate non credi-
derit. Compare the Latin of our last
clause, above p. 205). He says ‘‘Non
tres sancti sed ter sanctum: dixit, Domi-
nus Deus Zabaoth, Sanctus Pater, sanctus
Filius, sanctus Spiritus: unus Sanctus,
sicut unus Dominus.” There is not a
word regarding the Faith of St Athana-
sius.

I have adduced evidence enough to
shew that the quotation adduced by the
Ballerini (Leonis Opera, Vol, 111. p. 954)
of an old canon, in which ‘‘all priests,
deacons and subdeacons were enjoined
to know by memory the Catholic Faith,
and if any one omitted to do so he was
to abstain from wine for forty days,”
cannot be assumed to refer to the Qui-
cunque. The manuscripts (Barbarini
2888 and Vat. 1342) are very old and
must be very interesting, but this canon
is of the same character as those which
I have adduced from the Capitulars and
elsewhere (pp. 181, 192),

APPEN. | RULES OF FAITH IN COLLECTIONS OF CANONS. 273.

APPENDIX I.

Expositio fidet catholice atque apostolice contra heresim Arvanam.

Nos Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum sanctum confitemur, ita in Trini-
tate perfecta, ut et plenitudo sit Divinitatis, et unitas potestatis. Nam
tres Deos dicit qui Divinitatem separat Trinitatis. Pater Deus, Filius
Deus, Spiritus sanctus Deus, et tres unum sunt in Christo Jesu. Tres
itaque Persone, sed una potestas. Ergo diversitas plures facit ; unitas
vero potestatis excludit numeri quantitatem: quia unitas numerus non
est. - Itaque unus Deus, una Fides, unum Baptisma. Si quis vero hanc
fidem non habet, catholicus non potest dici, quia catholicam non tenet
fidem ; alienus est, profanus est, et adversus veritatem rebellis.

APPENDIX II.
Faustin presbytert fides missa Theodosio imperatori.

Sufficiebat fides conseripta apud Niceeam adversus heresim Arianam.
Sed quia pravo ingenio quidam sub illius fidei confessione impia verba
commutant, nobis invidiam facientes, quod velut heresim Sabellii
tueamur, paucis et contra Sabellium prime fidei confessione signamus
et contra hos, qui sub nomine catholice fidei impia verba defendunt,
dicentes tres esse substantias, cum semper catholica fides unam sub-
stantiam Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti, confessa sit.

Nos Patrem credimus, qui non sit Filius, sed habeat Filium de se
sine initio genitum, non factum ; et Filium credimus, qui non sit Pater,
sed habeat Patrem, de quo sit genitus, non factus; et Spiritum sanctum
credimus, qui sit vere Spiritus Dei. Unde et divine Trinitatis unam
substantiam confitemur: quia qualis est Pater secundum substantiam,
talem genuit et Filium ; et Spiritus sanctus non creatura existens, sed
Spiritus Dei, non est alienus a substantia Patris et Filii, sed est ejus-
dem et ipse substantiz cum Patre et Filio, sicut ejusdem Deitatis. Nam
qui nos putant esse Apollinaristas, sciant quod non minus Apollinaris
heresim exsecramur quam Arianam. Miramur autem illos catholicos
probari posse, qui Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti, tres substantias
confitentur. Sed et si dicunt non se credere Filium Dei aut Spiritum
sanctum creaturam, tamen contra impiam fidem sentiunt cum dicunt
tres esse substantias: consequens est enim ut tres Deos confiteantur, qui
tres substantias confitentur. Quam vocem semper catholici exsecrati sunt.

APPENDIX III.
Alter libellus jfidet.

_ Credimus unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, et unum unigenitum
Filium ejus Deum et Dominum Salvatorem nostrum, et Spiritum sanctum

S.C: 18

274 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [CHAP. XX.

Deum : non tres deos Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum sanctum, sed unum
Deum esse confitemur. Non sic unum Deum, quasi solitarium ; nec
eumdem, qui ipse sibi Pater sit, ipse et Filius; sed Patrem verum, qui
genuit Filium verum, ut est Deus de Deo, lumen de lumine, vita ex
vita, perfectum de perfecto, totum a toto, plenum a pleno; non creatum,
sed genitum ; non ex nihilo, sed ex Patre, unius substantie cum Patre:
Spiritum vero sanctum Deum, non ingenitum, neque genitum, non
creatum, nec factum ; sed Patris et Filii, semper in Patre et Filio coz-
ternum. Veneramur tamen unum Deum; quia ex uno Patre totum
quod Patris est, natus est, Filins Deus, et in Patre totum quod inest,
totum genuit Filium. Pater Filium generans non minuit, nec amisit
plenitudinis sue deitatem, totum autem quod Deus Pater est, id esse et
FKilium ab eo natum, certissime tenentes. Cum Spiritu sancto unum
Deum piissime confitemur Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum, Dei
Filium, per quem omnia facta sunt que in ceelis et que in terra, visi-
bila et invisibilia: propter nostram salutem descendit de celo, qui
nunquam desierit esse in celo natus de Spiritu sancto ex Virgine
Maria. Verbum caro factum, non amisit quod fuerat, sed ceepit esse
quod non erat. Non demutatum, sed permanentem, etiam hominem
natum, non putative, sed vere ; non aerium, sed corporeum; non phanta-
sticum, sed carneum ; ossa, sanguinem, sensum, et animam habentem,
ita verum Deum et verum hominem intelligimus ; ita verum hominem,
verum Deum fuisse nullo modo ambigimus. Confitendum est hunce
eumdem Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum adimplesse legem et pro-
phetas, passum sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixum secundum Scripturas,
mortuum et sepultum secundum Scripturas, tertia die a mortuis resur-
rexisse, assumptum in ccelos, sedere ad dexteram Patris, inde venturum
judicare vivos et mortuos. Exspectamus in hujus morte et sanguine
mundatos, remissionem peccatorum consecutos, resuscitandos nos ab eo
in his corporibus et in eadem carne qua nunc sumus; sicut et ipse in
eadem carne qua natus est, et passus, et mortuus, resurrexit ; et animas
cum hac carne vel corpora nostra ab eo, aut vitam eternam, premium
boni meriti, aut sententiam pro peccatis eeterni supplicii recepturos.

APPENDIX TV.
Libellus Augustini de fide catholica contra omnes hereses.

Credimus in unum verum Deum, Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum
sanctum, visibilium et invisibilium factorem, per quem creata sunt omnia
in celo et in terra. Hune unum Deum, et hane unam divini nominis
esse Trinitatem. Patrem non esse Filium, sed habere Filium, qui Pater
non sit; Filium non esse Patrem, sed Filium Dei esse natura; Spiritum
quoque Paraclitum esse, qui nec Pater sit ipse, nec Filius, sed a Patre
procedat. Est ergo ingenitus Pater, genitus Filius, non genitus Para-
clitus, sed a Patre procedens. Pater est cujus vox est hee audita de
celis: Hic est Filius meus dilectus, in quo mihi bene complacui ; ipsum
audite: Filius est qui ait: ἴσο a Patre exivi, et a Deo venti in hunc
mundum. Paraclitus ipse est de quo Filius ait: Nise abiero ad Patrem

APPEN. | RULES OF FAITH IN COLLECTIONS OF CANONS. 275

Paraclitus non veniet ad vos. Hance Trinitatem personis distinctam,
substantiam unam, virtutem, potestatem, majestatem, indivisibilem, in-
differentem. Preter illam nullam divinam esse naturam, vel angeli,
vel spiritus, vel virtutis alicujus, que Deus esse credatur. Hunce igitur
Filium Dei, Deum natum a Patre ante omne omnino principium, sancti-
ficasse uterum Marie Virginis, atque ex ea verum hominem, sine viri
generatum semine, suscepisse: id est, Dominum Jesum Christum, non
imaginarium corpus, aut forma sola compositum, sed solidum; atque
hune et esurisse, et sitisse, et doluisse, et flevisse, et omnia corporis
exitia sensisse ; postremo crucifixum, mortuum et sepultum, tertia die
resurrexisse ; conversatum postmodum cum discipulis, misisse ipsis
Paraclitum, dum ad ccelos ipse ascendisset. Hune Filium hominis vocari
veraciter credimus vel confitemur. Resurrectionem veram humane cre-
dimus carnis; animam autem hominis non divinam esse substantiam
vel Dei partem, sed creaturam divina voluntate factam, non de cclo
lapsam.

Si quis ergo dixerit vel crediderit a Deo omnipotente mundum
hunc factum non fuisse, atque ejus omnia instrumenta ; anathema sit.

Si quis crediderit atque dixerit Deum Patrem eumdem Filium esse,
vel Paraclitum ; anathema sit.

Si quis dixerit atque crediderit Dominum Filium eumdem esse, vel
Patrem, vel Paraclitum ; anathema sit. |

Si quis dixerit Paraclitum Spiritum eumdem esse vel Patrem, vel
Filium ; anathema sit.

Si quis dixerit atque crediderit hominem Jesum Christum a Filio Dei
assumptum non fuisse ; anathema sit.

Si quis dixerit atque crediderit Filium Dei Deum passum; anathema
sit.

Si quis dixerit atque crediderit hominem Jesum Christum hominem
impassibilem fuisse ; anathema sit.

Si quis dixerit atque crediderit alterum Deum esse prisce legis, alterum
Evangeliorum ; anathema sit.

Si quis dixerit atque crediderit ab altero Deo mundum fuisse factum
quam ab illo de quo scriptum est: Jn principio Deus fecit celum et ter-
ram: qui solus Deus verus est ; anathema sit.

Si quis dixerit atque crediderit corpora humana non resurrectura
post mortem ; anathema sit.

Si quis dixerit atque crediderit animam humanam Dei portionem vel
Dei esse substantiam ; anathema sit.

Si quis aliquas Scripturas preter eas quas catholica Ecclesia re-
eipit, vel in auctoritatem habendas esse crediderit, vel fuerit veneratus ;
anathema sit.

APPENDIX V.
Hieronymi Fides.

Credimus in Deum, et Patrem omnipotentem, cunctorum visibilium et
invisibilium conditorem. Credimus et in Dominum nostrum Jesum
Christum, per quem creata sunt omnia, verum Deum, unigenitum et verum

18—2

276 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [CHAP. Xx.

Dei Filium, non factum aut adoptivum, sed genitum, et unius cum Patre
substantiz, quod Greeci dicunt ὁμοούσιον : atque ita per omnia zequalem
Deo Patri, ut nec tempore, nec gradu, nec potestate possit esse inferior,
tantumque confitemur esse illum qui est genitus, quantus est ille, qui
genuit. Non autem quia dicimus genitum a Patre Filium, divina et
ineffabili generatione aliquod ei tempus adscribimus, sed nec Patrem
aliquando cepisse, nec Filium ; ex Filio enim Pater dicitur, et qui semper
Pater fuit, semper Filium habuit. Credimus et in Spiritum sanctum,
verum Deum, ex Patre procedentem, equalem per omnia Patri et Filio,
voluntate, potestate, eternitate, substantia.

Nec est prorsus aliquis in Trinitate gradus, nihil quod inferius su-
periusve dici possit: sed tota deitas sua perfectione sequalis est; ut,
exceptis vocabulis que proprietatem personarum indicant, quidquid de
una persona dicitur, de tribus dignissime possit intelligi. Atque ut,
confundentes Arium, unam eandemque dicimus Trinitatis esse substan-
tiam, et unum in tribus personis fatemur Deum : ita impietatem Sabellii
declinantes, tres personas expressas sub proprietate distinguimus, non
ipsum sibi Patrem, ipsum sibi Filium, ipsum sibi Spiritum sanctum esse
dicentes, sed aliam Patris, aliam Filii, aliam Spiritus sancti esse personam,
Non enim nomina tantummodo, sed etiam nominum proprietates, id est,
personas, vel, ut Greci exprimunt, hypostases, hoc est, subsisteutias
confitemur. Nec Pater Filii aut Spiritus sancti personam aliquando
excludit, nec rursus Filius aut Spiritus sanctus Patris nomen _per-
sonamque recipit, sed Pater semper Pater est, Filius semper Filius est,
Spiritus sanctus semper Spiritus sanctus est. Itaque substantia unum
sunt ; personis ac nominibus distinguuntur.

Ipsum autem Dei Filium, qui absque initio eternitatem cum Patre
et Spiritu sancto possidet, dicimus in fine seeculorum perfectum nature
nostre hominem suscepisse ex Maria semper virgine, et Verbum carnem
esse factum, assumendo hominem, non permutando deitatem. Nec,
ut quidam sceleratissime opinantur, Spiritum sanctum dicimus fuisse pro
semine, sed potentia ac virtute Creatoris operatum. Sic autem confitemur,
in Christo unam Filii esse personam, ut dicamus, duas perfectas atque
integras esse substantias, id est, deitatis et humanitatis, que ex anima
continetur et corpore. Atque ut condemnamus Photinum, qui solum et
nudum in Christo hominem confitetur, ita anathematizamus Apollinarem
et ejus similes, qui dicunt, Dei Filium minus aliquid de humana susce-
pisse natura, et vel in carne, vel in anima, vel in sensu assumptum
hominem his, propter quos assumptus est, fuisse dissimilem, quem
absque sola peccati macula (que naturalis non est) nobis confitemur
conformem. Illorum quoque similiter exsecramur blasphemiam, qui
novo sensu asserere conantur, a tempore susceptee carnis, omnia, que erant
deitatis, in hominem demigrasse; et rursum que erant humanitatis,
in Deum esse transfusa: ut, quod nulla unquam heresis dicere ausa est,
videatur hac confusione utraque natura exinanita, substantia deitatis
scilicet et humanitatis, et a proprio statu in aliud esse mutata: qui tam
Deum imperfectum in Filio quam hominem confitentur, ut nec Deum
verum nec hominem tenere credantur. Nos autem dicimus, susceptum
ita a Filio Dei passibile nostrum, ut deitas impassibilis permaneret.
Passus est enim Dei Filius non putative, sed vere, omnia, que Scriptura
testatur, id est, esuriem, sitim, lasgitudinem, dolorem, mortem et cetera

APPEN. ] RULES OF FAITH IN COLLECTIONS OF CANONS. 277)
’

hujusmodi: secundum illud passus est quod pati poterat, id est, non
secundum illam substantiam, que assumpsit, sed secundum illam, que
assumpta est. Ipse enim Dei Filius secundum suam deitatem impassi-
bilis est ut Pater, incomprehensibilis ut Pater, invisibilis ut Pater,
inconvertibilis ut Pater; et quamvis propria persona Filii, id est, Dei
Verbum, suscepit passibilem hominem; ita tamen ejus habitatione secun-
dum suam substantiam deitas Verbi nihil passa est, ut tota Trinitas,
quam impassibilem confiteri necesse est. Mortuus est ergo Dei Filius
secundum Scripturas juxta illud, quod mori poterat, resurrexit tertia
die, ascendit in ceelum, sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris, manente ea natura
carnis, in qua natus et passus est, in qua etiam resurrexit; non enim
exinanita est humanitatis substantia, sed glorificata in eternum cum
deitate mansura. Accepta ergo a Patre omnium potestate, que in ccelo
Sunt et in terra, venturus est ad judicilum vivorum et mortuorum, ut et
justos remuneret, et puniat peccatores, Resurrectionem etiam carnis
credimus, ut dicamus, nos in eadem, in qua nunc sumus, veritate mem-
brorum esse reparandos ; qualesque semel post resurrectionem fuerimus
effecti, in perpetuum permansuros. Unam esse vitam sanctorum omnium,
sed preemia pro labore diversa; e contrario pro modo delictorum, pecca-
torum quoque esse supplicia. Baptisma unum tenemus, quod iisdem
Sacramenti verbis in infantibus, quibus etiam in majoribus, asserimus
esse celebrandum. Hominem, si post Baptismum lapsus fuerit, per
penitentiam credimus posse salvari.

Novum et Vetus Testamentum recipimus in eo librorum numero,
quem sanctz Kcclesiz catholice tradit auctoritas. Animas a Deo dari
credimus, quas ab ipso factas dicimus; anathematizantes eos, qui animas
quasi partem divine dicunt esse substantie. Eorum quoque con-
demnamus errorem, qui eas ante peccasse, vel in ccelis conversatas esse
dicunt, quam in corpora mitterentur. Exsecramur etiam eorum blas-
phemiam qui dicunt, impossibile aliquid homini a Deo preceptum esse ;
et mandata Dei non a singulis, sed omnibus in commune posse servari:
vel qui primas nuptias cum Manicheo, vel secundas cum Cataphrygis
damnant. Anathematizamus etiam illos qui Dei Filium necessitate car-
nis mentitum esse dicunt, et eum propter assumptum hominem non
omnia facere potuisse que voluit, Joviniani quoque damnamus heresim,
qui dicit nullam in futuro meritorum esse distantiam ; nosque eas ibi
habituros esse virtutes, quas hic habere neglexerimus. Liberum sic
confitemur arbitrium, ut dicamus, nos semper Dei indigere auxilio, et
tam illos errare, qui cum Manicheo dicunt hominem peccatum vitare
non posse, quam illos, qui cum Joviniano asserunt hominem non posse
peccare: uterque enim tollit arbitrii libertatem. Nos vero dicimus,
hominem et peccare, et non peccare posse; ut semper nos liberi con-
fiteamur esse arbitrii’.

_| This is really the Creed of Pela- see hereafter. I have omitted this
gius, but it was referred at one time to “setting” here, nor have I attempted to
Jerome, at another to Augustine. It give any of the various readings in which
was adopted by Charlemagne, with a the various editions of the five docu-
little change in the setting, as we shall ments abound.

CHAPTER XAXT.

PROFESSIONS OFFERED AT CONSECRATION: AND
NOTES FROM LATER SYNODS.

§ 1. Council of Carthage, a.p. 398. § 2. Profession of the Roman Pontiff from
the Liber Diurnus. § 3. Ordo Romanus. § 4. English Professions, 796 to
857. § 5. Province of Aquileia, 801. § 6. Council of Aix, 802 (according to
Pertz). § 7. Creed of Leo III. ὃ 8. Theodulf. § 9. Unknown writer.
8 10. Council of Arles, 813. § 11. Hatto of Basil, about 820. § 12. Agobard
of Lyons, 820. § 13. Amalarius of Metz. § 14. The Bishop Amalarius.
ξ 15. Collections of Ansegius and Benedictus Levita. ὃ 16. Council of
Worms, 829. ὃ 17. Council of Paris, 829. ὃ 18. Mayence, 847. § 19.
Carisiacum, 849. § 20. Walfrid Strabo, 840. 8 21. Rabanus Maurus, 855.
8. 22, Synod under Louis, 856. ὃ 23. Synod of Tours, 858. ὃ 24, Council
of Rome, 862. § 25. Anschar, Archbishop of Bremen, 865. § 26. Walter, Bishop
of Orleans, 866. ὃ 27. Council of Worms, 868. § 28. Fourth Council of
Constantinople, 869. 8 29. Amneas of Paris, 868. ὃ 30. Ratram of Corbey,
868. 8.81. Pseudo-Aleuin. ὃ 32. Adalbert of Morinum, 871. ὃ 33.
Willibert of Catalannum, 871 (Ὁ). § 34. Other three. ὃ 35. Hincmar’s
Capitular. § 36. Pope John VIII. (873—882). Letter to Photius. § 37. To
Willibert of Cologne. ὃ 38. To the Archbishop of Ravenna. § 39. Pope
Marinus and Archbishop Fulco of Rheims. § 40. Riculfus of Soissons, 889.
§ 41. Regino of Prum, 900. § 42. Ratherius of Verona, 960 or 1009. § 43.
Pilgrim of Lorsch, 975. § 44. Gerbert, 991. ὃ 45. Abbo of Fleury, 1001.
8 46. Gualdo of Corbey. ὃ 47. Honorius of Autun. ὃ 48. Quicunque in
1147 assigned to Athanasius while at Treves. ὃ 49. First spoken of as
Symbolum Fidei about 1171. Not recognized as such by Innocent III. § 50.
Robertus Paululus, 1178. § 51. Usage from 922 onwards.

I ΟΠ pass now to another and very interesting kind of
evidence: the character of the Confessions made by Bishops and
Presbyters when they were consecrated or ordained.

§ 1. There is a Canon or Decree of the Council of Carthage
of the year 398 on the subject, which seems to have remained
_viridi observantia even to the end of the ninth century, for it is
quoted and adopted in the collection made by Regino, of which
I shall speak just now. The directions were that when the neces-

CH. XXI.] CLERICAL PROFESSIONS AND LATER USAGE. 279

sity arose for a bishop to be ordained, examination was to be
made whether he were by nature prudent, &c., and especially
whether he could exhibit the teaching of the faith in simple
words :

“ Avowing, that is, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one
God ; and that the whole Deity in the Trinity is coessential, consub-
stantial, coeternal, and co-omnipotent: whether he taught that each
Person in the Trinity is fully God, and the whole three Persons one
God. Did he believe that the Incarnation took place, not in the Father
nor in the Holy Spirit, but only in the Son? so that He, Who was in
the Divinity Son of God the Father, Himself was made in man Son of
a human Mother; very God of His Father, very Man of His Mother,
having flesh from the bowels of His Mother, and a human rational soul ;
so that in Him there were together two natures, i.e. God and Man, one
Person, one Son, one Christ, one Lord, Creator of all things which are,
and, together with the Father and Holy Spirit, Author and Lord and
Governor of all created things: Who suffered with a true suffering of
the flesh, died with a true death of His Body, rose again with a true
Resurrection of His flesh and a true resumption of His Soul, in which
He will come to judge the quick and the dead. He must be asked also,
Does he believe that of the Old and the New Testament, i.e. of the
Law and the Prophets and Apostles, there is one and the same Author
and God? is the devil wicked, not by his own nature, but of his own
free will? Does he believe the resurrection of the flesh which we now
bear with us, not of another flesh? Does he believe that there will be
a judgment to come, and that all will severally receive, according as
they have done in the flesh, either punishment or reward?” Inter-
mediate details have curious and interesting relations to the moral
troubles of the earlier time: ‘‘Does he object to second marriages ?
does he object to marriage entirely ? will he communicate with penitents
when reconciled?” and so on. The last enquiry is, ‘“‘ Does he believe
that out of the Catholic Church no one can be saved?”

§ 2. The custom spread. And we owe to the learned Jesuit,
Garner, a copy of the profession of the faith which, at one time,
was made by the Roman Pontiff on his election to the Apostolic
See. It was published at Paris in 1680, and has been repub-
lished in Vol. cv. of Migne’s Latin Series’. As given by Migne,
we have three professions, made at different periods of the cere-
mony. One must have been prepared shortly after the sixth
general Council (Constantinople, A.D. 681), for it makes mention
of it as having been recently held. There is much, in this, on the
Trinity, but not a word that seems to me to connect it with the

1 Usher on the Creed quotes Anasta- Pope of Rome to send a confession of

sius’ Life of Vitalian to shew the exist- his faith to Constantinople.
ence of a custom on the part of the

280 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

Quicunque. The second is more important for us: it is con-
sidered to have been composed between the years 685 and 715.
The third is attributed to Leo II., about the year 682, and there
we read

“We believe in one God, Father and Son and Holy Ghost, an
inseparable Trinity.” And words which we must remember are here
introduced ; “The Holy Spirit neither begotten nor unbegotten, but
proceeding from the Father and the Son.” (Spiritum Sanctum nec
genitum nec ingenitum sed de Patre Filioque procedentem.)

To the second part of this document I must now refer’. It is
too long to print at length. I must be content to give an
abstract.

The bishop of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of the city
of Rome declares, for the satisfaction of the Church, that he will do
everything necessary for the stability of the Christian Religion and for
the rectitude of the Catholic Faith.

He begs therefore the Church to trust that he will preach, hold,
and defend the Faith of Christ which the Apostles delivered, which
the disciples of the Apostles taught, and which their successors, our
Apostolic and most approved predecessors, have unchangeably preserved
and defended.

Thus he will guard inviolably the Rule of the Apostolic Tradition,
which the Fathers of the Council of Niczea, guided by the revelation of
God’s grace, reduced to a Symbol, proclaiming that the Son is consub-
stantial with the Father: and by confirming the truth that our Lord
Jesus Christ, the Word of God, is true God, drove out Arius and his
fellows, and, with an eternal anathema, condemned them as being minis-
ters of the devil.

Then the second Council, equally sacred, expounded (or set forth,
exposuit) what was thought to be wanting in the Symbol, and, under the
illumination of the Holy Spirit, added that the Holy Spirit is God to
be worshipped with the Father and the Son, as consubstantial: and
overthrew Macedonius and Apollinaris and their accomplices with the
censure of perpetual anathema.

By means of these two sacred Councils (the document proceeds) we
acknowledge the Holy and Inseparable Trinity, one God and one sub-
stance of the Trinity: we have learnt to proclaim the Trinity in Unity
and Unity in Trinity, so that we confess one God, because of the unity
of essence; and teach an inseparable Trinity, because of the difference
of subsistences and persons: whilst the Son is born from all eternity of
the Father, the Holy Spirit is confirmed to proceed from the Father :
and the Son of God proclaims that the same Spirit receives of His, and
manifests that in His Name the Holy Spirit is sent from the Father,
and in breathing on the disciples, Receive ye the Holy Spirit, proclaims
_ Him as proceeding from Himself.

1 This was printed by Dr Routh in the second volume of his Opuscula.

XXI.] CLERICAL PROFESSIONS AND LATER USAGE. 281

Thus we are taught to proclaim one essence of Divinity; and, be-
cause of the unconfused properties of the Subsistences, a perfect Trinity. .
Of the Father, therefore, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as there is
one true Divinity, so is there one glory, empire, majesty, virtue, power,
one natural will, one operation.

Thus the completed doctrine of the Trinity is represented as
being enuntiated implicitly in the decisions of the two earliest
Councils. The document proceeds to the subject of the In-
carnation.

The Pope quotes the decision of the third Council, of Ephesus, in
which the uniting (wnitio) of the two Natures meeting in Christ, that
is, the connexion of the Deity and Humanity in the same Subsistence,
is proclaimed; and the profane man-worshipper (hominicola) Nestorius
is cast down into a perpetual condemnation.

And the fourth Council is quoted which met at Chalcedon, at which,
the grace of God opening the matter, the six hundred and thirty Fathers,
supported by the tome of Pope Leo, promulged that out of the two and
in the two natures or substances there is One and the Same Son of
God: and that in no respect was the difference of natures destroyed,
but, rather, the properties of each being preserved, each met together in
one Subsistence or Person.

And the fifth is also appealed to, by whose salutary deliberations
our Lord Jesus Christ was truly proclaimed to be one of the Holy
Trinity, and Origen and Didymus and Evagrius were subjected to
eternal condemnation ; and Theodore of Mopsuestia and others, who
refused to acknowledge that the Son of God, whilst He was God consub-
stantial and coeternal with the Father, did for us and for our salvation
descend from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit: that is, by
the operation of the Holy Spirit the Virgin conceived the Son of God,
the flesh having a rational and intellectual soul : in which flesh He was
crucified and died, and on the third day, as He willed, He rose again
from the dead, dissolving the dominion of our death: in which flesh,
which He assumed from us but without sin, He is sitting at the right
hand of the Father, to come in it to judge quick and dead: of Whose
kingdom there shall be no end.

And then he appeals to the sixth Council, at which the assembled
bishops declared that, like as we confess the two natures of our Lord
Jesus Christ, Whose two Births we recognise, the one from the
Father from eternity, the other from the Mother in time (ex tempore),
so we confess the two Substances united in one Subsistence, from which
and in which the same our Lord Jesus Christ is announced and be-
lieved ; because complete God became complete Man: and thus it bound
Sergius and Pyrrhus and Honorius with the bond of ἃ perpetual
anathema.

In all these anathemas the new Pope joined.
This document seems to me to possess peculiar interest. It so
fully covers the ground occupied now by the Quicunque, that

282 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [cHAP.

I cannot believe that the Quicunque, as we have it, could have
preceded the sixth Council (A.D. 681), as it is here epitomised.
Neither can I believe that it was known to the Popes, for whom,
or by whom, this profession was composed. In fact, whilst it
embraces the subjects of the latter part of the Quicunque, it
systematically avoids the technicalities of its language. Again,
to the fulness of the language of the early part of the Quicunque,
we have nothing similar here: we have no allusion to the asser-

tion “not three Eternals, not three Almighties, not three Incom-

prehensibles, but One*.”

3. 1 give in the note* an account of the questions regard-
8 q Θ

1 In the résumé of Canons sent by
Hadrian to Charles we have one direct-
ing ‘‘ut sancta Trinitas populo Dei pre-
dicetur.’”’ Labbe, νι. 1812.

2 The following is given by Hittorp
(Ordo Romanus, p. 71) as the series of
questions on his belief, which, according
to Gallican use, were put to the Bishop
elect, before the imposition of hands.
(With this may be compared the Sarum
rite immediately before the Reforma-
tion. Maskell, Monum. Ritual. 11. p. 247.
It seems that, with the exceptions men-
tioned below, these questions were re-
tained until that period.) The Bishop
had promised canonical obedience, kind-
ness to the poor; then followed:

Interrogatio de credulitate. Credis
secundum intelligentiam et capacitatem
sensus tui sanctam Trinitatem, Patrem
et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum unum
[esse] Deum omnipotentem, totamque in
Trinitate Deitatem coessentialem, et
consubstantialem, cowternam, et co-
omnipotentem unius voluntatis potes-
tatis et majestatis, creatorem omnium
creaturarum, a quo omnia, per quem
omnia, in quo omnia que sunt in celo
et in terra, visibilia et invisibilia et spi-
ritualia? KR. Assentior et ita credo.

Credis singulam quamque in Trinitate
Personam unum verum Deum plenum
et perfectum? R. Credo. (This was
subsequently omitted. In fact it sa-
vours of heresy.)

Credis ipsum Filium Dei Verbum Dei
sternum natum de Patre, consubstan-
tialem, coomnipotentem et squalem
per omnia Patri in divinitate, tempora-
liter natum de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria
semper Virgine cum anima rational,
duas habentem nativitates, unam ex
Patre xternam, alteram ex Matre tem-

poralem, Deum verum et Hominem
verum, proprium in utraque natura at-
que perfectum, non adoptivum neque
phantasmaticum, unicum et unum fili-
um Dei in duabus et ex duabus (the
Salisbury Pontifical omits et ex duabus)
naturis sed in unius singularitate per-
sone ; impassibilem et immortalem divi-
nitate, sed in humanitate pro nobis et
pro salute nostra passum vera carnis
passione, et sepultum et resurgentem a
mortuis tertia die vera carnis resur-
rectione, die quadragesima post resur-
rectionem cum carne qua resurrexit et
anima adscendisse in ccelum et sedere ad
dexteram Patris, inde venturum judicare
vivos et mortuos et redditurum unicui-
que secundum opera sua, sive bona fue-
rint sive mala? Responsio ordinandi.
Assentior et per omnia credo.

Credis etiam Spiritum Sanctum ple-
num et perfectum verumque Deum a
Patre Filioque procedentem, cowqualem
et coessentialem, coomnipotentem et
coeternum per omnia Patri et Filio?
R. Credo.

Credis hane Sanctam Trinitatem non
tres deos sed unum Deum omnipoten-
tem, «ternum, invisibilem et incommu-
tabilem? R. Credo.

Credis sanctam Catholicam et Aposto-
licam unam esse veram Ecclesiam, in qua
unum datur baptisma et vera omnium
remissio peccatorum? R. Credo. (Here
in the Sarum and Winchester Pontifi-
cals are interpolated two questions as to
the belief of the elected Bishop in the
conversion of (1) the nature of the
Bread into the nature of the Flesh of
Christ as incarnate from the Virgin (2)
of the mixed wine into the Blood which
flowed from our Saviour’s side.) Ana-
thematizas ctiam omnem heresim extol-

"ὦ εἰς CLERICAL PROFESSIONS AND LATER USAGE.

283

ing his faith, which in the old Ordo Romanus were addressed to a
newly elected bishop prior to his consecration: questions, which
with slight modifications were continued in England through the
time of the Conquest to the somewhat late copy of the Sarum
Pontifical, from which Mr Maskell drew his text, and which indeed
remain with small alterations to the present day. This form of
enquiry I can have no doubt originated before the Quicunque was
drawn up. I append also an abstract of an interesting sermon,
addressed under the same circumstances and on the same occasion,

to the bishop’.

lentem se adversus hane sanctam eccle-
siam Catholicam? R. Facio vel anathe-
matizo.

Credis etiam veram resurrectionem
ejusdem carnis quam nunc gestas et
vitam weternam? RK. Credo.

Credis etiam novi et veteris testa-
menti, Legis et Prophetarum et Aposto-
lorum unum esse Auctorem Deum et
Dominum omnipotentem? RB, Credo.

Et dicatur ei:

Hee tibi fides augeatur a Domino ad
veram et externam beatitudinem, dilec-
tissime frater in Christo,

Kt respondeant omnes Amen.

I think that we should note that the
words non adoptivum seem to give a
date to these enquiries after 790, whilst
the silence (or error?) on the more deli-
cate questions mooted by Godeschalk
would shew that the enquiries were
composed before 860. At the same time
the enquiries are, to a remarkable ex-
tent, independent of the language of the
Athanasian Creed. And it was recog-
nised that even a Bishop might not
have the ability to enter into the diffi-
culties of the language regarding the
Trinity.

There were no such questions put to
the candidates for priests’ orders.

These questions (omitting, however,
those in the Sarum book relating to
transubstantiation) are still retained in
the Roman Pontifical. See too Mabillon,
Analecta, 11. 469, as to the Rouen Pon-
tifical.

The Liber Diurnus (Migne, cv. p. 65)
contains also a series of promises made
by an elected Bishop, apparently com-
posed before the sixth general Council.
There is no special Creed.

1 The sermon on the Faith addressed
to the newly elected bishop, according
to the Ordo Romanus (Hittorp, p. 74;

compare p. 70), was this: ‘Finally we
desire to exhort your Love, to keep pure
and undefiled the Faith which briefly
and lucidly we have arranged :” It pro-
ceeds

“ Credimus in unum Deum omnipo-
tentem visibilium omnium etinvisibilium
factorem, et in unum dominum nostrum
Jesum Christum Filium Dei vivi et Spi-
ritum Sanctum Domini; non tres Deos
sed Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanc-
tum unum Deum colimus, confitemur et
adoramus. Patrem credimus ingenitum,
Filium genitum, Spiritum vero sanctum
non genitum non creatum neque factum
sed de Patre et Filio procedentem, Pa-
tri et Filio cozternum et cozqualem et
cooperatorem. Et in hac Trinitate ni-
hil est prius aut posterius, nihil est
minus aut majus, sed cozterni sibi sunt
et cowquales. Itaque Pater et Filius et
Spiritus Sanctus, Hi tres unum sunt.
Tres, non confusi nec divisi, sed dis-
tinctim conjuncti et conjunctim dis-
tincti, equales divinitate, consimiles ma-
jestate, qui ita uniti sunt ut tres quoque
non dubitemus: ita tres sunt, ut sepa-
rari a se non posse fateamur. Divi-
ditur, ut ita dicam, hec sancta Trinitas
indivisibiliter, et conjungitur divisibili-
ter, quemadmodum ipse Dei Filius Jesus
Christus effatus est dicens Ego et Pater
unum sumus. Unum quod dixit plu-
ralitatem exclusit: swmus quod addidit
personas manifeste ostendit. Credimus
et in novissimis temporibus, propter nos
homines et propter nostram salutem,
Dei Filium descendisse de ccelis et ad-
sumsisse humanam carnem ex Maria
semper virgine, ὅσο.

This Creed goes on at great length to
enumerate facts relating to the life and
sufferings and death of our Redeemer,
His descent ad inferos whence He re-
called to heaven such souls bound there

284 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

§ 4. And so we come to a series of English professions, which
are found in one grand collection in the British Museum: the
volume CLEOPATRA, E. 1.

In this manuscript there are copies of ninety-three professions,
chiefly of bishops before their consecration, a few also of abbots
and such high officers. Of these many were published by Hearne,
the antiquarian, in his Textus Roffensis (Oxon. 1720). But I am
indebted to Professor Stubbs for the copies of which I avail
myself. The first volume of the Councils and Ecclesiastical
documents edited by him and Mr Haddan contains one of these
professions, the third volume contains about twenty-five. They
range from the year 796 downwards. And they seem to exhibit
that a new custom, the custom of bishops expressing in their
own language their profession of faith and obedience to the
archbishop, had commenced in England at the end of the eighth
century.

Most of these professions contain an explicit declaration of
faith in the Trinity. The first, for example, having begun by
referring to the custom of making enquiry as to the faith and
morals of the newly elected bishop, proceeds as follows:

“1 am not fit, most loving father, to satisfy the requirements of
these old traditions; but, as far as I have a knowledge of the true faith,
I will endeavour quickly to explain it to you. I believe God the
Father and Son and Holy Spirit, maintaining, that in the Trinity is
perfect God, and that the whole three Persons are one God: I believe
too that the Divine Incarnation took place not in the Father nor in
the Holy Spirit but in the Son alone: so that He who was in the Di-
vinity the Son of God the Father, became Himself in man the Son of
Man His Mother: true God from the Father, true Man from the Mo-
ther: Who is one God, with the Father and Holy Spirit Creator of all
things which are: Who suffered with a true suffering of the flesh, and
was with a true resurrection of the flesh and resumption of the soul ;
in which He will come to judge the quick and the dead. This, without

as He chose: His resurrection, ascen-
sion, and future return to judgment.
The Creed itself ends thus : ‘‘ Credimus
unum baptisma, credimus carnis resur-
rectionem, et in triginta annorum etate
ad judicium venturos (?): credimus sanc-
tam ecclesiam catholicam, toto orbe
diffusam, credimus remissionem om-
nium peccatorum, communionemque
sanctorum, et vitam «eternam. Amen.”

The preacher proceeds with his ad-
dress, which now bears on the teaching

of the bishop and his government of the
Church. It is very interesting.

This Creed is compounded of the West-
ern and Eastern Symbols. It possesses,
however, peculiarly interesting features.
Thus, note the addition omnium pecca-
torum as inthe Creeds of Spain. The posi-
tion of the clause sanctorum commu-
nionem is also remarkable.

It does not enter on any of the ques-
tions of the fifth century relating to the
Incarnation.

XXI.] CLERICAL PROFESSIONS AND LATER USAGE. 285

any doubt, I believe: this I praise; this I confess and desire to preach
among my people.”

The next is dated 798, and here Tidferth, Bishop of Dunwich,
expresses his anxiety to give his experience of the Catholic Faith,
and states that

As the universal Church teaches, “he will preach the Father the
Son and the Holy Spirit to be one Deity, and each Person in the
Trinity to be one God.”

He, therefore, did not know of the Quicunque as authentic.
. We next come to the profession of Denebert, Bishop of Wor-
cester, to which much attention has deservedly been called. He
deserts phrases of his own and adopts language that he has been
taught. I must give his own words:

‘“‘ According to the rite of our sacred Canon, and according to the
Ecclesiastical rule, as far as my strength permits, I promise that I, to-
gether with those who are with me in the Lord, will exhibit to thy
pious commands all service of obedience with an entire devotion of
heart: and, moreover, I will expound in a few words the orthodox
Catholic and Apostolic Faith as I have learned it, because it is written :
Whoever wishes to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he
hold the Catholic Faith. Now the Catholic Faith is this, that we wor-
ship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the
Persons nor separating the Substance: for there is one Person of the
"Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost, but the Divinity
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is one, the glory
equal, the majesty coeternal. The Father is made of none, neither
created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor
created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son,
neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. In this Trinity
there is nothing before or after: there is nothing greater or less; but
the whole three Persons are coeternal together and coequal ; so that in
all things, as has above been said, the Trinity in Unity, and the Unity
in Trinity, is to be worshipped. Moreover, I receive the decrees of the
Pontiffs ; and the six catholic synods of old heroic men, and I keep the
rule prefixed by them with a sincere devotion. This is our Faith,
strengthened by the evangelical and apostolical traditions and authority,
and settled by the society of all the Catholic Churches which are in the
world: in which, by the grace of God Almighty, we hope and trust that
we may remain even to the end of this life. Amen.”

Other professions follow, but of these none given by Hearne,
none published as yet by Professor Stubbs, repeat any words of
the Quicunque. The Bishop of Rochester in 804, and the Bishop
of Leicester in 814—816, refer, like Denebert, to the decrees of

286

the Pontiffs. Another Bishop, of Lichfield, in 832—836, makes
a Creed of his own out of the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds: he
too speaks of the decrees of the Popes in the language of Dene-
bert: and language, so far almost identical, is used by Behrtred,
Bishop of Lindsey, in 839.

It is surely worthy of notice that the Creeds of four of these
Bishops (Heabert in 822, Humbert in 828, Herefrith in 825, and
Ceolrith in 839), as they are found in the manuscript, run as
follows: Credo in Deum, Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum
natum et passum, 46. “I believe in God, Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, born and suffered.” They are Sabellian. One great point
which the Quicunque aims to enforce, the distinction between the
faith in the Trinity, and the faith in the Incarnation of the Son
of God, is passed over. And it is worthy of notice also that
Denebert, who is the only bishop that quotes the language which
we now find in the Quicunque, is the first who acknowledges the
decrees of the Pontiffs. Coupling this with the fact that of the
later English Bishops whose professions have been published, not
one repeats the language of the Quicunque—it was different, as
we shall see, on the Continent—and with the peculiar phraseology
which Denebert uses regarding himself, I feel compelled to
yield to the suggestion of a friend, that to Denebert himself the
language was comparatively new, whilst to Ethelbeard, his Arch-
bishop, it had been unknown. Else why should the bishop have
taken the trouble to copy it out at length, instead of referring to

the Quicunque, as others had referred to the Councils and Synods
of the Church *?

THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

1 The following extracts from some
of these English professions seem to
me to be especially worthy of attention.
Herewin, Bishop of Lichfield, declares
‘‘Nunquam me declinare ad dexteram
neque ad sinistram ab illa sede sancta
Dorobernensis ecclesi# que caput est
totius gentis Angliorum (sic).” The
Church of Canterbury was head of the
English Church. Many of them say ““ il-
lam sanctam apostolicam fidem...semper
servare me velle.” Eadulf, Bishop of
York, promises to look to the seat of
Augustine ‘‘et ad Dorobernensem eccle-
siam unde nobis omnibus ecclesiastice
dignitatis ordo, Beato Gregorio ordinante,
ministratur.”’ Wulfhard, Bishop of He-
reford, speaks of his belief in the Tri-
nity ‘“‘trinum personis, unum subsis-

tentia (!) qui est Pater et Filius et
Spiritus Sanctus, Deus unus incompre-
hensibilis, inzestimabilis, ineffabilis, in-
visibilis, quia quod est et quod erit hoe
semper fuit.”” Derwulf of London says
‘“* Ego confiteor Deum Patrem omnipo-
tentem ante omnia secula consistentem
et in sua divina potestate omnem cre-
aturam creantem ac regentem; et Fi-
lium unigenitum ex Patre venientemque
in mundum sicut per ora patriarcha-
rum et prophetarum promissum est;
et Spiritum Sanctum procedentem ex
Patre et Filio...... eundemque Filium pro
salute mundi passum et sepultum.”
The following will conclude my series.
‘‘Insuper etiam et orthodoxam catho-
licam apostolicamque fidem, sicut ab illis
(his venerable predecessors, of whom he

XXI.] CLERICAL PROFESSIONS AND LATER USAGE. 287

An examination of this and later professions of which I have
given extracts in my notes, seems to prove convincingly that the
language of the Quicunque had not taken root in England among
the bishops in the middle of the ninth century.

§ 5. From the Sponsio of the Bishops of the Province of
Aquileia, ascribed to the year 801, we learn that the bishop elect
promised

That he would both retain inviolably in his heart, and proclaim
sincerely in his mouth, the rule of the Catholic Faith, according to
the definition of the Nicene Council and as the volume of the blessed
Pope Leo declared it, to the utmost strength of his intelligence and as
far as with God’s help he might have the power’.

§ 6. We now come to a celebrated document which Pertz has
edited from a manuscript once at St Emmeran’s Church in Ratis-
bon, but now at Munich—and which Pertz assigns, apparently
without any authority, to the year 802",
that enquiries shall be made

This document directs

How the clergy know the psalms: how they teach the faith to cate-
chumens: how they teach the Lord’s Prayer and the meaning of the
Symbol: and it enjoins that all Christians shall know the Symbol and
the Lord’s Prayer. Then the presbyters are to be further asked how
they hold the Catholic Faith or Symbol, and how they know and under-
stand the Lord’s Prayer: and then it proceeds “These are the things
which all ecclesiastics ate ordered to learn. (i) The Catholic Faith of
Saint Athanasius and all other things relating to the Faith: (ii) the
Apostles’ Creed: (111) the Lord’s Prayer.” Then reference is made to the
book of Sacraments and Canon: the forms of exorcism and commending
of the soul, and the Penitential: the Computus, the use of the Roman

particularly mentions Cudulf and Ea-
dulf and Beonnan) paucis verbis ex-
ponam. In primis itaque credo in unum
Deum Patrem omnipotentem, condi-
torem visibilium et invisibilium rerum.
Credo et inJesum Christum, filium ejus
unicum dominum nostrum, conceptum
de 5. 5. et natum ex M. V., Deum verum
hominemque perfectum,sub PontioPilato
passum, a Judeis crucifixum, et sepul-
tum, ad inferos descendentem, die tertia
resurgentem ex mortuis, ascendentem
in ceelos, ubinumquam defuit, considen-
tem in dextera Dei Patris, virtutem et
Dei sapientiam, eundemque venturum
post finem sxculi judicare vivos ac mor-

tuos et seculum per ignem. Credo et
in Spiritum Sanctum, procedentem a
Patre et Filio, vivificantem omnia que
in ccelis sunt et in terris: et unam
Sanctam Catholicam et Apostolicam Ec-
clesiam: confiteor unum Baptisma in
remissionem peccatorum, et carnis re-
surrectionem, et vitam sternam futuri
seculi.” This was the confession of
Diorlaf, Bishop of Hereford, made be-
tween 857 and 866.

1 Madrisius’ Paulinus, p. 635. Migne,
Vol. xcrx.

2 The MS. itself is said to be of the
ninth or tenth century.

288 | THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.
chant at night: to the gospel and the lessons of the “liber comitis:” to
homilies, to the Pastoral Book and book of Offices: and to the letter of
Gelasius: and enquiries are made whether the clergy can write “letters.”
The document is of great interest independently of its bearing on this
controversy’. |

§ 7. I have already mentioned’ that the monks of Mount
Olivet reminded Pope Leo that the doctrine of the procession
of the Holy Spirit from the Son was taught in the faith of St
Athanasius. I should, however, state here

That in the dialogue between Leo and the Envoys of Charles, Leo
never alluded in any way to the Faith of Athanasius. The account of
the message of the monks to the Pope was first published, I believe, by
Baluzius in his Collectio® from a manuscript at Limoges. The Creed of
Leo follows in the same manuscript ; it may be seen in Lequien, as
Waterland, states, or in Mansi, x1.978. Dr Neale gave a translation of
a small portion in his history of the Holy Eastern Church*. It is
introduced thus. ‘We send you this Symbol of the orthodox faith, that
ye, as well as all the world, may hold the correct and inviolate faith,
according to the Roman Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Webelieve
the Holy Trinity, ἄς." It is a long Creed or Symbol: but in it there is
no reference at all to the Quicunque even though to a certain extent it
runs parallel to it. We have the words, “The Father from Himself, not
from another: theSon begotten by. the Father...the Holy Spirit proceeding
equally from the Father and the Son:...but yet we do not speak of three
Gods but of one God omnipotent, eternal, invisible, incommutable: these
Three (hee tria) are one God: the Father is one in Person: the Son

14, It will be noticed that the words
‘*Catholica fides seu simbolum” seem
to represent the Catholic Faith and the
Creed as identical, and they alone are
sufficient to make us hesitate before we
identify the former expression wherever
we meet it, with the Quicunque. B. I con-
ceive that cetera quecunque de fide«
would embrace the shorter or longer
confessions which I have noticed in
chapter xx. c. The computus became in
the ninth century a great subject of en-
quiry. In its shorter form it would
correspond to our tables and rules for the
moveable and immoveable feasts, and it
might include the rules about the Epact.
(Martene and Durand, Ampl. Coll., v1.
p. 4.) Ifind references to it in the direc-
tions of Riculfus a.p.889. (The greater
computus was a more elaborate calendar,
answering to our table of feasts for so
many years. One may be seen in the
Salisbury Psalter.) pv. On the Liber
Comitis; we are told distinctly that Alcuin

(Frobenius’ edition, Vol. τ. p. lxxx.) took
in hand a book ealled the Comes, and
reduced it to order, correcting it and
taking care that it should be marked
with stops for the sake of pronouncing
it properly. ‘‘ Nobis autem cure fuit ita
hunc emendate atque distincte transcri-
bere sicut ab eodem magistro emendatus
extat.”” The book was properly a table of
lessons, but it seems to have sometimes
included the lessons themselves. kr. I
am inclined to suppose that the letter
of Gelasius was that on the canonical
books. Some of my readers will pro-
bably agree with me in thinking that
the order which I am now discussing
must have followed, at all events, by
some little interval, the labours of ΑἹ-
cuin on the Comes, and so questioning
the date which Pertz assigns to the
canon.

2 Chapter x11. p. 148.

ὍΤΙ: 14. Or tt, to.

4 General Introduction, p. 1162.

ce ee Beda

XXL] CLERICAL PROFESSIONS AND LATER USAGE. 289

another in Person: the Holy Spirit another in Person:” and then it
passes on to the subject of the Incarnation. ‘We believe that the same
Son, Word of God, having been coeternally begotten from the Father,
consubstautial with the Father, was, in time (temporaliter) born of the
Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, having two nativities...We confess
that He, very God, was conceived, and, very God, was born:—and that
from hell (ab inferis) returning, the prince of all iniquity being con-
demned and spoiled, He rose on the third day from the dead.,,and ascended
into heaven.” It concludes: ‘“Him who does not believe (qui non
crediderit) in accordance with this faith, the Holy Catholic and A postolie
Church condemns.”

If this is genuine (and I know not why it should be questioned), we
have here Leo III., not availing himself of the Quicunque, but composing
and transmitting, as the Creed or Symbol of the Roman Church, an inde-
pendent but yet equivalent document. Nor in his answer to Leo, does
Charles quote the Athanasian Creed: he quotes Athanasius’ work
against Arius, although not quite to the point’.

§ 8. But we have other authorities of the ninth century which
I must briefly enumerate, although I can add little here to the
accounts which Waterland has reproduced (without acknowledg-
ment) from Tentzel, Montfaucon, Muratori or Beveridge.

Theodulf, Bishop of Orleans, had been brought by Charle-
magne out of Italy’; he is mentioned by Alcuin in his fourth
letter to the Emperor, in connection with the Patriarch Pau-
linus. |

We have a series of capitula from him, amongst which he directs
that all the faithful shall learn the Lord’s Prayer and the Symbol,
because on these two documents the whole foundation of the faith rests,
and unless a person holds them in his memory, and believes them
with his heart, and is very frequently engaged in prayer, he cannot be a
Catholic. Every one should say the Creed or the Lord’s Prayer, morn-
ing and evening; and should daily, or twice, thrice a day confess his
sins to God, according to the words of the Psalmist: ‘I will acknow-
ledge my sin unto thee®.”

Baluzius found another series of orders, ascribed to Theodulf,
in which we read

‘Wherefore we admonish you, O priests of the Lord, that ye should
hold in your memories and understand with your hearts the Catholic
faith, 1. 6. the Credo and Quicunque vult salvus esse ante omnia opus
est ut teneat Catholicam fidem*.”

1 Labbe, viz. 1199, 1201. 3 Migne, cv. pp. 198, 200.

* This is, however, questioned by Fa- 4 Ib. p. 209 from Baluzius, Miscell.
bricius (Migne, cv.p. 187). YetDollinger, Tom. τι. p. 99.=vu. Ὁ. 21. (From a
p.109, agrees with the older writers that manuscript at Limoges.)

Speria or Hesperia =Italy.

S. ΟΝ 19

290 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. ~~ [CHAP.

This series must be spurious; because a suffragan bishop like
Theodulf could not have issued directions how presbyters were
to be treated. Indeed the directions go so far as to make pro-
vision for the case when a bishop is infirm and needs unction ;
and appoint that under certain circumstances the bishop must do
penance for seven days’. The next paper is clearly Theodulf’s
answer to the enquiry which Charlemagne addressed to him
through Magnus, Archbishop of Sens: it contains chapters on the
Symbol and on the Credulitas*, Here we should expect a refer-
ence to the “ Faith of Athanasius,” but we find no such reference.
The fourth work is that out of which the well-known quotation,
given by Waterland, is taken. This is a work on the Holy
Spirit, in support of the double Procession ; it was addressed to
Charles the Great, and contains a series of quotations: the first
four profess to be taken from the books “which Athanasius wrote
against the Arians,” z.e. from the work now attributed to Vigilius
of Tapsus; “all supposititious®,” although Hincmar quoted them
with equal zest, in his controversy with Godeschalk.

The last quotation of all consists of clauses 21—28 of the
Quicunque. I must confess that I should like to know the date
of the manuscripts which contain the passage*. The clauses are
identically the same as those which were adduced by Aineas of
Paris. In his exposition of the Credulitas mentioned above’,
Theodulf speaks of the

“Word made flesh, by assuming the manhood not by changing the
Godhead :” he insists that we shall rise again in the same flesh in which we
now live “and that there are not in the Trinity any degrees by which
Any might be said to be inferior or superior to Another.”

Thus the document shews a familiarity with the thoughts of
our Quicunque, even though the language is not quoted.

Once more: Baluzius extracted from a “vetus codex” in the
Colbertine Library, and printed in his Miscellanies (1. 491),

A catalogue of certain abbots of Fleury, in which it is said that this
Theodulf was remarkable for his learning; amongst other things “he
published an exposition of the Symbol of Saint Athanasius, which is

1 Migne, ut supra, p. 220 a. Β. bolum of Athanasius, but Sirmond ques-
2 pp. 226, 227. tions the authenticity of the heading.
3 Note in Migne, p. 242. 5 Migne, ut supra, 227.

* It professes to come from the Sym-

XXI.] CLERICAL PROFESSIONS AND LATER USAGE. 291

chanted by the monks daily at prime, after the three regular psalms,
He wrote also of the Mass and of everything contained in the Service.”

With Baluzius however, unhappily, vetus codec might mean
a manuscript of the twelfth, or even of the fourteenth, century.
Therefore, much confidence cannot be placed in the authority
here.

This Explanation may therefore have been that of the Creed of which
I have spoken already: or it may have been the Explanation published by
Cardinal Mai in his Seriptorum veterum nova collectio, of which I must
speak hereafter. But the title “Symbol of St Athanasius” carries us
down to the twelfth century at least, as the date of the record’.

In the appendix to Labbe and Cossart, vol? vir. (p. 1855), we have
another addition to the Capitula of Theodulf. ‘Learn the Catholic
Faith: preach most diligently: preach it to the people, everyone of you
in his own Church’.”

It is not unlikely that the copyists were correct who attributed to
Theodulf the most recent edition of the Speculwm*, even though Mai
assigns it to the seventh century. The Cardinal would not allow Dr
Tregelles to examine the manuscript, (m of Tischendorf,) for more than
a few seconds.

§ 9. I can of course add no more to the quotation from an
“uncertain author,’ which Montfaucon, Tentzel, and Waterland
have taken from Sirmond’s note on Theodulf:

Sirmond found another collection of testimonies addressed to Charle-
magne, adduced to prove that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father
and the Son. This writer says: “The blessed Athanasius in the Expo-
sition of the Catholic Faith, which the great writer himself composed
and which the universal Church confesses...says Pater a nullo est factus,
&c.*.” Sirmond does not inform us where he saw the manuscript, nor
how much of the Quicunque was quoted. It may be noticed that he
calls it “δὴ Exposition of the Catholic Faith.”

§ 10. I have given on page 233 an account of the Rule
of Faith put forth at Toledo in the year 633. I must repeat
that it is very strange that exactly the same language was adopted,
exactly the same form used, at a Council held at Arles in the
year 813; and without acknowledgment. This fact seems, as
1 have said, to cast on one side the surmise that Hilary of Arles
wrote the Quicunque. It shews too that the Quicunque was not

1 This passage from Baluzius has at- 3 Published amongst Augustine’s
tracted much attention. Amongst others works, vr. 1409.
Martene quotes it, Lib. rv. ch. viii. on the 4 Migne, Vol. cv. p. 239, note 247. Is
hour services. this author the pseudo-Alcuin mentioned
2 Migne, p. 206 c. below ?
19—2

292 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

established as of any authority in the province of Arles even
as late as the year which we have now reached. In this year
813 it had not superseded the Faith of the Spanish Council of
the seventh century in the minds of the Bishops collected in
council in the South of France.

§ 11. I cannot see any reason to reject the evidence of Hatto,
which Waterland, after Tentzel, quotes under the year 820'.

The name of the bishop comes to us spelled in a variety of fashions—
Hayto, Ahyto, Aito, Hatto, Haido, Heito: but, notwithstanding this
variety, he was a notable man in his day, and is mentioned honorably in
the Reichenau annals of the time’.

He had been abbot of Reichenau and was made Bishop of Basil in
806, holding apparently his abbacy “in commendam.” In 811 he was
sent by Charles on an embassy to Constantinople: in 822 he gave up
the abbacy and in 836 he died*. We cannot specify the year in which
these edicts were issued: the date may have been as early as 820 or as
late as 834 or 835: but it can searcely be questioned that this bishop was
their author. They ran as follows: “(1) First of all, enquiry must be
made as regards the Faith of the Priests, how they believe, and how they
teach others to believe. (2) Order must be given that the Lord’s Prayer
in which all things necessary to human life are contained, and the
Apostles’ Symbol in which the Catholic Faith is entirely comprehended,
should be learnt by all, as well in Latin as in the vernacular, so that the
professions made by the mouth may be by the heart believed and under-
stood.” (3) The third directed that every one should learn how to re-
spond duly to the Priest in the Mass: (4) the fourth, as it is quoted
by Waterland, was this: “That the Faith of Saint Athanasius should
be learnt by the priests and recited by them by heart at prime on
Sundays*”

Of course the question might be put, Which “Faith of Athana-
sius” is meant? but the order that it should be reeited at the
prime seems almost sufficient to identify the document. But see
below under § 22.

1 At one time I confess that I con-
sidered that the Hatto who is quoted
at this point, was the bishop of Mayence
to whom Regino of Prum addressed his
collection of Canons, This Hatto died
in 912. But the manuscripts are de-
cisive. Thus at Vienna I saw one, No.
914, of the tenth century, containing (on
folios 33—36) Aito Haito seu Hatto
Basileensis ecclesie antistes: capitula
χοῦ: diecesiani ordines. The volume
contains also works of Isidore of Seville
and others, on the Ecclesiastical offices.

2 Pertz, Monumenta, τ.

3 Annalium Alamannicorum continua-
tio Augiensis, apud Pertz, Monumenta,
wc. 1. 49.

4 Waterland (apparently from Tentzel,
p. 71 or Montfaucon’s Diatribe). The
originals may be seen in Harduin, tv.
1241 or Labbe, vir. 1523, Mansi, x1v.395.
The direction does not appear to have
been known to Regino. It is said that
the orders were first discovered by Jo-
hannes Bona in the Barbarini palace and
published by D’Achery in his Spicile-
gium, Tom. v1. art. 4.

XXI,] CLERICAL PROFESSIONS AND LATER USAGE. 293

' §12. Montfaucon, Muratori, Tentzel, and Waterland refer to
another quotation from the Quicwnque, found in the writings of
Agobard, Archbishop of Lyons, about the year 820.

Mr Robertson informs us of the part which this bishop took in the
degradation of Louis the Pious, but it was before this period that he
wrote against Felix'. In this work he speaks of the revival of old
heresies in his day: he says that although many who believe well perish
by living ill, no one who believes ill is saved by living well. “What is
the use of a golden key (he asks), if it cannot open what we want? or why
object to a wooden key if it will do this, when we want nothing else?”
He urges his reader not to neglect to purify his faith: because, as the
blessed Athanasius says—“The Catholic Faith, which except a man
keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.”
He refers to Nestorius and Eutyches: he says that the difficulty of Felix
was that he maintained that it was wrong to say “God, the Son of God
the Father, suffered and died”: we should say that the Man who was
assumed by Him so suffered and so died...Thus Felix had become in part
a Nestorian. And he quotes the anathemas against Nestorius, but, even
where, as in chapter x1, the opportunity comes to adduce the Athanasian
Creed, Agobardus passes it over: it seems to have been scarcely familiar
to him: he does quote Augustine, and Vigilius of Tapsus, and the
letter of Symmachus to the Emperor Anastasius (not correctly), and
Hilary of Arles: but nothing more from St Athanasius. In ὃ xxxvi. the
““Catholica fides” is the Apostles’ Creed. The treatise finishes thus,
“Wherefore He, after humanity was assumed, is one true God with the
Father, not later nor less than the Father or the Holy Spirit, not
differing in majesty, not unequal in power, not dissociated in operation.
For this Holy Trinity, distinguished in Persons but not separable, is
One Thing (unum est). It is not one Person (unus) in one essence;
but it is one essence, one substance, one name, one nature, living and
reigning without recording of the past, without expectation of the future.”

§ 13. We have seen that about the year 820 Hatto of Basil
is said to have given directions that the Faith of Athanasius should
be recited at prime every Lord’s day ; and that Theodulf has been
considered as the author of an equivalent direction.

Now there was no service for prime in the time of Isidore of

Seville, whose date was of course before the date at which we
have arrived.

But Symphrosius Amalarius, who was a presbyter of Metz, after the
accession of Louis, wrote a long and interesting account of the Divine
Offices ; from which we gain much information. Judging from the sub-
jects on which he comments, we should reasonably expect that he would
have said something on the Quicunque, if he had known it or held it
in any value: but he is silent. He has chapters on the lessons, on the

1 Migne, Vol. crv. pp. 30, &c. &e.

294 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

litanies, on the Kyrie eleison, on the Gloria in excelsis, on the Ter
Sanctus, on the Te igitur, on the Agnus Det, the Canticles, and so on; he
speaks of the use of the Creed (Credulitas) on Easter Eve (1041). And
in the beginning of the fourth book he describes at length the service of
prime (p. 1165), the Deus im adjutoriwn, the Psalms, the Ayrie eleison,
the Lord’s Prayer. ‘After the Lord’s Prayer follows our Belief which
the Holy Apostles appointed on the Faith of the Holy Trinity and the
Dispensation of the Incarnation of the Lord and the state of the Church.”
The Apostles’ Creed was followed by versicles*.

Thus in the time of Amalarius the Quicunque was not intro-
duced into his neighbourhood, nor does he appear to have known
it.

§ 14. A work on the Creeds, De Symbolis, is printed among
the writings of the other Amalarius’, but no mention is made
there of the Quicunque.

§ 15. The collections of Ansegius, and Benedictus, the Levite
or Deacon, made in the year 827°, never mention the Quicunque:
a fact which seems to me to throw some discredit on the date
which Pertz assigns to the “Canons of 802,” as well as on
the full meaning which Waterland and Mansi give to the order
of Hatto.

§ 16. Nor again is the Quicunque mentioned, as I think we
should reasonably expect, at the Synod of Worms in 829°.

§ 17. There was a Council of Paris in 829, in whose Capitula
we meet the words wnusquisque fidelis sv salvus esse vult. We
have here notes of numerous documents in which the Faith of.
Christ is delivered: but I find nothing else to remind me of the
Athanasian Creed. The Faith of the Trinity is put in a very
simple way”.

§ 18. There was a Council at Mayence in 847, where, after
speaking of the Catholic Faith, the Bishops insisted still more on
the necessity of works. Again we read:

1 Migne, Vol. cv. * Pertz, 111. 332—342.

2 Migne, Vol. xcrx. p. 919. 5 Labbe, vir. 1598, 1599. ‘‘ The found-

3 These occupy 430 pages or columns__ ation of the Christian religion is the
in Baluzius’ magnificent edition. Why Catholic Faith, that is to believe in the
was Waterland silent regarding this? father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
Athanasius is quoted on another subject, | one God and trine God, trine in Persons,
column 994, one in substance.”

XXI.] CLERICAL PROFESSIONS AND LATER USAGE. 299

“All are to be taught concerning the Catholic Faith as they are able
to believe: of the perpetual retribution of the good and the eternal dam-
nation of the bad; of the future resurrection and the final judgment.”
At this council it was decided that masses might be said for those who
had been hung for their crimes’.

§ 19. Ihave noted that at the Synod held in the year 849,
at Carisiacum, in the province of Rheims, against Godeschalk,
concerning his views on predestination, the words which at a
later period were considered to be momentous, Quicunque vult
salvus esse, “ Whosoever wishes to be saved,” were not quoted’.

§ 20. I have before referred to Walfrid Strabo (who died in
849), as giving us some interesting information regarding the use
of the Nicene or Constantinopolitan Creed.

He too (Book 1. cap. 25) has a chapter on the canonical hours, but
he too passes over the Quicunque. Yet he makes some remarks on the
introduction of novelties into the service—a change to which he does
not object. He mentions that Paulinus of Aquileia had introduced
(more?) hymns. He has a very good passage on the varieties in different
countries*. He says that the use of the Credo in unum Deum at the
Mass was introduced from the Greeks: he speaks of the importance of
the Gloria Patri as inculcating the Faith of the Trinity; but he has not
a word about the Athanasian Creed*.

Of course the Quicunque was in existence, at least in part, at
this time: but it was systematically, and it would seem purposely,
neglected by these learned men..

I do not intend to carry my readers below the year 900, unless
for some special purpose: but there are a few quotations from our
document, or references to it, which I wish to notice before we
enquire into the relations borne to it by Paulinus and Alcuin and
Hincmar.

§ 21. Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mayence, was a little
later: he is described by Dr Waddington’ as the most profound
theologian of the age.

1 Labbe, vii. 42—50. vir. 310.

2 Labbe, vu. 57. It may be interest- 3 Migne, cxiv. pp. 947, &c.
ing to note that Benedict III. acknow- 4 He describes an organ in his note
ledged the right of laymen to be present on Psalm ct.
at synods where the faith is treated, be- > Mr Scrivener: Codex Augiensis, pp.

cause that is the concern of all. Labbe, xxiv. xxv.

296 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

He wrote a book de Jnstitutione clericorum', and in it he describes the
Apostles’ Creed as the “Symbol of the Apostolic Faith.” But he simply
copies out the words of Isidore of Seville regarding both the Symbolum
and the Rule of Faith®. Thus he preferred Isidore to the Quicunque, if
he kmewit. He has a few words on the prime service; too few for us to
learn anything from, if it were not for his absolute silence elsewhere as
to the Quicunque. He has a homily on the second Sunday in Lent “de
fidei catholicee veritate et bonorum operum concordia,’ where he says
‘“‘ante omnia necessaria est nobis fides recta,” and so he gives an exposi-
tionof the Symbol. “ Doctrina symboli est...plenitudo credendi, quia quod
in eo docetur et discitur et unitas est Trinitatis et Trinitas distincta in
personis, et excellentia Creatoris et misericordia Redemptoris.” Jt is all
interesting’. We have another exposition of the Symbol in his fifth
book de wniversis*: and another in his second book de ecclesiastica dis-
ciplina®. But he knew no Creed save the Apostles’, and there is no
allusion whatever to the Quicunque. He died in 855.

§ 22. But in the year 856, under Louis II, there seems to
have been a synod: and to this, without any apparent hesitation,
Pertz assigns the Canons which I have quoted above as those of
Hatto. For the two series are identical in meaning and the varia-
tions in language are scarcely worthy of notice’. What are we to
believe ?

§ 23. At the Council of Tours, in the year 858, we meet with
another order with which we are now familiar ;

“The faith shall be preached to all the faithful by the presbyters; the
Incarnation, Passion, Resurrection and Ascension, the giving of the
Holy Spirit, the Remission of sins. And again with reference to the
Lord’s Prayer and Symbol all shall know them by memory: and the
Gloria Patri and the Sanctus and the Credulitas and the Kyrie eleison
shall be sung by all reverently: and the Psalms distinctly by the clerks ;
and the presbyters niust not commence the Secreta before the Sanctus is
finished.”

These are orders put forth by Herard, Bishop of Tours. It
will be noticed that no mention is made of the Quicunque: the
Credulitas (if we may judge from its position in the canon) must
be here the Nicene Creed’.

§ 24. At Rome, in 862, we hear of the error of the Theopas-
chites: an error against which the latter half of the Quicunque

| Migne, cvu. p. 311. δ Tom. cxi1. p. 1224.

2 p. 368. 6 Pertz, 111. 439.

ὙΠ ΌΤΗς CSD. ΟΝ: 7 Labbe, ΠῚ: No. ix. xvi. pp. 628, 629.
4

Tom. cx. p. 136.

x CLERICAL PROFESSIONS AND LATER USAGE. 297

might have been directed. We may say that the rising again of
such an error is inconsistent with the general use and acceptance
of the Quicunque’.

§ 25. I must reserve the testimony furnished by Hincmar to
another chapter: but we have a curious instance of the use of the
Quicunque from a death-bed scene. The dying Bishop Anscha-
rius, Archbishop of Hamburg and Bremen’, expressed his

“‘ Desire that the brethren who were about him, when they offered the
Litany and sung the psalms for his departure, should also sing the
hymn composed in the praise of God, that is, the 76. Dewm laudamus ;
and also the Catholic Faith composed by the blessed Athanasius.”
Anscharius died in 865 and his successor and biographer St Rembert in
888%.

§ 26. In or about 866, Walter, Bishop of Orleans, seems to
have put out some instructions.

The Archdeacons were to examine as to the Faith of the clergy,
their mode of administering baptism and of celebrating the mass. “Do
they understand the Lord’s Prayer cum symbolo et fide catholica: the
Gloria Patri, Credo in unum Deum, Sanctus, sanctus?” The Fides Catho-
lica may be the Quicunque or any other form in which the Faith was
set. We find indeed a little later the enquiry “how each one is fitted to
teach his brethren in the faith of the Holy Trinity, that they may
believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God, omni-
potent, eternal...and that there is one Deity and substance and ma-
jesty....”. This seems to weaken the evidence that Fides Catholica in the
earlier chapter meant the Quicunque*.

A further memorandum is interesting as throwing light upon the
literary history of the church books. All the clergy were to have
missal, psalter, &c., and correct them by good copies “per libros bene
correctos emendent.”

§ 27. There was an important gathering of Bishops at Worms
in the year 868; so important that the assembled Fathers were

1 Labbe, vitt. p. 738.

* He had been a monk of Corbey: thus
again we note the connection with
France and indeed with the province
of Rheims. Waterland made a curious
mistake. ‘‘ Among his dying instructions
(he says) to his clergy Anscharius left
this for one, that they should be careful
to recite the Catholic Faith composed by
Athanasius.” He quoted the words of
Montfaucon as if they were the words of

the biographer of Anschar, and mis-
understood their meaning. My text
represents the truth.

3 I have referred of course to the
original. It is (as Montfaucon describes
it) in Anscharius’ life in ‘‘ Pet. Lambecii
in Appendice lib. 1. Rerum Hamburg.
p. 237;” and I believe in Mabillon’s
Acta Sanctorum, vi. 78, and Migne.

+ Labbe, vii1. pp. 637, 638.

298 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

disposed to claim for it the credit due to a general Council. On
these grounds they deemed it necessary that

“Their first words should relate to God, that so the works which
they might build upon the profession of their faith might be erected
on this firm foundation.” They began therefore with a long confes-
sion, which took the form of an enlargement of the Apostles’ Creed.
Thus we find them declaring’, ‘““We believe and confess that the
Holy and ineffable Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are one
God naturally, of one substance, one nature, one majesty and power,
and we profess that the Father is not begotten nor made, but unbegotten.
He is therefore the Fountain and Origin of the whole Trinity....We
confess that the Son is of the substance of the Father, born without begin-
ning before the ages, but not made....We believe that the Holy Spirit,
Who is the Third Person of the Trinity is God, one and equal with the
Father and the Son, of one substance, of one nature, but not begotten
nor created, but proceeding from the Father and the Son is the Spirit
of Both. For neither does He proceed from the Father upon the Son
(in Filium); nor from the Son alone does He proceed to sanctify all
creation: but He is shewn to proceed from Both because He is acknow-
ledged to be the Love and Holiness of Both...and, although relatively
they are called Three Persons, yet only one Nature or Substance must
be believed: nor, as we speak of Three Persons, do we predicate three
Substances, but Three Persons and One Substance. Thus while we
maintain that the Father is not the same Person as the Son or the Holy
Spirit, yet we hold that what the Father is, that is the Son, and that
the Holy Spirit: we distinguish Three Persons, we do not separate the
Nature of the Deity. As therefore we do not confound those Three
Persons of the one inseparable Nature, so neither do we regard Them as
in any way separable: inasmuch as no one Person is believed to have
existed before Other or after Other or without Other; or to have wrought
anything before or after or without Another. The Father has eternity
without nativity; the Son eternity with nativity; the Holy Spirit
eternity of procession from the Father and the Son, without nativity. But
of these Three Persons, the Person of the Son alone for the redemption of
the human race assumed true man without sin of the Virgin Mary, by a
new nativity, a new order...The Son of God received not the person of a
man, but the nature of a man. For He assumed our nature into the
Unity of His Person; and therefore the Son of God and Son of Man is
one Christ. In that He is Son of God, He is equal to the Father: in
that He is Son of Man, He is less than the Father: Who, in that He
was made man, endured sufferings for our sins and underwent the true
death upon the cross. [The descent into Hell is not mentioned. |
Raised on the third day by His own Power, He left the sepulchre.
After the example of our Head, we believe that we shall rise again, in
that flesh in which we live and move. The same Lord and Saviour
having thus completed His triumph sought again His Paternal Seat
from which, as concerns His Divinity, He was never absent. Coming
thence at the end of the world, He will judge the quick and dead, and

1 Labbe, vi. p. 944. Ata council content with reciting the Nicene Creed.
held here in 786 the bishops had been Labbe, v1. 1863.

XXI.] CLERICAL PROFESSIONS AND LATER USAGE. 299

will render to every one according as he has done in the body whether
good or bad. And the Catholic Church, Redeemed with His precious
blood shall, we believe, reign with Him hereafter for ever. We believe
and confess one Baptism for the Remission of all sins. We promise
that we will retain this profession of our faith inviolate and will never
deviate from it, and this whosoever desires to be saved let him study to
retain without any ambiguity.”

I have given these long extracts to enable my reader to
form his own judgment on the evidence contained in this docu-
ment as to the existence or authority or use of the Athanasian
Creed amongst the Bishops assembled at Worms about the year
868". I need not draw his attention to the facts that the style of
thought is the same, and that the conclusion bears some similarity
to the last verse of the Quicunque, even whilst, in addition to
those which we have already noticed, it offers another mode of
putting the statement contained in that verse. But it seems to me
that, although we find here explanations of some of the clauses of
the Quicunque, it is clear that the language before us is not drawn
from that document: and this shews that that document, even if
in existence in its completed form, had not as yet displaced other
sermons, or professions, or treatises on the faith, which covered
the same ground. I have appealed to the Profession of Arles of
the year 813, as shewing that the Quicunque had no authority in
that province at the beginning of the century: with equal bold-
ness I appeal to the Profession of Worms, in the year 868, in
proof that the Quicunque was not sanctioned there even after
two-thirds of the century had gone by.

§ 28. The fourth Council of Constantinople—the eighth
general Council as it is sometimes called—held in the year 869,
instead of giving or repeating any Profession of Faith, stated its
acceptance of the Roman Faith. What was meant by this?

§ 29. About the year 868 Aineas of Paris quoted some
eighteen passages from “Athanasius” in proof of the double
Procession: most, if not all, of them spurious. Of these Water-
land took no notice. He only mentioned that Afneas quoted
“the Athanasian Creed under the name of Fides Catholica,
producing the same paragraph of it which Theodulphus had

1 There is much more on the Trinity and Unity. Labbe, vir. p. 947.

300 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

done sixty years before,” 1.6. clauses 21 to 28 inclusive. Can we
consider this an independent testimony? The passage was ad-
duced by Montfaucon and by Tentzel (p. 81). It was discovered
by Usher in manuscript.

§ 30. “A.D. 868, about the same time, and in the same
cause Ratram, or Bertram, monk of Corbey in France, makes
a like use of this Creed, calling it a Treatise of the Faith.” So
Waterland. This too may be seen in Montfaucon’s Diatribe :
or in Tentzel, pp. 79, 80, who gives the credit of discovering the
passage to Usher, to whom it is due. Ratram adduces only the
clauses 21—238, and thus adds nothing to our knowledge of the
details of the Creed as then received. He quotes them from the
“libellus quem edidit [Athanasius] et omnibus Catholicis pro-
posuit tenendum.” But I think few people will commend Water-
land for omitting to notice what he must, as a. reader of Usher’,
have seen, that this same Ratram also brings “ex Athanasii libello
fidei,” a passage which is not found in the Quicunque, but is found
in the document I have printed in the Appendix Iv. to my last
chapter. Thus we have additional proof that the Creed which
I have there printed was known in France in the middle of the
ninth century and attributed to Athanasius. In point of fact
Ratram could not distinguish the sources from which he drew
his quotations.

§ 31. Waterland has omitted to notice the work on the
Procession of the Holy Spirit, which was attributed to Alcuin
within forty years after his death, but the genuineness of which
Sirmond very properly, in my opinion, hesitated to accept. This
pseudo-Alcuin adduced clauses 21, 22, 23 in one part of the
work’, and 7, 25, 26, 27, 28 in another*. In the earlier passage
these are his words “The blessed Athanasius in the Exposition of
the Catholic Faith, which the admirable doctor himself com-
posed, and which the universal Church confesses, declares the
procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, &c.”

1 De Romano Symbolo. Near the end
(Vol. vir. p. 333 of the collected edition).
2 Frobenius, 11. Ὁ. 750. Migne, crt.

| Baw 9:

3 Ditto, p. 756. Migne, rxxx11. The
Codex professes to have been given by
Dido, bishop, to the Church of Laon.

He died 891. But no one ever mentioned
the work in the controversies which arose
after Alcuin’s death ; and the style is not
Alcuin’s. Sirmond, Vol. 11. p. 695, pub-
lished it as the work of an uncertain
author. See above p. 291, § 9.

EX, | CLERICAL PROFESSIONS AND LATER USAGE. 301

It certainly was not true in the time of Alcuin that the Church
universal acknowledged the Quicunque: it seems to have been
unknown out of France. But this was a small matter. 1 would,
however, draw attention to the description of the Quicunque,
“the Exposition of the Catholic Faith.” “Alcuin” quotes here
also as genuine the Altercation with Arius’.

§ 32. The profession of Adelbert when he was made Bishop
of Morinum in 871, occupies an interesting position in our history.
In some respects it resembles the professions of the English
Bishops before their form became stereotyped; but we shall
see that it has a character of its own’.

He receives the six councils, the sixth being on “the two natures in
*the one Person of Christ:” and all who are condemned by the Fathers
speaking in these Synods or afterwards by the Holy Spirit, he
condemns. He promises to guard inviolably the epistle of Leo to
Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople, and all his other epistles, ‘‘in
which, amongst other things (as in the sermon of the blessed Atha-
-nasius which the Catholic Church is accustomed to use with vene-
ration, and which begins, Whosoever would be saved before all things
it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith)—after the proof
by which we are taught how the Trinity of Persons in the Unity
of Divinity and the Unity of Deity in the Trinity of Persons is to
be worshipped—it is most plainly contained that alone of the same
sacred Trinity our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Son of God, and Son
of Man, of two natures and in two natures, that is, divine and human,
united in one Person, but remaining each in its properties and distinct-
iveness, is to be believed and preached: Who, aecording to the Apostolic
Symbol being born according to the flesh of Mary, ever virgin, who is
truly Mother of God, and having suffered and died, rose again and
ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of God the Father
Almighty, from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
at Whose coming all men shall rise (resurgent) with their bodies, and
shall give account of their own works, and shall receive, from the same
just Judge, every one according as he has lived and persevered in his
deeds, and shal] go away for ever, the wicked into eternal fire, but the
just into life eternal. I anathematize also all heresies, &c.”

This profession is remarkable. Adelbert speaks of the Sermon
of Athanasius as having been frequently used in the Church: but
he does not say how it was used. The text of the Sermon is
scarcely adequately represented, and the reference to the Apostles’
Creed reminds us, in noteworthy fashion, of the document con-

1 Frobenius, p. 755. Migné, p. 81. not contain any such passage.
The writer adduces Jerome’s Symbolwm 2 Labbe, vim. 18838. Morinum=Tar-
as authority that ‘in the Trinity there uenne in the province of Rheims, to the
is nihil quod inferius superiusve dici Church of which he promised canonical
possit.” ‘The Creed of Jerome” does obedience. (Baluzius, Capit. 11. p. 616.)

302 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

tained in the Treves manuscript. It should be noted also that
the descent into hell is omitted: and that the bishop read resur-
gent where the Quicunque now has resurgere habent: the ques-
tions mooted by Godeschalk are entirely passed over’.

§ 33. Almost contemporaneously with the last, we have an
account of the Examination of Willibert, Bishop of Catalau-
num (Chalons-sur-Marne), by Hincmar, before he would consecrate
him. 1 cannot but connect with services like these the direc-
tions which Pertz so loosely assigned to the year 802. These
directions tally closely with the forms now observed. The Pro-
fession of Faith is not given: but the newly-elected bishop read
out one; and he bound himself to write out with his own
hand the “Book of his Faith and Profession which he had now
read over’.”

§ 34. We have another confession at a later page*, and a
third against Pelagianism*. And once more, an order of con-
secration is described’—almost as in our Canterbury Registers—
and we have reference again to a “ libellus.”’

§ 35. There can be no doubt of the genuineness of the Capi-
tulum of Hincmar, which I will cite next, although it refers to
the examination of the clergy rather than to the professions of

a bishop.

Hinemar required that each of his presbyters should learn, at fuller
length than any had yet done, an Exposition of the Creed and of the
Lord’s Prayer, according to the tradition of the orthodox Fathers, and so
diligently instruct the people committed to him. Then he is to learn
the preface to the canon, and the canon of the mass itself, and the
prayers of the mass; and be able to read the “ Apostle” and Gospel, and
know the words of the Psalms, and the pauses, by rule: and how to
pronounce them from memory, and the usual Canticles. ‘‘And also
let every one commit to memory the Sermon of Athanasius on the Faith,
of which the commencement is Quicunque vult salvus esse—and let him
comprehend its meaning, and be able to explain it in the vulgar tongue
(communibus verbis enuntiare queat). He must also know the bap-

1 This is the first profession in which and his vicar. See too Baluzius, Capt-
I have found a promise to maintain the tuwlaria, Tom, τι. p. 612.
privileges of the metropolitan Roman 3 Ὁ. 1884.
Church. 4 p. 1885.
2 Labbe, vir. 1881. The Archbishop 5 p. 1941.
promised obedience to the Blessed Peter

xl CLERICAL PROFESSIONS AND LATER USAGE. 303

tismal order, the exorcism of catechumens, and the reconciliation, and
unction of the sick: the homilies of Gregory, and the computus, and the
cantus, the matin office, and the hours’.

§ 36. I may mention here that among the writings of John
VIII, who was Pope from 873 to 882, is a letter which he is said
to have written to Photius—it is of course disputed in recent
times—in wnhich he is reported to have stated

““We do not say ex /ilio in the Symbol, and moreover we condemn
those, who, at the beginning, dared in their madness to make this ad-
dition, as being transgressors of the divine law, as being subverters of
the Theology of Christ our Lord and of the holy pontiffs and other holy
fathers, who, being synodically assembled, delivered to us the holy
Symbol.” I=fthis is genuine (and it does little more than repeat in
stronger language the sentiments which Leo III. held at the beginning
of the century) it is clear that the Athanasian Creed could not have
been received at Rome at this period of the century’.

§ 37. There is a curious letter from John to Willibert of
Cologne, on the deficiency of his profession: “he had not men-
tioned the Universal Synods, nor the Decretals*.”

§ 38. In 878 I find an order from John, addressed to the
Archbishop of Ravenna; “all Metropolitans were to send an
Exposition of their Faith to Rome, within three months after

their consecration*.”

§ 39. Marinus gave Fulco the pallium post emissam orthodore
fider professionem”. As the Roman Church seems not to have adopted
the Athanasian Creed for some years to come, it is improbable
that this Profession could have embraced the Quicunque. One of
our manuscripts seems to shew that Fulco must have known 105,

§ 40. We owe to Waterland, not only the quotation of the
profession of Adelbert, but also the charge of Riculfus of Soissons,
in the year 889. “He calls it a Treatise or Discourse of the
Catholic Faith, Sermonem Fidei Catholice cujus initiwm est
Quicunque vult salvus esse, and places it between the Psalms and
the Canon of the Mass, requiring all his clergy to know it by

1 Labbe, vii1. 569 and elsewhere. 4 Ditto, p. 300.
2 The letter is in Labbe, rx. 235, 5 p. 357.
3 Labbe, ut supra, p. 238. 6 Ὁ, C. C. Cambridge.

304 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

memory, truly and correctly.” The order bears a strong resem-
blance to that of Hincmar, and indeed Soissons was in the pro-
vince of Rheims. We learn thus that the direction of the Arch-
bishop in 852 was supplemented by a suffragan, forty-seven years
later. The Quicunque could scarcely have been introduced as
yet into the regular daily service in the diocese of Soissons.

§ 41. Under the year 760 Waterland has the following:

“Regino, abbot of Prom in Germany, an author of the ninth and
tenth century, has, among other collections, some Articles of Inquiry,
supposed by Baluzius the editor to be as old, or very nearly, as the age
of Boniface, Bishop of Mentz, who died in the year 754. In those
Articles, there is one to this purpose: Whether the clergy have by
heart Athanasius’s Tract upon the Faith of the Trinity, beginning with
Whosoever will be saved, ἄς. This testimony I may venture to place
about 760, a little after the death of Boniface.”

The note as to the supposition of Baluzius was probably taken
(as was much of Waterland’s information) from Tentzel’s little
volume, p. 69.

Regino had been Abbot of Prum, a monastery in the diocese
of Treves, from the year 892 to the year 899. He was then
deposed, and went to Treves, where he resided at the monastery
of Maximinus. At the request of Ratbod, the Archbishop of
Treves, Regino compiled a series of articles of inquiry, Visitation
articles as we should call them, ninety-five in number, for the
Archbishop to use in his visitations. To these he appended a
series of authorities by which he justified his selection. I need
not say that they are deeply interesting, giving, as they do, an
insight into the manners and requirements of the age.

Some of the visitation inquiries refer to pagans, and to customs
and superstitions handed down from pagan times; and, con-
sequently, Baluzius says in his notes (p. 534), that he might think
that the series was first formed in the age of Boniface, or certainly
not much later, and was then gradually increased and amended
according to the various wants and customs of the churches.
But Baluzius never makes the broad statement which Waterland
professes to extract from him. In fact the volume itself con-
tains the refutation of Waterland’s assertion.

Of the articles of inquiry the first sixteen relate to the Church and
its furniture: the seventeenth and following questions regard the life of

XXI.] CLERICAL PROFESSIONS AND LATER USAGE. 305

the presbyters. No. 55 enquires Whether he has taught the Lord’s
Prayer and the Symbolum to all his parishioners? No. 59, Does he
invite to confession on the Wednesday before Lent all his parishioners,
ascribing to each his due penance? No. 60, Do all communicate three
times a year? No. 34, Does he celebrate at the appointed hour, ὁ. 6. at
9 o'clock, and then fast till noon, in order that he may sing mass for
any stranger that may happen to come? No. 82, Has he, by him, an
Exposition of the Symbol and the Lord’s Prayer, written according to
the tradition of the orthodox Fathers? does he understand it and diligently
teach, out of it, the people committed to his charge? The next three
enquire, Does he well understand the prayers of the mass? Can he
read and expound the Epistle and the Gospel? Does he know how to
pronounce, regularly, the words and pauses of the Psalms with the
accustomed Canticles? Does he know the Sermon of Athanasius? Has
he a computus? a martyrology? and so on. These articles of en-
quiry are followed up thus: “These things which we have laid down
above uuder their several heads as to be enquired into, ought to be
corroborated by Canonical authority.”

When we pass on to examine these Canonical authorities, we find
they are taken from all countries and from allages. From the Apostolic
Constitutions; from the Decretals; from writings of Leo, Augustine,
Benedict; from Councils of Carthage, Neocesarea, and Antioch. But
they are taken, almost equally, from the Capitulars, from Synods of
Rheims, Aix 805, 847, Salzburg 803, Worms 868, Mayence 888, Nantz
895, and the authorities are given by the collector. How Waterland
could say that the enquiries belong to the time of Boniface, I cannot
make out: the very chapter which directs that the trees and stones which
had been dedicated to demons should be cut down and destroyed, dates
from the Council of Nantz: our own records of English superstitions are
such that we cannot agree with Baluzius that a canon of this kind must
have belonged to the middle of the eighth century: in point of fact we
see that it was extracted from a canon of the end of the ninth century.

Yet, amongst all them, the canon of Autun relating to the Faith of
Athanasius is not quoted; nor the order of Hatto; nor the Capitula of
Aix which Pertz assigns to the year 802. In fact there is no authority
adduced for the enquiry regarding the “Sermon of Athanasius.” Canons
204 and 205 of the first book are merely copies of the Capitula regarding
the preaching of the presbyter: canon 275 is the ordinance of Rheims
enforcing the knowledge of the Symbol and the Lord’s Prayer’.
Canon 453 gives directions as to the examination for orders. One of
these directions shews clearly that the jides catholica did not mean the
Quicunque. ‘Before all things, do they hold firmly the Catholic Faith?
and are they able to teach it in simple language?” Thus I repeat that
Regino, who found a superabundance of authorities for his other topics
of enquiry, has adduced none to uphold the question regarding the Sermon
of Athanasius. I can only conclude that he was either ignorant of the
canon of Autun, or believed that it referred to something else, and

1 Canon 304 contains the absolution dulgentiam de peccatis tuis preteritis,
after confession: ‘‘ Deus omnipotens sit presentibus et futuris.”
adjutor et protector tuus et prestet in-

SiG, 20

306 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

that the order of Hatto had escaped his notice. At all events the sup-
position that we may reasonably assign this canon to the time of Boniface
falls to the ground. We cannot ascribe it to a higher date than the
time of Regino himself.

§ 42. The Quicunque, however, spread into the North of
Italy before the end of the tenth century. In the second volume
of D’Achery’s Spicilegium is a long address which is attributed to
Ratherius of Verona, and which, I believe, is nearly the same as one
found in the Vienna Manuscript, 1261, which contains the short
copy of the Quicunque that I have printed elsewhere. This is

an admonition by a bishop to his brethren, presbyters and
ministers of the Lord.

‘“We are your shepherds (he says), as you are shepherds of souls.”
He urges them to a holy and chaste life, to rise for nocturns, to observe
the celebration of masses, to wash the holy vessels with their own hands.
He speaks of the lectionary, the antiphonary and the gradual': every one
should have his own. They should baptize only on the Eves of Easter
and Pentecost except in case of danger: they were to teach their
parishioners the Creed and Lord’s Prayer: they were to urge all their
parishioners to come three times a year to the Communion of the Body
and Blood of Christ (fows times in Labbe, 7. 6. Christmas, Thursday in
Holy Week, Easter, and Pentecost). They were to observe Sunday.
Godfathers were to teach their godchildren the Creed and the Lord’s
Prayer: and every one of the clergy was to have (if it can be done, says
Labbe) in writing an Exposition of the Symbol and Lord’s Prayer in ac-
cordance with the traditions of the orthodox Fathers, and understand it
thoroughly, and from it, in his preaching, carefully instruct the people
committed to his charge: “he must know the words and pauses of the
Psalms, and hold in his memory the Sermon of the Bishop Athanasius
on the Faith of the Holy Trinity which commences Quicunque vult, &c.’,
and understand its meaning and be able to explain it in the vulgar
tongue.”

Thus these directions, so far as the Quicunque is concerned,
are merely a repetition of the orders of Hincmar, a circumstance
which, for some reason or other, Waterland omits to notice in his
quotation.

Waterland assigns the date of this to 960: Labbe, who ascribes
it to two different authorities, gives the later date as 1009, the
reign of Henry’.

1 In Labbe we have ‘‘missal, lec- dos in nostra parochia esse.”
tionary and antiphonary.”’ 3 I have noticed the spread of the
2 There seems to beaslight playonthe Creed into the diocese of Verona in the
words “que ita incipit Quicunque vult year960, contemporaneously, as it seems,
salvus esse. Quicunque vult ergo sacer- with the corrected, i.e. the Gallican psal-

307

§ 43. About 975, Pilgrim, Bishop of Laureacum (Lorsch, near
Salzburg), sent his confession to the Pope and asked for the
pallium. He describes it thus:

ΧΕΙ CLERICAL PROFESSIONS AND LATER USAGE.

“The Venerable Symbol of that Catholic Faith which I hold and
teach.” It began “1 confess and believe,” following on the lines of
many documents which we have seen before—and ending “This faith
of my profession I promise to retain inviolate and never to deviate from
it’.” The Pope was satisfied and Pilgrim was made Archbishop; his
province being taken out of Salzburg. All I need say here is this ;
Although the Symbol really contained nothing additional to the Quicun-
que, it was not it. I conjecture that the Quicunque was not as yet
cared for—or, perhaps, known—in the province of Salzburg.

§ 44. There is a profession of Faith by Gerbert in the Con-
cilia under the year 991”.

§ 45. A passage in the Apology of Abbo of Fleury has de-
servedly attracted much attention. Baronius was the first, I
believe, to adduce it under the year 1001, and it was noticed by
Voss, Tentzel, Montfaucon, Muratori, and Beveridge, before it fell
into the way of Waterland. It occurs in a somewhat curious
letter which Abbo wrote to the Counts Hugh and Robert, a

letter*® which gives us some insight into the opinions of the
times :

“First of all (he says) I wish to speak of my Faith, without which
I shall not be able to be saved (salvus esse non potero), so that, by my
examination, others may receive benefit, or by my remonstrances others
may know if they have fallen into heresy. If they have so fallen, they
must seek to be drawn out of it, as rapidly as possible, lest, if they
remain in it until death, they become (stipula diaboli) chaff for the devil:
for, whosoever, whether regarding God or religion or the common state
of holy Church, believes differently from what Christ has taught, or
under the holy Apostles the Catholic Church has held and handed down

to the succession of the Apostles, is plainly not a Catholic, nor faithfal,
but a heretic.

ter. Ratherius directed that his clergy

should lose no time in learning the
faith or belief (credulitas) of God in its
three forms: i. according to the Symbol
or “collation” of the Apostles as it is
found in the corrected psalters ; ii. that
which is sung at the mass; iii. that
which begins Quicunque vult. This is
not adduced by Montfaucon, Muratori,
or Tentzel; they are corftent with quo-
ting the enquiry; ‘‘Si sermonem...

Athanasii episcopi de fide Trinitatis,
cujus initium est Quicunque vult salvus
esse, memoriter teneat.” Sandius (says
Tentzel) remarks that the admonition 15
generally attributed to Leo IV. (?), but
Tentzel prudently declines to discuss the
question.

1 Labbe, rx. 716.

Ὁ. 750.

3 This is to be seen in Migne, ΟΧΧΧΙΧ.
p- 462.

20—2

308 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

“Our fathers followed up all heresies, in order that no one should
think contrary to the Apostles, and if any one did so think, he
might be deprived of the Holy Communion and be shunned more than
a serpent. Thus we are prohibited even from praying with such: and I
hope that ye, Hugh and Robert, Kings of the Franks, will follow the
example of earlier orthodox princes, if ye wish to be heirs and joint
heirs of those who lived on earth for Christ: and will expel from your
kingdom every heretical pravity, in order that God may guard you in
eternal peace.”

Then on pages 470, 471 we find the passage which Waterland and
others quote.

‘First I thought I ought to speak of the Faith, which I have heard
varied, when sung with alternate choirs in France and in the Church of
the English. Some say (according to Athanasius in my opinion) the
Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son: not made nor created nor
begotten but proceeding: others the Holy Spirit is of the Father and the
Son, not made nor created but proceeding. These when they withdraw the
phrase not begotten think that they are following the Synodical letter of
Pope Gregory where it is written, the Holy Spirit is not unbegotten
nor begotten, but only proceeding’.”

Of the many copies of the Creed which I have seen, I have only
discovered one which does not contain the words “non genitus:” it is
the copy in the great Venice Bible.

§ 46. The lines

Catholicamque fidem quam composuisse beatus
Fertur Athanasius,

which Waterland after Montfaucon and Tentzel (p. 87) quotes
from Gualdo of Corbey, are not worthy of more than a passing
notice.

8 47. But the next authority, Honorius of Autun, whom
Waterland seems to have been the first to adduce, is deserving
of larger consideration.

His Gemma Anime, a work on the sacred offices, is of great
interest at a time like the present, when the usages of various
Churches are attracting so much attention:

Thus we hear that the two candles which precede the gospel repre-
sent the law and the prophets: the two candle-bearers being Moses and
Elias. We read of the people sacrificing some gold, some silver, others
of their substance: the women “offer the victim of praise (hostiam
laudis) to the Lord.” In chapter xxix he says (truly enough) that the
rite of the synagogue had passed ever into the religion of the Church,
and tells us, shortly afterwards, that tithes are the legal sacrifice, any-

' I take this from Migne, who differs from Waterland.

XXI.] CLERICAL PROFESSIONS AND LATER USAGE. 309

thing else being voluntary: ‘‘they offer for sin when they pay for the
penance enjoined by the priest.” The Sacrifice in the Eucharist seems
in his opinion to have consisted of the bread and the wine and the water ;
the bread was in the form of the denarii, because Christ the Bread of
Life was sold for so many denarii, and His image and superscription are
put on each. The Mass is sung daily, because (i) as labourers in the
vineyard, we need daily to be refreshed by Him: because (ii) we are
daily incorporated with Him, in order that (iii) the memory of Christ’s
sufferings may be daily inculcated on the faithful.

There is much of interest in the symbolism of Honorius. The ex-
panded arms of the priest signify Christ upon the cross: the deacons
behind the Bishop signify the Apostles running away: the subdeacons
behind the altar represent the women standing afar off. The priest
inclines to the altar: the raising of the cup denotes the elevation of
Christ upon the cross: the priest bows his head where Christ, bowing
His head, gave up. the ghost: the Deacon washes his hands, as Pilate
did; the covering of the cup with the napkin represents Joseph wrap-
ping the body in fine linen, the Chalice then signifying the sepulchre,
and the Paten on the top of it, the stone. All received; First, the
Bishop, as Christ did eat of the broiled fish and the honey-comb with
the Apostles; then the ministers, as the Apostles did eat with their
Lord at Tiberias; and then the people, because the Lord on the point
of His Ascension did eat with the people. So Jesus, when He made
His Body and Blood out of the Bread and Wine, directed His people to
celebrate these things in memory of Him.

Honorius then describes how the additions were made in the mass
service by different popes: Leo added the words Holy sacrifice, spotless
victim. He delights in noting that the words, Alleluia, Osanna, Amen
are Hebrew: Kyrie eleison ymas, are Greek: the rest is Latin. The
Angelic Choir sang the Gloria in excelsis toward the eastern Bethlehem :
so do we sing it toward the East. Panis is so important, because it is
derived from pan, and pan omne dicitur. Mass was celebrated hora
tertia, hora sexta, hora nona. The Credo in unum Deum was sung on all
Sundays and feasts commemorative of events in the life of the Lord,
feasts of the Virgin, birthdays of the Apostles, festivals of the Saints,
and on the dedication of the Church. Pope Pelagius had introduced
nine prefaces: Gregory, the tenth, ὦ. 6. for St Andrew’s: and, lately,
Urban the second (he was Pope from March 1088 to July 1099) the
preface de Sancta Maria.

The caswla represents charity covering the multitude of sins: the
cope is the proper dress of the singers.

“We bow to the East and the West, shewing that we adore God as
everywhere present.”

And thus we come to the passage regarding the Creeds which Water-
land quoted. ‘The Catholic Faith, as uttered or rather strengthened
at four various times, the Catholic Church receives, and in the four
quarters of the world observes and keepsinviolably. First, the Apostolic
Symbol, the Credo in Dewm, she lays down for herself as the Foundation
of all: she sings it daily at the commencement of the day and at the
commencement of the Hours, z.¢. at Prime: and with it she completes
her daily work when she recites it at Compline. Then the Faith ἢ

310 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [CHAP.

believe in God the Father is read in the Synods: this Creed the
Nicene Synod put forth. Thirdly, the Faith J believe in one God she
sings in the congregation of her people at mass: that I mean, which was
promulgated by the means of the Council of Constantinople. Fourthly
she repeats daily at prime the Faith Quicunque vult, which Athana-
sius, Bishop of Alexandria, at the request of the Emperor Theodosius
put forth. During the other hours the Holy Trinity is worshipped.”

On a later page I read “the faith Quicunque exhibits our course
through life: for by faith we walk, in order that we may attain to sight.”

In Book ITI. I find a chapter stating that over male children the
Creed is recited in Greek, over female children in Latin. This must be
the Nicene Creed. Section 166 describes how the Nativity of the
Blessed Virgin was discovered. Book IV. § 41 speaks of Trinity Sunday
as the Baptismal Sunday after Pentecost.

§ 48. Itis unnecessary to follow out the notices of the Atha-
nasian Creed further. We know that it was now used at prime
generally, north of the Alps; and that it was sung with alternate
choirs. I will only add that there is no memorial as yet that it
was known in Greece. Three memoranda I will add however.
One is from Otho of Frisingen (1147), whom Waterland, after
Antelmi, adduces as the earliest authority for the statement that
Athanasius wrote the Creed in Treves. Antelmi, I believe, con-
sidered that our “Colbertine Manuscript” was the authority for
this. In time, as Dean Stanley has said, the very hole in the
Abbey of St Maximin, near the Black Gate, was pointed out, where
Athanasius wrote it in the concealment of his Western exile’.

δ. 49. Another is, that Arnoldus in his Chronicle, about the
year 1171, quotes one Henry, Abbot of Brunswick, as adducing
“ Athanasium in Symbolo Fidei:” the first known instance where
it is called a Symbol or Creed.. This notwithstanding, Innocent
1Π., who was Pope from 1108 to 1216, taught that there were
only two Creeds, two Symbols, the Apostles’ and Nicene.

(Pertz, x11. p. 605) we read that St
Haimond was wont ‘‘accedente passione

1 Dean of Westminster on the Athana-
sian Creed, p. 2.

The legends about Athanasius’ doings
at Treves grew up very rapidly in the
tenth and eleventh centuries. Thus
(Pertz, 1x. p. 171) Henger, bishop of
Liege (Leodiensium), made a great deal
of Athanasius being received by Maxi-
minus, Archbishop of Treves; he it is
that said that the great patriarch was
confined six years in a cistern and never
saw the sun for the whole time; and,
whilst in this confinement, composed
the Quicunque. About the year 1019

ymnum Athanasii Quicunque vult salvus
esse—decantare.” So in 1121 (Pertz, x.
201) Godfrey, Archbishop, referred to the
Quicunque as the work of Athanasius.
The passage from Arnold, which Water-
land quotes, is in vol. xx1. (= Laws, vol.
Iv.) p. 127 of Pertz. (The name is spelt
Athanasius, Atanasius, Anastasius.) We
have superabundant evidence that the
dispute of Athanasius with Arius was
in the ninth century considered to be
genuine (Pertz, 1. 297).

6.4m] CLERICAL PROFESSIONS AND LATER USAGE. 311

§ 50. We have seen that in their Books on the Divine
Offices, neither Isidore of Seville, nor Walfrid Strabo, nor Raba-
nus Maurus, nor Amalarius, makes any reference to the use of
the Athanasian Creed in the Church. The order of Hatto does
not carry conviction to me, except of a local use, because it is not
mentioned in the Collection of Ansegius, nor in that of Benedict
the “Levite,” nor in that of Regino—who, as I have said, merely
gives a recommendation without citing any older authority. The
mistake of Waterland regarding Anscharius I have pointed out.
Adelbert speaks of it as a Sermo, and, as I understand him, in
frequent use: Abbo of Fleury as sung with alternating choirs.
It is interesting, therefore, to add the following description of the
Prime service from a book, De Officiis Ecclesiasticis, which used to
be assigned to Hugo of St Victor, but is now generally attributed
to one Robertus Paululus, who is supposed to have lived about the
year 1178". After speaking of the Psalms and stating how, to
each repetition, the Gloria Patri is added, in order that we might
not, in reciting parts of the Old Testament, forget our duty
towards the New, he proceeds:

“To these the devotion of the faithful had added Quicunque vult
salvus esse in order that at no hour of the day should we forget those
articles of the faith which are necessary to salvation.” The Qutcunque
was followed by a lesson from Isaiah, and, after a while, by the Ayrie
eleison and the Lord’s Prayer: but the Symbolum is not mentioned here.

In another work, attributed to the same writer, but which is
spurious, we have another chapter on the Offices of the Canonical
Hours’. On Prime the writer says :

“Since this hour is the beginning of the day, in it we praise God Who
has granted us to pass the night in safety. Having invoked therefore
the divine aid and glorified the Trinity of Persons, that is having uttered
the words Deus in adjutorium, Gloria Patri—we sing the hymn /am
lucis orto sidere, Then at this first hour we daily sing five psalms, in order
that our five senses may be protected from heaven during the day. To
this we add the Exposition of the Catholic Faith, because This is the
victory that overcometh the world, even our faith: and it is a strong
shield against our ancient enemy; therefore Peter saith Whom resist
stedfust in the faith. At this hour the Lord’s Prayer is said, in which
the seven petitions go up for the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, through
which we may receive the seven virtues, so that, delivered by them from

1 De Officiis Ecclesiasticis. Lib. τι, 2 Speculum de mysteriis ecclesia.
cap. 1, de hora prima. Migne, cuxxvitr. Migne, cuxxvu. Ὁ. 344.
p, 408.

312 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [CHAP. XXI.

the seven sins, we may attain to the seven beatitudes.” Then by
means of the Symbol of the Faith they are armed against all adversities,
who are purified by the use of the Lord’s Prayer.

We have this interesting corroboration of the statement of
Abbo of Fleury: and now we have proof that the original order
that the Quicunque should be sung on Sundays at Prime was
extended, as in the Canons of Regino, to a daily usage. It will
be noticed that it was distinguished, very clearly, from the Sym-
bolum Fidei, the Apostles’ Creed, which always followed it; and
that it was still viewed as an Exposition of the Catholic Faith.

Hugo was a Canon of the Augustinian Church of St Victor at
Paris, and died in the year 1140. We may fairly, I think, assume
that when this work was assigned to him, the custom at Paris was
to repeat the Quicunque daily.

§ 51. 1 have also quoted the curious passage which Baluzius
printed’ from the Catalogue of the Abbots of Fleury, where it 15
said that Theodulf gave an Explanation “of the Symbol of Atha-
nasius which the monks chant daily at Prime after the regular
psalms.” Of course this evidence is comparatively late*. Martene,
however, shews that at the Church of St Martins at Tours, it was
directed to be sung daily at Prime, with the consent of all the
Chapter, in the year 922. And he cites Udalric as stating (in
Book 1. Of the Customs of the Cluniack Churches), that whilst
amongst other churches the Quicunque was chanted on Sundays
only, in this order it was never omitted even on “private days.”
It was sung “with other Psalms.” So, “ex Tullensi 8. Afri Ordi-
nario,” it seems that on Sundays it was said after the Domine
exaudi, on other days before the Antiphon. The Carthusians (as
Waterland informs us) kept its use up daily. At the Church of
Laon we learn that “after the Symbol Quicunqne,” there came
Prayer and the Credo.

As for the neighbourhood of Rupert of Deutz, the Athana-
sian Creed was not introduced at Prime when he wrote his book,
De Canonum Observatione’.

I must reserve further remarks to a later page.

1 Miscellanea, Tom. 1. 3 See Hittorp’s Collection. It is not
2 See Martene, Lib. ἀν. cap. 4, or in Migne.
prima (Vol. 1v. p. 17),

CHAPTER XXII.

CREEDS CONTAINED IN COLLECTIONS OF SERMONS
AND BOOKS OF DEVOTION, &c.

§ 1. Muratori’s Milan Manuscript. ὃ 2. Anglo-Saxon Ritual. §3. Book of
Deer. §4. Royal2 A.xx. §5. Vienna Manuscript, 1032. §6. Vienna
Manuscript, 1261. §7. Vienna Manuscript, 2223. § 8. Bobio Manuscript,
Milan, I. 101. sup. § 9. Bangor Antiphonary, Milan, ΟΣ 5. inf. §10. St
Germain des Prés. ὃ 11. Paris, National Library, 4908. ὃ 12. Book of
Cerne, Cambridge, Ll. 1.10. § 13. Usher’s Hymn Book. § 14. Hymn
Book of Franciscan Convent, Dublin.

AMONG the most interesting documents which have come to us
from the Church of the early middle ages, a prominent place must
be given to the COLLECTIONS. OF SERMONS and Books oF Devo-
TION. I do not know that any attempt has been made to form a
series of these documents, and the volumes which 1 shall bring
forward in the present chapter merely represent those which have
fallen under my own notice in connection with our present sub-
ject. Yet knowmg the excitement which was roused at the end
of the seventeenth century on that subject, and which indeed has
been sustained since, I feel confident that very few copies of
the Quicunque have escaped attention in any of the libraries of
Europe.

§ 1. The most celebrated of these collections that contain the
Quicunque was discovered by Muratori in the Ambrosian Library.
Of this he gave some account in the second volume of his famous
Anecdota, and I think it wilt be a relief to my readers if I here
insert an abstract of his important paper.

“Cardinal Vincentius Maria Ursini, archbishop of Benevento, in
his dissertation claiming the relicks of St Bartholomew for Benevento,
happens to speak of some of the faults to be found in the Roman
Breviary. Among them he mentions that the Symbol, Quicunque vult

314 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. - [CHAP.

salvus esse, is, In our modern Breviaries, ascribed to St Athanasius, a
thing which the great majority of the most learned men consider to be not
his, although they do not agree as to the true Author; and he refers to
Quesnel.” Muratori, in corroboration of this assertion, appeals to the
writings of Voss, Godefridus Hermantius, Dupin, Natalis Alexander,
Daniel Papebroche, Cabassutius, John Mabillon, William Cave, Casimer
Oudin, and others. He himself considers that “there is in the Creed
such a complete and direct repudiation of the errors of Nestorius and
Eutyches, that it must have been written long after the times of
both these hereties, and a fortiori long after the time of St Atha-
nasius. Moreover, if Athanasius did write it, why was it never
quoted in those later disputes, by men like Gregory Nazianzenus,
Jerome, Augustine, Popes Ccelestinus and Leo the Great, Cyril of
Alexandria, Cassian and others—to whom this testimony would have
been of the greatest value, if known? Why was it overlooked in our
later disputes—when the Photian schism was waxing hot? Surely,
because Photius did not know it, and thus wonld not have acknow-
ledged its authority, if it had been adduced. Once more: how, if Atha-
nasius was the Author, is it conceivable that both word and sentiment of
the ὁμοούσιος are absent? For years this was the one and only watch-
word of the Catholics. Fourthly: although there were many Profes-
sions of Faith in the fourth century, yet Athanasius attributed so much
importance to the Nicene Symbol, that it was the only formula that he
used in testimony of his own faith. See the commencement of his letter
to the Emperor Jovinianus (Migne, xxvi. p. 814), and so again in his
letter to the Antiochenes (cbid., p. 800). Nor was there any occasion
for Athanasius ever to compose it. Certainly the occasion which the
great father of the Annals suggests, namely, the visit to the Pope Julius,
is insufficient for the purpose. For of what heresy was this great
Catholic Doctor ever suspected? The Arians had accused him not of
heresy, but that he was addicted to magic, fond of money, and re-
bellious against the Emperor.

‘But there are other arguments. J would not lay much stress on
the fact, although fact it is, that the Creed seems to be of Latin and not
of Greek origin ; that the Latin text is almost uniform, the Greek texts
vary largely ; or that the Creed was early known to the Latins, and
only in later times to the Greeks. But I do think much of this: that
amongst the very numerous Greek manuscripts in which the Ambrosian
Library abounds, I have never met with a single copy of the Creed in
Greek ; on the other hand, I have met with some in Latin, and these of
very ancient date, as I shall shew below’. ‘Still why should not Atha-
nasius write in Latin?’ This is not enough. Montfaucon in his edition
of Athanasius published this year (1698) puts the Creed among the
spurious works. And Zhomasius in his Psalter published last year
(which he quotes) takes the same view. |

“In regard to the true Author, Peter Pithzeus leans to a French
writer, and Voss follows his opinion. Quesnel (whose argument he
gives) leans to Vigilius of Tapsus; his date suits the circumstances, as
being after the Chalcedon Council, and it was his fashion to father his

1 Muratori adduces only one ¢opy.

5.0.63 ay SERMONS AND BOOKS OF DEVOTION. 3819

works on men of greater renown than himself. And one Manuscript is
known, in which, immediately after a dialogue against the Arians,
Sabellians and Photinians, written by Vigilius and assigned to Athana-
sius, follows this Fides dicta a Sancto Athanasio Episcopo’. I don’t
think much of this (says Muratori). Antelmi followed in the year 1098;
he first shewed that there was no resemblance between the Quicunque
and the works of Vigilius. He said there was a likeness to Augustine’s
works ; yet no one attributed it to St Augustine. Why then to Vigilius,
even if the statements of Quesnel were well founded? Moreover, in
the olden time, the name of Athanasius was not prefixed to the Qui-
cunque. Antelmi was led to regard Vincentius of Lerins as the author,
for he was born either in Treves or on the borders of Belgium, and
thus was near enough to Gaul to satisfy the conditions of the problem.
Antelmi shewed, by comparison, how close the resemblance is between
some sentences of Vincent’s and some passages of the Creed.” Muratori
thinks that Antelmi is nearest to the truth. Then he quotes Cardinal
Bona, de diversa Psalmodia, cap. xvi. § 18 (the passage given by Water-
land)*, and speaks also of Anastasius of Sinai, and Athanasius of Spire.
“To my mind, on the whole (he proceeds), these people have rather
involved the subject in the clouds than freed it from them.” And so
he enters on the question, ‘“‘ What was the first date when it was
assigned to Athanasius?’ Muratori refers with contempt to the inter-
polation in Augustine’s Lnarratio ad Psal. cxx. p. 1970 (vol. tv.). “The
first record is that which Sirmond eterni nominis found in Divonienst
quodam codice, and which he printed in his Concil. Gall. Tom. 1. p. 507%.
Both Sirmond and Labbe guessed that this might perhaps be referred to
the Council of Autun held about the year 670 under 8. Leodegard.”
“Canonem hune ad Synodum Augustodunensem, circiter annum Christe
ΠΟ. ΧΑ. sub Sancto Leodegardo celebratam, fortasse referendum
tum ipsemet Sirmondus tum Labbeus autumaruni.” Then comes the
passage about Papebroche quoted by Waterland in his note’, followed
by a passage which Waterland does not quote, asserting Muratori’s
opinion that ‘the canon in question does not appear to belong to the
council under Leodegard, but rather to some other, celebrated at another
time doubtless in the same city’. Wherefore we cannot draw from this
statement any good argument for the antiquity of the Creed. The -
verbal similarities with the fourth Synod of Toledo are not of such a
character as to shew that the Fathers there knew the Creed. Indeed
any one can see that the formula may have been drawn from the Synod
and that the Creed may have been thus compounded’. Thus we come
to the ninth century after Christ, before the first mention of the Atha-
nasian Creed occurs. Theodulf bishop of Orleans in his book de Spiritu
Sancto quotes the Creed and attributes it to Athanasius. So does
Hincmar against Godeschalk: and there agree with them Agobard of

1 J question whether this is the Qui- Latin translation to Eusebius of Ver-
cungue. It must be that printed p. 273. celli.

2 Muratori only knew his work second- 4 The Canon of Autun.
hand. 5 Chapter 11. second note.
3 Chapter 11. note to the year 1337. 6 Why did Waterland omit this ἢ

It is the passage in which William of 7 This passage is quoted by Water-
Baldensal is quoted as assigning the land in a note to Chapter v1.

316 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

Lyons, Frederick of Utrecht, Anschar of Hamburg, Ratram of Corbey,
Aineas of Paris,, Abbo of Fleury, Ratherius of Liege’, and others,
of whom you may find a catalogue in a dissertation, which I have not yet
seen, written by Tentzel and published in the year 1687. So far then
as we can gather from the literary history it began to be first known in
the ninth century, and’to be then pressed under the name of St Atha-
nasius. Thus you may see how mistaken Voss was in attributing it, in
the first instance, to the thirteenth century, although, afterwards, over-
come by the arguments of learned men, he threw the date back to the
thousandth year after Christ.

“The enquiry now comes, Can any vestiges of it be found prior to
the ninth century? In answer to this, Usher of Armagh refers to a
Gallican Psalter in the Cotton Library, which he considers to be as old
as the time of Gregory the Great. And Antelmi in his disquisition
declares that there is preserved in the Colbertine Collection a most
ancient codex wherein the Creed is found, again without the name of
Athanasius, which codex he considers to be older than the Cottonian.
For my part (says Muratori) I could scarcely believe even a theologian
of the high character of Antelmi, when he maintained that the manu-
script had such antiquity, and I grieved beyond measure that I had not
myself seen the Disquisition of this divine; when, behold, the renowned
Bernard de Montfaucon himself relieved me of my anxiety. He visited
me at Milan, and, during my intercourse with him, he affirmed that the
two Manuscripts mentioned were written in the times of Charles the
Great, and that the antiquity could not possibly be assigned to them,
which Antelmi was disposed to give. But, in our Ambrosian Library, we
have a Manuscript of no less excellence, brought to us from the cele-
brated Library of Bobio; and here too you may find the Creed, intro-
duced however without any title. It is the same codex out of which 1
have extracted the Apology of Bachiarius (which he had printed on
pages 9 to 26 of this second volume)— a codex clearly of a most ancient
date, written a thousand years ago or more—as I have conjectured
(conjeci) in the prolegomena to Bachiarius and on page 16 of my earlier
tome. In the front of the book there is written, in another yet still
ancient hand, Jn this book the following things are contained: a Book of
‘the dogma of faith: the Faith of Bachiarius: Sermon on the Ascension
of the Lord: the Faith of Jerome: Confession of faith of Ambrose:
Jerume’s Rule of the Catholic faith: Book on the Trinity: Three books of
Ambrose on the Trinity: the same Father's book of faith. Yet, out of
these nine books, the five last are not found, and as the codex has never
been mutilated, they seem never to have been in it. The Book of the
Dogma is The Book on Ecclesiastical Dogmas which was once attributed
to Augustine but is now by all assigned to Gennadius of Marseilles.
On this (says Muratori) the reader may expect some notes in a little
tract I am about to commit to the press. After the Faith of Bachiarius
and the Symbol Quicunque’, follows (as the table of contents indicates) a
sermon on the Ascension, with fragments on the Trinity; I know not
who is the author. Then follows the Faith of Jerome—that which used

1 He introduced the Creed at Verona 2 The Symbol is not mentioned in the
after his return from Liege. See Water- table of contents.
land.

O45 We SERMONS AND BOOKS OF DEVOTION. 317

to be published among Jerome’s works under the name of Pope Dama-
sus.” The rest are, as I have mentioned, missing. Muratori then says
a few words on the Greek copies of the Creed, and prints the Quicunque
as he found it in his codex—a corrected copy of this I will give ere
long—and then he mentions that after the words salvus esse non poterit
with which our Creed concludes, these words immediately follow in the
same line: “ Lacta, mater, eum qui fecit te, qui talem fecit te, ut ipse
fieret in te. Lacta eum qui fructum fecunditatis tibi dedit conceptus,
et decus virginitatis non abstulit natus.”

Muratori regrets that he does not know the writer of the lines: if
he did, “they might lead him to make conjectures as to the writer of
the Creed.”

On this codex Muratori takes his stand. He maintains that it
must have been written before the time of Photius, and that the words
a Patre et Filio are genuine ; although both in the Book of Gennadius
and the so-called Confession of Damasus, the Holy Spirit is spoken of as
proceeding from the Father only.

Muratori has another essay on the Exposition of Fortunatus (of
which below), He thought that Venantius Fortunatus was the author
not only of the Comment but also of the Creed itself.

Thus, as will be seen, Muratori’s supports for his opinion that the
Creed (as he calls it) is earlier than the time of Charlemagne are (i) the
character of the writing of this manuscript from Bobio, and (ii) his
surmise that the Fortunatus whose name is introduced into the title of
the Exposition was Venantius Fortunatus. This last is mere surmise.
So we are reduced to the former; and as to it, Montfaucon’s opinion is
given in his Italian travels. He considered that it is a “Codex of the
eighth century, Lombardic character: in it are the Book of Gennadius,
the Faith of Bachiarius, the Creed of Athanasius, all in the same hand-
writing.”

1 saw the MS. at Milan in the month of August, 1872. Dr
Ceriani, the well-known librarian, to whom I would here express
my great obligations, assured me that he considered it to be of the
eighth century. Through the kindness of the Rev. D. M. Clerke,
Prebendary of Wells and Rector of Kingston Deverill, Wilts., I
have since received a photograph of three pages containing the
Quicunque’, and from it and my notes I would supplement and
correct the account given by Muratori. The manuscript is marked
O. 212. sup. The Quicunque follows closely upon a kind of
sermon, entitled by Muratori, Fides Bachiarti, which he printed
at length*, This “Faith,” properly speaking, commences on
page 14 of Muratori’s volume, and occupies about five pages. It
seems to me to be on the whole consentient with the Athanasian
Creed, except perhaps in regard to clauses 21, 22, 23, from which

1 A facsimile of the first page is given below.
2 Anecdota, τι. Ὁ. 8.

318 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

it differs seriously *; thus it is clear that it was not taken from the
Quicunque. The verbal similarities are very few*. This ends,
according to Muratori, with some remarks on the Resurrection of
the Dead, followed up by this:

‘“‘ Hic est nostrae fidei thesaurus quem signatum Ecclesiastico Symbolo,
quod in baptismo accepimus, custodimus. Sic coram Deo corde credi-
mus: sic coram hominibus labiis confitemur, ut et hominibus cognitio
sua fidem faciat, et Deo imago sua testimonium reddat.”

Thus once more we come upon a document entitled “a Faith,”
which expands, expounds, and enforces the Baptismal Creed.
According to the table of contents of this manuscript, as I have
given it above from Muratori, a sermon on the Ascension of our
Lord immediately follows on this Faith of Bachiarius. Thus the
maker of the table of contents regarded the two documents which
follow the Faith of Bachiarius, as part of that Faith itself. There
is no mark of division or separation between them. The first
appears to be a prayer founded upon the destruction of the
Egyptians; it closes thus, “Suffragia orationum tuarum ad ihm
Xpm. dnm. nostrum cui gloria in saecula saeculorum. finit. amen.
do gratias.” This fills up the line. The next line begins without
further introduction,

Quicunque uult esse saluus ante omnia opus est ut
teneat Catholicam fidem quam nisi quisq; inti-
gram inuiolatamque seruauerit absque dubio
in aeternum peribit. Fides autem Catholica hace est
ut unum deum in trinitate et trinitatem in unitate
ueneremur neque confundentes personas neque substanti-
am separantes. alia est enim persona patris alia per-
sona filii alia persona spiritus sancti sed patrvs et filii et spiritus
sanctt® una est diuinitas aequa-
lis gloria coaeterna majestas qualis pater talis
filius talis et spiritus sanctus increatus pater increatus filius
increatus spiritus sanctus Inmensus pater inmensus filius in-
mensus spiritus sanctus aeternus pater aeternus filius aeter-
nus spiritus sanctus et tamen non .111. aeterni sed unus aeter-

1 Muratori, ut sup. pp. 16, 17. cipiens minor.”

2 I have noted ‘Pater Deus, Filius 3 The words ‘sed patris et filii et
Deus, Spiritus Sanctus Deus, unus _ spiritus sancti,” have been added by an
Deus. Nec communicans major nec ac- _interlineation.

XxII.] SERMONS AND BOOKS OF DEVOTION. 319

nus sicut non tres increati nec tres inmensi sed unus increatus
et unus inmensus similiter omnipotens pater

omnipotens filius omnipotens spiritus sanctus et non tres omni-
potentes sed unus omnipotens ita deus pater

deus filius deus spiritus sanctus et tamen non .III. dil sed unus
deus ita dominus pater |

dominus filius dominus spiritus sanctus et tamen non .Π|. do-
mini sed unus dominus quia si-

cut singillatim unamquamque personam et deum et dominum
confiteri

christiana ueritate conpellimur ita tres deos aut dominos dicere

catholica religione prohibemur. pater a nullo est factus nec

creatus nec genitus fillus a patre solo est non factus nec cre-

atus sed genitus. spiritus sanctus a patre et filio non factus nec
creatus

nec genitus sed procedens patri et filio coaeternus est.

unus ergo pater non .II. patres unus filius non .Π|. filii unus

spiritus sanctus non III. spiritus sancti. et in hac trinitate nihil
prius aut pos-

terius nihil majus aut minus sed totae tres personae coaeter-

nae sibi sunt et coaequales ita ut per omnia sicut iam

supra dictum est et trinitas in unitate et unitas in trinita-

te ueneranda sit qui uult ergo saluus esse ita de trinitate

sentiat. sed necessarium est ad aeternam salutem ut

incarnationem quoque domini nostri ihesu christi fideliter credat
est ergo

fides recta ut credamus et confiteamur quia dominus noster ihesus
christus

dei filus et deus pariter et homo est deus est ex substantia pa-

tris ante saecula genitus* homo est ex substantia matris in saeculo
natus per-

fectus deus perfectus homo ex anima rationabili et humana

carne subsistens aequalis patri secundum diuinitatem minor

patre secundum humanitatem qui licet deus sit et homo non

duo tamen sed unus est christus unus autem non conuersione diui-

nitatis in carne sed adsumptione humanitatis in deo unus omni-

no non confusione substantiae sed unitate personae nam

1 The words ‘‘ante secula genitus,” the line in the Colbertine manuscript
have been added more lately in the was erased and rewritten to enable the
margin. It will be remembered that same words to be introduced,

320 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

sicut anima rationabilis et caro unus est homo ita deus et homo

unus est christus qui passus est pro salute nostra discendit ad in-

feros surrexit a mortuis ascendit ad caelos sedit ad dexteram

dei patris inde uenturus judicare uiuos ac mortuos. ad cujus aduen-
tum omnes homines resurgere habent cum corporibus

suis et reddituri sunt

de factis propriis rationem. Et qui bona egerunt ibunt in uitam
aeternam qui mala in ignem aeternum. MHaec est fides
catholica

quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque crediderit saluus esse non
pote-

rit. Lacta mater eum qui fecit te quia talem fecit te ut ipse fieret

in te. Lacta eum qui fructum fecunditatis tibi dedit conceptus

et decus uirginitatis non abstulit natus. incipit de ascensione

dni nri ihu xpi sermo dicendus.

I must remark that in my photograph sicut non tres increati, &c.
is scarcely legible; and I am uncertain whether Dez is to be read
in our 39th clause.

In our clause 6, Sed patris et fil et sprritus sanctt has been
interlined with a different hand, and the words ante secula genitus
have been added in the margin to clause 31. The word in clause
34 had been conversatione, but the letters at have been erased.

My notes taken at Milan indicated that in clause 12 the two
phrases are inverted; thus wnus inmensus et unus increatus ; but
my photograph is too obscure here to decide whether I was correct
in this point.

THERE IS MUCH of curious interest in this copy of the Qui-
cunque.

first: I must draw attention to its peculiar position. It is
preceded by what may be, and probably is, a prayer to the Virgin,
at the end of a sermon; and it is followed even in the same line
by an undoubted apostrophe to the Virgin, and then by a sermon
on the Ascension of our Lord. Thus it appears amongst a collec-
tion of sermons or discourses on the Faith.

Secondly : The Latin is accurate throughout. This seems to me
to indicate that if the manuscript is of the eighth century, it was
written after the revival of learning under Charles the Great.

Thirdly: Alcuin is known to have collected and reduced to
order some two hundred homilies of Augustine, Chrysostom, Leo,

XXII. | SERMONS AND BOOKS OF DEVOTION. 321

Bede and others, with the intention that these homilies, so ar-
ranged, should be read in the Churches. It is not improbable
that we owe to him many of the sermons now in the appendix to
Augustine’s works: and it is known that a sermon composed by
him on the Presentation in the Temple was, before many years
had expired, ascribed to St Ambrose: and so it is entitled in “a
very old manuscript” in the Colbertine Library’.

Fourthly; And the following passage, occurring in a letter
written by Alcuin, and printed by Baluzius, reminded me of the
apostrophe, Lacta Mater eum. “If it were possible for the blessed
Virgin to give birth to a Son of her own, which Son was from
eternity the Son of God, how was it impossible for God the
Father to have as His own Son a Man who was in time (ez
tempore) born of the Virgin’?”’ I fancy I see here a fondness for
antitheses, and, in the end of the letter, antitheses like this appear
in greater numbers. Thus I am led to connect the Bobio manu-
script before us with Alcuin. For |

Fifthly ; 1 am disposed to think that both here and in the
Treves original of the Colbertine manuscript, the reading was
distinctly this: Deus est ex substantia Patris, homo est ex sub-
stantia Matris in seeculo natus, “ He is God of the substance of His
Father, He is Man of the substance of His Mother, born in the
world :” 1.6. “He that is born in the world is God and Man.”
The addition, ante sewcula genitus, seems to have been made by
some one who, in his love for antithesis, lost sight of the original
meaning.

Lastly: I would draw attention to the fact that Montfaucon
and Waterland have followed Muratori’s reading prohibemus in
clause 19; the word is, distinctly, prohibemur. Yet, as we shall
see, some of the Greek copies have κωλύομεν. And the copy of
the interpolated Greek Creed, printed by Usher from a manu-
script which belonged to Patrick Junius, has παντελῶς ἀπαγορεύ-
ομεν, “ we absolutely prohibit.”

IT will only add that we learn from Montfaucon’s Diariwm
Italicum, p. 18, that the great Benedictine saw the manuscript
on his way southwards, on July 3, 1698—the visit, no doubt,
recorded by Muratori. He tells us that he was not disposed to
assign to it a date so early as was the Milanese librarian. He put

' Baluzii Miscellanea, Preface. 2 Pod: VOL, 1. Pp BT Gee.
S.C; ma

322 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

it no higher than the eighth century’. The manuscript consists of
only 18 folios. It measures ten inches by seven and a half. The
parchment is thick and dark and the ink faint, and thus the photo-
graph does not appear to be very successful. The manuscript
concludes “Hieronymi incipit fides,’—the formula which I have
printed above®. Unfortunately I did not note whether it reads
de Patre Filioque procedentem with the ordinary copies, or de
Patre procedentem as in the copy contained in the introduction to
“ Charlemagne’s Psalter.”

§ 2. Collections approaching more or less to the character of
this manuscript at Milan are numerous, but I have heard only of
one which contains the Quicunque, and that is of a late date.
Thus the Surtees Society published in 1840 a transcript of An
Anglo-Saxon Ritual. It contained (p. 166) an account of the
“Capitula” read at prime; the Pater noster ; the antiphon Vivit
anima mea et, &c.; Erravi sicut ovis que perit, &e., and the Credo;
concluding with the words Carnis resurrectionem in vitam eternam.
But there is no Quicunque.

§ 3. The Book of Deer has attracted our attention already.
Perhaps it is scarcely right to lay much stress upon this volume,
because it contains very little of ritual. It has, however, a service
for the Visitation of the Sick. But there is no Quicunque ὃ

§ 4. I have described in Chapter xiv." a very interesting
manuscript in the British Museum, of the eighth century, 2 A. xx.,
and given a copy of the ΕἾΡΕΒ CATHOLICA therein contained.
That version must have anticipated the “ Fides Catholica” of the
ninth century. There is no Quicunque in this volume.

§ 5. At Vienna there are several manuscripts which are of
interest to us in this part of our investigation. I will take one
numbered 1032. There is some account of it in Denis, I.
CCLXIX. p. 964; and I am indebted to Dr Joseph Haupt for a
transcript of several pages from it, the accuracy of which (if there
were need for such corroboration) I could voueh for, from a per-
sonal comparison.

1 Yet Waterland (Chapter iv.) ‘to 2 Appendix to Chapter xx.
make a round number” is ‘‘ content to 3 See above, p. 165. Professor West-
place it” in the year 700! Montfaucon wood gives some facsimiles. Minia-

repeats his opinion in his famous Dia- tures, p. 91.
tribe. 4p. 161.

XXII, | SERMONS AND BOOKS OF DEVOTION. Ξλλ δ:

There is a picture of St Isidore at the commencement of the book.
The writing is in Caroline minuscules; the contents are divided into two
books. The first piece professes to be a work on the Catholic Faith
written by Isidore for Florentina, his sister. It consists of 62 chapters,
of which the subjects of the first three are:

Quia Christus a Deo Patre genitus est ;
Quia Christus ante saecula inefabiliter a Patre genitus est ;
Quia Christus Deus et Dominus est’ ;

the fifth is De Trinitatis Significantia ; and so on.

Chapter LXI. is on the return of Christ to judgment. The
Second Book consists of twenty-seven chapters. The object of
Chap. I. is to shew that all nations are called to the worship of
God; of Chap. v. that the Jews will believe in the end of the
world; of Chap. xxi. that through the sign of the Cross
believers are saved. After a while explicit feliciter. dod gratvas.
amen. Then INCIPIT DEINDE CATHOLICA ATHANASI’.

It proceeds (I copy the errors) :

“Haec est fides catholicam quam exposuerunt patres nostri, | Pri-
mum quidem aduersus arrium blasphemantem et dicentem. | creatu-
ram esse filium dei, et aduersus omnem haeresim. Quicunque | exsur-
rexerit contra catholicam et apostolicam fidem quos etiam dam | nauerunt
in ciuitatem nicea congregati episcopi ccc.x.vur. Credi | mus in
unum deo omnipotentem. omnium uisibilium et inuisibilium | facto-
rem &.” The true Nicene Creed follows. Thus we have ‘et in spiritu
sancto eos qui dicunt. rat quando non erat, &c.,” with the anathe-
matism. Then in the same line with “ apostolica ecclesia,” nos pa | trem
et filium et spiritum sanctum unum deum confitemur. Ita in trini-
tatem | perfecta et plenitudo diuinitatis sit et unitas potestatis nam
tres | deos dicit. qui diuinitatem separat trinitas pater deus et filius
deus | et spiritus sanctus deus et tres unum sunt. Tres itaque per-
sonae sed una potestas | Ergo diuersitas pluris facit. unitas potestatis.
Excludit numeri | quantitate. Quia unitas numerus non est. Sic ita-
que unus deus unum | fides unum baptisma. Qui catholicam non tenit
fidem alienus | est profanus*est aduersus ueritatem rebellus est. | Qui-
cumgue uult saluus esse ante omnia opus est ὅσο.

The Athanasian Creed follows. The few mark-worthy readings
I will note on a future page. This ends on folio 85 thus:

Haec est fides catholica | quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque
crediderit saluus esse | non poterit. Quicunque uult saluus esse ante

1 It will be remembered that we find is a mistake of the scribe for fide. It
Deum et Dominum nostruminthe Spanish would thus run:
Creeds. Incipit de fide catholica Athanasi.

2 Denis and others suggest that inde I prefer to take it as we find it.

21—2

324 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.
omnia opus est ut teneat catholicam fidem. | Fides dicitur credulitas 10]

credentia catholicam | universalem quia catholicam universalis dicitur.”

The beginning of the comment of “Fortunatus.” Of this below.
We should note, however, the use of the words in 1 John v., tres
unum sunt, and compare the Faith on page 273.

The exposition of “Fortunatus” ends with “compellimur” on
86a. Turning over the leaf we find that the subject is entirely
changed: the volume commences to treat on the difference between
the historic and spiritual interpretations of Scripture’.

§ 6. Frem another manuscript at Vienna 1 have drawn some
very interesting information, and to it I must now refer at length.
It is numbered 1261, and is a Spanish manuscript of the twelfth
century. It belonged once to Don Redriguo,

“ΒΥ the grace of God (King?) of Castille, Toledo, Leon, Galicia,
Seville, Cordova, Murcia, &e.” It is about eleven inches and a half long,
by 73 broad, and contains only 24 folia. Its first article is entitled in a
contemporaneous hand 8. AUGUSTINI DE DECEM CHORDIS. (See Gaume’s
edition v. Ὁ. 18, and Denis 1. eccxxvii. p. 719.) It is in two columns.
On folio 16 verso col. b at the end of a passage said to be from Augus-
tine’s sermon “quales debent esse Christiani,” ending thus ‘nobis
concedat vdbiscum implere qued predicamus adjuvante domino nostro
ihesu Christo cui est honor et imperium in secula seculorum,” there
follows a title “De eodem Augustino digna. Rogo vos fratres charis-
simi ut adtentius cogitemus quare Christiani sumus et crucem Christi
in fronte portamus. Scire enim debemus quia non nobis sutticiat quod
nomen Christianum accepimus si opera Christi non fecerimus sicut
ipse’”—words which to some extent resemble a passage in the Appendix
to Augustine’s works (vol. v. cclxvi. p. 3050, 3051 of Gaume*). Then
on fol. 17 recto col. a we have

“De fide catholica.

‘“‘Patres venerabiles cari fratres filii dei aliquid uobis uolumus me-
morare de his que nunquam uobis obliuisci oportet, uidelicet quomodo
credere debeatis et uiuere et si quis peccat quomodo possit recuperare.
Tria sunt hee. audite de primo. Fides catholica hec est ut unum deum
in Trinitate et Trinitatem m unitate ueneremur.

“Multi sunt qui non possunt hoe intelligere nisi per quasdam quasi
similitudines inducantur.”

I will give this part in the appendix to this chapter.

11 will give the chapter from Isidore
that explains the article on the descent
into hell. ‘In infernum descendit.

propiavit. Estimatus sum cum descen-
dentibus in lacum. Factus sum sicut
homo sine adjutorio inter mortuos liber.

Sic idem dominus in ecclesiastico dicit
Penetrabo omnes inferiores partes terre
et inspiciam omnes dormientes et inlu-
minabo omnes sperantes in dominum.
Item in psalmis Vita mea in inferno ad-

Descendit enim sicut homo in infernum
sed solus inter mortuos liber fuit, quia
mors illum tenere non potuit.”

2 These are clearly of the Charle-
magne type.

ΧΧΗ ἢ SERMONS AND BOOKS OF DEVOTION. 329

Then, in the middle of the column b, we have

“De duodecim abusionibus.

“Duodecim abusiua sunt seculi. Hoe est sapiens sine operibus,
senex sine religione, adolescens sine obedientia, diues sine eleemosyna,
femina sine pudicitia, dominus sine ueritate et uirtute. Christianus
contentiosus. Pauper superbus. Rex iniquus. LEpiscopus negligens.
Plebs sine disciplina. Populus sine lege. Suffocator justitie. Haec
sunt duodecim abusiua seculi per que seculi rota &e. &.’.”

Each of these is expanded. The tenth is “ Decimus abusionis gra-
dus est epus negligens. qui gradus sui honorem inter homines requirit,
sed ministerii sui dignitatem coram deo, pro quo legatione fungitur,
non custodit. Epus enim grecum est et latine speculator dicitur. Epus
sit sobrius prudens castus sapiens modestus hospitalis filios habens sub-
ditos cum omni castitate.”

The whole concludes :

“Non faciamus ergo sine Christo quicquam in hoc tempore transi-
torio ne sine nobis Christus esse incipiat in futuro, (Then immediately)

“* De Catholica fide.

“ Quicunque uult saluus esse ante omnia opus est ut teneat catholicam
fidem. uam nisi quisque integram inuiolatamque seruauerit absque
dubio in eternum peribit. Fides autem catholica hec est ut unum deum
in trinitate et trinitatem in unitate ueneremur. neque confundantes
personas neque substantiam separantes. alia est enim persona patris
alia filii alia spiritus sancti. sed patris et filil et spiritus sancti una est
diuinitas equalis gloria coeterna majestas. Qui in hac trinitate nichil
prius aut posterius nichil maius aut minus sed tote tres persone coeterne
sibi sunt et coequales. Quicunque ergo cupit saluus esse et catholicus hec
teneat et credat et uita uiuet. Sed tamen post hec si ad celeste regnum
desiderat. peruenire et. eterna bona concupiscere contra diaboli insi-
dias quotidie necesse est certare, paullo apostolo dicente Per multas
tribulationes et temptationes oportet nos intrare in regnum celorum,

“¢Quia non sunt condigne passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam
quae reuelabitur in nobis. Quamdiu ergo fuerimus in hac uita fratres
contra demonium aduersitates reluctandum est nobis.

“'Tribulatio enim in hoc mundo parui temporis est ad comparationem
celestium premiorum sine fine manentium. Curramus ergo dum tempus
habemus operemur bonum ad omnes et bonum faeiendo non deficiamus.”

The remainder of the sermon is so interesting that I will give
a translation of it in my Appendix.

The sermon ends on the first column of fol. 20 verso. On the
second column begins “ Augustinus de decimis servatoribus eccle-
siz reddendis.” (On this I have a memorandum that Binius
thought it was written by Udalric, who died a.p. 973.) Then
fol. 21 verso, col. Ὁ, “ammonitio sacerdotum et conuentus,” which
I think is the document printed by Labbe, 1x. 803. I have

1 The completion of this sentence as given below.
may be seen in Augustine or Cyprian,

326 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

spoken of this on an earlier page. It would certainly appear
from this manuscript, that the Quicunque, whether in its complete
or incomplete form, was regarded as a Sermon or Exposition rather
than a Profession of Faith. I must resist, however, the temptation
to discuss this at present.

But I must mention that a treatise De Duodecim Abusioni-
bus was written by Hinemar, who, as we have seen’, was Bishop of
Rheims in the middle of the ninth century. We are expressly
told this by his biographer Flodoard. Yet a tract under this title
has come down to us, ascribed to St Augustine (see Vol. γι. Ap-
pendix, p. 1570, Gaume); and the same work is attributed in other
manuscripts to Cyprian, and is published amongst the spurious
writings by Hartel. A St Gall manuscript of the ninth century
so assigns it. The surmise arises, whether Hincmar fathered this
work of his on Augustine. The copy in Vienna, 1261, which we
have been now discussing, is of a much briefer form than that
printed among St Augustine’s works.

§ 7. I do not know whether the Creed which 1 now produce
has ever been printed. It follows on the second of the Creeds
attributed to Damasus (Hahn, p. 188), in an early manuscript
written in Anglo-Saxon letters. The manuscript is numbered
2223 of the Vienna library, folio 77. The manuscript is considered
to be of the ninth or tenth century. J am indebted again for my
copy to Dr Jos. Haupt.

Unus deus pater verbi uiuentis sapientiae subsis
tentis et uirtutis sue figure perfectus

perfecti genitor pater filii unigeniti unus dominus
solus ex solo deo figura et imago deitatis

uerbum perpetrans sapientia conprehendens

omnia et uirtus qua tota creatura fieri

potuit filius uerus ex ueri et inuisibilis ex in
uisibili et incorruptibilis ex incorruptibili

et inmortalis ex inmortali et sempiternus

ex sempiterno unus spiritus sanctus ex deo substantiam
habens et qui per filium aparuit imago filii perfecta
uuiuentium causa sanctitas sanctificationis presta
trix per quem deus super omnia et in omnibus
cognoscitur et filius per omnis trinitas et per

facta maiestate et sempiternitate et regno

f. 77 verso,
minime dividetur neque abalienatur neque factum
quid aut serui eis in trinitate neque super inductum

1 Page 302,

Xxil. | SERMONS AND BOOKS OF DEVOTION. 327

tanquam ante ac quidem non subsistens postea

uero super ingressum neque itaque defuit

umquam filius patris neque filio spiritus sanctus sed in
conuertibilis et inmutabilis eadem trinitas

semper amen,

§ 8. Through the forethought and attention of Dr Ceriani
I was permitted to see another manuscript at Milan, the interest
of which was to me very great. The press mark is 1. 101. sup.
It also came from Bobio, and is of the seventh or eighth century.
Its dimensions are 10} by 52, and it contains 75 folios. The
parchment is thick and coarse.

The early portion of this volume is said to contain writings of St
Chrysostom (some say St Eucherius). The latter folia contain a series
of Creeds.

Fol. 73 verso has on it
“Tncipit Fides Sci. Ambrosii episcopi.
Nos Patrem et Filium et Sanetum Spiritum,” ὅσ.

about six lines in length. Probably the same that I have presented
above, p. 273.

Fol. 74 recto has
“Fides Catholica

Credimus unum Deum,” &c.

This (if my memoranda are correct) runs without any distinguishing
mark into the same Faith which I have given, p. 273: for it closes
on folio 75 reeto “quia catholicam non tenet fidem alienus est adversus
veritatem rebellis.”

Then follows “Incipit fides Luciferi episcopi. Nos patrem credimus
qui non sit filius sed...”

This occupies eleven lines. Then

“Tncipit fides que ex Niceno concilio processit. Credimus unum
deum.”

The true Nicene Creed. Then, a fourth, or fifth, or sixth Faith, at-
tributed to Athanasius.

“Tneipit fides beati Athanasil.

Fides unius substantiae trinitatis patris et 8111 et spiritus
sancti sine inicto tempurum super sensum et sermonem
et spl. una virtus unus deus. trea uero uocabula
nascitur de uirgine maria accipiens corpus anima

le sed ipse sensum precellens dei verbum non com
prehensus a carne sermo sed in carne et super car

nem sic ut deus prescius. dei uirtus dei ueritas passus
autem humana sermo dei impassibilis est. In passione
quidem moritur ut uiuificaret protoplaustum

328 THE CREEDS

qui ceciderat per inobedientiam.

OF THE CHURCH.

[ CHAP.

O homo deitate

queerens uitupero te. si credis benefacis. si autem

dicis quomodo pater de lumine excidisti et si dixeris
quomodo filius similiter excidisti de lumine nemo
enim nouit patrem nisi filius neque filium nisi pater
qui tré uirtutes inducit tres deus confitetur

nos autem credimus tres personas unam uero uir
tutem unam deitatem quando autem nominaueris
patrem glorificas filium et quando nominaueris filium
adoras patrem. si terum una personam trinitatis
dicimus iudei nomen portamus qui iudei unam
personam dicunt et unum dominum confitentur. si
tres deos inducimus similes sumus gentibus sed
confitemur patrem in filio et filum in patre cum
spiritu sancto non separatur non diuiditur deitas deus
enim de deo uirtus de uirtute lumen de lumine veritas
de ueritate testis non est non coelum non terra.

Here the book ends.

It will be noted that it does not contain the Quicunque.

§ 9. The Ambrosian Library possesses another most interesting
volume: I mean the Bangor Antiphonary to which F have referred
before. It was regarded by Muratori as 1000 years old; if so, it is

nearly 1200 years old now.

siculi familize Benchuir,” which give it its well-known title.

class mark is C. 5. inf.

Towards the end we find in it “ ver-

Its

It consists, at present, of 36 leaves: and contains a collection of

canticles, hymns and prayers’.

1 The first is the canticle, Audite cali
que loquor (Deut. xxxii.). Then come
some hymns. ‘‘ Hymnum sancti Hilarii
de Christo. Hymnum dicit turba fide-
lium.”

Then according to Muratori, ‘‘ Hym-
num apostolorum.” It begins:

“ὁ Precamur Patrem
Regem omnipotentem
Et Jesum Christum
Sanctum quogue Spiritum. Alleluia.
Deum in una π
Perfectum substantia

bs >

(The manuscript fails, but the hymn is
again taken up.) On folio 6* (according
to my notes) appears

‘*Canticum sancti Zacharie.

** Benedictus, &c.”’

This is followed on folio 7 by the Can-

temus domino: and on folio 8*, by the
‘* Benedictio puerorum. Benedicite om-
nia opera;’’ and on folio 10 by “ Ymnus
in die dominico,

Laudate pueri dominum | laudate no-
men | Domini. Te Deum laudamus”
(a peculiar version of the Te Deum).

This is followed by a ‘*‘ Hymnum
quando communicarent sacerdotes,

‘* Sancti venite
Christi corpus sumite
Sanctum bibentes
Quo redempti sanguinem.”

Then ‘‘hymnum quando ceria bene-
dicitur. Ignis Creator igneus.

‘‘Hymnus mediw noctis.
noctis tempus est.

‘*Hymnum in natali martyrum vel
sabbato ad matutinam. Sacratissimi
martyres summt Det.

Media

SERMONS AND BOOKS OF DEVOTION. 329

KIL |

But, according to my memoranda, on fol. 35 there are these two
prayers which, as they are not mentioned by Muratori, I will here
transcribe.

“Te patrem adoramus eternum. te sempiternum filium inuocamus
teque spiritum sanctum in una diuinitatis substantia manentem confite-
mur. tibi uni deo in trinitate debitas laudes et gratias referemus ut te
incessabili uoce laudare mereamur per eterna secula seculorum.”

On folio 35 verso the same invocation is repeated up to the word
confitemur. It then proceeds,

“tibi trinitas laudes et gratias

referemus tibi uni deo

incessabilem dicimus

laudem te patrem

ingenitum te filium unigenitum

te spiritum sanctum a patre

procedentem corde credimus

tibi inestimabili incompre

hensibili omnipotens

deus qui regnas in eternum.”

After the words a patre, but beyond the line, σέ filio has been
subsequently added. Sic: te spin sanctum a patre et filio
procedentem,

This antiphonary contains in all four canticles, a Creed, and these
invocations to the Trinity. But it does not contain the Quicunque’.

§ 10. One manuscript containing the Quicunque, which was
collated by Montfaucon, appears to have been of a character that
would assign it to this chapter: but it is unhappily lost at present,
although it is possible that, like others of the treasures of the
library of St Germain des Prés at Paris, it may be found in the
Imperial Library at St Petersburg. Montfaucon (Diatribe, p. 654;
Migne, XXVIII. 1571) considered it at least of the age of the

‘*Hymnum ad matutinam in Domi-

This is followed by two other hymns
nica.

in which an alphabetical arrangement
is kept up: and then come some short
collects (some of them rhythmical), for
the various hours of the day. On folio
19 is the Creed which I have printed
above, p. 167. Then the Lord’s Prayer.
Several interesting intercessory prayers
follow, and seven or eight series of col-

Spiritus divine Lumen de Lumine

Lucis glorie Referemus Filium Pa-

Respice in me tris

Domine. Sanctumque Spiritum

ane in una substantia.
Respice.

‘‘Hymnum sancte Patricii magistri
Scotorum.”

This is a hymn of 24 stanzas, of eight
lines each. They begin with the suc-
cessive letters of the alphabet. (Mura-
tori spoils this by writing Christus for
Xps, and Hymnos for Ymnos in stanzas
22 and 23.)

lects to be used after the various can-
ticles, and, towards the end, a few short
prayers on communicating. These look
like fragments sewn together.

1 It will be seen that I have supple-
mented Muratori’s account by my own
memoranda: see his Anecdota, Tom. rv.
p. 127, or Migne, Luxx,

330 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

Colbertine, 784 (the Paris, 3836), ὦ. 6. a little earlier than the time
of Charlemagne. It was called by Mabillon “Codex Corbeiensis,”
and three lines of it were given by him in facsimile in his great
book, De Re Diplomatica, p. 351. We learn from Mabillon that
this volume contained Isidori de Officiis libros cum multis aliis,
and from his facsimile that the Quicunque was not divided into
verses.

§11. Another copy, or rather a fragment of another copy, is
yet to be seen at Paris at the end of a Latin translation of
Eusebius’ Chronicon. This is “ Regius 4908” (now 4858) of Mont-
faucon, who considered it to be nearly 900 years old, z.e. to have
been written about the year 800. The Quicunque has no title
nor author’s name. The Chronicon ends on the folio 108 verso,
with Olympiad CcLXXXVUI., and these words, “ Ambrosio episcopo
constituto ad fidem rectam italia convertitur.” Folio 109 com-
mences with something relating to Aquileia—followed in the
nineteenth line by “ CCLXXxviulI. Olympias.” Then some reckon-
ing up of dates, concluding with a memorandum that from the
time of Adam to the thirteenth year of Valens were V.DLXXVIUI
years. Then follows (the words are partly illegible),

rie eisque hieronymus presbyter ordinum
Beers tum decedit annorum

(uicunque uult saluus esse an

te omnia opus é ut teneat catho

licam fidem quam nisi quisque

integram inuiolatamque seruauerit in ae
ternum peribit. fides autem catholica

το, &e. &e.

The first two lines of the Quicunque are in large (rustic ?)
capitals; the second three in small uncials, the rest in Caroline
minuscules, but the page ends with the words non tres aeternt—
and the next page and the rest of the volume have been torn off.
It was in the same condition in the time of Montfaucon.

We should note the omission of sine dubio. <A collation of
this manuscript was made by Mr A. A. Vansittart of Trinity
College, Cambridge, who kindly placed his copy in my hands.

§ 12. I may mention that the curious manuscript Ll. 1. 10 of
the Cambridge University Library (an Anglo-Saxon book of the

29.6 9 0 SERMONS AND BOOKS OF DEVOTION. 331

eighth century, containing several morning hymns and prayers,
including the Laudatio Dei; Te Deum Laudamus)—does not in-
clude the Quicunque. This volume is known under the title
“ Book of Cerne” or “Book of Ethelwald.’ Amongst its contents
is a curious dialogue between our Saviour and Adam and Eve.

§ 13. There are two other volumes resembling each other,
though different from any I have yet touched upon, which I am
anxious to bring before my readers. They are Irish collections of
hymns. The one is well known as the Book of Hymns of the
ancient Church of Ireland, which belonged once to the great
Usher. It was being most carefully and most learnedly edited for
the “Irish Archeological and Celtic Society,” by the late Dr
James Henthorn Todd, when that lamented divine was removed
from his earthly labours. The other is a volume of a similar
character, the curious history of which I will give below. Many
of the contents of the two volumes are identically the same; and
some of them are also found in the Bangor Antiphonary.

Of the Canticles, with which we shall soon have occasion to
associate the Quicunque, both volumes contain the Magnificat,
the Benedictus, and the Te Deum under the title Laudate puert
Donmanum. They both contain the Gloria in excelsis, not in its
ordinary Latin form, but as a translation of the Greek Morning
Hymn’. The Usher manuscript does not contain either the
Benedicite or the Cantemus Domino or the Quicunque.

§ 14. The other manuscript contains these two canticles and
two other hymns, beginning Christe qui lux es and Christe Patris
wn dextera ; and the Quicunque concludes the volume.

The theological world is indebted to the Rev. W. Reeves, D.D.,
of Armagh, for a most interesting account of this manuscript,
which that learned scholar contributed as an appendix to a sermon
on the Athanasian Creed, published in May, 1872, by Archdeacon
Wilham Lee, D.D., Archbishop King’s Lecturer in Divinity at
Trinity College, Dublin. The manuscript was referred to by
Archbishop Usher in the momentous treatise on the Roman
Symbol in which he spoke of the Cottonian Psalter; and, curiously
enough, it, like the Cottonian Psalter, has been removed from the
sight of British archeologists for many generations. It migrated

1 This is worthy of remark with reference to the origin of the Irish Church.

332 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [CHAP.

from the old Franciscan convent of Donegal to Louvain, and from
Louvain to the convent of St Isidore at Rome: in the spring of
1872 it was removed, with the other manuscripts belonging to
that house, to the Franciscan Church on Merchants’ Quay, Dublin.
There Dr Reeves examined it, and thence he sent his memoranda
to Archdeacon Lee. And he has most kindly made and forwarded
to me a transcript of the Creed, which I shall use hereafter.

The manuscript is considered to be of a hand not later than the year

1100.

The interest of the copy of the Quicunque is, however, increased by
the introduction, partly in Irish, partly in Latin, prefixed to it. This
gives the opinion of the collector of the series as to the origin of the
Quicunque. J append Dr Reeves’ translation of this curious introduc-
tion, retaining the Latin.

“The Synod of Nece that made the Faith Catholic and three Bishops
of them only that made it that is Eusebius and Dionysius and nomen
tertii nescimus. But it is said that the whole Synod made it for it
was it that published it. In Neeea vero urbe it was made. And in
Bithinia is that city that is a territory in Little Asia. Now to expel
the error of Arius it was made for it was his belief that the Father is
greater quam Filius and that the Filius is greater quam Spiritus Sanctus.
The Synod therefore was assembled by Constantine at Necea, namely
three hundred and eighteen bishops, and they were not able to over-
come him because of his eloquence, but God overcame him.”

And the tradition as to Arius’ death is added.
I must hereafter return to this copy. I will merely now say
that it furnishes an interesting conclusion to our chapter.

Our summary is this, that there are several collections of hymns
and prayers and other formule earlier than the middle of the eighth
century, but of these not one contains the Quicunque. That at
some as yet undetermined period after the middle of that century,
the Quicunque begins to appear, but in a form, which though slightly
different from the received form, is yet sufficient to shew that it was
not yet accepted for public service. And, when at last it appeared
in Ireland, it appeared with the legend connected with it that it
had been composed at the Council of Nica by Eusebius, Diony-
sius, and a third whose name was unknown.

The statement is interesting and important, and I do not
think that it should be merely dismissed with this contemptuous
language of Waterland, “the author of that book of hymns must
have been very ignorant not to know Athanasius, who was

XXII. | SERMONS AND BOOKS OF DEVOTION. Dos

undoubtedly the third man, and for whose sake the whole story
seems to have been conceived.” The legend belongs to some time
and place at which the name of Athanasius was displaced from
the Creed and an attempt made to represent the Nicene Council
as responsible for its production; as we find it in the Great Bible
at Venice, and in the illustration contained in the Utrecht
Psalter.

Thus the Quicunque was not known in Ireland when Arch-
bishop Usher’s “Collection of Hymns” was made: it was known
there, with this strange legend, when the Franciscan series was
compiled.

334 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. | CHAP.

APPENDIX.

The following passages from the Manuscript 1261 of the Imperial
Library at Vienna have such a peculiar character about them, that I am
sure they will prove interesting to many of my readers even where not
directly relevant to the Athanasian Creed. I begin with the first column
of folio 17 recto. I retain the paragraphs of the original.

‘Of the Catholic Faith.

“Venerable Fathers, dear brothers, children of God, we wish to
speak to you of things which ye ought never to forget, namely how ye
ought to believe, and to live, and, if a man sins, how he may recover
himself. These are three points, listen as to the first. The Catholic
Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity.

“There are many who cannot understand this unless they are led to
it, as it were, by some similitudes; wherefore let us say something of this
kind. In the Sun there are three things naturally ; its sphere, its ight,
its heat. The sphere of the Sun is naturally brilliant and heating. The
Supreme Father is naturally wise and loving. The sphere of the Sun and
its splendour and its heat are not three Suns, but one Sun. The su-
preme Father, and His Wisdom and His Love, are not three Gods but
one God. The Wisdom of God is the Son of God; the Holy Spirit is
the Love of God.

“Thus the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is one God.
This God before the ages, and now, and ever, has made all things, visible
and invisible. But the question is put, Did God the Father wish His
Son, that is, His Wisdom, to be made man? Let us answer as briefly as
we can. This was done for the purpose of redeeming man, because by
his own fault he had perished, and by himself he could not be recovered.
For before man fell, he was prudent and immortal and free of will, but
such was the subtlety of the devil as to seduce him and render him un-
wise, mortal and frail.

“How then could he, when rendered foolish and frail and mortal,
overcome the devil and recover of himself what he had lost, and what,
even when strong, he had not kept for himself? He could not in any
way. Still it was impossible for that to remain unfulfilled which the
Omnipotent desired.”

Here there follows in the Manuscript the treatise on the twelve
abuses of which I have spoken in my text. It occupies from the second
column of folio 17 recto, to the second column of folio 19 recto. Then
we have the following.

“On the Catholic Faith.

‘Whosoever would be saved, before all things it is necessary that
he hold the Catholic Faith, which Faith except a man keep whole and
undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catho-
lic Faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in
Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the substance.

‘‘ For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, another
of the Holy Ghost; but the Divinity of the Father and the Son and
the Holy Ghost is one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.

XXxIr. | SERMONS AND BOOKS OF DEVOTION. 339

“Because in this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing
greater or less, but the whole Three Persons are co-eternal together,
and co-equal. Whosoever therefore desires (cupit) to be safe and to be
catholic, let him hold and believe this and he shall live. Yet still,
after this, if he desires to reach the kingdom of heaven and to at-
tain eternal good, it is necessary that he should daily struggle against
the snares of the devil; for Paul the Apostle said, We must through
many tribulations and temptations enter into the kingdom of heaven.

“For the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be com-
pared to the glory that shall be revealed in us. Therefore, brethren, as
long as we are in this life, we must strive against the attacks of the
demons.

‘For our tribulation in this world is but of a short time, when com-
pared with the heavenly reward which shall endure for ever. Let us
run then whilst we have time; let us do good to all; let us not fail in
living well.

“Τοῦ us consider therefore in our minds, that even though death
may not be at hand, old age is continually drawing nigh. Years slip
by ; time flows on; all we see is temporal and has an end. Wherefore,
beloved, whether we wish it or not, we are hourly hastening on to the
last day. Sinners therefore ought to consider what excuse they will be
able to make when they stand, on the day of judgment, before the
tribunal of the Lord, and He, seated on the throne of His Majesty,
begins to call upon them to give an account of their lives.

“Then He shall begin to accuse the guilty, saying unto them; I
formed and made thee with My own hands out of the clay of the earth.

“(1 vouchsafed to confer on thee Our own image and likeness.

“1 placed thee amongst the delights of Paradise, but thou didst
choose rather to despise My life-giving commands and follow another
than the Lord, Yet still, in My mercy, I redeemed thee with My own
blood; I drank vinegar with gall; 1 underwent My death upon the
cross, in order that I might give thee celestial glory, and that thou
mightest live for ever with Me. And thou, what hast thou done to
this ?

‘‘ Then shall they answer Him, saying ; We do not know Thee, Lord ;
we have not seen the Prophets ; Thou didst not send the Law into the
world ; Thou didst not give Patriarchs we have not seen the examples
of the holy Prophets ; Peter was silent to us; Paul would not preach to
us; the Evangelists did not teach us; there were no martyrs whose
examples we should follow ; Thy future judgments no one proclaimed to
us; in our want of knowledge we have fallen, in our ignorance we have
sinned,

“ But then, out of the choir of those saints, just Noah will first say,
They do not speak the truth, Lord; for I prophesied of the deluge
which was to come in consequence of the sins of men; and after the
deluge I furnished an example ; in order that they might know amongst
the nations What salvation was, and What was the penalty of sinners.

“ After him Abraham will stand up, saying; I was chosen to be
father to the Gentiles whose example they might follow ; I hesitated not
to offer to Thee my son Isaac for a victim,

“In order that they might learn that Thou givest all things freely,

336 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [CHAP. XXII.

Again after him Moses will rise up, saying; I said, Lord: Thou shalt
do no murder, thow shalt not commit.adultery, thou shalt not steal, thou
shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour, thou shalt not covet
thy neighbour’s goods, thou shalt not desire his wife, nor his man-ser-
vant, nor his maid-servant, nor anything that is his. I said this that no
one should covet that which is not his own.

“T said, Honour thy Father and thy Mother, that thy days may be
long on the earth. This signifies that the obedience of children to their
parents extends their life on the earth. JI proclaimed this and many
things like this, in order that they might know what was about to come.

“ After this, David will stand up, saying; I said, Blessed is the
man who feareth the Lord, he hath great delight in His commandments.
The Saints shall exult in glory, they shall rejoice in their beds.

“1, when I was endowed with royal power, mingled my bread with
weeping, in order that I might afford them an example of penitence and
humility. After him Isaiah comes, saying; I said, Woe to you who |
join house to house and couple field to field even to the boundaries of
the place: never shall ye alone possess the earth. After these and
many more, the Son of God shall say; I, when I was exalted on My
throne on high, holding heaven and earth in My hand, vouchsafed to be
born in the flesh, as touching the manhood receiving the form of a
servant. I gave health to all the infirm; I cleansed lepers; I raised
the dead; I gave feet to the lame: in order that by these heavenly
signs ye might believe in Me and in the things which I proclaimed.
How is it, that I do not find in you any good work? Why did not ye,
unhappy men, repent of your wicked acts before the end of your lives 7
What profit is it that ye honoured Me with your lips, if in works and
deeds ye denied Me? Where are now your riches? Where are your
pleasures? Where are your ornaments? Behold! now ye have the
judgment which I proclaimed before !

‘Then these miserable sinners, proud men and heretics, fornicators
and liars, treacherous and envious, returning evil for evil and causing
injury to the poor, receiving bribes against the innocent, and mutually
hating each other, shall weep and lament before the Lord, saying with
one voice

‘Have mercy upon us, Omnipotent God, and pardon our sins! Then
shall He answer them with great indignation, saying ; Depart from Me,
ye cursed, into fire eternal ; ye did not act with mercy while ye were in
the world, nor have I pity on you now. Then shall follow their misera-
ble departure, and never will their names be mentioned again through
all eternity. But then shall all the Saints, who have perfectly believed
in the Trinity, and fulfilled the precepts of God in their works,

“Reign with Christ, shining as the Sun in the kingdom of their
Father ; and God shall lead them to their heavenly home and shall give
them eternal life and fulness of joy with choirs of angels; things which
eye never saw, nor has it entered into the heart of man how great and
how glorious are the things which God hath prepared for them that love
Him. ΑἹ] these things may the Saviour of the world vouchsafe to
grant to us, Who with the Father and the Holy Ghost liveth.”

' ‘Thus again a portion of our present Athanasian Creed appears em-
bodied in a sermon.

CHAPTER XXIII.

GREEK AND LATIN PSALTERS WHICH DO NOT
CONTAIN THE QUICUNQUE.

§ 1. Use of the Psalter. ὃ 2. Greek Psalter and Canticles. ὃ 3. Greek
Psalters in Latin Letters. i. Paris, 10592. ii. Veronese Psalter. iii. St
Gall, 17. iv. Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, 468. v. Ibid. 480.
vi. Paris, Greek 139. vii. Milan, Οἱ 13. inf. viii. Cambridge, Ee. rv. 29.
ix. Ibid. Gg. v. 35. x. British Museum, 2 A. 111., and others. xi. Bamberg
Psalter. xii. Florence, Plut. xvur. Cod. xiii. § 4. Latin Psalters. The
various versions, Itala, Roman, Gallican, Hebraic. §5. The Canticles of
the Western Church. ὃ 6. Latin Psalters which do not contain the Qui-
cunque. i. Queen Christina’s. ii. Rouen. iii. St Germain des Pres, 100.
Paris, 11550. iv. Ibid. 661 or 762. Paris, 11947. v. Stuttgart Biblia, fol. 12.
vi. Ibid. 23. vii. St Gall, 19. viii. St Gall, 22. ix. St John’s College,
Cambridge, C. 9. x. Boulogne, 21. xi. Vespasian A. 1 (Augustine’s Psalter).
xii. Lambeth, 1158. xiii. Salzburg, A.v. 24, and tv. 27. xiv. Elmham’s
Canterbury Psalters. xv., xvi., xvii. Others.

§ 1. WE now come to a series of authorities of a very inter-
esting character, which have attracted much attention from the
artist and paleographer; but very little, so far as I am aware,
from the liturgical scholar. I refer to the Psalters.

It is well known that at one time the repetition of the Psalms
was regarded as the great act of devotion, and the great medium
of intercession. In the West, and during the Carlovingian era,
the faithful were instructed not to offer masses for the success of
an expedition, or for the removal of an evil, or for the repose of a
soul, but they were bidden to repeat the Psalter so many times.
Thus we have an order in the time of Pepin (A.D. 765) that a
hundred Psalters should be sung for a bishop on his death’. In
779 bishops were enjoined to sing three Psalters, one for the king,
one for his army, one for the present trouble. There was a great

1 Pertz, Monwmenta Germania historia, Tom. 11.=Legum Tom, 1, p. 30.
Se 8% 29

998 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

famine’. In the dubious Canons assigned by Pertz to the year
802, the question was ordered to be put to the clergy, How do
they know the Psalms’? Because of this, in A.D. 806, every
presbyter, according to his ability, was bound to have a Psalter’.
In 810 there was again a famine, and every presbyter was enjoined
to sing fifty Psalms each day*. In the Psalter, Ff. 1. 23 of the
Cambridge University Library, we have an interesting prayer in
behalf of those for whom the Psalter is said.

Thus we have a motive for the multiplication of manuscripts
containing the Psalms in the times of Pepin and of Charlemagne.

§ 2, But let us look to the Greek Psalters first. The oldest
Psalter of which I have heard is incorporated in the famous
Alexandrine manuscript at the British Museum. For in this codex
the Book of Psalms is not followed immediately by the Book
of Proverbs, but by the Odes or Canticles from Exodus, Deutero-
nomy, and so on, and by the Morning Hymn of the Eastern
Church’. The same order is observed in the very beautiful
Zurich Psalter which Tischendorf has published in his Anecdota
Sacra; the Alexandrine manuscript is considered to be of the fifth
century; the Zurich manuscript of the seventh. And Zaccaria
informs us that in the Greek Psalters the Psalms are invariably
followed by the Odes®. They are a, the Song of Moses in Exodus;
B. the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy; γ. the Prayer of Hannah ;
6. the Prayer of Habakkuk (iii. 2—19); ε. the Prayer of Isaiah
(xxvi. 9—20); € the Prayer of Jonah; ἡ. the Prayer of the
Three Children, “ Blessed art Thou, O Lord God of our Fathers;”
θ. the Song of the Three Children, “All ye works of the Lord,
&c.;” « the Song of the Virgin; κ᾿ the Song of Zacharias’. To
these sometimes were added Δ. the Prayer of Hezekiah (Isai.
XXXviil.) ; μ. the Prayer of Manasseh ; v. the Song of Simeon,

§ 3. These Greek Psalters are not confined to the East. They
are found in curious connections in the West also, and they are
of sufficient interest to call for further remark.

1 Pertz, Mon. Germ. hist. p. 39. Usher de Symbolo, or Bunsen’s Analecta
2 Ibid. p. 106. ante-Nicena.

δ. ΤΟΥ «pi 180 6 Bibliotheca Ritualis, Rome, 1776,
4 Ibid. p. 165.

p. 80.
5 This morning hymn may be seen in 7 See the Dictionary of Christian An-
the later editions of Dr Campion’s Inter- _tiquities. CANTICLEs.
leaved Prayer-Book, p. 321. See too

pod Eo GREEK AND LATIN PSALTERS. 339

It appears from the History of the Monastery of St Gall, by
Arx', that there were there in the ninth and tenth centuries
some monks who studied Greek, and were designated in conse-
quence as the “ Fratres Ellinici” (sic). To them—as seems to be
the opinion of Dr S. Schonfelder, the chaplain of St Martin’s in
Bamberg, the learned writer of the Article to which I have just
referred—is due not only the transposition into Latin letters of
the Greek Psalms of this Bamberg Psalter, but also a similar
transposition of other documents. I have on an earlier page*
spoken of the Greek Nicene Creed as being represented in Latin
letters; and one copy at least of this is in the library of St Gall.
Whether these monks were the penmen or not we must leave in
doubt. But the fact is, that we have scattered over the libraries
of Europe a series of Psalters, which I will venture now to describe.
Some, perhaps, are of a date earlier than the foundation of the
monastery of St Gall.

i. Thus in the Paris Library, numbered now 10592%, is a
Psalter in Greek and Latin at the end of some of Cyprian’s
works*, The Psalms are said to be of the eighth century and to
be written in Gallican uncials.

ii. Then there is the famous Veronese Psalter, supposed to be
of the sixth century, containing the Septuagint in Latin letters
and the old Itala in corresponding columns’. It contains six of
the Greek Odes (Exodus, Deuteronomy, Hannah, Isaiah v. 1—9,
Jonah, Habakkuk), though in an order different from that which
we have noted before.

iii, Again, there is a Psalter in Greek and Latin (the first

1 T quote this from an Article on the
Bamberg Psalter in the Serapeium of
Noy. 15, 1865.

2 p. 139.

3 It was, “" 5. Germains des Prés, 186.”
I take my numbers from the Catalogue
contributed by M. Delisle to the Journal
de l’ Ecole des Chartes.

4 Hartel says that the ““ Cyprian” here
is of the sixth or seventh century. It
is the famous Codex Seguerianus, which
proves that the well-known passage re-
garding the See of Rome was interpo-
lated into the book on the Unity of the
Church after this manuscript was writ-
ten. (Mr Newman’s curious note on this

in the so-called Oxford translations is
worthy of a study.) There are fac-
similes of portions of the manuscript
in Sylvestre, Vol. 11., and an account of
it in the Nouveau Traité, 111. pp. 145,
172. Compare Plates xui1. 11. iv., and
XLIV. II. 111. See also Montfaucon,
Bibliotheca Coisliniana, and generally
Hartel’s Cyprian, Preefatio, pp. ii.—viii.,
who however does not mention the
Psalter.

5 Specimen in the Nouveau Traité, Vol.
m1. Ὁ. 142, Pl. xu. vii The Psalter is
reprinted in Blanchini’s Vindicie. See
too Ronsch, p. 19.

340

100 Psalms are lost) in the Library at St Gall.
bered 17.

After Psalm 150 follow the Canticles'. The Latin ceases after the
Canticle of Hezekiah, and is not resumed before the middle of the
Hymn from Deuteronomy. The Benedictus, Magnificat and Nunc dimit-
tis are all in the MS. in Greek, but not the Gloria in Excelsis. After
the Nunc Dimittis follow the Lord’s Prayer (fol. 334) and the Apostles’
Creed in Greek? and Latin. Then on fol. 336 a Litany in both languages.
With this the book ends. It is of the tenth century. This is the O° of
Tischendorf, from which he takes a few readings in the New Testament
Canticles.

THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

It is num-

iv. In the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, there
is a Psalter in Greek and Latin, all the letters being Latin. It is
of late date; Nasmyth says of the fifteenth century. It contains,
he says, “the usual hymns and litany.” This was once mis-called
“Gregory's Psalter,” and the name has produced considerable
confusion. It contains the copy of the Apostles’ Creed in Greek,
which Bishop Pearson mistook for an early and authentic version,
and which Bishop Browne has printed at the end of his notes on
Article vin. The manuscript is numbered 468°.

v. There is another Greek Psalter in the same library (num-
ber 480), with the usual hymns.

vi. Didron in his work (English translation, p. 201?) refers to
a Greek Psalter at Paris (Bibliotheque National, Greek, No. 139).

vii. At Milan I saw (C. 13. inf.) a Greek and Latin Psalter
which once belonged to the Church of “S. Maria di popolo,” at
Rome. The Canticles are in the Latin order down to the Mag-
nificat (fol. elxviiiiclxxvi.), but the Nunc Dimittis is absent. It
contains the Quicunque in Latin, but there was no attempt to
give the Greek of it: a trial was made to give Greek for the first
few verses of the Te Deum; and the Credo in Deum and the
Credo in unum Deum (the true Creed of Constantinople) were
given in Greek as well as Latin’.

1 Unhappily I did not notice which
series, but I think it must be the Latin.
Dr Schonfelder refers to this volume as
of great interest. Serapeium, 1865, Nov.
15.

' 2 T have already expressed my regret
that I have not a transcript of this.

3 See Nasmyth, Catalogue, p. 421, for
a specimen of the Greek: or Dr Heurt-

ley, who prints the Creed, p. 81. Usher’s
remarks on the manuscript are quoted
by Waterland, Chap. tv., note 1.

4 TI noticed in the last, καὶ ets 10
πνευμα To αγιον TO | Kuptov και ζωοποιον |
ἑωοποιον TO εκ προς μενον TO σὺυν πρι
k | προσκυνούμενον | the first ξωοποιον is
run through with a pen, then there is
an erasure after ex mpos and upon the

XXIL | GREEK AND LATIN PSALTERS. 341

vil. I ought, perhaps, to mention that the Cambridge manu-
script Ke. Iv. 29, of the twelfth century, contains several Greek
extracts, including the “Epistle of Athanasius to Ammun and
others,” but no Quicunque.

ix. So Gg. v. 35 has (fol. 422) the Gloria in Excelsis, the
Nicene Creed, and some verses on the Creed in Greek. (These
have been published by the Caxton Society, A necdota, 1851.)

x. The Royal Library at the British Museum contains 2 A. VI.
(or 2 A. ΠΙ. ὃ vi.) a Greek Psalter (151 Psalms), and nine or ten
Canticles of the Greek collection and in the Greek order. There
are other Greek Psalters in the Museum.

ΧΙ. Then there is the Bamberg Psalter to which I have already
referred. Its date is fixed at 909. It is a Quadripartite Psalter
of which I must speak below, containing the Greek and then the ~
three Latin versions of Jerome. At the end are some Canticles,
and a Litany in Greek and in Latin: and the Quicunque in
Latin but not in Greek.

ΧΙ. I have noticed that in the Catalogue of the Florence
Library (p. 339) a note is taken of a manuscript (Plut. xvir. Cod.
xii.) of the Greek Psalter of the fifteenth century, which contains
the Canticles, Lord’s Prayer, the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds i
Greek. But not the Quicunque.

These are all the Greek Psalters of this class of which I have
discovered any account. And it will be seen that in not one single
copy has the Athanasian Creed been discovered in a Greek version.

§ 4. I will now turn to the Latin Psalters; and before I
describe any in detail, I will make a few preliminary remarks.

The Veronese Psalter to which I have referred contains the
old “Versio Itala” of the Psalms, and is esteemed, in conse-
quence, as of the highest literary value. At the request, as it is
said, of Damasus, Jerome emended this version somewhat cur-
sorily: at a later period he improved it more carefully, at the
request of his friends Paula and Eustochium, to whom he inscribed
his work. In this “edition” he availed himself of the labours of
erasure is written x cov exopeOo. Again is in Greek and Latin, but unhappily
on an erasure in the next line is writ- I did not take notes of it. The colo-

ten the καὶ w συν. The interpolator be- phon is interesting.
trayed himself. The Gloria in Excelsis

942 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

Origen, and noted with the obelus what he found in the LXX.
but not in the Hebrew; and with the asterisk what was given by
Theodotion from the Hebrew, but was not in the LXX. proper’.
Finally Jerome attempted an entirely new version from the
Hebrew original.

The last-named version has never found its way into use:
it was not intended for chanting, and it is not adapted for it.
The second correction was accepted generally north of the Alps,
whilst the first, which was received at Rome in the first instance
under the patronage of Damasus, retained its position there
until very recent times. Thus the three became known by the
titles the Roman, the Gallican and the Hebraic.

The confusion which was certain to arise in consequence of the
use of two distinct versions of the Psalms, north and south of the
Alps, was increased by an order of Charlemagne, by which the
Roman Cantus was pressed upon his Frank subjects* It has
been erroneously supposed that the Roman “Cantus” brought
with it the Roman Psalter: but such was not the case, and the
blending together the Roman chant with the Gallican version
caused increased confusion. At present we must be on our guard
against a misconception on the point; and thus be prepared to
make observations as to the time when this second emended
version by Jerome was received into favour in Gaul.

There are two accounts, both of which are well known.

One is that of Walfrid Strabo, who in his book, De Ecclesias-
ticis Rebus, cap. 23, states:

“Whilst the Romans used, to his time, the Psalms after the Septua-
gint, the Gauls and some of the Germans sang the Psalter after the emen-
dation which Father Jerome introduced from the LXX. This emended
version Gregory, bishop of Tours, is said to have received from some of
the Roman districts, and introduced into Gaul.”

Walfrid Strabo died in 849.

Berno of Augia, who lived 200 years later, improved upon
this. In a letter which at the time of Mabillon remained inedited,
he stated that

‘“‘ Jerome himself introduced his improved version into Gaul and some

of the Churches of Germany, whilst the Romans still sang the Psalter
after its corrupt vulgate edition: from this the Romans composed their

1 The edition of the Psalter by Tho- 2 The Romanus Ordo was entirely dis-
masius exhibits these marks. connected from the Psalter.

XXUE | GREEK AND LATIN PSALTERS. 343

Cantus, and in return passed that on to us. And thus a confusion had
arisen because” as I understand it “some of the, antiphons’ and parts
of the service are sung after the Roman Psalter, whilst the Psalms
themselves are sung after the Gallican version®: whence it happens
(says Berno) that the words which are modulated for singing in the
daily or nightly offices, are mixed with each other, and inserted in a
confused way into our Psalters, so that the less skilful do not know what
belongs to our edition and what to the Roman edition of the Psalms.
And the pious father recognising this has arranged the three editions
in one volume: so that the Gallican Psalter which we sing shall be
in one column, the Roman in another, the Hebraic in the third*.”

From these accounts of Berno and Walfrid, Mabillon in the
second section of his disquisition, De cursw Gallicano, expresses his
dissent*. He says that Gregory of Tours in his history, non
uno wn loco, quotes the Psalms, but not after the Gallican version.
Mabillon quotes two passages, History, v. § 14, and vi. ὃ 5, where
Gregory distinctly uses words which are not found in the Gallican
Psalter. In the latter he quotes the famous phrase, Dominus
regnavit a ligno. This seems to demonstrate that Gregory had
not introduced the emended version. It is equally clear, Mabillon
says, that Venantius Fortunatus did not use it. “Thus, we under-
stand, that at the time when Gregory wrote his history, the
Psalter as emended by Jerome, the Gallican Psalter as we call it,
was not in use in Gaul,” and Mabillon suggests that 1t was intro-
duced by Boniface, the Archbishop of Mayence, in the middle of
the eighth century’.

Thus the Gallican Psalter® has almost entirely superseded the

1 Pepin had introduced the use of the
Roman Antiphons into the Gallican
Church, the pope Paul having sent him
an Antiphonal and Responsal. (Mabil-
lon, ut infra, § 11. 23.)

* Even to the present day the Psalm
xciv. of the Roman Breviary is retained
from the Roman Psalter, all the other
Psalms following (I believe) the Gallican
version.

3 A similar difficulty may be said to
exist in the English Church, the Magni-
ticat being sung from an earlier transla-
tion; read in the lessons from the later.
Very few persons are aware that the
suffrages after the Creed, including “Ὁ
Lord, save the King: And mercifully
hear us when we call upon Thee,” are
from the Vulgate or Gallican Psalms.

4 The disquisitio is reprinted by
Migne, Tom. Lxxit. p. 392.

° I find that Zaccaria (Bibliotheca

Ritualis, pp. 97, &c.) writing in 1776 re-
peats the statement of Mabillon that
the Roman Psalter was used in all the
Churches of Rome and within forty
miles of it up to the time of Pius V.,
i.e. 1556; and so says Martene (Lib. tv.
Cap. ur. Vol. 111. Ὁ. 7). The two first-
named writers say that in their time
the Gallican Psalter was used every-
where at Rome, except in the one Church,
the Vatican ; but that there and at Milan
each Church retained its ancient Psalter,
as did also St Mark’s Church in Venice.
The Gallican Psalter was directed to be
used in Aquileia in the year 1495; the
order running juxta ritum atque consue-
tudinem sive correctionem Psalterti Gal-
licant.

6 The differences between it and the
received Vulgate text are very trifling.
The Vulgate omits Psalm cli.

344 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

old Roman Psalter, and has always kept out of the field the
Psalterium Hebraicum of Jerome. One volume at least survives in
which the Roman Psalter has been altered by hand into the
Gallican version. The usual “title-page” to this last is this:
“IN CHRISTI NOMINE. Incipit Psalterium de translatione LXX.
interpretum emendatum a sancto hieronymo presbytero in novo.”
And we have a curious memorandum in a Constitution of Rathe-
rius, bishop first of Verona and then of Liege (to which I have
already drawn attention for another object), directing that his
clergy should learn the Faith “after the Symbolum, 2.e. the col-
latio of the Apostles, as it is found in the corrected Psalters.”

Thus, wherever we have a Gallican Psalter without the aste-
risks and obeli and without note or comment, there is an ὦ priort
probability, according to Mabillon, that the manuscript is of Gal-
lican origin, and of a later date than the year 750.

~§5. I must take this opportunity of recording some memo-
randa regarding the use of the Canticles in the Western Church.

I have already, Chap. xv., given an account of the hour services of
the medieval Church so far as to note the introduction of the Apostles’
Creed into those services. It would appear that, at the time of Isidore,
the hour of prime was not observed, nor does he mention the use of any
other Creed save the Nicene. But in the work of Symphrosius Amala-
rius (he died after 834) On the ecclesiastical offices, we have an account
of the prime service in his time, indicating that in his neighbourhood
the Apostles’ Creed was recited but not the Quicunque. We also
learn distinctly that at the same time the Canticle of Hezekiah was
sung at the matin office on Tuesday; that of Anna on Wednesday; that
of Moses in Exodus on Thursday; that of Moses in Deuteronomy on
Saturday. We can have no doubt that the song of Isaiah was used at
this time on Monday; and that of Abbacuc on Friday.

Thus we have in the later Latin Psalters in invariable sequence the
following Canticles.

a. Isaiah xii.; 4, Hezekiah, Isai. xxxvili. 10—20; y. Anna,
1 Samuel ii, 1—10; ὃ. Exodus xv. 1—19; « Abbacuc ii. 2—19;
¢. Deuteronomy xxxii. 1—43, They always occur in this order. We
do not hear either of the 76 Deum or the Gloria in Facelsis at first.
We shall see that the Benedicite and Benedictus were the first to appear
in the Western Psalters, the former being read at matins on Sundays and ©
Festivals, and the latter, it is said, daily. (Some confusion is occasionally
made between the Benedictus of Zacharias and the Lenedictus of the
“Three Children.”) The later Psalters contain also, though in varying
order and under varying titles, the Benedicite, Benedictus, Magnificat,
Nune dimittis, the Te Deum, the Gloria in Excelsis, the Pater Noster
secundum Mattheum, the Credo in Deum—and generally the Quicunque.

345

§ 6. My first effort will be to exhibit a few notes which I
have made of Latin Psalters which do not contain the Quicunque.

i. The first is the Psalter which is called that of Christina,
Queen of Sweden: one of the collection which had belonged to
the Church at Fleury’, which she purchased after the sacking of
the Library, and ultimately (as I understand) gave to the Vati-
can. It contains the Gallican and the Hebraic Versions of Jerome
in parallel columns. It is said to be either of the fifth or of the
seventh century, and has attracted great attention”.

SKE] GREEK AND LATIN PSALTERS.

i. There was another Psalter containing the Gallican and
Hebraic in parallel columns or on opposite pages, in the Library
of St Ouen at Rouen, but it is now in the public Library of that
city. ‘This was considered to be of the seventh or eighth century.
It does not contain the Canticles or the Creeds’.

11. There was an old Psalter of three columns in the Library
of St Germain des Prés, numbered 100. This is the one (I be-
lieve) now known as the magnificent Psalter of Corbey. The
Benedictines regarded it as of the seventh or eighth century.
It is in the Paris Library, numbered 11550. It is now looked
upon as of the eleventh century. It contains the Canticles, Hymns,
and Litany, but not (as I understand) the Quicunque%*.

iv. There was another famous Psalter in the St Germain’s
Library (661 or 762, I believe the same as the present Paris
11947) of the eighth century: it is very beautiful; written with
silver letters on purple parchment. Sylvestre, 11 plate 113, gives
a facsimile: it 1s known as the Psalter of St Germain himself.
It is said to be Gallican. Some indeed have assigned it to the
sixth century’.

v. At Stuttgart there are two Psalters, one is said to contain
the Vetus Itala, and to be of the seventh or eighth century. It
consists of three volumes, and the initial letters throughout are

1 See the account in Mabillon’s pre-
face to his work on the Gallican Litur-
gy, ὃ x1. Migne, ut sup. p. 110.

2 Notices of it are given in the Nou-
veawu Traité, Vol. ut. p. 91, and in
Blanchini’s Vindicie, p. cexlvii., and
ecxlviil.

3 See Nouveau Traité, 111. p. 226. A
facsimile is given in Sylvestre, 1v. Plate
22. He considers it to be later, say of

10th century. The press mark is, I
believe, E. 43 or B. 29.

4 Bibliothéque de Vécole des Chartes.
Series vi., Vol. 1., p. 185. Nouveau
Traité, 111. 223, 314, 315.

5 There may have been two in the
old Library, 661 and 762. If so, the
former is the Saint’s copy. Nouveau
Traité, pp. 163, 360.

346 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

very curious, It contains Psalm cli.’, but no Canticles, nor Qui-
cunque. This is numbered Biblia, fol. 12.

vi. The other is numbered Biblia, fol. 23, and is of the tenth
century: it also contains the Pusillus eram, but not the Can-
ticles’.

vu. At St Gall there are two other manuscripts. One is
numbered 19, which is said to be of the ninth century. It con-
tains the Hebrew of Jerome. It has also Psalm cli.’

vul. St Gall, numbered 22. “The Golden Codex:” it is said
to have been written by Folkard, and to be of the ninth century.
There are a few pictures, and the version appears to be the Gal-
lican. ‘There are no Canticles nor Creeds.

ix. St John’s College Library, Cambridge, contains (C. 9,
p. 24 of Dean Cowie’s catalogue) a most curious Manuscript ; from

which Professor Westwood gives a drawing (Miniatures, 30). It
contains the Psalter and Canticles, but no Creeds.

1 This ‘‘Pusillus eram” is a Psalm
ascribed to David after he had fought
with Goliath. It is found in the Greek
Septuagint, but not in the Hebrew; and
thus Jerome, who left it in his so-called
Roman and Gallican versions, was com-
pelled either to omit it or to give some
explanation of it in his Hebraic version.
It is generally introduced with one or
other of the following titles.

a. ‘*Psalmus extra numerum pro-
prie scriptus David (ἰδιόγραφος Δαβὶδ)
quando pugnavit cum Goliath.” This is
a mere translation of the Greek intro-
duction.

8. ‘‘Hic psalmus in ebreorum codi-
cibus non habetur sed a LXX. interpre-
tibus additus est et idcirco repudian-
dus.”

This must be Jerome’s memorandum.
In later Psalters where the Psalm is re-
tained, the two notices are frequently
combined; sometimes, as in Claudius C.
vil., with most puzzling corruptions.

It may have been noticed that Charle-
magne in one of his messages described
the Psalms specially as being one hun-
dred and fifty in number (above, p. 182).
It would appear from this that his at-
tention had been drawn to the memo-
randum of Jerome, and that he was
acting upon it. In regard then to any
Psalter in which this Pusillus cram

is displaced from its earlier position
immediately following Psalm 150, or
in which it is entirely omitted, there
is an a priori probability that it was
penned either during or after the life-
time of the great Emperor.

* The illuminations are very interest-
ing, and notices of them are given and
some of them copied (I am told) in the
Trachten des Christlichen Mittelalters,
herausgegeben von J. U. Hefner, and
there is a commendatory notice in Pro-
fessor Waagen’s Kunstwerk von Deutsch-
land, Part 11. pp. 183, 184. I must here
express my obligations to Professor Dr
August Winterlin for his most prompt
attentions to my wants at the Stuttgart
Library.

3 It has the following:

Hoe ego psalterium quod jure vocatur
hebreum

Hartmotus gallo donavi pectore leto.

Auferet hoc si quis, damnetur mille
flagellis,

Judicioque dei succumbet corpore peste.

It begins thus: “Incipit prologus
beati Hieronymi in psalterium juxta
Hebreos quod ipse transtulit in Lati-
num.” I do not know why Psalm cli.
was retained. It is on folio 133 with
this title, ‘‘ David extra numerum cum
pugnabat cum Goliad.”

XXUL | GREEK AND LATIN PSALTERS. 347

x. At Boulogne I saw a Psalter, imperfect at the commence-
ment, but perfect at the close. Its number is 21. It is said to
be of the tenth or eleventh century. It does not contain the Can-
ticles or Creeds.

xl. In the Library of the British Museum, the Cotton Manu-
script Vespasian A. 1, so far as our present purpose is concerned,
merits great attention. It is sometimes called Augustine’s Psalter,
perhaps because it may have belonged to St Augustine’s monastery.
It contains the Roman version, and is a grand book, measuring
about 9 inches by 7. It contains many prefaces, amongst them a
curious exposition of the word Alleluia, dropping one letter after
another. There is an interlinear Saxon translation, which was, in
the year 1843, edited for the Surtees Society. At the end of
Psalm cl. (where we have the Gloria Patri once) we read “ expli-
ciunt psalmi davidis numero centum quinquaginta.” Then follows
the Pusillus eram. On the verso of folio 141 is a prayer or ad-
dress in small rustic letters: then the six morning Canticles, fol-
lowed by the Benedicite and Benedictus*. These are followed by

“Hymnus ad matutinos,
Splendor paterne.

““Hymnus vespertinus,
Deus Creator.

“Hymnus diebus dominicis,
Rex ceterne.”

And thus the early part of the volume terminates. But written
en another hand, and that of the eleventh century, there follow the
Te Deum, entitled “Hymnus ad matutinos,” the Magnificat, Nunc
Dimittis, Gloria in Excelsis, Pater Noster, Credo in Deum, Credo in
unum Deum, and “Fides catholica, Quicunque vult,” and other
things.

The introduction of these additions to the Psalter is assigned
to the eleventh century. Of these I shall speak below. But
to the Psalter itself, it is difficult to assign a precise date. It is
probably of the eighth century. As to the date of the added

1 From Martene, Thesaurus Anecd.v. lowed the lesson from the ‘‘ Apostle.’’
(I quote from Migne, uxxir. p. 86), we His authority here is the Exposition of
learn that in the old Gallican Liturgy St Germanus, which may be seen in
the Benedictus preceded the lesson from Migne, ut supra, pp. 90, 91: see too pp.
the prophets, and the Benedicite fol- 94, 96.

348 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [CHAP. XXIII.

portions the authorities are more decided, and thus we can ap-
proximate to the period when the Quicunque was added to the
Roman Psalter. The volume probably belonged to the Church οἵ.
Canterbury *.

xi. The Lambeth Library contains a Psalter (1158) of an
uncertain date, which has the Canticles closing with the Nunc
Dimittis. A Litany follows, but there is no Quicunque.

xi. At Salzburg there are two Psalters, a. v. 24 and a. Iv.
27, which do not contain the Quicunque. They are regarded as
of the eleventh or twelfth century.

xiv. It is quite clear that the Quicunque was not contained
in either of the two Psalters, described at length by Elmham, as
amongst the treasures of the Church of Canterbury”.

The Harleian manuscript 603 is unfortunately imperfect at
the end.

xv. At Florence (Plut. xvu. Cod. ix.) is a Psalter which con-
tains the Canticles followed by a Litany, but no Creeds.

xvi. British Museum, Addl. manuscript 9046, is of the ninth
century: it contains the 150 Psalms and 13 Canticles, but appa-
rently no Creeds.

xvu. Harleian 2790 is of the ninth century: it has the
Psalms, but no Creeds.

xvil. In the Nouveau Traité 111. p. 367 is a note of a beau-
tiful Psalter of the ninth century, which once belonged to the
abbey of Godwic. It had two long Litanies, but, as it seems, did
not contain the Quicunque. I do not know where it is now to be
found.

It is curious that neither at Venice nor at Verona is there any
Psalter which contains the Quicunque. It is, however, contained
in the large Bible in the Library of St Mark’s.

1 A facsimile of the title-page and a 2 The description of these may be
few initial letters may be seen in Pro- _ seen in Sir Duffus Hardy’s First Report
fessor Westwood’s Miniatures. on the Utrecht Psalter, Ὁ. 10.

CHAPTER XXIV.

LATIN PSALTERS OF THE NINTH OR TENTH OR
ELEVENTH CENTURY CONTAINING
THE QUICUNQUE.

§ 1. Conclusions from previous Chapter. ὃ 2. The order of words in clause 27
furnishes a means of classifying the manuscripts. § 3. Probable origin of
the difference. § 4, Class I. in which the reading is ‘‘ Trinitas in unitate
et unitas in Trinitate,’ and a. Psalters in which the 151st Psalm follows
close on Psalm 150. i. Paris, 13159. ii. St Gall, 15. iii. St Gall, 23.
iv. Ot Gall, 27. vy. Douce,’59. νι. Boulogne, 20. vii. ὦ C. C: C: 0. 5,
viii. C. C.C. C. N. 10. ix. Arundel, 60. § 5. Comparison of the readings
of these manuscripts. §6. I. 8. Psalter of this class which does not contain
the Pusillus eram. St Gall, 20. § 7. I. y. Psalter in which the
Pusillus eram is placed at the end of the volume. Claudius C. vit. (the
Utrecht Psalter). ὃ. 8. Psalter with the order dubious, “Charles le Chauve,”
Paris, 1152. § 9. Class II. in which the reading is ‘‘ Unitas in Trinitate
et Trinitas in Unitate.” a. In which the 151st Psalm follows on Psalm 150.
i. Galba A, xvii. ii, Bamberg. iii. Salisbury. iv. Vitellius E. xvuzuz.
v. Harleian, 2904. vi. C.C.C.C. 391 K.10. vii. Latin Bibles, British
Museum, Royal Library, 1 Εἰ. vir. viii. Venice Bible. §10. II. B. Psalters
without the Psalm 151. i, ‘*Charlemagne,” Venice, 1861. ii. British
Museum, Royal 2B. v. 11]. Cambridge, Ff. 1. 23. § 11. Vespasian A. 1,
later addition. §12. Miscellaneous Psalters. ὃ 18. Arundel, 155. § 14.
Eadwine Psalter. §15. Other Psalters. 816, Reflections and surmises,

§ 1. I po not know that we can come to any other conclusions
on the evidence furnished by the contents of my last chapter, save
these; The Quicunque was not known in a Greek form to
the literati who interested themselves in preparing any of the
Greek Psalters that have been adduced: and The earliest Latin
Psalters which have been brought forward do not contain either it
or the Te Deum, or the Gloria in Excelsis, or the Apostles’ Creed.
Most of my readers are aware of the controversy regarding the
date of the Utrecht Psalter, CLAUDIUS C. VII, which contains all
these :—whether it was written in the sixth century or in the
later years of the eighth or in the ninth, 1.6. whether before the
year 600 or after the year 750. I shall discuss the subject briefly

350 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [cHaP.

ere long; in the mean time I will simply rank it in this chapter
with other volumes whose contents resemble the materials we
find in it.

§ 2. In treating of these Psalters I propose to make a divi-
sion grounded on the following curious fact.

In all the early notices which I have found on the subject of
the Trinity, where the phrases occur Trinitas in Unitate and
Unitas in Trinitate, they occur in this order. So too they are
found in the copies of the Quicunque given in the collections
of Canons, Vat. Pal. 574, and Paris 1451. In the modern or
received text the order is different, “ Et Unitas in Trinitate et
Trinitas in Unitate.” Nothing doctrinal depends on this inver-
sion, but I am able to some extent to trace its history; and in a
literary point of view it is curious.

§ 8, It will be seen by referring to my account of the Psalter
of Charles le Chauve that the penman of that beautiful manu-
script omitted in the first instance the clause “et Trinitas in
Unitate.” He inserted it subsequently in the margin with a
mark that it had been left out before the words “veneranda sit.”
So far as our earlier copies furnish us with evidence, this was a
mistake: it was really omitted after the words “supra dictum est.”
However, this manuscript seems to have furnished the “copy” for
later transcripts, and thus we have the criterion for a first classi-
fication. |

§ 4. I will take first the Psalters which read “et Trinitas in
Unitate et Unitas in Trinitate,’ and first (a) those in which
Psalm cli. follows immediately on Psalm cl.

i, And first I will take a very interesting manuscript at
Paris, numbered 13159, to which my attention was drawn by
M. Delisle, the distinguished custodian of the manuscript de-
partment’, a gentleman to whose contributions in the Bibliotheque
de [cole des Chartes is largely due our knowledge of the libra-
ries of France. In M. Delisle’s short catalogue in the Series ΥἹ.
Vol. 4, p. 220 of the Bibliotheque, as well as in his kind communi-
cation to me, that learned paleographer has assigned the date of
this manuscript to the year 795. |

1 Of this M. Delisle most kindly sent me a collation in December, 1871.

XXIV.| PSALTERS CONTAINING THE QUICUNQUE. 901

The Psalms are of the Gailican version. The whole of fol. 1 recto is
occupied with a letter of the shape and character of the Utrecht B, but
with a most surprising amount of interlacing. On the verso: “‘innomine
patris et filii et spiritus sancti incipit liber psalmorum.” Each Psalm
has an introduction to which its first few words are generally prefixed,
so that these words occur twice over. Thus before Psalm iv. we read

‘cum invocarem ᾧ
‘‘in finem incarminib; Carmina solent fieri 5 in leticia Sin tristicia.”

Of the prayers I will take that subjoined to Psalm xxvii. as a specimen.
(Ad te domine clamabo.)

“Oratio
Ad templum sanctum tuum manus eleuantes inualidas quesumus
domine ne trahas cum peccatoribus animas te agnoscentium nostras

ne nos cum operantibus iniquitatem perdas ne nos deseras per—”

On folio 155, verso, we have the following :

“‘Pussillus eram.
hic psalm. secundum ebré. primus in cantico. wictoriam indicit cum
golia. Et ideo in fine ponitur Quae alia sequentur in hoc psalmo puerilia
sunt cantica. Hic psalmus dd proprie scripsit extra numerum. cum
pugnavit contra Goliad. Vox Christi seculum exoperantis.
Finiunt tituli psalmorum. hic psalmus in ebreorum codicibus non
habetur sed a LX-X interpretib. editus est et idcirco repudiandus.”

The Psalm begins on folio 156, Pusillus eram.

The Old Testament Canticles follow (one or two folia are missing)
with the Benedictus and Benedicite ; then “Canticum Zacharie ; Hymnum
sanctee Marie; huiclocoSymeon; Z'e Dewm laudamus” (without a title) ;
then some leaves are missing.

Folio 161 a begins in the middle of the interpolated Creed of Con-
stantinople in a later hand. This is followed up by the Quicunque in
the same writing, but on fol. 162 in the old writing we have “sed
unus increatus et unus inmensus.” To the end the writing is certainly
the same as in the body of the book, although the ink is blacker. Then
comes on the same page (163) in red “Fi init de :” but the red
has become so faded that I could not read the rest. Thena litany, which
is so curious that I will give it in my note’.

1 « Christus vincit Regi francorum et longobardorum ac

Christus regnat patricio

Christus imperat 111 Romanorum vita et victoria

exaudi Christe Leoni summo Redemptor mundi Tu illum adjuva
pontifici Sca. Maria Tu illum adjuva

et universali pape vita Sce. Michael Tu illum adjuva

Salvator mundi Tu illum adjuva Sce. Gabrahel Tu illum adjuva

Sce. Petre Tu illum adjuva Sce. Raphael Tu illum adjuva

Sce. Paule Tu illum adjuva Sce. Iohannes Tu illum adjuva

Sce. Andrea Tu illum adjuva Sce. Stephane Tu illum adjuva

Sce. Clemens Tu illum adjuva exaudi Christe

exaudi Christe Carolo excellentis Nobilissimo proli

simo esado caro (? et deo caro) atque Regali vita.

magno et pacifico Sea, virgo virginum Tu illum adjuva

THE CREEDS OF

THE CHURCH. [cHAP.

On the folio 168b there is another litany which seems to fix the

date.

“TLetania calula.” [sic]
Beginning as usual.

It contains fol. 169 the prayers
“Ut dominum apostolicum leonem

in sanctitate et religione conservare

digneris.

ut populo Christiano pacem
et unitatem largiaris

Filius Dei Te rogamus audi nos

Te rogamus audi nos.
ut ei vitam et sanitatem dones.
ut dominum carolum regem conservare digneris.
ut ei vitam et sanitatem et victoriam dones.
ut proles regales conservare digneris.
ut eis vitam et sanitatem dones

ut eis vitam et victoriam dones

Te sk.

Te R.
Te R.
ἼΘΙ ΕἾ.

Agnus dei qui tollis peccata mundi

miserere nobis
Kyrie eleison
Litania callica [sic]

Pater de celis deus miserere nobis

Filius Redemptor deus miserere nobis
Spiritus Sanctus deus miserere nobis
Sancta Dei Trinitas miserere nobis
Qui et trinus et unus miserere nobis

ipsi idemque benignus
sca virgo virginum ora

ae. ἄτα. 7

On the same page (Is this for the consecration of a Church 1)

“ Tmprimis
ante ostium ecclesie.

[The same prayer is addressed to
Saints Sylvester, Laurence, Pancras,
Nazarus, Anastasia, Genoveva, Co-
lumba. |

‘‘Exaudi Christe omnibus judici
bus vel cuncto exercitui francorum
vita et victoria

[Sts Hilary, Martin, Maurice are ap-
pealed to, and in a more recent ink the
names of Dionysius, Crispin and Crispi-
anus are added. Then on folio 164 a]

‘‘Christus vincit. Christus regnat.
Christus imperat.

Rex Regum Christus vincit

Rex noster Christus vincit

Spes nostra Christus vincit

Gloria nostra Christus vincit

Misericordia nostra Christus vincit

Auxilium nostrum Christus vincit

Fortitudo nostra Christus vincit

Liberatio et redemptio nostra Christus
vincit

Victoria nostra Christus vincit

Arma nostra invictissima Christus
vincit

Murus noster inexpugnabilis Christus
vincit

Defensio et exaltatio nostra Christus
vincit

Lux via et vita nostra Christus vincit

Ipsi soli imperium gloria ac potestas

per immortalia secula seculorum.
amen

Ipsi soli honor laus et jubilatio

per infinita secula seculorum. amen
Christe [eleison] Ter

Kyrie eleison 41}

Feliciter. Feliciter

Tempora bona habeas. Ter

Multos annos amen, [Ter?]

expliciunt”’

XXIV. | PSALTERS CONTAINING THE QUICUNQUE. 353

dicat pontifex una cum diaco
nibus
Agnus dei

&e. &e.

The volume finishes off on folio 168 with a few hymns, and seems
to be mutilated’.

I have met with nothing more interesting, and at first sight
more perplexing, than this volume. But since I copied out the
first Litany or Song οἵ Jubilee, I find that Zaccaria was equally
interested and equally charmed with something resembling it. In
his Bibliotheca Litualis, p.171, he gives from a manuscript at
Cologne* a Litany or Hymn of Triumph, resembling the above.
The invocations are not so numerous: instead of the prayer for
Charles, king of the Franks and Lombards, and patrician of the
Romans—the cry goes up for “Domino nostro et augusto a deo
coronato magno et pacifico imperatori vita et victoria®” The
similarity of this with the well-known cry uttered at Rome when
Charlemagne was crowned and saluted as Emperor*, compels me
to believe that this Litany of Paris, 13159, was composed for the
visit of Charles to Rome before he was crowned. Leo is pope,
Charles king and patrician; thus the Litany belongs to the period
bounded by 795 and 800. <A Litany of the same character was
found by Baluzius in the Church of Beauvais (Miscellanea, 1.

And there is a paraphrase of the
Lord’s Prayer :

1 These are the hymns:

“hymni ad prima.

Post matutinis laudibus quos trini
tate psallimus psallamus rursus
admonet pater verus familias "."

Simus semper solliciti ne ptereat

opus di‘
sed oremus sedulo sicut docet
apostol "."

Psallamus mente dno. psallamus si-

mul et spiritu:
ne vaca mens in turpibus inerti
tegat anima.”

Thus there is no rhythm in the

hymn.

We have another fol. 168b,

‘* Pater qui celis contines cantemus...
adveniat regnum tuum fiatque vo-
luntas tua
Haec in qua......
simus fideles spiritu casto manen-
tes corpore
Panem nostrum cotidie de te edendum
tribue remit
te nobis debita ut nos nostra remit-
timus
Temptatione subdola induci nos ne
sinens
sed puro corde simplices tu nos a
malo libera.”’

2 Or from Hartzheim’s Catalogue.
3 See Mabillon, MuseumItalicum, Tom.

‘“‘hymnum ad matutinas die domi- ον
ets :
patie 4 Mr Brice’s Holy Roman Empire, or
Labbe and Cossart, vit. 1082. ‘* Carolo
piissimo Augusto a deo coronato magno
pacifico imperatori vita et victoria.”

beginning (it is very difficult to read) :
“Ὁ qui cela luminis satorque.”

5, Ὁ. 23

a ταῦ τὰσόισσσις ααὶ

354 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

p. 143): this was adapted to a time when John was pope, Roger
bishop, Robert king: it belongs therefore to the year 1003*%

The question then is, Was this Paris manuscript, 13159, written
between 795 and 800? or, Was it intended to include a collec-
tion of documents of that and earlier or later dates? The titles,
“Letania Calula,” on folio 168 b, and “ Letania Callica” on 169 a,
with other matters, lead me to consider it to have been intended
to be a collection of prayers, expositions, psalms, canticles, lita-
nies; and on this account I cannot quote 13159 with the same
degree of confidence as does M. Delisle, as having been written
between 795 and 800. All I can say is that it was written after
795. But I have given my readers all the evidence which bears
upon the subject, and shall leave it now in the hands of better
judges than myself.

It will be noticed that the writer was somewhat illiterate: and
the similarity of the initial B with the Utrecht B will not be
forgotten”. I call this manuscript A.

1. St Gall, 15, is of the ninth century, Gallican, with long in-
troductions to each Psalm. It contains the Canticles, with notes
that the Te Deum was sung at mattins on Sunday (it is entitled
Ymnus ad matutinas diebus dominicis), the Benedictus at mattins,
the Magnificat at vespers, the Nunc dimittis at compline. The
Gloria in Excelsis is entitled “ Ymnum ad missam diebus domi-
nicis:” the Lord’s Prayer, Apostles’ Creed and Quicunque follow.
The latter is entitled “Fides Catholica edita a sco Athanasio
Alexandrino epo.” This is followed by a short Litany. I call
this Psalter l.

iil. St Gall, 23, is a magnificent volume of the ninth century,
measuring 143 by 114. It begins with a Litany of an unusual
character*; after the KYRIE ELEISON, &c. in gold letters, there
follows :

“Sancte Pater Deus omnipotens miserere nobis.
Sancte Filius Deus redemptor noster miserere nobis.

1 Roger was bishop of Beauvais be-
tween 998 and 1022. (Gallia Chris-
tiana, 1x. 735.) Robert was king: John
XVI. was pope from June to December,
1003.

2 The interpolated Creed of Constan-
tinople is of a later handwriting. The

Cologne manuscript instead of Nobilis-
simo proli, has ‘‘ejus precellentissimis
filiis regibus.” Its prayer is for the
army of the Romans and Franks.

3 Yet of the same type is St Gall, 20,
p. 358, and 27, f. 701.

XXIY: | PSALTERS CONTAINING THE QUICUNQUE. 355

Sancte Spiritus Sanctus Deus procedens miserere nobis.
Sancta ineffabilis Trinitas miserere nobis.

Qui est trinus et unus miserere nobis,

Christe Jesu exaudi nos.

Christe Iesu salva nos.

Christe Iesu custodi nos.”

Then the invocations.
The preface of Jerome is on fol. 26.
An inscription on this leaf and the next fixes the date.

“Hine preceptoris hartmoti jussa secutus
Folchardus studuit rite partare librum.”

The Psalms are the Gallican; the Te Deum is attributed to
Ambrose and Augustine. We find (what is somewhat unusual)
the “ Fides Concilii Constantinopolitani,’-—the interpolated Creed.
In the Apostles’ Creed the word Dei is omitted; the Quicunque
is entitled, “Fides Catholica sci Athanasii episcopi.” The book
_ is magnificent’. I call it ἢ; The “Gloria in Excelsis” is not in
the manuscript. Hartmot was abbot in the year 884.

iv. St Gall, 27, is also considered to be of the ninth century.
Tt is in three columns, the text (Gallican) of the Psalter being in
the middle, and notes and glosses at the sides,

The first two pages are gone. Page 3 commences with the words
*‘Prophetia est divina inspiratio” in small but clear rustic letters:
then a prayer to the Virgin of a later date. Prefaces and intro-
ductions of various kinds, including the Preefatio Sancti Hieronymi,
occupy the early pages, until on p. 20 we have “In nomine sancte
et individue Trinitatis” occupying the whole page. The B of Beatus is
similar in form though not in ornamentation to the Utrecht B.
The explanations of the Psalms in the first few pages at least (if
not throughout) are in rustic letters. The Ze Deum follows on the
Benedicite, being again ascribed to Ambrose and Augustine: “Invicem
condiderunt.” Then the Senedictus, Magnificat, Oratio Dominica,
Symbolum Apostolorum, Canticum Simeonis, Fides sancti Athanasit
episcopt (p. 692). A Litany resembling that of St Gall 23 follows on
page 701. Several long prayers then occupy about 26 or 27 pages,
including prayers addressed to the Father, to the Person of the Son, to

1 The Psalms generally areinblackink spying the space of two or more lines.
and of the Caroline character, in two The words in these lines are in gold or
columns, 21 lines ona page. Thus the silver, written sometimes in uncials,
letters are large. The initial letter of sometimes in Roman capitals, some-
each verse is in gold uncials: that of | times in rustics. I noticed the inverted
each Psalm being very large and occu- ‘ in the Quicunque.,

(23—2

356 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

the Person of the Holy Spirit, to St Peter, St Paul, St Benedict. The
notes on the Faith of Athanasius are few. Thus on inmensus which has
been altered by a second hand to immensus, we have “non est men-
surabilis in sua natura quia inlocalis est et incireumscriptus, ubique
totus, ubique presens, ubique potens.” On clause 2 the note is “qui
catholicam fidem recte credendo et opere exercendo negligit, hereticus
est et schismaticus, et hunce sine dubio interitus manebit’.” On weternus
“id est non tres eterni sed in tribus personis unus deus eternus qui
sine initio et sine fine permanet.” Again “Deus nomen potestatis non
proprietatis, proprium nomen patris pater, et proprium nomen filii filius,
et proprium nomen est spiritus sancti spiritus sanctus.” Once more on
31 “id est deus de deo, lumen de lumine ; et, quod pater in divina sub-
stantia, hoe est filius. deus pater deum filium genuit non voluntate,
neque necessitate sed natura: ne queratur quomodo genuit filium, quod et
angeli nesciunt, prophetis est incognitum: nec inenarrabilis deus a ser-
vulis suis discutiendus est, sed fideliter credendus et sponte diligendus.”

On comparing this with the Exposition of “ Fortunatus,” it will be
seen that there is much similarity. That Exposition may have been
originally a series of notes like this: or the collection may have been
formed by a diligent reader, anxious to copy something “which time
had saved ;” or the two documents may have been directly or indirectly
drawn from some common original. The verbal identity cannot be
otherwise accounted for.

There is no note on the word “seculo” in clause 31. I call
this MS. m.

We must note that the Gloria in Excelsis does not occur in
either of these two St Gall Psalters”.

v. I will take next a very beautiful manuscript which forms
one of the many treasures in the Douce collection at the Bodleian.
It is numbered 59. Mr Coxe considers it to be of the tenth

century, —

Probably, of the earliest years, for it seems to be nearly of the same
date as the exquisite Vienna Psalter, which we connect with the names
of Charles and Hadrian. It is of the same size: and in very similar
writing, ὁ. 6. gold Caroline minuscules; but whereas in the Vienna manu-
script the parchment is generally white, in this it is coloured purple.
The lines are ruled most regularly. The initial B in Psalm i. is of the
same Roman character, though the ornamentation is different: the Douce
has 20 lines on the page, the Viennese 23. The Psalter in both is
Gallican. The preliminary matter is much less in the Douce, consist-
ing only of the Origo prophetiae, fol. 1 (David filius J esse), fol. 2, Profatro
Sci Hieronymi; the Beatus commencing on fol. 4. There are drawings
(as is not unusual) for the Psalm li. Quid gloriaris and Ps. ci. Oratio
pauperis. In the titles occasionally rustic letters are intermixed, The
Hymnum in die dominica follows that from Deuteronomy: the Hym-

1 The reading is “ interritus.” Rohrer, the Librarian, and M. Joh.
21 would take this opportunity of Schlachten the Vice-librarian of the
expressing my obligations for the at- Library of St Gall.
tentions which I received from M. Fr.

XXIV. ] PSALTERS CONTAINING THE QUICUNQUE.

357
num angelicum ad missam' follows the Nunc Dimittis. Then the Lord’s
Prayer, Apostles’ Creed, (161 b), and on the same page “" Fides Catholica
Athanasii epi*.” Here and there we have rustic titles. I call this o.

vi. Boulogne, 20, is of the tenth century: indeed the date
seems to be fixed between 989 and 1008. Drawings from it may
be seen in Professor Westwood’s Miniatures, 36, 37, 38, 39. And
there is an interesting account of it in the Boulogne Catalogue,
Ῥ. 16°. It contains some of the usual prefatory matter. The
writing generally is, I think, Caroline minuscules: the veision
is Gallican.

The Ze Dewm is ascribed to Ambrose and Augustine. The Qui-
cunque is annotated thus “Q. vu. s. esse Ibi ille doctor liberum arbitrium
posuit sicut dicit in psalmo Quis est homo qui vult vitam ..A%ternum
pro sempiternum debemus intelligere...singillatim id est distinctim
vel separatim.” These explanations are found in “Bruno.” It finishes
off with the appeal “ut unusquisque sacerdos haec sciat et predicet.”
The following, however, seems to have been omitted in Bruno: “et
si ita non credideris, salvus esse non poteris. unde nos pilus dominus
non meritis nostris sed propter suam misericordiam eripere dignetur.
amen. Finit*.”

This is followed by sixteen leaves of collects or prayers adapted for
the Psalms, &c., in succession, they inciude Psalm cli., the Canticles,
the Pater Noster, Credo in Deum, Gloria in Excelsis, Te Deum lauda-
mus, in this which seems to be the ancient order, but here they stop:
ὦ. 6. there is no collect or prayer on the Quicunque. These collects are
all printed (says the Boulogne Catalogue) amongst the works of Bruno.
There are yet twenty folia of hymns and nine more of prayers. The
volume is very interesting. We will designate it as p,

vii. Although the manuscript 272. O. 5, in the collection at
Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, does not exactly tally with
those which I have been above describing, it so nearly resembles
them that I will place it in this group.

It is a Gallican Psalter, and was known to and examined by Arch-

bishop Usher (see de Symbolo, p. 30, or Elrington’s edition, Volevir,
pp. 335, 336). Hence it fell under the notice of Waterland (chap. iv.

1 Note the title.

2 The stops in Vienna, 1861, are ‘ in
the middle of the verse and , at end.
‘‘Douce’’ has. in the middle, and ° at
end, generally followed by :... in white
or red.

3 For this I was indebted to Mr
Bensley.

4 The initial B is wonderful. There
are pen and ink drawings (subsequently
coloured) which are very neat and good.

In the D of Psalm xxvi. (Dominus illu-
minatio) is a drawing of the angel ap-
pearing to Mary. The B in “ Beati
quorum” is something like the Utrecht
B. The Q in “ Quid gloriaris” contains
the birth of our Lord. In the ‘‘Can-
tate” (Ps. xevii.) is a picture of Christ
changing the water into wine. In the
D of Psalm ci, is a drawing of the cru-
cifixion.

358 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

A.D. 885). It begins with some of the prefatory matter that we meet
with elsewhere: The Origo prophetiz, David Filius Jesse, Preefatio Sci
Hieronymi presbyteri. Throughout the book each verse begins with a
gold letter which is uncial. ;

There is a short comment on each psalm followed by a collect. Thus
at the end of Psalm 111. we have ‘‘coll.” in red, and the

“‘Effunde dne benedictionem tuam super popu
lum tuum ut tua resurrectione muniti

non timeamus ab adversantium vitiorum li
tibus (?) circundari per dium.”

The titles of the Psalms are frequently in red rustic.
The margin of Psalm cl. runs as follows:

“Tmpletur hec laus in cymbalis quando corruptione carnis sangui-
nisque depulsa conformati ad imaginem creatoris resplendentes in regno
patris omnis spiritus: in illo igitur regno non caro nec sanguis non cor-
ruptio sed homo iam spiritualis totus effectus deum in spiritu qui spiritus
est laudare non desinit.”

At the end of Psalm cl. is in gold uncials “ Achadeus miseri-
cordia dei comes hunc psalterium scribere jussit.” After Psalm cl.
is interpolated a quire of a few leaves, containing a Litany.

“Tncipit Letania
Kyrie eleison ter
Christe eleison ter
Kyrie eleison ter
Christe audi nos.”

These in gold rustics.

Then the invocations “Scta Maria, &c.” in uncials, This and the
three “‘Sce Remigi, Sce Columbane, Sce Abunde” are in gold. After
the invocations follow the petitions which fix the date of the Litany,

“Ut Marinum apostolicum in sca religione conservare
digneris. Te rog.
Ut Karlomannum regem
perpetua prosperitate
conservare digneris. Te rog.
ut [a blank] reginam
conservare digneris. Te rog.
ut foleonem episcopum cum omni
grege sibi commisso in tuo
apostolico servitio conservare
digneris. Te rog.”
The Litany finishes in gold rustic letters XPEAUDINOS, ἄο.
The verso is blank. The next folio begins
‘‘Pascebam oves patris mei” in the middle of Psalm cli, the first part
of which has been torn out to make way for the Litany.
Then come the Canticles assigned to the mattins of the successive
days of the week.

XXIV.] PSALTERS CONTAINING THE QUICUNQUE. 399

The Benedicite, Benedictus, Magnificat, Nune dimittis following.
Then

“Hymnum die dominica ad matutin.”
(ScS ScS ScS are in gold).
“Hymnum angelicum.”
“Fides catholica.”
“Tncipit symbolum.”
“Oratio dominica.”
In the margin is added in the handwriting of the thirteenth or four-

teenth century, “Ave Maria gratiae plena’.” Then in the original

“Incipit oratio Sancti Benedicti.”

Towards the end the confession and absolution which are so well
known: “Confiteor domino et tibi frater? quia peccavi nimis in cogita-
tione et locutione et opere, propterea precor te ut ores pro me.

“Misereatur sic tibi omnipotens deus et dimittat tibi omnia peccata
tua, liberet te ab omni malo, conservet te in omni bono et perducat te in
vitam eternam.”

For the date of the Litany we have the following notes. Marinus
was pope from December 882 to May 884. Carloman was sole king
from 881 to 885. Fulco was archbishop of Rheims about the same
time: the latter was a great friend of learning, as may be seen from a
notice by Flodoard in Wiltzsch. (Geography and Statistics of the Church,
vol. 1. p. 335, note 20.) Thus the date of the Litany is certain. The
question remains, Was the Psalter of the same date? It will be remem-
bered that the first few words of Psalm cli. are missing. The page con-
taining them must have been torn out, probably to make way for the
Litany. I conceive therefore that the greater part of the book must
be of an earlier date than 884. How much earlier is merely a subject
for conjecture.

T shall call this manuscript q.

vill. The manuscript 411. N. 10, in the library of Corpus
Christi College, Cambridge, is somewhat puzzling, but I will give
it place here.

It contains a Gallican Psalter, and is said to have been written in
the ninth century. The “Hymnus in die dominica ad matut.*” comes
between the Magnificat and Nunc dimittis: after the latter the ““Hym-
nus angelicus,” the Pater Noster, Credo in Deum, “Fides sci Anas-
thasii epi.” Then “Pura oratio ad dominum cum intercessionibus

‘sanctorum,” followed by two litanies. The volume is mentioned by

Waterland, chap iv., under the year 850: it belonged once to Thomas ἃ
Becket. The text of the Athanasian Creed is generally of the same
type as that contained in the Psalters which I have been describing,
but the manuscript has been altered much by erasures*. .

1 An interesting fact as to the date of 3 The Te Deum reads ‘Te ergo
the introduction of this invocation. sancte quesumus tuis famulis.”
2 Not to the Virgin nor to the Saints. 4 Thus the et has been carefully erased

360 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

ix. Of the remaining older manuscripts of this class which
have Psalm cli. following on Psalm cl., the only remarkable one
that remains to be noticed is Arundel, 60. It is described in
Professor Westwood’s Miniatures, 49, and referred to by Water-
land under the year 1050. Waterland describes it as containing
a Gallican Psalter: my memoranda make it a Roman Psalter.

It begins with a Calendar fol. 1—12: on fol. 13 there is a beautiful
opening. ‘There is an interlinear gloss or translation throughout the
Psalms. Psalm cli. is not glossed, therefore I presume that its use had
become obsolete when the gloss was introduced. The Canticles follow.
The scribe could not have been very literate—for we read

““canticum moysi inde vtero
nomio ad filios israhel ”

and the Magnificat is described as the “canticum zachariae.” The 766

Deum is entitled f. 127
YMH’ SCI VICETI EPI DIEB’ DOMINICIS ADMATUTINIS

Before the Quicunque we have “incipit fides Catholica Athanasii
Alexandrini.” As a specimen of the gloss I take this to verse 35:

an soplice na gecippednes godcundnesse
on flesce ac of anfangennesse menniscnesse
on gode.

The Athanasian Creed is followed by a litany, including prayers for
the pope, our king, our bishop (no names given). ‘Towards the end isa
kind of chronology. It ends ‘ab initio mundi usque ad nativitatem
Christi fuerunt anni fiunt autem (sic) anni quinque mill. cxcvi. a
nativitate dni usque ad finem mundi dd xxvr.” Thus the sixth mil-
lennary would end in the year 803: but how the end of the world was
calculated I do not know. On folio 149 b is a list of the bishops of the
West Saxons’. I call this ¢.

δ 5. The Psalms and Canticles, &c. in these Psalters are ar-
ranged nearly in the same order, and when we examine the text
of the Quicunque we meet with the same characteristics. Com-

paring it as exhibited here with

in clauses 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, adapt-
ing the words to the more modern text.
In clause 27 I think that the original
reading was ‘‘et unitas in trinitate et
trinitas in unitate,” and that this was
erased and the words replaced in the
other order by the original writer: the
clause ‘‘ tertia die resurrexit a mortuis”’
is also on an erasure apparently made
to interpolate ‘‘ tertia α16.᾽ I will de-
signate the two sets of readings by s,
and s,.

the received text of the Roman

1 There isa Psalter at Florence, Plut.
xvi. cod. 111? of the eleventh century,
which seems from the description in
the Catalogue to resemble this. The
Te Deum is entitled ‘“‘hymnus Niceti
Episcopi in diebus dominicis,” but the
ες Symbolum Constantinopolitanum”’ is
interposed between the Apostles’ Creed
and the ‘‘ Fides Catholica 5. Athanasil
episcopi Alexandrini.” A Litany fol-
lows,

XXIV.| PSALTERS CONTAINING THE QUICUNQUE. 361

Breviary, and remembering that & commences in the middle of
clause 12, I note

That all of them with the exception of q (CCC. O. 5 Marinus) ascribe
the document to Athanasius (for Anasthasius is simply a blunder).

In clause 5, 1 m n (the three MSS. of St Gall)
read θέ spiritus sancti.
op qs t omitting et.
In clauses 7. 8. 9. 10. 13. 15. 17 all save f add
et. 8, erased it.
In 10. k omits est.
24. Καὶ omits sanctus (per errorem sine dubio).
27. k had superius, a more recent hand has written supra.
In 27. All read now et trinitas in unitate et unitas tm trinitate,
although it is uncertain what s, read.
In 29. k omits est.
29. t adds wnusquisque before fideliter: and q has the same
word in the margin.
s, has interlined qui vult salvus esse.
In 30. k, has the latter half rewritten on an erasure: a space is
left after deus, no doubt for the insertion of pariter.
inl, a word is erased after deus.
in q pariter is written in the margin
to be inserted after deus.
t adds pariter in the text.
in s pariter is in the text but is run through with | a pen.
91. k reads secula for sceculo.
32. In rational q has the ἐδ on an erasure.
Tt seems to have read at one time rationabilt.
35. klm,n,topqst read carne or carnae
and deo
(k, may have read dewm.)
m,n, read carnem, dewm.
In 38. The words tertia die have been erased in k and a space left.
They are not found in] no pq, 5;
in m they are underlined as erroneous:
in q the line has been rewritten, clearly for the purpose of intro-
ducing them:
in s the words are on an erasure.
Thus t alone of this group contains tertia die without remark.
In 39. k and t have sedit. :
In 41. The readings vary. k has qui mala. ο, et qui mala, p,
gui mala, but there has been an attempt to insert vero.

We have therefore little difficulty in reconstructing the text as it
was received in France in the ninth century, and with that text we may
make further comparisons.

§ 6. 8. I turn now to St Gall, 20, which is the only manuscript
of this class that I have met with which does not contain Psalm

362 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

cli. It is an interesting manuscript, the size 12” by 9”: the hand-
writing the early Caroline minuscule. The initial B, however,
for Psalm 1. is very large, and of the Utrecht or Anglo-Saxon type.
It is really curious to see how frequently this B is introduced, and
with what variety of filling up. The Psalter is again Gallican.

The early Rubrics are in rustic: the first words of the Psalms in
Roman. The ornamentation is rather rude. Psalm cl. ends on page
327: then follow a few words to say that it was written by one Wolfear.
The Scriptural Canticles come in the usual order; there is no Gloria in
Lxcelsis here: the Nunc dimittis is followed by Pater noster, Credo in
Deum (without titles), ‘Fides catholica Sancti Athanasii episcopi.”
This on page 350. On page 354 a title much abbreviated which I read
thus: “Hymnus dominicalis pro nocturnis, hoc est ante lectionem
evangeli.” This is the Ze Deum. After it the hymn 76 decet laus,
as in Folkard (St Gall 23), “hymnus angelicus laudibus in nativitate
Christi cantatus,” the Gloria in Eacelsis: on p. 357 is a short table of
lessons: on p. 358 a Litany resembling that in 23, ὦ, 6. with the peti-
tions to the Father, to the Son, to the Holy Spirit. A few hymns
including Lucis creator: Immensus coeli conditor—and the book ends.
We will call this τι.

This manuscript agrees entirely with ὦ, m, n, save that it reads
carnem and deum. That is, it has δέ in clause 5; omits pariter ;
and omits tertia die.

§ 7. y. We now come to a manuscript in which the 151st
Psalm is relegated to the end of the volume. In other respects
its contents resemble, in general, those of the Psalters which
I have given above under my subdivision g This copy contains
the Gallican Psalter and the usual Canticles (amongst the titles of
which there is some confusion; we have each of the first three
entitled, “Canticum Isaie Prophetae”): that from Deuteronomy
is inscribed ‘‘ Canticum Moysi ad Filiis Israhel.”’ There follow on
this, “ Benedictio trium puerorum,” “hymnum ad matutinis”
Te Dewm Laudamus, “Canticum Zacharie Prophete ad matuti-
num,’ “Canticum scae Mariae,” “Canticum Simeonis ad comple-
torium,” Gloria in Ezcelsis, “Oratio Dominica secundum Ma-
theum,” “Incipit Symbolu Apostolorum ” (a completed copy): “In-
cipit Fides Catholicam.” Then Psalm cli. It has an initial B
of the same character as the B of the manuscripts Paris, 13159 ;
St Gall, 20 and 27; the B of Psalm cxviii. in Boulogne, 20. We
find a B of the same type, although far more beautifully orna-
mented, in the Psalter of Charles le Chauve, which will come next

XXIV.| PSALTERS CONTAINING THE QUICUNQUE. 363

under our notice: and another in Galba A. xvi. Judging by
the contents we must place this Psalter among those of the ninth
or tenth century; and as no argument has been brought forward
to invalidate this conclusion, I have no hesitation in accepting
this, which is also the decision of the great majority of the palxo-
graphers of the day. This manuscript is the famous Utrecht
Psalter, the Claudius C. vu. of the library of Sir Robert Cotton’.
The readings of the Athanasian Creed agree entirely with the
revised version in (q), except that we have here tres dominos
in 20; and et gui mala in 41. I call this manuscript a.

§ 8. I am not quite satisfied, as will be seen, as to the reading
of clause 27 in the beautiful Psalter of Charles le Chauve: there-
fore, I shall consider it by itself.

This Psalter has been long well known. It is mentioned by
Montfaucon in his Diatribe on the Quicunque (Migne, p. 1571)
It once belonged to the chapter of Metz, but Colbert asked for it
in 1674, and then it formed one of the treasures of his collection.
Its number there was 1339. It is now in the Paris library, 1152.
When I first asked, through the Very Reverend the Dean of
Westminster, for a collation of the manuscript, it was in one of
the cases of the Musée des Souverains in the Louvre, and
access was impracticable. The course of events during the
years 1871 and 1872 broke up that collection, and the precious
volume was restored to the brary; and then M. Delisle him-
self most kindly prepared for me a collation, And I had an
opportunity of inspecting the volume in September, 1872, and of
thus adding to the information which its distinguished custodian
had so liberally conveyed to me. I was assisted also by an inter-
esting memoir in one of the old Hand-books to the Louvre, pre-
pared by the distinguished savant, M. Barbet de Jouy.

The manuscript consists of 172 numbered folia, each of which
measures 92” by 63”. It is magnificently bound in ivory’ inlaid with

1 Tt will be noticed that the Quicun-
que is entitled Fides Catholica as in (q),
and is not ascribed to Athanasius. I
must give below an Excursus on the
date of this manuscript.

2 With regard to this ivory binding,
Professor Westwood contributed some
interesting information to the Athe-
néum Newspaper, July 18, 1874, p. 81.

One of the plaques affixed to the cover
exhibits a carving which is identical in
design with that of the Utrecht Psalter
for Psalm 1. (our li.). The other plaque,
of which the interpretation had been
much disputed, proves to exhibit the
design in the Utrecht Psalter for Psalm
lvi. (our lvii.). Another plaque, evi-
dently by the same artist, is in the

364 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.
gold, the gems on which (if I remember right) still continue fixed. On
fol. 1 Ὁ is a painting of David playing on the lyre, Asaph dancing,
Eman with the cymbals, Ethan on the cythera, Iduthun on the trumpet.
The picture is far superior to anything of the age which I have seen.

The volume begins with the “Origo psalmorum” David Filius Jesse.
Fol. 2a is blank. Then, on the next opening, on the left is a picture of
Jerome, and on the right of Charles crowned; with this inscription in
rustic letters over the one —

““Nobilis interpres hieronymus atque sacerdos
Nobiliter pollens transcripsit jura davidis.”
Over the other;

“Cum sedeat carolus magno coronatus honore
Est iosia similis parque theodosio,”

Then come the exquisitely beautiful ‘ Incipit liber psalmorum,” and

the ‘‘Beatus’” (each occupying a page), which are depicted in M. Syl-
vestre’s volumes.

There are twenty lines on each page—the same number as in Douce
59—the lines being drawn with the utmost regularity. A band of a
lovely violet runs down between two vertical lines on the left: and,
when a new Psalm commences, a similar band crosses the page. This
last is occupied with writing. The general character of the writing of
the Psalms seems to be Roman: the letters are all gold. The inscrip-
tions at first are in uncials: from folio 19 they vary; e.g. on fol. 19 Ὁ,
one is in rustic: fol. 24 Ὁ in uncials: fol. 25 Ὁ in rustic: foll. 29 to 41 in
rustic. In the beginning of the volume the stops are { in the middle of
the verse and. at the end: but from Psalm xviii. we have: in the middle.

At the end of Psalm xxv. (fol. 26 a) and on folia 41 a, 69 Ὁ, 88a, 103 a,
121 a, are inserted lections, in the Caroline minuscule, apparently intend-
ed simply to fill up the page when the next page was required either for
a beautiful initial or for a drawing. On folio 106 we have another
inscription which helps to fix the date. It is after Psalm ο. Misericor-
diam et gudicitum to which it is certainly appropriate. It is this

REXREGVM KAROLOPACEMTRIBVATQVESALVTEM
This is in rustic letters.

On folio 155a, Psalm cli. follows immediately on cl. with the short
title “His psalmus...Goliath” in rustics: then the Canticles (the “ Hym-

Museum of the Antiquarian Society at
Zurich, exactly like that in the Utrecht
Psalter for Psalm xxvi. In a letter ad-
dressed to the same Journal (September
19, 1874, pp. 384, 385), Professor West-
wood adds that in a very beautiful
Psalter of the ninth century in the
Cathedral of Troyes, there is an illumi-
nation identical with the drawing in the
Utrecht Psalter for Psalm li. Quid glo-
riaris. Out of the mouths of the per-
sons represented small legends proceed
in rustic Letters.

. 1 The magnificent and elaborate B is

Anglo-Saxon in its outline, like the
Utrecht B. It is depicted on Plate 129
of Sylvestre’s work (see too Plate 131 8).
This is the account of it in the letter-
press. ‘‘La premiere lettre B est de
forme Anglosaxonne, gigantesque, en-
trelassée, brodée dans le plein ornée en
volute et fleurons.” With the excep-
tion of the D in Dirit dominus, I be-
lieve it is the only Anglo-Saxon letter
in the volume. This is curious because
(as is well known) the B of the first
Psalm is the only Anglo-Saxon letter
in the Utrecht Psalter.

XXIV.] PSALTERS CONTAINING THE QUICUNQUE. 365

nus ad matutin. in diebus dominicis” following on the song of Simeon),
then the “Oratio dominica,” CYMBOAON’, “Hymunuus angelicus,”
“Fides sancti Athanasii.” Then “Incipit Laetania.” This commences
as the older Litanies did, “Kyrie eleison.” I counted about 129 invoca-
tions in seven groups; the last two being addressed to “Sancta Praxedis”
and “Savina.”

Then on fol. 171 b.
“‘propitius esto, parce nobis dne.”
After a while

“ut apostolicum nostrum in sancta

religione conservare digneris; Te rogo audi me:
“ut mihi Karolo a re regi coronato

vitam atque prosperitatem atque

victoriam dones; Te rogo audi me.
“ut hirmindrudam conjugem

nostram conservare digneris; Te Τὶ, a. me.
“αὖ nos ad gaudia eterna perduceres

digneris; Te r. a. me.
“αὖ liberos nostros conservare digneris; Te r. a. me.
“ut sanitatem...ut compunctionem

cordis...ut spatium poenitentize

nobis dones; Te r. a. me.
‘ut animabus parentum nostrorum

requiem eternam dones; Te rogo audi me.

&c., &e.

‘Pater noster, &c.”

It ends

“ut nullo in nobis regnante peccato.

tibi solo domino servire. mereamur

per dnm nrm ihm xpm filium

tuum qui tecum vivit et regnat ds in unita
te sps scti per omnia secla sclorum amen
Benedicamus Dno, Do gratias.”

Then on a violet band at the bottom in ine
HICCALAMVSFACTOLIVTHARDIFINEQVIEVIT.

Thus the Manuscript must have been written between the year 842
when Charles married Hirmindruda and 869 when she died. The period
is made a little shorter when we note Charles’s prayer for his children*.

1 The punctuation is, ‘in ihm xpm_ kind of Calendar or ‘‘comes” at the

filium eius* unicum dmn nrm.” beginning :
2 There is a reference to this Litany INCIPIT CAPITULAR
in Madrisius’ edition of Paulinus, Migne, EVANGELIORUM
Vol. xcrx. p. 625. Almost simultane- QUALITER PER ANNI
ously with this volume must have been CIRCULUM
written another wonderful specimen of EVANGELIA
calligraphy, the Evangeliarium (once at IN RoMANA
St Emmeran’s at Ratisbon, now at Mu- LEGUNTUR
nich) with its effigy of the King and in- ECCLESIA

scriptions in rustic letters. There is a Each pair of lines is written in rustic

366 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

In the Athanasian Creed the writer omitted in the first
instance four words in clause 27, and then supplied them in
the margin, thus:

ITAUTPEROMNIASICUTIAMSUPRADICTUMESTETUNITAS
INTRINITATE:/.U ENERAN DASIT:/.ETTRINITASINUNITATE

I consider that he added the mark ‘/. at the wrong place, and
that thus the modern order of the words originated. The fact is
only interesting when we attempt to classify the Psalters: but
very little of my argument will be affected if my supposition
does not meet with approbation.

I call this manuscript 7.

§ 9. I will now take up the Psalters which follow this later
reading, and it may be convenient to follow the subdivision of our
earlier class, and take first those of the ninth and tenth centuries
(which I have seen) in which the Psalm Puszlus eram follows
close on the end of the one-hundred-and-fiftieth. We shall thus
have

Class II. Subdivision a: and our first Psalter will be

i. That referred to by Waterland in Chapter IV. under the
year 703. His remarks are curious:

“We may next set down K. Athelstan’s Psalter of which bishop Usher
has taken notice... He and Dr Grabe both fix the date of it to the year
703, from the rule of the calendar found in it. Dr Smith, in his cata-
logue of the Cotton manuscripts, inclines to think that the MS. is later
than this time, but taken from one that was really as early as the vear
703; the latter copyist transcribing (as sometimes has been done) the

book and the rule word for word, as he found them.

letters on chocolate ground, and spaces
are left between the respective rect-
angles. It has these lines fixing the
date at 870.

‘‘Bis quadraginta volitant et septua-
cinta
‘*Anni quo deus est virgine natus
homo
‘‘Terdenis annis Carolus regnabat et
unus
‘¢+Cum codex actus illius imperio.”

There is an account of the Munich
Evangeliarium in the Nouveau Traité,
ii. Ῥὲ "103 note, and I believe a mono-
graph upon it was published in 1786, by
Sanftl, who was Librarian of St Emme-

Allowing this to

ran’s, and wrote a Catalogue (now at
Munich) of the volumes in the library of
his beautiful Church. Sylvestre gives a
page, No. 130, and Professor Wattenbach,
Einleitung zur Lateinisch Paleographie,
Leipzig, 1872, p. 21, refers to the Denk-
scriften der Wiener Akademie, Band 13,
for a description of the volume by
Arneth, The volume elicited from Ba-
ronius a few contemptuous remarks,
under the year 870: the great Annalist
deemed it to be a proof of Charles’ con-
summate hypocrisy, that he should order
a ‘* Prayer- Book” to be written in gold
in the year in which he had the auda-
city to quarrel with the pope. Baronins
confused the two volumes.

᾿-.

XXIV.] PSALTERS CONTAINING THE QUICUNQUE. 367

have been the case here (though it be only conjecture) it may still be
true that there was a manuscript of the age of 703 with this Creed in
~ it: from which the later one now extant was copied: which serves our
purpose as well and the rest is not material. But it should not be con-
cealed, that the Psalter, in this, is in a small Italian, and the above-men-
tioned rule in a small Saxon hand, which may, in some measure, weaken
the argument drawn from the age of one to the age of the other; so that
at length our evidence from this manuscript will be short of certainty,
and will rise no higher than a fair probable presumption.” The argu-
ment is this: the Psalms in this MS. are written in one handwriting:
the calendar is in another: the calendar may have been copied by one
person from a calendar of the year 703: therefore the Psalms, written by
another person, may have been copied from a Psalter of the same date:
and Waterland considered his “‘probable presumption” so satisfactory,
that in the table at the end of the chapter, representing “a summary
or short sketch of what hath been done in it,” we find him assigning
this manuscript without any mark of hesitation to the year 703.

I have had the pleasure of examining this Psalter on four different
occasions: but it is satisfactory to me that my own memoranda regarding
it are superseded by the account of it given by Dr Heurtley on pp. 74,
το. of his invaluable work Harmonia Symbolica. He shews there that
the calendar, instead of being of the date 703, must be later than 901’,
and he considers that the part containing the Psalms is of the eleventh
century.

The present authorities of the British Museum are inclined to place
it in the ninth or tenth century. Professor Westwood has an interesting
account of it in his Miniatures, no. 32, and in his Paleographia Sacra.

10 is a beautiful little volume: the size only 51” by 33”. Its class
mark GALBA A. XVIII.

The Psalter is Gallican.

_ The Initial B of the first Psalm is again an Anglo-Saxon B exactly
of the Utrecht type. The only other Anglo-Saxon letter in the volume
is a less elaborate D for Psalm ci.

It has some curious resemblances with the Utrecht Psalter, but Psalm
cli. follows cl. immediately. It has the full title. The Ze Deum has
no title: the Gloria in Kxcelsis is preceded by the words “incipit hymnus
angelicus in die dominica ad mat.” The “fides sancta athanasii alex-
andrini” concludes the second part. This title again distinguishes the
book from the Utrecht Psalter.

The titles to the Psalms, the Canticles and the Quicunque are in red
rustics.

Mr Bond and Mr Thompson informed me that the Psalter is ap-
parently of German origin: the calendar having been prefixed to it in
England. It is curious that it has the reading “unitas in trinitate et
trinitas in unitate:” but in the following respects it has the readings
of the Utrecht Psalter:

In the Te Deum, verum unicum filium: tu ad liberandum suscep-

11 regret to say that the recent Ox- Waterland to stand uncorrected, al-
ford editor of Waterland’s work (Oxford, though Dr Heurtley’s work was pub-
1870) has allowed the statement of lished in 1858,

368

THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH.

[ CHAP,

isti hominem ; sempiternus’es filius: te ergo sancte quesumus famulis tuis:
but it reads rege illos et extolle illos in seculum et in seculum seculi.
In the Athanasian Creed it agrees generally with our standard text:
but like the Utrecht Psalter it read tres dominos in 20, the tres being
subsequently erased. In 38 ¢tertia die is omitted: in 41 the reading is

et qui mala’,

(11.) ab. To the very beginning of the tenth century belongs
the Psalter at Bamberg, which has been described by Dr 8. Schén-
felder, “Kaplan an 8. Martinus” in Bamberg in the “Serapeium”

of November, 1865, to which I have already referred.

It is the

earliest quadripartite Psalter that has come under my notice,
and although I have not a collation of the Quicunque from it,

I must give an account of the manuscript.

the year 909.

The date is fixed at

The volume contains some prefatory matter; and, in a more modern

writing, the Ave Maris Stella.

Then some hexameters on Salomon

Abbot, Bishop of Constanz (=St Gall), and the hexameters which
passed between Damasus and Jerome ‘Psallere qui docuit.”

Then the Psalter in four columns,

Gallican, Roman, Hebraic, and Greek in Latin letters.

After this (fol. 150), “David extra numerum cum pugnavit cum

Goliad,” no Greek to this (nor Hebraic version ?).
follow, the Te Deum coming after the Apostles’ Creed.

The Canticles, &c.
It is entitled

‘“Ymnus matutinalis” and has a Greek version as far as venerandum

tuum.
Then comes
“‘Litania greeca:
“item Latina.”

Then fol. 169 “hymnus angelicus” in Greek and Latin:

1 The manuscript consists of 200
folia in all. Fol. 2 may not have be-
longed to the volume; in fact, two illu-
minations are pasted together. The
Kalendar occupies 3 to 14: 15, 16, 17
contain (I suppose) the Computus: 16 b
has a note to say ‘‘annus in quo scrip-
tus fuit iste codex 703:” of course this
is modern and untrustworthy. On 21
is a picture, Christ in a vesica, martyrs
and virgins adoring: 22 b—27 are seve-
ral prayers: 28 a different writing, con-
taining the following memoranda:

“41 Kl. Feb. Karolus piissimus im-
perator de hac luce migravit.”

“14. Jul. Pippinus gloriosus rex de
hac luce migravit.”

‘Kl. Mai. Bernhardus gloriosus rex
de hoc seculo transivit.”’

“Kl, Ap. Uuomdus (?) dux obit, he-
mildrad comitissa,”

This is followed by 28 b, ‘or. matuti-
nalis ;” ‘‘or, ad primam’”’ (and the other
hours): 80 Ὁ ‘‘origo prophetiaw, &c.”’ oc-
cupying the page: 31 “ David filius, &c.”’
32 ‘*Psalterium Romae dudum &€e.”’
33 Four verses occupying eight lines,
‘‘Jam superna dei que sunt quicunque
requiris, &c.”” Then 95 ‘In Christi
nomine...emendatum a sco hieronimo
prbo in novo.” The Q in Quid gloriaris
is grand (fol. 80), and there is an illu-
mination on fol. 120b, facing a grand
Ὁ (psalm ci.) fol. 121. The Athanasian
Creed ends on the fourth line of folio
174b, the page is filled up with two
prayers in a later and much clumsier
hand: the first entitled, ‘‘ Ad possenda
suffragia,” the second ‘‘Ad gratiam
sancti spiritus postulandam, Deus cui
omne cor patet.”

XXIV.] PSALTERS CONTAINING THE QUICUNQUE. 369

“Fides catholica niceni concilii” in Latin and Greek ;
“symbolum athanasianum” in Latin but not in Greek.

Dr Schonfelder says that the columns are 23 zoll broad, a space of
Φ zoll lying between each pair. The vertical and horizontal lines are
drawn very exactly. There are forty lines on the page, each page being
174 zoll long, and 14 broad. The text is in beautiful Caroline minus-
cules, with uncials at the beginning of each Psalm, sometimes beautifully
ornamented. The learned commentator refers to the St Gall codex 17 as
being ‘“‘consonant” to this: and then exhibits the resemblance between
the Veronese and Bamberg Greek thus: ‘‘meta su e arche en imera tes
dynameos su en te lamproteti ton agion. ec gastros pro eosphoru exegen-
nesa se;” “meta su hi archi en imera tis dinameos su .en tes lamprotesi
td agion ec gastros pro eosforu gegennica se.”

The Greek versions of the Apostles’ Creed, of the Gloria in Lacelsis and
of the portion of the 766. Dewm must be of the deepest interest, but I
have not been able to obtain a copy of them. I must, however, reserve
a place for this, and call it ab.

(iii.) ad. In the Cathedral of Salisbury there is a Psalter
containing the Quicunque, with exactly the same title and words
that we find in Regius 2 B. v., which I must consider below.
I refer especially to the words Incipit de fide: except that these
last words are in a space before the Quicunque begins. The
manuscript is of the tenth century : at least it contains a calendar
commencing with the year 969 and ending with 1006. This
copy was known to Usher. The Librarian of the Cathedral
most kindly sent me a collation and some notes of the manu-
script in June, 1872, and I have since been permitted to examine
it.

After the Calendar it has notes on the “‘Computus,” 7. 6. the move-
able and chief immoveable festivals. This is a Gallican Psalter and is
glossed throughout. The Pusillus eram follows Psalm 150, with the
usual title (except that extra numerum is omitted), but it is not glossed.
Then follows this prayer on the recital of the Psalter; Omnipotens et
misericords deus clementiam tuam suppliciter deprecor ut me famulum
tuum tibi fideliter servire concedas ut perseverentiam bonam et felicem
consummationem mihi largiri digneris οὖ hoc psaltertum quod in con-
spectu tuo cantavi ad salutem et ad remedium anime mee proficiat
sempiternum. Amen.”

The Canticles follow.

The “hymnus ad matutinum diebus dominicis” comes before the
Nune Dimittis: the “Oratio pura cum laudatione” (7. 6. Gloria in Ea-
celsis) after it. Then the Lord’s Prayer, the Credo, and the “Hymnus
Athanasii” as in Regius 2 B. v. below. I call it ad. The Athanasian
Creed seems to be copied from Regius 2 B. v. even in its errors. Yet
this Psalter is the Gallican, that the Roman.

re ΟΣ 24

370 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [cHAP.

(iv.) Vitellius E. Xvitt. possesses an interest of another kind.
It was much injured in the Cottonian fire, but our sense of the
loss caused by the damage is compensated by watching the results
of the loving care and wondrous skill evinced in its recent repair
and binding. My informants assigned it to the time of the
Norman conquest, and to England as its birthplace.

The calendar (foll. 1—16) with which it commences, seems to prove
that it was written about the middle of the eleventh century: folio 9b
contains some Saxon notes “de diebus malis cujusque mensis.” Folio
17 was written in the fourteenth century, and contains a litany to the
Virgin: on folio 18 the Psalter proper commences. There is an Anglo-
Saxon gloss: Psalm 151 with the long title is on folio 19] ἃ. Then the
Canticles, Hymns, Creed, and the Quicunque introduced thus ; “Tneipit
Fides Catholica Athanasii episcopi Alexandrini.” This is followed on
the same (fol. 140 Ὁ) page with prayers commencing : Omnipotens deus
pater ceterne, Deus indulgentiarum.

Then comes a Litany with prayers for the Pope, and all grades in
the Church.

I may add that many of the titles to the Psalms are written in rustic
capitals (it seems to be of the eleventh century), and that the Te Deum
is entitled “Hymnus quem Sanctus Ambrosius et Sanctus Augustinus
invicem condiderunt.” I call this ah.

(v.) The Harleian, 2904, is a magnificent book, and has
furnished an illustration to Professor Westwood’s Jiniatures (No.
43). It is the copy referred to by Waterland under the year
970: Wanley putting it down to the reign of Edgar. Mr Bond
and Mr Thompson place it in the next century, and ascribe it to
Germany. The Psalter is Gallican.

The letters are ὅ of an inch high: there are eighteen lines only on a
page. It clearly belonged (as I shall shew hereafter) to some Archbishop.
There are a few prayers before the Psalms begin: Psalm 150 ends on
folio 187 Ὁ, and the Pusillus follows on 188. Then come the Canticles:
‘chymnus ad matutinos” on fol. 200: ‘““hymnus ad missam in diebus
dominicis, Gloria in Excelsis” on 204. The “oratio dominica” ἢ. 206;
“symbolum apostolorum” following. Then on 205b

‘“incipit fides catholica edita ab
Athanasio Alexandrino episcopo.”

Thus the order is the same as in the Utrecht Psalter.
After this we have
“Tneipiunt litanie”—
a litany of the older form, “Scte Benedicte,” being in gold. When
we come to the intercessions we find a prayer for our king, but none
for pope or bishop: we find too a petition “ut paganorum svitiam com-
primere. digneris.”

a i a νμμμυνννμννμνμμνμ. ᾿᾿“᾿᾿.᾿-.΄.-.᾿΄᾿΄ῳ00ῳ0ιοὦ}ὄ ὐὐ .00.0.ϑ...»ὦὧὅὃϑὍ- “-'΄᾿ὀὈῸᾷ8Π-έΠ':᾿ὃ

XXIV.] PSALTERS CONTAINING THE QUICUNQUE. 371

Then there is a special plea for the intercession of St Benedict, thus:

“per intercessionem beate et gloriosee semper virginis Mariz sanc-
tique Michaelis archangeli necnon et Sancti Benedicti et omnium sanc-
torum tuorum: et libera me ab omnibus malis per eorum intercessionem
et fac me dignum exaudiri pro omnibus pro quibus tuam clementiam
exoro.”

Petitions follow for all Rectors of Churches: for all “qui mei memo-
riam faciunt, et se meis indignis orationibus commendaverunt:” for my
relations and for all “quorum in communione mentionem facio’.” The
manuscript must have been prepared for an Archbishop who had been a
Benedictine monk, I refer to it as ai.

(vi) Of the Psalters in the Parker collection at Corpus
Christi College, Cambridge, I have already appealed to two.
But there is a third which must be ranked amongst these which
we are now discussing; it is numbered 391; its class-mark is
K. 10. It once belonged to the Church of St Mary at Wor-
cester, and it is noted as having been given to the Church by
St Oswald. <A later memorandum states that this note is false,
for the very sufficient reason, that the volume contains prayers to
be said on the feast of the translation of St Oswald. The calen-
dar contains notes on the death of Bishop Wlstan, and of the
death of King William: but Oct. 13 is not noted as the feast of
Edward the Confessor. It is assigned to the year 1064 by Water-
land after Wanley. It contains the Gallican Psalter. The “ Pu-
sillus eram” still follows the Psalms; the Canticles, &c. follow;
the Quicunque being last before a Litany.

The Quicunque has no title. My mark for this is ak.

(vil.) I have met with one or two Latin Bibles in which the
Psalms have been used for Church purposes; and for convenience
sake the Canticles, &. have been grouped together between the
Psalms and the Book of Proverbs. We have such a Psalter, I
believe, in the magnificent Bible in the Royal eollection at the
British Museum, 1 E. vu. This is said to be of the ninth cen-
tury, and to some the copy will be more interesting, because it
exhibits how the change of text in 1 John v. 6, 7, 8, was intro-
duced. The old stops are ‘and . but here and there the ‘is
added in a later and browner ink than the. to which it is an-

1 Amongst the saints appealed to are but Gereon and his fellows are among
many Saxon, Machutus is thelast man, them.
Pictburg and Pinburg (?) the last women,

24—2

372 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

nexed, so as to form the { with which the Utrecht Psalter is
studded. Thus we have

non in aqua folum‘
fed in aqua & sanguine "δὴ fps 6. qui testi
ficatur: qm Xpc eft ueritas: Quia tres sunt
qui testimonium dant. intra sps aqua et sanguis:
& hi tres unum sunt ¢ tres stq; tsmoniit dant in celo
Si testimonium hominum pat 4: filid & sps ses &

hi tres unum sunt

the letters I have printed in italics being in the later and
browner ink, the thick type representing the original manuscript.

The Psalter is Gallican, and the titles generally in rustic’.

(vui.) But the library at Venice contains a grand book, 25
inches long by 162 broad.

It is numbered I. The volume itself is of the tenth century: but, if
I understand correctly a note which Signor Veludo has attached to a
photograph which he and our celebrated countryman Mr Rawdon
Browne have, in the most liberal spirit, transmitted to me, there are
insertions in the volume of a much later date. Amongst these come,
after the Psalms, the Scripture Canticles, the 7.6 Deum, “ Hymnus Ange-
lorum, Fides Catholica cccxviI sanctorum Patrum, Oratio Dominica
secundum Matheum, Symbolum Apostolorum in Pentecosten.” The last
is the Apostles’ Creed, omitting (clearly by a mistake) the article
‘‘Peccatorum remissionem.” The Catholic Faith of the 318 fathers is
the Quicunque! The Psalter is Gallican.

§ 10. IL. 8. I must now turn away to take up two Psalters
which do not contain the apocryphal Psalm 151. And first and
foremost of these is a volume which has deservedly attracted
attention almost as great as that which has been bestowed on the
Utrecht Psalter. I refer to the Psalter in the library at Vienna,
which at one time formed one of the treasures of the Church at
Bremen, and which was exhibited there as having been given by
Charlemagne to Hadrian [. Any person who knows the tradi-

1 A similar Bible is the exquisite copy

by Sylvestre. Tischendorf refers to this
in the library of La Cava, the most

manuscript in his note on the verse in

complete account of which is given in
the Codex diplomaticus Cavensis, the
first volume of which appeared at Na-
ples, in the year 1872: a facsimile of
the title of Psalm cli. was given by
Sylvestre, Vol. m1. No. 145. ‘This is
considered to be of the ninth century

St John’s Epistle: and calls it ‘see.
fere vir.”” 1 remark that it seems to
have an unique rendering of éuovoud-
xnoev? **cum pugnaret adversus Goliam
solus.” I infer from this that the copy
may produce interesting varie lectiones
elsew here,

XXIV.] PSALTERS CONTAINING THE QUICUNQUE. 373

tions which circled round the great Emperor will not be surprised
at the anxiety to connect this volume with his name. Facts and
events connected with others of the name of Charles have been
attributed to him: and the value of the relic would have been
immeasurably diminished if it had been shewn that the tradition
concerning it was false. This, however, is clear, that the volume
contains an address from King Charles to Hadrian, offering the
volume to the pope:—the verses may be seen in Sir T. Duffus
Hardy’s Karlier Report, or in Mr Lumby’s History, p. 221. And
_ 1 need not repeat them here.

The first person to draw general attention to the volume was (I
believe) Lambeccius, who had charge of the Imperial Library in the 17th
century. He gave a very long and interesting account of the contents
of the volume in his catalogue, published in 1669. Unhappily he did
not make any distinction between the handwritings in which its various
contents were penned, and represented a notarial memorandum of the
17th century as if it were of great antiquity and undisputed authority.
The purport of this memorandum is that the volume had been given by
Charlemagne’s wife Hildegard to the Church of Bremen. How this
could be reconciled with the verses that it was given by Charles to
Hadrian has never been explained. The present Catalogue gives the
following account of the MS.

“1861 [Theol]. 652] m. vir. 158. 8° c. init. color. et litteris aureis.
Psalterium a Carolo magno, ut traditur, papze Hadriano dono missum et
manu Dagulfi cujusdam scriptum. cum prolegomenis et canticis biblicis.
Denis 1. xxvi.” The words “ut traditur” will be noticed.

Denis was the librarian at the later part of last century. His account,
as supplementary to that of Kollar (who merely republished Lam-
beccius’ notice in 1761), is full of interest. He admitted that the tra-
dition was questioned: whether it be true or not (he says) “statuant
eruditi: quicquid enim statuerint nec «tate nec pretio codicis decedet.”
(1793, Vol. I., No. xxviir. col. 54—69.)

Neither Denis nor Kollar gave any facsimile of the writing. This
defect is now remedied by M. Sylvestre, who gives a page in volume II.
no. 145. Through the kindness of the Rev. D. M. Clerk I have photo-
graphs of six or eight pages.

The Benedictine editors of the Vouveaw Traité had some difficulty in
reconciling the traditions: they supposed that Hadrian might have
died before the Psalter reached Rome.

The present librarians consider that it belongs to the time of
Charles the Bald. That is, they endorse the suggestion made by the
Reverend Edmund S. Ffoulkes that it was intended as a present from
Charles the Bald to Hadrian II. We know that the king did make
some most valuable presents to the pope, but a Psalter is not named
among them’.

1 An account of these is given in the speaks of Hincmayr’s fondness for beau-
Bertine Annals, and from them in Fleury _ tiful books.
and Pritchard. The Gallia Christiana

374 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ΟΠ AP:

The B in Beatus is an elaborate Roman letter, beautifully interlaced.

It may be interesting to note the contents.

First we have the two dedications, one of Charles to Hadrian; the
other of Dagulfus, the writer, to Charles.

Then we Πᾶν ἃ series of Symbols; the true Nicene Creed ;
the Faith of St Ambrose; the Faith of St Gregory, Pope of Rome,
the Faith of St Gregory of Neocesarea; the Exposition of St
Jerome (above, p. 275); a version of the Lord’s Prayer in Hexa-
meters; “Hadriano summo;” the Gloria in Eacelsis ; then pre-
faces to the Psalter, apparently intended to recommend this
Gallican version: at length on folio 24 b we have, within a border
very prettily arranged, the usual Introduction to this amended
Psalter followed by the Psalms themselves. The parchment 15
generally white, but here and there the page 1s ornamented.

For example, for the Quid Gloriaris; the Oratio pauperis; the Dixit
Dominus.

After Psalm 150 (which ends in fol. 145 b), we have on fol. 146a
“TIncipiunt cantica.” They follow as usual. The “hymnus quem sanctus
ambrosius et sctus agustinus invicem condiderunt” comes between the

RBenedicite and the Benedictus. The Credo complete follows the Lord’s
Prayer; and on fol. 157 a we have “ Fides sci Athanasii epi. alexandrini.”

I must draw attention to the position of the “Gloria in Ex-
celsis.” I have already noticed that it is missing in some of the
manuscripts written at St Gall, but Iam at a loss to account for
its position here; unless I am to suppose, that in consideration
for the Roman use in regard to that Angelic Hymn, it was removed
from the body of the Psalter. We may compare this volume with

St Gall 20.

(ii.) The Regius 2 B. v. of the British Museum claims more
than a passing notice. The authorities at the Museum consider
it to be of the earliest years of the tenth century. It was referred
to by Waterland under the year 930: his information apparently
being drawn from the catalogue of Wanley and a memorandum by
Wotton.

It begins with a prayer through the intercession of the Virgin “in
cujus atrio majestati tue famulamus:” it speaks of “injuriam quam
patimur:” it calls on Mary to deliver from the hands of our enemies the
possessions offered to this thy Holy Church: then the appeal is made to
St Machutus' and St Eadburg, and repeated again and again to the

1 St Machutus was born in Wales, but gave his name to St Malo.

XXIV.] PSALTERS CONTAINING THE QUICUNQUE. BAS

Virgin. I have not as yet discovered the name of the monastery to
which it belonged.

On fol. 6 b there is a Saxon prayer (to be freed from our sins, says
Casley). On ἢ 7 the introduction to the Psalter; and the autograph of
Archbishop Cranmer. ‘The Psalms follow: the Roman Psalter occupying
the centre of the page—interlined with Saxon gloss and Saxon notes at
the side. The Psalter (I have said) is Roman, it may have belonged
therefore to the Church of Canterbury, but about the 12th century an
attempt was made to alter it into the Gallican. The Canticles follow,
some without, some with marginal notes.

The title of the Quicunque is “hymnus Athanasii de fide
trinitatis quem tu concelebrans discutienter intellige:” then
“oratio pura cum laudibus,” ὦ.6. the Gloria in Excelsis (thus the
Pater noster and Credo are omitted). On folio 186b are some
memoranda on the ages of the world, making out that 5287 years
passed between the Creation and the Advent, and remarking that
“AKtas ab incarnatione usque ad finem seculi decurrit.” Then
there is a memorandum of “Sexta qu nunc agitur.”

If the estimated date (the tenth century) is correct, the writer
must have come to the conclusion that the sixth age had not then |
expired’, The great interest to us in regard to this Psalter is
that in the space at the end of the second verse of the Athanasian
Creed are inscribed the words incipit de fide.

(11) af. Another Psalter, considered to be of the early part
of the same eleventh century, is in the University Library at
Cambridge; from the name of the donor it is:sometimes called
Bacon’s Psalter. Its class-mark is Ff. 1. 23. The Quicunque was
collated for me in 1871 by the eminent English scholar the Rev.
W. W. Skeat, who has also furnished for me the copy of the gloss
which I shall print below. The Psalter is Roman; the manu-
script contains 550 pages: it measures about 11 inches by 5.

At the commencement there is a picture of David playing on the harp;
Asaph on a kind of violin with a bow: Eman ona cythera with his fingers:
Ethan on a curious wind instrument: Idithun on something which he
strikes with hammers.

On fol. 1 a is a prayer to be used before the saying of the Psalter.
At the end is this prayer to the Trinity: “Te deum patrem ingenitum,
te fillum unigenitum, te spiritum sanctum paraclitum, sanctam et indi-

1 There is some mistake in the arith- Abraham to David, 944: from David to
metic. From Adam to Noah, 2242: Babylon 465: from that to the Advent,
from Noah to Abraham, 842: from 587. ‘The total is 5080.

376 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [cHar.
viduam trinitatem toto corde et ore confitemur, laudamus, atque
benedicimus: tibi gloria in secula. Gloria patri.”

The parchment is generally very rough ané@ coarse: at times almost
like a bladder: there is a picture of a crucifixion with The Hand, on
folio 167 (Quid gloriaris), sun and moon weeping; The Figure is clothed
around the loins, but the clothes fall loosely away: the feet are upon a
rest. Another picture precedes the “Oratio pauperis” on fol. 332,
Christ in an oval uttering the words “Ego sum deus qui reddo unicuique
juxta sua opera.” Before Ps. 109 Christ is represented as standing alone
on a lion and a dragon: the cross in His right hand, the book in His
left. There are a few other drawings. The Psalter is, as I said, Roman,
and glossed throughout in red. The stops {*. and: the lines drawn
regularly.

After Psalm 150 the Canticles follow without introduction. The 76
Deum is entitled “Hymnum optimum,” It is not glossed. After the
Nunc Dimittis follow the “ Ymnum angelorum,” the Lord’s Prayer, the

Apostles’ Creed’. Then the Quicunque without a title. Then a
Litany’.
§11. The most interesting and important manuscript to

which attention should now be drawn is the latter part of the
Vespasian A. I. I have spoken of this manuscript already, and
described it as consisting of two parts: the first containing the
Roman Psalter, the Canticles sung in course at mattins in the time
of Amalarius, about 830, 4.6. the Benedicite, Benedictus, and the
three hymns Splendor paterne, Creator omnium, Rex eterne.

The second part, in the handwriting of the eleventh century,
has the Te Deum, entitled, “Hymnus ad Matutinos;” the “Fides
Catholica’,’ with an Anglo-Saxon gloss throughout; “Oratio
Eugeni Toletani Episcopi, Rer Deus immensus;” “Confessio ad
dominum ;” at the end 76 sancta crux humiliter adoro‘.

1 We have “ filium ejus. unicum domi-

num nostrum.”

2 «Kyrie eleison.
Christe audi nos. .
Pater de coelis ds. | miserere nobis.

Fili redemptor | mundi deus | mise-
rere nobis.

Spiritus sanctus deus mi| serere nobis.

Sancta trinitas unus | deus miserere |
nobis.”’

There are petitions for the pope and
all degrees in the Church, for our arch-
bishop, for this place (locum istum),
for all our benefactors. On page 541,
‘“‘oratio post psalterium:”’ ‘‘oratio de
sancta-trimitate ad Patrem (542) ad Fi-
lium: (542) ad personam sancti Spiri-
tus” (545). Then come prayers to the
Virgin and saints. Then follow some

Christe eleison.

᾿
-

benedictions, and the book, which is per-
fect, ends on p. 551. (The Litany was
printed at length by the lamented Arch-
deacon Hardwick in the Journal of Phi-
lology, June, 1854.) It will be noticed
that there is no prayer for the king.
From the petition for the archbishop
and the character of the Psalter, it is
probable that the volume belonged to
the Cathedral Cuurch of Canterbury.

3 In these two respects it agrees with
the Utrecht Psalter.

4 It is on folio 141 Ὁ of this manu-
script that there may be seen in small
Rustic capitals a copy of a charter of
Ethelbald, king of the South Saxons,
the original of which cannot be earlier
than the year 736. Waterland, who
speaks of the codex in the beginning of

XXIV.] PSALTERS CONTAINING THE QUICUNQUE. Sve

§12. I have received or made collations of several other
manuscripts which are assigned to these three centuries; for
example, Lambeth 427 (noticed by Waterland, who says the
Psalter is Gallican, and ascribes it to the year 957). The Gloria
in Excelsis is entitled, “ Cantus angelicus;” the Quicunque, “ Fides
Catholica Sancti Athanasii episcopi.”

In a Psalter of the eleventh century at Salzburg a. V. 31 the
Quicunque is entitled “Ps. Anastas.’ It ends with the word
rationem, ἴ.6. clauses 41 and 42 are omitted.

Others 1 will specify when I come to compare the readings.

§ 13. The magnificent “ Arundel.” Psalter, 155, in the British
Museum, falls below our limits, for it seems to have been written
in the twelfth century; but I must notice it, because in it there
has been an attempt to alter the punctuation from . to‘ by the
addition of the 4 and, simultaneously, the Roman version was
altered to the Gallican. The petition in the Litany that God
would preserve “dominum apostolicum” is erased; therefore the
volume appears to have been in use in the time of Henry VIIL:
there is a clause mentioning “archipresulem nostrum et gregem
sibi commissam.” The Quicunque is entitled, “Fides Catholica
edita a Sco Athanasio Episcopo.”

§ 14. There are many indications that the Eadwine or Canter-
bury Psalter of Trinity College, Cambridge, is connected with the
Claudius C. vil, the Utrecht manuscript.

The drawings are the same throughout, and Psalm 151 eomes after
the Quicunque. It is well known as a grand volume, containing the
three versions, Gallican, Roman, Hebraic: the Galliean occupying
about twice the space of the others. A page is copied in Mr Westwood’s
Anglo-Saxon Psalters, No. 43. It contains a Kalendar which fixes its
earliest possible date as after the Conquest: then much prefatory matter.
The Hebraic version is interlined with a French gloss: the Roman with
a Saxon: in the Gallican several Latin words are explained by other
and easier Latin. When the Canticles commence the arrangement is
altered, and one column is given up to the French: in which. sometimes

chap. tv. and again under the year 1066,
quotes Wanley’s opinion that the Qui-
cunque is of the date of the Norman
Conquest. It is not unlikely that Ethel-
bald’s charter was interpolated or in-
serted in a blank page of the older
Psalter about the same time. Usher

saw and referred to the volume. Histor.
Dogmat. p. 104 (as quoted by Water-
land). The manuscript does not con-
tain the Gloria in Excelsis, nor indeed
the Magnificat nor Nunc Dimittis. I
have a memorandum that folio 109 is
also interpolated.

378 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

the Saxon is interlined. Throughout all these, the spaces between the
columns are occupied with notes and glosses: the Quicunque (which has
no title) is written in two columns, French and Saxon translations
being interlined, the outside space being occupied with the exposition
which, with some variety of readings, is printed by Montfaucon in his
Diatribe and ascribed by Waterland to Bruno.

The volume terminates with some astrological notes, the last words
being “de occultis alias agitur”!

§ 15. There are, of course, very many other Psalters in ex-
istence.

Tiberius C. v. is burnt after Psalm cxry. (see a drawing in Westwood’s
Miniatures, No. 46). At Lambeth I collated Nos. 197, 233, 368, 535,
540: they are all said to be of the twelfth or following centuries, and
are all interesting. The last exhibits a curious mode of saving parch-
nent and helping the memory of the chanter. Psalm σχυύπι. 105, 6 is
written

“Lucerna pedibus m. u. t. & 1]. 5. τη.
Juravi et statui ὁ. i. 1 Ὁ."

(This is unfinished and does not contain the Creeds.)
With this I may compare a Salzburg ‘“Diurnale” of the fifteenth
century. Here we have the Athanasian Creed ascribed to David!
“Ps, DD
“Quicunque vult salvus esse.
“Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit.”

“Semper prima pars,” as the obliging Librarian Mr P. Willibald-
Hauthaley O. 8. B., suggested to me (an interesting memorial of our
mode of antiphonal chanting), The MS. a. V. 30 “of the fourteenth
century or earlier” had the Quicunque of the older form: but curiously
enough οὐ fi/io was on an erasure: it had no tertia die. It contained a
Litany with clauses ‘ Pater de coelis.” a. IV. 7 was another Psalter: it
had tres in the margin before dominos: and the Gloria patri at the end.
At Milan the manuscript L. 81. sup. had a Latin running gloss, dif-
ferent from any other which I had seen. The Creed of Constantinople,
called “symbolum cccxvul. patrum,” followed. I think there are thirteen
Psalters of later dates in the Cambridge Library: fifteen in the Royal
Library at the British Museum and so on. Of course I have not at-
tempted to collate them all. Sir Duffus Hardy kindly shewed me a photo-
graph from a MS. at Venice of the 15th century. In this volume I observed
that the Canticles followed the Psalms, and the Quicunque the Canticles,
but there was no Creed nor Lord’s Prayer. (The Quicunque has the
commentary of Bruno in the margin.) The Psalter I found to be Gallican.
Besides those which I have mentioned at St John’s College, Cambridge,
examined earctully OC. 18; D6: lo<K. 26.

XXIV.] PSALTERS CONTAINING THE QUICUNQUE. BBY es:

In Vienna 1087, a Psalter of the fourteenth century, the Quicunque
is entitled ‘“‘Tractatus de fide catholica.” In 7 γῶν no. Ltxvi. of the
fifteenth century is a “ Declaratio fidei catholicee” of which I should like
to hear something more: it may prove to be the same as Mai’s Lxpla-
natio. There are several Psalters at Florence containing the Creed, e.g.
Plut. xvi. no. xxxvu. of the twelfth century: no. xxxvu. of the eleventh:
Plut. xvi. no. 11. of the eleventh (that in which the Te Deum is en-
titled Hymnus Niceti): Plut. xvii. nos. Vv. Vi. vil. vir. x. A friend who
examined these in June, 1872, could not find much variation.

Plut. xxv. codex m1. is a beautiful manuscript, not a Psalter, of the
year 1293. It contains Litanies, and the Gloria in Excelsis, and Creeds.

Thomasius in his Psalterium speaks of nine manuscripts, all Vatican,
whieh contain the Quicunque, most of which attribute it to Athanasius.
Apparently they are all late. They are Vat. 5729. 82. 84. 98. So
“MS. Chisius.” In Vat. 81. Alex. 12, it is described as Fides Catho-
lica: in Pal. 30 and Pal. 39 as Athanasius.’ It is curious to note how
ἴον MSS. of the Quicunque belonged to libraries south of the Alps.

From Haenel’s catalogues I learn that the number of Psalters in
French libraries is very great: say more than 170. One at Lyons is
said to be of the eighth century: one at Montpelier of the 8th or
9th: another at Lyons, and another at Montpelier, of the ninth. There
is said to be one at Rheinau of the ninth. I have not seen any of these,
nor do 1 know how many contain the Quicunque. A triple Psalter at
Chartres is said to be very old.

I take the following from the very careful Catalogue Raisonné of
the MSS. of the British Museum.

Lansdowne 383, Additional 21927, Arundel 230, Additional 18301,
18859, Harleian 2890 and 2990, all of the twelfth century, have the
Quicunque. Galba A. v. is imperfect, being injured by the fire.

Nero C. tv., of the twelfth century, has the Psalter and eleven Can-
ticles, and Biblia Eq. 1139 has both Psalter and Canticles.

The Harleian 603 contains many of the Utrecht pictures, but they
must have been taken from some other original.

§ 16. 1 ought not to dismiss these Psalters without making ἃ.
few observations.

I have taken every precaution in my power to discover notices
of Psalters that may have been written before the time of Charle-
magne, and I believe that very few exist. It may be that at the
revival of learning, in his day and under his auspices, the older -
volumes were destroyed; but such a supposition is in itself im-
probable, and, if such a destruction did take place, we must judge
of the character of the volumes destroyed by the contents of those
which remain. Putting then on one side the Utrecht Psalter, there
is not a single copy that was in existence before the time of Charle-
magne, that contains the Athanasian Creed. In, or at all events
after, his time, the Psalters became numerous; and as a rule they

380 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

contain the Canticles and this Creed. But they are almost en-
tirely Gallican Psalters; I question whether there is a single
Roman Psalter, unconnected with England, that contains the
Quicunque. This entirely tallies with the fact that the Church
of Rome refused to acknowledge the Double Procession as an
Article of the Faith, for many years afterwards.

The next remark I have to make is, that these Gallican
Psalters almost invariably ascribe the Quicunque to Athanasius.
Of course, when we look at the large proportion of early Psalters
which are connected with the province of Rheims and the metro-
polis of Charles le Chauve, we cannot regard the repetition of
this ascription as augmenting the evidence in favour of this sup-
position, C merely repeats what B has said; and B learnt it
from A. But it is worthy of note, that in the Utrecht. Psalter,
as in Vespasian A. 1, the Quicunque is entitled simply J ides
Catholica, and is not ascribed to Athanasius.

This fact might cause us some perplexity if we did not know
that this portion of Vespasian A. 1 is late, say of the twelfth
century; and we may speculate whether there was any doubt
at that time as to: the desirability or the truth of such ascription.
Now we know that the Venice Bible states that the Quicunque
proceeded from the “Three hundred and eighteen Fathers :”
and the Irish Hymn-book makes an equally curious assertion.
The title “The Catholic Faith” is more imposing than “The
Catholic Faith of Athanasius.” I suggest that the name of
Athanasius was omitted both in the Utrecht Psalter and in Ves-
pasian A. 1, in the hope of augmenting the importance of the
document.

§ 17. We have now four, or perhaps five, independent lines of
witnesses agreeing in bringing forward the Quicunque into notice
within five and twenty years before or after the death of Charle-
magne. We have 1. the testimony of quotations; 11. the testi-
mony furnished by the enactments of Canons; 111. the testimony
of literary collections of Creeds and Rules of Faith; iv. the
testimony of Psalters: I might add, v. we have the testimony of
versions into other languages, but this has yet to be adduced.
It remains now for us to enquire whether we can trace, any closer,
the author or the time or the locale of the forgery. Forgery it
certainly was: that the production of this work under the name
of Athanasius was an intentional and deliberate attempt to

XXIV.] PSALTERS CONTAINING THE QUICUNQUE. 381

deceive, no reasonable person can question. It was analogous to
the production of the forged Decretals. And it is doubtless to the
skill with which the imposture was wrought out, that we owe the
difficulty that has been felt for so many years in discovering the
author. We have similar attempts to deceive in religious matters
in the present day: and, when the plot is well laid, it is equally

impossible to detect and expose the authors’.

1 The following is the title to the
Creed in the Salisbury Psalter and in
the British Museum Royal 2. B. v.

Hymnus AtHANASII DE ΕἾΡΕ TRINI-
TATIS QUEM TU CONCELEBRANS DISCU-
TIENTER INTELLIGE.

Quicumque uult saluus esse‘: ante
omnia opus est «αὖ teneat catholicam
fidem.

Quam nisi quisque integram inuiola-
tamque seruauerit‘ absque dubio in
eeternum peribit. Incipit de fide.

&e., &e., ae,

In the Salisbury Psalter the words
incipit de fide precede Quicunque uult :
if I remember right, there is no room
for them at the end of verse 2.

CAA PUB xX V.
CHARLEMAGNE AND PAULINUS.

§ 1. Condition of the problem about 780. ¢2. Hadrian’scanons. §3. Coun-
cil of Gentilly, 777. § 4, Ignorance of the clergy abroad in this century.
§ 5. Donation of Constantine. §6. Charlemagne’s labours. ὃ 7. Pseudo-
Augustine. § 8. Second Council of Nicwa, 787. § 9. Council of Friuli,
791. i. Paulinus’ letter to Elipandus. ii, His speech in the Council.
iii, Other writings. § 10. Council of Frankfort, 794. i. His subsequent
letter. ii. Letter of the Council. iii. Charlemagne’s letter to Elipandus, and
his Creed. 8 11. Supposed canon of 802, and the Missi Dominici. ὃ 12.
Council of Aix, 809.

§ 1. THE only positive evidence of the existence at the early
part of the eighth century of a document specially resembling the
᾿ Quicunque is furnished, as we have seen, by the Paris Codex
which contains the extract from the old Treves manuscript. Irom
that we cross, perhaps, to the Ambrosian manuscript, at all events
to the profession of Denebert in the year 796, which contains part
of the earlier half of the present Quicunque: and then we pass
several years before we find distinct evidence of other or addi-
tional phrases contained in our modern version of the Creed.

We may now turn to see whether we can discover any distinct
evidence either of the growth of the document or of the spread
of its acceptance.

§ 2. I have already mentioned that when Hadrian I. sent to
his patron, the Roman Patrician Charles, a long summary of the
Canons and Rules and Forms of the Church, no mention was
made of any Creed or Faith of Athanasius. We read only that
Hadrian expressed his desire that the Holy Trinity should be
preached to the people of God’.

§ 3. We learn, however, from Ado of Vienne, that at a Synod
held at Gentilly in 777, there was a controversy between the

1 Labbe, v1. p. 1800.

CH. XXvV. | CHARLEMAGNE AND PAULINUS. 383

Greeks and the Romans, whether the Holy Spirit proceedeth from
the Father and the Son. At this gathering—to use Waterland’s
words—“ it does not appear that the Creed was pleaded,’ in other
words, it does not appear that it was known.

§ 4. The condition of the continental bishops and clergy
during the eighth century is acknowledged on all sides to have
been most lamentable. I have already adduced proofs that it
was deemed to be necessary, on the part of what we should now
call the civil power, to direct that the clergy should at least know
by heart, and possess’ Expositions which might enable them to
explain, the Apostles’ Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. The character
of the manuscripts which belong to this century shews that the
statement of Mosheim 15 not without foundation.

“The rude and unlearned bishops suffered the schools which had
been committed to their care to languish and be extinguished. It was
rare to find among them any that could compose their own discourses :
they who possessed (continues Mosheim) some learning strung together
from Augustine and Gregory a parcel of jejune addresses, a part of which
they kept for their own use, and the rest they gave over to their more
dull colleagues that they might have something that they might bring
forward,”

Thus the century was ripe to receive articles made for demand.
And we need not say that the supply came.

§ 5. Thus it was that Hadrian felt encouraged in the year
777 to mention to Charles the Donation of Constantine: “it
had been found in the cases of the Lateran:” and the forgery
appears to have imposed upon the more honest and henourable
Frank. And this imposition was so successful that it was of
course followed up by others. One mode of gaining the adherence
of the common people was by producing letters which had
fallen from heaven—which find their analogy in the “visions”
which are seen now in parts of France. Thus we have, strangely
enough, “a letter sent down from heaven to Athanasius, Patriarch
of Rome,” regarding the observance of Sunday. A. Gr. 1140 = A.D.
829". And at the Synod of Aix, 788, we find mention of a wicked
letter that was said to have come down from heaven®. Indeed,
these heaven-sent letters were produced in such abundance, that

1 In Syriac. See Dr Wright’s Apocry. Acts, p. xii,
* Canon uxxvir1. Labbe, vir. p. 986.

384 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

I have read somewhere that Charlemagne or the bishops gave an
order that they should be stopped—an order which was obeyed !

§ 6. And then it seems that Charlemagne collected out of
Italy and Britain and Ireland men of genuine learning, to raise
the character of his clergy. Already had missionaries come forth
from Jona to “spread the light of the gospel and the blessing of
civilization.” ‘The monastery of Bobio had been furnished in the
year 614 with monks from Ireland; and Irish calligraphy and
Irish-born hymns (mixed with the products of the kindred school
of Lindisfarne) spread over the north of Italy, and, from the
monastery of St Gall, over Switzerland and Germany. We cannot
congratulate ourselves on the work of our Boniface, if it be true
that the forged Decretals were framed with his cognizance in the
schools of Mayence. But the end of the century produced men of
the highest type and of thorough honesty ; men like Paulinus and
Alcuin, by whose aid Charles strove to rouse his clergy and his
laity to a higher appreciation of thought and learning in
things human and divine—and this at the time when the efforts
of the Roman Pontiffs and their friends were directed to establish
their newly claimed position: who, when they found that evidence
failed them, scrupled not to adduce documents which they knew
to be spurious.

§ 7. But before we enter on the writings of these two great men,
I would devote a few pages to the consideration of some of the
works falsely ascribed to St Augustine. Until we have a critical
edition of these works, we are unable to know the dates of the
manuscripts which.contain them, or approximate to a date for the
works themselves. We have, however, in the Benedictine Appendix
to Vol. Vv. a sermon which may possibly have been written by
Vigilius of Thapsus—as the Benedictines surmised—but which
seems to me to exhibit the thought of that better part of the
ninth century, when orthodoxy was deemed to be of little
value unless it was exhibited in a Christian life. The preacher
Says :

‘“‘Tt is better for us to confess at once that we do not unedrstand the
mystery of the Trinity than rashly to claim for ourselves a knowledge
of it. In the day of judgment I shall not be condemned because I say I

do not know the nature of my Creator: if I have spoken rashly of Him,
my rashness will be punished ; but my ignorance will be pardoned.”

XXv. | CHARLEMAGNE AND PAULINUS. 385

If Vigilius was the author of this, he could scarcely have
written the Quicunque, as Quesnel suggested.

“Sufficient for us (the writer proceeds) that the Trinity is: we are
not rashly to seek to know the reason of Its being: our duty is to fear
God, and to pray to God; so that in this alone should we exhibit our
knowledge to Him.” ὁ

Very different is the next sermon in the collection, which is
said to be compounded of two documents, the one by Faustus of
Regium, the other by this same Vigilius. It ends with a series of
well-nigh thirty maledictions—not Anathema sit but Maledictus
est: these maledictions relate largely to the Trinity, but they do
not illustrate the language of our Creeds. One point, however,
deserves attention, though it has escaped the notice of the Bene-
dictines: Hincmar, in his controversy, quotes some of these
maledictions as written, not by Faustus, nor by Vigilius, nor by
Augustine—but by “the blessed Athanasius*!”

To another of these spurious writings I must beg for a few
moments the renewed attention of my readers: I refer to the
Creed of Pelagius, which is here printed as the work of St Augus-
tine, as it is elsewhere entitled the Creed of Jerome’. So popular
was it in the eighth and ninth centuries, that it found its way with
a different “setting” into the Caroline books. We still have the
statement that the Word was made flesh, “assuwmendo hominem
non permutando deitatem, by assuming man, not by changing the
deity.”

I think that it is not improbable—I throw it out only as a
surmise—that these and similar compositions, such as those of
the Ambrosian manuscript, were framed and issued in reply to
the call of Charlemagne for sermons of old divines adapted for the
use of the clergy of his day. Some light may be thrown on the
subject by those who have access to the manuscripts whence these
pseudo-Augustinian sermons are extracted*,

1 1 remark that the words are that the
** Son of God assumed man.”

2 See it above, p. 275.

3 The summary of this in the original
was this: ‘‘ Haec fides est, papa beatis-
sime,quam in ecclesia catholica didicimus,
quamque semper tenuimus et tenemus.
In qua si minus perite aut parum caute
aliquid positum est, emendari cupimus
a te, qui Petri et fidem et sedem tenes :
sin autem haec nostra confessio aposto-

Ny (OF

latus tui judicio comprobatur, quicun-
que me maculare voluerit, se imperitum
vel maleyolum vel etiam non catholi-
cum, non me hereticum comprobabit.”
The ‘‘ setting” in the pseudo-Augustine
is this: ‘‘ Haec est fides, dilectissimi fra-
tres, quam in catholica didicimus ecclesia
quamque semper tenuimus et tenemus,
quamque credimus et a vestra bonitate
deinceps posse teneri.” Charlemagne
altered the framework thus: ‘‘ Haec est

386 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

We turn therefore to the Councils held in the time of Char-
lemagne.

§ 8. But we cannot pass over the second Council of Nicea,
regarded as it is by the Church of Rome as the seventh cecume-
nical Council. I shall refer to it only so far as Creeds and Decla-
rations of Faith were considered.

We find there a Creed of Basil, Bishop of Ancyra, which he
recited on submitting to the Church. It begins:

‘“‘T believe and confess in one God the Father Almighty, and in one
Lord Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son, and in the Holy Spirit the Lord
and Giver of Life: a Trinity consubstantial and co-enthroned (6p06povos) ;
in one Deity, Potency and Power worshipped and adored. And I confess
everything touching the Economy of the One of the Holy Trinity, our
Lord and God Jesus Christ, even as the holy and six ecumenical
Synods have laid down"'.”

He called it a confession of his orthodoxy. We have (p. 154)
confessions of Sabbas and Gregorius. In the third action we have
the Creed of Tarasius, who was now patriarch of Jerusalem.

(7 believe in one God the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus
Christ, the Son of God and our God, begotten of the Father without
time and eternally ; and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life,
Who proceedeth from the Father by the Son, Himself being and known
to be God: a Trinity consubstantial, equally honoured’.”

The Creed occupies three columns.

On the same day was recited the Synodicon of Theodore, Bishop of
Jerusalem : it occupies five columns in the folio of Labbe. It com-
mences *-—

“We believe, brethren, as we have believed from the beginning, in
one God the Father Almighty, absolutely without ἀρχὴ and eternal,
Maker of all things visible and invisible ; and in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God, Who was from God even the Father
eternally and impassibly begotten, knowing no other ἀρχὴ except the
Father, and having His substance from Him, Light of Light, very God
of very God; and in one Holy Spirit, Who proceedeth eternally from the
Father, Himself acknowledged to be God and Light.”

Thus we have three attempts at an authorized Exposition of
the Creed of Constantinople : indicating, as I conceive, that a need

catholicae traditionis fideiveraintegritas incorrupte et intemerate custodierit per-

quam sincero corde credimus et fatemur petuam salutem habebit.” Note the
et in hoc opere beati Hieronymi verbis words which I have “ spaced.”
expressum taxavimus. Haec est vera 1 Labbe, vit. p. 97.

fides, hanc confessionem conserva- 2 Labbe, vir. p. 161.

mus et tenemus, quam quisque (sic) ἀπ sae

XXvV. | CHARLEMAGNE AND PAULINUS. 387

of some such exposition was felt, but indicating too that no satis-
factory exposition was as yet known, or perhaps in existence.
At last we come to the fourth action, which contains the belief of
the Synod*. It is not very long, occupying only six-and-twenty
lines. It commences:

“Thus we confess; thus we teach: We believe in one God, the
Father Almighty, Maker of all things, visible and invisible ; and in one
Lord Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son and Word, by Whom all
things were made; and in the Holy Spirit, Lord and Giver of Life, con-
substantial and coeternal; and, with the ovvavapyw Son, a Trinity,
uncreated, undivided, incomprehensible, unlimited : the One wholly and
alone to be worshipped and served and venerated: one Godhead, one
Lordhood, one Might, one Kingdom and Power.” And so it passes, like
the others, to the Incar nation.

Ultimately, in the seventh action, the bishops recited the
Creed of Constantinople’: to it the Synod refused to make any
addition—from it to take any single word; ἀμείωτα διαφυλαάττο-
μεν. They ascribed it, apparently, to the Nicene Synod: the
Creed, however, was followed by many additional clauses, ex-
pressing abhorrence of as many heresies.

I have already referred to the objections which Charlemagne
raised against the Creed of Tarasius. The Council refused to
accept the doctrine of the double Procession.

And I have also referred to the Canon of the Council of Aix
in 789; which describes the true Nicene Creed as “the faith of
the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ, His Passion, His
Resurrection, and His Ascent to Heaven.”

§ 9. And thus we come to the Council of Friuh, and the
remarkable utterances there of Paulinus, the Patriarch of Aquileia.

The two documents which I shall quote are his speech at
Friuli of the year 791 and his letter to Elipandus written in 794,
I will take the later document first.

1. Elipandus, as is well known, was an Adoptionist: 1.6. he
held that Christ Jesus as God was by nature and truly the Son
of God, but as Man was Son of God only by name and by

1 Labbe, Vit. p. 319. A spurious “Ser- session. Labbe, vi. 218.
mon of Athanasius,” on the image of 2p. 554.
Jesus Christ, was quoted in the fourth

388 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

adoption. The idea seems to have been that, in His human
nature, our Lord was declared and adopted to be Son of God when
the Voice came from heaven at His Baptism. It was conceived
that this opinion savoured somewhat of Nestorianism: not as
distinguishing the natures in the one Person, but as _ repre-
senting that there were two Persons in the Saviour. The error
attracted much attention ; and it will be of interest to us to know
how it was met.

In the year 794, as I have said, Paulinus wrote a letter to
Elipandus on the subject’. It is of no great length, and, there-
fore, we ought not to draw very decided conclusions from the
silence which may reign there as to any particular authority.
Paulinus draws near to the language of the Quicunque on one or
two occasions. Thus we find words resembling closely clauses 5
and 67, “alia est Persona Patris, alia Filii, alia S. S. sed una et
eequalis et consubstantialis et cozterna est Patris et Fil et 8. 5S.
inenarrabilis divinitas et majestas quia unus est Deus.” But these
are words which we have met with over and over again in the
Councils of Toledo. Again*, Paulinus seems to offer some sugges-
tions as to the origin of the clause “There is one Father not three
Fathers*”—but he does not quote 10. I think the authority of our
document would have been acceptable to him if he had known of
it. Asin many other cases which we have noticed, so Paulinus
has passages which run parallel to portions of the later part of
the Quicunque, but he cannot be said to quote it any more than
the Creeds of the second Council of Nicaea quote it. I certainly feel
justified in saying that to Paulinus at this time the Quicunque
was unknown as of authority. In fact® he quotes the decree of
the Council of Chalcedon (though not by name) on the unity of
Person in the Saviour, where, in my opinion, the words of our
Creed would have been far more appropriate. I cannot help com-
paring the silence of Paulinus with the somewhat over eagerness
of Hincmar to use the document sixty or seventy years later®.

1 Migne, Patrologia, Vol. xcix.

3 p. 159.

3 p. 158 Ὁ.

4 It was directed against any such no-
tion as that the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit are in all respects similar,
and Their properties interchangeable. .

5 Cap. x11. p. 163 pb.

ὁ One of my tests is furnished by the

language used as to the time of the In-
carnation. Paulinus retains the expres-
sion of Chalcedon that this took place
in ultimis temporibus (not in seculo).
We have (page 1604) ‘‘non duo Filii
Deus et homo, sed unus Filius Deus et
homo,” referring of course to the Adop-
tionist view. In the same column we
find “ΠΟΙ ignoramus ex duabus sub-

XXvV. | CHARLEMAGNE AND PAULINUS. 389

I think we must conclude that Paulinus did not know of the
Quicunque. It will be remembered that he wrote South of the
Alps: thus the question of its existence in France at that date is
not affected by his ignorance.

u. 1 may pass over a long exhortation addressed by the
Patriarch to Henry, Duke of Friuli (n which the Jides Recta
occupies a very subordinate place), to hasten on to the speech
or address at Friuli—one of the most interesting speeches that
I have ever read. I must confess that when I first perused this
speech, the conviction came upon me, strong and clear, that I had
discovered the author or “composer” of the Athanasian Creed.
The same conviction was carried to the mind of Mr Ffoulkes,
a perfectly independent authority. But before I read Mr Ffoulkes’
work, I was compelled to resign my hypothesis, nor was my
opinion changed again even by that gentleman’s learned and able
arguments. But I must give an account of the address.

In its early portion Paulinus lays down distinctly his opinien of
the necessity of making additions to the “Symbol” with reference to the
Trinity. He refers however to the decisions of Ephesus and Chalcedon
forbidding new Creeds. ‘Far be it from me (he adds) to compose or
teach a Symbol or a Faith.” But he holds that it is his privilege and his
duty to explain things which in past times have been mistaken in con-
sequence of the brevity with which the truth has been enuntiated in the
earlier publications of the Symbol ; he may do this even whilst he retains
the text of the Symbol itself. Paulinus adduces, as illustrating his
meaning, the history of the Nicene Creed. He shews how the one
hundred and fifty supplied by way of exposition (suppleverunt quasi
exponendo eorum sensum) the meaning of the Creed, in the parts that
followed the words “and in the Holy Ghost.” He states that, after-
wards, to meet a difficulty that had arisen, the word /i/ioque was added ;
and he defends the addition on the ground that this statement of the
Procession must be true, since the acts of God are inseparable. He
proceeds that any Catholic doctor whatever, who rightly believes (in
accordance with that of which a foretaste had been given by the Lord)
that that Lord is “as touching man less than the Father, and as touch-

stantiis humanam subsistere naturam,
ex anima nimirum et carne,” thus draw-
ing us on to clause 37, which it will be
remembered is not to be found in the
Treves original, and therefore (as I
conclude) was added between the date
of that manuscript and the date of the
earliest complete copy of the Quicunque
that we possess. The following is in-
teresting (cap. x11. p. 168 5): ‘* Unde et
majores nostri hac definitione sanciti (?),

quorum sagacissime capacitatis peritia
longe valde a nostre tarditatis distat ᾿
ignavia, placuit eis, sancto annuente
Spiritu, duas in una Christi Persona
indubitanter profiteri naturas, divinam
scilicet et humanam, quia anima et caro
non sunt duo sed unus homo,” almost
the words which were not found at
Treves nor in the Colbertine. On page
164 B, we have, ‘‘ sempiternum ex Patre,
temporaliter natum ex virgine matre.”’

390 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

ing God equal to the Father,” and so expounds it, cannot, though he
uses many words, be said to have added to or diminished from the
Creed; he has only supplied it. So he maintains that he too is perfectly
justified in explaining the Faith. Then he refers with reprobation to
those who have false views of the Mystery of the Trinity. He speaks
especially against such as hesitate in regard to the distinction of Persons;
who conceive that the same is Father and the same Son; who state
falsely that the Son is inferior and posterior to the Father ; or who
confess three Fountains of Deity (tria principia). He recites therefore
the Creed of Constantinople, and proceeds to give a long account of the
necessities of his time.

It thus appears that other questions pressed upon the atten-
tion of Paulinus over and above the question of Adoptionism :
questions which are directly met in clauses 4, 5, 6; 21, 22, 23;
24, 25,26; 33; of the Quicunque. Of these clauses it will be
remembered that the first nine are not found in the Colbertine
manuscript, and that the substance of clause 33 occurs there in
words which differ decidedly from the words of Paulinus.

This long account, which I have abbreviated, may be seen, as
elsewhere, so in Mr Lumby’s volume. It is, indeed, an Exposition
of the Apostles’ Creed rather than of the Nicene, and must be
considered as put forth in fulfilment of the Patriarch’s intentions.
This Exposition Paulinus desired his clergy to commit to memory.
For, Paulinus proceeds—

“This purity of the Catholic Faith we wish all the priests of God and
all grades of the Church—with the utmost care and without any fault,
so as neither to add to it nor to take from it the slightest tittle—dis-
tinctly and intelligently to commit to memory and to pass on to their
successors.” They must learn it before his next visitation. “If any
one, thanks to a more ready memory, can do this earlier, we press him
to do so, and shall praise him for doing it. But if any be slow and his
ability poor, he must be prepared to repeat it a year hence, at the next
meeting of this venerable council ; otherwise it will be difficult for
him to escape the ecclesiastical rod. But the Symbol and the Lord’s
Prayer must be learnt by every Christian, of all ages, each sex, and
every condition of life; by males, females, young people, old, slaves,
free, boys, married men and unmarried girls, because without this
blessing no one can be able to receive a portion in the kingdom of
heaven. But he that shall keep these and guard himself from evil
works, shall be safe in the present life, and in the future shall rejoice
together with the angels.” And he maintains that he is not instituting
novel rules; on the contrary, having examined the sacred folios of the
old canons, he has endeavoured to exhibit their contents in more modern
style: “for, hike ruminating animals, we thus bring up to our memory
that upon which we have fed in the spiritual pastures in times gone by.”

XXv. | CHARLEMAGNE AND PAULINUS. 391

The account is important. It furnishes us with the first
instance that I know, in which the clergy were compelled to
learn by heart a new Exposition in addition to the two Creeds
of the Western Church.

If we turn now to the Exposition itself, we find that although
it runs again and again near to the substance of the Quicunque,
it rarely approaches its language except in clauses to which we
have met with parallels already. ‘Thus we have:

“There is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of
the Holy Spirit. But the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not
three Gods, but is one God.” Of the generation of the Son we read
that it took place “intemporaliter” “ante omnia secula.” “The Holy
Spirit is neither begotten nor created, but proceeding without time and
without separation from the Father and the Son.” In the Trinity
“there is nothing naturally diverse, nor personally confused ; nothing
greater or less ; there is no one before or after, inferior or superior, but
one equal power, the glory equal, the majesty eternal and coeternal and
consubstantial.” ‘The Son in the last days descended from heaven.”
“True God and true Man.” Consubstantial with God the Father in
His, the divine nature; consubstantial with His Mother, without the
stain of sin, in ours, that is, the human nature. ‘One Christ,...true
God and true Man; in reasonable soul and true flesh. Perfect Man as
touching the manhood; perfect God as touching the Godhead.” The
descent into hell (ad inferos) is mentioned. ‘ He ascended over all
heavens; He sitteth at the right hand of the Father; thence He will
come to judgment.”

We should compare the words which I have given above, as
commending to those who would be saved the Apostles’ Creed and
Lord’s Prayer, with the corresponding clauses of the Quicunque.

With this able commentary before me I find it simply im-
possible to believe that Paulinus knew the Quicunque.

111. But we have other writings of the Patriarch to which
I must briefly refer. About the year 796 Paulinus addressed to
Charlemagne three Books against Felix. They occupy about 120
columns in Migne’s edition. We shall see here too that phrases
to which we find near resemblances in the Quicunque, were con-
sidered to be inconsistent with the opinions of the heretical
bishops. Thus Paulinus insists* that our Saviour was

“Τὴ the form of God equal to the Father; in the form of the servant
less than the Father,” words which (as we know) come from Augustine,

1 Migne, xcrx. 343—466.

392 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

not from the Quicunque. This is in Book 1. ch. li., but the same words
are found in Book 11. ch. iii. In chapter xiii. we have, “The Man who
was not yet, did not assume the God ;” in xiv. “ The Word was not changed
into flesh : in xv. “So that there is not one Christ God, and another
Christ man, but one and the same God man.” In xvi. he quotes the end
of the second part of the Nicene Creed, to which he refers again in
xxxvi. In xx. we read, ‘ Before all ages, begotten without beginning
from the Father, and in the end of the ages, not another but the same,
born of the Virgin.” So again in xxxil. In li. he quotes (apparently)
the Apostles’ Creed, passing over the Descent to hell. The third Book
contains testimonies as to Christ’s true divine generation. The writer
appeals to Hilary of Poictiers, to Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Athana-
sius, Cyril, Leo, Gregory, Fulgentius. Under Athanasius he appeals to his
letter in Epictetus, and to the Libellus Fidei sue, but not to the Quicunque.
I think these references decide the question. Paulinus did not know of
the Quicunque as the work either of Athanasius or of any other notable
authority. He considered Athanasius to have written another Faith.

The work was sent to Charlemagne by the hands of Albinus
or Alcuin. At the end of his prose writings a few of the hymns
of Paulinus are printed. The first is the “carmen de regula fidei,”
to which I may refer my readers.

§ 10. At the Council of Frankfort held in 794, Athanasius was
quoted thus: “In this way did Athanasius, Archbishop of Alex-
andria, commence his Faith: fidei suze principium dedit.” Another
Faith ascribed to Athanasius! We might expect that Waterland,
who declared his opinion that the Catholic Faith mentioned in
the thirty-third Canon of the Council must be the Athanasian
Creed, would have referred in some slight way to these words
which speak of a Faith acknowledged at the Council to be Athana-
sius’: but he simply and “judiciously” ignored it. The passage
proceeds’:

“We confess the Son of God to have been begotten before the
worlds of the Father, but in the last days to have been born of the
Virgin Mary for our salvation ; as it is written, When the fulness of
time was come, God sent His Son made of a woman, &c. If then
(the argument proceeds) any one in opposition to the divine Scripture
asserts that the Son of God is one, and He who was born of the Virgin
another,—a man adopted by grace like as we are—as if there were two
Sons...him the Holy and Apostolic Church anathematizes.”

We shall see how convenient the words of our clause 37, when
they had been gathered out of Augustine by Alcuin, proved to be
in reference to this Spanish controversy.

1 Labbe, vir. 1016.

XXvV. | CHARLEMAGNE AND PAULINUS. 393

i. The “councils” contain a letter addressed by Paulinus and
others on the subject of these Spanish errors. The writers appeal
almost entirely to the authority of Scripture. I extract, however,
the following’:

“The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which although dispersed
throughout the world is yet the one friend of the Bridegroom, the one
dove, shining with wings silvered with the beauty of divine eloquence
and with a body brilliant with the pallor of gold, does in the purity of
a perfect faith confess the Holy and Ineffable Trinity in Unity: pre-
serving the properties of the Persons without confusion, but acknow-
ledging the substance as inseparable. So that One is believed as
Father, because He is the Father Who begat the Son coeternal with
Himself, without time and without beginning : and Another is believed
as Son Who was begotten by the Father without beginning, not
putatively but truly: and Another is believed as Holy Spirit be-
cause He is the Holy Spirit and proceeds from the Father and the
Son’*.” Thus the Father is not one Thing, and the Son another Thing,
and the Holy Spirit another Thing ; but the Father and the Son and
the Holy Spirit are inseparably One Thing (unum): not One Person
(unus), but One Thing (unum), because there is one Person of the
Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit, but [there is]
one equal, consubstantial, coeternal, ineffable majesty of divinity of the
Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, because God is one.” As I
read on, I catch the words that ‘in the last times He came down from
heaven—was born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, was very
God and very Man: not two Sons, God and Man, but one Son, God and
Man—who never deserted the Man whom He assumed’, not even on the
cross, for Paul teaches us that they crucified the Lord of Glory.”

Thus, “ Let us confess with our holy Fathers, Catholic and orthodox
men who received the right faith with their heart and proclaimed it
with their mouth, the two natures in Christ, the Divine and the
Human.”

I can scarcely conceive that the Quicunque already occupied a
place in the Church Psalters, when this appeal, “let us confess,”
was made at Frankfort.

ii. And so we pass on to the synodical letter of the Council
to the Spanish Bishops.

It quotes part of the Creed of Elipandus, asserting that his Creed
was wrong by omission not by assertion; it complains* however of
additions which had been made to the Creed of Nicea. It quotes
Cassiodorus and Augustine and Ambrose and Paschasius the Deacon.

1 Labbe, ut sup. p. 1027. 3 Note again, ‘‘The man whom He
2 Perhaps the monks of Mount Olivet assumed.”
had heard of this, 4 p. 1088.

994 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

I find that from Augustine’ the words are adduced, “ Christ
the Son of God is God and Man: God before all the ages: Man
in our age (in nostro swculo).” Can we require any further proof
that the Bishops assembled at Frankfort assigned no authority
whatever to the document which we call the Athanasian Creed ?
that in all probability they did not know it ?

11, But our investigations cannot be regarded as complete
unless we examine the letter which Charles himself addressed to
Elipandus and the Spanish Bishops. It is to be found amongst
the works of the great king, and is put down to the year 794°.

It begins with speaking of the beauty and glory of the Church and
the necessity of the Faith to the wellbeing of the Church. ‘Of this
Faith, being orthodox and delivered by the Apostles to the teachers of
the Church and hitherto held by the Church universal, we profess that
in proportion to our strength we everywhere and in every thing keep
and preach it, because there is no salvation in any other save in that
which the Church always has kept.” He refers to the letters of the
Spanish bishops to him: ‘ Did they mean to teach him what they
believed, or did they desire to learn what he believed? We hang (he
says) on the opinions of the orthodox Fathers, Let us learn what they
wrote, and believe what they taught. Thus there will be one faith and
one heart, even as there is one Shepherd and one Fold*.’” He mourns
over the errors of these bishops, anxious to have them associated with
him in the Catholic Faith‘.

And for this cause he had summoned a Synod of holy bishops from
all Churches under his dominion in order that they might decree what
should be believed as to the adoption of the flesh of Christ. He had
sent messengers to enquire from the Pontiff of the Apostolic See what
the holy Roman Church, taught by Apostolic tradition, would desire to
answer. Bishops too had come from parts of Britain. And then the
Emperor had desired libelli to be sent to each of the Spanish prelates to
inform them “what we had decreed and determined.” One of these
books contained the decision of the “Apostolic Lord” and his bishops :
another that of nearer bishops, including Peter of Milan and Pauli-
nus of Aquileia: a third that of the other bishops, German, Gallic,
Aquitanian, British: and, lastly, ‘‘we have added something of our
own, entirely agreeing with the above.”

And so, after a while’, he gives his Creed, which, as it has not
been printed in any of the works called forth by the discussions

of the last few years, I will give at length in my note®. It is
clearly an expansion of the Nicene Symbol.

1 p. 1040 £. fidem tenet quam orthodoxi Patres in
2 Migne, xcvirr. p. 899. suis nobis symbolis scriptam relique-
3 p. 900. runt.”

4-p.-901-; 6 Credimus in unum deum patrem

I catch the words, p. 9058, ‘‘eam omnipotentem factorem coeli et terre,

5.8. CHARLEMAGNE AND PAULINUS. 395

Looking at the last words, I cannot believe that the con-
demning clauses of the Athanasian Creed possessed at this epoch
the authority which we assign to them; I question whether Char-

lemagne had ever heard of their existence.

iv. And so we come to the Canons of this Council—of No.

Xxx. of which Waterland made so much.

IT think after exami-

nation our conclusion must be that Waterland never examined
these Canons: he must have known of them only second-hand.
He must have known of none save No. xxxill.

The Canon was this: “That the Catholic Faith of the Holy
Trinity and the Lord’s Prayer and the Symbol of the Faith be

proclaimed and delivered to all.”

visibilium omnium et invisibilium. Cre-
dimus et in unum Dominum nostrum
J.C. Fihum Dei unigenitum: natum
ex Patre ante omnia secula et ante om-
nia tempora, lumen de lumine, deum
verum de deo vero, natum non factum,
naturalem non adoptivum, per quem
omnia conditasunt coelestia et terrestria,
unius essentie et unius substanti# cum
Patre. Credimus et in Spiritum Sanc-
tum Deum verum et vivificatorem a
Patre et Filio procedentem, cum Patre et
Filio coadorandum et conglorificandum.
Credimus eandem sanctam Trinitatem
Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum
unius esse substanti#, unius potentia,
et unius essentix, tres Personas, et sin-
gulam quamque in Trinitate Personam
plenum Deum, et totas tres Personas
unum Deum omnipotentem. Patrem
ingenitum, Filium genitum, 5. S. pro-
cedentem ex Patre et Filio; nec Patrem
aliquando coepisse sed sicut semper est
Deus ita semper et Pater est, quia sem-
per habuit Filium. Aternus Pater,
eternus Filius, eternus et 5. 5. ex Patre
Filioque procedens: unus Deus omni-
potens, Pater et F. et 5. S.: ubique pre-
sens ubique totus, Deus, e«ternus, in-
effabilis, incomprehensibilis. In qua
sancta Trinitate nulla est Persona vel
tempore posterior, vel gradu inferior,
vel potestate minor; sed per omnia
equalis Patri Filius, equalis Patri et
Filo Spiritus Sanctus, divinitate, volun-
tate, operatione et gloria. Alius tan-
tummodo in persona Pater, alius in per-
sona Filius, alius in persona Spiritus
Sanctus. Non aliud sed unum, natura,
potentia, et essentia, Deus, Pater et
Filius et Spiritus Sanctus.

Credimus ex hac sancta Trinitate Filii
tantummodo Personam pro salute hu-

Waterland insists that the

mani generis de Spiritu Sancto et Maria
virgine incarnatum; ut qui erat de divi-
nitate Dei Patris Filius, esset et in hu-
manitate hominis Matris Filius: per-
fectus in divinitate Deus, perfectus in
humanitate homo: deus ante omnia
secula, homo in fine seculi, verus
in utraque substantia Dei Filius, non
putativus sed verus, non edoptione sed
proprietate, una persona, Deus et Homo:
unus mediator Dei et hominum: in
forma Dei equalis Patri, in forma
servi minor Patre, in forma Dei crea-
tor, in forma servi redemptor. Unus
in utraque Dei Filius proprius ac per-
fectus ad implendam humane salutis
dispensationem, passus est vera carnis
passione, mortuus vera corporis sui
morte: surrexit vera carnis suse resur-
rectione et vera anime resumptione; in
eodem corpore quo passus est et resur-
rexit, ascendit in coelos, sedens in dex-
tera Dei Patris et in eadem forma
qua ascendit venturus judicare vivos et
mortuos, cujus regni non erit finis. Pre-
dicamus unam sanctam Dei ecclesiam
toto orbe diffusam, locis separatam, fide
et charitate conjunctam ; et veram re-
missionem peccatorum in eadem ecclesia,
sive per baptismum, sive per poeniten-
tiam, divina donante gratia et bona vo-
luntate hominis cooperante. Credimus
et omnes homines resurrecturos esse et
singulos secundum sua opera judicandos,
impios eternis suppliciis damnandos
cum diabolo et angelis ejus, sanctos vero
eterna gloria coronandos cum Christo
et sanctis angelis ejus in secula sem-
piterna.

Hee est fides catholica et ideo nostra;
optamus etiam et vestra...Hanc fidem
vos charissimi fratres firmiter tenere in
commune deprecamur.

396 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

Catholic Faith stands for the Quicunque. I have proved that this
is not necessarily so. I will only add that the Athanasian Creed
was not “delivered” to the people at large in the time of Charle-
magne, nor for many years after his death.

§ 11. In connection with this Canon, and in opposition to the
theory of Pertz and others, as to the date of the Canons which the
learned historian prints under the year 802", I must now adduce
the “chapters” or directions which the “ missi dominici,” the
emissaries of Charlemagne, were instructed to carry with them
during the visitations which they held in this very year. I believe
that Baluzius was the first to print them from a manuscript which
belonged to the library of De Thou. These “ missi” included not
only archbishops, bishops, abbots, but also pious laymen. They
were directed by the ever-watchful Charles—now crowned Em-
peror, “a Deo coronato”—to visit the Monasteries and Churches ;
and if they found anything wrong, they were, in conjunction with
the Count of the Province, to reduce the wrong to order. The
first charge laid upon them was this: To exact an oath of alle-
giance to the Cesar, like to the former oath to the King.

The “chapters” referred both to civil and ecclesiastical matters;
to the relations both of State and Church. And the series con-
cluded with an admonition from the Emperor, which I will give
at length.

“ Hear, dearest brethren, for your safety’s sake, the message which
we send to you, that we may advise you how ye may live justly and
well in obedience to God, and how we may all conduct ourselves with
justice and with mercy. We advise you, first of all, that ye believe one
God, the Father Almighty, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is
one God, and the true God: perfect Trinity and true Unity: God the
Creator of ‘all the good things we have. Believe that the Son of God
was for the salvation of the world made man, born of the Holy Spirit
and the Virgin Mary. Believe that for our salvation He suffered
death, and on the third day He rose from the dead, that He ascended
into heaven and sitteth on the right hand of God. Believe that He
will come to judge the quick and the dead, and will then render to
every man according to his works. Believe’ one Church ; that is, one
congregation of good men over the whole globe. And know that they
only can be saved, and they only belong to the kingdom of heaven, who
persevere in the faith and communion and love of that Church.”

1 Above, p. 287.

my CHARLEMAGNE AND PAULINUS. 397

If the date of these orders is correct, I conceive that the date
assigned by Pertz to the Canons of the Ratisbon manuscript
must be wrong.

Another point seems worthy of notice. The Symbolum, or
Apostles’ Creed, had not, when these orders were issued, assumed
finally even in Gaul the form which we find in the later Psalters.
We still have the words born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin
Mary: the descent into hell is passed over, and the words occur

He sitteth on the right hand of God’.

§ 12. At the Council of Aix, 809, as we learn from Ado of
Vienne, the question of the double Procession was discussed, the
discussion arising out of the troubles of the monks of Mount
Olivet. Ado’s remark is*:

“The rule and ecclesiastical Faith established that the Holy Spirit
proceeds from the Father and the Son, being not created nor begotten,
but coeternal and consubstantial with the Father and the Son.” Almost
the words of the Muratorian manuscript’.

Ado became Archbishop of Vienne in 860 and died in 870.
It would seem that he knew the Quicunque in its earlier form.
I believe that this has never been noticed before. It would appear

that the text was not settled when he wrote.

1 There are two versions of this ad-
monition. Iwill give the enlarged copy
—the copy, as it is found among the
works of Charlemagne (Migne, xcvil. p.
240). I should suppose that it has been
interpolated. The readings differ from
the above. I mark the more important.
Admoneo vos in primis ut credatis in
unum Deum omnipotentem Patris et
Filit et Spiritus Sancti. Hic est unus
deus et verus, perfecta Trinitas et vera
unitas. Deus creator omnium visibilium
et invisibilium, in quo est salus nostra
et auctor omnium bonorum nostrorum.
Credite Filium Dei pro salute mundi
hominem factum, natum de Spiritu
sancto ex virgine Maria. Credite quod
pro salute nostra mortem passus est et
tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit
ad coelos sedens ad dexteram dei. Cre-
dite eum venturum ad judicandum vivos
et mortuos et tune reddet unicuique se-
cundum opera sua, Credite unam eccle-
siam id est congregationem bonorum
hominum per totum orbem terre, et sci-
tote quia illi soli salvi esse poterunt et
illi soli ad regnum dei pertinent, qui in

istius ecclesie fide et communione et
caritate perseverant usque in finem: qui
vero pro peccatis suis excommunicantur
ab ista ecclesia et non convertantur ad
eam per penitentiam non possunt ob
(2 hoc) seculo aliquid Deo acceptabile
facere. Confidite quod in baptismo om-
nium peccatorum remissionem suscepistis.
Sperate Dei misericordiam quod cotidiana
peccata nostra per confessionem et peni-
tentiam redimantur. Credite resurrec-
tionem omnium mortuorum [piorum ad 3]
vitam eternam, impiorum ad supplicium
eternum. Hec est fides nostra per quam
salvi eritis st eam firmiter tenetis et
bonis operibus impletis: quia fides sine
operibus mortua est, et opera sine fide,
etiam st bona sint, Deo placere non pos-
sunt.

I have printed in italics the clauses
which are not found in the manuscript
of Baluzius.

Migne proceeds to give the direc-
tions which I have printed before out of
Pertz.

2 Labbe, vir. 1194.

3 Above, p. 319, line 16.

398 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [CHAP. ΧΧΥ.

I have already mentioned’ that at this Council the Lord’s
Prayer and the Credo in Deum were ordered to be taught to
men and women as well as children.

Connected with this Synod a curious dialogue is given by

Labbe’:

“M. If then as you say a thing is to be believed most certainly
and defended most constantly, ought not the ignorant to be taught it?
and ought not they who know it to be confirmed init? P. Yes, cer-
tainly. M. If this is so, and a man is ignorant of it, or does not
believe it, can he be saved? P. Whoever has the ability to attain to it
by his subtler ability and is unwilling to know it, or, knowing it, is
unwilling to believe it, he cannot be saved. For there are many (and
of these this is one) of the loftier mysteries of our sacred faith and subtler
sacramenta [of the Church], for the investigation of which some persons
have the necessary ability; but others are kept back either by the
state of their age, or by the character of their intelligence. And there-
fore, as I said, he who has the power but not the will—he cannot be
saved.”

Is this reconcileable with the belief that the Quicunque in its
present form was received as Athanasius’, even at Aix-la-Chapelle
in 809? We know that the words commending the Faith which
was accepted at Arles in 813, were different from those of “the
Athanasian Creed,’ and so was the form which was adopted
by Rabanus Maurus.

1 Chapter xv. p. 184. 2 Vole vip. 1101.

ch pica

CHAPTER XXVI.
WAS THE QUICUNQUE WRITTEN IN SPAIN?

§ 1. Gieseler’s opinion that the Creed came from Spain. § 2. Weakness of
his argument. ὃ 8. Etherius and Beatus.

§ 1. Iv is well known that the very careful historian Gieseler
considered that the Athanasian Creed had “been probably brought
from Spain into France.” “It is most likely (he says) that we
should seek for its origin in Spain.” He refers again to the
Confessions of Faith which “the Councils of Toledo were accus-
tomed to place in the front of their work : sometimes the unaltered
Nicene or Constantinopolitan Creed: sometimes this Creed with
the Articles which relate to the Trinity and Incarnation enlarged
in the dialectic manner of the Quicunque; so that the words coin-
cide in the two, here and there, without, however, the Quicunque
being dependent on the Council.” He proceeds, “Hence that
Symbol appears to have been formed after their patterns in the
seventh and eighth centuries in Spain, and from thence to have
been transferred to France towards the end of the eighth. Even
the old appellation, Fip—s ATHANASII, which was afterwards
misunderstood, as if Athanasius were the author, points to Spain.
For the Catholic Faith could only at first have been designated by
the Arians as FIpES ATHANASII in opposition to FIDES ARII, as
their Creed was named by their opponents: and in Spain the
party of Arius continued the longest opposed to that of Atha-

1»

nasius’.

§ 2. Dr Gieseler here appears to have lost sight of the fact
that the Council of Arles, in the year 813, appropriated in its
entirety the Faith of the fourth Council of Toledo, and not the
Quicunque as we have it. This omission seems to me to weaken

* Gieseler, Third Period, Division 1, ¢ 12 and notes (Clark’s Translations, Vol.
ΤΙ pp. 278, 279).

400 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

much the value of Gieseler’s opinion as viewed in any light. And
his opinion rests on somewhat slender foundation. Enuntiated,
however, as it 1s by Gieseler, it ought not to be dismissed with-
out further investigation.

§ 8. Iam disposed to rest my rejection of it upon the con-
tents of the protest presented by Etherius, Bishop of Osma, and
Beatus, presbyter of Astorga, against Elipandus in the year 785’.
Many younger students must be thankful to Dr Heurtley for
drawing their attention to this most interesting document: it
bears such a marked contrast to the results of the laboured learn-
ing of Alcuin. The two Spanish divines took their stand upon the
Apostles’ Creed ; they maintain that it is sufficient to unravel the
duplicity of Elipandus and to exhibit the perversity of his fol-
lowers:

“One part of the Bishops (they say) affirm that Jesus Christ is
adopted in His humanity, but not adopted in His divinity: another
part maintain that He is the Only Son of God in both natures, own
Son, not adopted Son, so that He is Himself the Son of God, true God,
and is Himself adored, even He Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
Of this part are we, Etherius and Beatus, with the rest who thus
believe. We believe truly, not only in God the Father Almighty, but
in Jesus Christ His Son, our Only God and Lord; Who was born of
the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary and suffered under Pontius
Pilate.” They tell us’ that we must draw water from the fountains of
the Saviour; 1.6. from the teachings of Prophets and Apostles. They
call upon us* not to frame new things out of our own heads, but to seek
only to explain those things which are written in the law and in the
gospel. We should* not doubt that He Whom the Jews crucified is the
true God and eternal Life. ‘We do not separate the Father and the
Holy Spirit from the Son, when we say that the Son is only God. The
Father and Son, Both together, are one God®. Both together are not
Father, nor are Both together Son. Alone, in that supreme Trinity, is
the Father, Father in His person: alone is the Son, Son in His person :
alone is the Holy Spirit, Holy Spirit in His person. Thus we do not
impose on the Son the name of Father, nor on the Spirit the name of
Father or of Son....And thus the Father alone is God of none but of
Himself: the Son is God as the Father, but He is God, of the Father
and not of Himself: the Holy Spirit is God as the Father and the Son,
but He is God of the Father and the Son, and not of Himself. And
thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God,
but not three Gods but One; Father and Son and Holy Spirit....There
is no God but One. Because the Father is God Almighty and is alone

1 Bibliotheca Patrum, Lugdun., Tom. ὃ 359 a.
xt, p. 358. #359 Ὁ.
2 p. B58 F. 5 359 p and E.

XXVI.] WAS THE QUICUNQUE WRITTEN IN SPAIN? 401

self-sufficient : and the Son is God Almighty and is alone self-sufficient :
and the Holy Spirit is God omnipotent and is alone self-sufficient : but
yet these Three are not three Gods omnipotent, but one God om-
nipotent, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

The writers refer to the Creed of Ephesus as to the one Christ,
and then comes the grand passage which Dr Heurtley quotes’.
“Let us rise up with the Apostles and recite the Symbol of our
Faith which they delivered to us...... As we believe in our heart,
so let us profess with our mouth and say:

“JT believe in God the Father Almighty.”

They quote largely the first Epistle of St John, iii. iv. v.
They use the words’, “For there are three who give witness in
the earth, the water and the blood and the flesh, and these three
are one. And there are Three Who give witness in heaven: the
Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these Three are One
in Christ Jesus.” And then they insist again on the sufficiency
of the Apostles’ Creed, short though it is. ‘‘ Without the philo-
sophy of the world it is simple and plain even to all rustics: and
it is known even to all prisoners and strangers.......

“ Every one knows from that short Symbol how he should believe.
And the Lord’s Prayer informs every one how he should pray. Where-
fore beyond the Symbol there is nothing that we need believe: beyond
the Lord’s Prayer there is nothing that we need pray for*.” They
quote however the Creed of Constantinople’.

We read on a later page that our Saviour is “equal to the Father
as being the Husbandman: less than the Father as being the Vine*.”
‘*God and Man is one Christ and Head of the Church’.” “The Word
assumed man, that is the reasonable soul and flesh of man®.” “In the
unity of the Person let the Son of God be believed to be true God: and
let the true God, the Word of the Father, be believed to be the Man
who was crucified under Pontius Pilate’.” ‘The Catholic repeats
nothing new, because he includes all his faith within the Symbol.”

But I need not proceed. I think it will be evident not only
that Etherius and Beatus knew of no authoritative document such
as the Quicunque is considered to be, but also that they would
have repudiated any attempt to force such a document upon them ;
taking up the simple ground that the Catholic includes and com-
prehends all his faith in the Apostles’ Creed”.

1'p. 360. 7 371 8B.

2 See above, p. 164. 5. 970 Ἦν

3 Notice this. 9 373 c.

4 Ut supra, p. 362 π΄. 10 376 a.

5 363 (not exactly). 11 They accused Elipandus of confound-
6 p. 370 τὶ ing the Persons, p. 389,

SHO 26

CHAPTER XXVII.
WORKS OF ALCUIN.

§ 1. Conditions of the problem. § 2. Mr Ffoulkes’ theory. § 3. Alcuin’s
letter to Paulinus. ὃ 4. Objections to Mr Ffoulkes’ theory. ὃ 5. Alcuin
probably referred to the address at Friuli. § 6. Alcuin’s influence on
Charlemagne. § 7. He differs from the Quicunque in one detail, agrees
in others. § 8. Other commendations of Paulinus. § 9. Letter to the
monks of Gotha. § 10. Reflections. § 11. Commentary on St John.
§ 12. Work on the Trinity from St Augustine. 8 13. Confession of
Alcuin’s Faith. § 14. Other works: quotations from St Athanasius,
§ 15. Alcuin’s character cleared.

§ 1. Tuus I think that all the evidence which we have as
yet adduced points to the commencement of the ninth century as
the epoch before which our Quicunque was almost unknown. The
silence regarding it at the Councils of Friuli and Frankfort, the
well-known want of Paulinus, the oft-repeated efforts of one theo-
logian after another to give a full and satisfactory Exposition of
the Apostles’ Creed during the first fifty years of this ninth cen-
tury, seem to me to be, as evidence, very momentous. When, at
length, the Quicunque forced its way into notice and was added
to the copies of the Psalter together with the Apostles’ Creed and
the Gloria in Excelsis and the Te Deum, those other Creeds, those
other Expositions, fell out of sight.

At present we have reached this stage in our enquiry: the
sermon of Athanasius on the Faith which begins Quicunque vult
was well known through the province of Rheims and by men
who had been educated in that part of France, about the year
860 or 870: it was not known to Paulinus in the year 791, nor at
Arles in 813. Can we draw the limits any closer by following
up the lines which these simple facts point out as worthy of
investigation ?

§ 2. It is well known that the Rev. Edmund Ffoulkes, than
whom few men have devoted themselves more successfully to the

CHAP. XXVII. | WORKS OF ALCUIN. 403

study of the Ecclesiastical History of the reign of Charlemagne,
considered that he had proved, by evidence that could not be

gainsayed, that Paulinus was the author of the document. I was

tempted to take the same view in the autumn of 1870, before
I knew of Mr Ffoulkes’ labours, and independently of his results.
I thought that Paulinus’ address at Friuli indicated his willing-
ness to undertake the composition of a document which should
supply the needs of his time: and that the Quicunque was the
result. Mr Ffoulkes added further evidence. He adduced a
letter which the great Alcuin wrote to Paulinus, thanking him in
somewhat exaggerated terms for a treatise or tract he had received
upon the Faith, and this tract or treatise, Mr Ffoulkes considered,
might be the Athanasian Creed.

δ 3. I will avail myself, to a great extent, of Mr Ffoulkes’
translation of the letter’.

“To my beloved lord in the Lord of lords, and my holy father Pauli-
nus, greeting :

“‘T seem to have been refreshed inwardly, by finding that the hidden
flame of love within me is able to send forth at least one spark, so
that that which burns within can not be extinguished, at this moment,
when I have the opportunity of writing to one so dear. What! When
I have the privilege of looking on your letters, letters sweeter than
honey, do I not seem to be holding converse with all the flowers of
Paradise, and with eager longing hand to be plucking there its spiritual
fruits? How much more then, when I perused the little treatise (libel-
lus) on your most holy faith, adorned with the purity of Catholic peace,
eloquent and attractive in its style, firm as a rock in the truth of its
conceptions, did I throw up the reins of my mind for joy! Then,
as from one bright and salutary fountain in Paradise, I beheld the
stream of the four virtwes irrigating the rich plains of Italy, and
spreading over the entire domain of ecclesiastical Latinity. I beheld
the golden outpourings of spiritual ideas, interspersed with gems of
scholastic polish. Certainly you have achieved a work of wide-spread
profit and of just necessity, in clearly defining the Catholic Faith, the

very thing I have long desired to do and often urged upon the king : to

have a symbol of the Catholic Faith, plain in meaning, lucid in phrase,
reduced into one short paper, and given to all priests in every parish to

“read and commit to memory, so that everywhere the same Faith may

be uttered by a multitude of tongues. What I have desired in my
humility, has been supplied by your genius. With the Author of our.
salvation you have earned a perpetual reward, and among men praise
for this perfect work.”

1 It is numbered xcyri. (cxur. Migne).

404 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

Then he asks Paulinus to consider the question whether the
souls of the saints are with God already.

§ 4, In the comments which this able work of Mr Ffoulkes
elicited, it was at once suggested that the Athanasian Creed could
scarcely receive praise of the character which is kere assigned to the
libellus of Paulinus. To my mind, the objectors appear to have
omitted to notice that the praise of Alcuin was given to the
libellus, and this libellus may have contained the Quicunque
without being identical with it. I may refer to the written
address of Paulinus to the Council of Friuli in illustration of my
meaning. We find a Creed there: but the Creed occupies only a
small portion of the contents of the address. We have first the
introduction, leading up to a Confession of Faith: we have then
the instructions for its use which follow. So far the criticism
seemed to me to fail.

§ 5. On examining the letter, it is clear that we must assign
to it a date before Christmas 800, when Charlemagne was crowned
Emperor. He is spoken of as King. Thus we are brought
within a few years of the Synod of Friuli: and indeed of the
libellus to which 1 have just referred. Is it quite impossible
that Alcuin’s praises were poured out upon that address? It is
fascinating still in its beauty and its simplicity: it contains a
Creed which seems to have furnished groundwork for that which
Charlemagne subsequently sent to the Spanish Bishops: it was
intended for the priests, for them all to commit it to memory.

I am unwilling to believe that within a few years, six at the
utmost, Paulinus composed another “Symbol,” in form differing
entirely from that which he had then required his clergy to learn
by heart. He seems to me to have been too able and too honest so
soon to change his front: too honest to enforce a Creed without
the conviction that it supplied all that was wanting: too able
to put forth a Creed which, six years afterwards, was found to be
imperfect and fit only to be rejected and forgotten.

§ 6. I look then in another direction: and of course 1 am
attracted by the fame of that friend and admirer of Paulinus,
who, as we have seen, had himself been anxious to frame a Creed
suited for the times. Alcuin was a learned and a pious man: but

XXVIL. | WORKS OF ALOCUIN. 405

I see no proof that he was a man of genius. He was a collector of
others’ thoughts rather than himself a thinker: a compiler, not an
author. At the same time he was too honest to claim as his own
the things he had collected out of the writings of others; or to
assign to others compilations of his own. He sympathized with,
indeed he fostered, his royal master’s zeal for purity of the Faith ;
amongst his letters to Charles is one in particular’, in which he
exhorted that all the newly subjected Huns should be instructed
in the Catholic Faith.

“The Faith of the Holy Trinity must be taught with the utmost
diligence: and the coming into this world of the Son of God, our Lord
Jesus Christ, for the salvation of the human race, is to be laid down.
And the untrained mind is to be confirmed in the mystery of His
Passion, and in the truth of His Resurrection, and in the glory of His
Ascension to heaven, and His future Coming to judge all nations, and in
the Resurrection of our bodies, and in the Eternity of the punishments
of the wicked and of the rewards of the good. And then the man, when
strengthened and: prepared by this Faith, is to be baptized.”

Alcuin’s words refer of course to one of those Creeds which we
have often met with, but his thoughts run curiously enough into
the channel of the Quicunque. But yet he objected to the altera-
tion of the Nicene Creed by the Spanish Bishops, and urged the
brethren at Lyons not to insert new names into the Symbol of the
Catholic: Faith, nor, in the offices of the Church, to submit to tra-
ditions unheard of in earlier times’.

§ 7. On page Lvit. of his preface, Frobenius, the editor of
these works, quotes passages to shew that Alcuin believed firmly
that holy men fully enjoy the presence and vision of God in
heaven before the day of judgment. My remark when I met the
passage—and I see no reason to alter it now—was-this: This is
inconsistent with the last verses of our Quicunque. But Alcuin
_ urged the monks of Wearmouth and Yarrow, “that whatever ye
vowed to God before the altar must be inviolably preserved by
you’ ;” and he complained to Charles that some exiles were not
afraid to deny that “Christ as born of the Holy Virgin was not
true God and proper Son of God; and went so far as to shrink
from confessing that Jesus Christ is God, Who sits at the right

1 Aleuin’s Epistle, xxv111.=xxxur1. 2 Ad Fratres Lugdunenses, Ep. xvi. =xc.
STD. SIT, xy.

406 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

hand of the Father, and in the glory of the Father’s Majesty will
come to judge the quick and the dead’ Elsewhere he touches
on the duty of teaching the Faith before baptism, and seems to
hang for a moment on the thought “whosoever would be saved :”
“a man may be driven to baptism, but he cannot be driven
to believe’.”

§ 8. Libelli, pamphlets, as we should call them, were flying
about at the end of the eighth century. In the year 798, as
Frobenius dates the letter*®, Alcuin kegs the king to transmit to
the Pope, to Paulinus, and two others, the libellus of the “infe-
lix Felix,’ and to ask for a reply. It seems that these replies
were collected in the letter to the Spanish Bishops which was
written in the name of Charles, and to which I have already
referred. Alcuin thanks his royal friend for returning to him for
correction the libellus he had furnished*, And in a letter to
Arno’ he begs him, if he should see Paulinus, to commend him
to him.

‘“‘T have read the libellus of the Catholic Faith which he has directed
to our Lord the King, and much has it pleased me in its eloquence, its
flowers of diction, its arguments for the faith, the testimonies it adduces;
so that 1 was led to think that nothing could be added in the questions
which have been stirred between us and the party of Felix. And
happy (felix) is the Chureh and the Christian people so long as they
have, connected with our king, even one such defender of the Catholic
Faith, Still something remains to be done.”

Frobenius suggests that this libellus is the one against Felix to
which I have referred already: I cannot disconnect the passage
from the libellus which in letter xxvmr. Alewin commended to
Paulinus himself. In letter LXXXI. we find him really asking for
a new Creed.

§ 9. To the Abbot and Monks of Gotha he addressed another
interesting epistle®, apparently in the same year. He gives the
substance, not the words, of verses 30—36 of the Athanasian
Creed—verses which we have found in the fragment discovered at

Treves—and then he thus proceeds:
1 Ep, ΣΙΝ =XvIl. ous notes as to the necessity of punctua-
a XK SKE. tion and distinguishing between words.
a VO. Uxis. =< BAX ly. & XCit. = ΟΝΤΙ,

4 uxxxv.=cr. Thisletter has somecuri- 6 Ep. Xclv. = Cx.

xSVi WORKS OF ALCQUIN. 407

“These can be proved by many testimonies both from the Gospels
and from the Apostles, or even from the traditions of the Holy Fathers’:
as is partly done in the libellus which we have directed to you by the
blessed Benedict...But we have a book in hand ourselves, which, when
completed and approved by our Bishops and the king, we will send to
you.” He insists that Christ is one in two natures, and hopes to prove it
in the book he has in hand.

§ 10. Surely if the clauses 30—36: had lain close to Alcuin’s
hand in the Catholic Faith of Athanasius; that is, if the Vienna
Psalter (above, p. 372) is rightly assigned to Charlemagne, or
if Alcuin had known now of the authority of the Quicunque, he
needed not to have referred for proofs to the New Testament, or
to the traditions of the Holy Fathers. It seems to me that the
libellus he sent was the libellus of Paulinus, but that the desire to
compose a work himself had revived once more within him. At
all events we find him, a few years later, writing to Arno’, then
Archbishop of Salzburg, begging his judgment

“On a libellus de Catholica Fide which he has lately written. He
hopes it will not escape his hands, for it is very necessary to all who
would know the Catholic Faith in which the sum of our salvation rests.”
We find him shortly afterwards writing again to Arno on the meaning
of the words substantia, essentia, subsistentia, natura. Hssentia should

only be used of God. ‘Substantia aliquid esse est.” In the Trinity
there is one substance, three subsistences.

It is interesting to note how, as Alcuin drew nearer to his
end, he commended the study of the Holy Scriptures.

§ 11. But there are other works of Alcuin which bear upon
the history of the Doctrine of the Trinity, and of the mode of
enforcing the Faith of the Church regarding it.

We have for example a Commentary on the Gospel of St John,
consisting of eight books professedly drawn from the “Sanctorum
Patrum cellaria*.’ He mentions particularly* St Augustine, St
Ambrose, Pope Gregory, the Venerable Bede, and many others.
Indeed the first five books of this commentary have been put
forth as the work of Bede. Such was the uncertainty of authorship
in those days! The work, however, was clearly written in the
year 800, when Alcuin’s friend “David” was exalted to be Em-
peror in consideration of the assistance which he had rendered to

1 Notice the words. 3 Frobenius, p. 459.
2 No. cxvi. a.D. 802, =cutt. 4 Ib. p. 464.

408 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

Leo: and Alcuin speaks of the contemporaneous prosperity of
the “ Apostolic Man,” Pope Leo. It is not very tempting to read
throughout a compilation such as this: but I turned to the ex-
planation of the Redeemer’s words in ch, xiv. 28, “My Father is
greater than 1. I thought that the words of the “Faith of
Athanasius” (if Alcuin considered it to come from Athanasius)—
the words of the “Catholic Faith” which Charlemagne had sent to
Adrian twelve or fourteen years before (if he had sent it), must
have been used as the best, because the shortest, explanation of
the passage. For the phrase “Equal to the Father as touching the
divinity: inferior to the Father as touching the humanity,” was
known. It was found in the anonymous Treves explanation of
the Apostles’ Creed. But Alcuin referred neither to the Treves
Codex, nor to the Faith of Athanasius: he gave a long passage
from the Tractate of Augustine, commencing :

“ Let us acknowledge a two-fold substance in Christ: the divine in
which He is equal to the Father: the human in which the Father is
greater: but both together make up not two but one Christ, that God
may not be a Quaternity but a Trinity. For as the reasonable soul and
flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ : and thus Christ is God,

reasonable soul, and flesh. We confess Christ in all these: we confess
1 9)

Christ in each’.

The clause “as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so
God and Man is one Christ,” as it will be remembered, is not in
the Colbertine copy of the Treves manuscript. On xv. 26, Alcuin
has a few words of his own, which do not seem to exhibit any
particular anxiety to vindicate the Doctrine of the Double Pro-
cession®, ἢ

§ 12. But we have to notice another work of Alcuin’s which
is of the utmost importance to us in our literary investigation—
his volume on the Faith of the Holy and Undivided Trinity,
addressed by him “ Domino glorioso Carolo Imperatori Augus-
tissimo atque Christianissimo.” This work must, of course, have
been published after Christmas, 800, and most probably before the
Council of Aix, 803: Frobenius assigns it, without hesitation, to
802. It has deservedly attracted great attention. Teganus, who
wrote a life of Louis the Pious, sent a copy of it to Hatto, Bishop

1 Alcuin, Com. in Ioannem, Lib. vi. cap. xxxv. p. 602, ed. Frobenii.
2 Lib. vi. cap. xvi. p. 609.

. ἜΡΙΝ »
Ee Sree oe ee
᾿ς: yah seme ἐν

Pe RRP hy Oe ME A

XXVIII. | WORKS OF ALCUIN. 409

of Basil, describing it as collected out of various works of St
Augustine*. It is worthy of notice also that it was quoted largely
by Aneas of Paris in his book against the Greeks*. It has been
frequently printed, and I may be allowed to express some surprise
that neither it nor any other work by Alcuin was referred to
by Waterland in his famous treatise. The dedication speaks of
Charles’ devotion to the Catholic Faith, and of the author’s duty
to help him in his efforts to proclaim it. Thus he had endea-
voured to arrange categorically the sentiments which Augustine
in his books on the Holy Trinity deemed primarily necessary.
“Tt should be the purport of the prayers of all faithful men that
the Empire of Charles might be extended; that so the Catholic

Faith, which alone quickens the human race, and alone sanctifies

it, may be fixed truly in the hearts of all in one Confession’®.”

The words are of importance: nor is their importance, with refer-
ence to our subject, diminished when we examine the work
itself,

Book 1. commences with a chapter on the necessity of a true faith.
‘No one will be able to attain to true happiness except by the Catholic
Faith...Thus to all who would attain to true happiness, first of all faith
is necessary...Faith is the foundation of all good things: every reason-
able soul of proper age ought to know the Faith, how much more
preachers and doctors.” Chapter ii. is on “the Unity of the Trinity
and the Trinity of the Unity.” (Chap. ii.) Some things are spoken of
God absolutely : others of the Persons relatively. (v-) The Holy Spirit
is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, and is, in all respects, equal,
co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father and the Son. (vii.) What-
ever is said of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, we must always
remember that there is only one God. (viii.) The Father is full and
perfect God: so is the Son: so is the Holy Spirit: but yet not three
Gods, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but one God, full and: perfect.
Chapter xi. is on the properties of each Person.—The Father has this
property : that of all things that are, He alone is not of another. The
Son has this: that He alone is begotten of the Father, consubstantially
and co-essentially. The Holy Spirit has this: that He proceeds equally
from the Father and the Son, and is the Spirit of both: and these
Three are One (hee tria unum sunt) and this One Three (hoc unum tres):
but not three Fathers, nor three Sons, nor three Holy Spirits; but
three Persons, one Father, one Son, one Holy Spirit. We must firmly
hold the unity ; and therefore it is unlawful to say three Gods, or three

1 The letter is referred to by Frobe- 3 Universorum precibus fidelium op-
nius. It was edited by Martene, Amp. tandum est...ut catholica fides que hu-
Collect. 1. 84. manum genus sola vivificat, sola sancti-

2 D’Achery, Spicileg. τ, pp. 180, 181 __ ficat, veraciter in una confessione cunc-
(Frobenius). torum cordibus infigatur,

410 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

Omnipotents, or three Good ones, or three Great or three Essences.
(Χ11.) We must similarly maintain the [unity and] inseparability both
of essence [and operation]. (xiii.) God by the immensity of His nature
fills all creation: and thus, whatever is, that the Father fills, that the
Son, that the Holy Spirit. (xiv.) The Father is unbegotten: the Holy
Spirit is nowhere spoken of as being either begotten or unbegotten,
otherwise we might confound Him either with the Father or with the
Son ; all that we can safely say is that He proceeds from the Father and
the Son.

The second book contains accounts of the Relations of God to His
creatures. Thus (ch. i.) God is the cause of everything. (11.) God is
above everything. (111.) Seeing the use which St Paul makes of the
word equal in Phil. 11. 6, it is safer to use the word ‘ equal” than the
word “like” in speaking of God. The Father is not prior to the Son:
nor the Son posterior to the Father: indeed it is impious to believe that
in God there is anything before or after, “aliquid prius aut posterius.”
(iv.) Of the immensity of God we believe that it is such that we must
conceive that He is within all things, yet not included: outside all
things, but not excluded. (vii.) God is not local, but enters everywhere.
(vill.) Men have freewill: through freewill Adam fell. (ix.) God alone
has no beginning: “That which is unbegotten is the Father alone: that
which is begotten is the Son, to Whom it is from the Father to be what
He is: that which is neither unbegotten nor begotten is the Holy
Spirit, to Whom it is to proceed from the Father and the Son.” Men
are entirely different: so are angels. (x.) The conjunction of the Creator
with His creatures became necessary for man’s redemption. The only-
begotten Son assuming flesh of the Virgin was so united to the human
nature that the same was Man Who was God: the same God Who was
Man, being the same God and Man. But yet, in that taking of man,
neither nature was converted or changed into the other; as that the
Divinity was changed into Creature so as to cease to be Divinity, or
that the Creature was changed into Divinity so as to cease to be Crea-
ture: but one and the same Being, Who in the form of God is consub-
stantial with the Father, in the form of the servant is consubstantial
with His Mother. Chapter xi. is on the difficulty of the knowledge of
Christ Jesus. The soul and flesh of Christ with the Word is one Christ,
one Son. According to the truth of the Catholic Faith we must con-
fess in the Unity of Person in Christ both Deity, and reasonable soul,
and flesh. In xii. the difficulty is discussed, How the Son knew not the
day of judgment? In xiii. the work of the Father and of the Son is
one work: (xiv.) All things were made through Christ: (xv.) As the

. . . . ¥ . . .
Father is life, so is the Son life. Thus we pass on. Chap. xix. is on

the Unity of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son.

Book ut. enters more explicitly on the Incarnation. Chap. i. is on
the favour or grace of God by which God became Man. | “ In this God’s
favour is commended to us in that the Holy Spirit is the gift of God
(as we have above shewn); whilst it is said in the Symbol of the
Catholic Faith that Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of
the Virgin Mary. (ii.) Thus He who is Son of God became Son of

py sae ΩΝ

CO OE νον δον Ὁ νιν ἐμ α κθ μτς δ.

All

Man.” But in iii. Alcuin falls back on the older form of the Symbol
and asks and answers the question, How Christ could be born of the
Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary unless He were Son of the Holy
Spirit ? (He finds an answer in the analogy of the words to Nicodemus
that we need to be born of water and of the Holy Ghost.) In vii. we
come to the distinct question, How the Son is at one time said to be
equal to, at another time less than the Father? ‘‘ The one is in the form
of God, the other in the form of the servant: in that, from eternity,
equal: in this, in time, less:” and an appeal is made to the contents of
the Catholic Faith: certainly not the Quicunque. In ix. Heb.1i. 1, 2
is quoted: “He has spoken in the last ages of the world,” novissiinis
secult temporibus. Alcuin refers here to the Spanish heresy, which he
thinks is adequately met by the assertion on the part of Catholics ;
“ Man passed into God not by any change of nature, but because of the
oneness of the divine Person. ‘Therefore there are not two Christs nor
two Sons, but one Christ and one Son, God and Man.” Chapter x.
explains why the Son alone was incarnate. In xi. Alcuin maintains
that the whole Son, “totus Filius,” assumed from the womb of the
blessed Virgin that flesh in which He was crucified and buried: in
which He rose again and ascended into heaven and sitteth on the right
hand of God: in which He shall also come to judge the quick and the
dead, and in which all the tribes of the earth shall see Him, not in the
humility in which He was judged Himself, but in the glory in which
He is to judge. (Χ11.) Thus He is our Mediator, having the same nature
of divinity with the Father, and the same substance of humanity with
His mother. Thus (xiii.) in Christ there is a distinction of natures not
of Persons: in the Holy Trinity a distinction of Persons not of natures.
Again (xiv.) of the two generations of our Saviour, the one was sine
tempore, ante tempora : the other in tempore. The Virgin being virgo ante
partum, virgo in partu, virgo post partum. There may have been many
Χριστοτόκοι, mothers of Christs. She alone is Θεοτόκος. (xvi.) The
divinity never left the Saviour, not even in His Passion. Although
Christ descended into hell (in infernum) as regards His soul, still we do
not divide the Person: we still hold that it was God Who descended
into hell; and all this (xvii.) was for our salvation. And so (xviii.)
there are two resurrections for us to pass through: the one of our souls
now, the other of our bodies hereafter. This last is to take place im fine
secult. And then he comes to consider the resurrection of the body on
the last day (chap. xx.), the reward of the just and the punishment of
the wicked (xxi.), and the eternal blessedness of the saints (xxii.)".

XXVIL. | WORKS OF ALCUIN.

1 In the manuscripts, sometimes after
a kind of rhythmical invocation of the
Holy Trinity, sometimes immediately,
comes a Creed. In one codex it is en-
titled ““ Confessio de sancta Trinitate :”
in another, “ Lectiones de S. Trinitate:”
it is quoted by Adneas of Paris: it was
translated into Greek, and, in the Greek
version, the original was attributed to
Hilary of Poictiers; then it was trans-
lated back to be published in the Latin
works of Hilary. We find in it expres-

sions which we must not omit to notice,
such as: ‘‘ Patrem’a se ipso non ab
alio: Filium a Patre genitum...... Spiri-
tum Sanctum a Patre et Filio equaliter
procedentem...... Spiritus sanctus plenus
Deus a Patre et Filio procedens. Non
tamen tres deos dicimus sed unum deum
omunipotentem, externum, invisibilem,
incommutabilem :...nec aliud est Pater
in natura quam Filius vel Spiritus
Sanctus, nec aliud Filius et Spiritus
Sanctus quam Pater in natura...sed alius

412 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

§13. There cannot be a doubt that the Confession which
I have given in my note is a genuine confession from the pen
of Alcuin, connected with and drawn from his longer work. But,
after reviewing all, I must ask the question, Is it possible that
Alcuin can have known, or, if he had known it, have attached any
value to the Quicunque? Look again at the contents of Alcuin’s
work on the Trinity and the Incarnation: see how he quotes
everything from Augustine: note that the order of everything in
the Quicunque, as well as many of its words and phrases, are
found in this work: bear in mind that the Quicunque, or Faith of
Athanasius, is not even once referred to in it, and then ask, Are
the two documents entirely independent of each other? And,
granting that there is some connection, say, Which is the original ?
Is the Quicunque a summary of the compilation of Alcuin? or is
the compilation of Alcuin an Exposition of the Quicunque? My
answer is ready; I must leave it to my readers to judge whether
that answer is reasonable or no.—The question will still remain,
Who was the writer that completed the work of Alcuin and ren-
dered it available even to the present generation?

δ. 14. There are other undoubted works of Alcuin bearing on
the controversy with Felix and Elipandus, which shew a large
amount of reading. He quotes Hilary, and Augustine, and Cyril
of Alexandria, and Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory the Great,
and many others: he quotes Athanasius also; three times from the
letter to Epictetus ; once from a letter to Bishop Potamius, which
is never heard of again*; once from the dubious work de Incar-
natione, which Alcuin calls “the Exposition of his Faith’;” and
ence from a work, de fide sua, which is undoubtedly spurious®.
The last-cited passage had been quoted by Paulinus. FI adduce them
now to shew the extent of Alcuin’s reading. And when I find

Pater in persona, alius Filius in per-
sona, alius Spiritus Sanctus in persona.
...Credimus eundem Filium Dei Verbum
Dei, «xternaliter natum de Patre, con-
substantialem Patri per omnia, tempo-
raliter natum de Spiritu sancto et Maria
[semper] Virgine duas habentem nativi-
tates, unam ex Patre xternam, unam ex
Matre temporalem...Deum verum con-
fitemur conceptum, Deum verum natum.
Eundem verum Deum et verum homi-
nem, unum Christum...qui mortuus est

carnis sue morte, et sepultus,. atque ab
inferis, damnato et spoliato principe
totius iniquitatis,.rediens tertia die re-
surrexit, &c. &e. &e. Gratia et pax a
Deo Patre et Filio ejus Iesu Christo
Domino nostro sit ista confitenti in om-
nia secula seculorum.”’

1 Frobenius, p. 778.

a Pators

3 p. 902. Two other expositions of
Athanasius’ Faith !

WORKS OF ALCUIN. 413

XXVIL. |

him bringing passage after passage to uphold the statement “There
are not two, but one Christ,” as against the followers of Felix, and
yet never adducing our Athanasian Creed, the fact seems to me to
be unaccountable except on one of two hypotheses. The one is
that Alcuin did not know of the Quicunque at all; the other that
he knew that neither Felix nor Elipandus would be influenced by
it. Noone can say that it would have been insufficient for his
purpose; for, even in the Creed of Constantinople as we call it,
Alcuin found an argument against the Adoptianist theory’.

§ 15. In entering on this investigation I feared that I might
be compelled to exhibit Alcuin as having a share in the fraud of
palming off the Quicunque as the work of Athanasius. I think now
that his character is cleared. His great work on the Trinity was
written in 802 or 803, and he died in 804, Beyond the precarious
evidence of the dates of the French manuscript 13196 and the
Milanese Codex, we have no testimony of the existence of the
Quicunque as a whole, before this latter year. And we have
strong proof that neither Paulinus nor Alcuin nor Charlemagne,
up to this time, knew anything of it”.

1 If may be remembered that the
words of the Treves fragment were
‘*Unus non ex eo quod sit in carne con-
versa divinitas, sed quia est in deo ad-
sumpta dignanter humanitas.” I find
Alcuin quoting from Leporius, a pres-
byter of Gaul (Frobenius, p. 775), ‘‘ quia
Verbum Deus dignanter in hominem
suscipiendum descendit.”’

2 In Vol. 11. of Alcuin’s works we
have some aecount of Creeds and ser-
vices—the Nicene Creed without the

anathemas, p.117: the Apostles’ Creed,
p. 127: an article de fide, p. 129: a con-
fession of faith ascribed to Alcuin (cer-
tainly not resembling the Quicunque),
p. 390. Pelagius’ Creed is quoted p.
397: but not a word can be found re-
lating to or resembling the Quicunque.
It is simply incredible that it eould have
been received as authentic,.or as authori-
tative, within the somewhat wide range
of Alcuin’s experience.

CHAPTER XXVIII.
HINCMAR.

§ 1. Questions still remaining to be answered. § 2. The Freedom of the Will.
§ 3. Godeschalk. ἃ 4. Waterland’s references to Hincmar. ὃ 5. Hincmar
‘*De Predestinatione,” and the ‘‘Symbolum Athanasii.”’ § 6. Godeschalk
on the Trine Deity. ὃ 7. Hincmar’sreply. § 8. Clauses of the Quicun-
que quoted by Hincmar. ὃ 9. The ‘‘ Ferculum Salomonis.”

§ 1. THERE can be no doubt that the Quicunque was known
in its complete form to Charles le Chauve. But there are some
curious and intricate questions still unsettled, which the historian
should lay before his readers even if he is unable to solve them
himself. Compelled as we are to hold in suspense our judgment
as to the date of certain manuscripts, we can have no doubt as to
the date of writings, which, by internal as well as external
evidence, are proved to have belonged to some historical person-
ages, or to have been written by other historical personages in view
of certain specified controversies. Of this latter character are the
works of Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, an ambitious and
arrogant prelate, who may possibly deserve the credit of being
zealous for truth which Mosheim assigns to him; but whose chief
characteristics appear to have been a determination to maintain in
his own person the independence of the Church of his Province
against the growing encroachments of the Church of Rome, and
an apprehension that the truth could not make way if it were
not backed up by a vigorous use of the secular arm.

§2. One of the earlier expositions of the Quicunque ex-
plains the first clause as intended to exhibit the doctrine of

Free- Will.

“‘ Here the blessed Athanasius laid down the freedom of the will: as
it is said in the Psalm, What man is there that would have life? and
again in the Gospel the Truth Itself says, He that would come after
Me: so here, Whosoever would be saved. Wherefore God, though

CHAP. XXVIII. | HINCMAR. 415

omnipotent, draws to the Faith no one against his will or by com-
pulsion ; He attracts him only who, of his own free will, would come
to the Faith.”

If this is correct (I do not say that it is), the date at which |
our first clause was prefixed to the Faith of the Church, (as we
have seen that Faith taught by Augustine, Paulinus, Alcuin, and
others,) must be the period in the ninth century at which the
old questions on Predestination were revived: that is, the period
at which Godeschalk attracted attention.

§ 3. Although the history of Godeschalk is generally known,
I must be allowed to state, very briefly, the dates and chief
characteristics of his life. He was a Saxon of noble birth, and is
said to have been made a monk against his will. In the year 847
he became conspicuous by producing a catena which he had made
out of the writings of St Augustine, of passages upholding an ex-
treme view of Predestination: to shew that some, from all eternity,
had been intended for everlasting life; others for everlasting
sufferings. Rabanus Maurus, of whom I have had occasion to
speak already, procured his condemnation at a Council held at
Mayence in 848; and then he transmitted him as a prisoner for
punishment to his Bishop, Hincmar’. At a Synod held under
Hincmar, Godeschalk was degraded from the priesthood, ordered
to be scourged durissimis verberibus until he would consign to
the flames the collection out of Augustine’s works which he had
produced at Mayence, and to be imprisoned in the monastery of
Hautvilliers. But in addition to this first trouble Godeschalk
became involved in another controversy. Hincmar had forbidden
the singing of the words of a well-known hymn:

“Te trina Deitas unaque poscimus ;”

and the Benedictine monks, with Ratram as their leader, refused
to obey. Godeschalk, although in prison, contrived to join in the
controversy, and Hinemar, as eagerly, responded to him. To this

we owe the two treatises from which the following extracts are
taken.

§ 4. Dr Waterland refers to Hincmar in his chapter τι. “Of
Ancient Testimonies,’ and his chapter mm. “Of Ancient Com-

1 I have taken this history, almost verbatim, from the pages of Mosheim.

416 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [CHAP.

ments” on the Athanasian Creed. Τὴ the former chapter he says,
under the year 852 :—

“In the same age flourished the famous Hincmar, archbishop of
Rheims; who so often cites or refers to the Creed we are speaking of
as a standing rule of faith, that it may be needless to produce the par-
ticular passages. I shall content myself with one only, more considerable
than the rest, for the use that is to be made of it hereafter. He directs
his presbyters to learn Athanasius’ Treatise of Faith (beginning, Whoso-
ever will be saved), to commit it to memory, to understand its meaning,
and to be able to give it in common words; that is, I suppose, in the
vulgar tongue. He, at the same time, recommends the Lord’s Prayer
and (Apostles’) Creed, as I take it, without mentioning the Nicene:
which I particularly remark, for a reason to be seen above. It is farther
observable that though Hincmar here gives the Athanasian formulary
the name of a Treatise of Faith; yet he elsewhere scruples not to call
it (Symbolum) a Creed: and he is, probably, as Sirmondus observes, the
first writer who gave it the name it bears at this day.”

In chapter 111. Waterland’s words are these:

“852. Our next Commentator, or rather Paraphrast, is Hincmar of
Rheims; not upon the whole Creed, but upon such parts only as he had
occasion to cite. For his way is to throw in several words of his own
as explanatory notes, so far as he quotes the Creed: and he sometimes
does it more than he ought to do, to serve a cause against Gothescalcus
which I may hint, in passing: to say more of it would be foreign to our
present purpose.”

I have quoted the passage from the Capitular of Hincmar in
my twenty-first chapter’, and, therefore, I need not again adduce
the words. Nothing can be learnt from it as to the precise
character of the Quicunque at the time. Other passages will
come before us in order as we examine his works.

§5. In his book, De Predestinatione, p. 309, Hincmar
quotes

Leo, and Bede, and others, to exhibit the benefit arising from
baptism: then he adds a few words from Pope Siricius, to the effect that
those Christians who apostatize and become contaminated in the worship
of idols, must cut themselves off, as we should say de facto, from the
Body and Blood of Christ, with which, at their new birth, they were
redeemed. ‘And Athanasius in the Symbol, after other things, says
that he believes in Christ, Who, taken up to heaven, sitteth at the right
hand of the Father; we expect that He will come from thence to judge
the quick and the dead, being sure to receive in His death and blood
remission of our sins.”

1 p, 302.

sc AS agen
ποτ» ἘΠ ἃ

XXVIU. | HINCMAR. 417

This is the passage appealed to not only by Waterland, but
also by Sirmond and others, to shew that Hincmar speaks of the
Quicunque as a Symbolum or Creed.

Now Waterland knew that there is no other instance where
this title is given to the document for the next three hundred
years. And this fact should of itself have made him and Sirmond
hesitate before they assumed that the Quicunque was here in-
tended by the title Symbolum. ‘The fact is, that there is, as any
one may assure himself, in the Quicunque, no expression of
belief: no explicit declaration that the author believed in the
resurrection of our Saviour: no reference to the atonement through
His death and passion: no mention of remission of sins. Hincmar,
therefore, must have referred to some other document. It was
the fashion, as we have seen, to ascribe Creeds to Athanasius:
and I have already mentioned that a Creed resembling that
which we find in the Appendix to the fifth volume of Augustine’s
works, Sermon cCCXxxVv—and which is called in some manu-
scripts, “ Fides Catholica Niceni concili1 Eeclesize Romane directa”
—is elsewhere, as in Usher, called “ Alia ejusdem Fidei confessio
Athanasio ipsi a quibusdam attributa,” elsewhere “ Libellus fidei
Patris et ΕἾ] et Spiritus Sancti Athanasi episcopi”.” Is this,
or any other similar Symbol, the document which Hincmar calls
the Symbolum Athanasii? Let us look.

Hinecmar’s words are:

“‘ Athanasius in symbolo dicens se credere in Christum premissis aliis
assumptum im colis, sedere in dextera Patris, inde venturum judicare
vivos et mortuos expectamus, in hujus morte et sangwine remissionem
peccatorum consecutt.”

In the lbellus assigned to Athanasius which I have printed
above, pp. 273, 274, these words occur:

“Credimus in Tesum Christum—’ then, after a long interval—
“tertia die a mortuis resurrexisse, assumptum in cclos, sedere ad dex-
teram Patris, inde venturum judicare vivos et mortuos: expectamus in
hujus morte et sanguine remissienem peccatorum consecutos.”

It thus becomes clear that the “Symbolum of Athanasius,”
which Hinemar quoted in his discourse on Predestination, is not
the Quicunque, as Sirmond, and, after him, perhaps Oudin and

1 See above, pp. 257 and 273, Appendix 11.

“I

418 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

Tentzel, and certainly Waterland, laid it down to be, but another
document altogether; a document, I repeat, well known in
the ninth century, but which we have proved to have existed
in the seventh: a document, which in the Augustinian form is
found in the Paris manuscript that contains the fragment dis-
covered at Treves: which in the Athanasian form is found in
our Arundel MS. 241', after the end of the eight books on the
Faith of the Holy Trinity, which were also assigned to Atha-
nasius in the time of Hincmar. It is there ushered in as follows:

‘“‘Hos libellos octo transscripsi qui multa addita et immutata conti-
nent. Incipit libellus fidei Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti Athanasii
episcopi. Cum legeris, per hane fidem moneo ut mei memor sis in
orationibus tuis. Ne forsitan negligenter quisquam hoc obtrectator
contingat: quia scriptum est, Ne projiciatis margaritas vestras ante
porcos.”

I must return to this again. For the present I proceed with
Hinemar.

§ 6. I do not envy any one the labour of wading through his
wearisome work, De Una et non Trina Deitate. But yet the
duty must be performed by any who would test the accuracy
of Waterland’s statements. I have no question here with our
great divine. I must, however, exhibit the evidence that may

be adduced.

Godeschalk held that ‘God is naturally One, but Personally Trine,”
he did not believe “three Gods,” but yet with the Creed of Damasus
would reject the conception that God is solitarius: he held that the
Father alone is God, so that He is not of God, but He begat God: the
Son alone is God, so that He is begotten of God: the Holy Spirit
alone is God, so that He proceeds at once from the unbegotten and the
begotten God.” Thus he held that “Deus Pater est Deitas ingenita
innascibilis et innata: Deus Filius est Deitas genita nascibilis et nata:
Deus Spiritus Sanctus est Deitas nec ingenita innascibilis et innata,
nec genita nascibilis et nata, sed procedens a Deitate ingenita innascibli
et innata et a Deitate genita nascibili et nata®.”

Now the first thing that strikes me here is this; that Godes-
chalk could not have known the Quicunque, or if he knew it
could not have regarded it as of any authority. He would not
have ventured thus to alter the words of a document which had

' Commencing fol. 77 B. tion of Sirmond. The black figures in
? p. 415, my references are to the edi- Migne, cxxv.

—s rl. Ὸ ee. eee. et a || lll
” Ce * mo om ~

XXVIII. | HINCMAR. 419

generally been received in the Church as authoritative, or had
been introduced generally into the service.

§ 7. But we must turn our attention to Hincmar’s reply’.

He maintained that Godeschalk’s opinion really amounted to a divid-
ing of the Deity Which ought to be considered inseparable, as Augus-
tine and the other doctors teach. ‘‘ Wherefore the Catholic Faith most
constantly proclaims that the Unity of the Deity in the Trinity of Persons
and the Trinity of Persons in the Unity of the Deity ought to be
worshipped. Since, as, taking Them one by one (singillatim), we are
compelled by the Christian verity to confess each Person to be full and
perfect Lord and God...because of the one and same Deity which is
entire in each Person, so are we forbidden by the Catholic religion,—
because of the one and the same Deity which is entire and undivided in
Kach,—to speak of three Gods or Lords.” (p. 427.)

Thus we have the substance of our clauses 3, 19, 20.

On the next page (428), we have the following :

“The voices of all Catholics protest this, that Whoever would be
saved must believe and confess that the Three Persons of the Holy
Trinity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, are ὁμοούσιοι, so
that, one by one (singillatim), we must believe and confess each Person
to be true, complete...God, and these whole three Persons one God:
because the Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit is One, which is the Unity of Trinity.”

Here we have words of clauses 1, 19, 6, 30. Does he, how-
ever, quote the Quicunque? No. For he says: “In this faith
all baptize who do faithfully baptize: and all the faithful are
baptized.”

Sophronius the archbishop of Jerusalem (whose letter was read at
the sixth Council’) is quoted (p. 429) as objecting to the thought and
words, ‘‘three Gods,” “three Lords,” and our clause 15 is quoted as from
Sophronius (p. 430). Hinemar then adduces the Synodica of Pope
Agatho and portions of the true Constantinopolitan Creed. Then, p. 433,
“Tf anyone is a lover of Christ and fears the Lord...let him hold this
orthodox faith, for by none other can he be saved (salvatus)*.” At
last, p. 435, we have an appeal to Athanasius generally: and, p. 437,
he quotes clauses 5 and 6 as Athanasius’ own. ‘Athanasius dicit
hance esse fidem Catholicam, ut credatur, quia alia est Persona Patris, &ec.”
Augustine is quoted (p. 438) as teaching “non tres Dii sed unus Deus‘:”

1 Hinemar refers in his preface to the tatem in Trinitate glorificamus.”
collection made by Ratram of Corbey. 3 The substance of 32—34 is refer-
2 See above pp. 249, 250 (Sophronius red to as belonging to the Chalcedon
died about 638 not 688 as there stated). | Council.
I think that these words come from him, 4 These words are adduced pp. 429,
‘«Trinitatem in unitate credimus: uni- 431. 524.

27—2

42.) THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

and then, on p. 439, Hincmar misrepresents the great African Bishop by
putting that absolutely which Augustine suggests hypothetically (Tom.
Ix. p. 222, c). After awhile he cannot resist a pun in speaking of
Godeschalk’s sufferings; ‘“‘quem non correxerunt verba suscipient ver-
bera.” (p. 444.)

Words resembling clauses 15, 16 are again quoted from Sophronius
(p. 449) or Agatho. On p. 450, he accuses Godeschalk of tampering
with manuscripts; because his authorities did not read as Hincmar wished
them. He refers again to Ratram of Corbey—who made a compilation
out of a work on the Trinity ascribed falsely to Augustine. He men-
tions that he had produced his own evidence out of Augustine at the
Council of Soissons (in 853). I cannot but ask myself, Why was not
the “Catholic Faith of Athanasius” adduced at length, if it existed
then as we have it now ?

At length, p. 452, Hincmar refers to the οὶ regula: and he adduces
parts of clauses 3, 4, 5, 6 as words of Athanasius. I think if he had
had them within such easy reach, he would have found 11, 12, 14 more
to his purpose. Onp. 455 he has language resembling that of clauses 21,
22, 23 but it is not the language of the Quicunque. He thus goes,
meandering on, referring to Augustine again for clause 16 (p. 459), but
we have (p. 464) clauses 3, 4 as Athanasius’, and (p. 469) 3, 4, 5, 6.
He then passes on to St Augustine. After a while he adduces Augus-
tine again, with Leo the Great, and Gregory, and Paulinus of Aquileia,
aud Aleuin de 7'rinitate (p. 472), where most certainly our Creed would
have been more authoritative, if not more appropriate. On p. 477, we
hear of Athanasius’ Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. On p. 481
he adduces a spurious work as Athanasius’ (Migne Iv. p. 1433), and
then Hilary, and Ambrose, and Sophronius again. And soon we come
to a series of spurious quotations as from Athanasius, I believe from
the Books of the Trinity which are ascribed to Vigilius. We find such
in pp. 492, 495, 501, 509, and so on. Alcuin’s collection on the
Trinity is spoken of again on p. 507.

And thus we pass onward, looking anxiously at the number of
pages we have still to wade through, and noting that on p. 522 there
seems to be the substance of our clause 24, and on p. 538 an explanation
worthy of some note, of the meaning of singillatim'. The “ Non tres
Dii sed unus Deus” comes forward once more, but now from Alcuin
(p. 539), and on p. 540 we have Athanasius again. We have references
to the Symbolum, 7.e. the Apostles’ Creed, on pp. 544 and 647. And
the subject of 25, 26 “In this Trinity there is nothing before or
after” is touched upon in pp. 545, 547, but the Quicunque is not quoted.
At last, p. 552, we come to the narrative which is interesting. Hincmar
describes how he had urged Godeschalk to repent and revoke his _blas-
phemies, but he could not succeed. When he heard that the Monk
was dying, he sent by some brethren the following paper.

“Believe this in regard to the predestination of the elect and the
pretermission of the reprobate, and that God wills all men to be saved,

1 On p. 526, Godeschalk is introduced op. 538. (Did Godeschalk’s use of it
as using the word singillatim, but cer- cause its introduction and explanation
tainly not as part of the Creed. The into the Quicunque?) Clause 20 is said
word is explained at some length on to come from Ambrose, de Fide, τ. § 2.

XXVUL. | HINCMAR. 421

although all men are not saved...And of the Deity of the Holy and
inseparable Trinity—which is a Unity of Trinity—believe and con-
fess, as the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church believes, confesses,
and proclaims, saying; ‘The Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one
God ina Trinity of Persons, and a Trinity of Persons in a Unity of Deity,
neither confounding the Persons, as Sabellius, so that there are not Three,
nor, as Arius, separating the substance, so that it is trine: because the
Person of the Father is one, not one Thing; the Person of the Son is
another, not another Thing; and the Person of the Holy Spirit is
another, not another Thing: but the Divinity of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, the majesty
coeternal: and in this Holy and Inseparable Trinity there is nothing
before or after, nothing greater or less’, but the whole three Persons,
Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are coeternal with each other and co-
equal: so that in all things, as has above been now said, both the
Trinity of Persons in the Unity of Deity and the Unity of Deity in
the Trinity of Persons is to be worshipped.’ And if thou shalt thus
believe in thine heart, and thus profess with thy mouth, and sub-
scribe with thy hand, before witnesses, that thou dost thus believe
and profess, and in this belief and profession dost continue ; then by
the judgment of the Holy Spirit, through that same Episcopal power
by which thou wast condemned, thou mayest be absolved and be re-
stored to the participation of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus
Christ and to the Communion of the Catholic Church.”

Godeschalk refused, and died unabsolved, in 868 or 869.

δ 8. Thus we find Hincmar quoting five times portions of the
Quicunque,

e.g. p. 452, clauses 3, 4, 5, 6,

AGA. oo ak
S000 ee 13 4) 6
SA 8, 4, 25, 26, 27,

552, the scene on the death-bed, 3, 4, 5, 6, 25, 26, 27,
and using language very similar to clauses 19, 20.

The question is, Did he know the rest of the “Faith of Atha-
nasius”? Clause 15 is quoted from Sophronius: 16 from Augus-
tine. Indeed only clauses 3, 4, 5, 6 are adduced eo nomine as
from Athanasius. What are we to believe? Must we suppose
that even then the document was not known in its present en-
tirety ? or was not acknowledged in its entirety to be authorita-
tive? at least in the province of Rheims? These are certainly
puzzling questions: so puzzling that I may be allowed once more

1 The exact sequence which is exhibited in the Vienna Manuscript 1261. See
above, p. 325.

422 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [CHAP. XXVIII.

to look at the quotations which have been adduced from earlier
writers, professing or claiming to be taken from the “Faith of
Athanasius’.”

§ 9. This must occupy our next chapter. I would, however,
before I close this, draw attention to the Exposition of the Symbol
which is contained in Hincmar’s Treatise, which has the quaint
title, “In Ferculum Salomonis.” It bears in many respects a re-
semblance to the earlier documents of this character, adopting the
older phrase that the Word became Incarnate “in fine sseculorum,”
not “in seculo” as the Quicunque reads. The modern wording of
the Apostolic Symbol had not as yet, as it would seem, been fully
accepted, because, although he read “ conceptus de Spiritu Sancto,
natus ex Maria Virgine,” the descent into hell is passed over and
the phrase is “sedet ad dexteram Patris.” The following words
remind us of the Quicunque. “Ad cujus adventum omnes homines
resurgent cum corporibus suis, et reddent de factis propriis
rationem’.”

1 I do not believe that Dr Waterland
ever read Hincemar’s treatise. The pas-
sages to which he refers in his note to
Chapter 111. appear to have been merely
transferred en masse from the Index to
Sirmond’s edition.

2 This part of the tract concludes as
follows: “Εὖ qui, gratia Dei et subse-
quente eandem gratiam libero arbitrio, in

fide recta et operibus bonis perseverave-
rint, presciti et predestinati a Deo in
gloriam, ibunt in vitam eternam, e-
lectis...a Deoparatam...Kt qui, non a Deo
ad interitum predestinati, sed ab Eo ex
retributione justitia in massa perditio-
nis relicti, in infidelitate vel malis operi-
bus perseveraverint, ibunt in ignem eter-
num...” Migne, cxxxv. p. 824.

pane ee ey

erty ΨΜΨΦΆΜΝΝ

τ μλμνουώῳ

CHAPTER XXIX.

ΠΡ EXPOSITION: IN: “JUNIUS 252

δ. 1. Muratori and the Ambrosian codex M. 79. sup. Description of the manu-
script and its contents. § 2. Description of the Bodleian manuscript
Junius 25, and its contents. ὃ 8. Zaccaria’s copy at Florence. § 4. Manu-
script at Vienna. § 5. The Milan title cannot mean that the Quicunque
was written by Fortunatus. § 6. The Exposition apparently a running
commentary. § 7. The clauses explained. § 8. Difficulty of regarding
the Exposition as a collection of notes. § 9. Who was the author?
§ 10. Venantius cannot be the author of the one copy assigned to him.
§ 11. Examination of the Exposition. ὃ 12. Results as to the Ambrosian
copy. δ 13. Results as to the other version. § 14. Excursus on the
sixth millennium. Appendix. Tur Exposition.

§ 1. ONE witness remains to be examined of a singularly
interesting character.

I. When Muratori was Librarian of the Ambrosian Library, he
devoted himself much to the examination of the older manuscripts
which that famous collection contains: and he made many im-
portant discoveries. Amongst these is the Fragment on the
Canon of the New Testament, which has made his name familiar
to most, even of our youngest students. These discoveries were
published to the literary world about the close of the seventeenth
century: the volume which contains the documents which I am
now proposing to examine came out in the year 1698. Muratori
does not describe the codex at length, nor does he give a very
clear or succinct account of its contents.

Through the kind help of Dr Ceriani, I was permitted to
examine the MS. in a somewhat hurried visit to Milan on August
9, 1872.

The class mark is M, 79. sup. and I have a note that the book was
written in the year Mv. It contains many “ excerpta.”

424 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

No. 19 we have
Incipit expositio a fortunato presbytero conscripta.
It begins :—
“Summam totius fidet Catholice recensentes,” and ends...“ qui trium-

phato tartyro, cum patre et spiritu sancto glorioso principatu intrans
victor regnat in ceelo.”

Then:

“Ttem alia expositio symboli.

“Symbolum graece Latine indicium sive collatio dicitur...A men quod
dicitur fideliter sive firmiter.”

“Item alia expositio symboli.

“Tradunt majores nostri quod post ascensionem...... deprecamur ut
nobis et omnibus qui hee audiunt concedat fidem dominus quam suscepi-
mus et inveniri inter eos qui resurgunt ad vitam zeternam per dominum
Jesum Christum dominum nostrum.”

“ Hxpositro orationis dominice. ᾿

‘Dominus noster qui orantes se exaudire consuevit.”...(The conclu-
sion was to me unintelligible).

“Ttem alia expositio.

“Pater noster...... a

““Ttem alia expositio.

“Oratio dominica dicitur......
......mereamur esse.”

“ Expositio fidet Catholica.

“Quicunque homo vult salvus esse ante omnia opus est id est necesse
est ut teneat id est retineat ut intelligat catholicam id est universalem
fidem id est credulitatem. Quam fidem si unusquisque homo integram
id est firmam inviolatamque id est indivisam ut (et) incorruptam serva-
verit id est custodierit absque dubio id est sine dubio in eternum
peribit id est in futuro judicio condemnabitur.”

It ends thus:

‘‘Heec est fides catholica id est credulitas universalis quam fidem si
non unusquisque homo fideliter id est veraciter firmiterque crediderit
absque ulla dubietate salvus esse non poterit in ultimo die quando
reddet unicuique secundum opera sua.”

Then without any introduction

‘‘Fides est illarum rerum que non videntur credulitas.”

This exposition goes on to the bottom of the column, the next com-
mencing

“Quicunque id est unusquisque [qui] vult id est cupit salvus esse.”

The last is very long. It ends

“Versiculum istum per adfirmationem repetit ut non recte credentes
terreat et ad querendam rectae fidei semitam provocet.”
“Ttem expositio fide catholice fortunati.
“Quicunque vult esse salvus
...Salvus esse non poterit.

paws
ΨΥ eee) ΞΡ

Pap. ee st Fe a ai
er Fern sedan

Stak eo ΟΣ:
ge a ρα, ee ee

ste

εὐ φορῶν... fe

ΣΟ ΒΡ, ᾿
CR Ee Pee eT ee

Pee Pan ee te ee = See ae

bik a
Sore

RAEX THE EXPOSITION IN “ JUNIUS 25.” 42

“Explicit expositio fidei Catholice. O beata et gloriosa, O benedicta
et amplectenda fides que humanum genus sola vivificasti, que sola de
diabolo triumphum reportas, &....” An appeal of which I found an-
other copy at Munich, 17181, Lat.

Some writings of Bede follow.

The work in which we are now specially interested is that
entitled “Expositio Fidei Catholics Fortunati.”

§ 2. 11. Another version of this Exposition is found in a
manuscript in the Library of the University of Oxford, of which
we have this account in the third chapter of Waterland’s Critical
History.

“There is an older manuscript copy of this comment (as I find by
comparing) in the Museum at Oxford, among Junius’ Manuscripts,
number 25. Iam obliged to the very worthy and learned Dr Haywood
for sending me a transcript of it with a specimen of the character. It is
reasonably judged to be about 800 years old [ἡ. e. written about 920].
It wants in the beginning about ten or a dozen lines: in the other
parts it agrees with Muratorius’ copy, saving only some slight insertions
and such various lections as are to be expected in different manuscripts,
not copied one from the other.”

Waterland adds somewhat naively; ‘“ From the two copies compared
may be drawn out a much more correct comment than that which
Muratorius has given us from one, as will be seen at the end of this work.”

This volume contains a curious and miscellaneous collection bound
together, without any other connection with each other than the binding.
Thus we receive no light from the other contents. In the middle of
folio 106 (1) comes this

“ Legentes in hoe libro
orent pro reverendo Domino
bartholomeo de andolo
cuique industria pene
dilapssa renovata
est. Anno MCCCC.
ΧΙ

It would seem that the book came from Venice.
We have on fol. 108
‘“‘Expositio in fide Catholica,”

the Exposition in which we are interested.

This ends on fol. 1116. Here is written in a more modern hand
the beginning of the Apostles’ Creed. Then on fol. 112

“Tneipit fides catholica hieronimi.

Credimus in deum patrem, &c.”

The creed of Pelagius.

This is followed by an Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer (fol. 1140).

‘Pater noster qui es in celis. Haec vox libertatis est patrem invo-
care qui nos creavit quia omnes ab uno deo creati sumus...a diabulo

426 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

vel a malis hominibus.”

Then on fol. 115 is another Exposition of the
Lord’s Prayer.

I need not proceed: I must say, however, here, that I do not.

understand the meaning of Waterland’s assertion, that the Expo-
sition of the Quicunque wants in the beginning ten or a dozen
lines: an assertion which has been understood to represent that
the manuscript is mutilated. The Exposition is perfect’.

§ 3. LI. Franciscus Ambrosius Zaccaria found a copy of
this Exposition in a paper codex of the fourteenth century:
Nullius Expresso Nomine Auctoris. (See his Excursus Litterarius
per Italiam, p. 307.) He was spending his holiday in a journey
to the Libraries of Italy. In one of the many collections at
Florence he saw an exposition which he recognised from its re-
semblance to Muratori’s copy: and he made a small and unsatis-
factory attempt to collate it. The collations are given in his
Excursus, p. 307, and are noted in the margin of Migne, Vol.
LXXXVIU. p. 587. Neither he, nor Muratori, nor Migne, appears
to have known of the Oxford manuscript: it is clear, however, that
this Florentine copy agrees very closely with the Exposition as
given in “Junius 25” in the chief points wherein this differs from
Muratori's copy.

§ 4. ‘IV. In reading the account of some of the treasures of
the Library at Vienna as published by Denis, I was struck with
a notice of the manuscript 1032, from which I have already made
extracts (pp. 322, 323). After the Creed there transcribed fol-
lows (as I stated) in the manuscript the Quicungue. On the
document succeeding it, Denis made this remark :

“Symbolum excipit commentarius in ipsum sed qui (quod dolendum
est) Jam in versu Quia sieut singillatim abrumpitur: antiquior certe
Hildegardiano et Bruniano.” He refers to the volumes of the Biblio-
theca Maxima. ‘Initium ejus est aliquantum corruptum. Quicunque
vult salvus esse. Fides dicitur credulitas sive credentia: catholicam

1 The manuscript contains a curious
farrago of works, amongst them some-
thing entitled in a modern hand, ‘ Al-

rustic letters. On folio 77 there is some-
thing more, marked as ““ Alcuini dialec-
tica,” of which almost all the headings

cuini Rhetorica,” and, on folios 72 ὃ and
73, a genealogy of rhetoric, entitled, also
in a modern hand(?), ‘‘Hee sunt Al-
cuini que in nonnullis editionibus desi-
derantur.” All the items in this are in

are in rustic letters: and (oddly enough)
this is followed by a paper entitled
‘‘Epistola Hieronymi ad Dardanum de
generibus musicarum,” where there is
an account of an organ.

oma ite:

ΧΧΙΧ,] THE EXPOSITION IN “JUNIUS 25.” 427

universalem, quia Catholicus universalis dicitur.” I hoped that this
might prove a third copy of the comment as given in “Junius 25:” and
Dr Haupt, to whom I have already expressed my great obligations,
added this to his other kindnesses: he transcribed all that the manu-
script contained. My conjeeture was correct: but the copy is unhappily
defective, breaking off as Denis informs us at the nineteenth clause.
This is on the recto of folio 86: turning over the leaf we find something
totally different on the other side.

§ 5. I have felt compelled to give this long account of the
Manuscripts (so far as they have come under my notice) which
contain this Exposition, to enable my readers to form their own
judgment of its true character and object. And I think that by
merely noting the contents of the Ambrosian codex, they will be
disposed to reject at once the suggestion of Muratori, that the
title Hxpositio Fidei Catholice Fortunati* can possibly indicate
that any Fortunatus was the author of the “Catholic Faith” ex-
pounded. In the manuscript there are four Expositions of the
Q@uicunque: and with one only is the name of Fortunatus con-
nected. Surely this must mean that Fortunatus wrote the Expo-
sition, And another result of our examination follows: we cannot
have any very high opinion of the judgment of Muratori, seeing
that on such evidence he formed such a strange conclusion.

§ 6. Another and perhaps more important question next
presents itself: What is the character of this Exposition? Is 1t—
like many of the Expositions of the Apostles’ Creed which have
survived, and like many or all of the Expositions of the Lord’s
Prayer—a continuous discourse upon the Quicunque? Or is it
merely a collected series of side notes upon the document, of the
same character as is the comment assigned to Bruno, Bishop of
Wurtzburg? The enquiry is of importance, and the subject of it
has not been adequately considered. Waterland is silent upon it:
Mr Ffoulkes seems to have regarded it from the latter point of
view’.

If our judgment on the character of a work is in any way to be
influenced by the documents amongst which that work is found in
the manuscripts, we must, I conceive, regard the Exposition in the

1 Aleuin, m1. p. 90, described the “1 would ask whether ancient com-
‘“‘Pange, lingua” as Hymnus Fortunati. mentators in general ever cite more of a
It was written, I believe, by Mammertus work than the passage they select for

Claudianus. comment?”
2 On the Athanasian Creed, p. 316,

428 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

earlier light, and hold that it was a running commentary: the
presbyter reading the Faith and its Exposition. And the turn of
the language on clauses 13, 19, 36 seems to be reconcileable only
with this supposition.

In this case, we must conclude that the “ Faith,” at the time
that the Exposition was written, had not assumed the dimensions
which it had assumed in the year 870. In this respect it may
have resembled the Faith as it seems to have fallen into the
hands of Archbishop Hincmar. For we must note that the
clauses of our present document which the archbishop might
have quoted—but did not quote—in his controversy with Godes-
chalk are passed over entirely in this Exposition. To exhibit this,
I must give the clauses which are contained or noticed in the
Exposition of the Oxford and Florence, and (in part) the Vienna,
manuscripts. The Milanese manuscript contains also clause 2.

’

§ 7. The clauses explained are these:

1. Quicunque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est ut teneat catho-
hcam fidem. Ut unum Deum in Trinitate et Trinitatem in Unitate
veneremur; neque confundentes personas, neque substantiam sepa-
rantes. Alia est enim persona Patris, alia persona Filii, alia Spiritus
Sancti. Sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti una est Divinitas,
eequalis gloria, cozterna majestas. Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis
et Spiritus Sanctus; increatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus et
Spiritus Sanctus; inmensus Pater, inmensus Filius, inmensus et

10. Spiritus Sanctus; e«ternus Pater, eternus Filius, eternus et

13. Spiritus Sanctus. Similjter emnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius,

15. omnaipotens et Spiritus Sanctus. Ita Deus Pater, Deus Filius,

17. Deus et Spiritus Sanctus, Ita Dominus Pater, Dominus Filius,

19. Dominuset Spiritus Sanctus. Quia sicut singillatim unamquamque

Personam et Deum et Dominum confiteri Christiana veritate com-

[20] pellamur; [ita in his tribus Personis non tres Deos nec tres Domi-

24. nos, sed unum Deum et unum Dominum confiteor.] Unus ergo

Pater, non tres Patres; unus Filius, non tres Filii; unus Spiritus

25. Sanctus, non tres Spiritus Sancti. Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius

30. aut posterius, nihil majus aut minus. Est ergo fides recta ut cre-

damus et confiteamur quia Dominus noster Jesus Christus, Dei

91. filius, Deus pariter et homo est. Deus est ex substantia Patris

ante seecula genitus, et homo est ex substantia matris in seeculo

32. natus. Perfectus Deus, perfectus homo, ex anima rationali et hu-

33. mana earne subsistit; equalis Patri secundum Divinitatem, minor

34, Patre secundum humanitatem; qui [licet] Deus sit et homo, non

35. duo tamen sed unus est Christus. Unus autem non conversione

36. Divinitatis in carne, sed assumptione humanitatis in Deo; unus

37. omnino, non confusione substantize, sed unitate Persone. Nam

sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo, ita Deus et homo

ΧΧΙΧῚ] THE EXPOSITION IN “συκνιῦβ 25.” 429

38. unus est Christus; qui passus est pro salute nostra, descendit ad

39. inferna, surrexit a mortuis, ascendit ad ccelos, sedet ad dexteram

40. Patris, inde venturus judicare vivos et mortuos. Ad cujus adven-
tum omnes homines resurgere habent cum corporibus suis, et

41. reddituri sunt de factis propriis rationem; et qui bona egerunt

42, ibunt in vitam eternam, qui vero mala in ignem eternum. Hee
est fides Catholica, quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque credi-
derit, salvus esse non poterit.

§ 8. It is true that this argument will be affected if we
regard the Exposition, notwithstanding its title, as merely a
collection of marginal notes. In this case, of course, we must
give up the inference that the Faith expounded did not contain
the clauses which are passed over m the Exposition: that is, we
must concede that the clauses 2, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23(!),
26, 27, 28, 29, were not deemed worthy of a passing remark. But
I am not prepared to concede this. The very words which are
quoted by Theodulf, Ratram of Corbey, and Afneas of Paris as
Athanasius’ and of moment, are passed by.

§ 9. On the evidence of the title in the Milanese manuscript,
this Exposition has been attributed to Venantius Fortunatus.
Waterland is decided about it.

“There is a comment of Venantius Fortunatus upon the Athanasian
Creed which I reprint in my Appendix. I cannot fix the age of it to

a year, no, nor to twenty years. All that is certain is that it was made

between 556 when Fortunatus first went into Gallican parts, and 599,

when he was advanced to the Bishopric of Poictiers?.”

Again”, he says; Ludovicus Muratorius published in 1698
this comment

“together with a Dissertation of his own, concerning the author of the
Creed: concluding at length that Venantius Fortunatus, the certain
author of the comment, might possibly be the author of the Creed also.”

The grounds on which Waterland based his opinion are given
in the opening of his Chapter 11. They are briefly these. (.) The
manuscript contains an Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed, “a
Fortunato presbytero conscripta.” (ii.) Venantius uses in some
of his poems the expressions Salvus esse non poterit : Non deus
im carnem versus: Aiqualis Matri hinc, par deitate Patri: Non
sua confundens: De Patre natus habens divina, humanaque Matris.

1 «¢ The Preface.” 2 Chapter 1. under the date 1698.

430 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

From these expressions he says, that “it is highly probable” that
Venantius was really acquainted with the Athanasian Creed.
(i1.) Because in the two Expositions assigned in this manuscript
to Fortunatus

“There is great similitude of style, thought and expressions: which
shews that both are of the same hand, and indeed, the other circumstances
considered, abundantly proves it’.” “I may add that the tenor of the
whole comment and the simplicity of the style and thoughts are very

299

suitable to that age and more so than to the centuries following’.

Thus Waterland assumes that it is a continuous work: and on
this account forms his text by combining the contents of the two
manuscripts with which he was acquainted.

Waterland looked only to the evidence on the one side, yet I
think few persons can regard his conclusion from it as satisfactory.
I have compared together this and the Exposition on the Apostles’
Creed assigned to Venantius, and cannot perceive any such simili-
tude of thought or language as was noticed by the learned Arch-
deacon. Moreover the biographer of Venantius left an account of
his writings, in which no such Exposition is mentioned. And the
language of his Hymni Morales repeats in verse the belief of
Leo the Great. The authorship of the Exposition cannot, even
on the evidence of Waterland, be assigned to the poet of Poictiers.

§ 10. But one fact is conclusive. The Milanese copy—which
alone has a title assigning the Exposition to Fortunatus—contains
a passage taken from the writings of Alcuin. This passage does
not occur in the three other copies. So the recension of the
work to which alone the name of Fortunatus is prefixed, could not
possibly have been prepared before the commencement of the
ninth century. It is almost incredible that the bearing of this
fact escaped the attention of Waterland; or that, with this
evidence before him, he could have spoken of the certainty of the
authorship in the terms which I have quoted’.

§11. In my Appendix to this chapter I print the Exposition
from the Oxford copy, with the Milanese additions in the notes.
Let us examine it, taking advantage of Waterland’s learning.

1 Chapter m1. 1872, the author of which acquiesces in
2 Tbid. this conclusion. See too Mr Lumby, On

3 There is an article on Venantius — the Creeds, p. 208.
Fortunatus in the Union Review of May

“ὡς otal 2 tgp Woke Bev:

20.40.64 THE EXPOSITION IN ‘‘ JUNIUS 25.” 431

i. The first note in the Muratorian copy comes, as I have said,
from Alcuin, or perhaps (but only in part) from Fulgentius. The essay
quoted was once ascribed, falsely, to Augustine: and perhaps Alcuin
quoted it as Augustine’s, but the words here are Alcuin’s. (The essay
is printed in the appendix to Vol. vi. of the Benedictine edition of Au-
gustine, p. 1101 Gawme.)

ii. A few words on the term ecclesia (which again are not found in
the Oxford copy) are taken from Isidore of Seville who died in 636.

iii. A passage on our clause 3 (again not in Junius 25) comes from
Alcuin or Fulgentius.

iv. The words “cozternum et coequalem et co-operatorem, quia
scriptum est Verbo Domini cali firmati sunt id est a Filio Dei Lt spiritu
oris eius omnis virtus eorum” may be seen in the Creed of Damasus
(Hahn, p. 188).

v. The Explanation of clause 5 is virtually contained in the same
Creed: but also in Alcuin de fide S. Trinitatis 1. xiv. or 11. 1x.

vi. I found in the margin of the Quicunque in “St Gall: No. 27,”
the following note on clause 9 ‘‘inmensus, non est mensurabilis in sua
natura quia inlocalis est, et incircumscriptus, ubique totus, ubique pre-
sens, ubique potens:” the same note as in “Junius” or “ Fortunatus.”

vii. So on the word “eternus” the notes are the same (and possibly
on other clauses).

viii, On clause 15 the words ‘“‘Deus nomen est potestatis non pro-
prietatis” are taken from the Creed of Damasus, as before: and so are
the words which follow.

ix. The explanation of 19 is from Alcuin 1. ii. who took it from
Augustine, Tom. vir. p. 1008 a (collatio cum Maximino) or p. 1285
c (de Trinitate).

x. The substance of the note on clause 24 is in Alcuin de S. Trin.
Lj be; and: x1,

xi. So again the note on clause 25 is in Alcuin I. viil. and ix. or,
still better, in the Appendix to Augustine’s works: Tom. vr. p. 1741;
with which compare v. 2983. (The former may be later than the ninth
century.) And thus we may go on. We find part of the note on clause
91, once more, in the Creed of Damasus, and nearly all of it in Pseudo-
Augustine vi. 1736. The words ‘virgo ante partum, et virgo post
partum” are old: the clause “‘secula generationibus constant” is from
Isidore. On 33 the words are Augustine’s. The long note on “de-
scendit ad inferna” is all in the Appendix to Augustine vr. 1740. The
latter part is however as old as the Council of Toledo, a. p. 693.

§ 12. Such is the puzzling character of this Exposition. And
it becomes a question of great interest to those who would
honestly examine into the history of the Quicunque, whether the
Faith, as here expounded, contained the clauses of which I have
noted the omission in the commentary. My own conviction is,
that it did not contain these clauses. I cannot conceive that it
was possible for an expositor to have omitted to notice the very
definite declarations of clauses 2, 11, 12, 21, 22,23. Iam willing

ant ot

432 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

to allow that in the earlier or anonymous form—that is, as it is
found in the Oxford and Florentine manuscripts and Viennese
fragment—the Quicunque may be earlier, possibly much earlier,
than the year 800. Indeed, it may have existed in two or more
imperfect forms. But it was imperfect.

§ 13. Looking, however, at the explanations which we find in
the Oxford Exposition, there are none which we can distinctly
say are taken from any older Creed or explanation, excepting
those which come from the genuine writings of St Augustine and
the well-known Creed of Damasus. ‘The discovery of some passages
in writings ascribed to Augustine is puzzling, but only until we
remember that these writings may themselves be later than the
eighth century. The Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed in Vol. v1.
of his works seems to be definitely considered so. But it seems
also to be conceded by Dr Waterland that our Exposition was
modified after the time of Alcuin, and was in use in the ninth
and even a later century. And this fact must have some influence
on the question which I must now proceed to discuss.

§ 14. ExcuRSUS ON THE SIXTH MILLENNIUM.

In a valuable pamphlet which was contributed by Professor Heurtley
to the controversy of 1872, the learned writer drew attention to the
explanation of clause 31. “Homo est ex substantia matris in seculo
natus: id est in isto sexto miliario in quo nunc sumus: Man of the
substance of His mother born in the age, that is, in this sixth millenary
in which we now are.” The Ambrosian or later recension adds a few
words which do not occur in the Oxford Manuscript: ‘“‘Secula enim
generationibus constant et inde secula quod sequuntur: abeuntibus enim
aliis alia succedunt: Ages consist of generations and they are called ages
(secula) because they come in sequence: for, as one passes away, others
come on.” Without accepting this derivation of secu/a, the words found
in both copies open out an interesting subject.

Dr Heurtley exhibits the general Latin belief that the six-thou-
sandth year of the world’s history was to terminate in or before the
year 799 of our era; and he therefore argues that this Exposition must
have been composed before that year. He does not anticipate the objec-
tion that the Exposition must—according to Waterland—have been
augmented and used after that epoch. Indeed I must add, that, if we
regard it as mainly or partly composed of fragments of earlier Creeds
and documents, the words in question may have been taken from such
earlier documents; if only (which is not impossible) the compiler missed
the point of the expression which he was adopting. In this case all the
light which seemed to be thrown on the date of the Exposition from
this able suggestion, is again obscured.

he ὗν.

XXIX. | THE EXPOSITION IN “ JUNIUS 25.” 433

But an interest is awakened here which must be my warrant for
devoting a little time to the question involved.

The ordinary expressions used by the Councils of Toledo and the
writers of the seventh and eighth centuries for the date of the Birth of
our Lord were these: “in novissimis temporibus; in fine seeculi; in ulti-
mis temporibus,” and so on. © The term ‘“‘in seeculo” seems to have been
lost sight of until it was revived at the discovery of the fragment at
Treves; but it was the term used by Vincentius of Lerins; “Ex matre
in seculo generatus;” and we find it in Augustine’s Enchirivion § 10
(Vol. νι. p. 364 of Gaume) “Deus est ante omnia secula, homo est
in nostro seculo’.” Indeed the explanation of the Exposition, id est
in isto seato milliario in quo nunc swmus is more adapted to the in nostro
seculo of Augustine, than to the i seculo of the Quicunque.

Now everyone knows that the early Christians were ever in expec-
tation that the end of the world was at hand. The words of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, ix. 26, referring to Christ Jesus appearing now “in
consummatione seculorum” im the completion of the ages, encouraged
some to expect the end ere long. Thus, to the dates furnished by Dr
Heurtley, we must add that suggested by the words of Cyprian: in the
opening of his letter to Fortunatus (No. 1x.), he says “Six thousand
years are now nearly completed since the devil attacked man.”

With these six thousand years the fathers connected the period of
the great millennium. When they were over the great sabbatical rest
was to commence. And thus the conception of “the seven ages of the
world” grew into favour: the seven millennial periods.

St Augustine fostered, if he did not suggest, the thought: and with
that fondness for mystical numbers which is capable of making anything
out of anything, he saw the numbers six and seven almost everywhere.
In the two months during which the daughter of Jephthah bewailed her
virginity, he saw that sixty days meant six times ten, and thus at the
end of the sixth period the Church was to be presented as a Chaste
Virgin to Christ; this being typified or signified in the holocaust of the
Jewish maiden. The first age was from Adam to the deluge; the second
from the deluge to Abraham; the third from Abraham to David; the
fourth spread tothe captivity; the fifth to the birth fromthe Virgin; the
sixth “usque in hujus seculi finem.” It is true he uses wtas here and
not milliariwm—but he adopts the word seculuwm as well.

Elsewhere he speaks of the six thousand years. Thus in the de
Cwwitate, Lib, x11. cap. X., writing against those heathen who maintained
that many thousands of years had gone by, he insists that from the Sacred
Literature we learn that from the creation of man six thousand years
have not as yet elapsed’. The Benedictines add a note to the effect
that Eusebius (whose chronology Augustine follows) reckoned 5611
years from the creation of the world to the capture of Rome by the
Goths: this took place in 410. The year 6000 would therefore have
fallen in 799 of our era. Thus he considered that in his time “the

* The words are used by Paulinus or the synodical letter of the Council of
Frankfort. Labbe, vir. 1040 Ε.
SOY Ola Vite 7 490;

5 (ὃ:

| Xs)
~

434 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.
latter years of the sixth day were rolling on’.” Lactantius who wrote
earlier expected the end earlier. 7

Thus as years passed by we find that the Christian conception as to
the date of the termination of the sixth millennium changed. The end
retreated as the Church lived on. But the time of Augustine’s reckon-
ing was long the favourite. Thus the Colbertine Manuscript 1868
(now Paris, 1451), gives some figures which would place the six thou-
sandth year in A. ἢ. 797’.

The question assumed a polemical aspect. Taking (it may be from
the Christian writers) the hint as to the ages of the world, the Jewish
Rabbis began to insist that, according to the Hebrew chronology, only
five ages of the world had passed; and therefore they argued that the
Messiah had not come. “We insist,” says Julian, Bishop of Toledo’, “that
the sixth age is passing, and therefore that the Messiah has come.” But
the bishop was obliged to consider that the time had to be reckoned not
in annis sed generationibus,; for, although he wrote in the year 686 of
our era, he made out that already 6011 years had passed since the world
was created. Thus he was obliged to confess, ‘God only knows when it
will end.”

But, so far as these words in our Exposition are concerned, I think
that the question is disposed of by the explanation added, in the more
recent recension of our text, by Fortunatus writing in or after the time
of Alcuin. And thus we find Amalarius of Metz speaking of the
Church as having lived together with the Apostles ‘in preesenti seeculo”
(de divinis Officiis tv. xii. Tom. cv. p. 1193 of Migne): and Rabanus
Maurus used not dissimilar language. The latter, however, had adopted
the Jewish chronology ; and his ages are, like Shakspeare’s, taken from
the life of man. The first is that of oblivion: the second, of boyhood to
Abraham: the third, of adolescence to David: the fourth, of manhood
to Babylon: the fifth, of old age to Christ: the sixth, of decrepitude:
the seventh, the sabbath (of the grave): the eighth, the Resurrection.
Of the sixth he says “sexta que nune agitur etas nullis generationibus
vel temporum serie certa, sed ut eetas decrepita ipsa totius seeculi morte
consummanda’.” We al] remember the hymn translated so ably ‘the
world is growing old:” but I find that Abbo of Fleury, at the end of
the passage cited above’, said that when he was a boy some preached that
the world would come to an end in the thousandth year. I cannot lay
upon the seatum milliarium of “Junius 25” the stress which the learned
Margaret Professor of Oxford laid upon it in his able pamphlet.

1 Ibid. p. 934. For these references years elapsed. From that to the Papacy

I am indebted to Dr Heurtley. The ar-
gument, p. 934, is curious.

2 IT have referred to this manuscript
before (p. 268). It contains the “ col-
lection of the MS. of Saint Maur,” and
is of the ninth century. The Prefatory
matter includes a catalogue of the Popes
to Hadrian I. ‘‘Adrianus sedit annos
XXIII. menses x. dies xvii.” It must
have been written therefore after A.D.
795. Then come the figures I have re-
ferred to, which make out that between
the Creation and the Crucifixion 5228

of Marcellinus 276 years 8 months.
That to Lady-day in the 25th year of
Charles (793), 390 years 3 months, Thus
in all, to the date named, 5894 years 11
months (Maassen, Vol. 1, p. 614, and
Sitzungsberichte, ταν. p. 173). It will be
remembered that this MS. contains a
copy of the Athanasian Creed.

3 Migne, Vol. xcv1. pp. 53J—584.

4 Words very similar to these were
attributed to Aleuin. See the dubious
Disputatio Puerorum, Migne, ct. p. 1112.

5 Above, p. 307.

ee σπσπμ μαμνννυνμνέν Ee σ ee νηνενι

Si 00... τὰν; a Se

XXIX;| ‘ THE EXPOSITION IN “ JUNIUS 25.” 435

Reviewing the whole subject of these Expositions, and keeping before
my mind the fact that the Milanese recension quotes Alcuin twice,
whereas the Oxford copy is free from these quotations, I cannot claim to
have proved more than this: viz. that the Milanese copy, which ascribes
it to Fortunatus, must be more recent than Alcuin: whilst the Oxford
recension, even though one copy is contained in a volume which con-
tains many of Alcuin’s shorter treatises, may have been earlier’. But I
maintain also that the unquestioned acceptance of these words “id est in
isto sexto milliario in quo nunc sumus” in the ninth century, shews
that the able argument of Dr Heurtley that the Exposition must have
been originally composed in the eighth or seventh is not conclusive. As
the commentary was used in the ninth century, so it may have been
compiled of earlier materials in the ninth. It clearly was a composition
or compilation.

But the necessities of my position do not require this last assump-
tion. The Exposition of “Junius” does not enforce the unity of God in
terms which Hincmar would have cared to use in his controversy with
Godeschalk: it would have compelled him still to appeal to Augustine
and Sophronius for proofs that the Catholic Faith requires us to main-
tain that there is only ‘“‘unus eternus, unus inmensus, unus omnipotens.”
My argument is that Hincmar, when he wrote about 868, did not know
our Quicunque in its present and completed form: yet it was known to
Charles the Bald, at all events in the year 809". I do not say that it
did not exist, completed, before the year 869: I merely say it was not
generally known, not known even to Hincmar. My belief is that it was
concocted in the neighbourhood in which the famous Decretal Epistles
were manufactured, and that it was published about the same time that
they were. But my belief here is of little moment. The Quicunque
may have been found in some old library, as the Donation of Constan-
tine was found in the cases of the Vatican. And who can prove the
negative*?

1 The Oxford recension reads in in-
ferna: as does the Colbertine. This
strengthens the argument in favour of
its antiquity, for all the complete manu-
scripts of the Creed, together with For-
tunatus, read ad inferos.

2 See above, p. 365.

3 [have already mentioned (p.375) that

the codex Regius 2. B. v. of the British
Museum contains a chronological me-
morandum. It shews how great an in-
terest was taken in the subject even into
the tenth century. The memorandum
concludes thus: “ Aitas ab incarnatione
usque ad finem ss#culi deeurrit.”

28—2

436 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [CHAP. XXIX.

APPENDIX.

ExposiTio IN FipE CATHOLICA’;

[I have mentioned that there are three complete copies of this Exposition.
One at Oxford which furnishes the text printed below with all its imperfections,
except that the contractions are expanded. One at Florence which is described
imperfectly in Zaccaria’s Excursus Literarius per Italiam, p. 287, and out of which
the readings he noted were extracted by the editor of Migne, Tom. txxxvi11. Both
Zaccaria and the editor were ignorant of the Oxford copy with which, as will be
seen, the Florence manuscript harmonises, and thus only the more important
variations from the Milanese MS. were noted. Then there is the copy at Milan, of
which Muratori gave a transcript in his Anecdota, Tom. 11., which differs materially
from the former two. Finally there is a manuscript at Vienna containing, as I
have said, a portion of the comment, breaking off with compellimur in line 50
below. I designate these manuscripts as O. F. M. V. respectively. My references
will be to the numbers of the lines below. I shall also give the sources from
which the explanations appear to have been drawn: for these, as will be seen, I
am largely indebted to Waterland.]

Junius MS. 25. (Bodl. Libr.) fol. 108.

QUICUMQUE wult saluus esse ante omnia opus est ut teneat catho-
licam fidem ; Fides dicitur credulitas{ siue credentia; Catholica uni-
uersalis dicitur id est recta. quam ecclesia uniuersa tenere debet:;

Ecclesia

5 lorum:; Vt unum deum in trinitate .

Line 1. M. esse salvus. (Which is
also the reading of the Ambrosian copy
of the Creed. See p. 318 above.)

1.2. After fidem M. adds quam nisi
quisque integram inviolatamque serva-
verit absque dubio in eternum peribit.

M. omits fides dicitur credulitas sive
credentia(V. has ibicredentia). M.inserts
Primo ergo, omnium fides necessaria est
sicut apostolica docet auctoritas dicens :
sine fideimpossibile est placere deo, Con-
stat enim neminem ad veram pervenire
beatitudinem nisi deo placeat: et deo
neminem placere posse nisi per fidem.
Fides namque est bonorum omnium
fundamentum: fides humane salutis
initium. Sine hac nemo ad filiorum dei
potest consortium pervenire ; quia sine
ipsa nec in hoc seculo quisquam justifi-
cationis consequitur gratiam nec in fu-
turo vitam possidebit eternam, et si
quis hic non ambulaverit per fidem non
perveniet ad speciem beatam domini
nostri Jesu Christi. [These words are,
as Waterland noticed, nearly identical
with words found in Alcuin’s work On the

dicitur congregatio christianorum .

siue conuentus popu-
et trinitatem in unitate ueneremur ":

Trinity, Book 1. chapter 11. (or 1. Migne,
σι. p. 13); the only difference being that
Alcuin read ‘‘ad speciem beat visionis
Domini nostri Jesu Christi;’’ and the
‘“‘ergo” and ‘‘enim” at the commence-
ment have been added or altered by the
commentator. Some of the words, viz.
from ‘‘ Fides namque est bonorum om-
nium fundamentum,” down to ‘‘non
perveniet ad speciem,”’ were taken appa-
rently by Alcuin from a treatise printed
in the Appendix to Volume v1. (p. 1101)
of Augustine’s works, but now attributed
on the authority of an ancient manu-
script, as well as of Ratram, to Fulgen-
tius. But it is clear that the com-
mentator quotes Alcuin direct. ]

1, 2. V. catholicam universalem quia
catholicam universalis dicitur idem rec-
tam quam, το.

1,3. V.M. F.? universa ecclesia.

1.4. M. ecclesia quippe.

1.5. M. (after populorum) Non enim
sicut conventicula hereticorum in aliqui-
bus regionum partibus coarctatur sed
per totum terrarum orbem dilatata dif-

10 procedens:;

APPEN. |

THE EXPOSITION IN “JUNIUS 25.” |

437

Et credamus et colamus et confiteamur:; Neque confundentes per-
sonas*; Vt sabellius errat . qui ipsum dicit . esse patrem in persona
quem et filium.ipsum et spiritum sanctum :; Non ergo confundentes
personas . quia tres omnino personae sunt‘; Est enim gignens . genitus.

Gignens est pater. qui genuit filium:; Filius est genitus .
: 8 at 5 ) 5
quem genuit pater; Spiritus sanctus est procedens

. quia a patre et

filio procedit:; Pater et filius coaeterni sibi sunt . et coequales . et
cooperatores sicut scriptum est‘; Verbo domini caeli firmati sunt . id
est. a filjo dei creati; Spiritus oris eius omnis uirtus eorum’; Vbi

15 sub singulari numero spiritus eius dicit . unitatem substantiae deitatis

ostendit ; Ubi sub plurari (810) numero omnis uirtus eorum dicit.
trinitatem personarum aperte demonstrat. quia tres unum sunt et unum
tres’; Neque substantiam seperantes; Vt arrius garrit . qui sicut tres
personas esse dieit . sic et tres substantias esse mentitur*; Filium dicit

20 minorem quam patrem . et creaturam esse spiritum sanctum adhuc mino-

rem quam filium et patri et filio eum esse administratorem adserit’;
Non ergo substantiam seperantes . quia tote tres personae in substantia
deitatis unum sunt’; Alia est enim persona patris . quia pater ingenitus
est. Eo quod a nullo est genitus ; Alia persona filii. quia filius a patre

25 est solo genitus; Alia spiritus sancti. quia a patre et filio spiritus

sanctus procedens est; Sed patris et filii et spiritus sancti. una est

diuinitas . id est deitas; Aequalis gloria . id est claritas:;

Coaeterna

maiestas . maiestas gloria est claritatis . siue potestas*; Qualis pater .
talis filius . talis et spiritus sanctus . id est in deitate et omnipotentia ‘;

funditur, [These are words of Isidore
of Seville, who died in 636.]

1.6. After confiteamur M. adds Trini-
tatem in personis unitatem in substan-
tia. Hane quoque Trinitatem Persona-
rum atque unitatem nature Propheta
Ksaias revelatam 5101 non tacuit, cum se
dicit Seraphim vidisse clamantia, Sanc-
tus, sanctus, sanctus, Dominus Deus
Sabaoth. Ubi prorsus in eo quod dici-
tur tertio Sanctus, Personarum Trinita-
tem; in eo vero quod semel dicimus
Dominus Deus Sabaoth divine nature
cognoscimus unitatem. [These words
from Hane quoque Trinitatem are taken
verbatim from Alcuin, wt supra, Book 1.
cap. 11. (or 11. Migne, p. 15), who again
expanded the thought and language of
Fulgentius. See Gaume’s Augustine v1.
p. 1105.]

1,9. V. M. Tres persona omnino
sunt.

1.10. M. et procedens.

1, 12. V. Patri et filio quoaeternus
est et quoaequalis et quooperatur sicut
scriptum...» [I should think that this is
the correct reading. It agrees with the
second ‘‘ Creed of Pope Damasus,”’ (Hahn,
p. 188,) sed Patrem esse qui genuit, et
Filium esse qui genitus est, Spiritum

30 Increatus pater . increatus filius . increatus et spiritus sanctus . id est a
nullo creati*; Inmensus pater . inmensus filius

. inmensus et spiritus

vero sanctum non genitum neque ingeni-
tum non creatum neque factum sed de
Patre Filioque procedentem Patri et
Filio coxternum et coequalem et coopera-
torem; quia scriptum est, verbo domini,
&c. In the Vienna manuscript 2223,
which contains the Creed of Damasus,
fol. 76 verso, Filioque is omitted. ]

1.18. firmati (not as Waterland’s
friend Dr Haywood read it, formati).

1. 14. V.M. Spiritu (F. Spiritus).

}. 15,16. F. dicitur (bis: ΜῈ semel:
for M. omits unitatem—dicit or dicitur,
a case of homwoteleuton).

1.18. M. quia tres personas esse dicit
si et tres. F. qui ut tres personas...sic
et tres... V. qui sicut tres...sicut tres...
(Either F. or O. exhibits the correct
reading.)

1,21. M. V. patris et filii eum ad-

‘ministratorem esse.

1. 23. (Dr Haywood read divinitatis
by a mistake.)

1. 23—26. The substance of this is
in Alcuin.

1. 25, 26. M. omits spiritus sanctus.

1,28. M. has claritas. V. omits est.

1.31. M. has creatus. V. omits id
est a nudlo creati.

438

THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP. XXIX.

sanctus ‘; Non est mensurabilis in sua natura . quia inlocalis est . incir-

cumscriptus.

Ubique totus. ubique presens. ubique potens:; Aeternus
pater . aeternus filius . aeternus et spiritus sanctus’;
35 aeterni . sed in tribus personis unus deus aeternus. qui sine initio et

Id est non tres

sine fine aeternus permanet’; Similiter omnipotens pater . omnipotens

filius .

omnipotens et spiritus sanctus’; Omnipotens dicitur . eo quod

omnia potest . et omnium optenit potestatem‘; ‘; Ergo si omnia potest
quid est quod non potest ; Hoc non potest. quod omni potenti non con-

40 petit posse ; Falli non potest . quia ueritas est ; Infirmare non potest : quia
sanitas est; Mori non potest . quia inmortalis . uita est’;

Finire non

potest . quia infinitus et perennis est’; Ita . deus pater. deus filjus. et deus
spiritus sanctus ;* Deus nomen est potestatis . non proprietatis*; Proprium
nomen est patris. pater’; Et proprium nomen est filii. filius*; Et proprium

45 nomen est spiritus sancti. spiritus sanctus’; Ita. dominus pater . dominus
filius . dominus et spiritus sanctus‘;

Dominus dicitur . eo quod omnia

dominat . et omnium est dominus dominator’; Quia sicut singillatim . id
est sicut distinctum unamquamque personam. et deum et dominum con-
fiteri . christiana ueritate conpellimur’; Quia si me interrogaueris quid

50 sit pater. ego respondebo. deus et dominus:; Similiter et si interroga-

ueris quid sit filius . ego dicam deus et dominus’; Et si dicis quid est

Spiritus sanctus . ego dico deus et dominus’;

Et in his tribus personis .

non tres deos nec tres dominos. sed his tribus sicut iam supradixi unum

deum et unum dominum confiteor’;
δῦ Id est qui pater semper pater. nec aliquando filius:; Unus filius non
tres filii; id est qui filius semper filius. nec aliquando pater’;

Vnus ergo pater. non tres patres ";

Vnus

Spiritus sanctus . non tres spiritus sancti’; Id est qui spiritus sanctus .

semper spiritus sanctus . nec aliquando filius aut pater’;
Et in hac trinitate nihil prius aut posterius’;
60 Quia sicut numquam filius sine patre. sic numquam fuit pater sine filio.
sic et numquam fuit pater et filius .

prietas personarum‘;

Haec est pro-

sine spiritu sancto’; Coaeterna

ergo trinitas . et seperabilis unitas. sine initio et sine fine; Nihil maius

1. 82. V.M. read et incircumscriptus
(some of the explanations here are found
totidem verbis in St Gall 27; for exam-
ple, linés 32, 33, 35, 36).

1. 37, 38. This is found in Venan-
tius’ exposition of the Apostles’ Creed.

1.40. M. reads Falli non potest quia
sanctus est. Mori non potest... (a case
of homeoteleuton, with sanitas subse-
quently altered to sanctus to make
greater sense),

1,43. M. omits Deus nomen est po-
testatis non proprietatis. F. is corrupt-
ed, deus est potestatem non proprieta-
tem. V. agrees with O. (Indeed the
whole passage is found in the Creed of
Damasus to which I have already refer-
red, and it is in St Gall 27. It is also
found in the expanded Creed in the Ap-
pendix to Augustine’s works, Vol. v. p.
2958. The finding power in the name
Deus is very interesting to those, who
have traced the usage of the Name Sx in
the Old Testament.)

1. 44, 45. ΜΘ, proprium nomen est
patri...filio...spiritui sancto.

1. 46. M. reads Dominus dicitur eo
quod dominatur creaturae cunctae vel
quod creatura omnis dominatui ejus de-
serviat. (Words taken exactly from Isi-
dore. F.and V. agree with O. save that
F. reads dominatur.)

1, 48. M. distincte (V. distinctum).

1. 48, M. omits the jirst et.

1.49, (Here V. fails us.)

1, 49—53. The passage is clearly
taken from Alcuin, ut supra, p. 15D.
M. reads Quid est pater...quid est filius
si dicas: ego dicam.

1.52. M. sed in his tribus.

1.53. M. supra dictum est.

1,55. M. quia (three times).

1,58. M.semper est spiritus sanctus.

1. 59—72. There is a passage nearly
resembling this in the sermon on the
Creed in the Appendix to Augustine v1.
1741c. The sermon seems to have been
‘*composed” after the 11th century.

65 conspiciuntur °;

APPEN. |

THE EXPOSITION IN “ JUNIUS 25.”

439

aut minus; Equalitatem personarum dicit . quia trinitas equalis est et
una (sic) deitatis‘; Apostolo dicente; Per ea quae facta sunt. intellecta

Et per creaturam creator intellegitur
conparationes . et aljas quamplures’:;

. secundum has
Sol . candor. et calor . trea sunt

nomina et res una’; Quod candit . hoc calit . et quod calit . hoc candit ;
[tria haec uocabula res una esse dinoscitur.] Τα et pater et filius et

spiritus sanctus .

tres persone . in deitate substantiae unum sunt . et
70 indiuidua unitas recte creditur:; Item de terrenis. uena . fons. fluuius.

trea itemque uocabula. et res una in sua natura; Ita trium personarum
patris et filii . et spiritus sancti. substantia deitas una est’; Est ergo
fides recta ut credamus et confiteamur quia dominus noster ihesus
christus dei filius et homo est’; Ihesus hebraice. latine saluator dicitur’;

75 Christus grece. latine unctus uocatur; Ihesus ergo dicitur .eo quod

saluat populum:; Christus . eo quod spiritu sancto delibutus; Sicut in
ipsius christi persone esaias ait ; Spiritus domini super me propter quod
unxit me et cetera; Item in psalmo; unxit te deus deus tuus oleo leti-
tiae preconsortibus tuis; Dei filius . deus pariter et homo est’; Filius.

80 a felicitate parentum dicitur’; Homo.ab humo dicitur . id est de humo

factus est ; Deus est ex substantia patris . ante secula genitus ; Id est

deus de deo.
forte. Virtus. de uirtute ;

Lumen de lumine. Splendor de splendore; Fortis . de
Uita de uita . aeternitas. de aeternitate ;
Per omnia idem quod pater in diuina substantia hoc est filius:;
85 pater . deum filium genuit. non uoluntate . neque necessitate . sed na-

Deus

turae ; Nec queratur quomodo genitus sit . quod angeli nesciunt prophe-
tis est incognitum’; Vnde eximius propheta esaias dicit-; Generationem

elus quis enarrauit:; Ac si diceret . angelorum nemo

. prophetarum

nullus . nec innarrabilis et inestimabiles (sic) deus a seruolis suis discu-

90 tiendus est . sed fideliter credendus . et puriter diligendus ; Et homo est

ex substantia matris in seculo natus‘; Dei filius uerbo patris caro fac-
tum’; non quod diuinitas mutasset deitatem sed adsumpsit humanita-

tem ;

Hoc est uerbum caro factum est ex utero uirginali;

Veram

humanam carnem traxit . et de utero uirginis uerus homo sicut et uerus

1. 64. M. apostolo docente et dicente.
F. apostolo dicente atque docente.

1. 66, 67. ΟΜ tria sunt vocabula et
tria unum.
1. 68. The words within the bracket

are added at the top of the page.

M. omits the first et.

1.71. M.tria sunt vocabula et triaunum
in sua natura.

τ 72. Μ. substantia et deitas unum
est.

1.74. M. omits dei filius et homo est.
The next words come from “ Ruffinus,”
§ 6. Compare Pseudo-Augustine, v1.
1736 B.

1.75. M. omits Christus grece...di-
citur (a case of homeoteleuton). F. has
populum suum.

1. 76. M. divinitus sit delibutus.

1.77. M. omits Christi.

1.78. M.item et Psalmista de Christo

95 deus est in seculo natus'; Quia mater quae genuit . uirgo ante partum .

domino dicit. unxit... F. has ita Psal-
mus...unxit te Dominus deus tuus.

1.80. M. de humo terrae.

1.81. M. deus ex...(again the expla-
nation 82—90 is found in St Gall 27.
Compare Creed of Damasus, Hahn, p.
186 and 189, and the latter part in Au-
gustine as above, p. 1736 A).

1. 84. for idem M. has id est;

1. 86. M. et prophetis.

1. 87. M. et isdem eximius.

1.88. M. dixisset, angelorum nullus,
prophetarum nemo.

1.90. So F. but M. et homo ex.

1.91. M. dei filius verbum caro fac-
tum et non.

1. 94. M. de utero virginali.

1.95. M. verus deus in seculo natus
est salva virginitatis gratia. Then M.
reads quia mater genuit, et virgo mansit
ante partum et post partum. (Compare

440

THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP. X XIX.

et uirgo post partum permansit in seculo. id est in isto sexto miliario
in quo nunc sumus ; deus et homo christus ihesus unus dei filius et ipse
uirginis filius*; Quia dum deitas in utero uirginis humanitatem adsum-
psit . et cum ea per portam uirginis integram et inlesam nascendo

100 mundum ingressus est uirginis filius:; Et hominem quem adsumpsit id

est dei filium sicut iam supradiximus. et deitas et humanitas in christo’;
Et dei patris pariter et uirginis matris filius-; Perfectus deus . per-
fectus homo. ex anima rationale. et non ut paulinaris ereticus dixit .
primum quasi deitas pro anima fuisset in carne christi; postea cum

105 per euangelicam auctoritatem fuit conuictus .
animam qui uiuificauit corpus sed non rationalem:;

dixit . habuit quidem
ἘΣ contrario

dicit qui catholice sentit . ex anima rationale et humana carne sub-
sistit . id est plenus homo atque perfectus’; Hqualis patri secundum

diuinitatem .

minor patri secundum humanitatem . id est . secundum
110 formam serui quam adsumere dignatus est ; Qui certe deus sit et homo.

non duo tamen sed unus est christus. id est. duae substantiae in christo.
deitas et humanitas; non duae personae sed una; Vnus autem non
conuersione diuinitatis in carne . sed adsumptione humanitatis in deo ;
Id est non quod diuinitas quae inmutabilis et inconuertibilis est caro sed

115 ideo unus. eo quod humanitatem adsumpsit.

Incipit esse quod non erat

et non amisit quod erat ; Incipit esse quod antea non fuerat .non amisit
deitatem quae inmutabilis in aeternum permansit:; Vnus omnino non
confusione substantiae sed unitate personae; Id est diuinitas inmutabilis
cum homine quem adsumere dignatus est ; Sicut scriptum est ; Verbum

120 tuum domine . in aeternum permanet; Id est diuinitas cum humanitate

ut diximus duas substantias unam esse in christo; Ut sicut ante ad-

sumptionem carnis . aeterna fuit trinitas .

ita post adsumptionem hu-

manae naturae uera permaneat trinitas ne propter adsumptionem humani

carnis dicatur esse quaternitas. quod absit:;

Aleuin, ut supra, p. 47. F. agrees with
O. except that he reads et virgo ante
partum. )

97. After nune sumus, M. inserts
(out of Isidore) secula enim generationi-
bus constant et inde secula quod se-
quantur. abeuntibus enim aliis 8118 suc-
cedunt: and omits deus et homo (line
97) to virginis matris filius, line 102.
The text in O. is corrupt. F. gives it
better, and gives support to some of
Waterland’s conjectures. For Iesus in
line 97 it reads Deus; then in lines 100,
101, idem Dei Filius: it omits jam; has
ut deitas, and omits et before Dei Patris.
Thus we have for lines 100, &c. Et ho-
minem quem adsumsit idem est dei filius
sicut jam supra diximus, ut deitas et hu-
manitas in Christo Dei Patris pariter et
virginis filius sit.

1.103. After perfectus homo M. in-
serts id est verus deus et verus homo
and it reads Apollinaris.

1,105. M. fuisset. 106, 107, et e
contrario iste dicit and subsistens.

]. 110. formam servi comes of course

[a fidelium cordibus uel

from Augustine, possibly through Alcuin.
M. qui licet deus sit et homo...

1.112. M. sed una Persona.

1,113. M. exhibits the modern read-
ings carnem and deum.

1,114. M. non quod divinitas que
incommutabilis est, sit conversa in car-
nem, sed...

], 115, 116. These words occur in the
Creed of Damasus, Hahn, 186, 189.
(The first clause, incipit esse... would
almost seem to be a portion of the
document expounded: see above, p.
274.)

Loll6,: 417... “Bu permanet. Mo in-
incommutabilis permanet, and incom-
mutabilis in 118.

1. 117,118. F. omits unus omnino—
personae, which seem to have been mis-
placed in O. and M.

1.119. M. dignata.

1.123. F. post adsumptionem carnis
humane. (Dr Haywood made a mis-
take here.)

]. 124. The fear of St Augustine, 11.
2283. [The words in brackets have

130 tis mutauit:;
tangit purgat . et se nullatenus coinquinat;
sé nequaquam coinquinauit ;

135 nostras accepit.

145 liberaret ":

155 dicit :;
resurrexit et multa sanctorum dormientium cum eo surrexerunt °;

APPEN. |

lis et caro unus est homo.

THE EXPOSITION IN “ JUNIUS 25.”

441

125 sensibus dici aut dogitare.] Nisi ita ut supradictum est et unitas in
trinitate et trinitas in unitate ueneranda sit’;
ita deus et homo unus est christus’;

Nam sicut anima rationa-
Et si

deus dei filius nostram luteam et mortalem carnem nostri redemptionis
conditionis adsumpsit . sé nullatenus inquinauit , neque naturam deita-

nostrae humanitatis adsumpsit .

Quia si sol aut ignis aliquid in mundum tetigerit . quod

Ita deitas sarcinamque
Sed nos-

tram naturam carnis quam adsumpsit purgauit . et a maculis et sordibus

peccatorum . ac uitiorum expiauit’;

tatem natus est.

Et egrotationes portauit ; :
Vt infirmitas nostra acciperet . et egrotationes porta-

Sicut esaias ait; [pse infirmitates
Ad hoe secundum humani-

ret; Non quod ipse infirmitates uel egrotationes in se haberet quia

salus mundi est’;

Sed ut eas a nobis abstuleret{ dum suae sacre passio-

nis gratiae . ac sacramento. Cyrographo adempto redemptionem . pariter

140 et salutem animarum nobis condonauit’;
id est secundum id quod pati potuit! quod est secundum hu-
Nam secundum diuinitatem‘ dei filius inpassibilis
Qui protoplastum adam et patriarchas et

nostra‘
manam naturam ‘;
st; Descendit ad inferna ";

Qui passus est . pro salute

prophetas et omnes iustos qui pro originali peccato ibidem detenebantur

perpetuam uite gaudia reuocaret:;
remanserunt °;

mortem interficit et uitam dedit:;

morsit infernum pro parte eorum quos liberauit °;

Et de uinculis ipsius peccati absolutos ¢
tate infernali loco suo sanguine redemptos .
Reliqui qui supra originale peccato
principalia crimina comiserunt ut adserit scriptura ‘
Sicut in persona christi dictum est per prophetam .
150 mors tua o mors’; Id est morte sua christus humani generis inimicam
Ero morsus tuus .

de eodem captiui-
ad supernam patriam et ad

in penali tartaro
ero

infernae . partem
Partem reliquid (sic)

pro parte eorum qui pro principalibus criminibus in tormentis remanse-

runt ‘;

been inserted in the MS. between the
lines. ]

1,125. M. cum ita.

1.128. F. and M. omit deus.

1,128, 129. M. has carnem nostre
conditionis adsumpsit. Εἰ, agrees with
O. [Conditio, says Waterland, with
writers of the fifth and sixth centuries,
est servile onus opusve. But it was
used so earlier, as by Augustine, de
Trinitate, 111. 26, Vol. v111. 1239p, and
later, as in the Pseudo-Augustine, v1.
1740 c. The illustration which follows
was a favourite one: see the same ser-
mon, 1738 A.]

1.129. M has sed tamen se nulla-
tenus aut naturam.

1.131. F. eo coinquinat. M. sarci-
nam quam ex nostra humanitate ad-
sumpsit nequaquam coinquinavit sed
nostre nature carnem quam adsumpsit

Surrexit a mortuis primogenitus mortuorum . et alibi apostulus
Ipse primogenitus ex multis fratribus id est primus a mortuis

Sicut

purgavit.

lots, doo
and omits suae before sacrae.
tolleret for abstulerit.

1, 1389. M. gratiam et sacramenta.

]. 140. M. condonaret.

1.148. Note ad inferna, which is Bien
the reading of F. M. exhibits the mo-
dern text ad inferos. This passage down
to remanserunt, line 153, 154, is almost
verbatim in Augustine v1. 1740 (as above),
which however reads ad inferna, with
the Apostles’ Creed, and for infernali
loco, has inferni loco. M. has vinculo
in line 145: reliqui vero in 147 (F. agrees
with O. here, but has supra originale
peccatum). The quotations, ero mors
tua, morsus tuus, are adduced in the
Council of Toledo, a.p. 698,

1, 156. M. multa corpora sanctorum.

F. qui salus mundi est :
M. reads

445 _ THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [CHAP. XXIX.

in euangelica auctoritate dicit . sed ipse qui capud . est prius deinde
quae membra sunt continuo’; Postea ascendit ad caelos . sicut psal-
mista . ait’; Ascendit in altum captiuam duxit captiuitatem . id est.

160 humanam naturam quae prius fuit sub peccato uenundata et captiuata
eamque redempta captiuam duxit in caelestem altitudinem’; Et ad
caelestem patriam regnum sempiternum ubi antea non fuerat . eam con-
locauit in gloriam sempiternam:’; Sedet ad dexteram patris’; Id est
prosperitatem paternam et eo honore quod deus est; Inde uenturus

165 iudicare uiuos et mortuos*; Viuos dicit‘ eos quos tune aduentus do-
minicus . in corpore uiuendos inuenerit*; Et mortuos iam ante sepultos
et aliter dicit*; Uiuos iustos. et mortuos peccatores*; Ad cuius ad-
uentum omnes homines resurgere habent cum corporibus suis‘; Et reddi-
turi sunt de factis propriis rationem; Et qui bona egerunt ibunt in

170 uitam aeternam . et qui uero mala in ignem aeternum'; Haec est fides
catholica quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque crediderit saluus esse
MON δύνατ 375775. 7}

1.157. M. sicut evangelica auctoritas duxit.)
dicit...qui membra sunt. 1, 164. Μ. et in eo honore, and ven-
1.159. M. ascendens. turus est (again a later reading. Below
1.161. M. eandemque redemptam. Waterland charges on the Oxford manu-
(F. reads eaque redemptio captivam script an error of his own copyist).

I am indebted to Mr George Parker of the Bodleian Library
for the above most accurate copy of the manuscript.

CHAPTER XXX.

REVIEW OF EVIDENCE.

§ 1. Literary frauds of the ninth century. §2. Earliest appearances of clauses
now in the Quicunque. ὃ 3. ‘‘The Discourse of Athanasius on the Faith
which commences Quicunque vult.” § 4. Whence did the quotations of
Ratram and Auneas come? § 5. Guesses at Truth. § 6. Hypothesis of
the Author. Excursus on THE Dave oF THE UTRECHT PSALTER.

§1. Tue Essay or Treatise of Hincmar, which I noticed in
Chapter XX VIII., seems to me to be so momentous in its bearing
on the form of the Quicunque, as he knew it and as he quoted from
it, that I feel compelled now to review the testimony that has been
adduced from earlier writers, and ask myself the question, Is it
possible that Hincmar could have been ignorant of what they
knew, or must we suppose that they, or any of them, quoted
erroneously ?

The literary history of this ninth century is exceedingly pain-
ful to investigate: painful from the knowledge that this was the
century in which the so-called Decretal Letters of the earlier popes
were fabricated in the west of Gaul. Hinschius* considers it to be
proved that that gigantic forgery, commenced as we apprehend at
Mayence seventy years before, was completed between the years
847 and 853, and I learn from “Janus,” the author of Zhe Pope
and the Council, (p. 98), that they were used largely in the year
863 or 864 by Nicolas in his controversy with Photius. They had
been used with adequate boldness by the two writers Ratram of
Corbey and Aineas of Paris, whose quotations of clauses 21, 22, 23
of the Quicunque and ascriptions of the words to Athanasius are
found in the very same works in which they avail themselves of
the forged Decretals. Waterland and others adduced their testi-
mony as if it was that of witnesses of undoubted character. But as

1 Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae et Capitula Angilrami. Lipsiae, mpcccuxull.
p. ¢ci.

444 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

the name of Athanasius was used to convict the Greeks of heresy
in denying the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and
the Son, so were the Decretal Epistles used to prove that the
claim made by the Patriarch of Constantinople to be independent
of the Bishop of Rome was historically untenable. Nor were
these men content with quoting the Catholic Faith of Athanasius,
or the little book which Athanasius wrote upon the Faith, they
adduced numberless other passages from “ writings of Athanasius,”
which are nowhere to be found, and which the editors of their
works give up in despair. They are, almost all, undoubted forgeries.
Efforts are made here and there to throw some part of the blame
of these misquotations upon the shoulders of the copyists, of the
scribes (that is) through whose hands the works have passed.—
So far as the security of my position goes, these Abbots and
Bishops are welcome to the benefit of the doubt—let it be so: the
fact is not altered: the quotations, as such, are unworthy of
confidence.
But,

Nemo repente fuit turpissimus;

and, therefore, we must believe that the boldness which instigated
the production of the Decretals had been fostered by earlier suc-
cesses of a similar description, and thus we are bound to revert to
these earlier witnesses, and cross-examine and re-examine them in
the light which we have now received from Hincmar.

§ 2. I must go back to a very early period. Calling the two
members of a clause a and ὦ, we have:

In the writings of Vincentius of Lerins, words nearly resembling
the clauses 3, 4, 5, Ga, 306, 31, 32; and without any reference to
Athanasius.

In the Council of Toledo, 589, we have, similarly, clauses 4, 5,
13, 33a.

In the Council of Toledo, 633, we have 4, 21, 22, 23 and 33.

In the Council of Toledo, 638, we have the words of 21, 22, 23,
32a, 346, 35b, 360.

In the Council of Toledo, 675, we have 8, 4, 10, 13, 14, 15,
1 2122 23, 32 35,55. 300:

In the Council of Toledo, 698, we have 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 1 Ὁ
2a 91:

Tele ete ΤΥ Puy arti Pe ee

ἜΧΧΟ REVIEW OF EVIDENCE. 445

In the Lateran Council, 643, we have clauses 3, 60, and the
substance of 30—34, 36, 38, 39.

The Treves manuscript had 30—36, and the substance of
98---41.

In the speech of Paulinus, 791, we have words similar to
clauses 4, 5, 6, 15, 16, 22, 23, 32, 33, 38, 39, 40.

Leo the Third’s Creed seems to include 14, and the substance
of the latter half relating to the Incarnation. —

Denebert’s Profession has the words of 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 21, 22, 23,
25, 26, 27, 28.

The Council of Arles, 813, repeats the Confession of Toledo,
633, and in it uses the language which we now find in 4, 21,
22, 23, 33.

I need not repeat the evidence that the Exposition of “Junius
25” notices 1, 8—10, 18, 15, 17, 19, 201, 24, 25, 30—42.

By none of these authorities is the name of Athanasius intro-
duced in connection with their faith. Nor is it found in the
Muratorian copy, which I have printed above, pp. 318, 319.

It is clear that it was not known as a whole to Paulinus, nor
to Alcuin, or Charlemagne, or Leo.

Let us now look to those who quote, or profess to quote, words
from Athanasius.

The Monks of Mount Olivet, 809, say that “in the Faith of
St Athanasius” it is declared that the “ Holy Spirit proceeds from
the Father and the Son.” The words occur in one version of the
Libellus Fidei, ascribed to Athanasius.

Theodulf, who begins by quoting largely from the spurious
books against the Arians, is said to conclude by quoting as from
Athanasius, clauses 21—28.

Sirmond’s uncertain author, the Pseudo-Alcuin, quotes from
“the Exposition of the Catholic Faith, which Athanasius com-
posed,” clauses 21, 22, 23.

Agobardus quotes as the words of Athanasius, clause 2.

ARneas of Paris quotes as from the “Fides Catholica of Atha-
nasius,” clauses 21, 22, 23.

Ratram of Corbey quotes as from the “Libellus de Fide
Catholica, which Athanasius composed,” clauses 21, 22, 23, and
other things which the Quicunque does not include.

446 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [CHAP.

§ 3. Again: Theodulf is said to speak of the Credo and “the
Catholic Faith, that is the Quicunque vult.”

Hinemar speaks of “the Discourse of Athanasius, the beginning
of which is Quicunque vult.”

Adalbert uses the same language: “the Discourse of Athana-
sius, which thus begins, Quicunque vult.”

So does Riculf of Soissons.

Regino of Prum suggests that enquiries should be made
“Whether the clergy know the Discourse of Athanasius on the
Faith of the Trinity, which begins Quicunque vult.”

And as late as the middle of the tenth century we find that
Ratherius of Verona, in speaking of the Creeds, refers to “that
Faith of St Athanasius which begins Quicunque vult.”

IT had long been under the conviction that these multiplied
references to “ A Sermon or Discourse of Athanasius, commencing
—Quicunque vult,” indicated the existence of another then well-
known discourse, attributed to the same writer, on the same
subject, but commencing of course with different words. And when
I found that the same Ratram of Corbey, who quotes clauses 21,
22,23 out of the “libellus de fide quem edidit [Athanasius] et
omnibus catholicis tenendum proposuit,”’ quoted also the same
Athanasius as saying, “in libello Fidei,” “Pater verus genuit
Filium verum, lumen de lumine, verum de vero, perfectum de
perfecto, totum a toto, plenum a pleno, non creatum sed genitum,
non ex nihilo sed a Patre, unius substantize cum Patre; et Spiritum
Sanctum verum Deum non ingenitum neque genitum, non creatum
nec factum, sed Patris et Fili, semper in Patre et Filio,’—I could
not but endeavour to discover what this “libellus de fide quem
edidit Athanasius” was’. There is nothing in the edition of Atha-_
nasius’ works published by Migne, which answers to the title:
and I must thank Mr Ffoulkes—to whom I am indebted for so
many other things—for exhibiting this document to me in an
accessible form. It turns out to be the same document as that
which Hinemar quotes as the “Symbolum Athanasii:”’ and, in
the Arundel Manuscript, 241, whence I transcribed it, not knowing
that it was the same as had been printed by Mr Ffoulkes, it is
entitled, as I have said, “ Libellus Fidei Patris et Filii et Spiritus

1 T ought to have remembered that Usher would have solved my difficulty.

D9: @. 6 REVIEW OF EVIDENCE. 447

Sancti Athanasii episcopi.’ And Ratram’s quotation may be
found in this Creed. I have printed it above, p. 273.

The Libellus does not contain the clauses 21, 22, 23, as Ra-
tram quotes them.

§ 4. I now go back to the earlier quotations: and having
convicted Ratram of adducing from this well-known ‘ libellus
Athanasii de fide,’ clauses which it did not contain, I enquire,
Whence did these clauses come? I cannot suppose that the

French divines of the ninth century were more careful than

English divines of the nineteenth: and having before me a curious
instance of want of care in the last Oxford edition of Waterland’s
Essay, I am at liberty to suppose that the quotations from Atha-
nasius of our clauses 21, 22, 23 by Theodulf, and Sirmond’s anony-
mous writer, and Aineas of Paris, and Ratram of Corbey, may very
possibly have been merely three repetitions of one original blun-
der, whether it was a wilful error or an involuntary mistake. They
copied one from another. The words of these clauses were well-
known words: we have seen them, as I have said, verbatim, in
the Councils of Toledo of the years 638 and 675. We have them
practically in the speech of Paulinus in 791: verbally in the
Profession of Denebert in 795: and practically in the Council of
Arles of 813. May not the production by Theodulf of these thrice
told words as Athanasius’ have been a mistake? or must we
condemn him of wilful fabrication? or must we accept the only
other alternative which, I think, remains open to us—the alter-
native, namely, that the Quicunque, which was gradually growing
into form (as we learn from the Confession of Denebert) at the very
end of the eighth century, without being then attributed to any
great Father of the Church, was augmented slowly in the early
part of the ninth century, and in the course of its growth was by

a forte peccatum, a splendidum mendacium, assigned to Atha-
nasius ?

§ 5. But whatever our theory may be, whatever our explana-
tion, the fact remains: that no one before Theodulf quotes any
words of the Quicunque as words of Athanasius; that during the
next sixty years the quotations adduced are confined to clause 2
in addition to the nine which we find in Theodulf: and that
Hincmar writing after the death of Godeschalk, that is, in or after

448 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

the year 868, quotes as from “the Catholic Faith, published by
Athanasius,” only clauses 3, 4, 5,6. He quotes 16 again and
again, but as the dictum of St Augustine or of Sophronius, not of
Athanasius. We find him, at the close, placing before Godes-
chalk clauses 3, 4, 5, 6, 25, 26, 27: and Godeschalk refusing to
accept them. This being so, is it credible that these words had

been recited as a part of ‘the Catholic Faith,” in the services οὗ.

the Church at Basil from the year 8201 had been ordered to be
delivered to all by the Council of Frankfort, from the year 794 ?
or from the time of Boniface in 760? or by St Leodgar in 670?
or can we believe that this Document had received, even in the
year 850, the authority which Waterland assigns to it,—when we
find that Godeschalk, who refused to subscribe it, was defended
at the time by his Benedictine brethren’?

§ 6. The whole evidence seems to shew that the Quicunque
was completed in the province of Rheims between the years 860
and 870; and that, when completed, it steadily and gradually
gained favour. It was attributed at once to the great Patriarch
of Alexandria. And, not merely did it eclipse the numerous
Creeds and Rules of Faith, which had been previously assigned to
him, but by its intrinsic merits, by its antithetical swing, and by
its fitness for chanting, it drove out all the verbose and laborious
compilations of Paulinus and Charlemagne and the Councils.

I am, of course, alive to the difficulty placed in the way of my
hypothesis by the fact that the Quicunque is found, ascribed to
Athanasius, in some of the systematic Collections of Canons which
I have described on pages 267 and 268. But in each of the
three manuscripts, Vat. Pal. 574, Lat. Paris. 1451 and 3848 B, it is
curiously out of harmony with its position. In the first it follows
on a series of Canons and Ecclesiastical Rules with which it has
no apparent relation. In the second it comes after the chronolo-
gical note I adduced in my last chapter (p. 434), and before the
Creed of Augustine, in a preface to a large series of Canons of
nearly 30 French and other councils. In the third (of which an
account is given in the Sitzungsberichte, Liv. p. 241°), the Quicun-
que follows on some excerpta from the first action of the Council

1 Mosheim’s History, Vol. 1. p. 567. 2 With this my few lines on page 268
(Book 111. century 1x. part 11. and m1. must be supplemented.
§ 25.)

of Chalcedon and precedes the Herovallian Collection. These
manuscripts are all put down to the beginning of the ninth
century, and in them all, as I have said, the Quicunque is
described as the “ Faith of Athanasius.” Their dates are assigned
to the manuscripts by Professor Rifferscheid or Professor Maassen.
IT am aware that I shall be considered presumptuous in questioning
the opinion of either of these gentlemen, but in the present state
of palzeographical science, I can scarcely regard that opinion as of
sufficient weight to overbalance the evidence supplied by the
silence of Alcuin and Charlemagne and the language of Hincmar.
In a few years time it is to be hoped that the labours of our
PALHOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY will give its members materials to
form their judgment on a surer basis; and, until that time comes,
I venture to ask my readers to suspend the formation of their
opinion.

EXxcursus ON THE UTRECHT PSALTER.

I have assumed in these later pages that the Utrecht Psalter,
Claudius C. vir. of Sir Robert Cotton’s Library, is of the ninth or tenth
century. JI have watched with extreme care the progress of the con-
troversy on the subject, and am old enough and (I hope) true enough to
see that, in a purely scientific and historical question, it is as foolish as
it is wrong to attempt to force public opinion, or in any way to misrepre-
sent the evidence on this or any other subject.

As Englishmen we owe to Professor Westwood the rediscovery of
the manuscript; and any one, who has watched the progress of the
opinion of that gentleman on the date of the volume, is aware how very
slowly and cautiously that opinion has been formed. And I believe
there is no one in England who is deemed more worthy of confidence in
this, his special subject, than Professor Westwood. I have had also the
opportunity of seeing how cautiously other gentlemen have acted in the
matter, and how prepossessions in favour of assigning an early date to
the volume have given way before the results of a prolonged examination.

On the finer points of paleeographical science it would be presumptu-
ous in me to speak. Thanks to the kind forbearance and patience of
friends at the British Museum and elsewhere, I have learnt my igno-
rance in this science. But I may draw out from the Reports, which
were published by Messrs Williams and Norgate at the beginning of the
year 1874, notes on some of the more salient matters of which palzogra-
phers alone are judges, :

Thus Mr Bond (pages 1—5) remarks inter alia That the vellum is
leathery and wants the fine surface of a very ancient manuscript;

That, although the words generally are run together, there are
breaks to mark the alternations and terminations of the verses;

SiG. 29

450 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

That abbreviations are of frequent occurrence, not only of the names
of the Deity, but of ordinary words, as gnm for quoniam: nr for noster:
tra for terra’: t' for tur: rnt for runt, &e.

Mr Bond draws attention to the marks of contraction.

He speaks of the jagged outlines in many of the figures as being of
the style common to English drawings of the 10th and 11th centuries.

He draws attention to the illuminated initial letter at the beginning
of the first Psalm’.

And, as to the drawings, he refers to the delineation of our Saviour’s
form, uncovered to the waist, as being spoken of in Histories of Christian
Art as an innovation of the ninth century *.

Much of this is confirmed by the judgments of other savants, and
Mr Thompson is of opinion that the MS. was probably written in the
north-east of France: an opinion which, curiously enough, agrees with
my hypothesis as to the origin of the Creed.

Particular attention should be paid to Professor Westwood’s Report.

I cannot see that the Second Report of Sir Duffus Hardy in any
important respect affects the grounds on which this judgment was
formed. That gentleman unhappily committed such serious errors in
his First Report that one’s confidence in his judgment is shaken. For
example; he spoke of the handwriting of the Utrecht Psalter having
been in the ninth century ‘obsolete for some centuries, and perhaps
unreadable.” He spoke of the Gallican Psalter having been then ‘long
superseded” by the Roman. The facts are (as I have stated above)
that the Gallican Psalter was alone used in Gaul in the ninth century;
and that the hand in which the Utrecht Psalter is written was used for
the text of St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans in a manuscript of the tenth
century where the comment was in another hand*: and in a manuscript
of the eleventh century in the Cambridge Library the verse of Boethius
de Consolatione is (1 believe) invariably in the Rustic letter, where
the prose is in a different character.

I think, however, that we may look to the contents of the book as
helping us to fix the date. And I cannot close my eyes to the fact that
whilst they resemble closely the contents of many Psalters of the ninth
century, no volume has, as yet, been adduced of an earlier date than
the year 795, which resembles it in this respect. And the general
accuracy of the text of the volume indicates a high state of education on
the part of the penman. This would encourage us to attribute it to the
school of Charles the Great or Charles le Chauve.

I feel, however, some hesitation as to the date of the titles. They
evince far inferior scholarship, as the mistakes which are perceptible
above (p. 362) exhibit. The title to Psalm cli. was unintelligible to a com-
petent critic’. These titles may have been added at a later time—when
the education of the penman was again sinking. Thus I cannot insist,
as I should otherwise do, on the title to the Te Deum as proving that,

1 Of this see an example above (p. note that the MS. was in the hands of

372) from the British Museum Bible. the Earl of Arundel in January 1631.

2 I have adduced some proofs of the 4 See a facsimile in the Journal de
partiality for this B in the ninth cen- U’école des chartes.
tury, p. 362. See too p. 364, note 1. 5 In the Atheneum.

* Mr Bond gives a very interesting

Xxx. | REVIEW OF EVIDENCE.: ~ 451

when the manuscript was written, the custom of chanting it on Sundays
at Mattins was extended to a daily use: nor yet on the title and drawing
prefixed to the Quicunque as shewing that the one was penned and the
other limned after it was found convenient to ascribe the Faith to the
Council of Niceea.

But there remains enough in the text of the volume to satisfy me
that that text could not have been written before the year 800. Our
knowledge of the usage of the Church in regard to the Canticles; the
comparison of this part with the older Psalters and especially with the
original portion of Vespasian A. 1; the completed Apostles’ Creed in
a book of devotion; the relegation of Psalm 151 to the end of the
volume in a Gallican Psalter; all combine to remove from my mind
every shadow of doubt on the subject.

And, lastly, the ΤῈ Deum itself is of a type of which we have no
instance as early as the sixth century. This opens out an interesting
subject.

The essay on the hymn in Daniel’s Thesaurus Hymmologicus is instruc-
tive but incomplete. The hymn (Daniel says) was undoubtedly in use in
the sixth century as is proved by the Rule of St Benedict, but he gives
no text for it earlier than that contained in the Vienna Psalter (1861),
which is supposed to have been sent by Charles to Hadrian. A
text is given by Alcuin (Migne, cl. p. 597), but the MSS. have been
tampered with. It was chanted at the Coronation of Charles the Bald;
indeed some people think it was chanted at the Restoration of Pope
Pius III. in the end of the eighth century. Daniel gives collations from
some Vatican MSS., and Mr Procter gives, from an article by Dr Todd,
an account of the readings of the Bangor Antiphonary and Usher’s Irish
hymn-book, (This last has been since reprinted, as I have mentioned,
by the Irish Archeological and Celtic Society.) It will be remembered
that in the Rule of Cesarius’ the order to say it runs thus: “ Dicite
matutinos, directaneo: Exaltabo Te Deus meus et Rex meus: deinde
Confitemini; inde Cantemus domino: Lauda anima mea dominum:
Benedictionem ; Laudate dominum de celis; Te Deum _ laudamus,
Gloria in excelsis Deo: et capitellum.” It will be seen that the Te Deum
is preceded by Laudate dominum de ceelis. Compare the prelude in the
Bangor Antiphonary and Usher’s hymn-book’, and, as I understand, in
that other Irish hymn-book which contains the Quicunque (above, p.
331).

I need scarcely trouble my reader with all the varie lectiones: but I
find that not only does Usher’s hymn-book, but also the Cod. Vat. 82,
read proclamant dicentes, Sanctus, &c. Bangor and Usher have wni-
versa terra, and honore glorie tue. .

Passing for the moment to the end of the hymn, I have to note that
the MS. Vat. 82 after munerari proceeds with our clauses 24, 25, 22,
23 (Per singulos dies... Et laudamus...Salvum jac...Et rege illos) omitting
26, 27, 28, 29 (the last four), but adding at the end, “Benedictus es
Domine Deus Patrum nostrorum et laudabilis et gloriosus in secula*.

1 This may be seen in Sir W. Palmer’s men Domini. Te Deum, &e.
Antiquities, p. 227. 3 Cf. Daniel, 111. 52 (Vulg.).
2 Laudate pueri dominum, laudate no-

29—2

452 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [CHAP. XXX.

Amen.” The Codex Alex. 11 (of the Vatican) has “tuum verum et
unigenitum filium” with the Bangor Antiphonary and Usher’s hymn-
book: after clause 21 (munerari) it has our clauses 22, 23, 26, 27, de.
it omits 24, 25 and 28, 29. Whilst the Bangor Antiphonary and
Usher’s hymn-book omit 26, 27, 29, reading 22, 23, 24, 25, 28°.

Thus, once more we come to this. The reading of the Te Deum
was settled (generally) when the Utrecht Psalter was penned. The
only difference from the older standard text which I have observed, is in
clause 20, where it reads 76 ergo sancte quesumus; but even here it
agrees with Galba A. XVIII.

But we have this additional fact. The Bangor Antiphonary and
the Irish hymn-book give undoubtedly the true reading of clause 16,

TVADLIBERANDVMMVNDVMSVSCEPISTIHOMINEM
NONHORRVISTIVIRGINISVTERVM

‘For the purpose of delivering the world thou didst assume man:
Thou didst not shrink from the womb of a Virgin.”

The eye of some early copyist passed from the one NDVM to the
other, and thus the difficulty that is continually felt in the translation of
the clause arose; the word mundum being omitted. Then in the eleventh
century Abbo of Fleury obtained influence enough to alter suscepisti to
suscepturus. The Utrecht Psalter was written after the mistake of
omitting mundum was perpetrated, but before the clumsy endeavour was
made to conceal the difficulty.

My readers must judge whether it is probable that the former
mistake was current on the Continent in the sixth century, and yet
did not find its way into the Irish and Bobio manuscripts for two
or three centuries later.

I am indebted to Dr Lightfoot for the suggestion as to the origin of.
this difficult reading.

1 In the hymn-book it is followed by an appeal to the Trinity which may be
seen in Procter, On the Prayer-Book.

CHAPTER XXXI.

EXPOSITIONS OF THE QUICUNQUE.

Introduction. 88 1,2. Vienna701. 8 3. Regius2B.v. § 4. St Bernard
of Clairvaux. § 5. Three in “Milan M. 79.” § 6. Munich 17181.
Sf. <-Druno, § 8. Munich 12715. § 9. Notes from St Gall 27.
§ 10. Treves manuscripts. ὃ 11. Bodleian 1205. 8 12. Cambridge Kk.
Iv. 4, § 13. Turin. § 14. Rom. Vat. Alex. 231. 8 15. Abelard.
§ 16. Hildegarde. § 17. Simonof Tournay. ὃ 18. Alexander Neckham.
§ 19. Alexander Hales. § 20. Hampole. § 21. Wickliff. § 22. Com-
parison with Expositions of the Apostles’ Creed.

It will be remembered that among the Capitulars of Hincmar
was one which directed that the Presbyters should be able to
explain in common language “The Sermon of Athanasius on the
Faith which commences Quicunque vult.” This no doubt meant
that they must be able to transfer it to the vulgar tongue. And
this will introduce us to the version of which I shall give an
account in chapter XxxIu. But I may take now the opportunity
of drawing attention to some of the Expositions of the Quicunque
which have fallen in my way. At first, I intended to print some
of these Expositions, so that my readers might have the opportunity
of comparing them with “Junius” or “Fortunatus.” I find,
however, that they are too numerous to permit me to do 50,
without still further increasing the bulk of my already bulky
volume. I shall content myself with indicating where some of
these may be found; occasionally, however, adding some notes at
greater length.

81, And this I shall do at once. For in the Vienna manu-
script, 701, which is said to be of the twelfth century, are several
things which seem to me of great interest.

Thus we have, fol. 73, the Scrutiny on Easter Eve as to the faith of the
penitent, before he was received to communion on Easter Day, which I

454 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

have given on an earlier page’. On folio 145 a we have a kind of pro-
longed catechism, which I give in my note’.

§ 2. After this follows in the manuscript (( 145), Hapositio
Sancti Athanasti Alexandrini episcopi de fide Catholica. It begins
Quicunque vult and ends fidem.

Is this a fragment? or does it profess to be an Exposition by
Athanasius of that which we call his Creed? However, the next
is clear. It is a catechetical Exposition of the Quicunque, of
which Athanasius is said to be the author*!

This volume belonged to an oratory which was consecrated in
the year MLXxu. by Ernfried, Bishop of Aldinburg (a bishopric
in Sclavonia, in the province of Magdeburg), with the consent of
Sigfried, Archbishop of Mayence*. At the end of the volume is a
letter, giving an account of the proceedings of some of the Cru-
saders at Jerusalem. This, probably, has been printed.

1 Above, note, pp. 22, 23.

2 **Quomodo credis? Credo in Deum
Patrem omnipotentem ingenitum ante
omnia subsistentem et nullum finem
habentem. Item; Quomodo credis in
Filium? Credo in Filium genitum a Pa-
tre, per quem omnia facta sunt equalem
Patriin deitate. Item; Quomodo credis
in Spiritum Sanctum? Credo in 8.58.
non genitum neque ingenitum, non
creatum neque factum sed de Patre et
Filio procedentem, corequalem, cuncta
vivificantem. In hac Trinitate unum
Deum credo atque confiteor in tribus
Personis. Item credis resurrectionem ?
Credo. Quomodo? Credo postquam
morior quod resurgam in perfecta «tate
in qua ipse Christus resurrexit et as-
cendit ad Patrem et inde venturus est
judicare vivos et mortuos, et reddere
unicuique juxta opera sua. Qualiter
in Trinitate credendum est? Credendae
sunt Tres Personae, Pater Filius et
Spiritus Sanctus: et in his tribus Per-
sonis unus Deus, una potestas, una ma-
jestas colenda est. Interest aliqua dif-
ferentia in his personis? Alia est enim
Persona Patris, alia Filii, alia Spiritus
Sancti. Item; Est adhuc in His dif-
ferentia? Sine dubio enim quia Pater
ingenitus est et non suscepit carnem:
Filius est genitus et suscepit carnem de
incorrupta virgine matre Maria. Spiri-
tus Sanctus nec est ingenitus nec geni-
tus, nec suscepit carnem, sed procedens
a Patre et Filio. Tamen Filius Dei nec
posterior nec minor Patre, in quantum

Deus est. Similiter Spiritus Sanctus
nec posterior Patre et Filio, nee minor
nec humilior, sed in his tribus Personis,
una deitas, equalis potestas, una co#ter-
nitas certissime credenda est. Spiritus
Sanctus a Patre et Filio, non factus nec
creatus nec genitus sed procedens ex
Patre et Filio, quia constat una natura,
una divinitas, una majestas, una gloria,
et potestas. Semper fuit Pater, semper
Filius, semper Spiritus Sanctus.”

This catechism is certainly interest-
ing.

3° ἐς FE jusdem unde supra.
Fides est credulitas ilarum rerum que
non videntur, Que sunt ille res que non
videntur? Non videtur Pater, non vide-
tur Filius, non videtur Spiritus Sanctus,
tamen creduntur.”

On clause two the comment is:

‘Quam, id est, fidem nisi quisque, et
unusquisque, integram, sanam, perfec-
tam, inviolatamque, id est, incorruptam,
servaverit, custodierit, absque dubio, sine
dubio in eternum peribit, eterna pana
cruciabitur, condemnabitur.”

This will give us the opinions of the
age. Inmensus is explained as quod non
potest mensurari. Fideliter (clause 29)
id est, absque omni dubietate.

The conclusion is

‘“ Hee est fides catholica, et ut eam
arctius in cordibus fidelium inculcaret
sepe repetit dicens: Hac est Fides Ca-
tholica &c. &c. salvus esse non poterit.’’

4 Magdeburg had belonged to Mayence.

6.0.60) EXPOSITIONS OF THE QUICUNQUE. 455

§ 3. There are some notes on the Quicunque in Reg. 2 B. v.
of the British Museum’.

§ 4. There are short Expositions of the Apostles’ and Atha-
nasian Creeds in the works of St Bernard of Clairvaux. I found
copies of these in a manuscript “777” at Vienna, of the thirteenth
century. It is interesting, because the latter is entitled “Tracta-
tus elusdem de fide ex symbolo Athanasu,’ an instance of the
application of the word symbolum to our document about the year

1200. It is very short’.

§ 5. There are three Expositions of the Quicunque (as will
be remembered) in the Milan manuscript, M. 79. 1 have given
the leading features of them above, p. 424

§ 6. In the Munich manuscript, 17181, of the twelfth cen-

1 For example:

salvus] coram deo in judicio.

catholica] que in universa ecclesia te-

neri debet.

opus est] operationem necessariam

prebeat voluntatem (?)
inviolatamque] hoc est incorruptam
ut nihil minuas, nihil addas.

hee est] quid hoc? nisi ut unum

deum credamus in tribus personis.
in trinitate] ut credamus trinitatem
et unitatem in uno esse.

neque confundantes (sic)] ut Sabellius

qui ipsum docet esse Patrem in per-
sona quem et Filium; ipsum et
Spiritum Sanctum.

persona patris] ex his tribus unus

quisque per se sonat.

divinitas] nullus major, nullus mi-

nor. Secundum illorum divinitatem
eequales sunt.

pater] dominus (2) increati quia nun-

quam fuerunt creati.

2 T extract the following: ‘‘ ante om-
nia, ante spem charitatem vel cetera
bona quibus ad vitam eternam perveni-
tur. Opus est ut teneat quisque non so-
lum habeat sed et habitam custodiat,
tamquam bonorum omnium fundamen-

tum et originem... Immensus non mole>

sed potestate, omnia concludens ; alias
immensus, id est, incomprehensibilis,”’

The order of the words in Bernard’s
day was: ‘‘unitas in trinitate et trini-
tas in unitate.”

On clause 28, ‘‘sentiat id est credat,
[ad] salutem, subaudi, consequendam,
ut credamus et confiteamur, juxta illud
‘corde creditur ad justitiam et cet.’”’

The subjects of the resurrection and
the judgment occupy 38 lines out of 87,
nearly half. The treatise ends thus :—
“ οὐ attende nihil hic de parvulis quia
nihil hine meriti dictum videtur quam-
vis eos quoque non minus quam adultos
salvari constet aut damnari: tam hee
scriptura quam cetere non nisi adultis
et qui capaces sunt rationis ad erudi-
tionem fiunt; ita satis visum est hoc
loco de his tamen instrui que ad ipsos
pertinent.”’ Hence it would appear that
we must rank St Bernard amongst those
who would teach that ‘‘from about the
tenth century, the prescribed use of the
Creed became restricted to the Clergy,
and for them it was enough to recite it
at Prime in the office de die dominica.
The reason of this seems to be, that while
the clergy were bound by their office to
as accurate and theological knowledge
as possible of the mysteries expressed
in it, and ‘while it was itself admirably
adapted not only to keep alive that
knowledge, but aiso to hold its place as
a profession of faith and an anthem of
devotion for those who could appreciate
it, the Church does not desire to enforce
on all alike, and in the language of
anathema, the profession of explicit
truths expressed in subtle antitheses,
and supposing the knowledge of diffi-
cult theological distinctions above the
intellectual level of the uneducated.”’
(The Creed of St Athanasius ; Charle-
magne and Mr Ffoulkes. By the Rey.
J. Jones, 8. J. Professor of Theology at
St Beuno’s College. London, Burns
and Oates, 1872.)

456 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [cmar.

tury (from the Convent of Scheftlarn on the Isere), we find a
curious collection of things. After a copy of the treatise “De
Fide Sancte Trinitatis edita a beato Augustino epo:” Firmissime
tene, &c., there is (p. 92) an exposition of the Quicunque’.

§ 7. Then comes the Quicunque with the Exposition printed
by Montfaucon with the following introduction: “ Admonitio.
Hic Symboli Quicunque commentarius prodit ex codice biblio-
theca Sancti Germani a Pratis numero 199, quingentorum circiter

annorum, non indignus qui studioso lectori exhibeatur.”

It 18

attributed to Bruno of Wurtzburg.

Incipit Tractatus de Fide Catholica.

it may be seen in Migne’.

I need not print this as

I feel very much disposed to ask, Whether this Exposition
ean be truly attributed to Bruno or any one else in particular?
Its origin seems to me to be indicated by its appearance in the

magnificent Eadwin Psalter at Trinity College, Cambridge.

The

Exposition seems to be formed out of a series of marginal notes, these
notes admitting, of course, of additions from time to {πιο The

1 After reciting the first clause it pro-
ceeds, ‘‘ quicunque dicitur, quia non est
Deus personarum acceptor. Omnes enim
vult salvare qui salvari merentur. Vult,
dicit, propter liberum arbitrium: proponit
quod salvari non possumus nisi domini
misericordia nos preveniat et subsequa-
tur. Catholicam, id est, generalis vel
universalis, quia hance tenet ecclesiam
(2? ecclesia) toto orbe diffusa. Ecclesia
vero convocatio interpretatur, sicut syna-
goge congregatio. Quam nisi...peribit.
Ad hane terribilem vocem sollicite Chris-
tiani maxime sacerdotes evigilent, ut
discant qualiter que in hac fide conti-
nentur, credere audent (? debent).”

Thus the Faith of the document is
represented to commence with clause 3,
The above occupies about a twentieth
part of the whole comment.

It concludes with this invocation:
“40 beata et gloriosa et benedicta et
amplectanda fides! que sola humanum
genus vivificasti, que sola de diabolo
triumphum reportas, que sola despera-
tis salvationis januam reseras...O beata
Trinitas ; O beata et benedicta et glo-
riosa Fides. O Pater et Filius et Spiri-
tus Sanctus. O vera summa sempiterna
unitas, Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanc-
tus miserere nobis Domine Deus: da
pacem et gloriam, quia in te confidimus,

ut salvi fiamus, perpetuam misericor-
diam. Tibi laus, Tibi gloria, Tibi gra-
tiarum actio, in sempiterna secula. O
beata et speciosa Trinitas, Te adoramus,
Te glorificamus, cuncti unum Deum
Patrem omnipotentem et Filium et Spi-
ritum Sanctum.”

2 Waterland gives a long and interest-
ing account of nine manuscripts con-
taining the comment, in addition to this
one at St Germains des Prés, in which
Montfaucon found his copy. In a letter
to the Guardian newspaper, May 15,
1872, Mr Machray of the Bodleian Li-
brary expressed his belief that that col-
lection (B.N. Rawlin. 163) possesses the
manuscript which once belonged to the
Library at Wurzburg, and of which
Waterland gave an interesting descrip-
tion from Cochleus. The readings of
the Oxford manuscript are old: they
have the et in five of the early clauses,
and carne and deo in 35. Dr Waterland
noticed that three of the manuscripts
omitted some paragraphs which the
printed copies of the Exposition con-
tained, and that these paragraphs might
be found in ‘ Fortunatus.”’

3 Thus the copy in the Eadwin Psalter
inserts ‘‘non dicit velis aut non salvus
eris sed quicunque vult.”

XXXI. | EXPOSITIONS OF THE QUICUNQUE. 457

series as contained in the St Germains Manuscript and printed
by Montfaucon must have been made quite independently of
“Fortunatus.” A further and enlarged copy is mentioned by
Waterland (chap. 111.}, under the year 1340.

I must add in passing that the author of these notes was
clearly of the opinion that the “Fides Catholica” of the Quicun-
que was for the use of the clergy only. On clause 26 (= 28), he
says, “ Here he begs and admonishes that every teacher should
hold it in his memory, and believe it firmly, and in his preaching
teach it to others.” And on the last clause, “Here he begs and
advises that every priest should know this and preach it.”

δ᾽ 8. In the Munich manuscript, “12715, Latin,” written in
the years 1229, 1230, is another Exposition of the Quicunque.
It begins as follows:

“De Symbolo Athanasii. Quicunque vult salvus esse. Fides est
voluntaria certitudo...Fides est qualitas qua quis credit quod diligit.”
I remarked the following, “In hoe loco ista fides intelligitur que in sacro
baptismate promittitur quum dicitur, Abrenuntiat diabolo et operibus
ejus:” ὁ. 6. the expositor states that the Catholic Faith, which, according
to the first clause, is essential to salvation, is the Faith of the short

Baptismal Creed.
The order here was still “Trinitas in Unitate et Unitas in Trinitate!.”

This manuscript belonged to the Library of Kannshofer, and
was written by one “ Christianus Perger de Enkerfeld.”

§ 9. I can scarcely call the few remarks at the margin of the
Faith in “St Gall 27” an Exposition, but I will give some in
my note’.

1 This is the conclusion :

“Ἢ 86 est fides catholica: et seepe re-
petit ut eam artius in cordibus fidelium
inculcaret absque ruga: firmiterque cre-
diderit, salvus esse non poterit. Augus-
tinus: Credo in patrem omnipotentem
ingenitum.” That is, the exposition
concludes with the positive part of the
interrogative Creed given above (in my
note to § 1) from the manuscript 701 at
Vienna (down to the words ‘“‘ una majes-
tas colenda est,’’ which are here read
‘‘una gloria certissime credenda est’’),
and the writer attributes the Creed to
St Augustine. The words introducing
this Creed are the same as those

with which the explanation terminates,
which I have given in note 8 to sec-
tion 2.

2 I copied these words: ‘‘ non est men-
surabilis in sua natura quia inlocalis
est et incircumscriptus ubique totus,
ubique presens, ubique potens,”’ because
I thought I remembered them in the
comment of ‘‘ Junius 25.” I found my-
self correct: so were other brief memo-
randa on eternus (clause 10), on omnipo-
tens (clause 12) and on deus ex substantia
patris (clause 31), and there may have
been others. On clause 2 however were
words which I knew were not in that
Exposition, “qui catholicam fidem recte

458 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. ~ [CHAP.

§ 10. I have a memorandum that the collection at Treves,
No. 222, of the thirteenth century, contains Expositions of the
Apostles’ and Athanasian Creeds: and No. 531, of the fourteenth
century, contains six Expositions. They are not distinguished.
I have not seen them; and they may possibly be the same as
others to which I have referred.

§ 11. Amongst the notices of ancient Latin manuscripts in
the fourth chapter of Waterland’s work, and under the year 1400,
is the following: “In the Bodleian at Oxford there is a manu-
script copy of this Creed (No. 1204), which has for its title,
Anastasi Expositio Symboli Apostolorum. It is above 300 years
old, and belonged once to the Carthusian monks of Mentz.” This
statement 15 repeated in the recent Oxford Edition, except that
the number of the manuscript is corrected. For it is 1205, not
1204. I received some years ago from a member of my own
University, now gone to his rest, the results of an enquiry which
he had submitted to the learned librarian, the Reverend H. O.
Coxe, and these taught me that Waterland here was almost
entirely wrong. |

The present mark is Laud 493: we have, on folio 2, the words
“Liber carthusianus prope moguntiam ;” and in the table of contents of
the volume is found the title Anastasit expositio symboli apost. Thus
the volume is identified. The contractions are very numerous, and the
language seems to have been occasionally altered for the purpose of
rendering the work more suitable to be read aloud. On folio 70 I found
‘‘Expositio symboli apostolorum.” On folio 74b I detected “sy. ser.
prm” z.e. “symbolum sanctorum patrum.” This is the so called Nicene
Creed with an Exposition, in which I detected a reference to the “sym-
bolum Athanasii’.” Then follows on fol. 75 Ὁ “Hic tractatus de symbolo
sanctt anastasii.” It begins (so far as I can make it out) ‘‘restat
expositio symboli sancti anastasii,” and occupies three closely written
folia, ὁ. 6. six pages. It differs from any other exposition that I have
seen, and some one has run his pen, dipped in red ink, through spiritus
sanctus inmany places. It ends on folio 78 b “explicit expositio symboli
anastasi.”

Mr Coxe considers that the manuscript must have been written
about the year 1300; a hundred years before Waterland’s date.

Thus the document is an exposition of the Athanasian Creed—not
a copy of the Athanasian Creed entitled “an exposition by Anastasius of
the Apostles’ Creed.” Waterland’s mistake was curious, and it has been

credendo et opera exercendo negligit, 11 supply with italics the contrac-
hereticus est et schismaticus, et hune tions of the manuscript.
interitus sine dubio manebit.”

XK, | EXPOSITIONS OF THE QUICUNQUE. 459

followed by curious results’. It is due, as will have been seen, to the
error of the writer of the table of contents.

§ 12. There is in the University Library at Cambridge a
manuscript marked Kk. Iv. 4, which contains a tract “De Tribus
Symbolis.” The manuscript is of the fifteenth century.

§ 13. I have a memorandum that in the Library at Turin
(Pasini’s Catalogue, 1749) there is not only a Psalter of the
fourteenth century, containing “Fides Catholica ab Athanasio
exposita cum glossa” (No. XVIII.); but also (No. LXvr.) another
Psalter of the thirteenth century, containing the Faith, “ Declara-
tio Fidei Catholice,” with a gloss and marginal notes. The
latter begin:

“Hic ratio Fidei Catholice traditur et in veteribus codicibus a beato
Anastasio Alexandrino conscripta; et puto quod idcirco tam pleno et
brevi sermone tradita fuit ut omnibus catholicis et minus eruditis tuta-
men defensionis prestaret, &c.*.”

§ 14. I am indebted to the Reverend J. C. B. Riddell for
notes of explanations of the Lord’s Prayer, Apostles’ Creed and
Quicunque, which were printed in the Appendix to a work on the
“Liturgia Antiqua Hispanica, Gothica, Isidoriana, Mozarabica,
Toletana, Mixta,” published at Rome in 1746 “ Typis Hieronymi
Mainardi.” |

The second volume (p. 497) contains ‘“explanatio orationis dominic”
commencing “Dominus et salvator noster clementissimus suorum
eruditor, &ec.” Then (p. 501), “Incipit explanatio Symboli Apostolici:
Quando beatum legimus Paulum apostolum dixisse fidelibus, Vos autem
estis filii lucis.” Then (p. 507), “Explanatio Symboli Sancti Athanasil.
Injunxistis mihi illud fidei opusculum quod passim in ecclesiis recitatur
quodque a presbyteris nostris usitasius quam cetera opuscula medita-
tur...quasi exponendo dilatarem.”

The comment (as I understand) proceeds, ‘‘Traditur enim quod a
beatissimo Athanasio Alexandrine ecclesie antistite sit editum. Ita
namque semper eum vidi etiam in veteribus codicibus. Et puto quod
idcirco tam plano et brevi sermone tradita sit ut omnibus catholicis et
minus eruditis tutamen defensionis preestaret adversus illam tempes-
tatem quam ventus contrarius, hoc est diabolus, excitavit per Arium,
qua tempestate navicula, id est Christi ecclesia, in medio mari, videlicet

1 Even Bishop Van Mildert could not 2 See below under § 14.
have examined it. For he gives the al- Another manuscript in the same
ternative press mark as G. 39. It should library (No uxvit1.) attributes it to Ana-
be G. 40. stasius of Alexandria.

460 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.
mundi, diu tota a fluctibus est vexata, sed non soluta aut submersa; quia
ille imperavit vento et mari qui se eidem ecclesiz promisit usque ad
finem seeculi adfuturum. Quicunque ergo de hujus maris fluctibus
salvari desiderat et in profundum abyssi sternum, videlicet perditionem,
demergi pavescit, teneat integre et inviolabiliter fidei veritatem. Ita
enim-inceptum ipsum opusculum Quicunque... Quod dicitur in capite
eorum versuum, hoc repetitur in fine: nam hoc est in eternum perire
quod salvum non esse, et hoc est salvum esse quod non perire, &c., &c.”

By comparing this with the extract given by Waterland in his note
to what is called Hampole’s commentary (Chapter 1. A.D. 1340), any one
may learn how these commentaries gradually expanded. Hampole had
incorporated “Bruno’s Exposition” with some preliminary words, and to
these the above seem to have been added. Our present writer however
follows up this Exposition with Bruno’s, For, as the same volume
informs us, in the manuscript there follows—

‘‘Expositio Athasii de fide (sic).

“ Quicunque vult—hic beatus Athanasius liberum arbitrium ponit, &c.”
as in Bruno.

Now all these, if I understand the Roman Editor aright, are taken
from the same manuscript “Reg. Alexand. Vat. no. 231,” which manu-
script the Editor says ‘‘seems to have been written in the ninth or tenth
century.” So much for supposed dates of MSS.! A manuscript which
‘‘seems to have been written in the ninth or tenth century,” contains an
Exposition of the Athanasian Creed which is assigned by all the learned
to a Bishop of Wurtzburg who lived in the eleventh century’.

17 find that the ‘‘ Explanatio” pub-
lished by Mai, Scriptorum Veterum Nova
Collectio, 1x. p. 396, commencing ‘ In-
junxisti mihi,” was taken from the same
manuscript. Mai considered it to be of
the eleventh century. It is mentioned
on pages 50 and 59 of Professor Jones’
pamphlet. Prof. Bollig considers that
the part of the manuscript containing
the Explanatio is of the beginning of the
eleventh or of the tenth century. The
readings of the Quicunque as explained
here are worthy of notice. They are
generally old. Thus we have the et in
clauses 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, although not in
7. We have in 6, et coeterna majestas,
which is unusual. Clause 17 follows
close on 15; 16 and 18 are com-
bined thus: et tamen non tres dii aut
tres domini sed unus deus et unus domi-
nus. (Compare “ Junius 25” above, p.
428.) In 20 it reads, ita tres deos aut
tres dominos. For nec creatus, we have
both in 22 and 23, aut creatus. For Et
in 25, we have Sed. The old order is
observed in 27. Clause 28 begins Qui-
cunque ergo vult salvus esse. In 30 dei
filius is omitted, but pariter is retained.
In 33 the copula est is introduced twice.
For Qui in 34, we have Quia. In 35,

carnem and deum: 38 and 39 read thus,
Qui pro salute nostra passus est, sed in
sola adsumpta substantia; descendit ad
inferna, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis,
ascendit ad coelos, sedet ad dexteram
patris: and the last clause of 41 qui
vero mala egerunt ibunt in ignem e@ter-
num. Thus the version of the Creed is
certainly old, to whatever date we assign
the Exposition. In the Apostles’ Creed
as expounded in the same manuscript,
not only are the words dei omnipotentis
missing, as Professor Jones has stated,
but the clause communion of saints is
missing too: and the reading was re-
mMissionem omnium peccatorum.

I have sometimes thought that this
may have been the Explanatio Symboli
Athanasii which was attributed to Theo-
dulf by the writer of the catalogue of
the Abbots of Fleury. The title symbo-
lum however shews that that catalogue
can scarcely have been made before the
year 1150, 360 years after the death
of the illustrious bishop, and therefore
the statement needs support. But the
title is curious, ‘‘ ExpLanatio symboli
S. Athanasii.”” It is possible that the
writer of the Catalogue had this docu-
ment in his mind.

Se hg ee ee eee

0.9.0.4 δῇ

§ 15.
not be passed over.

EXPOSITIONS OF THE QUICUNQUE.

461

Waterland speaks of two other comments which must
One he gives under the date 1120.

“In the

next age the famous Peter Abelard wrote comments upon this

Creed, which are printed amongst his other works.

The title in

the print is Petri Abaelardi Expositio Fide in Symbolum Atha-

NASi0.
series, vol. CLX XVIII."

§ 16.

I suspect the editor has added the latter part in Symbolum
Athanasit as a hint to the reader.”

It may be seen in Migne’s

“a.p. 1170. Of the same century (says Waterland) is

Hildegarde, the celebrated abbess of St Rupert’s Mount, near

Binghen, on the Rhine.

Migne, vol. cxcvil. p. 1065.
sororum suarum’.

1 Tt follows on commentaries on the
Lord’s Prayer and the Apostles’ Creed,
The former is long: on the petition
‘‘give us this day our daily bread,” he
remarks i.e. ‘‘ bodily and spiritual bread:
...spiritual bread, that Thou wouldest
inspire in the prelates and doctors of
Thy Church that they may study to
dispense to us, prudently and happily,
Thy teaching committed to them.” On
the Apostles’ Creed he refers to the
canons of various local councils which
insisted that the Creed should be taught
to all, and that no one should receive
the Holy Communion until he knew it,
as well as the Lord’s Prayer, by memory.
Abelard was superior to the tradition of
the times and quoted Eusebius of Emesa
as a witness that the Church-Fathers
‘‘collected out of the different books of
Scripture what was most necessary,”
and the Creed was the result. We know
that in many of the earlier copies the
punctuation was filium eius : unicum do-
minum nostrum: ‘*His Son, our only
Lord.” Abelard seems to suggest that
the punctuation was altered to ‘‘ His only
Son, our Lord,” to avoid Adoptianism :
he himself takes it both ways, ‘ His
only Son, our only Lord.’’ Towards the
close he refers to the famous tablets of
Leo III., which in his day were ‘‘on
the altar of St Paul at Rome ad caute-
lam fidei orthodoxe:” his point being,
that the Greeks did not fear to say “1
believe in the Church.”” The exposition
on the Athanasian Creed follows, It

She wrote explications of St Benedict’s
Rule and of the Athanasian Creed.”

The latter may be seen in

It is addressed ad congregationem

is, as Waterland says, short. It begins
thus: ‘Quicunque vult salvus esse:
voluntate quippe propria, non coactione
salvamur aliena: ante omnia, subaudis,
illi hoc necessarium.” He touches on
clauses 1, 3—10, 14—16, 25—28, 30, 37,
40, 41. (He reads: ‘‘omnes homines
resurgent.) Hethusends: ‘“ Mark that
nothing here appears to be said as to
infants who have no merits: although
it is clear that they, not less than adults,
may be saved or damned. For, as this
writing as well as others was made for
the instruction of adults only, and of
such as are capable of reason; so I have
thought it sufficient in this place to in-
struct them on such points only as per-
tain to them.”” This is the reason why
Abelard passed over in silence some
clauses of the document.

2 It begins: “Ὁ filie que vestigia
Christi in amore castitatis subsecutx
sunt,’ but we come to col. 1069, before
the Athanasian Faith is touched upon.
The address is a Sermon in which the
tenets of the Creed are paraphrased and
enforced, rather than an Explanation or
Explication of the document. It has
no great merit. The first words here
are the following: ‘‘ Athanasius postea
de unitate divinitatis ecclesiam muni-
endo scripsit, videlicet ut omnis homo
qui voluerit salvari teneat fidem inte-
gram et inviolatam, in deum perfectum
credens ne in gehennam demersus ge-
hennalis fiat.” Her belief was that our
Lord descended spiritually ‘in profun-

462 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [ CHAP.

None of these Expositions refers to any canon requiring the
clergy to learn the Quicunque.

§ 17. Another comment, mentioned by Waterland, is by
Simon of Tournay, a divine of the early part of the thirteenth
century. It has never been published. It commences (as he
was informed by Oudin)—

“Apud Aristotelem argumentum est ratio faciens fidem, sed apud
Christum argumentum est fides faciens rationem.” One MS. is in the
National Library at Paris, 3903: other three are scattered.

§ 18. The Bodleian Library is said to contain two copies
of another comment, by Alexander Neckham. This too is men-
tioned by Oudin and after him by Waterland. It commences:

“Heec est enim victoria que vincit mundum, fides nostra. Signanter
dicit valt et non dicit quicunqgue salvus erit.” “He significantly says,
7

Whosoever would be saved; and not, Whosoever shall be saved.”

§ 19. <A further memorandum informs us that Alexander
Hales (or rather Alexander of Ales) wrote comments upon the
same Creed, which are published in his SuMMA, part the third,
under Question 69%.

Alexander divides the “creed” into Procemium, Treatise, Epilogue,
and calls the first two verses Introductory, ‘‘versiculi procemiales.”
Of these two ‘the first draws by love, the second terrifies by penalties”
—a support to my opinion that the two date from different periods of
Church history. In the last verse of the document he gives an explana-
tion which in my opinion is also more true than some that I have met
with. “Faithfully and firmly. Faithfully, to denote faithfulness and
truthfulness (fides et rectitudo); firmly, to denote the degree of love
which is annexed to faith: the soul is purified by faith; it 1s made firm
by love.”

§ 20. Another commentary attributed to Richard Hampole
or “ Richardus Pampolitanus,” spoken of by Waterland, under the
year 1340, seems to be nothing else than an accumulation of
notes which we have been already considering, and is so far
worthless except as shewing that even at that time it was

dum infernalis profundi.” She appeals been correct and Mr King wrong. In

to teachers and preachers to uphold the
faith.

1 The recent Oxford edition alters
69 to 82. Van Mildert seems to have

the same direction Van Mildert’s refer-
ence to Oudin “ Vol. 111. p. 30,” is
altered to ‘‘ Vol. 111. p. 5.”

understood that the last clause of the Quicunque admonished
priests—not laymen—to learn the Creed.

§ 21. Amongst others adduced by Dr Waterland comes the
far most interesting comment attributed to Wickliff. Waterland
saw it first in a manuscript belonging to St John’s College,
Cambridge.

“The volume contains an English version of the Psalms and Hymns
of the Church with the Athanasian Creed, produced paragraph by para-
graph in Latin, interspersed with an English version of each paragraph
and commented upon quite through, part by part.” The class mark of
the manuscript is E. 14. In it the Quicunque follows the Nunc Di-
mittis, and the comment on the first clause runs thus: ‘It is said com-
monly that there ben three credes: the first is of Apostles that men
knowen commonly: the tother is the crede of the Church that declareth
the former crede: this thrydd crede is of the Trinity the which is sungen
as a Salm and was made in Greke speche of oon that is clepid Attanasie
and after turnid to Lattin and some deel amendyd and ordered to be
said at the first hour. This salm telleth much of the Trinity and it is
no nede here to know it sith a man may be saved if that he believe in
God and hope that God will teach him afterward that is needful.”

The Exposition has been recently printed at length in Vol. ΠῚ.
of Mr Arnold’s Works of Wycliff—but not from this manuscript.
It seems, however, that the Exposition is invariably found after
the Canticles—as in Bruno’s Psalter. I will give the English
version in a later chapter—a few notes, however, I will extract
from Mr Arnold’s reprint, begging particular attention to them.

On clause 11 the writer says truly enough, “But here may men
better say in Latin the subtilty of this matter, for articles with case
gender and number helpen here for to speak.”

On 22, “the Son is of the one Father, not made nor made of nought
but born. Here clerks must wake their wits and understand two births.”

On 29. ‘Sed necessarium. For Christ is giaunte of two substances,
of godheed and of manheed, and beginning of our belief of our health
and of our blisse. For had not Christ thus been man, we should never
thus have been saved. And in Christ, both God and man, is health of
many kind. And it is hard to believe the Trinity, but it is more hard
to many to believe two kinds in one Person: for right as in the Trinity
three persons ben in one kind, so in the Incarnation two kinds ben in
one person: and herefore teacheth our belief.”

To the humour of the explanation of the final clause Water-
land draws attention. ‘And al if this Crede accorde unto prestis
natheless the hi3er prelatis as popes cardinalis and bishops schuld-

464 THE CREEDS OF THE CHURCH. [CHAP. XXXI.

en moore specialy cunne pis crede and teche it to men under hem.
amen.”

§ 22. To understand fully the relative importance attached
to the Quicunque and the Apostles’ Creed, it might be advisable
to compare with these comments the number of Expositions of the

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The Nicene and Apostles' creeds : their literary history : together with an account of the growth and reception of the sermon on the faith, commonly called "The Creed of St. Athanasius""

See other formats