a number of Latin manuscript copies, the precise age of which, however, it is impossible, in most cases, to fix with any degree of certainty. Waterland gives a full account of them in the fourth chapter of his treatise. The oldest, which is now lost is assigned to the year 600,* the next to 660, † the third to 700, the fourth to 703, § etc. The last mentioned is the first copy which ascribes the symbol to Athanasius, though in a somewhat equivocal way, by calling it the "Fuith of Saint Athanasius." There is also a famous manuscript of Charlemagne, at the end of the Gallican Psalter, written in letters of gold, and presented by Charlemagne to Pope Adrian I, A. D. 772. It is deposited in the library of Vienna, and bears the title: Fides sancti Athanasii episcopi Alexandrini.

If this view of the gradual composition of this Creed be correct, the Symbolum Quicunque is less individual and more catholic in its very origin, than any other confession of Christendom, with the only exception of the Apostles' and the Nicene Creed. This fact does not weaken, but rather strengthen its authority as a confession of faith. If Athanasius were an inspired apostle, then the case would be very different. But as all the teachers of the church, since the apostles, are fallible men, their writings carry no more weight and authority with them than their merits justify, and the church has given them by its own consent. The validity and value of the

and the question is merely, whether the councils quote from the symbol without naming it, as most writers suppose, or whether the Symbol borrowed from the councils, as Gieseler (1. c. p. 110) thinks.

*It is called Codex Usser. I. Archbishop Ussher saw it in a Psalterium Latino-Gallicum of the Bibliotheca Cottoniana, and assigned it "tum ex antiquo picturae genere, tum ex literarum forma grandiuscula" to the age of Gregory I. (590-604). But it has since disappeared.

†The manuscript of Treves on the borders of Gaul and Germany.

Ms. Ambros. in the Ambrosian library at Milan.

Cod. Usser. II (Cotton. I.) in a copy of the Gallican Psalter of King Aethelstan. Usser says of it, De Symb. p. 8: "Psalterium illud anno aerae nostrae Christianae 703, longe ante Aethalstani regnantis tempora, ex regulis Kalen dario in libri initio subjunctis scriptum fuisse deprehendi." Waterland (1. c. ch. IV.) remarks: "The Psalter, wherein this Creed is, is the Gallican Psalter, not the Roman; the title is: Fides Sancti Athanasii Alexandrini.” This is the oldest manuscript of any we have extant (—Cod. Uss. I. being lost—) ascribing this Creed to Athanasius.

Athanasian Creed can in no case be made to rest on the authority of any individual, however great and good, and the more it is separated from individual authorship, the better for its catholic and churchly character.

RECEPTION AND AUTHORITY.

As soon as the Athanasian Symbol clearly appears in history, we find it in high esteem, and quietly assuming its position among the authoritative doctrinal and liturgical standards of the Latin church, without the sanction of a general council, but on account of its own intrinsic merit. It was first introduced in France about 550, then in Spain 630, in Germany 800, in England 880, in Italy 880, in Rome 930.* The Roman church in this point did not lead, but follow public opinion. She was always more desirous of imposing her own faith and rites upon other churches, than of adopting any from them. The Creed was frequently commented upon, † embodied in copies of the Psalter and Breviary, ordered to be com mitted to memory by the priests, and introduced into the weekly or even daily worship.‡

In the Greek church the Athanasian Creed, when it first became known, after the tenth century, met with opposition, especially on accout of the Latin doctrine of the procession of the Spirit from the Son, as well as from the Father. § Subse

*See Waterland 1. c. ch. VI., and Koellner p. 85.

By Venantius Fortunatus, Hincmar, Bruno of Würzburg, Peter Abælard, St. Hildegard, Alexander ab Hales, John Wycliffe, and others. See an account of the older commentators in Waterland's essay, ch. III. (Works, vol. III. p. 134 8qq.)

Hatto, bishop of Basle, A. D. 820: "Ut Fides S. Athanasii a sacerdotibus discatur et ex corde, die Dominico, ad Priman recitetur." A more explicit testimony for the liturgical use of this Creed in the French and English churches, is furnished by Abbo of Fleury about 997 (quoted by Koellner, p. 65). Of later usage Bona (Tract. de divina Psalmodia, p. 863) says: "Illud symbolum olim, teste Honorio, quotidie est decantatum, jam vero diebus Dominicis in totius coetus frequentia recitatur, ut sanctae fidei confessio ea die apertius celebretur." § Some Greek divines denied that Athanasius ever wrote it; others maintained that he was drunk when he composed it; still others that the Latins corrupted his Creed by the insertion of the et filio. The last is also asserted in the Confessio Metrophanis Critopuli. Comp. Kimmel's Monumenta Fidei Ecclesiae Orient., P. II. p. 23. For an account of the different Greek translations and manuscripts, see Waterland. ch. V.

quently it was likewise introduced, but less extensively than in the Latin church, and with some alterations, and with the omission of the et filio, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ, (corresponding to the filioque in the Latin versions of the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Symbol). *

From the Latin church the Athanasian Creed, together with the other two ecumenical Creeds, passed over into the orthodox Protestant churches, and' was either separately and expressly acknowledged, or substantially incorporated into their doctrinal or devotional standards.

The Lutheran church received it among its symbolical books. Luther appreciated it highly, and was disposed to regard it as the most important and glorious production since the days of the Apostles. † The Augsburg Confession substantially repeats its doctrine of the Trinity, and of Christ's person, without naming it. The Form of Concord distinctly recognizes it as Scriptural, true and authoritative. § Hence it is found in all the editions of the "Book of Concord" as the third symbol of the Lutheran Confession.

The Reformed church of England gave it a place in the Common Prayer Book, and ordered it to be sung or said alternately by the minister and people, standing, in the morning service on several festival days, viz.: Christmas, the Epiphany, St. Matthias, Faster, Ascension, Whitsunday, John the Baptist, St. James, St. Bartholomew, St. Matthew, St. Simon and St. Jude, St. Andrew, and on Trinity Sunday. In all these days it takes the place of the Apostles' Creed. Several of the most eminent divines of the Anglican church, as arch

*Bingham: "Presenter Graeci eo utuntur nonnullis additamentis aucto et aliquantum mutato."

"Es ist also gefasset," he says, "dass ich nicht weiss, ob seit der Apostel Zeit in der Kirche des Neuen Testaments etwas Wichtigeres and Herrlicheres geschrieben sei." Comp. Luth. Opp. Hal. VI. 2313 sqq.

Art. I. and Art. III. (p. 9 and 10, ed. Hase).

§ Epit. p. 571, and more fully in the Solida Declar. p. 632 (ed. HASE): "Amplectimur etiam tria illa Catholica et generalia summae auctoritatis Symbola, Apostolicum, videlicet, Nicænum. et Athanasii. Haec enim agnoscimus esse breves quidem, sed easdem maxime pias, atque in verbo Dei solide fundatas, praeclaras Confessiones fidei, quibus omnes haereses, quae iis temporibus Ecclesias Christi perturbarunt, perspicue et solide refutantur."

bishop Usher, bishop Pearson, and especially Dr. Waterland, the learned champion of the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity against the high Arianism of Dr. Samuel Clarke, have commented on it and defended its contents. Even R. Baxter embraced it "as the best explication of the Trinity," provided, however, that "the damnatory sentences be excepted, or modestly expounded."*

The Reformed churches of the Continent have not given the Athanasian Symbol that direct formal sanction and prominence, as the Lutheran and the Anglican.t But they unanimously profess, in their symbolical books, the same doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation; reject the errors of the Arians, Semi-Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians and Monothelites, and thus acknowledge in fact, if not always in form, the authority of the ancient ecumenical Creeds, in due subjection, of course, to the supreme authority of the Holy Scriptures. The Second Helvetic Confession, drawn up by Bullinger in the name of the Swiss churches in 1566, and approved by them, endorses, in very strong and unmistakeable terms, the doctrine of the first four general councils and of the Athanasian Symbol. Dr. David Pareus, the pupil and friend of Ursinus, and editor of his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, wrote a special exposition of the Athanasian Creed,

*As quoted by Waterland (works, vol. III. p. 251).

Dr. Ebrard, on the contrary, thinks that the Reformed church makes in some respects even more account of the ecumenical Creeds than the Lutheran (Christl. Dogmatik, vol. II., p. 89 and 90). This may be true as to the doctrine itself, but not as to the formal recognition of these Creeds. Dr. Ebrard has overlooked the distinct recognition in the passage just quoted, in the preceding note, from the Lutheran Form of Concord, and the somewhat disrespectful manner in which Calvin at least (De vera ecclesiae Reformatione) speaks of the Symb. Nicaenum as a "carmen cantillando magis aptum, quam confessionis formula."

Cap. XI. (p. 487 in Niemeyer's Collectio Confess. in Eccl. Reform. public.): 'Quaecunque de Incarnationis Domini nostri Jesu Christi mysterio definita sunt ex Scripturis sanctis, et comprehensa symbolis ac sententiis quatuor primarum et praertantissimarum Synodorum celebratarum Niceae. Constant nopol, Ephesi et Cha'cedone, una cum beati Athanasii Symbolo, et omnibus his similibus symbolis, credimus corde sincero et ore libero ingenue profitemur, condemnantes omnia his contraria. Atque ad hunc modum retinemus inviolatam sive integram fidem Christianam, orthodoxam atque catholicam: scientes symbolis praedictis nihil contineri, quod non sit conforme verbo Dei, et prorsus faciat ad sinceram fidei explicationem."

which, however, I have never seen.* Henry Heidegger of Zurich, in a special dissertation quoted above, defends the doctrine of the Creed against the objections of Dudithius and other Anti-Trinitarians, and concludes with a running comment upon the whole.

So far the faith in the doctrines of our symbol was unshaken in the church, and was shared in common by the Greeks, (if we leave out of view their dissent from the filioque), Romans, and Protestants. The Socinians alone differed from it, and prepared the way for a still greater dissent. During the seventeenth century the origin of the Athanasian Creed was first made the subject of critical investigation by Continental and Anglican divines, and resulted in the almost unanimous rejection of the ancient tradition as to its authorship. This had the effect to weaken its authority as a primitive symbol, without undermining the faith in its contents. But when the skeptical and rationalistic flood of the eighteenth century swept away from a large portion of the church the orthodox faith in the Holy Trinity, and the Incarnation of the Son of God, this Creed was almost forgotten, and figured only in church histories among the many idle fabrications of a superstitious and intolerant age.

The reviving faith of the nineteenth century led to a gradual return to the ancient Confessions, first of the period of the Reformation, and then also to those of the primitive church. And although the Athanasian Creed is still compar atively neglected, and even passed by in silence by eminent writers + on the very doctrines it so ably and clearly sets forth, it begins again to attract attention more and more, and to be

Symbolum Athanasii, notis breviter declaratum. Heidelb. 1618 (as Walch has it, 1. c. p. 156), or 1619 (according to Kellner, p. 87. Probably the one gives the date of the preface, the other the date of publication.) Waterland (p. 251) refers to an edition of 1634.

Dr. Baur, in his learned and eminently scholarly, though unsound, work on the history of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of God, alludes to this Creed only en passant in a foot note, Vol. II. p. 33, and p. 168. But what is more surprising still is, that Dr. Dorner, in his invaluable Christological work, should not even mention it, so far as we can see, from a cursory glance over both volumes and the index.

!