Gibson on Article VIII: Of the Three Creeds

There has been but little alteration in this article since 1553. At the revision of 1563 the words “and believed ” {et credenda) were inserted ; and in 1571 in Latin the word Apostolorum was substituted for the adjective Apostolicum, which had stood there previously.

With the languuge of the article may be compared that of the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum : —

“Et quoniam omnia ferme, quse ad fidem spectant Catholicam, tum quoad beatissimam Trinitatem, tum quoad mysteria nostrae redemptionis, tribus Symbolis, hoc est, Apostolico, Niceno, et Athanasii, breviter continentur ; idcirco ista tria Sjrmbola, ut fidei nostrae compendia quaedam, recipimus et amplectimus, quod firmissimis divinarum et canonicarum scripturarum testimoniis facile probari possint.”^

An article on this subject asserting definitely the adherence of the Church of England to the ancient creeds of the Church Catholic was rendered necessary

• Jtef, Leffum, Eccl. ” De Summa Trinitate et Fide Catholica,” oh. 5.

by the spread of Anabaptism, the leaders of which utterly ignored and set aside these summaries of the faith, together with the faith itself contained in them.

The subjects to be considered in connection with this article are four in number : —

1. Creeds in general.

2. The Apostles’ Creed.

3. The Nicene Creed.

4. The Athanasian Creed.

I. Of Creeds in General,

The origin of creeds must be sought in the baptismal service of the Church. Our Lord’s command to His apostles had been to make disciples of all nations by baptizing them into the name

(1) Of the Father;

(2) Of the Son ;

(3) Of the Holy Ghost.

Hence comes the threefold division of all the ancient creeds,^ referring to the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, and their work. In consequence of this command we find that from the earliest times some profession of faith was required from candidates for baptism, and that for this purpose short summaries of the main doctrines of Christianity were drawn up. It is possible to see in some passages of the New Testament indications of regular formularies in use even in apostolic days. Thus the statement in 1 Cor. viiL 6 looks very much like a reminiscence of one such : —

” To us there is one God the Father ^ of whom are all things, and we unto Him ; and one Lord Jesus

^ The Athanasian Creed is, of course, an exception, but it is scarcely a creed. It should be regarded rather as an ExposUio Fidei, or oven as a Canticle.

M**l

Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him.” 1

So the summary in 1 Tim. iii. 16 is commonly thought to contain a fragment of an early creed or hymn —

*’ He who was manifested in the flesh. Justified in the Spirit,

Seen of angels, Preached among the nations, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.”

Again, according to the received text of Acts viii. 37, when the Ethiopian eunuch says, ” See, here is water ; what doth hinder me to be baptized ? ” PhiHp’s answer is, ” If thou behevest with all thine heart, thou mayest.” Whereupon the eunuch makes his profession of faith: ” I beUeve that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” These words are, however, universally regarded as an interpolation. They were probably inserted in order to bring the account into harmony with the requirements of the baptismal service. They cannot, therefore, be appealed to as a witness of the apostolic age, but as the interpolation was made before the days of Irenaeus (a.d. 180), who quotes the whole passage with the inserted words,^ it may fairly be taken as a witness to the practice of the Church somewhere about the middle of the second century. About the close of this century we meet with a definite statement in the writings of Tertullian, that the profession of faith required at baptism was somewhat amplified from the simple form of belief in the threefold name enjoined in the Gospel.^ And since, even earlier than this, several writers,”* when summing up the faith of the Church, give it in a form closely corresponding to the creeds used later

[…]

on, and appear to be alluding to something like a fixed formulary, it is more natural to suppose that they are definitely alluding to the creed, than to think that the creed was subsequently developed from the summaries of the rule of faith as given by them. Thus it is now generally acknowledged that traces of, and allusions to, the creed may be found in such early writers as Aristides and Justin Martyr {circa 140),as weU as in Irenaeus and Tertullian. The creed of the first-mentioned writer as collected from his Apology, and restored by Professor Rendel Harris, runs as follows : —

“We believe in one God, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth ; And in Jesus Christ His Son Born of the Virgin Mary ; He was pierced by the Jews : He died and was buried ; The third day He rose again : He ascended into heaven ; He is about to come to judge.” ^

Even if we cannot feel quite certain of the details in all cases there is no longer room for doubt that formal creeds were in use by the middle of the second century, •varying to some extent in different churches, but all following the same general outline, and all alike based on the baptismal formula, with its threefold reference to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.^ In the fourth century our knowledge of creeds became much fuller. At

•- The ” rules of faith ” as given by Tertullian, Irenaeus, and others may be found in Hahn’s Bibliothek der Symhole. One from Tertullian is added here as a specimen. De Virg. Vel. 1. - Regula quidem fidei una omnino est, sola immobUis et irreformabQis, credendi scilicet in unicum Deum omnipotentem, mundi conditorem, et Filium ejus Jesum Chnstum, natum ox Virgine Maria, cnicifixum sub Pontio Pilato, tertia dia resusci- Utum a movtuis, receptuiii in coelis, sedentem nunc ad dexteram Patns,

that time the practice of the Church was for the candidates for baptism to be carefully prepared beforehand and instructed in the main doctrines of the Church by one of the presbyters especially appointed for the purpose. A few days before the actual baptism the formal creed of the Church into which they were to be baptized was taught to them, and an exposition of it in the form of a sermon on it delivered before them. This was called the ” delivery of the Creed,” Traditio Symboli. At the time of the actual baptism they were interrogated as to their belief,^ and required to return answer to the priest’s question in the form of the creed which they had received, and which they were now to ” give back ” at this Redditio Symboli’^ After baptism the creed was preserved in the memory as a convenient summary, written on the heart, but not committed to paper ;2 nor was it till a somewhat later period used in any other service of the Church.*

ventunim judicare vivos et mortuos per camis etiam resurrectionera.” Other passages such as Adv. Prax. 2, and De Prssseript. 13, show that Tertullian’s Creed contained also the article on the Holy Spirit.

’ Cf. Lumby’s Hvitory of the Creeds, p. 11 seq. The famous Cateclietical Lectures of S. Cyril of Jerusalem were delivered to candidates for baptism in the year 347 or 348. Cyril nowhere gives the creed continuously, but it can easily be collected from Lectures vi.-xviii. See Hahn, op. cit. p. 62.

’ See Augustine’s Sermo ad Catechumenos, which was delivered at the Traditio Symboli, and begins as follows : ” Accipite, filii, regulam fidei, quod symbolum dicitur. Et cum acceperitis, in corde scribite, et quotidic dicite apud vos : antequam dormiatis, antequam procedatis, vestro symbolo vos munite. Symbolum nemo scribit ut legi possit, sed ad recensendum, ne forte deleat oblivio quod tradidit diligentia, sit vobis codex vestra memoria. Quod audituri estis, hoc credituri ; et quod credideritis, hoc etiam lingua reddituri. “—Opera, tom. vi. col. 547.

”* The first to introduce the creed into the Liturgy was Peter the Fuller, Patriarch of Antioch soon after 470. Constantinople followed about 510.

Another use of creeds comes prominently before us in connection with the controversies of the fourth century. From the date of the Council of Nicaea onwards we meet with them as tests of orthodoxy, accepted by Councils, and offered for signature to those members of the Church, the correctness of whose faith was called in question ; and as time went on, and new heresies arose, amplified and enlarged with the express purpose of guarding against fresh errors.

Hence we get two different kinds of creeds — (1) the baptismal profession, which, as made by the individual, runs in the first person singular, / believe; and (2) Conciliar creeds, which, as containing the faith of the assembled fathers, were naturally couched in the first person plural, We believe. In course of time, however, when the creeds were introduced into the public services of the Church, we find that the East for the most part adopted the plural, and the West the singular, whether the creed was conciliar or baptismal in its origin,^ and thus the distinction was almost obliterated, although it can be clearly traced in all the earlier forms.^

In the West, Spain led the way in 589. The Gallican and Anglican Churches adopted it in the seventh or eighth century ; Rome not till the eleventh. There is no certain indication of the use of the creed in the hour services of the Church before the ninth century, when it is ordered to be used at Prime.

^ Thus the Western Church has altered the Constantinopolitan Creed, and uses the singular in it **1 believe,” whereas the original Greek text has naturally enough the plural iri<rr€6ofiev,

’ Eastern creeds in the singular may be found in the Liturgy of S. James, the Apostolic ConstittUions (VII. xli.), and the Coptic Liturgy. S. Cyiil also has the singular in Cat. xix. 9, though elsewhere his words seem to imply the use of the plural. Cf. Hahn, p. 62. Western creeds in the plural are those of Augustine and pseudo- Augustine, as restored by Hahn, pp. 30, 31 (Heurtley, however, restores the singular, Credo) ; of Facundus of Hermiane {ibid. p. 34) ; pseudo-Ambrose (p. 43) ; and, as is only natural, the professions of several Councils, e.g. of Toledo, A.D. 400 and 589.

There are further differences between the creeds as ultimately formulated in the East and West respectively, which are owing to the different types and characters of the churches in different parts of the world. These may be briefly summed up as follows, and illustrated from the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds, taken as typical specimens of Eastern and Western creeds.

(a) The Eastern creeds are more dogrruUic, the Western more historic. ” In the Eastern creeds, to use a modem form of expression, the * ideas ’ of Christianity predominate : in the Western creeds the ’ facts ’ of Christianity stand out in their absolute simplicity.” ^ Thus in the Nicene (Eastern) Creed it will be noticed that reasons for the facts are sometimes given, and not only is the question what is to be believed answered, but the question why receives a reply as well. It was for us men and for our salvation that He ” came down from heaven.” He ” was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures. We are baptized for the remission of siTis. There is nothing whatever corresponding to the clauses marked in italics to be found in any Western creed.

(h) The Eastern creeds always insert “One” before God, and add ” Maker of heaven and earth.” These last words, though now found in the Apostles* Creed, were, as will presently be shown, the very last words to find their way into it, not appearing till the seventh century. The reason for these additional phrases in the East is obvious. In the presence of much philosophical dualism, and of the wild speculations of many among the Gnostic sects, with their theories of the eternity of matter, and of a ” Demiurge ” or Creator distinct from the supreme God, the doctrine of the unity of God, and of the creation of all things, possessed a dogmatic importance in

the speculative East, which was wanting in the practical

West.^

(c) The Eastern creeds dwell at greater length on the details of our Lord’s nature and work before the Incarnation, and of His suffering, but never have the clause, “He descended into hell.” The Apostles’ Creed after the clause, ” And in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord,” passes straight to the Incarnation, ” Who was conceived,” etc The Nicene piles clause upon clause to insist on our Lord’s divinity, and adds that ” By Him all thmgs were made,” before saying that He ” came down from heaven, and was incarnate,” etc.

(d) No Eastern creed has ” the Communion of Saints,” while no Western creed mentions the ” One Baptism ” in connection with the remission of sins.*

Of the names for the creed in use in the ancient Church the commonest is Symbolum or Svfif^dXov. This is used in both East and West, and applied not only to the Baptismal Creed, but also to the Nicene Creed as well, though this latter is also frequently termed rj iriaTi^. The word Symlolum, as applied to the creed, is met with for the first time in the writings of S. Cyprian about the middle of the third century. It is used by him more

» Since both Irenajus (representing Gaul), and Tertullian (representing Africa), repeatedly give the rule of faith as including belief in Om God, who is the Maker of all things, it would seem probable that these phrases were originally found in the Western creed, but were suflfered to drop out of it in the course of time, as the practical need for their insertion was not felt. See Irenaus I. ii. 1 : III. iv. 1 ; IV. liii. 1, and Tertullian De virg. vet. 1 ; Adv. Frax. 2 ; De FroMcript. 13. The rule of faith as given by Novatian has simply in Deum Fatrem, and apparently takes OmnipoUniem as implying the creation of all things. *‘Omnipotentem, id est verum omnium perfectissimum conditorem.” See Hahn,

« Bishop Westcott, op. cU. Note iii. The Gallican Creed quoted below may perhaps be considered an exception, as it does mention baptism in connection with the forgiveness of sins.

than once,^ and from his day forward is of frequent occurrence. Some doubt has been felt concerning the origin of the name and its exact significance in this connection. Various theories have been proposed in order to explain its use, some of which fall to the ground at once when it is recognised that avfifioXov is really a distinct word from avfiffoXi], and that the latter word is never used of the creed. This enables us to set aside at once the theory which Rufinus mentions,^ and which is adopted by many of the Latin Fathers, that the creed is a ” collation ” or epitome of Christian doctrine, made up of the “contributions” of the twelve apostles. This theory was improved upon in later times, until the creed was shown to consist of twelve articles, one having been contributed by each of the twelve apostles.^ Apart from all other objections these views labour under the fatal mistake of confusing two quite distinct Greek words, and may be dismissed without further consideration. The true view of the origin of the term is probably that which gives it the meaning of ” watchword.”

”^ In Synth, § 2. “Syrabolum autem hoc multis et justissimis ex causis appellari voluerunt. Symbolum enim Grace et indicium dici potest et collatio, hoc est, quod plures in unum confenint. Id enim fecerunt Apostoli in his sermonibus in unum conferendo unusquisque quod sen tit.” Cf. Cassian, De Incamatione Verbi, VI. iii.

[…]

It was the watchword of the Christian soldier, carefully and jealously guarded by him, as that by which he himself could be distinguished from heretics, and that for which he could challenge others, of whose orthodoxy he might be in doubt.^ Another term frequently found in connection with the creed is regula fidei. This is, however, not confined to the creed. It signifies the credenda or main doctrines of the Church rather than the precise form of words in which those doctrines were summed up. Thus we find that the same writer will give us the regula fidei in slightly different terms in different parts of his work; and though Augustine in his Sermo ad Catechumenos, quoted in a note on a previous page,^ identifies the regida with the Symbolum^ yet the former sometimes occurs in such a connection as to make it clear that its meaning is wider than that of the latter, and that it is not quite correct to regard the two as strictly convertible terms.

II. The Apostles* Creed,

The Apostles* Creed, in the exact form in which it is

• Rufinus {I.e.) gives this as one of the reasons for which the Creed was termed Symbolum. ** Indicium autem vel signum idcirco dicitur quia in illo tempore sicut et Paulus Apostolus dicit, et in Actibus Apostolorum refertur, multi ex circumeuntibus Judaeis simulabant se esse Apostolos Christi, et lucri alicujus vel ventris gratia ad praedicandum proficiscebantur, nominantes quidem Christum sed non integris traditionum lineis nunciantes. Idcirco, istud indicium posuere, per quod agnosceretur is qui Christum vere secundum Apostolicas regulas praedicaret. Denique et iu bellis civilibus hoc observari ferunt : quoniam et armorum habitus par, et sonus vocis idem, et mos unus est, atque eadem instituta bellandi, ne qua doli subreptio fiat, symbola distincta unusquisque dux suis militibus tradit quae Latine signa vel indicia nuncupaiitur ; ut si forte occurrerit quis de quo dubitetur, interrogatus symbolum, prodat si sit hostis vel socius. Idcirco denique haec non scribi chartulis aut membranis, sed retineri credentium cordibus tradiderunt, ut certum esset, haec neminem ex lectione, quae interdum pervenire otiam ad infideles solet, sed ex Apostolorum traditione didicisse.”

familiar to us, is in all probability the latest of the three creeds, although in general expression it is the oldest, and the freest from terms inserted for the express purpose of emphasising and guarding the true faith against

heresies.

It is strictly a Western creed, being unknown in the East,^ and the Greek copies of it which exist in MSS. are of late date, and bear evident marks of being translations from the Latin.^ In the form in which we have it, it represents the ultimate form taken by the Baptismal Creed of the Western Church, and is developed from the older creed of the Roman Church.

This Roman Creed we meet with for the first time in the year 341, when it is given in a letter written by Marcellus of Ancyra to Julius, Bishop of Rome. Marcellus was accused, not without good reason, of something very like Sabellianism, and wrote to Julius to defend himself. The letter, which is preserved by Epiphanius, is in Greek, but there can be no doubt that the creed which Marcellus gives as the expression of his own beHef is really the creed of the Church of Rome. With the exception of two phrases, it is identical with the Roman Creed described in the work of Rufinus some fifty years later. Marcellus omits the word “Father” in the first article, and adds “the life everlasting” at the close. Otherwise the two creeds are identical. By the help, then, of these two documents, the letter of Marcellus, and the exposition of the creed by Rufinus, we can recover the text of the old Roman Creed as it stood

[…]

^ The Greek copy in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, referred to by Pearson, is now assigned to the fifteenth century.

m the fourth century. It may be reconstructed as follows : —

” I believe in God [the Father] Almighty, And in Christ Jesus, His only Son, our Lord, Who was born of the Holy Ghost from the Virgin Mary, Was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried, The third day He rose again from the dead, He ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of the Father, Thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead, And in the Holy Ghost, the holy Church, the forgiveness of sins, The resurrection of the flesh.” *

Three questions present themselves for consideration : (1) Can this creed be traced to an earlier date than the

[…]

fourth century ? (2) When and where were the additions made which transformed it into its present form ? (3) How came the fuller form to be substituted for the

old Roman text ?

1. With regard to the first of these, it is now generally admitted that the creed must have taken shape not later tJian the middle of the second century. The ground for believing this is the fact that in writers of other Western churches, from the latter part of the second century onwards, we can trace allusions and references to creeds which are very similar to, and apparently derived from, the Roman Creed. ” All the Western provincial creeds,” says Hamack, ” are evidently offshoots of the Roman,” and thus, to quote the same writer, “we may regard it as an assured result of research that the old Roman Creed came into existence about, or shortly before, the middle of the second

century.” ^

2. In considerating the second question just raised, we note that the words and phrases wanting in the old Roman Creed, which are found in the current text of it, are these : —

3. Maker of heaven and earth.

4. Who was conceived.

5. Suffered.

6. Dead.

7. Descended into hell.

8. God … Almighty, in the article “Sitteth at the right hand.”

9. Catholic.

10. The Communion of Saints.

11. The life everiasting.

Of these, one or two were already in use elsewhere, although not in Rome, before the close of the fourth century. We have already seen that “descended into

[…]

hell” was found at Aquileia in the time of Rufinus, though not at Rome, and that ” the life everlasting ” was adopted in very early days in the African Church. It would also seem possible that ” suffered ” had found its way into the African Creed before the days of Augustine. But though one or two articles thus appear here and there at an earlier date, there can be no doubt that the bulk of the additions first secured a fixed position in the creed in Gaul during the fifth century, and that the Apostles’ Creed, as we know it, is a Gallkan recension of the old Roman Creed. For the creed of the Gallican Church, during the fifth and early part of the sixth century, we have three principal authorities, Faustus of Riez circa 48 0), Caesarius of Aries (470-542), and his friend and contemporary Cyprian, Bishop of Toulon.* From these three writers we can see that by the close of the fifth century the Gallican Church had received the words ” who was […] communion of saints,” and ” the life everlasting.” It is possible that ” descended into hell,” had already found its way from the Aquileian into the Gallican Creed. There is some reason also

• That is, if the sermon in the Appendix to vol. v. of Augustine (Serm. ccxliv. ) is rightly assigned to him, as it is by several authorities after the Benedictines.

■* In his letter to Bishop Maximus, of Geneva, first printed by Gundlach in the Monumienta Oermanim Hist. Epistolse £evi Merovingici.

for thinking that ” dead ” was already received in Gaul.^ At any rate, both these clauses are found there shortly afterwards. And the same holds good of the remaining phrases, namely, ” Maker of heaven and earth,” and ” God … Almighty ” in the Sixth Article, for these are all found in the creed as given in the Gallican Sacramentary, assigned to the middle of the seventh century.^ There are, however, slight variations between this creed and the text as now received, and the first writer to give the creed in precisely the words which the whole Western Church has since adopted is Pirminius, or Priminius, a bishop who laboured in France and Germany about the middle of the eighth century. In a treatise of his entitled ” Libellus Pirminii de singulis libris canonicis scarapsus,”^ we find the legend attributing the composition of the creed to the twelve apostles, and the form given is word for word the same as that with which we are familiar.* On the day of Pentecost, when the apostles were gathered together — “There appeared unto them divided tongues of fire, and sat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the

^ Mortuus is also found in tho Creed of Caesarius, and may have been in that of Faustus. If the sermons fonnerly assigned to Eusebius Gallus really belong to Faustus, he would seem to have read “was crucified, dead, and buried,” exactly as we have the words at present. See on this, and generally on “The Early Creed of the Gallican Church,” a paper by the Rev. A. E. Bum in the Guardian for March 1895, containing the results of the latest researches on the subject.

Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance : and they composed the creed. Peter : ” / believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth. John : And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord. James said : Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary. Andrew said : Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was criLcified, dead and buried. Philip said: Descended into hell. Thomas said : The third day He rose from the dead. Bartholomew said : He ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. Matthew said : From thence He shall conu to judge the quick and the dead. James, the son of Alphaeus, said : / believe in the Holy Ghost. Simon Zelotes said : The Holy Catholic Church. Jude, the brother of James, said : The communion of saints. Also Thomas said : The resurrection of the flesh} the life everlasting.”

The various additions, the earliest appearance of which has been now indicated, with one exception can scarcely have been made with the definite purpose of guarding against heresies. ” The Communion of Saints ” perhaps was added as an answer to the Donatist charge that there was in the Church a communio malorum, to which Augustine had replied, ” that though in the Church the evil were mingled with the good, and the Church was to that extent a mixed body, there was

• It is strange that our reformers should have rendered rcsurrectionem camis by ” the resurrection of the body,*’ in the translation of the creed, appointed to be recited at Matins, first printed in full in 1552, and in the Catechism (1549), whereas in the Ofiice for Public Baptism (1549), it is correctly rendered ” the resurrection of the fiesh. ” The form of words is certainly nou-scriptural, but it was * * necessary in order to safeguard scriptural truth,” and was probably adopted by the Church in order to guard against Gnostic subtilty, which could accept “the resurrection of th£ dead,” but explain it away, as if it referred to baptism or a spiritual awakening. See Tertullian, De Resur. Camis, 19, and cf. Swete, op, dt., p. 89 seq.

within her a true communio sanctorum, in which the evil have no part, and which is not impaired by their presence.”^ But the other clauses of comparatively late introduction are rather the natural amplifications to which such a document would be subject in course of time (especially if used for catechetical purposes), expressing with great fulness of detail what was already implied in the briefer form previously in use. It may also be remarked that in some points the Nicene Creed represents an older type than the Apostles’, not having received all of these later amplifications. For instance, to this day there is no mention of our Lord’s death in the Nicene Creed. It is, of course, implied in the words, “He suffered and was buried,” but the formal statement of the fact contained in the word ” dead ” is wanting ; nor are the words ” God … Almighty ” found in the clause on the session ” at the right hand of the Father.”

3. The third question raised above was this : How came the fuller form (which we have now seen to be of Galilean origin) to be substituted for the old Roman Creed ? It is generally thought that, owing to the prevalence of Arianism among the Teutonic invaders of Italy from the latter part of the fifth century onwards, the Roman Church adopted the use of the Nicene Creed at baptism,^ instead of her ancient formula, in order the more effectually to exclude the Arians, who, while willing to accept the Apostles’ Creed, would be definitely shut out by the more explicit form now tendered to them.^ The

• This is the view, e.g., of Harnack.

old Roman Creed, however, still continued to be used in the provinces, notably in Gaul, where it received the additions which brought it to its present form, and whence it was reintroduced into Rome, circa 800, under the influence of Charlemagne. Further, it has been suggested that the old Roman Creed, even though deposed from liturgical honours, survived as a form of instruction, and was still used there in the days of Gregory the Great, so that it was brought into England by Augustine, and continued to be used in this country ^ until the Norman Conquest drew tighter the bonds of union with Rome, and led to the sole use of the creed in the fuller form which Rome, in common with the other churches of the West, had already adopted.^

Before leaving the subject of this creed, it remains to consider the origin of the name, which it has borne for centuries — the Apostles’ Creed. The name was originally given to the old Roman Creed, and appears, so far as is

2 See Swete, p. 13 seq., where it is pointed out that the fuller form was certainly known (though apparently not exclusively used) in England before the Norman Conquest: “Traces of it may be seen in English Episcopal professions of the ninth century, and it is found with an interlinear translation in a Lambeth MS. of the same period ” (No. 427). Its influence is also seen in the remarkable creed contained in the Bangor ArUiphonary, which comes from Ireland, and belongs to the seventh century: “Credo in Deum Patrom Omnipotentem, invisibilem, omnium creaturarum visibilium et invisibilium conditorem. Credo et in Jhesum Christum filium ejus unicum, dominum nostrum Deum Omnipotentem, conceptuni de Spiritu Sancto, natum de Maria Virgine, passum sub Pontio Pylato, qui crucifixus et sepultus discendit ad inferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit in coelis, seditque ad dexteram Dei Patris Omnipotentis, exinde venturus judicare vivos ac 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 gloria Christi.” — Antiphonary of Bangor, fol. 19 (Ed. Warren).

known, for the first time, in the writings of S. Ambrose.^ S. Jerome also speaks of the symbol of faith “which was delivered by the apostles “;2 and Kufinus, like S. Ambrose, considers the creed to have been actually drawn up by the apostles.^ The later form of the tradition, which divides the creed into twelve articles, assigning one to each of the twelve apostles, needs no serious notice. It is sufficiently refuted by the simple fact that some of the articles were demonstrably wanting in the creed for centuries. Nor, in the face of the silence of the Acts of the Apostles and all authorities prior to the close of the fourth century, is it reasonable to maintain that the actual form of words found in the old Koman Creed was really drawn up by the apostles. It is, however, quite possible that the name of the Apostles’ Creed may have been given to it in consequence of the erroneous belief that it was their work. But, on the other hand, it is equally probable that the name may have given rise to the hehe/f rather than the belief have suggested the name. The adjective, ” apostolic,” was largely used by early writers as denoting that that to which it was applied came substantially from the apostles. Thus, such expressions as ” the apostolic tradition,” or ” apostolic preaching,” did not imply that the words were ” apostolic,” but only that the substance was such. So, ” the Apostolic Creed ” * would denote

’ In Symbolum, § 2, where it is introduced as a tradition of the elders, “Tradunt majores nostri, etc.”

”* The definite title, “Symbolum Apostolorum,” is certainly used by S. Ambrose, and in the “Epistda Concilii Mediolanensis,” which was possibly drawn up by him, see Opera, vol. v. p. 292. But, as a general rule, in older MSS. “Symbolum Apostolicum” is the form found. “Symbolum Apostolonim” occurs in the Bangor Antiphonary of the seventh century, and in most later documents.

that the creed contained the faith of the apostles, not that the ipsisdma verba were due to them. In process of time the belief arose that the words, as well as the substance, came from the apostles, and finally the medieval legend took definite form and shape, and was unhesitatingly received throughout the whole of the Western Church until the Reformation in the sixteenth century. A third explanation of the name has been suggested. The creed, as we have seen, was the creed of the Roman Church. This was the only Church in the West which was founded by an apostle, and was emphatically termed ” the Apostolic See ” {Sedes Apostolica). Hence the creed, as being that of the Apostolic See, was termed the Apostolic Creed. This view is certainly a possible one, but it is believed that one or other of the two former explanations of the origin of the name is more probable.

Subjoined is the text of the creed in the original Latin, as formerly used in this country.^

Symbolum Apostolorum.

Credo in Deum Patrem Omnipotentem, Creatorem coeli et terrae. Et in Jesum Christum Filium Ejus unicum Dominum nostrum. Qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine. Passus sub Pontio Pylato, crucifixus mortuus et sepultus. Descendit ad inferna : ^ tertia die resurrexit a mortuis. Ascendit ad coelos : sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris omnipotentis. Inde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos. Credo in Spiritum Sanctum; sanctam ecclesiam Catholicam.

^ Brevarlum ad usum, Sarum (Cambridge reprint of the edition of 1531), Psalterium, col. 2. * The Boman Breviary, like the Bangor Antiphonary, and most later

MSS. has inferos.

[…]

III. The Niccm Creed,

In tracing out the history of the (so-called) Nicene Creed, the starting-point must be the Council of Nicaea, in the year 325.

Eusebius of Caesarea, in writing an account of the proceedings to his flock shortly afterwards,^ states that he himself proposed to the Council the creed of his own Church of Ciesarea, which he had received from the bishops who preceded him, and which he had professed at his baptism. It ran as follows : —

” 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 God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the Only Begotten Son, the Firstborn of all creation ; begotten of God the Father before all worlds ; by whom also all

[…]

2 Socrates, H. E. I. viii.

things were made ; who for our salvation was incarnate, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again in glory to judge the quick and dead.

” We believe also in One Holy Ghost.” ^

This creed, Eusebius tells us, was received without opposition. So far as it went, it was perfectly orthodox, and no objection could be taken to it. Only it did not express with quite sufficient clearness the great doctrine of our Lord’s eternal divinity, which it was found necessary to guard against Arianism. It was therefore proposed that the crucial term, Homoousios, should be inserted in it. This was agreed to ; and, finally, the following creed, which was evidently based on that proposed by Eusebius, was adopted and promulgated by the Council.

” We believe in the One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible ;

” And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Only-Begotten of the Father — that is, of the Substance of the Father — God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God ; Begotten, not made, Being of one substance

[…]

with the Father; 5y whom all things were made, both that are in heaven and that are in earth ; who for us men, and for our salvation^ came down, and was incarnate, and was made man; suffered, and rose again the third day ; ascended into heaven ; is coming to judge the quick and dead. And in the Holy Ghost” ^

The clauses in italics are those which are also found in the creed of Eusebius, so that the amount of agreement between the two can easily be perceived. It will be seen that the fathers at Nicaea did a good deal more than merely insert the one important term Homooimos. As a matter of fact they framed a new creed on the basis of the creed of Csesaraea — new in phraseology, but, as was shown above, in connection with the Second Article, not new in doctrine.

This creed, however, which was thus framed at Nicgea, is by no means verbally identical with that in use among us, which bears the name of the Nicene Creed. When or by whom, the additional clauses were inserted, and the alterations made whereby the creed assumed its present form, it is difficult, if not impossible, to decide with certainty. But it must have been about the middle of the fourth century. The grounds on which this conclusion rests are two. ( 1 ) The enlarged creed

[…]

familiar to us (without the Filioque) is first met with in a work of Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, which was written in the year 373 or 374. It is there given in the following form :—

” 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 His Father before all worlds — that is of the Substance of the Father — Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten not made. Being of one substance with the Father ; By whom all things were made, both that are in heaven and that are in 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 ; and was crucified for us under Fontivs Filate, and suffered, and was buried, and rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and is coming again with glory to judge the quick and dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. Ajid in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Life-giver, 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 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. Amen” ^

^ The clauses in italics are the new ones not found in the true creed of Nicaea.

[…]

” This faith,” Epiphanius adds, ” was delivered by the holy apostles, and in the Church in the holy city, by all the holy bishops, above three hundred and ten in number.” These last words indicate that the Nicene Council is intended, the traditional number of bishops present there being three hundred and eighteen. But it may be doubted whether Epiphanius meant to make the Council responsible for the exact words, any more than the apostles. He cannot possibly have imagined that this particular form of words was really drawn up by the apostles; and probably he is not to be imderstood as meaning that the creed was word for word that which came from Nicsea. It was the Nicene Creed, only in a revised and enlarged form. That the Church of the fourth century did not consider itself bound to the very words of the Creed put forth at Nicaea, except in so far as the crucial terms on the nature of the pre-inc^mate Son were concerned, is shown by the fact that other versions of the Creed exist claiming, like that of Epiphanius, to be ” Nicene.” ^

Moreover, Epiphanius himself, in the very next para-

[…]

graph of the Ancoratm} gives another enlarged form of the same creed, expanded in order to meet more fully the heresies of the Apollinarians and Macedonians, which he tells us had sprung up from the time of the Emperors Valentinian and Valens. This enables us to fix the date of the additional clauses in our own creed with some degree of certainty. The version is evidently given by Epiphanius, as that which was current before the date of Valentinian and Valens, who succeeded to the Empire in 364.

(2) Another consideration also points to the middle of the fourth century as the date of the additions. The expansion of the article on the Holy Ghost by the addition of the words, ” the Lord and the life-giver ; who proceedeth from the Father ; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified ; who spake by the prophets,” indicates that the Macedonian heresy had already begun to attract attention ; while the addition of the clause ” whose kingdom shall have no end,” must have been due to the heresy of Marcellus of Ancyra, who, in opposing Arianism, had become practically involved in a form of Sabellianism, and had been led to the denial of the eternity of Christ’s kingdom. Now S. Cyril of Jerusalem read the last mentioned clause in the creed, which he expounded in his Catechetical Lectures in the year 347 or 348, and insisted on its importance, because of the heresy ” lately sprung up in Galatia,” for ” a certain one has dared to affirm that after the end of the world Christ shall reign no longer ; and he has dared to say that the Word which came forth from the Father shall be again absorbed into the Father, and shall be no more.” ^ Thus

^ Aneorattts, § 119.

« Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. xv. § 27; cf. iv. 15: “Be sure to settle your belief in this point also, since there are many who say that Christ’s kingdom has an end.”

the existence of these clauses against Marcellus and the Macedonians points to a date not much earlier than 350, while the lack of additions, expressly directed against Apollinarianism, makes it tolerably certain that the form dates from a period prior to that in which Apollinaris had formulated the heresy associated with his name.^ It cannot, therefore, be much later than the middle of the century.

Thus all the evidence points to 350, or thereabouts, as the date of the enlarged Creed, which we now term Nicene.

The place at which the development of the Creed first took place must be a matter of conjecture. No positive evidence is forthcoming. But from the great similarity which the enlarged creed bears to the Creed of S. Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures, it has been conjectured with much probability that the expansion must be traced to the Church of Jerusalem.

S. Cyril’s Creed, as collected from his lectures, runs as follows : —

” We beUeve 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, Very God, before all worlds ; by whom all things were made ; who

[…]

was incarnate, and was made man; was criudjied, and buried; rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, and is coming in glory to judge the quick and dead ; whose kingdom shall have no end,

” And in One Holy Ghost, 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 the life everlasting.” ^

If this be compared with the enlarged creed as given by Epiphanius, it will be seen that all the clauses which we have here put in italics, though wanting in the original Nicene Creed, are contained in the revised form of it. It would seem, then, highly probable that the said revised form is the result of a fusion of the original Nicene Creed with the local creed of the Church of Jerusalem, and (in accordance with what has been already said), that this fusion must have taken place about the middle of the fourth century.^ This is perhaps

[…]

’ See further the second of Hort’s Two Dissertations, namely, that “on the Constantinopolitan Creed, and other Eastern creeds of the fourth century.” Hort’s view is that the creed is actually the local creed of Jerusalem, with an insertion from the Creed of Nicaea of the crucial passage on the nature of the pre-incarnate Son. ” Light of Light, Very God of Very God, etc.”

as far as we can go in tracing its origin. But, whatever may be thought of its connection with Jerusalem, the fact that it appears almost word for word as we have it, in the Ancoratus of Epiphanius, in the year 373 or 374, is proof positive that the additions cannot have been ” made ” (as the common account states), at the Council of Constantinople in the year 381. This brings us to the question, Is the Council of Constantinople in any way responsible for the creed ?

Grave doubts have been recently thrown on this responsibility by the following facts : —

1. None of the three early ecclesiastical historians, who relate the history of the Council — Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret — give any such creed as set forth by it.

2. Socrates and Sozomen both expressly state that the Fathers decided that the faith of the Council of Nicaea should remain inviolate.^

3. The first canon passed by the Council lays down in distinct terms that ” the creed of the three hundred and eighteen bishops assembled at Nicaea shall not be made void, but remain firm ” ; and the synodical letter of the Fathers speaks in similar terms.^

4. At the Council of Ephesus in 431 no notice whatever was taken of the enlarged creed, but the genuine Creed of Nicaea was once more ratified and continued.^

On the other hand, there is to be set against this the fact that at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 the enlarged creed was quoted as emanating from the Council of Constantinople, by those who themselves came from that city or its neighbourhood, and would therefore

^ See Socrates, ff. E. V. viii. ; Sozomen, H. E. VII. ix.

2 See Theodoret, ff. E, V. ix.

’ See the seventh canon of this Council, quoted above, p. 225.

be likely to have correct information on such a matter,^ and it was finally accepted and ratified by the assembled Fathers in addition to the Creed of Nicaea. “We, therefore,” so runs the definition of faith, ” declare that the exposition of the right and blameless faith by the three hundred and eighteen holy and blessed Fathers, who were assembled at Nicaea in the time of the then Emperor Constantino of pious memory, should have the first place ; and that those things should also be maintained which were defined by the hundred and fifty holy Fathers of Constantinople, for the taking away of the heresies which had then sprung up, and the confirmation of the same, our Catholic and Apostolic Faith.” This definition was followed by the recital of both creeds — (1) the original Nicene, and (2) the enlarged Constantinopolitan form of it.

On a review of the whole evidence on both sides, it would seem quite clear that even if the Council of Constantinople made itself in any way responsible for the creed generally associated with it, it never intended it to supersede the creed put forth at Nicaea, or to come into general circulation as the creed of the Church universal. The silence of all the early authorities is conclusive on this point. But its recognition at Chalcedon may very possibly imply that it really received some sort of sanction at Constantinople as an orthodox creed} But that is all that can be claimed for it. Before Chalcedon there is no trace of its general use ; and even after this Council it only gradually made its way into general circulation. It probably superseded the true Nicene Creed, owing to its use in the euchar-

istic service, which dates in the East from about the middle of the sixth century ; ^ in the West from some time later.2 The confusion of name, and the transfer to the enlarged creed of the title Nicene, would appear to belong to a still later period.^

Appended are two forms of the creed — (1) the Greek text as commonly received in the East since Chalcedon, and (2) the Latin version which has been current in the Western Church since the Council of Toledo, 589.

[…]

• Spain adopting it first in 589.

’ lie enlarged creed was carefully distinguished from the Nicene at Toledo (see above, p. 216), but is confused with it and definitely termed Nicene in Charlemagne’s CapUulare of 787 (quoted above, p. 221).

[…]

“Credo in unum Deum Patrem Omnipotentem,Factorem coeli et terrae, atque visibilium omnium et invisibilium : Et in unum Dominum Jesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum, et ex patre natum ante omnia saecula, Deum de Deo, Lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, genitum non factum, consubstantialem Patri : Per quem omnia facta sunt. Qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem descendit de coelis, et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est, crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato : passus et sepultus e^t, et resurrexit tertia die secundum Scripturas, et ascendit in coelum, sedet ad dexteram Patris. Et iterum venturus est cum gloria judicare vivos et mortuos : cujus regni non erit finis. Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit, qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur, qui locutus est per prophetas. Et unam sanctam Catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam. Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum, et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum et vitam venturi saeculL Amen.”

In comparing the English translation with this, three points deserve attention.

1. “By whom all things were made.” As Bishop Lightfoot has pointed out, the expression in the English “fails to suggest any idea dififerent from the other expression in the creed, * Maker of heaven and earth,* which has before been applied to the Father.” ^ In the original, however, a distinction is accurately marked, and the preposition used (Bid, not utto, Latin per) describes the Son as the mediate agent of creation, through whom all things were made. The creed thus faithfully repro-

duces the teaching of Scripture, in which this preposition Sik is specially used of the divine Word. U.g. S. John i 3: “All things were made by (Sid) Him”; ver. 10, ” the world was made by Him ” (Si axnov)}

2. “The Lord and Giver of Ufe.” Again to the English reader the phrase is ambiguous, and might be taken to mean the Lord of life and the Giver of the life ; whereas in the original it is quite clear, ” The Lord (to Kvpiov used absolutely, expressing the Divinity of the Spirit), and the Life-giver {to ^woiroiov).

3. “One CathoHc and Apostolic Church.” In this clause there is no English equivalent to the word dyiav, or sanctam. It is generally thought that the omission of the word ” holy ” in the translation first made for the English Prayer-Book of 1549 was simply due to a printer’s error. But if so, it is strange that the blunder was never corrected in any of the subsequent editions of the Prayer-Book. And it has been plausibly argued that the omission was deliberate, not because the Eeformers made light of holiness as a note of the Church, for the word ” holy ” is retained in the corresponding article in the Apostles* Creed, “the holy Catholic Church ” — but because they imagined on critical grounds that it had no place in the true text of the creed. It is certainly the case that the word was wanting in the creed as given in some of the early editions of the Councils which were accessible to them, and they may have thought that they were restoring a truer text than that which had been previously in usa* However this may be, whether the omission was intentional or due to inadvertence, there is no doubt that it is wrong, and that we ought to read this article with the

1 Cf. 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; Col. i. 16 ; Heb. i. 2.

if

four notes of the Church plainly expressed : ” One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.”

IV. The Athanasian Creed.

As the Apostles’ Creed was not composed by the apostles, and the Nicene Creed is not the Creed of Nicaea, so the Athanasian Creed is not the work of Athanasiua Not only is the creed indebted (as will presently be shown) for much of its language to the works of Augustine written some years after the death of Athanasius, but also there can be no question that the original language of the creed is Latin, whereas Athanasius wrote in Greek. ” It is certain,” says Dr. Lumby, “that whoever peruses the various Greek versions of the creed which are extant cannot fail to abandon the notion that the original language of this composition was Greek. The unusual words and strange constructions betray the hand of translators, and those not of great skill. That this may be apparent from dififerent versions, the first two verses are subjoined… . They vary widely from one another, as will be seen, and bear no trace whatever of a common Greek original. It is, therefore, impossible to believe that any such original ever existed.” ^

[…]

This specimen is quite sufficient to demonstrate that the creed originated in the West and not at Alexandria. How, then, did it get its name ? It has been thought that this may be accounted for by the fact that it contains an exposition of the doctrine which Athanasius so nobly defended, and of which he was the most prominent champion against Arianism ; and accordingly the suggestion has been made ^ that when Arianism was rife in the West, the Arians may have termed the orthodox party Athanasians, and the creed which most fully expressed their doctrines ” the Athanasian Creed.” This does not seem a very probable explanation of the origin of the names, and it is more reasonable to suppose that the name was attached to the creed because it was erroneously believed to be the work of Athanasius. In an uncritical age traditions concerning the authorship of famous documents easily grew up, often without the slightest foundation — witness the ascription of the Te Deum to S. Ambrose and S. Augustine — and even if we cannot now explain exactly how the title Fides Aihanasii first became attached to the creed, whether by the carelessness of a copyist, or as a guess at authorship, there is no need to seek for any further explana-

tion of its perpetuation than the belief that it was the work of the saint whose name was given to it.

Concerning the date of the creed, no small controversy has arisen. Its ascription to Athanasius can be traced back to the ninth century, nor does it appear that it was ever seriously questioned until the seventeenth century.^ Almost the first to reject the traditional title of it was Gerard Voss, in his work De Tribus Symbolis, published in 1642. From his date onward the Athanasian authorship was generally given up, and various names were suggested by writers on the subject,^ until in 1723 the Critical History of the Athanasian Creed was published by Daniel Waterland. This masterly work was commonly regarded as conclusive, and the controversy was set at rest for the next hundred and fifty years, and has only been reopened in recent times, largely owing to the discovery of evidence unknown to Waterland. His conclusion, based on a careful examination of both external and internal e\i-

^ It will be noticed that in the Eighth Article, Cranmer (or whoever drew it up) indicated his rejection of the tradition concerning the apostolic authorship of the Apostles’ Creed, by speaking of it as “that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed,” but spoke unhesitatingly of this other as ”Athanasius* Creed.” In the Ten Articles of 1536 it is said of the three creeds that “one was made by the apostles, and is the common creed, which every man useth ; the second was made by the Holy Council of Nice, and is said daily in the mass ; and the third was made by Athanasius, and is comprehended in the Psalm Quicunqut Vult ” (Article III). The rubric in the Prayer-Book which entitles it “this confession of our Christian faith, commonly called the Creed of Saint Athanasiwi” dates from 1662. In the earlier editions of the Prayer- Books there was nothing corresponding to the words in italics.

• (1) Voss himself thought that the creed was the work of a Gallican writer, possibly as late as the eighth or ninth century ; (2) Paschasius Quesnel (1675) assigned it to Vigilius Tapsensis in the fifth century. So Cave, Dupin, Pagi and others ; (3) Antelmi (1693) suggested Vincent of Lerins, also belonging to the fifth century ; (4) Muratori (1698) gives it to Venantius Fortunatus in the sixth ; while (6) Waterland himself decides in favour of Hilary of Aries.

dence, was that the creed was composed in Gaul between the years 420 and 430, and that it is very probably the work of Hilary of Aries. That it cannot be earlier than 420 may be taken as certain, for the coincidences of thought and expression between it and the writings of S. Augustine are so striking as to lead to the conclusion that the author of the creed, whoever he may have been, must have been well acquainted with the works of S. Augustine, including his books on the ” Trinity,” which were not published until 416.^

Waterland’s terminus ad quern is arrived at mainly from internal evidence. The date fixed by him as the latest possible one for the composition of the creed is 430 A.D. This year is selected because he maintains that the creed does not condemn the Eutychian and Nestorian heresies in the full, direct, and critical terms, such as would naturally have been used had it been composed after these heresies had arisen and become formidable. There is nothing, so he asserts, in the creed but what is found in earlier writers in combating the errors of Arius and Apollinaris. Even those clauses (vers. 32-35) which at first sight bear the appearance of being expressly intended to condemn the Nestorian division of Christ into ” two Persons,” are found on examination to be based entirely on the writings of Augustine, so that there is really scarcely a phrase contained in them which may not be paralleled in one or other of Augustine^s works.^

^ Compare Waterland, Critical History, ch. ix., where the creed is given with parallel passages from the Fathers, and more especially from S. Augustine.

2 See Waterland, ch. ix. The following striking parallels may be quoted: “Agnoscamus geminam substantiam Christi; divinam scilicet qua aequalis est Patri, humanam qua major est Pater : utrumque autem simul non duo sed unus est Christus.”— /rt Johan, Evan, Tr. lixviii. 3. ” Verbum caro factum est, a Divinitate came suscepta, non in camem

The external evidence as given by Waterland, although not necessitating quite so early a date as 430, is not inconsistent with it. If the creed is a composition of the fifth century, there is nothing surprising in the fact that no external testimonies to its use have come down to us before the sixth and seventh centuries to which Waterland assigns his earliest authorities. Recent researches, however, have shown that it is not safe to appeal without hesitation to some of Waterland’s most important witnesses to the early use of the creed. Consequently the whole subject has been reopened, and the question of the date of the creed has been reconsidered in the light of modern discoveries.

The three most ancient testimonies relied on by Waterland are the following: —

1. A canon of a Council of Autun, insisting on the recitation of “the faith of the holy prelate Athanasius ” by the clergy. Of this he gives the date as 670 A.D.^

2. A MS. ” mentioned by Bishop Usher, which he had seen in the Cotton Library, and which he judged to come up to the age of Gregory the Great,” i.e. circa 600. This MS., Waterland says, was not to be found when he wrote, but he entertains no doubt that Usher had really seen it, and is inclined to trust his judgment on the question of its date.

3. A commentary on the creed, published by Muratori, and unhesitatingly assigned by Waterland

Divinitate mutata.” — Enchiridion, ch. xxxiv. *’ Idem Deus qui homo et qui Deus idem homo: non confusione naturae, sed unitate personae.” — Serm. clxxxvi. ” Sicut enim unus est homo anima rationalis et caro ; sic unus est Christus Deus et homo.” — In Johan. Evan. Tr. Ixxviii. 3.

(as by its first editor) to Venantius Fortunatus, Bishop of Poictiers about 570.

Now with regard to these three pieces of evidence, it must be noted first, that though the canon referred to is a real canon of Autun, reasons have been given for doubting whether it actually belongs to the series passed in the Synod of 670 ;^ and its date cannot be appealed to with the same confidence as formerly. Secondly, Archbishop Usher’s lost “Cotton MS.” has been discovered since Waterland’s day in the library at Utrecht. It is now well known to scholars as the ” Utrecht Psalter,” and the opinion of experts assigns it to a date considerably later than that at which Usher put it. Indeed, there are grounds for thinking that it may have been written as late as the ninth century.^ Thirdly, the commentary, supposed by Waterland to be the work of Venantius Fortunatus, is only assigned to ” Fortunatus ” in a single MS.^ But Fortunatus is not an uncommon name, and there is really nothing whatever to identify the author of the commentary with Venantius Fortunatus, the Bishop of Poictiers in the sixth century. Thus the reason given for dating this work about the year 570 disappears altogether.

In this way the earliest testimonies formerly brought forward have had doubts thrown upon their value, and it has been thought that the internal evidence, if im-supported by early external authorities, is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider the creed as a work of the fifth century. Further, it has been said that there is no

’ Ibid. p. 210.

certain reference to it as the Fides Athanasii till the . ninth century,^ though many striking parallels with different portions of it can be quoted from writings of an earlier date. Consequently, some writers have maintained that, even if the materials out of which it is compiled are comparatively early, yet in its completed form it must be set down as a work of the ninth century.*

This view the present writer finds it quite impossible to accept It appears to him that although Waterland’s chapters on the external testimonies, commentaries, and MSS. of the creed may require rewriting, yet a considerable portion of the early evidence adduced by him remains unshaken, and fresh evidence unknown in his day has been discovered, so that we are compelled to assign to the creed a date if not actually during the fifth century, yet at the latest before the close of the sixth.

1. Manuscripts of the creed, which were undoubtedly written during the ninth and tenth centuries, are comparatively numerous, some of them being assigned by competent authorities to the early years of the ninth. But besides these there are at least three MSS. of it, which in the opinion of the highest authorities on palseo-

• Waterland gives three MSS. earlier than the ninth century as assigning it to Athanasius, namely. King Athelstan’s Psalter, in the British Museum (Galba, A. xviii.), which he dates in 703. A S. Germains’ MS. (257) at Paris, collated by Montfaucon, assigned to 760, and the Psalter given by Charles to Hadrian, now at Vienna (1861), which, if Charies be Charlemagne, and Hadrian the first of that name, must belong to the year 772. But the dates of all these MSS. have been questioned (see below).

graphy were written Je/bre the close of the eighth century, viz. : —

(a) Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, 4858 (formerly 4908). — A copy of the Chronicon of Eusebius, to which is appended at the close of the MS. a copy of the Athanasian Creed. In this it is without title, and only the first eleven verses are found, as the volume is mutilated and the remainder is torn off. This MS. is assigned by the present authorities of the MS. department at Paris, as it was by Montfaucon, to the later part of the eighth century.^

(h) Paris, 13159. — ^A Psalter with Canticles followed by the Athanasian Creed, with no title. Internal evidence seems to fix the date of this MS. beyond question to the period between 795 and 800, as, in the litany contained in it, there are prayers for Leo who became pope in 795, and for Charles as ” Eex,” which shows that it was written before he was crowned Emperor in 800. This date is accepted by M. Delisle and other authorities. It may be added that this MS. was unknown to Water- land.2

(c) Milan, Ambr. 0. 212. — A MS. containing various documents, including among others the Athanasian Creed without title. This MS. was assigned by Muratori to the seventh century, by Montfaucon to the eighth, and with him agrees the present librarian at Milan, Dr. Ceriani.*

Besides these three MSS., two of which contain the creed

^ Swainson and Dr. Lumby both try to make out that it is later, but their opinion on such a matter can hardly be set against the judgment of such experts as those mentioned in the text.

complete, the other being mutilated, there is (d) what is known as the « Treves fragment.” This is only known to us from a Paris MS. (3836) generally dated about 730 It contams a fragment of an address by a preacher to his congregation comprising much of the latter part of the Athanasian Creed, which address the writer says that he found m a book at Treves. The original Treves manuscript has not been discovered, but its date must be placed considerably earlier than that of the Paris MS. in which it was copied, and some have thought that it must have been written not later than the fifth century i It has been suggested that it gives the groundwork from which the latter part of the Quicunquc was subsequently worked up,2 but it would seem to be a truer view that the preacher whose sermon is given in the MS. was actually quoting the creed, and applying it. If this is so the document may be appealed to as bearing witness to’ the previous existence of the creed, the language of which it adopts and modifies.^

Mention must also be made of two other MSS. of the creed.

(e) Vienna, 1861.— This is the psalter presented by “Charles ” to Pope Hadrian, which Waterland, identifying Charles with Charlemagne, and Hadrian with the first pope of that name, assigned to 772. It has, however been pointed out that Charles may be identified with Charles the Bald, and the pope with Hadrian II in which case the MS. will belong not to the eighth but to the latter part of the ninth century. It contains the creed under the title ” Fides Sci Athanasii Epi Alexandrini” * ’

• So Swainson and Lumby.

[…]

(/) St. Germains, 257, as described by Montfaucon, is placed by Waterland after him as of the date 760, and the title of the creed in it is given as ” Fides Sancti Athanasii Episcopi Alexandriae.” — Unhappily the MS. is now lost, and therefore the date cannot be appealed to with absolute confidence, though the opinion of Montfaucon on such a subject is not lightly to be set aside. Without, however, laying stress on the last two manuscripts enumerated (e) and (/), there remain, in addition to the Treves fragment, three in regard to which there is absolutely no reason for refusing to credit the judgment of experts on the question of their date.^ And if the dates assigned to them be accepted we may dismiss without further consideration the notion that the creed itself can have been a compilation of the ninth century.

2. A second important branch of evidence to the antiquity of the creed is to be found in early collections of canons in which it finds a place.

(a) Paris, 3848 B. — A MS. of the early part of the ninth century contains not only a collection of canons, which includes the Autun Canon, ordering ” the faith of the holy prelate Athanasius ” to be learnt by heart by all the clergy, but also a series of testimonies to the faith preceding the canons. Among these the Athanasian Creed itself is given in full under the title of ” Fides Sanct. Athanasii EpiscopL” ^

(&) Paris, 1451, is another MS. assigned by the best authorities to the same date, being probably written before the death of Leo III. in 816. It also contains a collection of canons, and also the full text of the Atha-

1 Kirig AihelstarCs Psalter in the British Museum (Galba A, xviii.), which Waterland put at the date 703, is now universally assigned to the ninth century.

[…]

(c) Vatican, Palat. 540. — A MS. also belonging to the ninth century ; contains a Gallican collection of canons assigned to the sixth century, immediately followed by some other documents, including the creed: “Incipit fides Catholica beati Athanasii Episcopi.” ^

(d) Further, the Canon of Autun, mentioned above, even if it cannot be imhesitatingly connected with the Synod held under S. Leger in the year 670 cannot he later than the eighth century. Dr. Swainson himself admits that it is found in ” five manuscripts of the ninth century, and one of the eighth or ninth ” ; ^ and in the face of the evidence borne by the Paris MS. (3848 B) mentioned above, it is absurd to suppose that ” the faith of the holy prelate Athanasius ” can mean anything but the Quicunque vult,

3. Thirdly, we have the evidence of the early commentaries upon the creed. Our knowledge of these has been considerably increased of late years by the researches of Mr. Ommanney, and we are now able to state that there are several other comparatively early ones as well as (a) that which Waterland ascribed to Venantius Fortunatus. As we have already seen, there is no doubt that he was wrong in thus ascribing it to him. But though the authorship of the commentary is unknown, internal evidence is strongly in favour of its belonging to an early date. Besides this, Mr. Ommanney describes four other important commentaries — (h) the “Paris” Commentary which he holds to have been drawn up ” not

[…]

later than the ninth century, and not earlier than the seventh”; (c) the “Bouhier,” of the eighth, (d) the ” Oratorian ” of the beginning of the eighth or quite the end of the seventh ; and (e) the ” Troyes ” between 649 and 680.^ It must be borne in mind that the dates of these commentaries are not certain. But, even if they are not earlier than the ninth century, they would still imply that the creed was then regarded as a work of considerable 6intiquity. Commentaries are not written on new and recent works, but on those of long-standing and repute in the Church. It is remarkable also that in two of these Commentaries, the ” Oratorian ” and the ” Bou-hier ” it is said that the creed was attributed to Athanasius, etiam in veteribus codidhus. Now the actual MSS. of these commentaries may not be older than the tenth century : but if even then there were in existence MSS. of the creed which could be termed “old,” and which contained the title referring it to the authorship of Athanasius, a further argument is supplied in support of its early date.^

4. We are now in a position to estimate the bearing of coincidences of language with early writers. The three branches of evidence, of which the most important items have just been enumerated, are sufficient to show that by the ninth century at the latest the creed had obtained a recognised position. It was even then beginning to be admitted into ecclesiastical Psalters, together with the Te Deum, and the Canticles of the New Testament. It was ordered to be learnt by heart by the clergy, and commentaries were written upon it. Consequently, when we find that the language of the creed appears also in sermons and professions of faith, it is only reasonable to hold that

such coincidences imply a knowledge of the creed on the part of the writers in question. Nor can it fairly be inferred that if a writer only quotes a portion of the creed, the remainder did not exist in the document from which his citation was drawn. It cannot be said that there is any definite external evidence of the existence of two separate compositions which formed the groundwork of our present Quicunqne vuU; and, therefore, we are justified, as in the case of any other work, in appealing to a citation as at leaMt prima/ame evidence of a knowledge of the document as it is found in every single MS. that contains it.

Of writers who appear thus to make use of the creed, the following may be mentioned : —

(a) Denebert, Bishop of Worcester, after his election to the bishopric in 798, made a profession of faith, which has been preserved to us, and affords clear evidence that the Athanasian Creed had already found its way into England, for in this profession he quotes a large part of it, saying that he will expound the orthodox Catholic and Apostolic faith, as he has learnt it, ” for it is written, Whosoever will be saved, etc.” Since he introduces his citation with the formula, “it is written,” it is manifest that he is quoting from a recognised and familiar document, and as he proceeds to express his adherence to the decrees of the six General Councils, there was no necessity for him to quote more of the creed than the portion referring to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as the Church’s faith in the Incarnation is fully set forth in the decrees of the Councils.^

(h) The ” Treves fragment ” referred to above must be

mentioned again in this place, since it supplies a clear instance of a writer making use of the creed. It is, as has already been said, a portion of a sermon on the creed, the language of which is freely referred to, and applied, as it might be, by any modern preacher. This takes us back to a considerably earlier date than Denebert’s profession, possibly even to the fifth century.^

(c) Howsoever this may be, we are brought to the sixth century by another consideration. In the appendix to the sermons of Augustine is a discourse formerly attributed to him which the Benedictine editors of his works ascribed to Caesarius, Bishop of Aries from 502 to 542.^ Their conclusion is accepted by recent writers,’ and if it can be established, it will furnish a strong argument for Waterland’s view that the creed emanated from Southern Gaul during the fifth century, for the sermon in question obviously betrays a knowledge of the Quicunque vult, alluding to both parts of it, namely, that on the Incarnation as well as that on the Holy Trinity.*

reneremur ; neque confundentes personas neque substantiam separantes ; alia est enim Persona Patris, alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti ; sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti una est Divinitas, sequalis gloria, coaetema majestas ; Pater a nuUo factus est, nee creatus nee genitus ; Filius a Patre solo est ; non factus, nee creatus, sed genitus ; Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio, non factus, nee creatus, nee genitus, sed procedens. In hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, nihil majus aut minus, sed tot» tres Person® coseternse sibi sunt et coaequales ; ita ut per omnia sicut supra dictum est, et Trinitas in Unitate et Unitas in Trinitate veneranda sit. Suscipio etiam decreta Pontificum, et sex synodos Catholicas antiquorum heroicorum virorum et praefixam ab eis regulam sincera devotione conservo, Haec est fides nostra,” etc.

’ Rg. Caspari, Kattenbusch, G. F. Arnold, and Malnory. In any ease, as the Baptismal Creed commented upon corresponds closely with what we know to have been the form of the Gallican Creed about the fifth century, the sermon cannot be much later than Caesarius.

[…]

(d) A discourse of a somewhat similar character, but, to judge from some features in the character of the Baptismal Creed commented upon in it, possibly belonging to a yet earlier date, has been discovered and printed by Mr. Ommanney.^ It likewise seems to allude to the Quicunque vult, and to imply a familiarity with its contents on the part of the preacher.

On the whole, then, it is believed that the attacks made upon the antiquity of the creed have completely failed, and that there is no reason for discarding the older view, which regarded it as a work of the fifth century, composed by some writer belonging to the Gallican Church. In style it bears a strong resemblance to the writings of Vincent of Lerins (who died about 450), and if not actually his work, is probably from the hand of someone of the same school, who was familiar with his Commonitorium, and borrowed from it.^

cuique observare ut credat Patrem, credat Filium, et credat Spiritum Sanctum. Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus et Spiritus Sanctus ; sed tamen non tres Dii, sed unus Deus. Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis et Spiritus Sanctus. Attamen credat unusquisque fidelis quod Filius aequalis est Patri secundum Divinitatem, et minor est Patre secundum humanitatem camis, quam de nostro assumpsit ; Spiritus vero Sanctus ab utroque procedens. Credite, ergo, carissimi, in Deum Patrem Oranipotentem,” etc.

1 Early History, «fc., p. 121, and cf. p. 393, where the sermon is printed in full. It is contained in the Paris MS. mentioned above, 3848 B, assigned to the early part of the ninth century, and in another of the same date, 2123. The Baptismal Creed commented on in it is curious. An early date may be inferred from the omission of the words passus, mortuus, deacendU ad in/ema, sanctoruin communionevi, vUam cetemam. But, on the other hand, it agrees with the remarkable form found in the Bangcyr ArUiphonary (fol. 19), in reading ” in Deum Patrem omnipotcntem, invisibilem, visibilium et invisibilium omnium rerum conditorem,” and ** in Spiritum Sanctum Deum omnipotcntem unam habentem substantiam cum Patre et FUio ” ; while, like one of the creeds in the ” Missale Gallic-anum, it has the phrase, ” Fiet(yr ascendit ad coelos.” These features may, perhaps, point to a later date than that which Mr. Ommanney is disposed

to assign to it.

• Compare these passages of the Commonitorium : “Ecclesia vero Catholica , . . et unam Divinitatem in Trinitatis plenitudine, et Trini-

From the question of the date of the creed, which, after all, is a matter of comparatively small importance, we may pass in conclusion to the consideration of the use made of the creed by the Church of England. It has been said in the Western Church in the office of Prime certainly since the tenth century.^ According to Eoman use it is said at this service only on Sundays, but according to the Sarum use, followed in England before the Reformation, it was ordered to be said daily. Prime, however, is a service of monastic origin, and was never intended for a general congregation. Consequently, when on the publication of the first English Prayer-Book in 1549, this confession of our faith was ordered to be recited at matins immediately after Benedictus on the six great festivals of Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Whitsunday, and Trinity Sunday, a new departure was taken, and for the first time this creed was adopted for popular use. Owing to its position in the Prayer-Book, and its use in the public service of the Church on the six great festivals, and (since 1552) on seven saints* days,^ the

tatis sequalitatem in una atque eadcm majestate veneratnr, et unnm Christum Jesum, non duos, eundemque Deura pariter atque hominem con-

fitetur Alia est Persona Patris, alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti.

Altera substantia Divinitatis, altera humanitatis ; sed tamen Deitas et humanitas non alter et alter, sed unus idemque Christus, unus idemque Filius Dei, et unius ejusdemque Christi et filii Dei una eademque Persona ; sicut in homine aliud caro, et aliud anima; sed unus idemque homo, anima et caro … unus idemque Christus Deus et homo … idem Patri sequalis et minor ; idem ex Patre ante secula genitus item in seculo ex matre generatus ; perfectus Deus, perfectus homo ; in Deo summa Divinitas in homine plena humanitas … Unus, autem, non comiptibili nescio qua Divinitatis et humanitatis eonfusione, sed integra et singulari quadam Unitate personae.” — Covimonitorium Vincentii LerinensiSf ch. xiii.

• Not until 1662 was the order given for it to be substituted for the Apostles’ Creed on those days for which it is appointed.

Quicunque vult is probably much more familiar to the lay members of the Church of England than to those of any other community ; and since there is abundant evidence that it is often misunderstood and regarded with suspicion, it may be well to say something in explanation of it, and in answer to the popular objections which are urged against it.

The creed itself falls into two clearly marked divisions. Part 1 (verses 1-26) states the doctrine of the Trinity ; Part 2 (verses 27-40) the doctrine of the Incarnation. The form in which the Church’s faith is stated in each case is due to the fact that heresies had arisen and had to be met. Thus in Part 1 the two chief heresies combated are those of Sabellius and Arius. The former of these ” confounded the Persons,” while the latter ” divided the substance.” The necessity of excluding these errors is obviously present to the mind of the writer from verses 5 to 26, and accounts for most of the expressions used, 80 that if the character of the heresies in question be borne in mind, the meaning of this portion of the creed will be readily understood.^ The second part begins with

^ In verse, 9 “incomprehensible” in the English translation is misleading. The Latin is immensusj i.e. infinite. Cf. Patrem immensm majestcUis, ” the Father of an infinite majesty ” in the Te Deum. It is a little uncertain whether the English “incomprehensible” was intended by the translators to be taken in the sense of ” illimitable ” or infinite ; or whether the rendering was meant by them to be equivalent to ” inconceivable,” as the translation of the Greek d/cardXi/xroy, for that they imagined the Greek to be the original, and translated from it may be taken as certain. See Bp. Dowden’s Qusestiunculx Liturgiese.

In verse 19, “by Himself,” represents the Latin singillatim, and means “severally.” Cf. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XI. xxiv. “Cum de singulis quaeritur unusquisque eorum et Deus et Omnipotens esse respondeatur ; cum vero de omnibus simul, non tres dii vel tres onmipotentes sed unus Deus omnipotens.”

Verse 24 : ” And in this Trinity none is afore or after other : none is greater or less than another.” The words are neuter, nihil prius aut posterius ; nihil tnajus aut minus (“Naught (or nothing) is afore or

verse 27, and in it the doctrine of the Incarnation is stated at some length. Here again the thought of Arianism is present ; for it and Apollinarianism are the principal heresies kept in view. As has been already shown, it is uncertain whether Nestorianism and Eutychianism were directly before the writer of the creed, though the former of these is effectually excluded by the terms (borrowed from Augustine) which are used in verses 32 to 35 :—

tt

Who although He be God and Man : yet He is not two, but one

Christ ; One ; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh : but by taking

of the Manhood into God ; One altogether ; not by Confusion of Substance : but by unity of

Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man : so God and man

is one Christ.”^

There remain the so-called “damnatory clauses” to be considered, and to these exception is often taken. Men point to them and say that they are harsh and uncharitable. It is owing to their presence that they object to the use of the creed, and complain (1) that it expressly makes salvation depend upon the correctness of a man’s faith, and that poor simple folk can scarcely be expected to understand and hold all that is here set before them, and (2) that these ” damnatory clauses ” exclude from all hope of salvation not merely the heathen, but Socinians,

after : naught (or nothing) is greater or less.”) The first phrase refers to duration^ the second to dignity. The next clause is explanatory of this : ** But the whole three Persons are co-eternal together and eo-equal.”

^ Whatever may be thought of the bearing of these verses on the date of the creed as far as Neatorianism is concerned (and they are certainly very similar to language used against it by Vincent of Lerins), it seems almost impossible that they can have been written after Eutychianism had arisen. Verses 33 and 35 would surely have been worded differently, had the error of thinking that the manhood was absorbed into the Godhead arisen.

Arians, and all others who do not believe in the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation as here expounded.

Now it will be found that these difficulties are, if not entirely removed, at any rate greatly mitigated by obsering what the creed really says. The English translation is in several places by no means exact. There is a harsh ring about it, which is wanting in the Latin. Moreover, in common parlance, the sharp edges of meaning often get rubbed off words in familiar use, so that, even where the translation is really not inadequate, phrases are liable to be taken in an inexact sense instead of being given the precise meaning which is really demanded.

The opening clauses of the creed in the original run as follows : —

It

Quicunque vult salvus esse ante omnia opus est ut teneat Catholicam

[…]

insetemum peribit.”

There are several terms here which call for a brief comment.

Quicunque vult salvus esse. It is, perhaps, scarcely necessary to call attention to the fact that in the English rendering ” whosoever will be saved,” ” will ” is not the auxiliary verb. But it would be well if the meaning of the phrase could be placed beyond the possibility of misconception by the substitution of ” wishes ” or […] then ” wishes to be salvus” Here, it must be admitted, there is an ambiguity in the Latin. It is possible that the word salmis should be taken as the equivalent to the Greek <ro)fo/i6i/o9 in Acts ii. 47, i.e. ” in a state of salvation (Vulgate, qui salvi fierent)^ or even that it should be rendered ” in a sound and healthy condition ” (spiritually). It is certainly used in the sense of ” safe ” or ” in the way of salvation ” by S. Vincent of

Lerins.^ But on the other hand, it is employed in the Vulgate and in the writings of Augustine, in passages where it must mean more than this, and imply what is commonly understood by ” saved.”* Which was the precise sense intended by the author of the creed it may be hard to determine ; nor does it seem really important to decide, when once it is fairly realised that the creed is only speaking of the desire for safety or salvation. But whatever be the precise shade of meaning given to this word salvvs the significance of the verbs teneat and servaverit is perfectly clear. ” Hold ” and ” keep ” are not inadequate renderings ; but if ” keep ” and ” preserve ” were substituted for them the drift of the clause would be more sharply brought out ; and the English reader would feel at once that the warning is against apostasy^ i.e. against letting go that which has actually been received. It is impossible for a man to ” keep ” or ” preserve ” that which is not previously in his possession. It would be an abuse of terms to tell an impure person to ” preserve his chastity.” He cannot do it, for such a phrase necessarily implies previous innocence and purity. So also when it is said of the Catholic faith that ” except every one do keep [it] whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly,” it is obvious that the only case contemplated is that of men who have already received it and are in possession of it.^ This indicates that

[…]

’ The word is constantly used in the Vulgate, not only for au;bfuvo^ in Acts ii. 47 ; 1 Cor. i. 18 ; 2 Cor. ii. 15, hut for other parts of the verb. See e.g. S. Matt. xix. 25, xxiv. 13 ; Acts ii. 21, xi. 14, xvi. 30 ; Rom. V. 9, etc. So in Augustine it often means a good deal more than au)^6fji^yos. See the use of it in Enchiridion, ch. xciv. xcvii. ; De Spiritu et Liiera, ch. Iviii. ; Contra Julian. Pelag. iv. c. xlii. seq.

^ Archdeacon Norris takes servare jidem in the creed as equivalent to the same phrase in the Vulgate in 2 Tim. iv. 7, where it is used to translate S. Paul’s expression rtipuv t^v irlarip, and he holds that both

the warnings of the creed do not touch the case of the heathen or of any who are brought up in hereditary error (e.g. Socinians and Arians), but they apply only to those within the Church. The Church is not called upon to judge ” them that are without” (1 Cor. v. 12).^ But she is ” bound to declare the whole counsel of God ” ; and it cannot be denied that there is a very severe side to the teaching of Scripture, and that our Lord Himself and His apostles speak in strong terms of the loss incurred by those who reject the faith.^ But though the Church is bound to state the revealed law and to assert the rule of judgment which follows on wilful rejection of the faith, yet it is not for her to assume the office of judge and apply the law to individual cases. Thus we have no right to say of any given individual, that A. B. ” without doubt will perish everlastingly.” This may require to be made somewhat clearer. To our Lord’s words, ” He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned,” common sense supplies certain limitations, and those who accept our Lord’s statement in the fullest loyalty, yet understand that the ” damnation ” spoken of will only be incurred by those who, having had His claims set before their conscience, wilfully reject Him, and disbelieve. But who shall say in any given case whether the rejection has been wilful ? To us it may appear that it has been so. But there is so much invincible prejudice

this phrase and the words integram inviolcUamque have a moral meaning, “undefiled by a bad life.” “Which faith, except each one, keep in integrity and purity.” — Eudiments of Theology , p. 257. It may be added that “before all things,” avie omniaf does not mean more than that right faith must precede right practice.

^ See further on Article XVIII. , where more will be said on the case of the heathen.

in the world, and the force of evidence strikes different minds so differently that it is impossible to say for certain whether the man has ever had the faith fairly set before his conscience. Not till the secrets of all hearts are revealed at the last day can it be known who they are who have ” not believed,” and who, therefore, ” shall be damned.” In precisely the same way as that in which we deal with a text such as this, should we deal with the statements of the Athanasian Creed. They are of the nature of a proclamation. They stand, as our Lord’s own words stand, as a warning to the believer of the danger of letting go that which he has received. They speak in close adherence to scriptural phraseology of the doom incurred by those who reject the Saviour of the world. But that is all. To apply them to any given individual is to assume the office of the judge, to whom alone it belongs to administer the law, and to consider how far it applies in the case brought before Him for judgment.

Verse 26 : ” He, therefore, that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.” Here, again, there is a harshness about the English translation which is absent from the original. If the words ran thus, ” Let him, then, who wishes to be safe [or ” saved ”] thus think of the Trinity,” no objection could reasonably be raised to the clause, and such a rendering would far more closely represent the original ” Qui vult, ergo, salvus esse : ita de Trinitate sentiat.”^

Verse 27 : ” Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that He also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

In this sentence the word ” rightly ” is unfortunate, for to many minds it probably suggests the same idea as “correctly,” and seems to imply that strict orthodoxy and correctness of belief is the main thing, making the faith spoken of a matter of the intellect, of the head rather than of the heart. The Latin, however, is this : “Sed necessarium est ad aeternam salutem ut incarnationem quoque Domini nostri Jesu Christi fideliter credat ” ; and if this word fideliter were rendered ” faithfully ” instead of ” rightly,” it would be apparent that the belief spoken of is a TTioral quaUty, and belongs to the heart even more than to the head.^ In this case the mistranslation, which is serious, is beyond question due to the fact that the Reformers believed that the creed was the work of Athanasius, and therefore corrected the Latin by reference to a Greek version, which they must have considered the original The version known to them has been shown by Waterland to be that published by Nicholas Bryling at Basle about 1540, and this, we find, renders fideliter in this verse by opOta^.^

Finally, if, in spite of the considerations here urged, it is still maintained that the creed makes everything depend upon a man’s belief, it may be well to emphasise the fact that in reality it is the only one of the three creeds which expressly a^sserts judgment by works.

” They that have done good [not * thought correctly ’ nor even * believed rightly *] shall go into life everlasting ; and they that have don£ evil into everlastiag fire.”

• Compare Rom. x, 10, “With the Jieart man believeth unto righteous-

ness.

A word may be added with regard to the phrases used to describe the condemnation incurred by those who reject the faith. ” Everlastingly ” and ” everlasting ” can scarcely be defended as renderings as cetemus. It would be better if ” eternally ” or ” eternal ” could be substituted, as these are the true equivalents of in cetemum and cetemum in clauses 2 and 39. The Latin phrases adequately represent the Greek eh top aloova and aldovto;, and, therefore, whatever interpretation we put upon the original sayings of our Lord, the same we are justified in putting upon the quotations of them in the creed. Now, in verse 2, the phrase in cetemum perire occurs. This is the equivalent used in the Vulgate for airoOaveiv ek rov aitava in S. John xi. 26. Its use in the creed may also be justified by the occurrence of the phrase ” eternal destruction ” (oXeOpo aifovLOf;) which is used of the doom incurred by those who “know not God and obey not the gospel of our Ird Jesus ” in 2 Thess. i. 9. Still more directly are the words of the thirty -ninth verse of the creed founded upon Scripture. They are taken from our Lord’s sayings in S. Matthew xxv. 41 : ” Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire” (irifp aia)viov, Revised Version, ” eternal fire ”), and in verse 46 : ” These shall go away into everlasting pimishment (ek KoKaaiv alcopiov, Revised Version, * eternal punishment ’) ; but the righteous into life eternal.”

Whatever, then, our Lord’s words mean, the creed means the same, for, as the late Dr. Mozley forcibly pointed out, ” where the language of a doctrinal formulary and the language of the Bible are the same, whatever explanation we give, in case there is a difficulty, of the language of the Bible is applicable to the language of the formulary as well ; and therefore, in such a case,

^ Compare also the expression ^’ the second death ” in Rev. xx. 6.

the statement in the formulary is no fresh difficulty, but only one which we have already surmounted in accepting the same statement in the Bible.” ^ Let due weight be given to this consideration, and it is believed that much of the difficulty now felt in some quarters with regard to the acceptance of the creed will be removed.

Appended is the creed itself in the original Latin, as found in the Sarum Breviary.^

Symbolum Athanasii.^

1. Quicimque vult salvus esse : ante omnia opus est ut teneat Catholicam fidem.

[…]

3. Fides autem Catholica haec est, ut unum Deum in Trinitate : et Trinitatem in Unitate veneremur.

[…]

5. Alia est enim persona Patris : alia Filii, alia

Spiritus Sancti.

6. Sed Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas : aequalis gloria coseterna majestas.

7. Qualis Pater talis Filius ; talis Spiritus Sanctus.

[…]

’ Lectures and TheAogical Papers, p. 220. In the same volume is contained an important lecture on the Athanasian Creed, to which reference may be made (Lecture xiii.).

2 Vol. i. col. 46, in the Cambridge edition.

r :

[…]

11. Et tamen non tres seterni: sed unus setemus.

12. Sicut non tres increati nee tres immensi: sed unus increatus et unus immensus.

[…]

14. Et tamen non tres Omnipotentes : sed unus Omnipotens.

15. Ita Deus Pater Deus Filius: Deus Spiritus Sanctus.

1 6. 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.

[…]

20. Pater a nullo est factus : nee creatus nee genitus.

21. Filius a Patre solo est: non factus nee creatus sed genitus.

22. Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus nee creatus nee genitus, sed procedens.

23. Unus ergo Pater non tres Patres : unus Filius non tres Filii, unus Spiritus Sanctus non tres Spiritus Sancti.

2’4. Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius: nihil majus aut minus.

Sed totse tres personse : coaeternae sibi sunt et coa^quales.

25. Ita ut per omnia sicut jam supradictum est: et Unitas in Trinitate, et Trinitas in Unitate veneranda sit.

26. Qui vult ergo salvus esse : ita de Trinitate sentiat.

27. Sed necessarium est ad aeternam salutem: ut

incarnationem quoque Domini nostri Jesu Christi fide-liter credat.

28. Est ergo fides recta ut credamus et confiteamur: quia Dominus noster Jesus Christus Dei Filius Deus et homo est.

29. Deus est ex substantia Patris ante saecula genitus : et homo est ex substantia matris in saeculo natus.

30. Perfectus Deus perfectus homo: ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens.

[…]

32. Qui licet Deus sit et homo: non duo tamen sed unus est Christus.

33. Unus autem non conversione Divinitatis in camem : sed assumptione humanitatis in Deum.^

34. Unus omnino non confusione substantias: sed unitate personae.

35. Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo : ita Deus et homo unus est Christus.

36. Qui passus est pro salute nostra descendit ad inferos : tertia die resurrexit a mortuis.

37. Ascendit ad coelos sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris Omnipotentis : inde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos.

38. Ad cujus adventum omues homines resurgere habent cum corporibus suis : et reddituri sunt de factis propiis rationem.

39. Et qui bona egerunt ibunt in vitam aeternam: qui vero mala in ignem aeternum.

40. Haec est fides Catholica, quam nisi quisque fide-liter firmiterque crediderit : salvus esse non poterit.

• In this verse the majority of the older MSS. read in Came and in Deo,

■>’ ”

[…]

11. Et tamen non tres seterni: sed unus aitemus.

12. Sicut non tres increati nee tres immensi: sed unus inereatus et unus immensus.

[…]

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.

1 8. Et tamen non tres Domini : sed unus est Dominus.

[…]

20. Pater a nullo est factus : nee creatus nee genitus.

21. Filius a Patre solo est: non factus nee creatus sed genitus.

22. Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus nee creatus nee genitus, sed procedens.

23. Unus ergo Pater non tres Patres : unus Filius non tres Filii, unus Spiritus Sanctus non tres Spiritus Sancti.

2’4. Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius: nihil majus aut minus.

Sed totse tres personse : coa3ternae sibi sunt et coa^quales.

25. Ita ut per omnia sicut jam supradictum est: et Unitas in Trinitate, et Trinitas in Unitate veneranda sit.

26. Qui vult ergo salvus esse : ita de Trinitate sentiat.

27. Sed necessarium est ad aeternam salutem : ut

incarnationem quoque Domini nostri Jesu Christi fide-liter credat.

28. Est ergo fides recta ut credamus et confiteamur: quia Dominus noster Jesus Christus Dei Filius Deus et homo est.

29. Deus est ex substantia Patris ante ssecula genitus : et homo est ex substantia matris in saeculo natus.

30. Perfectus Deus perfectus homo: ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens.

[…]

32. Qui licet Deus sit et homo: non duo tamen sed unus est Christus.

33. Unus autem non conversione Divinitatis in camem : sed assumptione humanitatis in Deum.^

34. Unus omnino non confusione substantise: sed unitate personae.

35. Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo : ita Deus et homo unus est Christus.

36. Qui passus est pro salute nostra descendit ad inferos : tertia die resurrexit a mortuis.

37. Ascendit ad coelos sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris Omnipotentis : inde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos.

38. Ad cujus adventum omnes homines resurgere habent cum corporibus suis : et reddituri sunt de factis propiis rationem.

39. Et qui bona egerunt ibunt in vitam aeternam: qui vero mala in ignem aeternum.

40. Haec est fides Catholica, quam nisi quisque fide-liter firmiterque crediderit : salvus esse non poterit.

• In tliis verse the majority of the older MSS. read in Came and in Deo»

INDEX

Aachen, Council of, 222.

Abbot, Archbishop, 48.

Abelard, 111.

Admonition to Parliament, 53.

A Lasco, John, 28.

Albertus Magnus, 149.

Alexandria, Council of, 109.

Alley, Bishop, on the descent into hell, 160 ; on the Old Testament, 281.

Ambrose, 219, 314.

Amphilochius, 249, 265.

Anabaptists, 22, 24, 125, 282.

Andrewes, Bishop, 47.

Anselm, 155.

Ai>ocrypha, 274 ; Jerome on, 276 ; Hooker on, 278.

Apollinaris, heresy of, 135.

Apostles’ Creed, history of, 305 ; origin of name, 313 ; text of, 815.

Aquinas, 171.

Aristides, 140, 299.

Artemon, heresy of, 105.

Ascension of Christ, 189.

Athanasian Creed, not the work of Athanasius, 329; a Latin Creed, 329 ; origin of name, 330 ; controversy on date, 331 ; internal evidence of date, 332 ; external evidence, 333; MSS. of, 33C ; contained in early collections of canons, 338 ; commentaries on, 339 ; used by early writers, 340 ; probable date of, 343 ; use made of by the Church of England, 344 ; contents of, 345 ; objections to, 346 ; mistranslations in, 347 ; text of, 353. Athanasius, use of ffypostasis, 107 : on the Monarchiat 116 ;

on Hormousios, 126 ; on Sabellianism, 206 ; on the sufficiency of Scripture, 242; on the Canon of Scripture, 256.

Athenagoras, 105, 205.

Atonement, doctrine of, 150 ; theories of, 154 ; reveals the Father’s love, 154 ; a mystery,

157. Au^burg, confession of. See Con-

fcssion.

Augustine on the Trinity, 101, 111, 112; on eternal generation, 123 ; on the divinity of Christ, 129 ; on the descent into hell, 167, 171 ; on the presence of Christ as man, 196 ; on the Macedonians, 208 ; on the procession of the Holy Spirit, 219 ; on the sufficiency of Scripture, 242 ; on the Canon of Scripture, 250, 256; on the Creed, 300; coincidences with Athanasian Creed, 332, 345.

Autun, Council of, 333.

Barnabas, Epistle of, 270. Basil, 206. Baxter, R., 56. Bede, 171. Bengel, 115, 147. Bigg, Rev. C, 108. Blackburne, Archdeacon, 63. Browne, Bishop H., on the Articles,

144, 172, 242, 244, 330. Burke, Edmund, 63. Burnet, Bishop, 18, 47. Butler, Bishop, on the Atonement,

CiESAREA, Baptismal Creed of, 316.

■««■».

INDEX

INDEX

Caesarius of Aries, 309, 342.

Canon of Scripture, meaning of the term,248 ; method ofdeterniining, 250 ; difference between England and Rome on, 252 ; evidence on which the Canon of the New Testament rests, 261.

Cassian, 304.

Carthage, Council of, 257.

Ceremonial Law of Moses not binding on Christians, 294.

Charisms of Philadclpliia, 225.

Charlemagne, 221, 313, 337.

Charles the Bald, 337.

Cheke, Sir J., 13, 19.

Chrysostom, 192, 214.

Clarke, Dr. S., 111.

Clement of Alexandria, 171, 248, 275.

Clement of Rome, 104, 205, 248, 270.

Communicatio idiomatum, 138.

Communion of Saints, 311.

Confession of Augsburg, 8, 90, 120, 159, 180.

Confession of Wiirtemburg, 9, 120, 198, 232.

Con/essio BasiliejisiSt 9.

Con/essio Helvetica i. and ll., 10.

Con/essio Fidei OallicaTuif 10.

Con/essio Belgica, 10.

Constantinople, Council of, 215 ; creed of, 324.

Convocation, were the Forty -Two Articles submitted to it ? 15.

Cosin, Bishop, 49.

Cranmer, Archbishop, prepares the Forty-Two Articles, 12 ; his account of the title to them, 17. See also 5, 7, 28, 258.

Creeds, origin of, 297; indications of in New Testament, 297 ; early forms of, 298 ; interrogative forms of, 300 ; introduced into the liturgy, 300 ; used as tests of orthodoxy, 301 ; difference between Eastern and Western, 302. Curteis, Canon, 68. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, 105.

307. Cyprian, Bishop of Toulon, 309, C^ril of Alexandria, 216. Cyril of Jerusalem, catechetical lectures of, 207, 300 ; on the Canon, 255, 265; on the term

Apocryphal, 276; creed of, 321.

Cyril Lucar, confession of, 259,

Dale, R. W., 147, 148. Deity, properties of, 139. Denebert, Bishop, profession of, 341. Descent into hell, change in the

Article on, 160. See also Hdl,

descent iiito. DicUessaron of Tatian, 269. Diogenes of Cyzicus, 322. Dionysius of Alexandria, 107. Dionysius of Rome, 107. Divinity of the Son, proved from

Scripture, 127 ; of the Spirit, 199. Dixon, Canon R. W., 3, 6, 12, 13,

14, 17, 29. Docetism, 145. Double procession, the doctrine of,

211 ; objections to, 224. Driver, Professor, 164, 286, 291,292.

Enoch, Book of, 164, 287. Ephesus, seventh canon of the

Council of, 225; ratifies the

Creed of Nicsea, 324. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salarais, on

Montanism, 205 ; creeds given by,

319 ; cf. -^08, 215, 324. Eternal generation of the Son,

123. Eusebius of Cresarea on the Canon

of the New Testament, 266 ; on

[…]

Faustus of Riez, 307.

Filioquef addition of the clause to the creed, 215.

Flesh and blood, meaning of the term, 188.

Flesh and bones, meaning of the term, 188.

Fortunatus, commentary of on the Athanasian Creed, 334.

Forty -Two Articles, history of their preparation, 12 ; had they the authuritv of Convocation, 15 ; their substance and object, 20 ; not intended to be a permanent test, 25 ; their sources, 26 ; how far dependent on the Confession of Augsburg, 26 ; their text, 70.

Frankfort, Council of, 222. Freeman, Archdeacon, 203. Fuller, Church History, 15. Future life, doctrine of in the Old TesUment, 287.

Gallican additions to the creed, 309.

Gardiner, S. R., 48.

Gore, C, 98, 103, 125, 130, 144.

Gregory Nazianzen, 210, 256, 265.

Guest, Bishop, share in the preparation of the Articles, 30 ; on Article XXIX., 45 ; suggests further changes, 45.

Hades, 163. See also JTcU.

Hadrian i.. Bishop of Rome, 221, 837.

Hadrian ii., 337.

Hamant, Matthew, 120.

Hampton Court Conference, 54.

Hardwick on the Articles, 19, 25, 31, 39, 46, 51, 281.

Hatfield, Council of, 220.

Hefele, Bishop, 256, 258.

Hell, meaning of the word, 163.

Hell, descent into, Scriptural grounds of doctrine, 166 ; object of, 169 ; early belief in, 175 ; history of the article of the creed on, 177 ; criticism of Pearson on, 179.

Hermas, 205, 270.

Heurtley, Professor, 177, 310, 322.

Hevlin, 15.

Hilary of Aries, 332,

Hilary of Poictiers, 110, 218, 256.

Hippolytus, 108.

Holy Ghost, addition of article on, 198 ; Divinity of, 199 ; distinct personality of, 201 ; history of the doctrine of, 204 ; procession of, 209.

Holy Scripture, changes in the article on, 231 ; sufficient for salvation, 234 ; decree of the Council of Trent on, 235; the Fathers on, 242 ; the Canon of, 248.

Homilies, Book of, on the doctrine of a future life, 293.

HomootLsios^ meaning of the term, 126 ; adopted at Nicaea, 125 ; objections to, 126.

Hooker, R., Ecclesiastical Polity of, 47 ; on the Incarnation, 136, 143; on the communicatio idiomaium, 138; on the gift of unction, 142 ; on the presence of Christ as man, 194 ; on the sufficiency of Scripture, 251 ; on the Apocrypha, 278.

Hooper, Bishop, on the Articles, 13 ; on the Anabaptists, 22, 145 ; on the descent into hell, 16?.

Horsley, Bishop, 165, 173.

Humanity of Christ perfect, 141.

Humphreys, 41.

Hypostatic union, the, 137.

Hypostasis, history of the word. 107.

Ignatius, 104, 140, 175, 205, 210, 270.

Illinjovorth’s Bampton Lectures,

103. Incarnation, Doctrine of, 137 seq. In/eri and In/erna, 163. Institution of a Christian man, 5. Irenseus, 140, 153, 175, 241, 269,

Jerome on the word hypostasis, 111 ;

on the Apocrypha, 232, 256 ; on

the term Canonical^ 250, 275 ; on

the Creed, 307, 314. Jesus Christ See Son o/ God. Jewel, Bishop, 44, 195. Josephus, 253. Judgment, the last, 196. Justin Martyr, 104, 140, 175, 204,

Kaye, Bishop, 246. Kirkpatrick, Professor, 289. Knox, John, 14.

Lambeth Articles, 53.

Laodicaea, Council of, 256.

Laud, Archbishop, advises charter

to prefix declaration to the

Articles, 49 ; on Canon V., 67. Leicester, Earl of, 64. Leo III. on the procession of tlie

Holy Spirit, 223. Liddou’s Bampton Lectures, 113,

117, 123, 125, 130, 144. Lightfoot, Bishop, 270, 327. Logos, doctrine of the, 122.

INDEX

If

INDEX

Lumby, Professor, on the Athan-

asian Creed, 335 seq. Luther on the Canon of the New

Testament, 272.

Macedonius, heresy of, 207.

Marcellus of Ancyra, heresy of, 321 ; creed of, 306.

Martensen, Bishop, 191.

Maurice, Rev. F. D., 292.

Medd, Rev. P. G., 96.

Mediation of Christ, 152.

Medieval errors condemned in the Forty-Two Articles, 21.

Melito of Sardis, 255.

Messianic hope in the Old Testament, 285.

Micronius, Martin, 23, 161.

Mill, Rev. W. H., 246.

Milligan, Professor, 189.

Moehler, 237.

Manarchia, doctrine of the, 115.

Montague, Bishop, 48, 49.

Montanisni, 205.

Moral law binding on Christians, 294.

Muratori, 333.

Muratorian fragment on the Canon,

Neal, D., 55.

Necessary doctrine and erudition

for any Christian man, 5. Nestorius, heresy of, 136. Newdigate, Sir R., 63. New Testament, Canon of, 261 ;

MSS. of, 261 ; versions of, 263 ;

catalogues of, 265 ; citations of,

268 ; language of Article VI. on,

Newman, J. H., 114, 237, 274.

Nicaea, Council of, 124.

Nicene Creed, original form of, 316 ; enlarged form of, 318 ; date and object of the enlargement, 321 ; possibly sanctioned at Constantinople, 324; not noticed at Ephesus, 324; sanctioned at Chalcedon, 324 ; additions at Toledo, 215; Latin version of, 327 ; English translation of, 327.

Nicholas i.. Pope, 224.

Nicholas iir.. Pope, 228.

Norris, Archdeacon, 163, 155, 348.

Old Testament, Canon of the, 252 ; Ransom, Christ’s death a, 155.

changes in the Article on, 280 ; not contrary to the New, 283.

Ommanney, Rev. Prebendary, 339.

Origen, his use of Ousia and Hypostasis, 107, 108 ; on eternal generation, 123; uses the term Homomisios, 126 ; on 1 Pet iii. 18, 171 ; on the term Canonical, 249 ; on the Canon of Scripture, 255.

OusiA, history of the term, 107. Oxenham, H. N., 155.

Palmer, Sir W., 241, 242, 244.

Papias, 269.

Paradise, 166.

Parker, Archbishop, prepares the Thirty- Eight Articles, 30, 324 suggests clause in Article XXVIII., 36 ; changes made by him, 120, 160, 198, 259 ; on the descent into hell, 161.

Paul of Samosata, 127.

Pearson, Bishop, on the position of the Articles, 39 ; on the unity of God, 91 ; on the Trinity, 116 ; on the Son of God, 121 ; on the descent into hell, 169, 171, 189 ; on the Macedonian heresy, 199 ; on the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, 201 ; on the procession of the Holy Ghost, 211.

Perichoresis, doctrine of the, 117.

Perrone, 237.

Person, history of the term, 106 ; explanation of, 112.

Peter, Gospel of, 176.

Philpot, Archdeacon, his explanation of the title of the Articles, 17.

Philo, 254.

Photius, 224.

Pirminius on the Creed, 310.

Pius IV., Pope, 11, 12.

Plumptre, Dean, 171, 180.

Pneumatomachi, the, 208.

Polycarp, 270.

Praxeas, 106.

Presence of Christ as man, nature of the, 193.

Procession of the Holy Ghost, doctrine of the, 209.

Prynne, W., 49.

Pusey, E. B., 218, 219, 234.

JT

Reccared, 215.

Reconciliation of God to man, 146.

Redditio Symholi, 300.

Reformatio Legum Ecclesiastiearum,

[…]

the, 183. Resurrection body, nature of the,

186. Resurrection of the flesh, 311. Reynolds, Dr., 54. Roman Creed, early, 306. Roscellinus, 111. Row, Prebendary, 186. Royal declaration prefixed to the

Articles, 47. Rufinus, on the Creed, 178, 304 «e^.,

314 ; on the Canon of Scriptui*e,

Sabellianlsm, 106, 206.

Sacrifice, Christ’s death a, 148.

Salvus, meaning of the word, 347.

Sampson, 41.

Santlay, Professor, 148, 269, 271.

Scarapsus, 310.

Session at the right-hand of God, meaning of the expression^ 192 ; evidence for, 192.

Sheol, Hebrew conception of, 163.

Sherlock, Dean, 111,

Socrates, 177, 324,

Son, meaning of the term, 122.

Son of God, eternal generation of, 122 seq.; incarnation of, 135 seq.; union of two natures in one person, 187 ; atonement of, 145 seq.

South, Dr., 111.

Subscription to the Articles, required bv Parliament, 43; required by Couvocatioii,57; form of, modified, 63 ; not required from the laity, 64 ; history of, at the universities, 64.

Substance, history of the term, 107.

Swainson, Professor, 335.

Swete, Professor, 104, 177, 205, 208. 213, 310 seq.

Symbolum, meaning of the term 304.

Tarakius, Patriarch of Constantinople, 221.

Taylor, Bishop Jeremy, 242.

Ten Articles of 1536, the, 3.

Tertullian, 105, 107, 108, 140, 166. 176, 213, 241, 248, 269, 275, 298 303, 311.

Theodore of Mopsuestia, 216, 225.

Theodore of Tarsus, 220.

Theodoret, 216, 324.

Theodotus, 105.

Theophilus of Antioch, 105, 204.

Theotocos, title of, 136.

Thirteen Articles of 1538, 7.

Thirty-Eight Articles of 1563, history of the, 30 ; compared with the Forty-Two Articles, 38 ; indebted to the Confession of Wiirtemburg, 38 ; submitted to Convocation, 30 ; changes introduced by the Queen, 31.

Thirty -Nine Articles, revision of 1571, 42 ; their true character, 38, 52; Latin and English both authoritative, 46; royal declaration prefixed to, 50 ; Puritan objections to, 51 seq.; subscription to, see Subscription.

Toledo, third council of, 215.

Traditio Symholi, 300.

Tradition and Scripture, 236 seq.

Trent, Council of, 10, 235, 252.

Trinity, the Holy, preparation for the doctrine in the Old Testament, 93 ; revelation of in the New Testament, 98; the doctrine agreeable to reason, 101 ; first occurrence of the word, 104 ; meaning of the doctrine, 114; priority of order in the, 116.

Unction, gift of, ] 42. Usher, Archbishop, 333. Utrecht Psalter, the, 334.

[…]

Waterland, D., on the Articles, 46; on subscription, 62; vindication of the doctrine of the Trinity, 111 ; on the Athanasian Creed. 331 seq.

INDEX

Westcott, Bishop, 97, 117, 122, 130, 134, 156, 169, 184, 185, 186, 188, 191, 211, 250, 256, 258, 302.

Westminster assembly of divines. 55.

Whitaker, Professor, 54.

Whitgi ft, Archbishop, Three Articlen of, 58,; subscription to them required by the Canons of 1604, 59.

Wiseman, Cardinal, 237.

Wiirtemburg, Confession of, J^sec Confession,

MORHISON A.MD OIBB, rillNTERi^, U>Un)URaU.

NOT

\ )

[…]

MAIN

[…]

Bibliographic Irregularities in the Original Documpnt List volumes and pages affected; include name of institution if filming borrowed text.

Page(s) missing/not available:

.Volumes(s) missing/not available:.

Illegible and /or damaged page(s):.

Page(s) or volumes(s) misnumbered: Bound out of sequence:

.Page(s) or illustration(s) filmed from copy borrowed from: UniygYs i+a (2f Ohio. hY)]\ie. Volov^f.

Ashland Th-’-V-n! Library

For Reference

Not to be taken from this room

HILDA & MICHAEL BROOKE

THE

OF THE

By EDGAR C. S. GIBSON, D.D.

VICAR OK LEEDS AND PREBENDARY OF WELLS SOMETIME PRINCIPAL OF WELLS THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE

METHUEN & CO.

LONDON

K^A^

m-

For some years there has been a widely-spread feeling, among those whose work called them to lecture on the XXXIX. Articles, that there is room for another treatise on the subject. Archdeacon Hardwick’s invaluable work is purely historical, and attempts no interpretation or Scriptural proof of the Articles themselves. Bishop Forbes* Exrplanation is excellent as a theological treatise, but, in spite of its title, it is scarcely an ” explanation ” of the Articlea Dr. Boulbee’s Theology of the Church of England is clear and business-like, but it is written from a party point of view. Of Bishop Harold Browne*s well-known Exposition it is sufficient to say that the first edition was published in 1850, and that a good deal of fresh light has been thrown upon the Articles during the last forty-six years. But since the Bishop was content to issue edition after edition without making any change in it, or subjecting it to a much-needed revision, the book, which has in the past been of so much service to the Church, has become in many parts {e.g. in all that concerns the history of the Creeds) antiquated and out of date. Since the present work was sent to the press, two other volumes on the same subject have appeared, namely, an Introduction to the XXXIX. Articles, by Dr. Maclear and Mr. Williams, and The Thirty-nine Articles and the Age of the Reforma-

Ashlund I hcclcclco! Library

AshtuHd, Ohio

VI

tim by the Eev. E. Tyrrell Green.— a fact which aflords striking evidence of the feeling aUuded to above, that the text-books at present in use are not altogether adequate. Mr. Green’s work contains much illustrative matter from contemporary documents, and that by Dr. Maclear and Mr. Williams is excellent as a short textbook. My own work is on a somewhat larger scale, and may perhaps appear to be more ambitious, in aiming at completeness as a commentary upon the Articles ; and I trust that it may be found that there is room for it as well as for these others. My object throughout has been to make the work correspond as closely as possible to the title. It is not in any way intended to be » complete system of theology. The subjects discussed are strictly limited to those which are fairly suggested by the text of the Articles. Nor is it a history of doctrine. I have simply endeavoured to explain the teaching of the Articles, assuming a general knowledge of ecclesiastical history on the part of the reader, and only tracing out the history of doctrine where it seemed to be absolutely necessary in order to enable him to understand the meaning of the text of the Articles and the expressions used in it. My aim has always been to discover and elucidate the “plain, literal, and grammatical sense” of the document on which I have underUken to comment. I can honestly say that I have striven to be perfectly fair, and to avoid the temptation to “read in” to the Articles meanmgs which I am not convinced to be really there. How far I have succeeded my readers must judge for

IjIiGIIISGI V68.

One possible criticism I should like to meet beforehand It may perhaps be said that there is a lack of proportion in the treatment of the Articles, smce far more space has been devoted to the first eight than to

Vll

the remaining thirty-one. My reply must be that the fault, if it be a fault, has been deliberately committed, — and for this reason. The first eight Articles practically re-state, in an enlarged form, the rule of faith as contained in the Church’s Creed, and therefore stand on a <lifferent footing from the others. In some works on the Articles this seems to be regarded as a reason for devoting but little space to them, it being presumably taken for granted that the student will have previously mastered Pearson’s great work, or some other treatise on the Creed. It has seemed to me wiser to adopt the opposite course, and to make the commentary upon them fuller than that on the remaining Articles, in order to emphasize their importance, and to give them their proper position. I trust, however, that the lack of proportion is not really so great as might at first sight appear. Many of the later Articles admit of very slight treatment, and I hope that it will be found that adequate attention has been paid to the really important ones among them, especially to those on the Church, the Sacraments, and the Ministry.

It only remains for me to express my thanks to those who have assisted me in the work, especially to the Rev. A. Eobertson, D.D., Principal of Hatfield Hall, Durham, who hEis kindly looked through the proof sheets, and helped me by making many valuable suggestions.

The Vicarage, Leeds,

December 10, 1896.

i\

■w ■ III ■ I I W

♦—

PAOE^

Article IX.— Of Original or Birth Sin … 357

Original Sin 35»

The Effect of Baptism in the removal of Original Sin . . 373

The Character of Concupiscence 37S

Article X. — Of Freewill 378

Freewm 379

The Need of Grace 380

Article XL— Of the Justification of Man … 38&

Justification : Its Meaning and Relation to Sanctification . 389

The Meritorious Cause of Justification 397

The Instrument or Formal Cause of Justification . . 398

The “Homily of Justification” 407

Article XII. — Of Good Works 410

Article XIII.— Of Works before Justification . . 415

The Title as compared with the Article itself . . 41&

The Scholastic Theory of Congruous Merit … 418

The Teaching of the Article upon the Subject … 420

Article XIV. — Of Works op Supererogation . . 424

The Name ” Works of Supererogation ” 425

The History of the Growth of the System of Indulgences . . 42&

The Theological Defence offered for them … 433

Article XV. — Of Christ alone without Sin . 439

Christ’s Sinlessness 441

Article XVI.— Of Sin after Baptism 444

The fact that deadly Sin is not Unpardonable … 44&

The possibility of falling from Grace 45&

Article XVII.— Of Predestination and Election

The Description of Predestination

The Steps which acconij>any it

The Practical Effect of the Doctrine

Two Considerations calculated to guard the Doctrine from Abuses

Article XYIIL— Of obtaining Eternal Salvation only by THE Name of Christ

Article XIX.— Of the Church

The Description of the Visible Church

The Statement that the Church of Rome hath erred in Matters of Faith

Article XX.— Of the Authority of the Church .

The Legislative Power of the Church with regard to Rites or

Ceremonies

The Judicial Authority of the Church with regard to Doctrine . The Office of the Church with regard to Holy Scripture .

Alticle XXL— Of the Authority of General Councils

They may not be gathered together without the Consent of

Princes •

They are liable to En-

As a Matter of History they actually have Erred

Article XXII.— Of Purgatory Purgatory …

Pardons

Adoration of Images and Reliques Invocation of Saints

Article XXIII.— Of Ministering in the Congregation

Tlie Need of an External Call and Mission

The Description of those through whom the Call comes

Akticle XXIV. — Of Spkakino in the Congregation in A Tongue as the People understandeth .

The Evidence of Scripture on this Subject The Custom of the Primitive Church

PAOE

506 .‘»11

542 554 557 .^^64

SUCH

XI

PAOE

Article XXV.— Of the Sacraments 585

The Description of Sacraments oi-dained of Christ … 588

The Number of such Sacraments 593

The Five Rites *’ commonly called Sacraments” … 602

The Use of Sacraments 610

Article XXVI. — Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers,

which hinders not the Effect of the Sacraments 615

Article XXVII.— Of Baptism 620

The Description of Baptism and its Effects … 621

Infant Baptism 634

Article XXVIII.— Of the Lord’s Supper … .641

The Description of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper . . 647

The Doctrine of Transubstantiation 649^

The Nature of the Presence, and the ” Mean whereby it is

received” 660

Certain Practices in connection with the Eucharist … 664

Article XXIX. — Of the Wicked which do not Eat the

Body of Christ in the use of the Lord’s Supper . 668

Article XXX.— Of both Kinds 676

The History of the Practice condemned in it … . 676

The Arguments by which it has been justified … 683

Article XXXI. — Of the One Oblation of Christ finished

UPON THE Cross 687

The Sufficiency of the Sacrifice of the Cross … 688

The Condemnation of the “Sacrifices of Masses” … 691

Article XXXII. — Of the Marriage of Priests … 695 There is no Prohibition of the Marriage of the Clergy in

Scripture 696

It is lawful for the Clergy to Marry if they think it advisable . 697

Article XXXIII. — Of Excommunicate Persons: How they

are to be avoided 705

Article XXXIV.— Of the Traditions of the Church . . 716

Article XXXV.— Of Homilies 722

The History of the Homilies 723

The Nature of the Assent demanded to them … 725

xii CONTENTS

FAOE

Article XXXVL— Of Consecration op Bishops and Ministers 729

The Objections of the Puritans 731

The Objections of the Romanists 748

Article XXXVII.— Of the Civil Magistrates . .759

The Royal Supremacy 76I

The Papal Claims 772

The Lawfulness of Capital Punishment 780

The Lawfulness of War 781

Article XXXVIII. — Of Christian Men’s Goods which are

NOT Common 783

The Community of Goods 734

The Duty of Almsgiving 786

Article XXXIX.— Of a Christian Man’s Oath .788 Index 793

It

i!

Notes

• Teods and Studies, vol. i. p. 25 (Ed. J. A. Robinson).
• In this way there grew up the interrogative creeds of the Church, such as that found in the Gelasian Sacramtntary, p. 86, 116 (Ed. Wilson). Other forms are given in Heurtley’s Harmonia Symbolka, p. 106 seq. It would appear that sometimes a shorter form was used at the Redditio SyTTiboU than had been rehearsed to the catechumens at the Traditio.
• Bishop Westcott’s Historic Faith^ p. 187.
• £.g. Ep. Ixix. 7.
• See p. 300, note 3.
• Passus is not given in the creed commented on in De fide et Synibolo, De Oenesi ad lUeram, optis imperf.y or the Enchiridion. It appears, however, to have found a place in the creeds of the Sermo de Syinholo ad Catech., and of Seniion ccxii. ; cf. Heurtley, ffarmonia Symbolica, p. 40.
• See Hahn, p. 89, and cf. Fausti Reiensis Opera (Ed. Engebrecht), Ep, 7, and De Spiritu Sancto, 1, 2.
• It is found in the sermon assigned to Caesarius, but is not in the creed given by Cyprian of Toulon. There may be a possible reference to the creed in Faustus, Serm. ii., “Mortem suscepit, pretioso nos sanguine libera vit, ad in/cma descendit.’*
• See the Missale Oallicanum in Migne, vol. Ixxii. col. 349. Precisely the same creed is given in Sacramentarium Oallicanum^ ibid. col. 489, and, as Heurtley points out, “the occurrence of the same form in two independent documents would seem to imply that they were to some extent established.” — ffarmonia Symbolica, p. 69.
• Scarapsus is explained as equivalent to eollectus. But Heurtley suggests that it may be only a misreading for scriptuSf Op. cit. p. 70.
• The whole extract ia printed by Di\ Swete, The Apostles’ Creed, p. 103.
• Swete, op. cit. p. 83, where there is a reference to Augustine, C. Epist. Parmenian. ii. 37, and De Bapt. e. DoncUist. ii. 8, v. 38, vii. 49. It is, however, the thought rather than the actual phrase communio sanctorum, which is Augustinian.
• This seems to be shown by its appearance in the Oclasian Sacramentary at the Traditio Symbolic p. 53 (Ed. Wilson).
• Its use here would seem to be implied by its existence in the British Museum MSS. noted above, p. 307.
• “Epistola Concilii Mediolanensis,” Opera, v. p. 292.
• *‘Ad Pammach. c. Joann. Hier.” Opera, ii. col. 380. ” Symbolum fidei … quod ab apostolis traditum.”
• The Syriac Creed of Mesopotamia now used by the Nestoiian Churches, and the Cappadocian Creed now used by the Armenian Churches, both claim to be ‘•Nicene,” though differing widely from the original creed. See Hort’s Two Disserlatiom, p. 110, and cf. p. 149 seq., where these two creeds are given in full.
• See Lumby, The History of the Creeds^ pp. 78-81.
• Hort argues that it may have been recognised at Constantinople as the Creed of Cyril of Jerusalem, whose authority was apparently impugned at the Council. See Tioo Dissertations, etc., pp. 97-107.
• /.«., from the time of the Emperor Justin, see Zaccaria, Bibliotheca RUualis, vol. II. civ. Previously to this the true Nicene Oeed had been used in some parts of the East.
• Lightfoot, On a Fresh Bevuion of the New Testament^ p. 122.
• See an article on “The Anglican Version of the Nicene Creed,” Church Quarterly Review, vol. viii. p. 372.
• By Bishop Browne, An Exposition of the Thirty Nine Articles, p. 224 ; after Waterland, Critical History , ch. viii.
• ” Si quis presbyter, diaconus, subdiaconus vel clericus symbolum quod sancto inspirante spiritu Apostoli tradiderunt, et fidem Sancti Athanasii pnesulis irreprehensibiliter non recensuerit, ab episcopo condemnatur.” Bardouin^ toL iii. p. 13.
• See Liimby, History of the Creeds, p. 204.
• The MS. which is at Milan (M. 79 svp.) is assigned to the eleventh century. In other MSS. of the same commentary or exposition, e.g. that in the Bodleian (Junius, 25) no author’s name is attached to it. Sec Swainson, The Nicene and Aj^osUes’ Creeds, ch. xxix. and Lumby. p. 208.
• The late Dr. Swainson strongly contended that it belonged to the ninth century ; and with him Dr. Lumby to some extent agrees, as he holds that in its present fonn the creed was only compiled between a.d. 813 and 850; though he maintains that “before that date two separate compositions existed [one on the Trinity and the other on the Incarnation] which form the groundwork of the present Quicunque.’*— History of the Creeds, p. 254.
• Dr. Lumby mentions this MS., but does not really attempt to prove that it is later than the date assigned to it. See History of the Creetis, p. 225.
• Swainson describes this MS., and was evidently perplexed by it, but honestly tells us that M. Delisle assigns it to the year 795. — Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds^ p. 350. Dr. Lumby fails to notice it at all.
• See Lumby, History of the Creeds, p. 216.
• See Swainson, p. 372, and Lumby, p. 221.
• Maassen, Biblioth. Latina Juris Canonici ; of. Swainson, p. 268. Ommanney, Early History of the Athanasian Creed , p. 92.
• Maassen, Biblioth. Latina Juris Canonici] cf. Swainson, p. 268. Ommanney, The S.P.CK. and the Creed of S. Athanasius, p. 28.
• Nicen^ and Apostles’ Creeds, p. 272.
• On all the commentaries reference may be made to Ommanney’s Early History of the Athanasian Creed. 2 Compare Ommanney, p. 37.
• See Haddan and Stubbs’ Councils and Ecclesiastical Documents^ vol. iii. p. 626. “Insuper et orthodoxam catholicam apostolicamque fidem sicut didici paucis exponam verbis, quia scriptum est quicunque vult salvus esse ante omnia opus est illi ut teneat catholicam fidem. Fides autem Catholica haec est ut unum Deum in Trinitate et Trinitatem in Unitate
• See above, p. 337.
• Opera, vol. v. Appendix, Serm. ccxliv.
• This is rendered certain from its position in the Psalters. It is alluded to by Honorius of Autun (1136) in the Oemma Animcp, bk. ii. ch. 60 ; by Abbo of Fleury, a.d. 1001 (Migne, cxxxix. p. 462), but not by Amalarius or Walafrid Strabo in the ninth century.
• See especially [S. Mark] xvi. 16 ; S. John iii. 36 ; and cf. E. W. Church, Human Life and Us Conditions, p. 101 seq.
• Dr. Swainson has pointed out (on the authority of Professor Skeat) that “must ” in the sixteenth century often bore a less strong meaning than is now usually attached to it, and was often used in the sense of “would have to,” or “should.” — Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds, p. 495. The old English version in the Bodleian (Douce, 258), printed by Maskell {Afonumenia RituaHa, Ed. 2, vol. iii. p. 257) gives the following rendering of the clause, “And who soeuer wele be saafe, yus fele he of ye trinite.’
• See Waterland, Critical History ^ ch. v. and x., and cf. Swainson, p. 493.
• This title is not given to the creed in any ancient MS. Even where it is attributed to Athanasius it is not called Symbolum, but Fides, as in some of the MSS. referred to above. Various readings in the text of the creed are limited in number. They may be seen in Swainson, |). 532, or Lumby, p. 256.