die tertia resurrexit, (37) adque ad celos ascendit, ad dexteram dei patris sedet, sicut uobis in simbulo tradutum est; inde ad iudicandos uiuos et mortuos credimus et speramus eum esse uenturum. (38) ad cuius aduentum erunt omnes homines sine dubio in suis corporibus resurrecturi et reddituri de factis propriis rationem, (39) ut qui bona egerunt eant in uitam aeternam, qui mala in ignem aeternum. (40) haec est fides sancta et catholica, quam omnes homo qui ad uitam aeternam peruenire desiderat scire integrae debet et fideliter custodire.

The variations from the usual text, which I have italicised, are all easy to explain as rhetorical amplifications. The preacher turns the precise antithesis of cl. 33 into more flowing relatival sentences. Moreover at cl. 37 he makes a reference to the Apostles' Creed. He alters 'resurgere habent' into 'erunt resurrecturi,' naturally enough in parallelism to 'reddituri,' and weights his phrase with 'sine dubio.' The use of 'habeo' with the infinitive for the synthetic future has been much discussed. It was often used in African Latin1 from the 3rd century, and by Gallican writers in the 5th; so that it proves nothing against the date of the text which contains it. It is more likely however that a preacher would shrink from it, than that a supposed 9th century compiler would substitute it for the future participle, if he were using this sermon as the basis for his text of the Creed. The omission of cl. 35 seems to have been intentional, and to have led to a slight alteration of cl. 36, where 'omnino' is omitted and 'Christus est' is supplied, in cl. 34, from the omitted clause as antecedent to the relative 'qui.' The illustration from the constitution of man, contained in cl. 35, was misused by the Eutychians in their own interest, and came to be regarded with disfavour by Catholic writers. The preacher probably omitted it for this reason. Supposing the sermon to be some 50 or 60 years older than the copy of A.D. 730, we are brought to a date at which Eutychianism was widely prevalent. Dr Heurtley has shown that "Bede mentions this [heresy] as the occasion of the assembling of the great synod

1 Correspondence in Guardian, Oct. 12, 1892. It occurs several times in Codex Bezae and in other forms of the Old Latin Version. It is fully discussed and amply illustrated by Dr Rendel Harris, Codex Bezae, pp. 130 ff.

of Hethfield [in 680], and mentions it in such terms as to imply that it was one of the pressing dangers of the day, to which the Church generally-not merely the English branch of it—was exposed1."

May I go a step further back and suggest as the possible author of the sermon, Nicetus, Archbishop of Trèves 527-566, a friend of Venantius Fortunatus? Two interesting letters of his have been preserved, in which he draws near to the language of the Creed. The first is to Queen Chlodosainda on her husband's Arianism, the other to Justinian on his lapse into a form of Eutychianism. He bids Justinian remember his baptismal vow: 'Unum Filium manentem in duabus substantiis cum Patre et Spiritu Sancto non duos Christos testatus es.... talis Pater qualis et Filius.'

This suggestion is destitute of proof, but it seems to be worth while to make it, in case we should find more writings of Nicetus. In his letter to the Queen he mentions Bishops Germanus, Hilary and Lupus; so that he had the tradition of the Lerins school.

§ 5. The three assumptions underlying the two-portion theory.

The two-portion theory further depends on three questionable assumptions: (i) that the silence of such men as Paulinus and Alcuin, and Alcuin's pupil Rabanus Maurus, shows their ignorance of the Quicunque; (ii) that the authority of such a document from the hand (as was supposed) of Athanasius would constrain any one who knew anything of it to use and quote it; (iii) that the completed Creed would be a useful weapon against Adoptianism.

1 Bede, Hist. Eccl. iv. 17. Quoted by Heurtley, Hist. Earlier Form., 1892, p. 126. 2 Galland, III. 776. In die resurrectionis nec manere nec apparere potuit qui Trinitatem in Unitate non crediderit.

3 Galland, ibid. I owe these refs. to Sw. p. 272.

A friend of his, Florianus, Abbot of Romanus (Diocese of Milan), was a pupil of Caesarius of Arles, Mon. Germ. Hist. ш. Ep. Austrasicae.

5 Sw., ch. xxv. xxvii. Lumby, pp. 235-257.

i. It must be admitted that Rabanus Maurus and Meginhard of Fulda are strangely silent at a time when, with the multiplication of Psalters, the Creed was coming more and more into use and was known to their contemporary Haito at Reichenau. Walafrid Strabo, Haito's successor, came from Reichenau to Fulda, and went back in 838. But the use of the Creed may have been only local as yet. None of the episcopal charges recorded would be binding on Rabanus. And his knowledge of some phrases at all events of the Creed may perhaps be attested by the following parallels: (a) oportebat ita insinuari Trinitatem ut, quamuis nulla esset diuersitas substantiae, sigillatim tamen commendaretur distinctio personarum'. (B) una substantia una natura una maiestas una gloria una aeternitas et Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti2.

If, however, we turn from the pupil to his master Alcuin, we find good reason for doubting if the latter is really silent, as has been confidently asserted.

A work on the Procession of the Holy Spirit attributed to Alcuin, in which seven clauses of the Quicunque are quoted, is found in a MS. of the early part of the 9th century. It was presented by Bishop Dido (†891) to the Church of Laon (Laudunum), a suffragan bishopric of Rheims. There are slight differences in the style of this work as compared with undisputed works of Alcuin; and on account of these Sirmond ascribed it to an unknown author. But as the editor in Migne's edition points out they are not enough to discredit the traditional authorship. Certainly the Procession Controversy had been raised before Alcuin's death. Bishop Stubbs quotes this book as among his dogmatic works.

The clauses quoted are in Migne LXXXII. p. 750 (cl. 20—22); p. 756 (cl. 7, 24—26).

Apart from these precise quotations, the parallels found in his works are very close. When he writes in a letter to Charlemagne that "the faith of the Holy Trinity must be taught with the utmost diligence: and the coming into this world of the Son

1 Rabani Opp., Migne, cx. p. 210.

2 Ibid. p. 212.

3 Art. Alcuin' in D. C. B. Sw. p. 300 wrongly condemns W. for making no reference to this work of Alcuin: W. p. 26 quotes it doubtfully.

of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, for the salvation of the human race'," even Dr Swainson admits that "his thoughts run curiously enough into the channel of the Quicunque." In the same way his book on the Trinity includes the doctrine of the Incarnation. The very title of Bk. I. c. ii., 'On the Unity of the Trinity and the Trinity of the Unity,' might be a quotation from cl. 25, which is itself a summary of the preceding clauses. Dr Swainson notes further "that the order of everything in the Quicunque, as well as many of its words and phrases, are found in this work: bear in mind that the Quicunque, or Faith of Athanasius, is not even once referred to in it, and then ask, Are the two documents entirely independent of each other?" But Dr Swainson's conclusion that the Quicunque is a summary of the compilation of Alcuin, and that he knew nothing of it, cannot be upheld in the light of accumulated evidence. Alcuin or a disciple of his, had he composed the Creed, would surely have written cl. 22 differently; compare ad Fred. Quaest. 2, p. 740: Proprium est Spiritui Sancto quod non ingenitus nec genitus est sed a Patre et Filio aequaliter procedens.' And in cl. 29 the language of a later period than the "Apollinarian times," to which the Quicunque seems to belong, would have been found as in Alcuin's Book adv. Elip. I. 9, p. 879: 'Diuinitate consubstantialis Patri, humanitate consubstantialis matris.' In letter 94 the phrase perfectus in diuinitate et perfectus in humanitate shows the same tendency to elaborate statement, as compared with the plain perfectus deus perfectus homo of the Quicunque.

The same must be said about the parallels to the phrases of the Quicunque in the speech of Paulinus at Friuli. The repetition of the words naturaliter, personaliter shows the scholastic manner in which, if it lay before him, he would wish to paraphrase the Quicunque: 'Inseparabilia sunt semper opera Trinitatis, et nihil est in sancta Trinitate diuersum aliquod aut dissimile uel

2 p. 405.

3 p. 412.

1 Ep. xxxiii. (Mg.). Ad Fred. Quaest. 1, unitas in substantia, trinitas in personis. ib. 12, Vere alius est Pater quam Filius in persona, sicut Filius alius est in persona quam Pater, et Spiritus Sanctus alius est in persona quam Pater et Filius.

inaequale. Non diuersum naturaliter, non confusum personaliter, nihil maius aut minus. Non anterior, non posterior, non inferior, non superior, sed una et aequalis potestas, par gloria sempiterna et coaeterna, consubstantialisque maiestas. Unum namque sunt essentialiter Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus. . . . Spiritus quoque Sanctus proprie Spiritus Sanctus est, et non est personaliter Pater uel Filius, sed ex utroque procedit, et tamen non sunt tres dii sed unus est Deus.'

Again on the Incarnation of the Son: Consubstantialis Deo Patri in sua id est diuina, consubstantialis etiam matri sine sorde peccati in nostra id est humana natura. Et ideo in utraque natura proprium eum, et non adoptiuum Dei Filium confitemur, quia inconfusibiliter et inseparabiliter, assumpto homine, unus idemque est Dei et hominis Filius. Naturaliter Patri secundum Diuinitatem, naturaliter matri secundum humanitatem: proprius tamen Patri in utroque, quoniam sicut dictum est non sunt duo filii, alter Dei et alter hominis, sed unus Christus Iesus propter unam personam, Dei et hominis Filius, Deus uerus et homo uerus in anima rationali et uera carne. Perfectus homo secundum humanitatem, perfectus Deus secundum Diuinitatem.' The vagueness of such references may be best explained by considering further what measure of authority the Quicunque could be said to possess at that time.

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

The question of authority is both vague and difficult. We can distinguish between two phases of the influence which the Quicunque might win. In the first it would be known as a treatise or hymn on the Faith, whether recommended by the name of Athanasius or not, on the same level of interest and importance as the Fides Romanorum. We may compare the degree of authoritativeness which the Te Deum possessed for Caesarius of Arles, or which the hymn for Palm Sunday by Theodulf of Orleans, "All glory, laud and honour," possesses for ourselves. Afterwards, when the Quicunque had been taken up by the Bishops as an accredited expansion of the Apostles' Creed, and had been added with the Te Deum to the Psalter, it would