to the spurious list. What have these books to do with our point? In his work De Spiritu Sancto written in 809 Theodulf quotes the Athanasian Creed as the work of Athanasius in conjunction with some of these books, which suggests not indeed that it must, but it may have been mixed up in his time with them in the MS. or MSS. which he used1. And if this was the case, it may have led to the connexion of the name of Athanasius with it in the first instance. If a copyist found the Quicunque with the title 'Fides Catholica' simply or with no title at all following in a MS. of some or one of these books ascribed to Athanasius, he would very possibly assume that that also must belong to his authorship, and would prefix his name accordingly. Such assumptions are not uncommon. The erroneous attribution once introduced would be easily multiplied and propagated by other copyists.

These are two alternative possible ways of accounting for the ascription to Athanasius. But nothing certain can be determined upon the point. This is not to be wondered at considering our ignorance of the remote period when the circumstance occurred. Moreover, it is not a matter of any practical importance. For the claims of the Creed to our belief and esteem do not rest upon the fact of its ascription to Athanasius, but chiefly and primarily upon its intrinsic excellence as a faithful exposition of the great scriptural and Catholic verities of the Trinity and Incarnation. This is especially pressed upon English Churchmen by the statement of the Article that the three

The quotation of the Creed, from Pater a nullo to de Trinitate sentiat, is headed in Migne's edition, Patrol. Latina, tom. cv. p. 247-Item idem (In Symbolo quod Spiritus Sanctus procedat a Patre et Filio. This might convey the impression that the Creed was styled Symbolum by Theodulf. Such, however, is not the case, in Sirmond's edition, of which Migne's is a reprint, the words In Symbolo being printed in the margin the same as Scripture references.

Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius's Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, are most thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by the most certain warrant of Holy Scripture.' If we are to reject the Confession of our Christian Faith commonly called the Creed of St. Athanasius,' because it is not his composition, upon the same principle we must reject also 'that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed.' And it must fare the same with the Nicene Creed, as we incorrectly call the Creed recited in the Communion Service. For it is not identical with the Creed drawn up at the Council of Nice, the former containing much important matter which is not found in the latter and omitting important matter which is found in the latter.

CHAPTER V.

THE TEXT.

CONSIDERING the very great number of MSS. of the Athanasian Creed which are still extant, they present a remarkably small diversity of text. There is but one variant of any importance. This remark does not apply to the Trèves fragment, which, as I maintain for reasons before stated 1, is a portion of a sermon delivered at the 'Traditio Symboli,' not of our document.

There is no evidence to show that the Quicunque existed at one time in a kind of embryo state and attained its present form and dimensions by a process of growth and accretions, like the other two Creeds and the Te Deum. There is no evidence of its having been combined into one from two separate documents, relating severally to the Trinity and the Incarnation. The homogeneous character of the two parts, as I have before pointed out, is a clear indication of the contrary. Nor can it be proved that the condemnatory clauses were subsequent additions to the doctrinal expositions. We have every reason to believe that such as the Creed is now, such it was when it issued from the hands of its author.

In Appendix E. I have reproduced the text as printed by Waterland, with collations made by me from early and

1 Above, Part I. chap. i. 4.

important MSS.; but there are some particulars which seem to call for special notice.

In verses 7. *, 9. 10. 13. 15, and 17 et is read before Spiritus in most early MSS. but it is cmitted in later codices, as also in the printed Breviaries, Roman and Sarum.

Verses 20, 21, 22, Pater a nulis ... sed procedens. These verses are the only portion of the Creed respecting which there can be any question whether they belonged to the original text. They are not quoted in the so-called Fortunatus and Troyes Commentaries. On the other hand, they are found in all the MSS. and are quoted in the other early Commentaries, including the Paris, which may be as early as either the Troyes Commentary or the Fortunatus. Possibly the two last-named documents may have omitted to quote them, because their doctrinal teaching is in substance contained in their comments on the fourth verse. The evidence therefore is in favour of the verses belonging to the original text. The mere fact. moreover, of the omission of a Commentary to notice a particular portion of the document which is its subject-matter, is no proof of its absence from the text. It may be added that the quotation by Theodulf in his work De Spiritu Sancto of these important verses concerning the relations of the divine persons together with some other verses of the Creed is alone a sufficient proof that they could not have been inserted in the Creed after or during the controversy respecting the Procession which took place at the end of the eighth and the beginning of the ninth century, but must have belonged to it some considerable time before. For Theodulfs treatise was written early in the ninth century before that controversy had ceased. And the internal evidence, as well as the external, excludes the notion of these verses

being subsequent additions. There is nothing as regards doctrine or style to discriminate them from the rest of the Creed, as the work of a later age or different hand. They are perfectly homogeneous with the rest, being cast in the same mould of Augustinian teaching and phraseology. This is particularly true of the doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, stated in the twenty-second verse, which was repeatedly asserted by St. Augustine: for instance, non tantum a Patre sed et a Filio procedere Spiritum Sanctum,' de Trin. iv. 29, and 'Spiritus quoque Sanctus non sicut creatura, ex nihilo est factus; sed sic a Patre Filioque procedit, ut nec a Filio nec a Patre sit factus,' Ep. clxx. 4.

Verse 22. After the words sed procedens the Milan MS. adds Patri et Filio co-aeternus est. As the addition is supported by no other MS. it can be of no significance, and I should not deem it worth noticing but for the strange. inference drawn from it by Professor Lumby in his History of the three Creeds, a book which has obtained a wide circulation, especially among young theological students. In his judgement the addition 'is of such a character as to stamp this MS. with a date posterior to the great controversy on the Procession of the Holy Ghost. It is an expansion and affirmation of the preceding portion of the verse which could hardly be expected before that controversy had excited a considerable degree of attention, that is at the end of the eighth or beginning of the ninth century. This is indeed an astonishing argument, especially from such a quarter! How could an assertion of the doctrine of the co-eternity of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son be an expansion and affirmation of the doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Chap. v. p. 218.

1