CHAPTER VII - THE ATHANASIAN CREED II

WE must now proceed to review the external evidence that may be shown for the use of the Quicunque from the fifth century. There is a certain advantage in considering it by itself, since we come to it in a detached frame of mind. And it is only fair that we should endeavour to meet rival theories, which are built up on the support of such evidence only, on their own ground.

I. The Sermons of Auitus, Caesarius, and others

The external evidence may be said to begin with the quotations found in the writings of Auitus and Caesarius.

(i.) Auitus, Bishop of Vienne 490-523,

in a work on the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, quotes

clause 22: "Quem nec factum legimus, nec genitum nec creatum";
and again: "Sicut est proprium Spiritui Sancto a Patre Filioque procedere istud fides catholica, etiamsi renuentibus non persuaserit, in suae tamen disciplinae regula non excedit."

Also, in Frag.. of A Dialogue against Gundobad [Ed. Peiper, Mon. Oerm. Auct, vi.2.], first the negative and then the positive statement of clause 22 comes to light. And in Frag.xviii. are found parallels to clauses 3, 4. 
In another Fragment against the Arians there is a parallel to

clause 32: "In Christo Deus et homo non alter sed ipse, non duo ex diuersis sed unus ex utroque mediator. Gemina quidem substantia sed una persona est."

(ii.) Caesarius, Bishop of Arles 503-543,

one of the leading theologians of Southern Gaul, quotes from both parts of the Quicunque in a sermon, Ps.-Aug. 244, which is now unanimously assigned by critics to his pen. 
I will print that portion of the sermon from the Benedictine text, which I have collated with Cod. Sangallensis 150, saec.ix. in.:-

About the beginning of the seventh century this sermon was combined with another, the authorship of which is by no means so certain. 
I will reserve discussion of it for Chapter X., and only note here that it contains parallels to phrases in clauses 6, 13, 15, 16, 29, 38.

There is an "Address to Clergy," which in one MS. is ascribed to Caesarius (Cod. lat. Monacensis 5515, saec.., i.):
Sermo beati Caesarii episcopi in praesentia cleri; also in the index:
Item sermo beati Caesarii episcopi ad clerum. 
It became very popular in the eighth and ninth centuries, and is found in several recensions, being incorporated in the Ordo ad Synodum of the Roman Pontifical. But in spite of the number of Caesarian expressions which abound in it, and which seem to prove that portions of it came originally from the pen of Caesarius, it is impossible to claim any recension as wholly free from interpolation. We cannot therefore claim as his the following reference, f.119: "Sermonem Athanasii episcopi de fide trinitatis cuius inicium est Quicunque uult memoriter teneat." [Malnory, S. Cisaire, Paris, 1894, p.285. Morin, Rev. Beni. Sept.1895, p.390.]

At this point I may refer to the evidence of a Fractatus de Trinitate printed among the works of Ambrose. Kattenbusch [Theol. .Lit. Z.1897, p.144 ; cf. i.p.98, where Katteubuseh proves conclusively that it is not a work of Ambrose.] calls it pre-Chalcedonian, and this date seems probable. But other critics are not likely to admit that the parallel sentences to the Quicunque, which it contains, are really quotations, unless they receive support from other sourc

Kattenbusch [Gennadii liber de eccl. dogm. homilia sacra, Hamburg, 1614.] also calls attention to a sermon published by Elmenhorst, probably of the sixth century, which contains an exact quotation of clause 3.

We may connect also with the sermon of Caesarius the following quotation in the Instructio of Columban (+ 615), the founder of the monasteries of Luxeuil and Bobbio:

"Credat itaque primum omnis qui uult saluus esse in primum et in nouissimum Deum unum ac trinum, unum subsistentem trinum substantia, unum potentia, trinum persona ... ubi habes in ueritate Trinitatem in Unitate et Unitatem in Trinitate."

Columban used the Rule of Caesarius, and the words which I have italicised certainly look like quotations of clauses 1 and 25. Moreover, Columban's disciple and successor, Attains, had been trained at Lerins.

II. the Canons of Toledo and Autun

(i.) The Fourth Council of Toledo, which met in 633,

is perhaps the most important of a series of Spanish Councils which at this period embodied quotations from the Quicunque in their canons. 
The wording of the earlier parallels is quite as exact as that of the later, but the special characteristic of the Canon of 633 is the fact that the Creed of Damasus is quoted with the Quicunque. [I owe this suggestion to Prof, J. A. Robinson.] I will print these quotations in italics, those of the Quicunque in small capitals. In both cases the authors of the canon seem to have quoted written documents:-

It will be noticed that the clauses of the Quicunque are quoted in their proper sequence of numbers. We cannot argue as to the form of text beyond what is quoted, but it is obvious that it contained both parts. We can account for the apparent omission of clause 33, with the characteristic phrase assumpsit humanitatem: the phrase of the "Creed of Damasus," which is also the phrase of the Te Deum, was preferred, suscipiens hominem.

The only argument which has been brought forward against this series of quotations, to prove that they are mere coincidences of diction, is the argument from the silence of Isidore, Archbishop of Seville, who presided over this Council. He wrote a book On the Offices of the Church, in which, especially in the section On the Rule of Faith, Swainson [p.235.] searched in vain for quotations of the Quicunque, concluding "that it was not known to him, or, if known, it had no authority." Loofs [R,.E.³ - art. "Athanasianum," p.192; cf.189.]  also thinks that it is perhaps more probable that the Toledan Councils did not use the Quicunque than the opposite. 
He argues that a reference to the Quicunque unit saluus esse would have had a stronger effect than Isidore's efforts to state in his own words what, according to tradition, was "the most certain faith after the Apostles' Creed."

"Haec est autem post apostolorum symbolum certissima fides, ... ut profiteamur Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum unius essentiae, eiusdem potestatis et sempiternitatis ... Patrem quoque confiteri ingenitum, Filium genitum, Spiritum Sanctum uero nec genitum nec ingenitum, sed de Patre et Filio procedentem. ... Ipsum quoque Filium perfectum ex uirgine sine peccato hominem suscepisse. ... Et quod diuinam humanamque substantiam, in utraque perfectus, una Christus persona gestauerit. ... Haec est Catholicae traditionis fidei uera integritas de qua si unum quodlibet respuatur, tota fidei credulitas amittitur." [De Eccles. Offic. ii.24, M.S.L.83, 817.]

It is obvious from this passage that Isidore wished to restate the substance of the general belief in his own words.

A good illustration of the way in which similar theological statements have been borrowed and adapted to express faith in the Trinity and the incarnation may be taken from the first of our Thirty-nine Articles:

De Fide in Sacrosanctam Trinitatem

"Unus est uiuus et uerus Deus, aeternus, incorporeus, impartibilis impassibilis immensae potentiae, sapientiae ac bonitatis: creator et conseruator omnium tum uisibilium tum inuisibilium. Et in unitate huius diuinae naturae tres sunt personae, eiusdem essentiae potentiae ac seternitatia,
Pater Filius et Spiritus Sanctus."

The words in italics are quoted in the first Article of the Confession of Augsburg, in which the latter sentence runs as follows:

"Et tamen tres sint personae eiusdem essentiae potentiae et coaeternae Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus."

We see in these Articles how theologians of another age have tried to condense a summary of their faith exactly as Isidore and his contemporaries desired to do. We note that in one Article two reminiscences of the Quicunque, et tamen (used conversely to emphasise the Trinity) and coaeternos, have dropped out. Yet it would be absurd to argue that they did not know and did not value that creed.

Is it not just as absurd to argue from Isidore's silence, in his own private teaching on the Rule of Faith, that he was ignorant of a creed manifestly quoted by the Council over which he presided?

(ii.) The Canon of Autun. -

The famous Canon of Autun was passed by a Synod held at Autun, under Bishop Leodgar, some time between 663 and 680. It is usual to date it in a round number, 670. The earliest collection in which it is found is called the Collection of Angers, and was made at the beginning of the eighth century. Three out of the seven MSS. extant contain, in addition to disciplinary canons, a Canon on the Faith, which is called the first (hira prima). It seems reasonable to suppose that it was made at the same time, and that there has been some mistake in the numbering of the disciplinary canons which follow, and which are numbered from 1.

The MSS. are as follows:-
P - Cod. lat. Paris. 1603, fol.11, saec.ix.
E - Cod. Phillippsii nunc Berolinensis, 1763, fol.3, saec.ix.
X - Cod. Vindob. 2171, fol.1^r, saec.ix.

[My collations of E and X are taken from Mon, Germ. Bist., Legum sectio iii.; G Conc. tom.i.p.220.]

CANONES AGUSTODINENSIS HIRA PRIMA

(a) "Si quis presbyter aut diaconus subdiaconus (b) clericus (c) symbolum (d) quod Sancto inspirante (e) Spiritu apostoli tradiderunt, et fidem sancti Athanasii (f) presulis (g) irreprehensibiliter (h) non recensuerit (i) ab episcopo condamnetur (k)."

(a) Agustodinensis, P; Agustudunensis, X. (b) om. subdiaconua, E, (c) clericus, pr. aut, E. (d) symbulum, P*. (e) inspirante s. supra lin. P. (f) Athanasi, P*. (g) presolis, P*, u. supra lin. P corr. (h) inr-, P. (i) recensiuerit, P. (k) condempnetur, X.

The only real difficulty connected with the Canon lies in the question whether the Faith referred to was the Quicunque or some other,
e.g. the Fides Romanorum; which Ratramn of Corbey quoted, as he quoted the Quicunque under the title Libellus de Fide Athanasii. Hincmar also, following Ratramn, ascribed the Fides Romanorum to Athanasius. 
But there is not a single MS. in which it is so described, independent of the work of Vigilius of Thapsus On the Trinity, through which Ratramn and Hincmar came to ascribe it to Athanasius. 
On the other hand, there are at least twenty MSS. of the ninth century which describe the Quicunque as the Faith of Athanasius, and prove that it had obtained that title by common consent.

III. the Treves Fragment

The Treves fragment is part of a sermon in which clauses 27^h-40 of the Quicunque (with the exception of clause 35) have been incorporated. It is found in a MS. in Paris (B.N. Cod. lat. 3836), which contains the S. Blasien Collection of Canons. 
The MS. is of the eighth century, and is written in Lombardic characters. 
The scribe seems to have been a travelled man who had visited Rome, for he gives a list of books of Scripture, which were read in the Church of S. Peter. He uses the fragment, which he says he found at Treves, to illustrate the Definition of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon. 
He does not appear to know the Quicunque, for he uses the first words of the fragment as a title. 
Such ignorance on the part of an Italian scribe is not surprising. The use of the creed was as yet confined to Gaul. All trace of the original fragment has been lost. Treves was sacked by the Normans in 882, and it probably perished. The present librarian of the town, Herr M. Keuffer, has only been able to find one MS., a copy of Prosper, written in a similar hand, c. 719.

Cod. lat. 3836, f. 89:-

We have here about a third of the creed, and it is possible that the other two-thirds were contained on the preceding page of the original Treves MS., particularly since the fragment begins in the middle of a sentence. 
The variations from the usual text, which I have italicised, are all easy to explain, on the supposition that they represent free quotation, and not a first draft, which was afterwards polished. 
The preacher turns the precise antithesis of clause 33 into flowing relatival sentences. 
He adds from his Baptismal Creed, et mortuus and die tertia. He alters the form of clause 375, and of 38, altering "resurgere habent" into "erunt resurrecturi," naturally enough in parallelism to "reddituri," and weights his phrase with "sine dubio." The use of "habeo" with the infinitive for the synthetic future has been much discussed. 
It was often used in African Latin from the third century, and by Gallican writers in the fifth, so that it does not disprove the early date of a text containing it. A more important fact is the omission of clause 35, which seems to have been intentional, and to have led to a slight alteration of clause 36, where "omnino" is omitted, and "Christus est" is supplied in clause 34 from the omitted clause as antecedent to the relative "qui." The reason of the omission is not far to seek. 
The illustration from the constitution of man, in clause 35, was misused by the Eutychians, and came therefore to be regarded with disfavour by Catholic writers. The preacher probably omitted it for this reason. 
If we suppose the sermon to be some fifty or sixty years older than the date when the fragment was copied at Treves, we are brought to a date at which Eutychianism was widely prevalent. Heurtley [Hist, Earlier Form.1892, p.126.] has shown that

"Bede mentions this [heresy] as the occasion of the assembling of the great Synod of Hethfield [in 680], and mentions it in such terms as to imply that it was one of the pressing dangers of the day to which the Church generally - not merely the English branch of it - was exposed."

The danger was of long continuance. More than a century earlier, Nicetus, Archbishop of Treves 527-566, wrote a letter remonstrating with Justinian on his lapse into a form of Eutychianism. He bade him remember his baptismal vow:

" Unum Filium manentem in duabus substantiis cum Patre et Spiritu Sancto non duos Christos testatus es ... talis Pater qualis et Filius." [Galland, iii.776.]

There is another parallel to the wording of the Quicunque in his letter to Queen Chlodosinda on her husband's Arianism:

"In die resurrectionis nec manere nec apparere potuit qui Trinitatem in Unitate non crediderit."

It is possible that we have in the Treves Fragment a sermon of Nicetus. He was a friend of Venantius Fortunatus, and was brought into touch with the school of Lerins through a friend Florianus, Abbot of Romanus (diocese of Milan), a pupil of Caesarius. Indeed, he quotes Germanus, Hilary, and Lupus in his letter to the queen.

IV. of eighth and ninth century quotations

The most important of the eighth century testimonies to the creed is a Libellus de Trinitate found by Gaspari in a Milan MS., which formerly belonged to Bobbio (Cod. Ambros. D.268 inf. saec.viii., ix.). 
It contains, both in form and words, reminiscences of the Quicunque, since it combines teaching on the Trinity with teaching on the Incarnation.

Another testimony belonging to this period, or an earlier, is Ps.-Gennadius, de Fide, which contains a form of creed parallel in form to the Quicunque, and such sentences as the following:

"Spiritum Sanctum dicimus et credimus eo, quod est ex Patre et Filio sequaliter procedens, non factus nec creatus nec genitus, sed coaeternus et coaequalis per omnia Patri et Filio.
Hanc uero Trinitatem, id est Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum, non tres Deos sed unum esse Deum certissime confitemur. ... non tamen tres dii, sed unus Deus."

A sermon, which I have found in a MS. at Munich (Cod. lat. 14,508, saec.x.), and published in the Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, July 1898, contains a form of E, and is therefore probably older than the ninth century, when E had been superseded almost universally by our Textus receptus. 
It appears to quote the Quicunque as follows:

"Sicut aliquis auctor dixit Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus et Spiritus Sanctus."

Another such testimony is in a sermon, which I found at S. Gallen (Cod. 230, saec.ix.in.). After a quotation from the Fortunatus Commentary follows:

"In hac Trinitate unum Deum colimus et adoramus et confitemur, nihil prius aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus, sed totae tres personae coaeternae sibi sunt et coaequales. 
Quia semper fuit Spiritus Sanctus in una diuinitate, sequalis gloria, coaeterna maiestas."

That this is more than a quotation from a shortened form of text found in the Fortunatus Commentary, is proved by the fact that the whole of clause 24 is here quoted, only half of which appears in that Commentary.

In Cod. Sessorian. 52 (see p.232 infra), Morin [Rev.Ben.1897, p.487.] has found a very interesting profession of faith, such as was made by bishops at their consecration. 
The collection in which it is found was made in the ninth century, and it follows a sermon containing E, so we are fairly justified in assigning it to the eighth century, and in comparing it with the Profession of Denebert (p.175 infra), made in 798. The last words, seculum per ignem, are a quotation from the form in which the Fides Romanorum appears in the Gesta Liberii (p.215 infra):

"Fides autem catholica quam me secundum sanctorum patrum doctrinam retinere profiteor ac firmiter credere, haec est. Confiteor itaque sanctam perfectam ueramque Trinitatem, id est Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum unum esse Deum omnium uisibilium et inuisibilium conditorem; propter inseparabilem substantiam deitatis Unitatem, propter distinctionem uero personarum Trinitatem ueneramur. Neque personas confundimus nec substantium separamus. Alia est enim persona Patris, alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti. Sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti una est diuinitas, aequalis gloria, coaeterna maiestas: Pater Deus, Filius , Deus, Spiritus Sanctus Deua. Non tamen tres Dii sed unus est Deus. Idcirco in personis discretio est sed in diuinitate nulla distinctio. Pater a nullo est factus nec creatus nec genitus. Filius a Patre solo non factus nec ereatus sed absque initio genitus. Spiritus autem Sanctus non factus nec creatus nec genitus sed ex Patre Filioque procedens est. Pater enim proprie Pater est et non est Filius. Filius uero proprie Filius est et non est Pater. Spiritus autem Sanctus proprie Spiritus Sanctus est et non est Pater uel Filius. Pater quidem semper est et erat et erit et nunquam fuit Pater sine Filio, uel Filius sine Pater, nec Spiritus Sanctus sine Patre uel Filio. In hac autem sancta Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus, sed totae tres personae coaeternae sibi sunt et coaequales. 
Omnis namque sancta Trinitas, inuisibilis, incorporalis, impalpabilis, infinita, immensa, sempiterna credenda est. De hac autem ineffabili Trinitate sola Uerbi Dei persona, id est Dominus noster lesus Christus Dei Filius in ultimis diebus propter nos redimendos descendit de caelis, unde nunquam recesserat. Incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto et Maria uirgine. Natus ex ipsa solus et homo uerus factus per omnia similis nobis absque peccato. Uerusque permanet Deus aequalis Patri in diuina natura, minor Patre in humana.
Perfectus Deus secundum diuinitatem, perfectus homo secundum humanitatem.
Qui licet Deus sit et homo non duo tamen sed in utraque natura, diuina scilicet et humana, unus uerus et proprius est Dei Filius Dominus noster lesus Christus. In diuina ergo natura in qua Deus noster impassibilis est et immutabilis est. Sed in humana substantia quam assumpsit ex uirgine dignatus est pati pro nobis, crucifigi, sepeliri, et die tertia resurgere et cum eadem glorificata carne ad caelos ascendit, sedetque nunc ad dexteram Patris cum qua etiam uenturus est iudicare uiuos et mortuos et saeculum per ignem.
Amen."

Another document, which may be assigned to this date, is a sermon de fide, found among the works of Boniface, Archbishop of Mainz (f. 755). 
It contains the following parallels:

"Necessarium est patres carissimi ... fidem rectam et catholicam siue dubitatione firmiter tenere ... Ista est fides catholica, ut credamus in unum Deum Patrem omnipotentem ... Filium Spiritum Sanctum ex Patre procedentem et Filio ... Pater aeternus, Filius aetermis, Spiritus Sanctus aeternus ... sicut Christus tertia die resurrexit a mortuis sic omnes homines boni et mali in nouissime die cum propriis corporibus resurgere debent." [Ed. Giles, Oxford, 1844.]

V. the early commentaries

An important argument, to prove the existence of the entire text of the Quicunque in the eighth century or earlier, may be founded on the early commentaries, and is independent of others. There are some seven which come into consideration here. Four of them (Bouhier, Oratorian, Paris, Troyes) have been published by Ommanney [Early History, pp.1-39, 311-386.] , who has made this subject specially his own, and for whose work as a pioneer all students must be grateful. The others (Orleans, Stavelot, Fortunatus) I have edited (in part from new MSS.) in my book on The Athanasian Creed and its Commentaries. [Texts and Studies, iv.1.] As I shall quote the readings of the texts of the creed embedded in them in my apparatus criticus, it will suffice here to give a short summary of the facts known about each:-

1. The Orleans Commentary.-

The Orleans Commentary [Theodulfe Eveque d'Oleans, Orleans, 1892.] has been found by Cuissard in a MS. (No.94) which formerly belonged to the Abbey of Fleury, with some scraps of Theodulf's treatise against Adoptianism, and an exposition of the Mass. 
It is probably the MS which the authors of the Histoire Litteraire de la France [iv.473.] found at Fleury with such a commentary on the first page. 
But it seems very doubtful whether they were right in ascribing it to Theodulf, as Cuissard has also done. It does not exhibit the learning shown in Theodulf's known writings. 
No doubt the copyist is to blame for many clerical errors and grammatical mistakes, but the laboured explanations and the loose use of terms like "percipere," "apprehendere," "accipere," are unworthy of the author of the -De Ordine Baptismi, and his use of "suscipere," "assumere (humanitatem)." The quotations from the Gospels show no dependence on the Theodulfian recension of the Vulgate. The author quotes from other commentaries - Fortunatus, Troyes, Stavelot, Paris - but does not improve their sentences by alterations. Lastly, the title Explanatio Fidei Catholicae does not agree with the title given to the Commentary of Theodulf in the list of the Abbots of Fleury, Expl. Symboli s. Athanasii, which is the title used in his book, De Spiritu Sancto.

2. The Stavelot Commentary.-

The Stavelot Commentary is the original text of a commentary widely popular in the Middle Ages, and usually connected with the name of Bishop Bruno of Wurzburg, who edited it in the eleventh century. The earliest MS. (B.M., Add.MSS.18,043) of the tenth century comes from Stavelot Abbey, in the Forest of Ardennes. It is a glossed Psalter from the school of Notker, a teacher from S. Gall, whom Abbot Odilo summoned to help him when he restored the abbey after the Norman invasion. The internal evidence points to the ninth century as the date of its composition. The wording of the note on clause 27, "Non adoptiuum sed proprium Dei Filium," corresponds with the wording of the letter of the Council of Frankfort. Perhaps it is one of the commentaries referred to by the synod held in the Diocese of Liege, c. 840-855, in their second canon:

"Fidem enim S. Athanasii episcopi in hoc opere censuimus obseruandum, et simbolum apostolorum cum tradicionibus et exposicionibus sanctorum patrum in his sermonibus."

Stavelot was attached to Liege from the ninth century. It has been suggested [Ommanney, Diss. p. 211.] that this is the missing commentary of Theodulf, but there is nothing to connect any of the MSS. with Fleury, or the text with Theodulf. The subject matter is well thought out, and, together with the Fortunatus and Oratorian Commentaries, it was used as the foundation of several composite commentaries. One of these, under the name of the hermit, Rolle of Hampole, was widely used in England in the fourteenth century. [Another form of the commentary is found in a Psalter at Boulogne (Cod, 20) from the Abbey of S. Bertin at S. Omer, written c.1000.]

3. The Paris Commentary.-

The Paris Commentary is found in a MS. of the tenth century (B.N., Paris, Cod. lat.1012) from the Abbey of S. Martial at Limoges. 
Some portions of it are found also in a Psalter of the tenth century, now in the British Museum (Reg.2 B.v.), though the latter show traces of polish. 
It contains quotations from Gregory the Great and Gennadius, but no definite evidence as to the date of its composition. The readings in the Paris MS. are old, but this only proves that the author used the older text, omitting the second half of clause 4, and paraphrasing clause 27.

4. The Bouhier Commentary.-

The Bouhier Commentary is found in some four MSS., the earliest of which is of the tenth century (Troyes, 1979), and belonged formerly to the Bouhier family of Dijon. The other MSS. also seem to have been written in France. 
The text of the creed cited in it shows late readings, and I cannot assign to it an earlier date than the beginning of the ninth century. 
It is mainly founded on the Oratorian Commentary, and was constructed with some literary skill. The personal statements of the preface are omitted or changed, e.g. "in ueteribus codicibua inuenitur praetitulatum" for "eum uidi praet. etiam in uet. cod."

5. The Oratorian Commentary.-

The Oratorian Commentary is by far the most learned, if not the most original, of all the early commentaries. At present there are only two MSS. [A third MS., mentioned by Swainson, p.379, as Turin Ixvi.saec.i., contains a composite text in which notes from the Stavelot Com. are added.] known. 
The earliest, Cod. Vat. .Reg. 231, saec.ix., x., contains works of Cassiodorus, Prosper, Alcuin, Isidore, with expositions of the Lord's Prayer and Apostles' Creed. 
The other, Troyes, 804, saec.x., contains works of Theodulf, the Creed of Pelagius, Augustine on the Lord's Prayer and Apostles' Creed, followed by two other expositions of that creed and another of the Quicunque, to which I shall refer again as the Troyes Commentary. The Vatican MS. only contains a preface, which reappears in a condensed form in all MSS. of the Bouhier Commentary. 
The writer, apparently addressing a synod, states that he has carried out their instructions to provide an exposition of this work on the Faith,

"which is here and there (passim) recited in our churches, and continually made the subject of meditation by our priests."

He complains of the ignorance prevailing among the clergy, of the difficulty which they find in getting books for their sacred offices - a Psalter, or a Lectionary, or a Missal.

"Since some have no desire to read or learn, it is the will of the synod that at least they should be compelled to meditate on this exposition of the Faith"

which he has illustrated from the Fathers. 
Ignorance of God in a priest should be accounted sacrilege, like blasphemy in a layman. 
He goes on to speak of the tradition that this work had been composed by the blessed Athanasius," Bishop of the Alexandrian Church, "for I have always seen it entitled thus, even in old MSS."
He had come to the conclusion that it was composed to meet the Arian heresy. The exposition contains extracts from Augustine, Prosper, Leo, the translation by Dionysius Exiguus of Cyril's Synodical Epistle, Fulgentius, Pelagius I., Vigilius of Thapsus, the Creed of Pelagius, and the Definition of the Sixth General Council (681).

From this last extract Ommanney concluded that the commentary was written while some fear of Monothelitism, the heresy condemned by that Council, still existed, i.e. about the end of the seventh century [Diss. p.189.]. But there is no other such reference, and the words of the Definition are quoted rather as a statement of positive truth than a weapon against error. We may note, however, that there is very distinct emphasis laid on the Lord's unity of person, as if in fear of a revived Nestorianism. 
The phrase, singularitas personae, found useful by Vincentius to define the unitas personae, is quoted again and again, as in the Troyes Commentary. No doubt it is found in uncontroversial passages, e.g. the Gelasian Sacramentary,

"unus es Deus, unus es Dominus, non in unius singularitate personae." [Ed. "Wilson. I owe this reference to Dr. Mercati's review of my book, Revista Bibliog., 1896, p.149, but disagree with his argument.].

But the question is not so much of the phrase as of its use. 
It seems to me to point to the Adoptianist period, and to confirm Swainson's suggestion that this might be the lost commentary of Theodulf.

The whole tone of the preface is worthy of Theodulf, and the situation is exactly that which he found in his diocese at the beginning of the Carlovingian revival of learning. 
The same series of authors are quoted in his book On the Holy Spirit, in which he speaks of the Symbolum. Athanasii. [The title given to his Commentary in the catalogue of the Abbots) of Fleury was Explanatio symbolis Athanasii. The Vatican MS. of the Commentary has no title, but is preceded by Explanatio symboli Apostolici,] Is it fanciful to connect the remarks on clerical ignorance with a canon of the Sixth Council of Toledo,

"Ignorantia mater cunctorum errorum maxime in sacerdotibus Dei uitanda est,"

which the author of the preface would know in his copy of Dionysius Exiguus, and with the fact that Theodulf was of Spanish extraction?

The Vatican MS. belongs to Queen Christina's collection, and came probably from Fleury. The Troyes MS. may be connected with Fleury, both by the fact that it contains works of Theodulf and through the Troyes Commentary, which is quoted by the Orleans Commentary itself in a Fleury MS.

Besides its use with the Stavelot Commentary, in Rolle of Hampole's edition, it was also combined with other notes in a Commentary found in an Oxford MS. (Bodleian Library, Cod.Canonici Bibl. 30)

6. The Troyes Commentary.-

The Troyes Commentary precedes the Oratorian in the Troyes MS. (Cod. 804) of the tenth century. It is based in the first part on the Fortunatus Commentary, but in the second deviates from it widely. The author deals fairly with the text of the creed.

The date is not easy to determine. 
Ommanney notes "the entire omission of the terminology of the Praedestinarian and Adoptianist controversies," and "the distinct employment of that in use when Monothelitism was the great subject of discussion," and would date it from the middle of the seventh century. [E.H. p.33; Diss. p.187.]

We do not find any precise technical terms such as "non adoptiuus," but it seems to me that there are several indications of opposition to Adoptianism, which would bring the earliest possible date down to the end of the eighth century.

"Felix of Urgel was at one with his orthodox opponents in admitting the whole doctrine of the two natures and two wills. But he spoke of our Lord in His human nature as Adopted Son, and therefore incurred the suspicion of introducing a double personality. This danger would account for the strong assertion in clause 33 of the singularity of His person, and a more emphatic condemnation of Nestorianism than is found in Fortunatus. Felix also held that our Lord assumed human nature in the state to which Adam's fall reduced it, not indeed as tainted by original sin, but as subject to mortality and other consequences of sin, a view which is clearly condemned in the note on clause 30:

"Perfectum hominem absque peccato de uirgine suscipere dignatus est, ut per eandem naturam, quae in paradise decepta mortem incurrerat, rursum eundem diabolum non potentia diuinitatia sed ratione iustitiae uincerit."

" As the process of adoption was not held to be completed till the resurrection, the emphatic iteration in this and the Stavelot Commentary (as in the ninth century recensions of the Fides Romanorum and the Fortunatus Commentary), that the Lord rose in the same flesh in which He died, may be supposed to guard against Adoptianist error. Paulinus made the same point in his speech at the Council of Friuli." [Ath, Creed, p.Iv. f.]

"Another hint of the date is found in the reference to the genealogy in S. Matthew's Gospel, which was distinguished by Felix from that recorded by S. Luke as giving Christ's descent according to the flesh, while S. Luke gave the descent according to the spirit [Dorner, Hist, Person of Christ, ii.p.256.]. The commentary confutes this view, by pointing to the true contrast between the Divine generation and the fleshly, just as Paulinus, in the speech to which I have referred, contrasts the human birth in time with the Divine birth, irrespective of time."

On these grounds we may assign the Commentary to the period when Adoptianism was an active heresy, c. 780-820.

7. The Fortunatus Commentary.-

The Fortunatus Commentary is the earliest known, and must be allowed to take an important place in the argument for determining the date and earliest text of the creed. Waterland was only acquainted with two MSS., but we now hear of some twenty, nine of which at least belong to the ninth century.

By a curious clue I have been able to find and identify the lost S. Gall. MS., known hitherto only through the editions of Goldast in his Manuals Biblicum, Frankfurt, 1610, and of Card. Pitra in his Analecta sacra et classica. 
Having looked for it in vain at S. Gallen and Frankfurt, I went to Leiden to see Goldast's MS. copy, which had drifted thither in the collection of MSS. formed by the celebrated Vose. Finding in it no clue, I was turning over the pages of a written catalogue of MSS., when I came on a note, to the effect that certain Latin verses had been found in a MS. at Zurich (Cod. Misc. c.78, saec.ix.), which formerly belonged to S. Gallen. 
I recognised them at once as having been printed by Goldast from the lost MS. 
Through the kind offices of the librarian, Dr. Fah, the MS. was sent to S. Gallen for inspection. 
There could be no doubt as to the identification. But, alas! there was no trace of the name Euphronius, which Goldast had invented as the name of the author. The title was simply Expositio Fidei Catholicae, to which Goldast had added in the margin, Athanasii usque huc. It would seem that anonymous treatises did not interest his reading public. One can appreciate the caustic complaint in the catalogue of MSS. at S. Gallon, that by giving false names to documents he has wrought confusion, but that it is hard to prove this, because the MSS. which he possessed, lawfully or unlawfully, are scattered over the world. [This discovery confirms my argument, The Ath. Creed, p.Ixxi,, that the lost MS. was not to be identified with Cod. Sangall. 241, as Pitra suggests.]

Besides these ninth century MSS. of the full Commentary, we have also a ninth century MS. of an adaptation of the Commentary in the margin of a Psalter (Cod. Sangall. 27) [The adaptation is also found in Cod. lat. Monacensis, 3729, saec.x., and C.L.M,.14,501, saec.. I have described it fully on p.Ix of my book, The Ath. Creed.].
This, at any rate, would seem to throw back the archetype of all these MSS. at least as far as the eighth century.

The internal evidence points back to an earlier date. Apollinarianism is the latest heresy mentioned by name. Eutychianism, which revived in the sixth and seventh centuries, is ignored, and only a mild warning is given against the error of Nestorius;

"Ne propter adsumptionem humanae carnis dicatur esse quaternitas, quod absit a fidelium cordibus uel sensibus dici aut cogitari." "There is no reference to the Procession controversy of the eighth century,
nor to the Monothelete controversy, which, in the seventh century, was a struggle for life or death." 

On the other hand, Sabellius, Arius, and Apollinaris are in turn branded as false teachers, and the warnings which the Quicunque contains against their errors are noted. [In the Troyes Commentary founded on this, apparently when the Adoptianists had revived his heresy, Nestorius is mentioned by name.] These facts incline us to suppose that the Commentary was written not long after the creed itself, since many sentences afforded, as we have seen in the case of other commentaries, the opportunity of saying something about later controversies. Kattenbusch [Theol. Ltz., 1897, see p.147.] urges with some force, that expositions of a creed tend to stop in their review of heresies with the latest heresy opposed therein, whether they were written a long or a short time after. 
This argument is not always borne out by the facts,
e.g. the references to other heresies in the Oratorian and Bouhier Commentaries.

"Another indication of time has been found in the note on clause 29, 'In seculo, id est in isto sexto miliario in quo nunc sumus.' This 'sixth milliary' must mean the sixth period of a thousand years from the creation, with the close of which men expected the end of the world."

During the fifth century the dread of barbarian invasion, with gloomy forebodings of disaster to the Roman arms, led to anxious anticipations of the last judgment. 
S. Augustine, while he taught that the exact date of the Second Advent must remain unknown, believed that the last years of the sixth milliary were passing. 
Speaking of the binding of Satan, in his book On the City of God (413-426), he says, xx.7:

"Aut quia in ultimis annis mille ista res agitur, id est, sexto annorum miliario, tanquam sexto die, cuius nunc spatia posteriora uoluuntur." [Cf. Sulpicius Severus, Hist. ii.]

He seems to have used the chronological system of Julius Africanus, according to which Christ was born in the year 5500 from the creation of the world. Thus the "sixth milliary" would end in AD499. [Epiphanius seems to have made an independent calculation, which would bring it to AD478.] In the fourth century, Eusebius of Caesarea, while accepting most of the conclusions of his predecessor, found reason to postpone the date three hundred years, bringing it to AD 799. Since my discovery of Goldast's literary dishonesty, and the consequent collapse of speculations as to another Euphronius, I cannot contend for so early a date as the fifth century, and must therefore suppose that the author used the Eusebian chronology.
[This system was used by Bede, de Temporibus, c.22, and in Paris, B.N., Cod. lat. 1451, written c.796; cf. the chronological notes in Cod. Wirceburg, M.P., th.f.28, fol.68, Saec.viii,, and Cod. Bodl. e. Mus. 113 (olim.94), Col.114^v and 115, saec.vii. I owe the latter references to Dom. Morin.] He does not suggest that the close of the milliary was at hand. We may fairly conclude that he wrote at least a century before the date 799.

We have yet to consider the abridged form of text found in this Commentary, and may compare it with that found in the Troyes Commentary. Both omit clauses 2, 12, 20-22, 26, 27; Fortunatus alone omits also clauses 14, 24.⁶ As regards clauses 12, 14, the leading ideas, "uncreate, incomprehensible, omnipotent," have been explained with reference to clauses 8, 9, 13; and it does not fall within the scope of the author's argument to enlarge on the guarding clauses. There is no term in clauses 26, 27, which appears by analogy to need explanation. The author of the recension in Cod. Sangall. 27 inserts a new note on clause 2, as on clause 20-22, but he does not find it necessary to explain any of the terms in clause 2. It forms properly one sentence with clause 1, and was probably so regarded by the author of the Commentary. But when the creed was inserted in Psalters, and its clauses were pointed for singing as a canticle, it was detached from clause 1. This seems to have led the author of the recension to say something about it. As to clauses 20-22, the latter portions of which are found in the note on clause 5, it may be argued that he had already explained the terms gignens, genitus,procedens, and found nothing more to say. The author of the recension has nothing of importance to add.

As to authorship, we are once again dependent on the Milan MS.79, saec.xi., which ascribes the exposition to a Fortunatus. He has not unreasonably been identified with Venantius Fortunatus, some time Bishop of Poitiers, and a friend of Gregory of Tours, whose exposition of the Apostles' Creed is contained in this MS. at fol. 26 v. Waterland traced in the two commentaries "great similitude of style, thought, and expressions," and found in his poems phrases which seemed like poetical renderings of phrases in the Quicunque." But the biographer of Fortunatus does not include such a commentary among his works; and the special case, founded on mere similitude of style and scraps of poetry, is much weaker than Waterland's sound general conclusion, that "the tenour of the whole comment, and the simplicity of the style and thoughts, are very suitable to that age, and more so than to the times following."

Thus it appears that the text embedded in these commentaries is simply an abridged form of the ordinary text current in MSS. of the eighth century. [This argument is accepted by Loofs, R.E.³, Art. "Athanasianum."]

VI. Rival Theories of Origin

1. The Two-Portion Theory. -

At this point it will be convenient to discuss a theory of the origin of the Quicunque which was first put forward by Swainson. From the suggestion that the Treves fragment contains the earliest version of the part relating to the incarnation, he was led on to the conclusion that the Profession of Denebert, containing clauses 1, 3-6, 20-22, 24 f., and this Treves fragment (clauses 28-40) represent the component parts of the creed in their earliest form. He argued that they were not brought together and moulded into their present form till the ninth century, and that the final shaping took place in the diocese of Rheims between the years 860-870.

He was followed by Lumby [Hist. of the Creeds, ed.3, p.259.], who stated the case succinctly as follows:

"(i.) Before AD809, there is no trustworthy evidence of any confession called by the name of S. Athanasius.
(ii.) Before that date two separate compositions existed, which form the groundwork of the present Quicunque.
(iii.) That for some time after that date all quotations are made only from the former of these compositions,
(iv.) That the Quicunque was not known down to AD 813, to those who were most likely to have heard of it, had it been in existence.
(v.) That it is found nearly as we use it in AD 870.
(vi.) A comparison of the various MSS. shows that after the combination of the two parts, the text was for some time in an unsettled or transition state. On every ground, therefore, both of internal and external evidence, it seems to be a sound conclusion that somewhere between AD813-850 the creed was brought nearly into the form in which we use it."

In Germany this two-portion theory has been supported in a slightly modified form by Harnack [D.G.²;ii.p.299.], who regards the first part as a Gallican Rule of Faith, based on the teaching of Augustine and Vincentius, written in the fifth century, and probably polished into its present artistic form in South Gaul in the course of the sixth century. 
It obtained popularity as an instruction for clergy, and was learnt by heart with the Psalms. 
Synods began to quote it, and it came into general use as a creed of the Frankish Church in the eighth and ninth centuries, when the second Christological part was added to it, the origin of which is lost in obscurity, though it was certainly not finished in the ninth century.

At first this theory appears spectral and intangible. 
It seems only too probable that when the evidence proving the existence of the entire text, and its continuous use from the eighth century on, has been collected and classified, and when the assumptions, which were adduced to prove that the completed form was only moulded in the ninth century, have been shown to have been unjustifiable, the theory will only betake itself a century further back, where there is less evidence available, and more scope for unverifiable assumptions, and thus continue to defy its enemies. 
Such fears are groundless. The evidence as to the separate existence of the two parts is incomplete, and the theory having gained a fictitious strength from mistaken assumptions, when they are exposed, vanishes.

Reference to Appendix D, a table of testimonies to the creed in the eighth and ninth centuries, which can be supported by entire texts, copied (so far as we can tell with any certainty) in the same localities, will show at a glance that these testimonies, e.g. quotations by Hincmar, or Ratramn, or Alcuin, were not from a mere fragment. 
Since the publication of my book, The Athanasian Creed, I have been able to find and collate some eight new MSS. of the eighth and ninth Centuries, containing the entire text, to add to the lists there given. And there are others waiting for collation. Thus M. L. Delisle has lately published notes on a MS., which was given to the Church of Lyons by Archbishop Leidrad, 798-814, now in the "Bibl. des Peres Maristes de Sainte-Foi-Ies-Lyon." [Notices et Extraits des manusrits, 1898.] He regards such a MS., whose date is approximately fixed by the autograph inscription "Leidrat ... eps istum librum tradidi ad altare sci Stephani," as of great value for the clearing up of palaeographical difficulties. 
The light which it throws on the history of handwriting is not more illuminating than the light which the list of its contents, including the Quicunque, throws on our present subject. For it appears to contain a collection of creeds, which Leidrad had compiled in preparation for his journey to Spain, to contend against Adoptianism. 
This proves that he not only knew of the creed, but valued it - a most important conclusion, as we shall see in the sequel.

The authors of the two-portion theory took advantage of the uncertainties attaching to palaeographical arguments twenty years ago, which in respect of Quicunque MSS. have been minimised by the publications of the Palaeographical Society. They were sceptical about the dates of MSS, e.g. B.N., Paris, Cod. lat.13, 159, the date of which is fixed by some Litanies as 795-800.

Nowadays there is no question as to accepting that date, - in fact there is no question, from a palaeographical point of view, that there is documentary proof that the Quicunque was read, as we have it, in the eighth century.

Apart from the eighth century MSS., the evidence was liable to collapse. 
It was argued that Hincmar with others of his contemporaries only quoted the first part. Yet all the time a quotation of clause 38, with the old idiom "resurgere habent," as from "the Catholic Faith," was overlooked, in the second of Hincmar's treatises on Predestination.

The three fragments, which were the stronghold of the theory, were a twelfth century sermon at Vienna, the Profession of Denebert, and the Treves fragment.

1. The Vienna sermon (Cod. 1261) is a collection of writings ascribed to Augustine, which, though copied in the twelfth century, contains materials of an earlier date. 
There are two references to the Quicunque, under the title Fidis Catholica. 
In the first, the preacher quotes clause 3; in the second, clauses 1-6, 24, 26a, with variations, which find no support in other MSS. Since the preacher quoted S. Paul freely, it is probable that he intended to quote the creed freely, and the fragment may be safely ignored in any reconstruction of the earliest text.

2. The profession of Denebert, Bishop-elect of "Worcester, was made to Ethelhard, Archbishop of Canterbury, in the year 798. It is found in a MS. in the British Museum (Cleopatra E.1) of the twelfth century. It consisted of a promise of obedience, with a short exposition of the Catholic and apostolic faith, as Denebert had received it. He quoted from a written original (Scriptum est), clauses 1, 3-6, 20-22, 24, 25 of the Quicunque; and promised further to observe the decrees of the Popes, and the six Catholic synods and their Rule of Faith. Since he undertook to be brief, and would find the Incarnation fully expounded by those synods, it cannot be safely said that he knew no more of the creed than he quoted. I will quote the variants of Denebert's text on p. 192. Morin has found a MS. of the eighth century written in an Anglo-Saxon hand (Cod. lat. Monacensis, 6298), containing the whole creed, and agreeing in one variant (clause 5 > enim est) with Denebert against all other MSS. This is a small point, but it is interesting, and the text as a whole strongly confirms the argument that Denebert was likely to know more than he cared to quote. [Denebert's readings of clauses 22, 25 correspond to those of another eighth century MS., B.N., Paris, Cod. lat. 1451, which contains a list of Popes, with a notice of the first six Councils. He may have quoted from a MS. of this collection.] Some clergy from England attended the Council of Frankfurt in 794. Perhaps they brought back some such MS. with them. The creeds of other English bishops of this century, preserved in the same collection, have, as Swainson [P.286.] suggests, a Sabellian sound. They run as follows:

"Credo in Deum Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum natum et passum," etc.
[The creeds referred to are those of Heabert, 822; Humbert, 828; Herefrith 825; Ceolfrith, 839.]

Such erroneous teaching might have been given ignorantly, but it is an interesting fact that Denebert quotes the same clauses as Benedict d'Aniane and Hincmar, when in the following century they reasoned against the heretical tendency of the phrase trina deitas. [This quotation from Swainson was strongly objected to by some critics of my former book,
e.g. Dr. Mercati in the Revista Bibl. Ital. 1896, p.149, but without giving any reasons.]

3. The Treves fragment in B.N., Paris, Cod. lat. 3836, has already been sufficiently described (p.157), and reasons have been stated which make it improbable that the original document contained no more than the copyist found at Treves in 730.

The two-portion theory further depended on three questionable assumptions -

1. That the silence of such men as Paulinus and Alcuin, and Alcuin's pupil, Rabanus Maurus, showed their ignorance of the Quicunque;
2. that the authority of the document from the hand (as was supposed) of Athanasius would constrain anyone, who knew anything of it, to use and quote it;
3. that the completed creed would be a useful weapon against Adoptianism, but was not discovered in time.

i. It must be admitted that Rabanus Maurus and Meginhard of Fulda are strangely silent at a time when, with the multiplication of copies, the creed was coming more and more into use, and was known to their contemporary Haito, Abbot of Reichenau. [We have now the testimony of the Karlsruhe MS., Cod. Augiensis, ccxxix., of the year 821.]
Haito's successor, Walafrid Strabo, came from Reichenau to Fulda, and went back in 838. But the use of the creed was local as yet. None of the episcopal charges recorded would be binding on Rabanus. And his knowledge of some phrases at least of the creed may be attested by the following parallels:

1. "Oportebat ita insinuari Trinitatem ut, quamuis nulla esset diuersitas substantiae, singillatim tamen commendaretur distinctio personarum";
2. "Una substantia una natura una maiestas una gloria aeternitas et Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti." [Rabani, Opp, MSL.110, p.210. Cf. my Ath. Creed, p.xxxviii. f.]

When we turn to Alcuin we find it impossible to believe that he really was silent on the subject. There is the evidence of a work on the Procession of the Holy Spirit, which may, with some confidence, be ascribed to him. [The differences in style which distinguish it from other of his works are unimportant. Cf. D.C.B. Art. "Alcuin."] It is found in a MS. of the early part of the ninth century, which was presented by Bishop Dido, who died in 891, to the Church at Laon. In this are quoted clauses 7, 20-22, 24-26 [MSL.101, ?? 750 756.] Swainson admits that his thoughts, in a letter to Charlemagne (Ep.33) "run curiously enough into the channel of the Quicunque," [P.405.] and "that the order of everything in the Quicunque, as well as many of its words and phrases [P.412.], are found in his book on the Trinity. 
Surely, in the light of accumulated evidence, Swainson would have abandoned the hopeless task of proving that Alcuin knew nothing of the creed.

The fact is that both Alcuin's quotations, and also those of Paulinus in his speech at Friuli in 796, show a tendency to paraphrase the creed, in order to meet the Nestorian ten?dency of the Adoptianists. Thus Alcuin writes,

adv. Elip. i.9: "Ut unus sit Christus et unus Deus et unus Dei Filius ... diuinitate consubstantialis Patri, humanitate consubstantialis matri"; and Paulinus: "Naturaliter Patri secundum diuinitatem, naturaliter matri secundum humanitatem: proprius tamen Patri in utroque, quoniam sicut dictum est non sunt duo Filii, alter Dei et alter hominis, sed unus Christus lesus propter unam personam, Dei et hominis Filius, Deus uerus et homo uerus in anima rationali et uera carne."

ii. " The supposed authority of the document is the second assumption with which we have to deal."

We can distinguish between two phases of the influence that the Quicunque might win in the ninth century. In the first it would be known as a sermon or treatise on the Faith, whether recommended by the name of Athanasius or not, on the same level of interest and importance as the Fides Romanorum. We may compare the degree of authoritativeness which the Te Deum possessed for Caesarius of Arles, or Theodulf's hymn for Palm Sunday, "Gloria laus et honor," for ourselves. But when the bishops had taken up the Quicunque as an accredited expansion of the creed, and the clergy had been commanded to learn it, it would obtain the same measure of authority as the first of our Thirty-nine Articles. It does not follow that a teacher would feel constrained to mention its name when he quoted its phrases.

iii. To what extent could it be used as a weapon against Adoptianism? We can now give a precise answer to this question. It was included in the collection of creeds which Leidrad had in his possession when he went on his expedition to Spain. Agobard, his successor in the see of Lyons, c. 820, quoted it: "Beatus Athanasius ait Fidem Catholicam nisi quis integram inuiolatamque seruauerit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit." But the orthodox theologians in this controversy found that its phrases were useless against heretics, who could take them up and give them a different turn, unless they were paraphrased as we have found them in sentences from Alcuin and Paulinus. All depended on the way in which they were applied. It never was, it never could be, "looked upon as a most satisfactory exposition of the doctrines in debate at Friuli." [Lumby, Hist, of the Creeds, p.244. Cf. my Ath. Creed, p.xliv.]

Thus it has been shown that these three assumptions have no foundation in fact. Deprived of their support, the two-portion theory completely breaks down. To use the words of Loofs [In his able article "Athanasianum" in R.E.³.], "it is shattered on its best proof (the Treves fragment). For all the arguments formerly brought forward for it are very weak."

2. A Theory of Growth by Accretion. -

Another theory as to the origin of the Quicunque has been built up by Loofs [Ib.] on the ruins of the two-portion theory.

He supposes that the original Quicunque was a sermon on the Apostles' Creed, like the sermons of Augustine at the giving of the creed (Nos. 212, 213, 214), containing an expansion of its teaching on the Trinity and the Incarnation. The Treves fragment represents the original text of the latter portion, which has been polished into its present state by unknown hands. 
The quotations in the Ps.-Aug., Serm. 244 (Caesarius) and in the less polished form combined with it (Auscultate expositionem) are from its original form in which the Apostles' Creed was still the faith which was to be held. By an unexplained process it was then transformed into an exposition of faith like the Fides Romanorum. 
In this stage, the reference or references to the Apostles' Creed having been removed, it became an authority on its own account, claiming belief in itself rather than the faith of which it was an exposition. 
The Milan MS., 0. 212 sup., preserves a trace of its yet unfinished state in clause 22, where "patri et filio coaeternus" cannot be understood as an addition by some copyist. 
These words must be regarded as a relic from its first stage of existence before clause 10, "Aeternus pater etc.," had been inserted. The relation of the forms thus quoted in Ps.-Aug; Serm. 244, the Treves fragment, and the Milan MS., to the final Quicunque, revealed in MSS. and commentaries of the eighth century, is like the relation of rock boulders in a mountain glen to a boulder which was detached from the mountain at the same period, but has been carried down the valley by a stream, and polished and rounded by its waters.

When the process was completed, the form obtained greater celebrity by its connection with the name of Athanasius, without any intention to deceive. This point in the history of its development must have been reached before the date of the Canon of Autun, c. 630.

This theory is open to serious objections. It is very doubtful whether the Treves fragment is part of a sermon preached at the giving of the creed. Kattenbusch [Theol, Litz. 1897, p.145 f.] points out that it is just as likely that it was a document like Ps.-Aug., Serm. 236, the author of which wished to deliver "the right faith" to his brethren, so made use of a great part of the Creed of Pelagius.

It is still more doubtful whether we can think of the original text of the Quicunque as intended to be an exposition of the creed. 
Such expositions in the fifth century were not so formal, and explained the articles of the creed consecutively. 
There is not a trace of this in the Treves fragment. Words are quoted from the creed, but no explanation is attempted of those particular words, though we know from many instances that they were considered to need explanation.

This theory also depends upon questionable assumptions, viz. the supposed late date of the Fortunatus Commentary, the silence of Isidore, and the theory that the Milan MS. contains a survival of an unpolished primitive text.

The date of the Fortunatus Commentary is, as we have seen, uncertain. 
It is probable that it belongs to the sixth century, if not an earlier. Certainly there is not a shred of positive evidence pointing to the eighth century as the date of its composition. A theory built on negations is built on sand. The silence of Isidore is not much less questionable beside the evidence of the Canon of 633, than the silence of Alcuin and Paulinus beside the quotations of Denebert. The question has been considered carefully above, and it only remains to point out that when Loofs asserts that a reference to the Quicunque would have had stronger effect than Isidore's own collaborations, he is arguing from a mistaken idea of the authority which the Quicunque would have had for the Church of that time. 
It could only have been regarded as an exposition of the faith side by side with others, e.g. the Creed of Damasus. 
This explains why it did not receive a name at an earlier date [Kattenbusch, art. cit.], and why Isidore, even if he knew it, was as free to expound the faith in his own way as the authors of our First Article.

The Milan MS. contains another variation, which must be considered in relation to this theory, besides the addition, "patri et filio coaeternus"; e.g. the repetition of "persona" in clause 5. 
This is an addition which was made by Hincmar when he was paraphrasing sentences from the creed
(de Una non Trina Deitate; cf. Alcuin, de Trin. iii.22). 
It is easy to understand that it would approve itself to an early copyist.

On the other hand, it is not clear that the omission would really smooth the rhythm. This addition in clause 5 thus supports the theory of an addition in clause 22. Loofs says that they were implied in clause 10: "The Father is eternal," etc. He omits to add that the expression of certainty was not only implied but stated in clause 24^b: "All three persons are coeternal." The latter words are not quoted in the Fortunatus Commentary, and it would have been safer to suggest that they, rather than clause 10, were only inserted in a recension of the original text. It is inconceivable that clause 10 did not belong to the original text, and early copyists of the sixth or seventh century were not likely to spend much time considering what it implied. The actual phrase, "Patri et Filio coaeternus," was familiar, being found four times in "this MS., twice in the Faith of Bacchiarus," and once in Gennadius's Book of Dogma and the Creed of Damasus, which is added in a slightly later hand.

This theory must go the way of its predecessor, but it will not have been put forward in vain if it rouses students to renewed efforts to find some new sixth century testimony, which shall patch up the threadbare controversy over the Sermon of Caesarius and the Canon of 633. Loofs admits the weakness of his argument from negative conclusions, when he allows that such a discovery would link the early parallels to the later quotations, and prove the early date of the present text of the creed.
He atones for it by the vigour of his criticism of weak points in the rival theory, and thereby earns our gratitude.

We may now retrace our steps to the fifth century, and maintain that none of the external evidence quoted, from the Sermon of Auitus onwards, has in any degree injured the theory that the creed was written in the early years of the fifth century, c. 425-430, by someone trained in the school of Lerins.

It is of no great importance that we should succeed in attributing it to any individual author. 
We do not receive it on one man's authority, but as the expression of the common faith which (as we gladly recognise) he had the gift to express in rhythmical language.

As I have said before, "the chief interest of these researches is centred in the hypothesis that the Quicunque belongs to the fifth century; that is to say, to an age of original thought, the age of S. Augustine himself, and not to an age which could only make a patchwork theology out of his writings. 
The author seems to have adapted phrases which he had borrowed from S. Augustine as current terms, not confining himself to slavish reiteration like later writers [The Ath. Creed, p.xcix.].
But, as we have seen, he was not tongue-tied by that phraseology, and took his own line. 
"Auitus and Caesarius, the inheritors of lofty traditions, might be expected to quote the Quicunque with appreciation," as the work of a teacher in Christ of a former generation, more formally than Faustus or Vincentius were likely to do.
 "The sixth and seventh centuries were for Gaul an age of failing culture, of weakened and often crude theology, an age in which the composition of the Quicunque is unimaginable; in which, as a matter of fact, the very faculty of appreciating its terse, incisive style, and the accuracy of its definitions, had failed" in many quarters. We may contrast Gregory of Tours with Caesarius, from whose time he was separated by one generation, and we find him bewailing his bad grammar, and that he had equal reason, though earnest and orthodox, to bewail his lack of theological training. 
Here we must leave the question, not despairing of a more satisfactory solution in the future by the help of the new evidence which will surely be brought to light.

VII. The Later History of the Creed.

From the ninth century the history of the creed is well known. Its use in the office of Prime, of which we hear first at Fleury, spread rapidly over the Frankish Empire. At the end of the tenth century, Abbo of FIeury writes that it was sung antiphonally in England, as well as in France. An Anglo-Saxon homily, "On the Catholic Faith," written about the middle of the tenth century by a monk, Aelfric [Ommanney, Diss. p.29.], quoted it for the instruction of the people. And from this time on we find many versions in Anglo-Saxon, Old French, Old German, and finally Greek.

The date of its reception at Rome is uncertain. Amalarius of Treves, in his account of the Roman Office of Prime, written c.820, made no mention of it, but it was quoted in this connection two centuries later by Honorius of Autun, as used in the four regions of the world, therefore probably in Rome. This fact is confirmed by the evidence of Abelard, who complained to S. Bernard, c. 1130, that the Cistercian Order had given up the ancient custom of daily recitation [Ep. x., M.S.L.178, p.335.]. In the same letter, Abelard shows minute knowledge of Roman customs, and speaks of the fidelity with which the old offices were preserved in the Church of the Lateran. It is probable, therefore, that the creed had found its way into use in Rome at that date.

Its monastic use can be proved by the evidence of Cod.Vat.84, of the tenth century, and by the oldest MS. Breviary (Cod. Mazarin.364), written at Monte Cassino in 1099. But we may conjecture that it was used in sermons long before this.

Its earliest and only proper title is Fides Catholica, a Catholic Faith, clearly expressed in the ninth century by those writers who described it as sermo, an instruction, whether it was connected with the name of Athanasius or not. The name symbolum was not attached to it till the end of that century, first by Regino of Prum (c. 892). This marks the fact that it had been finally distinguished from other formularies of the same kind, and, by association with the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds in an increasing number of Psalters, was acquiring a new and, in the first instance, reflected authority as a creed authorised by the Catholic Church. By one MS. of that period (H) it was called a Hymn concerning Faith of the Trinity; and in the Constitutions of English Bishops of the thirteenth century it was called a Psalm. But, in the latter case, it does not follow that it was merely regarded as a Canticle. 
Waterland points out that a MS. of the twelfth century, called Rhythmus Anglicus [Trin. Coll. Camb. c.1180.] gives this title also to the Apostles' Creed and the Lord's Prayer, like old German writings [Lambec. Catal. ii.760.]. At the Reformation, popular translations (one by Wyclif?) were available in Old and Middle English, and in the recent Primer of Bishop Hilsey, 1539. 
In the first Prayer-book of Edward vi. it was "to be sung or said" after the Benedictus on the greater feasts. 
In the second Prayer-book seven other festivals were added, and in 1662 the rubric was altered to "at Morning Prayer, instead of the Apostles' Creed."

Thus in the English Church alone has it been made a popular creed, the Roman Church continuing to use it in the office of Prime on Sundays only. 
Some restriction of that use has resulted from "the gradual encroachment of the Sanctorale upon the Temporals,

1. through the multiplication of saints' days, and
2. to a less extent by the raising of the "ritus" or dignity of individual festivals.

According to the general rubrics, if a "festum duplex" fall on an ordinary Sunday,

"fit officium de festo, commemoratio de Dominica."

How often this occurs depends largely on the particular calendar in use;
e.g. English Jesuits use the Roman calendar supplemented by the Proprium Soc. Jesu and by the Proprium Angliae, with the result that hardly a Sunday in the year escapes "occurrence." But occurrence - even with a "duplex" - does not crowd out the Sunday office in the case of the Sundays in Advent and Lent, or of Septuagesima, Sexagesima, and Quinquagesima, so the Quicunqiie (with the rest of the Sunday office) survives on these, and (as regards the Quicunque) on Trinity Sunday. 
In the case of the secular clergy there will be fewer cases of occurrence, and the Sunday office is more frequently, or less infrequently, recited." [I am indebted for this clear statement of the modern use by the Roman Church to Father H. Lucas, S.J., Professor at S. Beuno's College.]

In the Eastern Orthodox Church it is not used in any office, though it has found its way into the Appendix of the modern Greek Horologium, without the words "and the Son." 
Thus Eastern theologians regard it (with that exception) as containing sound doctrine. [For further information on the whole question of Reception and Use, see Ommanney, Diss.pt.ii.chap.vi.]

VIII. the text and a translation of the "Quicunque"

With reference to the following text of the Quicinque, a few words may be said about the new MSS. of which full collations are here printed for the first time, and about the light that they throw on disputed readings. Full descriptions of the others may be found in the works of Swainson and Ommanney.

I may add that I have verified collations of other MSS. at Paris, Rome, Milan, and can testify to the great importance of two in particular.

Paris, B.N, Cod. lat. 13,159, and Milan, Cod. Ambros. 0.212, sup. P₁. Paris, B.N., 13,159, is a Gallican Psalter, which was written before 800AD. 
The date is fixed by the evidence of two Litanies, in which petitions are offered for a Pope Leo and a King Charles. These must have been written before Charlemagne's coronation as Emperor by Leo III. After f.160, two folios have been torn out, one of which was "remade in the eleventh century," [Delisle, Le. Cabinet des Manuscrits, iii.p.239; cf. Ommanney, Diss. p.107.] including clause l-12ff, of the Quicunque.

B. Milan, Cod. Ambros; 0.212 sup., is a small collection containing the Book of Ecclesiastical Dogmas (ascribed to Gennadius), the Faith of Bacchiarius, a Sermon on the Ascension, and (in a slightly later hand) the Creed of Damasus. It has often been described and discussed. 
Dr. Ceriani thinks that it was written in Ireland, and pointed out to me the great similarity between it and the Banger Antiphonary. [May, 1898.] He thinks that it may even be of the end of the seventh century.

The number of readings which are really doubtful is not large.

Clause 22. -

All the new MSS., with the exception of N, omit est. This gives a better rhythmical ending, cursus uelox, genitus sed procedens. On the Rhythm, see p.248.

Clause 28. -

Om. pariter, K₂ L₃ M₂ N E U₂ W; + pariter, K₁ L₂ M₁ T. In this case the MSS., taken altogether, are almost equally divided, but in five of those which originally contained it, it has been erased. I have seen similar erasures in many other MSS., of later dates, showing that the feeling against it was widespread. The fact that it was found in A B M₁ L₂ P₁) is strongly in its favour. But it is not found in the first quotation of the verse in the Fortunatus Commentary, though it appears when the latter half is repeated in the exposition. This shows how easy it would be for anyone to insert it in the text, to sharpen a sentence against Nestorianism. By omitting it, we obtain a good rhythmical ending, Deus et Homo est (pl.), but this is no argument by which to prove its omission from the original text, since it might only explain the reason why it became unpopular, after the use of the creed as a canticle had become general.

Clause 33. -

A majority of MSS., including the earliest, are in favour of the ablatives, carne ... Deo, with the earliest MSS. of the Fortunatus Commentary. But Ommanney [Diss. p.416.] has argued strongly against this reading, on the ground that "it is difficult to perceive what doctrine precisely, what phase of thought, the readings in carne and in Deo, in their literal interpretation, symbolise; they jar like a discordant note upon our sense of the fitting and appropriate." He quotes Waterland's opinion that they were not the original readings, and shows that it would be very easy for a copyist to omit the contractions over "e" and "m" thus - CARNE-DM, after which "another copyist would be tempted to substitute 'o' for 'm' in the latter word, in order to make it harmonise with the former, adding the mark of contraction (manifestly omitted) over it."

It is perfectly true that the parallels in Augustine and Vincentius support the readings carnem ... Deum, and that, from the point of view of the internal evidence, these are likely to be the original readings. The Eutychians admitted a change of the Godhead in the flesh, and taught that the manhood was assumed into God, so that the change to the ablatives may have been, as Waterland [P.146.] has shown, a direct confutation of their principles. 
But this would be to give to the ablatives, regarded as an emendation, a strong dogmatic meaning, which is just what Ommanney refuses to them.

The corrupt Latinity of the sixth and seventh centuries extended further than Ommanney suggests; it included utter confusion about cases. The copyists were indifferent to such distinctions. Under these circumstances it seems to me remarkable that so many of the earlier MSS., A B M₁, ₂, P₁, ₄ should agree on ablatives, and I prefer to follow them without further argument. The meaning, as I have shown from Waterland, is clearly antagonistic to Eutychian confusion of the two natures in Christ, and as such appropriate for our present use.

Clause 36. -

There is an overwhelming majority of MSS. against ad inferno,, and yet I think that one is justified in adopting it, for the following reasons :-

It is found in A, W, Fort, Or, Stav. 
It is one of the cases in which copyists would be influenced by their reading of the Apostles' Creed; and, on the other hand, the author, presuming him to have lived in Gaul, at all events before 500AD, when he was obviously quoting his Baptismal Creed, would surely quote it exactly, even if he, like S. Augustine, preferred ad inferos as an improvement on the teaching ad infernum or ad inferna. Now, the reading ad inferos had not come into the Gallican creeds in the time of Caesarius, Gregory of Tours, or Eligius of Noyon, i.e. before 600AD. And it became common with the appearance and spreading of the Textus receptus from c 700AD. Thus there is a strong presumption against the change from infarna to inferos before 700, and in favour of it after that date. The reading of B may be accounted for by the reading of the Apostles' Creed in the Bangor Antiphonary.

Clause 37. -

The readings Dei and Omnipotentis in the later MSS. have been plainly inserted, to make the creed correspond to the Textus receptus of the Apostles' Creed, in which they formed a very natural accretion.

The translation in the Book of Common Prayer needs several slight amendments. In clauses 9, 12, for "incomprehensible" read "infinite." 
In this case the translators were influenced by the Greek version, which they imagined to be the original, and which has ἀκατάληπτος. In clause 27 "believe rightly" is obviously a translation of ὀρθῶς πιστεύσῃ, where the Latin text has "fideliter credat." In clause 28 they quoted the Greek γαρ not the Latin ergo, and for the same reason omitted to translate firmiterque in clause 40, which has no place in the Greek text. [The other instances quoted by Ommanney, p. 312, are doubtful, since they might he explained by variants in the Latin text.]

The word "must" in clause 26 represents an Old English idiomatic use of the word, which still survives in the North of England = may, shall. "Must I give you some tea?"

The other changes in my translation are unimportant, with the exception of the rendering of saluus, "in a state of salvation." 
The word is used in Holy Scripture with three references, to past, present, and future, according to the point of view, redemption, grace, or glory. 
It is obvious that it is the second of these which the author had in mind. It may be paraphrased in the words "spiritually healthy."

THE TEXT OF THE QUICUNQUE, FROM MSS OF THE EIGHTH AND NINTH CENTURIES.

COMMENTARIES

To these add MSS. uncollated.

The Text of the "Quicunque" from MSS. of the Eighth and Ninth Centuries, and Commentaries

The paraphrases in A and the Paris Commentary are not included in this apparatus. 
See above, p.157. I have used Swainson's collations of the following MSS. C V Y, and they are not represented in their completeness.

A NEW TRANSLATION OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED 

| << | >> | top |