Origin of the Creed.

THE

CHAPTER VI.

The Creed of St Athanasius.

HE name of St Athanasius, the illustrious defender of the doctrine of the Trinity, has long been given to this creed or hymn, which is also known as the Quicunque vult. He was Bishop of Alexandria in the fourth century; and after undergoing many conflicts and much persecution in defence of the faith, he died in the year 375. Several creeds and confessions are extant, which are undoubtedly his; but it is generally agreed among the learned that he was not the author of that which is used in the public service of the Church. Its history has been most ably investigated by Dr Waterland, who concludes that it was originally written in Latin, and shews that as early as 1233, the legates of Pope Gregory IX. (who quoted it at Constantinople as an authority in favour of the double procession of the Holy Ghost) were obliged to acknowledge that this was the case. "The style,' he says, 'and phraseology of the Creed; its early reception among the Latins, while unknown to the Greeks; the antiquity and number of the Latin MSS. and their agreement for the most part with each other, compared with the lateness, scarceness, and disagreement of the Greek copies, all concur to demonstrate that this Creed was originally a Latin composure, rather than a Greek one.'

The same learned author further argues that Probably composed the Creed was probably composed in France, al- in France. leging as reasons for this opinion-1. That it was received in the Gallican Church, so far as appears, before all Churches. 2. That it was greatly esteemed by Gallican councils and Bishops. The Priests in that Church were commanded to learn it by heart. 3. That the Creed was first admitted into the Gallican Psalter, and first received in those countries in which that psalter was received-viz., Spain, Germany, and England. 4. That the oldest version of it, and the oldest writers who notice and comment upon it, are Gallican. 5. The occasion which brought it into note may also be found in the history of the Gallican Church. For upon the revival of the Arian controversy in Gaul, under the influence of the Burgundian kings, it was obvious to call one side Athanasians and the other Arians; and the Creed, being a summary of the orthodox and catholic faith, might in process of time acquire the name of the Athanasian faith or fides Athanasii, in opposition to the contrary scheme which might as justly be called the fides Arii; just as the title of Apostolical given to the Roman Creed occasioned the mistake about its being made by the Apostles.' Dr Waterland has given reason for thinking that it was composed by Hilary, Bishop of Arles, in 430 A. D.' He concludes that it was recognised as a rule of faith in 550, and received into the public offices of the Gallican Church not later than 670. He fixes upon the year 800 as the date of its reception in England. It was presented to the Pope by Charlemagne (who valued

1 See, however, Mr Harvey's History of the Creeds, p. 559. He contends for a somewhat earlier date, and would assign the Creed to Victricius, Bishop of Rouen, A.D. 401.

it highly, and dispersed it wherever he went) in 772; but as the Church of Rome was always tenacious of her own offices, and looked coldly upon formularies which were not of her framing, it was probably not received there till a later period, though still earlier than 930 a. D. In the Greek Churches it was received in the seventh century, the requisite alteration having first been made respecting the procession of the Holy Spirit, to adapt it to the dogma of the Greeks on that subject.

'From the foregoing account,' says Dr Waterland, it appears that its reception has been both general and ancient. It hath been received by Greeks and Latins all over Europe; and if it hath been little known among the African and Asian Churches, the like may be said of the Apostles' Creed, which hath not been admitted, scarce known, in Africa, and but little in Asia, except among the Armenians, who are said to receive it. So that for generality of reception, the Athanasian Creed may vie with any, except the Nicene, or Constantinopolitan, the only general Creed common to all the Churches. As to the antiquity of its reception into the sacred offices, this Creed has been received in several countries, France, Germany, Italy, and Rome itself, as soon, or sooner, than the Nicene; which is a high commendation of it, as gaining ground by its own intrinsic worth, and without the authority of any general council to enforce it. And there is this thing further to be said for it, that while the Nicene and Apostles' Creeds have been growing up to their present perfection in a course of years, or centuries of years, and not completed till about the year 600, this Creed was made and perfected at once, and is more ancient, if considered

as an entire form, than either of the others; having received its full perfection, while the others wanted theirs.'

The Creed was framed at a time when the The 'damnatory Church was disposed to shew little tenderness to- clauses.' wards the maintainers of heretical opinions. It was thought, till experience slowly proved the contrary, that false doctrine was to be extirpated by persecution, and excluded by vehemence of denunciation. The principles of toleration were the growth of a later age. No portion of this formulary was, perhaps, responded to with more favour at its first promulgation, than the sentences which declare the condemnation of those who dissent from its definition of the faith. These 'damnatory clauses,' however, have in modern times given offence to many persons who make no objection to the substance of the Creed. The prelates who were appointed to review the Prayer Book in 1689, endeavoured to remove the scruples which were entertained on this subject. They framed a rubric, explaining that the condemning clauses are to be understood as relating only to those who obstinately deny the substance of the Christian faith.' This explanation, though not embodied in a rubric, is generally adopted by the divines who have written in defence of the Creed, and it is in conformity with Mark xvi. 16: 'He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.' It might have been a judicious course to omit the clauses in question, as Dr Waterland suggests; but a great unwillingness must always have been felt to mutilate a formulary, which, though not promulgated by the authority of a general council, has had universal reception for so many centuries. The following remarks by

by Arch

Secker.

Archbishop Secker on this subject are worthy of Explained consideration: The condemnation, contained in bishop two or three clauses of this Creed, belongs (as the most zealous defenders of our faith in the holy Trinity agree, and as every one who reads it considerately will soon perceive), not to all, who cannot understand, or cannot approve, every expression in it, but only to such as deny the "Trinity in Unity," or "three persons and one God." "This' alone is said to be the Catholic faith.' The words that follow after 'for there is one person of the Father,' and so on, are designed only to set this forth more particularly. Our condemnation is no more hard and uncharitable than our Saviour's is at Mark xvi. 16. And neither is so; because both are to be interpreted with due exceptions and abatements. Suppose a collection of Christian duties had been drawn up, and it had been said in the beginning or at the end of it, 'this is the catholic practice, which except a man observe faithfully, he cannot be saved,' would not every one understand, that allowance must be made for such things, as a man through involuntary ignorance mistook, or through mere infirmity failed in, or was truly sorry for, so far as he knew he had cause? Why, then, are not the same allowances to be understood in speaking of doctrines? For when the Creed says that 'Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith,' it doth not mean that true faith is more necessary than right practice, but that naturally it precedes it, and is to be first learnt in order to it. The intention, therefore, of the Creed, as well as of our Lord in the Gospel, is only to say, that whoever rejects the doctrine of it from presumptuous self-opinion, or wilful negligence, and doth not afterward repent of these