from this clause, that, as body and soul make up the one nature of man, so God and man in Christ made one nature also.

Before A.D. 431.

Hence it is concluded that this Creed was written before the Council of Chalcedon, where Eutyches was condemned, A.D. 451. (4) It was probably before the spread of the Nestorian heresy. It is certain, that this Creed does not condemn Nestorianism in the full, direct, and critical terms, which Catholics made use of against that heresy. There is nothing about the Deipara in it, or about one Son only in opposition to two Sons, or about God being born, or suffering and dying. But such terms ever occur in Creeds drawn up, or writings directed against Nestorianism. And though terms occur in it, which may be held to condemn both Eutychianism and Nestorianism; yet they are not stronger than were used by those, who, before the rise of both these heresies, wrote against the Apollinarians, whose doctrine bore considerable resemblance in some points to that of Eutyches, and the maintainers of which often charged the Catholics with something very like the doctrine afterwards held by Nestorius. Hence, in the Apollinarian controversy, the fathers were often led to condemn, by anticipation, both Nestorius and Eutyches. If this reasoning be correct, the Athanasian Creed must have been written before the Council of Ephesus, where Nestorianism was condemned, A.D. 431.

Thus the internal evidence leads us to conclude, that the Athanasian Creed was, in all probability, composed between A.D. 420 and A.D. 431.

As to the place where it was made, evidence tends to show, that it was Gaul.

(1) It seems to have been received first in Gaul. (2) It was held in great esteem by Gallican councils and bishops. (3) It was first admitted into the Gallican Psalter. (4) The oldest versions of it, commentaries on it, citations from it, and testimonies to it, are Gallican, or connected with Gaul. (5) The greatest number of the manuscripts of it, and those of greatest antiquity, are found in Gaul.

From such arguments as these, it has been concluded, with the greatest probability, that this Creed was written in France, and at some time in the interval between A.D. 420 and 431.1

The authorship of it then must be assigned to some person or persons, who flourished at this period in the church of Gaul.

1 See Waterland, as above.

Now Vincentius Lirinensis and Hilary of Arles both were Gallican divines, and both flourished at the required time.

Vincentius was a writer of great celebrity and judgment, and his works contained thoughts and expressions which bear a great similarity to those in the Athanasian Creed. It is true his famous work, the Commonitorium, is assigned to the date 434, i.e. a few years later than the probable date of the Athanasian Creed. But there seems no reason why he should not have written the Creed before the Commonitorium.

On the other hand, it is argued by Dr. Waterland, that Hilary was a bishop, which Vincentius was not; and such a work appears much fitter for a bishop than for a private presbyter. He was made a bishop A.D. 429, which falls exactly within the limits assigned for the date of the Creed; and what more likely, than that he should have set it forth when he entered on his diocese ? He is spoken of as a man of great powers. His writings are said to have been small tracts, but extremely fine; and Honoratus of Marseilles, who wrote his life, says, that he wrote an excellent Exposition of the Creed; which is the proper title for the work in question, a work which was rarely called a Creed (Symbolum) by the ancients. Again, he was a great admirer of St. Augustine (in all but his views of predestination), whence we may account for the similarity of the expressions in this Creed to the language of that father. The resemblance which is traced to the language of Vincentius may have resulted from the fact, that Hilary and Vincentius were not only contemporaries, but had been inmates, about the same time, of the same monastery at Lerins; so that Vincentius might borrow expressions from Hilary, to whom he would be likely to look up with respect. Lastly, the style of this Creed answers well to what is told us of the style and character of Hilary.

To conclude; whether we assign the Athanasian Creed to Hilary or Vincentius, or to both or neither of them, it was pretty certainly the work of some Gallican writer in the beginning of the fifth century. It was very probably called Athanasian because it clearly expressed the doctrines which Athanasius so ably defended: and because when Arianism was rife in Gaul, as it was soon after the publication of this Creed, the Arians very probably called the Catholics Athanasians, and the Creed, which especially and most fully expressed their doctrines, the Athanasian Creed."

II. The particular value of this Creed consists in this, that

See Waterland's History of Athanasian Creed; Works, Vol. IV.

it guards the doctrine of the Trinity and of the Incarnation against the various heretical subtilties by which it has been explained away; and although it may be argued, that most of these heresies are ancient, and therefore out of date, it is far from being true, that they may never recur. Arianism, Sabellianism, Apollinarianism, against which it seems chiefly to have been directed, have all been revived in late times; even Nestorian and Eutychian doctrines, which the Creed, as it were, anticipates and condemns, have been more or less approved in our days. And, although none of these errors were openly professed; yet the loose way, in which many modern writers on Theology often express themselves, requires to be restrained by something like the creed in question, which, by its accurate language, is calculated to produce accuracy of thought.

Even then, if some people may think the damnatory clauses, as they are called, unduly strong; yet the occurrence of one or two strong expressions should not so far weigh with us, as to induce us to wish the removal of this confession of our faith from the formularies of the Church. It is, in the main, unquestionably true, that he who, having the means of learning the truth of Christ, shall yet reject and disbelieve it, shall on that account be condemned. It is probable, that the damnatory clauses in the Creed of Athanasius mean no more than the words of our Lord, 'He that believeth not shall be damned' (Mark xvi. 16). What allowance is to be made for involuntary ignorance, prejudice, or other infirmities, is one of those secret things which belong only to the Lord our God; concerning which we may hope, but cannot pronounce. The Gospel declares, that unbelief in the truth shall be a cause of condemnation; and the Church is therefore justified in saying the same. The extreme earnestness and, as to some it seems, harshness, with which the Creed expresses it, resulted from the imminent danger, at the time it was composed, from the most noxious heresy, and the need there was to hedge round the faith of the Church, as it were, with thorns and briars. If we think such language unnecessarily severe; still we must remember, that nothing human is free from some mark of human infirmity, and should be slow to doubt the value of a Catholic exposition of the Faith, because one or two expressions seem unsuited to modern phraseology.

The meaning and importance of the different clauses will be best appreciated by observing what errors they respectively opposed. Thus let us begin with ver. 4: Neither confounding

Q

the Persons, nor dividing the substance.' The Patripassians and Sabellians confounded the Persons; the Arians divided the Substance of the Godhead. After this, the next 14 verses, down to ' yet not three Lords but one Lord,' seem principally designed to oppose the Arian heresy, which denied the homo-ousion. Accordingly, they declare, that in the Holy Trinity there are Three, with a distinction of Person, but with an Unity of Substance or Essence; so that, though it is lawful to say, that the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct Persons, and that each Person is Lord, God, Almighty, uncreated, and incomprehensible; yet it is not lawful to say, that there are three Gods, three Lords, three Almighties, three Uncreated, or three Incomprehensibles.'

And we must not view God

The 19th verse concludes this portion of the Creed, in the words, For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, There be three Gods or three Lords.' Now the former part of this clause has been supposed by some to speak, so that we might infer from it, that any one Person in the Trinity, by Himself, would constitute the whole Godhead. This, however, is far from being the real or natural sense of the passage. The meaning is this: Each person in the Trinity is essentially God. as we would a material being, as though the Godhead could be divided into three different parts, which three united together made up one whole; and so imagine, that the Father alone was not God, but required to have the Son and the Spirit added to Him in order to make up the Godhead. No! The spiritual unity of the three Blessed Persons in the Trinity is far closer, more intimate, and more real, than that unity by which parts make up a whole. Each by Himself, or considered alone, must be confessed to be God; and yet all make not up three Gods, but are One in Essence, and therefore but one God.

The next four verses are opposed to those who confounded the Persons of the Godhead, making the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, not only one God, but one Person. And they state the relations of the Son to the Father, and of the Holy Ghost to both of them.

The 23rd verse runs thus: So there is one Father, not three Fathers one Son, not three Sons: one Holy Ghost, not three

1 The original of the word 'incomprehensible' is 'immensus,' i.e. aε100s, boundless, immeasurable, or omnipresent. See Waterland, Hist. of Ath. Cr. ch. x.; Works, Vol. IV. p. 385.

Holy Ghosts.' It may be asked here, of what use is this clause? Did any heretics ever teach, that there were three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Holy Ghosts? The answer is, Those, who asserted that there were three unoriginated principles (rptis avapxoi), were considered to teach virtually, that there were three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Holy Ghosts, or a Trinity of Trinities. Thus one of the Apostolical Canons is directed against presbyters, who should baptize 'in three unoriginated principles, or in three Sons, or in three Paracletes, or in three Holy Ghosts.' The Council of Bracara denounces those who shall say, 'as the Gnostics and Priscillianists, that there is a Trinity of Trinities.' And Pope Vigilius decrees, that, if any 'baptize in one Person of the Trinity, or in two, or in three Fathers, or in three Sons, or in three Comforters,' he should be cast out of the Church.'

The Creed from verse 27 treats of the Incarnation, and excludes the various heretical opinions on this subject.

Some denied that Christ was God, as the Ebionites, Arians, &c. Others denied that He was Man; as the Gnostics, the Apollinarians, and afterwards the Eutychians. Especially the Apollinarians denied, that He was perfect man, having both a reasonable soul and human flesh besides His Godhead, ver. 30.

Again, the Apollinarians charged the Catholics with saying that Christ was two; since they assigned Him a human soul as well as a Divine Spirit. Therefore the Creed adds, that though He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ;' a clause which afterwards was suitable to oppose the Nestorians, who held that there were two Persons, united in Christ, ver. 32.

Once more, the Apollinarians made the Godhead of Christ act the part of a soul to His Manhood; which was virtually converting the Godhead into flesh. The true doctrine was, not that God was changed into man, but that the Word of God took human nature into union with His Godhead. Therefore the Creed says One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God,' ver. 33.

Again, the Apollinarians made a confusion of substance' in Christ, for they confounded His Godhead and His Manhood; as the Eutychians did afterwards, inasmuch as they made His Godhead act the part of His human soul. Therefore says the Creed 'One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of

1 Bingham, E. A. Bk. XI. ch. III. § 4. * Contentiosissime affirmantes, Verbum carnem factum, hoc est, Verbi aliquid

in carnem fuisse conversum atque mutatum.-Augustin. Hæres. 55.